B-296305, SPAAN Tech, Inc., July 14, 2005

B-296305 Jul 14, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SPAAN Tech, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Performance Results Corporation (PRC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP26-03NT41819, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for administrative support services. SPAAN Tech contends that the evaluation of its proposal and the source selection decision were improper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296305, SPAAN Tech, Inc., July 14, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: SPAAN Tech, Inc. File: B-296305 Date: July 14, 2005 Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP, for the protester. Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., and Nancy Toppetta, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's determination that protester's proposal was essentially equal to awardee's lower cost proposal has not been shown to be unreasonable. DECISION SPAAN Tech, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Performance Results Corporation (PRC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP26-03NT41819, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for administrative support services. SPAAN Tech contends that the evaluation of its proposal and the source selection decision were improper. We deny the protest. DOE issued the RFP as a competitive 8(a) set-aside to acquire administrative program support services for DOE's National Energy Technology Library (NETL) at the Morgantown, West Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania facilities. The services to be provided under this contract include management systems support services, records management support services, and library support services. The solicitation anticipated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee, task-order contract for a base period of 3 years with two 1-year options. The RFP stated the –[s]election of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each Offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation.— RFP sect. M.2. The RFP contemplated the evaluation of a business and management (written) electronic proposal and an oral presentation, and stated that –[t]he sum of on the written evaluation criteria are of equal importance to the sum of the oral evaluation criteria.— The evaluation criteria for the electronic (written) proposals were: (1) management approach (40%), (2) key personnel (30%), (3) organizational approach (10%), (4) experience (10%), and (5) past performance (10%). The evaluation criteria for the oral presentation were: (1) understanding of requirements and corporate ability (40%), (2) qualified staffing personnel (30%), and (3) management of tasks (30%). The solicitation provided that the combined weight of the business and management proposal and the oral presentation were of significantly greater importance than the cost proposal. RFP amend. 6. The RFP also stated that the government is more concerned with obtaining a superior technical proposal than making an award at the lowest evaluated cost, but that the government would not make an award at a price premium it considered disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one technical proposal over another. The RFP also provided that to the extent that the technical proposals were evaluated as close or similar in merit, then the evaluated cost would be more likely to be the determining factor. RFP sect. M.2. Finally, the RFP provided that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, and, therefore, cautioned offerors that their proposals should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. RFP sect. L.17. The agency received five proposals by the April 1, 2004 due date, including those from SPAAN Tech and PRC. The evaluation rating committee (ERC) evaluated the written proposals against the solicitation's criteria for the written proposals, established strengths and weaknesses, and arrived at a consensus score for each written proposal by June 14. Oral presentations were conducted from June 21 through June 24.