M&S Farms, Inc., B-290599, September 5, 2002

B-290599 Sep 05, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's source selection decision under a "best value" selection plan is unreasonable where the evaluation and selection decision contain material defects under all of the evaluation criteria. The first step was an "initial review" for the proposal's compliance with the general requirements of the RFP. Proposals were required to comply with paragraph C.3 of the RFP's statement of work (SOW). Centrally located is defined as an area between the two districts (Milwaukee. All areas outside the area specified in Section C.3.a. will not be considered for an Adoption/Holding Facility. M.3 stated that proposals for locations "that are not in the boundaries specified will be rejected and not be subject to further review.". View Decision M&S Farms, Inc., B-290599, September 5, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION M&S Farms, Inc. protests an award to Carr's Wild Horse and Burro Center under request for proposals (RFP) No. NAR020009, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for a wild horse and burro adoption/holding facility. M&S Farms protests the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued December 19, 2001, contemplated the award of a fixed unit price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for 1 year with 2 option years. The RFP identified a two-step evaluation process. The first step was an "initial review" for the proposal's compliance with the general requirements of the RFP. RFP Sec. M.3. Specifically, proposals were required to comply with paragraph C.3 of the RFP's statement of work (SOW), which stated: a. The Adoption/Holding facility shall be centrally located within the Eastern States jurisdiction. Centrally located is defined as an area between the two districts (Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Jackson, Mississippi). Further, the selected facility site shall in no case be more than 24 hours drive for a loaded livestock semi-truck from Elm Creek, NE BLM facility, nor shall the selected facility site be more than 24 hours drive for a loaded livestock semi-truck from either Ocala, FL or Rutland, VT. b. Due to the stress on the animals caused by long distances and significant climatic changes, all areas outside the area specified in Section C.3.a. will not be considered for an Adoption/Holding Facility. RFP Sec. M.3 stated that proposals for locations "that are not in the boundaries specified will be rejected and not be subject to further review." Proposals found to be in compliance with this and other terms of the RFP would proceed to the second step of the evaluation process, a "best value" evaluation considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) past performance, (2) objective suitability, and (3) price. The RFP further stated that past performance was "predominant in importance," and that the non-price factors "when combined, or alone, are significantly more important than price." RFP Sec. M.4. Under the past performance factor, the RFP identified three evaluation criteria of equal importance: (A) contracts in the last 3 years similar in size, content, and complexity to the instant acquisition; (B) cost overruns or underruns, completion delays, performance problems, and terminations; and (C) responses on past performance questionnaires (to be submitted by an offeror's customers). RFP Sec. M.5. Under the objective suitability factor, the RFP again stated that proposals not compliant with the boundaries specified at section C.3 would not be subject to further review, and then identified five criteria for evaluating proposals under this factor. In addition, the RFP stated six sub-criteria under the first criterion (animal care, facility, and equipment at facility) and three sub-criteria under the second (personnel qualifications). The RFP stated that these criteria and sub-criteria were listed in "descending order of importance." /1/ Id. Under the price factor, the RFP stated that price would not be numerically weighted or scored, but that the agency would evaluate price for reasonableness and, as necessary, price realism. For evaluating price realism, the RFP stated that the agency would apply proposed unit prices to an abstract of a hypothetical delivery order to ascertain price realism between competing offers. /2/ Id. The agency received and evaluated initial proposals, and established a competitive range that included the proposals of M&S Farms and Carr. M&S Farms proposed a facility located near Jackson, Mississippi and Carr (the incumbent contractor) proposed its facility near Nashville, Tennessee. The agency conducted discussions with the competitive range offerors. Among the discussion items for M&S Farms was a request for more information about the calculation of drive time to Rutland, Vermont.