Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289513.3, March 26, 2004

B-289513.3 Mar 26, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection is denied where evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation terms. Dismas generally challenges the agency's determination that the Dismas and Bannum proposals were substantially technically equal. It should have been selected for award based on its proposal's slightly higher evaluation point score. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the agency under four evaluation factors: past performance. Past performance was the most important factor (worth 325 points). The remaining three factors were equal in importance (worth 225 points each). View Decision Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289513.3, March 26, 2004 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dismas Charities, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Bannum, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0665-SE, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for Community Corrections Center services for federal offenders in Tupelo, Mississippi. Dismas generally challenges the agency's determination that the Dismas and Bannum proposals were substantially technically equal. Dismas argues that notwithstanding its higher price, it should have been selected for award based on its proposal's slightly higher evaluation point score. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 2-year base period and 3 option years. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the agency under four evaluation factors: past performance, technical, management, and price. Past performance was the most important factor (worth 325 points), and the remaining three factors were equal in importance (worth 225 points each). The RFP advised offerors that the evaluation of past performance would be a subjective assessment that would be highly influential in determining the relative merits of the proposals, as past performance was the most important evaluation factor. The RFP also provided that if proposals were close in terms of technical merit, cost could become the determining factor for award. Two proposals were received in response to the RFP, Bannum's and Dismas's. Numerous strengths and weaknesses were noted for each proposal under each non-cost factor, including past performance. Dismas's proposal received 292.50 points for past performance (of the available 325 points); Bannum's proposal received 263.25 points. Under the technical factor, Dismas's proposal received 144 points (of the available 225); Bannum's proposal received 137.25. Both proposals received 141.75 points under the management factor (of the available 225 points). /2/ Overall, the Dismas proposal received 75 percent of the available 775 points for the technical evaluation; Bannum's received 70 percent of them. Bannum proposed a lower price (at $2,792,250) and received the 225 points available under the cost factor; Dismas's price proposal (at $3,149,585) received a proportionate point score of 200.25 under the cost factor. Out of the possible 1,000 overall evaluation points, Bannum's proposal received 767.25 points and Dismas's received 778.50 points. In determining which of the proposals offered the "best value" to the agency, the source selection authority (SSA) sought to determine if the Dismas proposal, which received the most technical evaluation points, had "perceived benefits which merit the additional cost" associated with the proposal. Source Selection Decision at 2. Noting that the point/adjectival ratings were only guides to his source selection decision, the SSA reports that he reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of both proposals. As to past performance, 17 prior contracts were reviewed for each offeror; Bannum's past performance references rated 7 contracts as excellent, 6 as good, and 4 as fair, and Dismas's references rated 11 contracts as excellent, 5 as good, and 1 as fair. The SSA confirmed that the differences were reasonably reflected in the past performance point scores assigned to the proposals. High past performance ratings were received by both firms for overall contract compliance, customer satisfaction and business relations. The SSA then noted specific strengths identified by the evaluators relating to each contractor's past performance. Having considered the overall technical evaluation findings, the SSA determined that the proposals were substantially technically equal. Noting his review of the strengths and weaknesses of both proposals, and finding that the offerors met or exceeded the requirements, the SSA concluded that either of the firms could satisfactorily perform the services.