B-298568, Brian X. Scott, October 26, 2006

B-298568 Oct 26, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Brian X. Scott protests the elimination of his proposal from the competitive range by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91GXQ06R0002 for "the full range of pre-award contracting functions (with the exception of contract award) . . . in support of U.S. Government and multi-national agencies" in Iraq. Legal Memorandum at 1-2. The protester argues that his proposal was misevaluated and improperly eliminated from the competitive range, leaving a single remaining offeror, CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc. (CACI), and that the contracting officer improperly made an affirmative determination of responsibility with respect to CACI. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298568, Brian X. Scott, October 26, 2006 Decision Matter of: Brian X. Scott File: B-298568 Date: October 26, 2006 Brian X. Scott for the protester. Daniel J. Donohue, Esq., Akerman Senterfitt Wickwire Gavin, P.C., for CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Capt. Christopher L. Krafchek, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the protester's proposal was properly eliminated from competitive range because, among other reasons, the proposal requested addition of an advance payment term to the contract, and acknowledged that without the advance payment the protester could not perform, and the protester's objections to contracting officer's affirmative responsibility determination did not show a failure to consider available relevant information. DECISION Brian X. Scott protests the elimination of his proposal from the competitive range by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91GXQ'06'R'0002 for –the full range of pre-award contracting functions (with the exception of contract award) . . . in support of U.S. Government and multi-national agencies— in Iraq. Legal Memorandum at 1-2. The protester argues that his proposal was misevaluated and improperly eliminated from the competitive range, leaving a single remaining offeror, CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc. (CACI), and that the contracting officer improperly made an affirmative determination of responsibility with respect to CACI. We deny the protest. The Army's Joint Contracting Command--Iraq/Afghanistan issued the RFP on June 2, 2006 as a commercial item solicitation, seeking proposals to provide various personnel, including 24 contracting specialists, a systems administrator, and a property specialist. The RFP provided for proposal evaluation and risk assessment with regard to the following factors: technical/management approach, quality assurance plan, past performance, and price. Offerors were advised that the agency intended to award a contract for a 6-month base performance period, with three 6'month option periods. RFP at 2-8. The protester submitted a proposal on June 20. While that proposal declared that the protester was not taking exception to any RFP requirements, the proposal thereafter requested the Army to change three terms of the RFP. As relevant here, the first requested change was as follows: I request that FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] Clause 52.232-12, Advance Payment, be added, and that an advance payment be made at contract start. This will ensure that sufficient operating capital is available exclusively for this effort so that mobilization and initial operation go smoothly. Without this provision, and this Advance Payment, I am unable to perform this contract. Protester's Proposal Cover Letter at 2.[1] The evaluators found that the protester's proposal had numerous weaknesses and risks, resulting in a rating of unacceptable and high risk under both the technical/management approach factor and the quality assurance plan factor.[2] Technical Evaluation Report at 2-3. Upon review, the source selection authority agreed with the evaluator's assessments, concluding that various aspects of the protester's proposal rendered the proposal unworkable or even –catastrophic.— Competitive Range Determination Document at 3. Accordingly, the protester's proposal was excluded from the competitive range. Among the reasons cited by the source selection authority was the fact that –Brian Scott proposed three additional contract provisions to which the Government does not agree.— Id. On July 17, the protester was notified of its exclusion from the competitive range. This protest followed. The protester first argues that it was improper for the agency to exclude its proposal from the competitive range, leaving a competitive range of only one offeror.[3] The FAR provides that an agency –shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals.— FAR sect. 15.306(c)(1).