Cortez, Inc., B-292178; B-292178.2; B-292178.3, July 17, 2003

Cortez, Inc., B-292178; B-292178.2; B-292178.3, July 17, 2003 TITLE: Cortez, Inc., B-292178; B-292178.2; B-292178.3, July 17, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292178; B-292178.2; B-292178.3 DATE: July 17, 2003 ********************************************************************** Cortez, Inc., B-292178; B-292178.2; B-292178.3, July 17, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Cortez, Inc. File: B-292178; B-292178.2; B-292178.3 Date: July 17, 2003 Kenneth M. Bruntel, Esq., Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Amy E. Laderberg, Esq., and Michael Abelow, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester. Mark D. Colley, Esq., David S. Black, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Caitlin K. Cloonan, Esq., and Michele M. Brown, Esq., Holland & Knight, for EG&G Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor. Sumara M. Thompson-King, Esq., and Jerry L. Seemann, Esq., National Aeronautics & Space Administration, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging conduct of price realism evaluation and agency determination that awardee*s pricing was realistic is denied where protester does not show that awardee*s pricing was likely to result in significant performance risk and agency reasonably found that nothing in awardee*s pricing called into question its understanding of the performance requirements set forth in the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably found awardee*s past performance/experience superior to the protester*s (the incumbent contractor), is denied where, although both firms were reported to have strong performance on a number of contracts, and protester was given evaluation credit for experience on the incumbent contract, agency determined, and protester conceded during discussions, that protester had encountered problems in performing the incumbent contract. DECISION Cortez, Inc. protests the National Aeronautics & Space Administration*s (NASA) issuance of an order to EG&G Technical Services, Inc., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 8-1-1-A4-00155, for logistics services at NASA*s George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Alabama. The order was issued to EG&G under the General Services Administration*s LOGWORLD Federal Supply Schedule. Cortez challenges numerous aspects of the technical and price evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFQ contemplated issuance of an order for a base period of 3 years, with 2 option years and 5 award term periods, to furnish, primarily on a fixed‑price basis, a wide range of logistics services, including environmental services, mail services, equipment maintenance and repair services, motor pool services, property services, move services, disposal services, and food services. (The solicited effort included lump sum, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ), pre-priced, and time and materials requirements.) Award was to be made to the offeror whose quotation offered the best combination of price and qualitative merit (including past performance). The *best value* quotation was to be determined based on three evaluation factors: (1) mission suitability, including subfactors for management approach (worth 375 of 1,000 possible mission suitability evaluation points), technical approach (475 points), safety, health and environmental (100 points), and small disadvantaged business participation (50 points); (2) cost/price; and (3) past performance. The RFQ provided that mission suitability, cost/price and past performance were essentially equal in importance, and that qualitative merit, including past performance, was significantly more important than price. Initial quotations were received from three firms, including Cortez (the incumbent logistics services contractor at MSFC), EG&G, and a third firm (not relevant here). After discussions with Cortez and EG&G, NASA requested final quotation revisions (FQR). Based on its evaluation of the FQRs, NASA determined that EG&G*s quotation had a decisive advantage over Cortez*s, such that it offered the best value. Specifically, under the mission suitability factor, EG&G*s quotation received an evaluation score of 893 points, with 7 significant strengths, 32 other strengths, no significant weaknesses, and 2 other weaknesses, while Cortez*s quotation received a score of only 630 points, with 1 significant strength, 14 other strengths, 2 significant weaknesses, and 21 other weaknesses. Further, EG&G received a past performance rating of very good while Cortez*s past performance was rated as only good. Finally, EG&G proposed a price of $[DELETED] million, while Cortez proposed a price of $[DELETED] million.