Si-Nor, Inc., B-290150.4; B-290150.5, February 4, 2003

Si-Nor, Inc., B-290150.4; B-290150.5, February 4, 2003 TITLE: Si-Nor, Inc., B-290150.4; B-290150.5, February 4, 2003 BNUMBER: B-290150.4; B-290150.5 DATE: February 4, 2003 ********************************************************************** Si-Nor, Inc., B-290150.4; B-290150.5, February 4, 2003 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: Si-Nor, Inc. File: B-290150.4; B-290150.5 Date: February 4, 2003 Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., for the protester. Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for Red River Service Corporation, the intervenor. Capt. Gregory A. Moritz, Department of the Army, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal where protester did not provide information required by solicitation or sufficient to demonstrate its understanding of the requirements. DECISION Si-Nor, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Red River Service Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT59-01-R-0011, issued by the Department of the Army for waste recycling and disposal services. Si-Nor challenges the reasonableness of the Army's evaluation of its technical proposal and the award selection analysis. We deny the protests. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1‑year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the *best overall value* to the government, based on an *integrated assessment* of the evaluation factors. The evaluation factors were: (1) technical, (2) experience/past performance, (3) small business participation, and (4) price. The first three evaluation factors were equal to one another in importance and combined were *significantly more important* than price. For the technical factor, the RFP identified six subfactors listed in descending order of importance: (a) understanding the requirements; (b) recycling plan; (c) experience in providing required documentation; (d) key personnel; (e) quality control plan; and (f) list of trucks, containers, and equipment. RFP at 36. The RFP incorporated a 10-percent price evaluation preference for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns. RFP amend. 1; see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 52.219-4. The RFP specified that: [t]he [offeror's] proposal should be specific, complete, and demonstrate an understanding of the required services and the potential for completing the services satisfactorily as outlined in the [performance work statement (PWS)] and meet the requirements of this solicitation. RFP at 37. As part of their proposals, offerors were required to submit a recycling plan, resumes of key personnel (including the *Site Project Manager, Lead Man, and Recycling Manager*), and a list of equipment to be utilized on the contract. Id. Five offerors, including Si-Nor, submitted proposals in response to the RFP. All proposals were included in the competitive range. In a letter dated November 14, 2001, the Army opened discussions with Si-Nor, identifying several *deficiencies* and *weaknesses* that it requested Si-Nor address.[1] Among other deficiencies and weaknesses noted, the letter stated that Si-Nor's proposal was *very general in fashion* and that it *basically repeats what the requirements are in the solicitation with little or no detail.* Also, the letter stated that the proposal did not contain the RFP-required resumes or *identify the experience or qualifications for the Project Manager and Quality Control Inspector*; the letter requested that Si-Nor provide the resumes of all on-site key personnel. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13B, Si-Nor Discussions Letter. By letter dated November 23, Si-Nor responded and addressed some, but not all, of the Army's concerns. For example, although the letter purported to attach resumes, no resumes were attached. AR, Tab 12B, Si-Nor's Response to Discussions. The Army received final proposal revisions (FPR) from all five offerors by February 25, 2002. Based on the evaluation of the FPRs, the Army selected Red River for award. Upon receiving notice of the award, Si-Nor and another offeror filed protests, in response to which the Army took corrective action by convening a new evaluation panel.