Ben-Mar Enterprises, Inc., B-295781, April 7, 2005

B-295781 Apr 07, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ben-Mar Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tech Systems, Inc. (TSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23-04-R-PUD642, issued by the Department of Homeland Security for fitting, alteration/tailoring, and garment pressing services at the United States Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May, New Jersey. Ben-Mar challenges the evaluation of TSI's substantially lower-priced proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295781, Ben-Mar Enterprises, Inc., April 7, 2005 Decision Matter of: Ben-Mar Enterprises, Inc. File: B-295781 Date: April 7, 2005 David R. Moffitt, Esq., Saul Ewing, for the protester. Daniel S. Koch, Esq., and David P. Shapiro, Esq., Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg, Eig & Cooper, for Tech Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Talbot J. Nicholas II, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where proposals were reasonably evaluated as technically equal, agency properly selected for award the proposal of the firm submitting the lower price. DECISION Ben-Mar Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tech Systems, Inc. (TSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23-04-R-PUD642, issued by the Department of Homeland Security for fitting, alteration/tailoring, and garment pressing services at the United States Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May, New Jersey. Ben-Mar challenges the evaluation of TSI's substantially lower-priced proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 23, 2004, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base period and four 1-year option periods to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering technical evaluation factors and price. The RFP listed, in descending order of importance, the following technical evaluation factors, as well as the technical evaluation subfactors, which were of equal importance: (1)technical understanding and capability (performance processes and facilities and equipment); (2) relevant past performance (product quality, timelines, cost control, and customer satisfaction); and (3)program management (staffing plan, quality control plan, and loading of "accession" personnel, i.e. , Coast Guard trainees entering military service). With respect to "relevant past performance," the RFP stated that Offerors shall provide relevant past performance information to include five references and related information to include (the contract number, type, dollar value, period of performance, description, technical and contracting points of contact, telephone/fax and e-mail contact information, and any other related information). Past performance information that is older than three years after completion of a contract will not be evaluated. RFP at 41. The RFP also stated that "[i]f an offeror does not have relevant past performance, the Coast Guard will not evaluate the offeror favorably or unfavorably on this factor." RFP at 42. The RFP stated that the technical evaluation factors, when combined, would be considered significantly more important than price. Ben-Mar, the incumbent contractor for the past 20 years, and TSI, which has a current contract to fit and alter garments for Air Force trainees at Lackland Air Force Base (AFB) in Texas, submitted initial proposals, both of which were included in the competitive range. The consensus evaluation [1] results for initial proposals were as follows: [2] Ben-Mar TSI Technical Understanding/Approach Green/Satisfactory Low Risk Yellow/Marginal Moderate Risk Relevant Past Performance Green/Satisfactory Low Risk Green/Satisfactory Low Risk Program Management Green/Satisfactory Low Risk Green/Satisfactory Low Risk With respect to price, Ben-Mar's price was more than twice TSI's price and approximately 7 percent higher than the government estimate, which was based on Ben-Mar's historical prices as the incumbent contractor. TSI's price was approximately 50percent of the government estimate. AR, Tab 8, Prenegotiation Memorandum, at 3. With respect to Ben-Mar, the agency concluded that the firm satisfied all of the RFP's technical requirements and that there were no areas in Ben-Mar's initial technical proposal that required discussion. In this regard, the agency concluded that Ben-Mar, the successfully performing incumbent contractor for the past 20years, clearly demonstrated its technical understanding and capability to perform the CoastGuard requirements.