Data Monitor Systems, Inc., B-291791, March 27, 2003

B-291791 Mar 27, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of selection of slightly higher-priced offeror with higher-rated past performance is denied where selection decision was consistent with solicitation scheme and reflected a reasonable price/past performance tradeoff. Contends that the agency should have given greater weight to the extent of each offeror's aircraft maintenance experience due to the importance of the base's aircraft reconnaissance work. The Air Force issued the RFP to select a commercial offeror to compete against the government's in-house "most efficient organization" (MEO) pursuant to the procedures of the OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison process. /1/ The RFP provided that the agency would select the "best value offeror" whose proposal was most advantageous to the government considering three evaluation factors. View Decision Data Monitor Systems, Inc., B-291791, March 27, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Data Monitor Systems, Inc. (DMS) protests the selection of Phoenix Management, Inc. (PMI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04666-01-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for base operation services at Beale Air Force Base. The Air Force issued the RFP in connection with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 commercial activities study. DMS questions the agency's evaluation of proposals, contends that the agency should have given greater weight to the extent of each offeror's aircraft maintenance experience due to the importance of the base's aircraft reconnaissance work, and argues that the agency improperly determined that PMI's higher-rated, slightly higher-priced proposal offered the best value to the agency. We deny the protest. The Air Force issued the RFP to select a commercial offeror to compete against the government's in-house "most efficient organization" (MEO) pursuant to the procedures of the OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison process. /1/ The RFP provided that the agency would select the "best value offeror" whose proposal was most advantageous to the government considering three evaluation factors--technical capability, past performance, and price. Technical proposals, to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, were to be reviewed for performance management, technical capability, and program management to meet the RFP's detailed performance requirements. The technical evaluation was to assess each offeror's understanding of, and ability to comply with, the RFP's performance requirements. Tradeoffs were to be made among the technically acceptable proposals on the basis of two approximately equal factors, past performance and price. Past performance was to be evaluated through an integrated assessment of risks and strengths demonstrated in the recent performance of relevant contracts. Past performance was to be assessed under six "business units": information technology; communications; transportation; supply; human resources; and aircraft maintenance. The RFP did not provide relative weights for the six business units. Price proposals were to be evaluated for reasonableness and the firm's understanding of performance requirements. The solicitation advised that selection of a higher-priced offeror was permitted where the SSA reasonably determined that the higher-priced offeror's superior past performance outweighed the cost difference between proposals. The five offers received by the agency were included in the competitive range, discussions were conducted, and proposal revisions were reviewed. Each of the technical proposals was considered acceptable and received a "pass" rating. The Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) evaluated offeror past performance strengths and weaknesses under each of the six business units (i.e., information technology, communications, transportation, supply, human resources, and aircraft maintenance). The DMS proposal, with an evaluated price of $80,327,922, received a past performance rating of "very good/significant confidence," for presenting little doubt that the offeror will perform the requirements successfully. The PMI proposal, evaluated at $85,410,430 (i.e., approximately 6.3 percent higher than the evaluated price of the DMS proposal), received an "exceptional/high confidence" past performance rating for presenting essentially no doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Two other proposals were rated lower for past performance than the DMS and PMI proposals; one of those proposals was lower-priced and one was higher-priced than the protester's proposal. The fifth offeror's proposal was rated as high as PMI's proposal, but offered a higher price than that offered by PMI.