CMC & Maintenance, Inc.

B-290152 Jun 24, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Department of the Navy contract award for custodial services, contending that all of the deficiencies in its proposal could have been corrected through discussions, and that the Navy was therefore legally obligated to include the protester's proposal in the competitive range and to conduct discussions with the protester. GAO found that the proposal was deficient in all three technical evaluation factors and, to become acceptable, would have required major revisions tantamount to submission of a new proposal. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision CMC & Maintenance, Inc., B-290152, June 24, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION CMC & Maintenance, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's exclusion of CMC's proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6472-01-R-5235 to provide custodial services at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on January 7, 2002, seeking proposals to provide the labor, materials, equipment, transportation, supervision, and security clearances necessary to perform specified custodial services at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following three, equally important, technical factors: relevant past performance; management, organization and staffing; and quality control/customer service plan. Twelve offerors, including CMC, submitted proposals on or before the February 7 closing date. CMC's proposal was evaluated as containing deficiencies under each of the three evaluation factors and was rated as "unacceptable" overall. /1/ The agency concluded that due to the multiple deficiencies in CMC's proposal, CMC's proposal would require "extensive changes tantamount to submission of what would amount to an entirely new proposal," and that CMC did not have a reasonable chance of receiving award. /2/ CMC protests that all of the deficiencies in its proposal could have been corrected through discussions, and maintains that the agency was therefore legally obligated to include CMC's proposal in the competitive range and to conduct discussions with CMC. We disagree. Contracting agencies are not required to retain a proposal in a competitive range where a proposal is not among the most highly rated or where the agency otherwise reasonably concludes that the proposal has no realistic prospect of award. Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 15.306(c)(1); SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 59 at 5. Where a proposal is technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to become acceptable, exclusion from the competitive range is generally permissible. Laboratory Sys. Servs., Inc., B-256323, June 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 359 at 2. Further, the evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range are principally matters within the contracting agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible for defining their needs and for deciding the best method for meeting them. In reviewing an agency's decision to eliminate a proposal from the competitive range, we will not evaluate the proposal anew, but rather, will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure it was reasonable and in accord with the provisions of the solicitation. Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 223 at 3-4. Finally, a protester's mere disagreement with an agency's evaluation does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Keco Indus., Inc., B-261159, Aug. 25, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 85 at 4-5. Here, as discussed below, we have reviewed the record and find no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's determination to exclude CMC's proposal from the competitive range. The agency rated CMC's proposal as "unacceptable" under two of the evaluation factors ("management, organization and staffing," and "quality control/customer service plan") and "deficient but correctable" under the third factor ("relevant past performance"). /3/ With regard to "management, organization and staffing," the solicitation required offerors to provide letters of intent from individuals proposed as key personnel, established various qualification requirements for various key positions, including the quality control manager, and directed that: [t]he offeror shall provide information in a narrative format concerning plans for the overall management of this contract. Specifically, indicate how you intend to organize, coordinate, monitor and control on-site operations to ensure successful and timely execution of the work under this contract. . . . Clearly describe functions to be performed between full-time field personnel and part-time personnel, specifying differing shifts.