B-296355, Burns and Roe Services Corporation, July 27, 2005

B-296355 Jul 27, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Burns and Roe Services Corporation (BRSC) protests the award of a contract to Del-Jen International Corporation (DJIC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-03-R-4200, issued by the Department of the Navy for base support services for the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. BRSC primarily objects to the agency's technical evaluation of the BRSC and DJIC proposals and maintains that the agency failed to perform a proper price realism analysis of DJIC's proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296355, Burns and Roe Services Corporation, July 27, 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: Burns and Roe Services Corporation File: B-296355 Date: July 27, 2005 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Constance A. Wilkinson, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, PC, for the protester. William A. Roberts III, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., and Joseph E. Ashman, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for Del-Jen International Corporation, an intervenor. Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Ken Wilson, Esq., and Robert E. Little, Jr., Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 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 Protest that agency's evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors. DECISION Burns and Roe Services Corporation (BRSC) protests the award of a contract to Del-Jen International Corporation (DJIC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-03-R-4200, issued by the Department of the Navy for base support services for the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. BRSC primarily objects to the agency's technical evaluation of the BRSC and DJIC proposals and maintains that the agency failed to perform a proper price realism analysis of DJIC's proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on August 11, 2004 for the award of a combination fixed-price/indefinite-quantity award fee contract for a base year with four 1-year option periods. The contractor is to provide all labor, supervision, tools, materials, equipment and transportation necessary to provide base support services. The RFP provided that the award would be made on the basis of the proposal determined to represent the best value to the government. The RFP stated that technical proposals would be evaluated to determine whether the offeror possessed the capability to successfully perform the requirements, and listed four equally weighted technical evaluation factors--past performance, corporate experience, management and project staffing, and technical approach/method. RFP sect. M.2. The RFP provided that the technical factors combined were approximately equal to price/cost. Id.Offerors were further advised that price proposals would be evaluated to determine reasonableness and realism of price, as well as to determine whether the proposed pricing demonstrated an understanding of the work and an ability to perform the contract. The RFP stated that the agency would consider the results of any or all of the following types of analysis in evaluating price: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison of proposed prices with independent government estimates, comparison of proposed prices with available historical information, and information/reports obtained from other agencies. Id. The agency received five proposals by the closing date. The technical evaluation board (TEB) evaluated the technical proposals and a price evaluation board (PEB) evaluated the price proposals. As a result of the initial evaluation by the TEB, BRSC's technical proposal was ranked first and DJIC's was ranked third. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Technical Evaluation Board Report at 8. BRSC was ranked first based on ratings of very good under the past performance, management and project staffing, and technical approach/method factors, and satisfactory under the corporate experience factor, resulting in a very good overall technical rating and a low overall risk rating.