Gracon Corporation, B-293009; B-293009.2; B-293009.3, January 14, 2004

Gracon Corporation, B-293009; B-293009.2; B-293009.3, January 14, 2004 TITLE: Gracon Corporation, B-293009; B-293009.2; B-293009.3, January 14, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293009; B-293009.2; B-293009.3 DATE: January 14, 2004 ********************************************************************** Gracon Corporation, B-293009; B-293009.2; B-293009.3, January 14, 2004 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: Gracon Corporation File: B-293009; B-293009.2; B-293009.3 Date: January 14, 2004 Daniel M. Gross, Esq., Oviatt, Clark & Gross, for the protester. John E. Jensen, Esq., Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for All Cities Enterprises, an intervenor. Lt. Col. Daniel Poling, Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency was not required to hold discussions regarding areas of protester*s proposal that were weak, but acceptable, and that did not prevent the protester from having a reasonable opportunity for award. 2. Agency properly utilized adjectival rating system to provide guidance to source selection authority (SSA) in evaluating proposals; since record shows that SSA was aware of the relative merits of the proposals when making his *best value* determination, there is no basis to question the evaluation. 3. Procuring agency reasonably determined, based on explanation of pricing methodology in awardee*s proposal, that awardee*s low fixed price did not indicate a failure to understand the requirements of the solicitation. DECISION Gracon Corporation protests the award of a contract to All Cities Enterprises (ACE) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF19-02-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army for a contractor to perform real property maintenance/repair and minor construction projects at Fort Riley, Kansas and nearby areas. Gracon challenges the award on several grounds. We deny the protest. The solicitation, for a job order contract (JOC) for a 1-year base period, with nine 1‑year option periods, provided for a *best value* award based on an evaluation under three factors--quality (with subfactors for management control plan, quality control plan, work execution, and experience), past performance, and price. Quality was more important than past performance, and quality and past performance combined were significantly more important than price. Written proposals consisted of slides that would be used in an oral presentation, and a packet containing past performance information for the past 3 years. With respect to price (price proposals were submitted only by offerors included in the competitive range), offerors were required to propose a coefficient (a percentage factor required to cover all contractor costs) for each of 18 line items. The coefficient was based on the Unit Price Book (UPB), published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which contains prices for various types of work that can be ordered under the contract. Agency Report (AR) at 3.[1] Following submission of initial proposals (the oral presentations and past performance packets), which were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) and assigned adjectival ratings for the quality and past performance factors,[2] four offerors, including Gracon and ACE, were included in the competitive range and invited to submit price proposals. The Army held price discussions and requested revised price proposals. ACE offered the lowest price coefficient (between 1.02 and 1.05) and its proposal was rated green under the quality and past performance factors. Gracon submitted the next lowest coefficient (1.144 to 1.411), and its proposal was rated green under the quality factor and yellow under the past performance factor. The source selection authority (SSA) concluded from these results that ACE*s proposal represented the best value, and thus made award to ACE. Gracon challenges the award decision on several grounds. We have reviewed all of Gracon*s arguments and find them to be without merit.