Beacon Grace, LLC

B-415529 Jan 16, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Beacon Grace, LLC, a small business of Hagerstown, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Qi-Tech, LLC, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTNH22-17-R-00033, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), for technical support services for the agency's non-traffic surveillance system. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the protester's technical and price proposals. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Beacon Grace, LLC File:  B-415529 Date:  January 16, 2018 Becky R. Willard for the protester. Roland Baumann III, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal is denied where the record reasonably supports the agency’s evaluation and where any errors committed by the agency did not cause competitive prejudice to the protester. DECISION Beacon Grace, LLC, a small business of Hagerstown, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Qi-Tech, LLC, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTNH22-17-R-00033, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), for technical support services for the agency’s non-traffic surveillance system.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical and price proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DOT issued the solicitation on April 26, 2017, as a set-aside for small business concerns.  RFP at 1, 42.  The solicitation sought proposals to provide services associated with the agency’s non-traffic surveillance system.[1]  RFP at 2.  In general, the scope of work requires the contractor to provide technical support to review data and perform statistical analysis as part of a special study being performed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for NHTSA.  Id. at 5-6.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year and four 12-month options.  Id. at 2, 3, 41.  The solicitation anticipated award on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering price and three technical factors, in descending order of importance:  (1) qualifications of key personnel, (2) understanding of the technical requirements, and (3) corporate experience and past performance.  Id. at 49‑51.  When combined, the technical factors were more important than price.  Id. at 49.  The solicitation further provided that, “[i]f there are no significant technical proposal differences, price may be the determining factor for source selection.”  Id. In evaluating technical proposals, the agency assigned numerical scores between 0 and 10 under each technical factor as follows:  unacceptable (0-2); minimally acceptable (3-4); acceptable (5-6); good (7-8); and outstanding (9-10).  Agency Technical Evaluation Plan at 1.  The agency then multiplied the raw numerical score by a weight representing the importance of each factor.  Id.  The record reflects that the qualifications of key personnel factor was worth 45 percent of the overall technical score; the understanding of the technical requirements factor was worth 40 percent of the overall technical score; and the corporate experience and past performance factor was worth 15 percent of the overall technical score.  Id.  The maximum possible technical score was 1,000.  Id.[2] The solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate offeror’s price proposals for price reasonableness.  RFP at 52.  A price would be considered reasonable “if it does not exceed that which a prudent person would pay in the conduct of a competitive business.”  Id.  Price would not be assigned a numerical score.  Id.  The RFP did not provide for a price realism evaluation. In response to the solicitation, the agency received six proposals, including proposals submitted by the protester and awardee.  Agency Report (AR), Attach. 2, Evaluation Documents, at 43.  Two proposals were determined to be technically unacceptable and, as a result, were excluded from the competition.  Id.