SWR, Inc., B-294835; B-294835.2, December 20, 2004

SWR, Inc., B-294835; B-294835.2, December 20, 2004 TITLE: SWR, Inc., B-294835; B-294835.2, December 20, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294835; B-294835.2 DATE: December 20, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: SWR, Inc. File: B-294835; B-294835.2 Date: December 20, 2004 Benjamin M. Bowden, Esq., Albrittons, Clifton, Alverson, Moody & Bowden, for the protester. Edward E. Duryea for John Demosthenes Company, LLC, an intervenor. J.R. Cohn, Esq., and Julius Rothlein, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where record shows that agency evaluated proposal consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme. DECISION SWR, Inc. protests the award of a contract to John Demosthenes Company, LLC under U.S. Marine Corps request for proposals (RFP) No. M00263-04-R-0001, issued as a small business set-aside for uniform alterations. SWR argues that the Corps improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 1 year, with 4 option years, to alter military uniforms for new recruits and training personnel at Parris Island, South Carolina. The solicitation provided for a "best value" evaluation of the technical proposal (most important), past performance (second in importance), and price. There were three technical evaluation factors: understanding the scope of work and ability to perform (most important, two subfactors); understanding the managerial effort required and ability to meet that effort (second in importance, three subfactors); and personnel planning (equal to the previous factor, no subfactors). There were two past performance factors: a review of Department of Defense contracts with a value greater than $500,000, and review of uniform alteration contracts within the past 10 years that demonstrate corporate experience similar in nature and magnitude to the solicitation effort. Three proposals were submitted, including SWR's and Demosthenes's. The agency rated Demosthenes's proposal excellent under the technical and past performance factors, and rated SWR's proposal average. Since SWR offered the lowest proposed price--$8,248,277, compared to Demosthenes's price of $9,592,221--the agency conducted a cost-technical tradeoff between the proposals. Agency Report (AR), Tab 12. The agency determined that Demosthenes's superior technical and past performance ratings warranted paying its higher price, and thus made award to that firm on the basis that its proposal represented the best value. In its initial protest, SWR challenged the agency's evaluation findings that it lacked experience altering uniforms under a contract of this size, and that its proposal failed to provide a method to implement the tasks proposed, and included an unrealistic plan to recruit the current work force and lacked a contingency plan if it failed to do so. The agency responded to each of these arguments in its administrative report, explaining why it believed the evaluation was reasonable. In its comments on the report, the protester responded by merely stating that it stands by its original submission. Where a protester makes no further mention of an argument, or merely references it without substantively replying to the agency's detailed position, we deem the argument abandoned. Career Quest, a division of Syllan Careers, Inc., B-293435.2, B-293435.3, Aug. 2, 2004, 2004 CPD P 152 at 6 n.6. Consequently, we will not consider these issues. SWR raised additional arguments in its comments based on information it received in the agency report. We have reviewed these arguments and find all to be without merit. We discuss the SWR's principal arguments below. SWR alleges that the agency applied the evaluation factors in such a manner as to eliminate every firm from award consideration except the incumbent. In this regard, SWR points to various comments in the record that relate to SWR's lack of the experience, resources and personnel necessary to perform. Supplemental Protest atA 2-4. SWR concludes from these comments that "a potential offeror would need to have a facility at or near Parris Island, already equipped, with a work-force in place, and have corporate experience in United States Marine Corps recruit uniform alterations" in order to successfully compete for this contract. Supplemental Protest at 2. In considering a protest of an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision, our review is limited to determining whether the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the stated evaluation factors and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.