B-311329; B-311329.2, Alliance Technical Services, Inc., May 30, 2008

B-311329; B-311329.2, Alliance Technical Services, Inc., May 30, 2008 TITLE: B-311329; B-311329.2, Alliance Technical Services, Inc., May 30, 2008 BNUMBER: B-311329; B-311329.2 DATE: May 30, 2008 ********************************************************************* B-311329; B-311329.2, Alliance Technical Services, Inc., May 30, 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: Alliance Technical Services, Inc. File: B-311329; B-311329.2 Date: May 30, 2008 Michael J. Gardner, Esq., George G. Booker, Jr., Esq., and Jessica L. Martyn, Esq., Troutman Sanders LLP, for the protester. Catherine Kellington, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with protester regarding experience is denied where record shows that there is no merit to allegation and that, even if protester's proposal received highest possible evaluation score in area where discussions allegedly were insufficient, its proposal would remain lower technically rated and higher priced than awardees' proposals; since protester thus would not be in line for award, it was not prejudiced by any insufficient discussions. 2. Protest that agency improperly failed to conduct comparative evaluation of proposals in determining "best value" is denied where proposals selected for award were highest technically rated and lowest priced. DECISION Alliance Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) protests contract awards to Gryphon Technologies, LC and EHS Technologies Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65530-06-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Navy for engineering, technical analysis, and support services for naval ship hull, mechanical and electrical, and combat support systems. ATS complains that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions and failed to document its "best value" determination. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 10, 2006, contemplated the best value award of one or more contracts based on an evaluation of technical factors (personnel, with subfactors for senior engineering technician, senior corrosion control technician and program manager; corporate experience and past performance; management quality assurance, with subfactors for technical understanding, organizational structure, management ability and quality assurance plan; and facilities, with subfactors for physical access, hardware capabilities and software capabilities) and price (which was to be evaluated for realism). RFP at 63, 64. Four offerors responded to the RFP. Following the evaluation of initial proposals, discussions, and the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions, Gryphon's proposal was ranked first technically with 95.7 (of 100 available) points--44.6 (of 47) points for personnel, 33.4 (of 35) points for experience/past performance, 11.7 (of 12) points for management quality assurance, and 6 (of 6) points for facilities. EHS's proposal was ranked second technically with 85.8 points--40 for personnel, 30.1 for experience/past performance, 9.9 for management, and 5.8 for facilities.[1] ATS's proposal was ranked fourth with 75 points--32.1 for personnel, 27 for experience/past performance, 10.1 for management, and 5.8 for facilities. Agency Report (AR) at 4, Evaluation Summary Matrix. With respect to price, as evaluated for realism, EHS's price was low ($32,669,567.68), Gryphon's was second low ($34,306,671.99), and ATS's was third low ($38,386.570.33). Id. The agency awarded contracts to Gryphon and ETS, the two offerors with the highest technical scores and lowest evaluated prices. ATS protests the awards. DISCUSSIONS Under the corporate experience subfactor, offerors were evaluated for demonstrated experience in providing engineering and technical services related to the statement of work. RFP at 59. Among other things, offerors were specifically required to supply three work examples related to surface ship corrosion control post shakedown availabilities, and two examples related to monitoring surface ship shipboard work during an availability period while in a building yard or shipyard. RFP Amend. 4, at 5. The agency found ATS's proposal unclear as to which of the listed experience information was to be evaluated for the work examples requested. During discussions, the agency advised ATS that "ATS provides corporate experience information . .