Industrial Property Management, B-291336.2, October 17, 2003

B-291336.2 Oct 17, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that the agency failed to perform a proper "best value" analysis among competing proposals is denied where the record shows that: (1) the agency properly documented the benefits associated with selecting the awardee's higher-priced. (2) there was no need for the agency to make a second tradeoff decision between the overall equally-rated proposals of the awardee and the protester. Contends that the selection of Ferguson-Williams for award was unreasonable. That IPM's higher-priced proposal should have been selected instead. BACKGROUND The RFP here was issued on May 28. Indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to the offeror whose proposal was found to present the best value to the government. View Decision Industrial Property Management, B-291336.2, October 17, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Industrial Property Management (IPM) protests the award of a contract to Ferguson-Williams, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASW01-02-R-0017, issued as a small business set-aside by the Department of the Army's Defense Contract Command--Washington (DCC-W). The RFP sought proposals for caretaker services, and operations and maintenance, for the closed Stratford Army Engine Plant, Stratford, Connecticut. /1/ IPM, the incumbent contractor, contends that the selection of Ferguson-Williams for award was unreasonable, and that IPM's higher-priced proposal should have been selected instead. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP here was issued on May 28, 2002, and contemplated award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to the offeror whose proposal was found to present the best value to the government. The RFP identified three evaluation factors--technical approach, past performance, and price, in descending order of importance--and four equally-weighted subfactors under the technical approach factor: (1) understanding requirements/plan of operation; (2) staffing and organization; (3) quality control; and (4) transition (phase-in) plan. RFP at 236-37. In addition, with respect to the price factor, the RFP advised that price would be "a significant evaluation factor and will become more critical as technical ratings approach equality." Id. at 238. The agency received four proposals in response to the RFP. Each proposal was evaluated and adjectival ratings were assigned under each of the four technical approach subfactors and under the past performance factor; the adjectival ratings were: exceptional, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Source Selection Plan at 10. After initially excluding, and then restoring, one of the offers to the competitive range, the agency called for final revised proposals. At the conclusion of the evaluation, the overall results and proposed prices were as follows, and proposals were ranked in the order shown: . OVERALL OFFEROR RATING PRICE 1. Ferguson-Williams Good $10.5 million 2. Offeror A Acceptable $ 9.7 million 3. IPM Good $12.6 million 4. Offeror B Acceptable $13.8 million Memorandum of Source Selection Decision, Apr. 28, 2003, at 1-3. The table below shows the ratings of Ferguson-Williams and IPM on the four technical approach subfactors that, when considered in the aggregate, resulted in overall ratings of "good" for both companies. TECHNICAL APPROACH SUBFACTORS Ferguson-Williams IPM 1. Understanding Requirements/ . Plan of Operation Good Acceptable 2. Staffing and Organization Acceptable Exceptional 3. Quality Control Good Acceptable 4. Transition (Phase-In)Plan Good Acceptable Id. at 2. Based on these results, the contracting officer performed a price/technical tradeoff analysis that ultimately concluded that the Ferguson-Williams proposal offered the best value to the government. In reaching this conclusion, the contracting officer adopted the evaluation team's conclusion that the technical merit of the two higher-priced proposals (one of which was IPM's) did not justify paying their higher prices. Id. at 6. The selection decision then turned to a detailed tradeoff between Offeror A and Ferguson-Williams. Id. at 6-9. DISCUSSION In its initial protest, IPM points to its experience as the incumbent contractor for these services and asserts that any rating under any technical subfactor given Ferguson-Williams or Offeror A that exceeds the rating given IPM was irrational. In addition to a specific challenge to the agency's assessment of Ferguson-Williams's staffing plan, IPM argues that the evaluation of IPM's proposal was unreasonable under three of the four technical subfactors, and under the past performance factor.