B-299369.2; B-299369.3, M&M Investigations, Inc., October 24, 2007

B-299369.2; B-299369.3, M&M Investigations, Inc., October 24, 2007 TITLE: B-299369.2; B-299369.3, M&M Investigations, Inc., October 24, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299369.2; B-299369.3 DATE: October 24, 2007 ****************************************************************** B-299369.2; B-299369.3, M&M Investigations, Inc., October 24, 2007 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: M&M Investigations, Inc. File: B-299369.2; B-299369.3 Date: October 24, 2007 Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and Kara M. Klaas, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for the protester. Jennifer L. Longmeyer-Wood, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's exclusion of protester's proposal from competitive range is denied where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation terms, and that agency reasonably determined that protester did not have a reasonable chance for award based on its proposal's lower technical rating and significantly higher price. DECISION M&M Investigations, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range and the proposed award to Eagle Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. PIADC-07-01, issued by the Department of Homeland Security for security guard services at Plum Island Animal Disease Center. The protester contends that, to the extent there were weaknesses in its proposal, they are minor and could have been cured during discussions. M&M contends that excluding its proposal from the competitive range was unreasonable, especially because it resulted in a competitive range of only one proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on December 6, 2006 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four 1-year option periods for security guard services. RFP at 2. The evaluation of proposals was to be conducted in two phases; Phase I involved an evaluation of the minimum qualifications of each offeror's proposed Program Manager. Id. at 122. Offerors with acceptable Phase I submissions were to submit proposals for a Phase II evaluation under the following factors: demonstrated technical/management capability (including evaluation of quality control plan, key personnel, management plan, and relevant experience); past performance; and price. Id. at 123-25. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best value to the agency, with demonstrated technical/management capability slightly more important than past performance; both factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. at 126. The RFP advised that an award would not be made at a significantly higher price to achieve only slightly superior technical capability. Id. Four of the 12 offerors' submissions passed the Phase I evaluation; each of those firms then submitted a technical and price proposal for the Phase II evaluation. Eagle's proposal (which offered the second lowest price, at $14,594,037.69) was rated highest technically, with adjectival ratings of good for demonstrated technical/management capability and outstanding for past performance. M&M's proposal, which at $21,209,617.95 offered the highest price of all of the Phase II proposals, was approximately 28 percent higher than the agency's cost estimate for the work, and more than 30 percent higher than the prices proposed by the other offerors, including Eagle. The protester's proposal, rated second highest technically, received ratings of acceptable for demonstrated technical/management capability and good for past performance.[1] The protester's proposal was found to have weaknesses under the demonstrated technical/management capability factor; one major weakness concerned the firm's failure to provide sufficient information about its proposed quality control plan. The firm's price proposal was also cited for weaknesses relating to its failure to include transition costs or a high enough escalation rate over the 5 years of the contract. As discussed below, the agency reports that the firm's proposal was excluded from the competitive range due to its significantly higher price and lower technical ratings. Source Selection Decision at 2; Amended Agency Report at 7 and 9.