B-296969.3, JWK International Corporation, January 5, 2006

B-296969.3 Jan 05, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JWK International Corporation protests the award of a contract to C Martin Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124Q-05-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Army, for base operations support services for the White Sands Missile Range. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296969.3, JWK International Corporation, January 5, 2006 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: JWK International Corporation File: B-296969.3 Date: January 5, 2006 Kurt D. Ferstl, Esq., and Leigh T. Hansson, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for the protester. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for C Martin Company, the intervenor. Peter F. Pontzer, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the cognizant contracting specialist was biased in favor of the awardee is denied, where the record, which includes the unrebutted declarations of the contracting specialist and other agency employees, does not contain any evidence of bias or bad faith on the part of the contracting specialist or any other agency official. DECISION JWK International Corporation protests the award of a contract to C Martin Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124Q-05-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Army, for base operations support services for the WhiteSandsMissileRange. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 1, 2005, provided for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for 5 years to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government, based upon the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical/management, past performance, and price.[1] The RFP specified that the technical/management factor would be addressed solely through oral presentations. The solicitation also informed offerors that their past performance proposals were to consist of questionnaires completed by three of their current customers, and that their price proposals were to consist of a completed copy of the RFP's price schedule. The agency received proposals from five offerors, including C Martin and JWK. JWK's proposal was evaluated as –blue— under each of the four subfactors comprising the technical/management factor and –low risk— under the past performance factor, at an evaluated price of $22,527,478.[2] C Martin's proposal was evaluated as –green— under one of the technical/management evaluation subfactors and –blue— under the remaining three technical/management subfactors, and –low risk— under the past performance factor, at an evaluated price of $16,365,915. The agency concluded that the –proposals submitted by JWK and C Martin are basically equal for technical/management and past and present performance,— and that C Martin's proposal represented the best value to the government, given its lower evaluated price. Agency Report (AR), Tab 23, Pre-Negotiation Objective Memorandum/Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 3. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, JWK (the incumbent contractor) filed this protest.[3] JWK argues that certain actions of the cognizant contracting specialist during the conduct of the acquisition evidenced bias in favor of C Martin. Specifically, the protester asserts that the contracting specialist had an individual dismissed from the proposal evaluation board (PEB) –because [the contracting specialist] was concerned that the [individual] would ask critical questions that could downgrade C Martin's technical scoring.— Protest (Sept. 30, 2005) at 2. The protester also asserts –upon information and belief— that the contracting specialist –attempted to persuade two members of the [PEB] to change their respective technical scoring of JWK's proposal and oral presentations.— Id.Finally, JWK argues that the contracting specialist was biased in favor of C Martin because she –enjoys robust social relationships and interaction with various C Martin managers and employees.— Id. at 5. The record reflects that JWK is correct that an individual was removed from the PEB.