B-310542, Horizon Industries, Limited, January 7, 2008

B-310542 Jan 07, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Horizon Industries, Limited protests the agency's evaluation of proposals and the award of a contract to Phacil under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QUZ-06-R-0052, issued by the Department of the Army for contract and technical support services. Horizon challenges the evaluation rating ("exceptional," the highest rating available) given to the awardee's proposal for technical merit and past performance; the protester contends that the awardee's proposal instead should have been downgraded for failing to demonstrate that the awardee's proposed personnel and past performance met the RFP's personnel qualification requirements. Horizon also contends that its past performance should have been rated higher than acceptable and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it regarding a perceived need for additional information about its prior work. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310542, Horizon Industries, Limited, January 7, 2008 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: Horizon Industries, Limited File: B-310542 Date: January 7, 2008 Jeffrey A. Lovitky, Esq., for the protester. Capt. Robert T. Wu, Department of the Army, 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 of proposal evaluation and award decision is denied where record shows they were reasonable and consistent with solicitation's terms. DECISION Horizon Industries, Limited protests the agency's evaluation of proposals and the award of a contract to Phacil under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QUZ-06-R-0052, issued by the Department of the Army for contract and technical support services. Horizon challenges the evaluation rating (–exceptional,— the highest rating available) given to the awardee's proposal for technical merit and past performance; the protester contends that the awardee's proposal instead should have been downgraded for failing to demonstrate that the awardee's proposed personnel and past performance met the RFP's personnel qualification requirements. Horizon also contends that its past performance should have been rated higher than acceptable and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it regarding a perceived need for additional information about its prior work. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 22, 2007, contemplated the award of an indefinite- delivery/indefinite-quantity contract at fixed hourly rates for acquisition, contract administration, and close-out services for the Army Contracting Agency, Information Technology E'Commerce, and Commercial Contracting Center (ITEC) and its customers for a base year and two option periods.[1] RFP at 2. The RFP advised that an award under the RFP would be based on the best overall response received considering technical/management approach, past performance, and price (where the first two factors were approximately equal in importance and, combined, were more important than price). RFP at 54. Under the technical/management approach factor, proposals were to be evaluated to assess the offeror's understanding of the requirements and its capability to successfully perform in accordance with the RFP's performance work statement (PWS) considering the following subfactors: project plan (including technical approach, organizational resources and management controls); quality control plan (including quality objectives, and methods for measuring quality and meeting or exceeding quality standards); and personnel. Under the personnel subfactor of the technical/management approach factor, information regarding the experience and qualifications of the offeror's proposed personnel was to be reviewed in assessing the firm's capability to meet PWS requirements; in relevant part, the PWS required that the contractor have available or have the ability to acquire personnel meeting the required qualifications and experience levels. RFP at 14, 54-55. Under the past performance evaluation factor, the agency was to evaluate the extent to which an offeror's proposal demonstrated past performance of recent (i.e., within 3 years), relevant (i.e., similar in complexity and magnitude) work of similar size and scope, as well as the firm's commitment to customer satisfaction, scheduled completion of work, and good workmanship. RFP at 46-47, 55. Nineteen proposals were received and evaluated, discussions were conducted, and revised proposals were evaluated. Phacil's proposal was rated exceptional under both the technical/management approach and past performance factors; Phacil's proposed price of $3,262,496.07 was the second lowest of all offers received.