Satellite Services, Inc., B-295866; B-295866.2, April 20, 2005

Satellite Services, Inc., B-295866; B-295866.2, April 20, 2005 TITLE: Satellite Services, Inc., B-295866; B-295866.2, April 20, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295866; B-295866.2 DATE: April 20, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Satellite Services, Inc. File: B-295866; B-295866.2 Date: April 20, 2005 Susan L. Schor, Esq., Laurence Schor, Esq., and Dennis C. Ehlers, Esq., McManus, Schor, Asmar & Darden, LLP, for the protester. Jennifer M. Miller, Esq., and Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, for Sunny Point Support Services, an intervenor. Maj. Robert B. Neil, 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. Protest that agency performed improper price realism analysis of awardee's proposal is denied where fixed-price contract was to be awarded and agency determined that awardee proposed an acceptable technical approach, sufficient staff to perform, and a price sufficient to cover the technical approach. 2. In evaluating protester's past performance, agency reasonably concluded that protester's proposal represented a moderate rather than a low performance risk based on fact that protester currently was late on approximately 11 percent of current contract orders. 3. Protest that evaluators misunderstood protester's technical proposal and, as a result, improperly found that proposal had weaknesses in areas of safety plan and inspections, is denied where, even if protester is correct that the weaknesses were unwarranted, the weaknesses were not included in the technical evaluation summary report and were not considered in award decision. DECISION Satellite Services, Inc. (SSI) protests the award of a contract to Sunny Point Support Services, a joint venture comprised of Bering Straits Aki, LLC and LB&B Associates, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81GYE-04-R-0047, issued by the Department of the Army for the operation, maintenance, repair and construction of real property facilities at the Army Military Ocean Terminal in North Carolina. SSI complains that the award decision was based on an improper evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP called for the award of a fixed-price contract on a "best value" basis, applying four evaluation factors: past performance, safety and environmental performance record, management approach, and price (including realism). The past performance factor was the most important, having the same weight as the safety and environmental performance record and management approach factors (which were equal in weight) combined. The non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price. The RFP further advised that the Army intended to make award without holding discussions. The Army received five proposals, including those of SSI and Sunny Point. A past performance evaluation team assigned past performance risk ratings of high, moderate or low; a technical evaluation team rated the technical proposals excellent, good, satisfactory or unsatisfactory; and a price evaluation team reviewed the prices. SSI offered a price of $8,155,191.12 and its proposal received final ratings of moderate risk for past performance, satisfactory for safety and environmental performance record,[1] and excellent for management approach. Sunny Point offered a price of $6,063,661.68 and its proposal was rated moderate risk for past performance and good for both safety and environmental performance record and management approach. The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the evaluation record and determined that, notwithstanding the ratings, and based on the identified risk areas and advantages: SSI and Sunny Point were equal with respect to past performance, Sunny Point's proposal had a slight advantage under the safety and environmental performance record factor, and SSI's proposal had a slight advantage under the management approach factor. Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 2. The SSA concluded that the technical proposals were essentially equal and awarded the contract to Sunny Point based on its lower price. Id. This protest followed. SSI challenges the evaluation of its and Sunny Point's proposals on a number of bases.[2] We have reviewed all of these allegations and find them to be without merit. We discuss several of SSI's allegations below. PRICE EVALUATION SSI asserts that the Army did not adequately evaluate the realism of Sunny Point's price proposal.[3] Cost realism is not considered in the evaluation of proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract, because these contracts place the risk of loss upon the contractor.