B-297084, IAP World Services, Inc., November 1, 2005

B-297084 Nov 01, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IAP World Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to EJB Facilities Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N44255-04-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy for base operations, security and maintenance for specified facilities in the Navy's Northwest Region. IAP principally asserts that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and failed to provide meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297084, IAP World Services, Inc., November 1, 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: IAP World Services, Inc. File: B-297084 Date: November 1, 2005 Michael R. Charness, Esq., and Amy R. Napier, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. William A. Roberts, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe, Esq., Michael S. Caldwell, Esq., and Antonella Karlin, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for EJB Facilities Services, Inc., an intervenor. Richard G. Welsh, Esq., and Amy M. Steed, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 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. Where solicitation provided for the relative weighting of evaluation factors in the evaluation, rather than mere review for acceptability, agency properly considered extent to which proposals exceeded solicitation requirements. 2. Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with protester is denied where protester's proposal was rated at least acceptable under all evaluation categories, and protester does not point to any specific item that agency failed to discuss that kept protester from having a reasonable chance of receiving award. 3. Where agency determined that protester's price was reasonable, agency was not required to inform protester during discussions that its price was significantly higher than prices of competing offerors and government estimate. DECISION IAP World Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to EJB Facilities Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N44255-04-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy for base operations, security and maintenance for specified facilities in the Navy's Northwest Region. IAP principally asserts that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria and failed to provide meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. The solicitation, which included definite-quantity and indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) items, provided for a –best value— evaluation based on three technical factors--management, past performance/experience, and small business subcontracting (in descending order of importance)--and price (which was approximately equal in weight to the technical factors taken together). The agency received four proposals, including the protester's and the awardee's. A technical evaluation board (TEB) evaluated the technical proposals using adjectival ratings (exceptional, highly acceptable, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable), and a price evaluation board (PEB) evaluated the price proposals for overall price, reasonableness, realism and completeness. The TEB and PEB prepared reports for the source selection board (SSB), which made an award recommendation to the source selection authority (SSA). Following two rounds of discussions and the receipt and evaluation of final proposal revisions, EJB's proposal was rated highly acceptable for the management and past performance factors and excellent for small business subcontracting. SSB Report (July 20, 2005) at 2. IAP's proposal was rated acceptable for management and small business subcontracting and highly acceptable for past performance. Id.EJB's evaluated price ($405,270,348) was low, and IAP's ($451,341,289) third low. Id. at 30. The agency ranked EJB's proposal first overall and IAP's fourth based on the technical and price proposals. SSA Decision at 4. The SSB recommended EJB for award; the SSA concurred and made award to EJB. UNSTATED EVALUATION CRITERIA IAP asserts that the Navy improperly applied unstated evaluation criteria in evaluating the technical proposals. Specifically, IAP asserts that, while the RFP provided for technical proposals to be evaluated to ensure that the offeror understands the solicitation requirements, the Navy evaluated the technical proposals based on whether the offeror exceeded the stated requirements or used innovation in responding to them.