B-298390, Dismas Charities, August 21, 2006

B-298390 Aug 21, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dismas Charities protests the award of a contract to Bannum, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0861-SC, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to procure Comprehensive Sanctions Center (CSC) services for federal offenders in Austin, Texas. Dismas argues that the agency failed to follow the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation and that the agency failed to make the award based on best value. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298390, Dismas Charities, August 21, 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: Dismas Charities File: B-298390 Date: August 21, 2006 Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Daniel S. Hersfeld, Esq., Pillsbury Winthorp Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes & Gordon, for Bannum, Inc., an intervenor. Tracey L. Printer, Esq., Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection is denied where the evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation terms. DECISION Dismas Charities protests the award of a contract to Bannum, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0861-SC, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to procure Comprehensive Sanctions Center (CSC) services for federal offenders in Austin, Texas. Dismas argues that the agency failed to follow the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation and that the agency failed to make the award based on best value. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued April 15, 2005, requested the services of a contractor to provide employment assistance, residence development, and other self-improvement opportunities to assist federal offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. The solicitation contemplated the award of a requirements contract with fixed unit prices for a 2-year base period with three 1-year option periods. The award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government under three evaluation factors: technical/management, past performance, and price. The solicitation stated that the technical/management and past performance evaluation factors, when combined, were –significantly more important than price,— and that of the two non-price evaluation factors, –past performance is more important.— Solicitation sect. M.5, Agency Report, Tab 1. However, the solicitation also advised that price, though of lesser importance than the technical/management and past performance evaluation factors, could contribute substantially to the award decision. Id.A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) was to evaluate the offerors' proposals in the technical/management area using a color/adjectival rating system: blue/very good; green/acceptable; yellow/poor; and red/unacceptable. Id. sect. M.3, M.5. The contracting officer (CO) was to evaluate the offerors' proposals in the past performance area using the same color/adjectival system. Id. sect. M.5, 1.0. Timely proposals were received from three offerors, including Dismas and Bannum. After an initial review, the SSEB determined that none of the proposals met the solicitation's minimum requirements and the agency therefore conducted two rounds of written discussions. After discussions, Dismas's revised proposal received a blue/very good rating in the technical/management area, a blue/very good rating in the past performance area, and offered an evaluated price of $[DELETED]. Bannum's revised proposal received a green/acceptable rating in the technical/management area, a blue/very good rating in the past performance area, and offered an evaluated price of $[DELETED]. The third offeror's revised proposal received a green/acceptable rating in the technical/management area, a blue/very good rating in the past performance area, and offered an evaluated price of $[DELETED]. The CO reviewed the SSEB's evaluation and independently considered the subfactor strengths and weaknesses that contributed to each proposal's overall color/adjectival ratings. The CO noted that Dismas's technical/management proposal was rated higher than the other proposals, but also that all three proposals met the minimum solicitation requirements and represented a low risk to the government. After evaluating the ratings, risk factors and price, the CO determined that, –from the business point of view, the value of Dismas's program (non-cost factor) did not warrant payment of a premium of $[DELETED] over the lowest priced offeror.— Agency Report, Tab 13, at 13.