B-299477, Phoenix Management, Inc., May 16, 2007

B-299477 May 16, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Phoenix Management, Inc. (PMI) protests the decision of the Department of the Army, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, to accept the agency tender for performance by the government's most efficient organization (MEO) to perform in-house the requirements for airfield support services at Fort Rucker, Alabama, rather than to award a contract for these services, under request for proposals (RFP) No.W911SO-06-R-0011. PMI argues that, but for the agency's unreasonable evaluation, its lower priced proposal would have been viewed as acceptable, and it would have received the award. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299477, Phoenix Management, Inc., May 16, 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: Phoenix Management, Inc. File: B-299477 Date: May 16, 2007 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for the protester. Lt. Col. Frank A. March, Maj. Gregory A. Moritz, Maj. P. Daniel DiPaola, Capt. John J. Pritchard, Capt. Robert B. Nelson, Capt. Charlene T. Storino, and Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the agency reasonably found the protester's proposal did not adequately explain protester's approach to utilizing staff to ensure that multiple tasks of performance work statement would be performed according to stated standards (without disrupting the performance of other tasks), and where the agency had provided comments during discussions that reasonably alerted the protester to that concern, but the revised proposal failed to alleviate the agency's concern. DECISION Phoenix Management, Inc. (PMI) protests the decision of the Department of the Army, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, to accept the agency tender for performance by the government's most efficient organization (MEO) to perform in-house the requirements for airfield support services at Fort Rucker, Alabama, rather than to award a contract for these services, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SO-06-R-0011. PMI argues that, but for the agency's unreasonable evaluation, its lower priced proposal would have been viewed as acceptable, and it would have received the award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on July 20, 2006, seeking firm fixed-price proposals, and an agency tender, for performance of airfield support services for a 10-month base period (preceded by a 60-day phase-in period), followed by four 1-year option periods. The performance work statement (PWS) described services in three main areas--flight operations,[1] motor vehicle operations,[2] and airfield support[3]--to be performed at five sites: Cairns Army Airfield, Hanchey Army Heliport, Lowe Army Heliport, Shell Army Heliport, and Knox Army Heliport. RFP amend. 4, Revised Performance Work Statement (PWS), at C-5-1. The RFP specified that proposals would be evaluated under three evaluation factors: mission capability, past performance, and price. The mission capability factor was divided into two subfactors of equal importance: (1) management and organization; and (2) technical approach. The RFP further explained these were –critical subfactors,— and therefore a rating of marginal or unacceptable in either subfactor would –automatically carry forward to the [f]actor rating.— RFP amend. 7, at 2. The RFP then provided that the mission capability and past performance factors were of equal importance in determining technical acceptability, and that award would be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer. Id. With respect to the mission capability portion of proposals, the RFP instructed offerors to be –specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements,— and required that proposals address how tasks in each functional area (except Quality Control [addressed elsewhere]) of the PWS will be accomplished by addressing how you will be organized and staffed along with specifically describing how work will be scheduled (including use of any automated systems or workloading procedures), proposed work processes and outputs, process interfaces, innovations, assumptions of support, and cross-utilization training and plans. . . . RFP amend.