Cube-All Star Services Joint Venture, B-291903, April 30, 2003

B-291903 Apr 30, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights For protester's introduction into its final revised proposal of a proposed program to reduce preventative maintenance staffing that was incomplete and inconsistent with other portions of the protester's final revised proposal. 2. Agency engaged in meaningful discussions with protester where agency conducted two rounds of written discussions and two rounds of oral discussions during which protester was reasonably led into all areas of its proposal that required correction or amplification. Maryland. /2/ The solicitation was issued to select a private sector proposal to compete with the agency's most efficient organization (MEO) under the A-76 cost comparison process. /3/ A site visit was held for potential offerors in December 2001 and. View Decision Cube-All Star Services Joint Venture, B-291903, April 30, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Cube-All Star Services Joint Venture (CASS) /1/ protests the Department of the Army's rejection of CASS' proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAMD17-02-R- 0001 to provide base operating support services at Fort Detrick, Maryland. CASS maintains that the agency unreasonably evaluated CASS's management/technical approach as failing to meet the solicitation requirements, and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2001, pursuant to the provisions of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, the agency issued solicitation No. DAMD17-02-R-0001, seeking proposals to perform base operating support services at Fort Detrick, Maryland. /2/ The solicitation was issued to select a private sector proposal to compete with the agency's most efficient organization (MEO) under the A-76 cost comparison process. /3/ A site visit was held for potential offerors in December 2001 and, thereafter, the agency issued several RFP amendments, which primarily responded to questions from potential offerors. The solicitation advised offerors that the agency "contemplates award of a firm fixed price contract with a minimal number of cost reimbursement CLINs [contract line item numbers]" /4/ for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, and provided that source selection would be based on the technically acceptable proposal offering the lowest evaluated cost/price. Agency Report, Tabs 7, 8, RFP, at 2344, 2347. The RFP established the following non-cost/price evaluation factors-- management/technical approach, /5/ past performance/past experience, and subcontracting--and provided that the agency would employ the following adjectival ratings: "technically acceptable," /6/ "marginal," /7/ and "technically unacceptable." /8/ Agency Report, Tab 7, RFP at 2347-50. Section L of the RFP required offerors to submit three non-cost/price proposal volumes, which corresponded to the three non-cost/price evaluation factors, and provided detailed instructions regarding the required content of each volume. Agency Report, Tab 6, RFP at 2331, 2334-39. Four proposals, including CASS's, were submitted by the June 14, 2002 closing date; /9/ thereafter, each offeror was permitted to make an oral presentation to the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB). /10/ The agency states that, in evaluating proposals, each proposal "was reviewed independently in a very structured approach by each SSEB voting and nonvoting member on the corresponding committee" and that "after the individual evaluations, each committee held a consensus meeting to discuss proposal strengths and weaknesses." Agency Report, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 6-7. The consensus meetings led to assignment of the following initial technical ratings for each of the proposals: Offeror Technical Rating Griffin Services, Inc. [deleted] CASS [deleted] C&E Services, Inc. [deleted] Jantec, Inc. [deleted] Agency Report, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 7. Since none of the proposals were rated as technically acceptable, the agency opened discussions with all four offerors, initiating these discussions by letters dated August 5, 2002. In the August 5 letter to CASS, the agency summarized various concerns regarding CASS's proposal and provided a 24-page attachment identifying multiple specific noncost/price issues that CASS needed to address. /11/ Agency Report, Tab 16. The agency's letter summarized the agency's concerns, stating, in part, as follows: There [are] several reasons that your technical proposal was [deleted]. Care must be taken to ensure that when you propose a job description that the staff members you propose meet those qualifications. . . . Additionally, there are many times when it appears impossible for the listed number of staff to be capable of providing coverage at the facilities for the operating hours listed in the PWS.