Enercorp Federal Services Corp., B-290184.2, September 23, 2002

B-290184.2 Sep 23, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency made award on the basis of an unstated evaluation criterion is denied where the allegation is contradicted by the record. Which establishes that the evaluation and award determination were consistent with the solicitation criteria. Two proposals were received. The protest was dismissed as academic after the agency determined to take corrective action in the form of giving Enercorp an opportunity to provide additional past performance information concerning one contract for which information had been unavailable when the proposals were evaluated. After which the agency would perform a reevaluation with the understanding that if a different award determination was warranted. View Decision Enercorp Federal Services Corp., B-290184.2, September 23, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Enercorp Federal Services Corp. protests the award of a contract to BAI, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTRA01-02-R-0002, issued by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Enercorp asserts that the agency relied on an allegedly unstated evaluation criterion as the basis for its decision to award to BAI. We deny the protest. The RFP, initially issued on November 20, 2001, as an 8(a) set-aside, sought proposals for technical and analytical support for the Nuclear Treaties Program Office. The incumbent contractor did not participate in the competition; two proposals were received, one from Enercorp, the other from BAI; the agency selected the BAI proposal for award. Enercorp protested that award decision to our Office, objecting to the evaluation of Enercorp's past performance and to the agency's use of an artificial "ormal workload"factor in evaluating the proposed prices. The protest was dismissed as academic after the agency determined to take corrective action in the form of giving Enercorp an opportunity to provide additional past performance information concerning one contract for which information had been unavailable when the proposals were evaluated, and recalculating the proposed prices, after which the agency would perform a reevaluation with the understanding that if a different award determination was warranted, it would terminate BAI's contract. As a result of the corrective action, the agency again made a determination that the award to BAI was appropriate, and this protest followed. The RFP sets forth as evaluation factors mission capability (to be assessed on a pass/fail basis), past performance, and price, stating that past performance is significantly more important than price, and that the agency would make "n integrated past performance/price tradeoff assessment and award to the technically acceptable offeror whose performance assessment and price provides the best value to the Government." RFP Sec.), (d). Under the reevaluation performed as a result of the corrective action, both proposals continued to be evaluated as technically acceptable, that is, "pass," under mission capability, with BAI's total contract price reevaluated as $4,789,360, and Enercorp's as $4,533,066. Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, Proposal Analysis Report, at 13. Under the initial evaluation, "normal workload" prices had been calculated as $3,529,950 for BAI and $3,619,121 for Enercorp. AR, Tab 9, Final Source Selection Evaluation Briefing, Feb. 20, 2002, at 15. The overall past performance evaluations remained unchanged, with BAI's proposal evaluated by the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) as "Very Good/Significant Confidence," while Enercorp's proposal was evaluated as "Satisfactory/Confidence." The SSEB recommended BAI's proposal for award as providing the best value on the basis that the RFP provided that "past performance [was] significantly more important than price," and "BAI's higher past performance rating and the evaluators' higher confidence in BAI's ability to successfully perform all required services were significantly more important than the minimal price difference of 5.7 [percent]." AR, Tab 18, Proposal Analysis Report, at 13. The SSA adopted this recommendation and concurred with the selection of BAI for award, noting also that "[a]ward of this contract to BAI will provide the Government with knowledgeable, experienced personnel who are fully capable of successfully performing all elements of this Statement of Work immediately upon contract award." AR, Tab 20, Source Selection Decision, at 4. Enercorp alleges that the agency improperly applied an evaluation criterion that is not provided for under the RFP evaluation criteria, and in particular asserts that the agency report confirms that "the Government's award decision is clearly based on the Government's belief that only BAI would deliver the incumbent workforce to the Government." Protester's Comments at 5.