Burns and RoeServices Corporation, B-291530, January 23, 2003

B-291530 Jan 23, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency properly considered the particular benefit associated with an offeror's experience as the incumbent contractor in making its source selection where the solicitation advised offerors that corporate experience was an evaluation factor. 2. Agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal under a small business program support evaluation criterion was unreasonable where the protester submitted its proposal as a teaming agreement/joint venture between a large business and a small business. Other federal facilities in the Carribean. /1/ The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection of Jones's proposal for award were unreasonable. The successful contractor will provide all labor (including supervision and management). View Decision Burns and RoeServices Corporation, B-291530, January 23, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Burns and Roe Services Corporation (B&R) protests the award of a contract to J.A. Jones Management Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-01-R-5541, issued by the Department of the Navy, for regional base operations support services at the Naval Station Roosevelt Road, Puerto Rico, and other federal facilities in the Carribean. /1/ The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection of Jones's proposal for award were unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. The successful contractor will provide all labor (including supervision and management), tools, materials, equipment, and transportation for base operations support, real property operations, and maintenance and repair services. The RFP stated that the award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government, considering the equally weighted evaluation factors of price and technical. The solicitation added that the technical evaluation factor was comprised of the following five equally weighted technical criteria: (1) past performance; (2) corporate experience; (3) staffing plan; (4) work accomplishment; and (5) support for the small business, small disadvantaged business, and woman-owned business program. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. Offerors were to submit separate price and technical proposals. With regard to price, offerors were instructed to complete the price schedule set forth in the RFP. The price schedule included, for the base year of the contract and each option period, a number of contract line items (CLIN) under the headings of "firm fixed price work" and "indefinite quantity work." With regard to the "firm fixed price work," the RFP provided CLINs setting forth a general description of the work required, a contract requirement reference number, an estimated annual quantity, and a unit measure. /2/ Each offeror was required to complete the schedule by providing its unit and total price for each of the "firm fixed price work" CLINs. Similarly, for the CLINs under the heading "indefinite quantity work," the RFP provided a general description of the work required, a contract requirement reference number, an estimated annual quantity, and a unit measure. /3/ Each offeror was required to complete the schedule by providing its unit and total price for each of the indefinite-quantity CLINs. The RFP's price schedule also provided a "recap sheet base year -- option 4," that offerors were to complete by entering, for the base period and each of the option periods of the contract, their total price for the "firm fixed price work" and "indefinite quantity work," as well as the sum of these items. RFP at B-73. Offerors were required to submit offers for all items and quantities listed. RFP at M-2. The agency received proposals from six offerors by the RFP's closing date. The proposals were evaluated, and four proposals, including those submitted by Jones (the incumbent contractor) and B&R, were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held, and final revised proposals were requested and received. Jones's proposal was evaluated as "good" under the technical factor at an evaluated price of $95,287,642. With regard to the evaluation criteria comprising the technical factor, Jones's proposal was evaluated as "good" under the past performance, corporate experience, and support for small business criteria, and "satisfactory" under the staffing and work accomplishment criteria. /4/ B&R's proposal was evaluated as "good (minus)" under the technical evaluation factor at an evaluated price of $92,441,617.