All Star-Cabaco Enterprise, Joint Venture

All Star-Cabaco Enterprise, Joint Venture TITLE: All Star-Cabaco Enterprise, Joint Venture BNUMBER: B-290133; B-290133.2 DATE: June 25, 2002 ********************************************************************** All Star-Cabaco Enterprise, Joint Venture, B-290133; B-290133.2, June 25, 2002 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: All Star-Cabaco Enterprise, Joint Venture File: B-290133; B-290133.2 Date: June 25, 2002 David B. Dempsey, Esq., and Dorothy C. Slovak, Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester. Clare A. Kersten, Esq., and Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency evaluation is denied where the overall evaluation reasonably reflected the awardee's proposal's technical superiority, notwithstanding minor errors. 2. Selection of technically superior, higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where the solicitation provided that technical considerations were more important than price and the agency reasonably concluded that technical superiority of the awardee's proposal warranted payment of the associated price premium. DECISION All Star-Cabaco Enterprise, Joint Venture (ACE) protests the award of a contract to Brown & Root Services Corporation (BRS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-00-R-9201, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, to provide base operating support services to include operations, repair and maintenance of the Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro, California and other commands. ACE asserts that the agency improperly evaluated the offerors' technical capabilities and failed to follow the "best value" scheme set forth in the RFP. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on November 28, 2000, contemplated the award of a combination fixed-price/indefinite-quantity contract consisting of an 8-month base period with four 12-month option periods. The requirement is divided into 18 separate fixed-priced " annexes" and separately priced indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) line items. For example, Annex 17 is for ground support equipment and Annex 18 is for housing maintenance. Offerors were required to submit a lump sum fixed-price for the fixed-price work, such as utilities distribution and transportation. For ID/IQ items, such as plumber, mechanic and carpenter services, the solicitation provided estimated hours, and offerors were instructed to provide a total estimated price and a ceiling price. The solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated based on technical capability, past performance, subcontracting efforts, and price. The first three factors were of equal importance and when combined were significantly more important than price. The solicitation further provided that the importance of price would increase if competitive range offerors were considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or if a price was so high that it diminished the value of technical superiority to the government. The technical capability evaluation factor consisted of the following equal subfactors: method of operation, staffing, experience, transition plan, and quality control. The solicitation stated that, notwithstanding the relative importance of subfactors, the influence of the subfactors would depend in large measure upon the nature and variation in the differences among proposals received. The RFP provided that past performance would be evaluated utilizing information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Contractor Appraisal Support System database, the Department of the Navy's Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other customers known to the government, consumer protection organizations, and others who may have useful relevant information. RFP, Factor 2--Past Performance. Offerors were also required to forward past performance questionnaires to identified referenced customers/clients. With respect to the subcontracting effort evaluation factor, the solicitation provided that "firms identifying the greatest amount of small business subcontracting support beyond the stated recommended goals in all the listed small business categories (SB [small business], SDB [small disadvantage business], WOSB [women-owned small business], HUB Zone [historically underutilized business]) shall be rated to the highest." RFP � M. B, FACTOR 3- Subcontracting Efforts.