CETROM, Inc., B-291106, October 31, 2002

B-291106 Oct 31, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging contracting agency's evaluation of protester's proposal and exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where agency's evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria. Contract awards were to be made to the responsible offerors that provided the "most advantageous or best value" to the government. Past performance was equal in importance to the technical/management factors. The two combined were "significantly more important" than price. Were of equal importance. Offerors were informed that they "shall be responsible" for ensuring that their past performance references completed past performance questionnaires and submitted these questionnaires to NIH for consideration. View Decision CETROM, Inc., B-291106, October 31, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION CETROM, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) number 292-01-P(CL)-0316, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for minor construction, alteration, and rehabilitation of various NIH facilities in the Washington/Baltimore area. CETROM contends that NIH improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, limited to 8(a) contractors, provided for award of multiple task-order contracts for construction services under a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year with 4 option years. The RFP contemplated that NIH would issue separate task orders for the work, ranging from $25,001 to $100,000 per task order, with a maximum dollar amount of $150 million over the life of the contract. RFP Sec. C.1.a. Contract awards were to be made to the responsible offerors that provided the "most advantageous or best value" to the government, considering the following evaluation criteria: past performance technical/management factors price RFP Sec. M.2.a. Of these evaluation factors, past performance was equal in importance to the technical/management factors, and the two combined were "significantly more important" than price. The four technical/management factors--relevant project experience, management plan, subcontracting management capabilities, and financial/bonding capability--were of equal importance. Both the past performance and relevant project experience factors specified that evaluators would consider the "extent to which the offeror has successfully completed similar type projects (including Federal, state, local and private) . . . ." Offerors were informed that they "shall be responsible" for ensuring that their past performance references completed past performance questionnaires and submitted these questionnaires to NIH for consideration. The RFP also stated that NIH "will consider" not only the information provided in the questionnaires, but also information obtained from other sources. Additionally, the RFP provided that the evaluation of past performance would be a "subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. . . . This is a matter of judgment." RFP Sec. M.3. In response to the RFP, NIH received 25 proposals, including CETROM's. A technical review committee examined the proposals with respect to the past performance and technical/management factors; the contracting officer reviewed the proposals with respect to the price factors. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, Evaluation Documents, at 1. Four proposals were rated as excellent from a technical/management/past performance standpoint, and 10 proposals were rated excellent from a price standpoint. /1/ Id. at 3-7. CETROM was rated acceptable in both categories. Id. at 3. Based upon these ratings, the contracting officer made a competitive range decision, placing the four proposals with excellent technical ratings in the competitive range. Id. at 1. (Two of those proposals were rated excellent for price and two were rated acceptable for price. Id. at 4, 6, 7.) All other proposals, including CETROM's, were excluded from the competitive range. CETROM thereafter timely filed this protest. CETROM objects to the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range, arguing that its past performance and relevant project experience were misevaluated. Specifically, CETROM contends that NIH disregarded relevant performance information, letters of reference demonstrating its "exemplary" experience in performing similar contracts, and proposal information citing projects of a similar type.