Shaw Infrastructure, Inc., B-291121, November 19, 2002

B-291121 Nov 19, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably concluded that protester's proposal was unacceptable and that it would not engage in further negotiations with the protester. Was unacceptable. Further advised as follows: An unacceptable rating will be assessed if the costs and/or support is presented with major omissions or misunderstanding or has been completely omitted and has inadequate detail to assure the evaluator of an understanding of the proposed approach. . . . ] will raise a fundamental question of the offeror's understanding of the nature and scope of work required and the offeror's ability to perform the contract within fiscal constraints and may render the proposal unacceptable. There were inconsistencies between IT's organizational flowcharts. View Decision Shaw Infrastructure, Inc., B-291121, November 19, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Shaw Infrastructure, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's determination that Shaw's proposal to perform base operation support services at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, was unacceptable. Shaw's proposal responded to request for proposals (RFP) No. DADA10-00-R-0013, which the Army issued in connection with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 commercial activities study. Shaw protests that the agency unreasonably found Shaw's proposal to be unacceptable and improperly declined to engage in further negotiations with Shaw. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 31, 1998, the Department of the Army publicly notified Congress that the Army intended to perform an A-76 commercial activities study with regard to base operations support activities at Fort Sam Houston. Between July 1998 and January 2001, the agency engaged in various activities necessary for performing an A-76 study, including identification of the specific tasks to be covered by the study and creation of a work statement under which private-sector offerors could prepare proposals and the government could prepare an in-house management plan, or "most efficient organization" (MEO). /1/ Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 5-29 (testimony of former Fort Sam Houston deputy garrison commander). /2/ On January 31, 2001, the agency issued solicitation No. DADA10-00-R-0013, seeking private-sector proposals to compete with the MEO management plan. As amended, the solicitation contemplated award of a cost-reimbursement award fee contract, identified sixteen performance functions to be evaluated, /3/ provided that the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal would be selected for comparison with the MEO management plan, and established the following primary evaluation factors: technical approach/methodology, management, past/present performance, and cost. /4/ Agency Report, RFP Sec. M, at 3803-05. With regard to evaluation of proposed costs, section M of the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of four subfactors -- "reasonableness," "realism," "accuracy," and "completeness," -- and further advised as follows: An unacceptable rating will be assessed if the costs and/or support is presented with major omissions or misunderstanding or has been completely omitted and has inadequate detail to assure the evaluator of an understanding of the proposed approach. . . . Any significant inconsistency, left unexplained[,] will raise a fundamental question of the offeror's understanding of the nature and scope of work required and the offeror's ability to perform the contract within fiscal constraints and may render the proposal unacceptable. Agency Report, RFP Sec. M, at 3805, 3808. As amended, the solicitation required submission of initial proposals by October 5, 2001. On that date, the agency received a single proposal, submitted by IT Corporation. /5/ Upon receipt of IT's proposal, the agency established an evaluation team for each of the four evaluation factors and began its initial proposal evaluation. As the evaluation progressed, the evaluation teams expressed concerns regarding various aspects of the technical, management and cost proposals. Agency Report, Contracting Officer's Statement at 6. For example, IT's technical proposal expressed an intent to use [deleted] as a staffing tool; however, the cost proposal did not reflect any premium for [deleted] costs. Id. Similarly, there were inconsistencies between IT's organizational flowcharts, process flow charts, and staffing tables. Id. In late October 2001, at the agency's request, IT personnel met with the agency evaluators to provide an oral "walk-through" of IT's proposal. Following this walk-through, the agency evaluators expressed increased concerns regarding proposal inconsistencies, noting that various verbal statements made by IT personnel conflicted with the written proposal. Id.