B-298281.2, Bannum, Inc., October 16, 2006

B-298281.2 Oct 16, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bannum, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dismas Charities, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0800-SE, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons for community corrections center (CCC) services for federal offenders in the Orlando, Florida area. Bannum contends that the agency improperly awarded to Dismas on the basis of initial proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298281.2, Bannum, Inc., October 16, 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: Bannum, Inc. File: B-298281.2 Date: October 16, 2006 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes & Gordon, for the protester. Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Dismas Charities, Inc., the intervenor. Tracey L. Printer, Esq., Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation provided for award on the basis of initial proposals to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be in the best interests of the government, agency properly awarded contract without discussions where record shows that discussions were not necessary to determine which proposal represented the best value to the government. DECISION Bannum, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dismas Charities, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0800-SE, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons for community corrections center (CCC) services for federal offenders in the Orlando, Florida area. Bannum contends that the agency improperly awarded to Dismas on the basis of initial proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on November 30, 2005, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery requirements contracts for a 3-year base period and seven 1-year award terms.[1] The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be in the –best interests— of the government, RFP sect. M.2, with proposals to be evaluated on the basis of the following three criteria, listed in descending order of importance: past performance, technical/management, and price. RFP sect. M.5. The RFP advised that past performance and technical/management, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Subfactors to be considered under the technical/management factor were site location, accountability, programs, facility, and personnel. The RFP advised offerors that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, but reserved to the government the right to conduct discussions if the contracting officer determined them to be necessary. RFP sect. L.2(f)(4).[2] Four proposals were received by the March 1, 2006 closing date. A source selection evaluation board evaluated the technical/management proposals and forwarded to the contracting officer a memorandum summarizing items to be discussed and/or clarified with the various offerors. After reviewing the memorandum, the contracting officer concluded that award could be made without discussions, as –at least one offeror had no deficiencies or major weaknesses that required discussions.— Agency Report, Aug. 11, 2006, at 4. By letter dated May 3, the contracting officer notified the protester that its proposal had been eliminated from consideration because Bannum had failed to provide the contracting officer with valid proof of zoning within 60 days after the date of its initial proposal submission. Bannum protested the agency's action to our Office on May 8, arguing that the solicitation required the submission of proof of zoning only if discussions were required, and that discussions had not been conducted in connection with the subject procurement.[3] The protester further noted that, if and when reinstated, it intended to request a change in its proposed facility.[4] Protest, May 8, 2006, at 4. By letter dated May 12, the contracting officer notified the protester that –[t]he correspondence dated May 3, 2006 eliminating Bannum Inc.'s proposal . . . is rescinded and Bannum's proposal is reinstated.— Bannum subsequently withdrew its protest. In response to the contracting officer's decision to make award without discussions, the SSEB reconvened and assigned the proposals color and risk ratings under each factor.[5] The contracting officer evaluated offerors' past performance and prices and memorialized her findings in memoranda dated May 26 (price analysis) and June 2 (past performance).