Rome Research Corporation, B-291162, November 20, 2002

B-291162 Nov 20, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. The RFP stated that the technical factors combined were significantly more important than price (price. Was to become more important as proposals approached technical equality). Key personnel/staffing and past performance combined were approximately equal in importance to the most important technical factor. Each offeror's technical proposal was to be adjectivally rated under each evaluation factor. The adjectival ratings were outstanding. The proposal earns the score of Outstanding since it meets and exceeds the solicitation requirements and the excess is beneficial to the Navy. . . . View Decision Rome Research Corporation, B-291162, November 20, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rome Research Corporation protests the award of a contract to BAE Systems under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-02-R-0028, issued by the Department of the Navy for operation and maintenance (O&M) services for the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station Pacific. Rome challenges as unreasonable the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal under each of the solicitation's stated evaluation factors and the evaluation of the awardee's proposal under the past performance factor. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on April 16, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year and three option periods. The RFP's scope of work includes O&M services for the station's Naval Radio Transmitting Facility (NRTF) Very Low Frequency (VLF) and High Frequency (HF) sites, Satellite Communication (SATCOM) facility, and Tactical Support Communication (TSCOMM) facility. /2/ Section M of the RFP set forth the following four evaluation factors for award, listed in descending order of importance: management, key personnel/staffing, past performance, and price. The RFP stated that the technical factors combined were significantly more important than price (price, however, was to become more important as proposals approached technical equality); key personnel/staffing and past performance combined were approximately equal in importance to the most important technical factor, management. Each offeror's technical proposal was to be adjectivally rated under each evaluation factor; the adjectival ratings were outstanding, highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal, or unacceptable. The RFP's definitions for the adjectival ratings applicable to management and key personnel/staffing included the following: Outstanding--The proposal earns the score of Outstanding since it meets and exceeds the solicitation requirements and the excess is beneficial to the Navy. . . . The proposal contains several enhancements of value (exceptional features, approaches, and/or innovations) that are worthwhile . . . . Highly Satisfactory--Fully meets all solicitation requirements and exceeds many of the solicitation requirements. Response exceeds a "Satisfactory" rating. . . . The proposal contains a few enhancements of value. . . . Satisfactory--Meets all solicitation requirements. Complete, comprehensive, and exemplifies an understanding of the scope and depth of the task requirements as well as the offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements. . . . The proposal demonstrates no enhancements of value . . . . RFP at 34 (emphasis added). For evaluation of past performance, each offeror was to submit information describing its performance on directly related or similar contracts and subcontracts held within the last 5 years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in progress which are of scope, magnitude and complexity similar to the RFP's requirements. RFP at 28. The RFP stated that a rating of "outstanding" for the past performance factor was appropriate where an offeror's "performance of previously awarded contracts met contractual requirements and was accomplished with very few or very minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the [o]fferor were, or are, highly effective" and where the firm's performance of completed contracts "was consistently of the highest quality." RFP at 34 (emphasis added). The rating of "highly satisfactory" was to be given where a firm's past performance met contract requirements with some minor problems for which corrective action was taken or was expected to be effective, and where performance of completed contracts "either was consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so." /3/ Id. (emphasis added).