HMR Tech, LLC, B-295968; B-295968.2, May 19, 2005

HMR Tech, LLC, B-295968; B-295968.2, May 19, 2005 TITLE: HMR Tech, LLC, B-295968; B-295968.2, May 19, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295968; B-295968.2 DATE: May 19, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: HMR Tech, LLC File: B-295968; B-295968.2 Date: May 19, 2005 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., and Jennafer M. Seeley, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, PLLC, for the protester. 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 HMR Tech, LLC protests the award of a contract to Enterprise Information Services, Inc. (EIS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23-04-R-ADM003, issued by the United States Coast Guard (USCG), Department of Homeland Security, for project/acquisition management services for the USCG Acquisition Directorate. HMR challenges the agency's evaluation of the EIS price proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on July 9, 2004 as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price task orders for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering technical evaluation factors, price, and past performance. Schedule B of the RFP listed 23 labor categories; for each of these labor categories, the RFP also listed an estimated number of labor hours. Offerors were required to insert a "loaded on-site [fixed-price] hourly rate" and a "loaded off-site [fixed-price] hourly rate" for each labor category. RFP S B.1. Section M of the RFP listed, in descending order of importance, the following evaluation factors and subfactors: (1) technical understanding and capability (understanding the types of projects; technical capability; management plan; and quality capability); (2) price (to "be evaluated to determine price realism"); and (3) relevant past performance (quality of service; timeliness of performance; business relations; and customer satisfaction). RFP S M.2. As relevant here, in order to evaluate whether an offeror understood the government's technical requirements (the first subfactor under the technical understanding and capability evaluation factor), the RFP required offerors to provide a technical proposal for each of two sample tasks.[1] According to section M of the RFP, an offeror's technical approach for each of the sample tasks would be evaluated to determine if the offeror understood the government's technical requirements. Section M of the RFP did not require offerors to submit a "cost proposal" for either of the sample tasks. Id.[2] Finally, the RFP stated that the technical understanding and capability evaluation factor was significantly more important than price, which was significantly more important than the past performance evaluation factor. The RFP also stated that if the proposals of two or more offerors were evaluated as approximately technically equal, then the price and past performance evaluation factors would become more important, with price being considered more important than past performance. RFP S M.2. Twenty-eight firms,[3] including HMR (the incumbent contractor, which had been awarded a sole-source 8(a) contract for $3 million) and EIS, submitted proposals by the closing time on July 26. HMR teamed with three subcontractors, while EIS teamed with two subcontractors.