B-298662, Advanced Federal Services Corp., November 15, 2006

B-298662 Nov 15, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Advanced Federal Services Corp. (AFS) protests the award of a contract to Eastek, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9128Z-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army Communications-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command for business administrative support services (BASS). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical proposals and past performance and made an improper source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298662, Advanced Federal Services Corp., November 15, 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: Advanced Federal Services Corp. File: B-298662 Date: November 15, 2006 Howell Roger Riggs, Jr., Esq., Patrick O. Miller, Esq., and David H. Stem, Jr., Esq., Dick, Riggs, Miller & Stem, LLP for the protester. Ronald K. Henry, Esq., John L. Bowles, Esq., and Kevin S. Donohue, Esq., Kaye Scholer, LLP, for Eastek, Inc., an intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq. and Janet K. Baker, Esq., Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and source selection decision is denied where agency's determinations were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Advanced Federal Services Corp. (AFS) protests the award of a contract to Eastek, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9128Z-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army Communications-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command for business administrative support services (BASS). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical proposals and past performance and made an improper source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals to provide BASS requirements for the Army Information Systems Engineering Command, Army Communications Security Logistics Activity, and the Communications-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command Acquisition Center Southwest. Offerors were required to propose BASS requirements for these facilities, including administrative support, shipping and receiving, logistics, system administration and automation, contract operations, security administration and access control.[1] RFP at 2. The RFP anticipated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price and cost-reimbursement task orders for a 1-year base performance period and four 1-year option periods. The competition was restricted to participants in the Small Business Administration 8(a) program for small, disadvantaged businesses. Offerors were advised that they would be evaluated on the basis of technical and personnel management, performance risk, and price. The RFP stated that for purposes of award, the technical and personnel management factor was more important than the performance risk factor, which was in turn more important than the price factor. The agency received proposals from ten offerors, conducted discussions, and made two competitive range determinations, narrowing the number of proposals under consideration to four. As relevant to the protest, the agency's final evaluation of offerors' proposals was as follows: Technical and Personnel Management Performance Risk Price AFS Acceptable Low $6,983,719 Eastek Outstanding Low $8,864,159 Agency Report (AR), Tab Q, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 3.[2] The agency's –outstanding— rating for Eastek's's proposal with regard to the technical and personnel management factor was based on six evaluated strengths, no weaknesses, and no deficiencies. Id. at 4. In contrast, AFS's proposal was evaluated as providing no strengths. Id.The agency selected Eastek for award, concluding that the strengths identified in Eastek's proposal, which received the highest technical scores of any offeror, offset the price savings offered by AFS. Id. at 6-7. Following notification of its nonselection and receipt of a post-award debriefing, AFS filed this protest. DISCUSSION Technical Evaluation AFS first protests that the agency failed to recognize various strengths in its proposal.