Keeton Corrections, Inc., B-293348, March 4, 2004

B-293348 Mar 04, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Keeton Corrections, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dismas Charities, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0734-MA, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Department of Justice, to provide a residential Comprehensive Sanction Center (CSC) in Nashville, Tennessee. Keeton challenges the agency's technical evaluation and source selection decision. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-293348, Keeton Corrections, Inc., March 4, 2004 Decision Matter of: Keeton Corrections, Inc. File: B-293348 Date: March 4, 2004 John G. DeGooyer, Esq., David T. Ralston, Jr., Esq., and C. Anthony Trambley, Esq., Foley & Lardner, for the protester. Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for Dismas Charities, Inc., the intervenor. Tracey L. Printer, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a negotiated procurement, which provided for award on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff and under which past performance was stated to be the most important evaluation factor, the selection of the awardee's significantly higher-priced offer based upon that firm's technical superiority and better past performance was unreasonable, where the information provided to the source selection authority to support the awardee's and protester's past performance evaluation did not accurately reflect the firms' evaluation but instead erroneously conveyed the impression that the awardee had no evaluated past performance weaknesses and that the protester's past performance had nearly only weaknesses. DECISION Keeton Corrections, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dismas Charities, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0734-MA, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Department of Justice, to provide a residential Comprehensive Sanction Center (CSC) in Nashville, Tennessee. Keeton challenges the agency's technical evaluation and source selection decision. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-unit-price requirements contract to provide a residential CSC (commonly referred to as a "halfway house") for male and female federal offenders in Nashville, Tennessee for a base period of 2 years with 4option years. Among the services the contractor will provide are "employment and residence development and other self-improvement opportunities to assist federal offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens." RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1. The RFP provided that award would be based upon a cost/technical tradeoff analysis considering the following evaluation factors: (1) past performance, (2) community relations, (3) technical, (4) management, and (5) price. Past performance was the most important evaluation factor, community relations was next in importance, and the remaining non-price factors were of equal importance. The RFP also stated that the nonprice factors together were significantly more important than price. Offerors were informed that the agency would point score the proposals. Detailed proposal preparation instructions were provided. With respect to the past performance evaluation factor, offerors were instructed to provide a list of all contracts and subcontracts completed within the last 3 years or currently in process, and to provide references for these contracts and a description of the contract/subcontract, including identifying problems encountered and corrective actions taken. Offerors were informed that "[e]ach offeror will be evaluated on performance under existing and prior contracts for similar services." RFP L.11. The BOP received proposals from three offerors, including Dismas and Keeton. The proposals were evaluated by the agency's source selection evaluation panel (SSEP) and contracting officer. [1] All three proposals were included in the competitive range, and the agency conducted two rounds of written discussions. The final proposal revisions of Dismas and Keeton were evaluated as follows: Dismas Keeton Past performance (400 maximum points) 340.00 324.00 Community relations (350 max. pts.) 247.38 228.62 Technical (250 max. pts.) 168.25 156.47 Management (250 max. pts.) 165.92 160.74 Price $4,585,533 $4,074,630 (250 max. pts) 222.15 250.00 Total Point Score (1,500 max. pts) 1,143.70 1,119.83 In evaluating the firms' past performance, the contracting officer found that the offerors all had a "considerable number of completed and active contracts with the [BOP]," which provided the agency with "more than enough" information to evaluate the firms' past performance. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 241; Agency Report, Tab 17, Past Performance Evaluation Memorandum, at 2.