E.L. Hamm & Associates, Inc., B-290783; B-290783.2, September 30, 2002

E.L. Hamm & Associates, Inc., B-290783; B-290783.2, September 30, 2002 TITLE: E.L. Hamm & Associates, Inc., B-290783; B-290783.2, September 30, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290783; B-290783.2 DATE: September 30, 2002 ********************************************************************** E.L. Hamm & Associates, Inc., B-290783; B-290783.2, September 30, 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: E.L. Hamm & Associates, Inc. File: B-290783; B-290783.2 Date: September 30, 2002 Michael L. Sterling, Esq., and Walter T. Camp, Esq., Vandeventer Black, for the protester. Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., and Peter D. Dipaola, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly failed to make final determination, required by solicitation, as to whether protester's proposal was acceptable or unacceptable is denied where record demonstrates that source selection official reviewed the evaluation results and concluded that the proposal was unacceptable. DECISION E.L. Hamm & Associates, Inc. protests the rejection of its offer under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT60-01-R-0020, issued by the Department of the Army for visual information services. Hamm asserts that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued as part of a commercial activities study pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 to select a private source to compete against the government's *most efficient organization* (MEO), was initially issued as a small business set-aside. However, the Army did not receive any offers and re-advertised the procurement on an unrestricted basis. The solicitation provided that the offeror submitting the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest realistic cost would be selected to compete against the MEO. RFP at 19. There were four evaluation factors: technical (with subfactors for phase-in, staffing plan, technical approach and work scheduling); management (organizational structure, management procedures and resumes for key personnel); past performance/experience; and cost. The technical factor was more important than the management, past performance/experience and cost factors. Since the RFP anticipated the award as a cost-plus-award-fee contract, it provided that cost would be evaluated for realism, and that an unrealistically high or low cost proposal could be eliminated without further consideration. RFP at 21. The solicitation also provided that the Army intended to select an offeror to compete with the MEO without holding discussions. Two proposals were submitted and first evaluated by the individual members of the source selection evaluation board (SSEB), who assigned each factor and subfactor an adjectival rating of acceptable, unacceptable or marginal. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 4, 5. The SSEB then met and assigned a consensus rating to each factor and subfactor, and to the proposal overall. Id. at 4, 6. During the consensus evaluation, Hamm's proposal was rated marginal for the management and technical factors and acceptable for past performance/experience, id. at 6, 7, and the cost/price analyst determined that Hamm's proposed cost*[DELETED]--compared to the agency's estimate of Hamm's most probable cost (MPC)*[DELETED]--was unrealistically low. Id. at 8. The conclusions of the SSEB and the cost/price analyst were consolidated in a price negotiation memorandum (PNM) that recommended that Hamm's proposal be given no further consideration because of its numerous and serious staffing deficiencies, the failure of its technical approach to recognize or mitigate technical, schedule and cost risks, and its unrealistic cost. PNM at 12. The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the technical and cost evaluations and concluded that Hamm's proposal was technically unacceptable and did not provide a realistic cost. Source Selection Decision (SSD). The SSA therefore eliminated Hamm's offer from further consideration. The second offeror was also found unacceptable and the A-76 study therefore was terminated. Id. Hamm challenges the technical evaluation on the narrow basis that the SSA's rejection of its proposal as unacceptable is contrary to the terms of the solicitation. Specifically, Hamm notes that the solicitation provided that initial technical proposals could be evaluated as acceptable, marginal or unacceptable, but that the final evaluation was to result in a rating of only acceptable or unacceptable.