Cherokee Information Services, Inc., B-291718, March 3, 2003�����������

B-291718 Mar 03, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency failed to make award on the basis of the lowest-priced proposal that had been included in the competitive range is denied where this contention is based on the protester's unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation. Stated that award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer. The ratings for each listed technical evaluation criterion of the technical factor (in section A.19) were to be combined to determine the overall technical rating. "the results of the technical evaluation will be used to determine whether an offeror's proposal will be considered for inclusion within the competitive range.". Past performance was to be evaluated based on the quality of the past performance. View Decision Cherokee Information Services, Inc., B-291718, March 3, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Cherokee Information Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Information Network, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQMWS0215, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, by the Corporation for National and Community Services (CNCS), to provide integrated computer facility support services. Cherokee argues that CNCS failed to follow the solicitation requirements when it awarded the contract to an offeror that had not submitted the lowest-priced proposal in the competitive range. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, task order contract, with a time-and-materials component for optional support services. CNCS sought to consolidate into one contract work that had been performed by the protester and two other contractors. Among other things, the solicitation required the contractor to provide support for two separate help lines, one for internal computer support and another to assist CNCS grantees through the CNCS's eGrants system. The RFP, as amended, included three sections explaining how offerors' proposals would be evaluated. First, section A.17, Evaluation--Commercial Items, stated that award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, would be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. This section identified the following evaluation factors: technical, past performance, price, and other. Section A.18, Evaluation of Proposals, advised offerors how the technical factor, the past performance factor, and price factor would be evaluated. The ratings for each listed technical evaluation criterion of the technical factor (in section A.19) were to be combined to determine the overall technical rating, and "the results of the technical evaluation will be used to determine whether an offeror's proposal will be considered for inclusion within the competitive range." Past performance was to be evaluated based on the quality of the past performance, taking into consideration the size and complexity of the procurement. Finally, under the subheading "Price Evaluation," the section stated that "[p]rice proposals will be evaluated to determine which proposal offers the lowest price to the government." Offerors were also informed that a contract may be awarded without discussions, and thus the initial proposal "should reflect the offeror's ability to perform at a reasonable price." Section A.19, Evaluation Criteria, identified technical capabilities and management plan as the technical factor criteria, and stated that the technical factor was slightly more important than the past performance factor. The section also stated that award would be based on the proposal "determined to be in the best interest of the Government, price and other factors included," and indicated that this determination would be made using a "trade-off process," under which "price could become paramount in the selection decision" if offerors' proposals were "considered approximately the same or equal under the non-price factors." As conceded by the agency, notably absent from any section of the RFP was any indication of the relative evaluation weight of price vis- -vis the non-price factors. /1/ Further information regarding how price would be considered in the evaluation was included in the first amendment, where it stated, at question 42: "[Q:] Is this a two-step proposal process? i.e., a. Technically qualified; b. lowest bid. [A:] No." The amendment also stated, at question 105: "[Q:] Since price is the driving factor, what factors are being used to evaluate best value? Can you describe by example, the pricing methodology? [A:] The solicitation does not indicate that price is the driving factor. However, price could become paramount where offerors['] proposals are considered approximately the same or equal under the non-price factors. Price will not be scored." Thirty-five proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. Four proposals, including Cherokee's, were included in the competitive range.