Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289575.2; B-289575.3, February 20, 2004

Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289575.2; B-289575.3, February 20, 2004 TITLE: Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289575.2; B-289575.3, February 20, 2004 BNUMBER: B-289575.2; B-289575.3 DATE: February 20, 2004 ********************************************************************** Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289575.2; B-289575.3, February 20, 2004 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Dismas Charities, Inc. File: B-289575.2; B-289575.3 Date: February 20, 2004 Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for the protester. Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Esq., and Kevin M. Cox, Esq., for Bannum, Inc., an intervenor. Katherine A. Day, Esq., Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly failed to accord past performance factor greater weight in evaluation than other factors--as provided in solicitation--is denied where record shows that agency did give past performance greater weight than other factors--in the form of 100 more possible evaluation points--but determined that, despite protester*s scoring advantage for past performance, proposals were equal under all technical factors combined, leading to award based on awardee*s lower price. 2. Agency was not required to perform price realism analysis where solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price, rather than a cost-reimbursement, contract and did not provide that such an analysis would be performed. DECISION Dismas Charities, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Bannum, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0669-SE, issued by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for Community Corrections Center services for federal offenders held in Savannah, Georgia. Dismas complains that BOP failed to make award in accordance with the solicitation, and improperly evaluated Bannum*s prices. We deny the protest. The solicitation, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, provided for a *best value* award based on an evaluation under four factors: past performance, technical, management and price. Past performance was identified as the most important factor, with the remaining three factors being equal in weight. The non‑price factors combined were significantly more important than price. Four proposals, including Dismas*s and Bannum*s, were received. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the technical and management proposals by assigning them point scores under each factor, and the contracting officer evaluated price and past performance. Following multiple rounds of discussions and the submission of final proposal revisions (FPR), Dismas*s proposal received [DELETED] (of 1,000 possible) points, with [DELETED] (of 325) for past performance, [DELETED] (of 225) for the technical factor, [DELETED] (of 225) for the management factor, and [DELETED] (of 225) for price. Bannum*s proposal received [DELETED] points, with scores of [DELETED] for past performance, [DELETED] for the technical factor, [DELETED] for the management factor, and [DELETED] for price. The agency determined that the two offerors* non-price proposals were technically equal, and thus made award to Bannum based on its lower price. This protest followed. Dismas raises a number of issues concerning the evaluation and award decision. We have considered each issue and find them all to be without merit. We discuss several examples below. PAST PERFORMANCE Dismas asserts that the agency failed to give appropriate evaluation weight to past performance, as evidenced by the agency*s determining that Dismas*s and Bannum*s proposals were technically equal despite the fact that Bannum*s proposal score was lower than Dismas*s for past performance and for all non-cost factors combined. Dismas asserts that, had past performance been weighted properly, its [DELETED]-point advantage over Bannum for that factor would have led the agency to conclude that Dismas*s proposal was superior, rather than equal, to Bannum*s. This argument is without merit. While the RFP provided that past performance was the most important factor, this was reasonably reflected in BOP*s assigning past performance 325 possible points, and the technical and management factors only 225 points each. Further, while Dismas enjoyed a [DELETED]-point advantage over Bannum for past performance, the results of the overall point-scoring show that most of this advantage was offset by Bannum*s superiority under the other factors.