TekStar, Inc., B-295444; B-295444.2, February 18, 2005

TekStar, Inc., B-295444; B-295444.2, February 18, 2005 TITLE: TekStar, Inc., B-295444; B-295444.2, February 18, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295444; B-295444.2 DATE: February 18, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: TekStar, Inc. File: B-295444; B-295444.2 Date: February 18, 2005 Robert Gardner, Esq., for the protester. William A. Roberts, Esq., Steven N. Tomanelli, Esq., and Joseph E. Ashman, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for Chugach McKinley, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Lawrence M. Anderson and Capt. Byron G. Shibata, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Challenge to the exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria announced in the solicitation. DECISION TekStar, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. F65501-03-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for services to provide base operations and support for Eareckson Air Station in Alaska. TekStar contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 17, 2004, as a competitive section 8(a) total set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 2-month transition period and a 6-month base period with up to seven 1-year option periods. The performance work statement (PWS) provided a description of the contract requirements that covered the operations and maintenance of the airfield and its support infrastructure. The RFP also included Interservice Support Agreements (ISSA) that identified requirements to provide other tenants at Eareckson with base support, facilities, and utilities for their equipment at Eareckson.[1] The RFP provided that award was to be made on a best value basis. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors and subfactors: Factor 1: Mission Capability Factor: Subfactor 1: Management Approach Subfactor 2: Technical Approach Subfactor 3: Facilities Operation and Maintenance Subfactor 4: Mission Support Services Factor 2: Proposal Risk Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Cost/Price RFP P 3.1. Under the RFP, the mission capability, proposal risk, and past performance factors were equal in importance and each of those factors was more important than the cost/price factor. The RFP stated that all requirements specified in the solicitation were mandatory and that each offeror's proposal submission should represent how that firm would perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. RFPA PA 4.1.3. Offerors were advised to prepare their proposals in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the government to make a thorough evaluation of the contractor's technical competence and ability to comply with the contract task requirements specified in the PWS. RFP P 4.2.1. Two offerors, TekStar and Chugach McKinley, Inc. (CMI) submitted proposals by August 2. A source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated the proposals. While TekStar submitted the lowest-cost proposal, the SSET found numerous deficiencies and significant weaknesses in TekStar's proposal and found that the proposal contained no strengths. The SSET concluded that TekStar's proposal was unacceptable under the mission capability factor and that its proposal presented a high performance risk. The SSET found that TekStar's proposal was incomplete and did not demonstrate TekStar's understanding of the requirements. Consequently, based on the SSET's findings, the source selection authority determined that TekStar's proposal should not be included in the competitive range. The Air Force subsequently notified TekStar on August 27 that its proposal was not included in the competitive range. After receiving a debriefing, TekStar filed an agency-level protest on September 24. The agency denied TekStar's protest and TekStar filed its protest with our Office on November 19. ISSUE AND ANALYSIS TekStar challenges the evaluation of its proposal and maintains that the agency's determination not to include TekStar's proposal in the competitive range, leaving only CMI's proposal in the competitive range, was unreasonable. The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. Dismas Charities, Inc., B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD P 84 at 3.