BNUMBER: B-276506
DATE: May 21, 1997
TITLE: Technology Services International, Inc., B-276506, May 21,
1997
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a
GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Technology Services International, Inc.
File: B-276506
Date:May 21, 1997
Nancy O. Dix, Esq., and Mary E. Shallman, Esq., Gray, Cary, Ware, and
Freidenrich, for the protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency's technical evaluation, and source selection based upon that
evaluation, are unreasonable where the agency evaluated the awardee's
proposal with the highest rating under a significant quality control
technical subfactor, even though the awardee's proposal did not submit
a detailed work scheduling system as contemplated by this subfactor.
DECISION
Technology Services International, Inc. protests the award of a
contract to Oahu Tree Experts under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F64605-96-R-0046, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for
grounds maintenance services, at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.
Technology Services challenges the evaluation of proposals and the
best value award decision.
We sustain the protest.
The RFP, issued October 18, 1996, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract for grounds maintenance services at Hickam Air
Force Base for a 6-month base period with 5 option years. The RFP
included a performance work statement (PWS), which detailed the work
requirements. The RFP advised offerors that this was a "performance
based contract," and that the agency "will no longer tell the
contractor how to do the job," but will provide performance standards
while the contractor will provide the "how to." In this regard, the
PWS stated that the contractor's technical proposal, and any
subsequent negotiated changes thereto, would be incorporated into the
contract upon award, and the commitments made thereto shall be binding
upon the offeror.
The RFP set forth a best value award evaluation scheme and stated that
the government was more concerned with obtaining superior technical
features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost, but
that the government would not make an award at a significantly higher
overall cost for slightly superior technical features. The RFP listed
four evaluation areas: Technical (Grounds Maintenance), Management
(Manpower Planning), Past Performance, and Price. The first three
areas were equally weighted, and in combination, were said to be more
important than price. The RFP further stated that in order to be
eligible for award, the proposal must meet all solicitation
requirements.
For the technical area, the RFP listed the following equally weighted
subfactors: (a) Quality Control, (b) Equipment, Material and Supplies
and Work Procedures, and (c) Customer Service. For the management
area, the equally weighted subfactors were: (a) Start-up and
Mobilization Procedures, and (b) Adequate Manning of Quality
Personnel. For the technical and management areas, the RFP stated
that additional consideration would be given when the "offeror
includes value-added enhancements to the government's requirements."
Past Performance was to be assessed from the offeror's past
performance record and the proposed prices were to be evaluated for
completeness, realism and reasonableness.
With respect to the quality control subfactor, the RFP stated that the
offeror will be evaluated to assess whether its quality control plan
included, among other things, "a work scheduling system which shows by
area the day and time when all requirements covered in the PWS will be
accomplished." The RFP required the quality control plan to include
"a work scheduling system based upon the contractor's technical
proposal," the schedule to "show by area, the day and time when all
requirements covered under the PWS will be accomplished," and the
contractor shall comply with the submitted schedule as incorporated
into the contract.
For purposes of rating the proposals under the various factors and
subfactors, the RFP designated the following color-coded rating
system:
Color Rating Definition
Blue Exceptional Exceeds specified performance or capability
in a beneficial way to the Air Force; and has no significant
weaknesses.
Green AcceptableMeets evaluation standards and any weaknesses
are readily correctable.
Yellow Marginal Fails to meet evaluation standards; however,
any significant deficiencies are correctable.
Red UnacceptableFails to meet minimum requirement of the RFP
and the deficiency is uncorrectable without a major revision of
the proposal.
In addition, each factor and subfactor was to be rated with regard to
proposal risk.
The Air Force received 11 proposals, including Oahu's and Technology
Services's, by the November 29 closing date. The Air Force evaluated
initial proposals. Oahu's proposal received red ratings in a number
of the evaluation areas. One red rating was in the area of quality
control because Oahu's quality control plan failed to include a work
scheduling system. During discussions, the Air Force advised Oahu of
a deficiency report because it "failed to provide a work scheduling
system" and further advised Oahu that "failure to satisfactorily
respond [could] result in elimination from the competitive range and
render the proposal ineligible for award." Oahu responded by advising
that the required "work schedule will be developed" and provided to
the government.
Best and final offers (BAFO) were received on February 7, 1997. The
final evaluation of the BAFOs resulted in Oahu's and Technology
Services's proposals being rated with similar color-code ratings.
Oahu's BAFO received green/low risk ratings under every factor and
subfactor, except quality control where it received a blue/low risk
rating; the record evidences that the blue rating was based on Oahu's
proposal of a value added enhancement of an "integrated pest
management plan." Technology Services's BAFO received green/low risk
ratings under every factor and subfactor, except customer service
where it received a blue/low risk rating; Technology Services's blue
rating was based on its proposal of a value added enhancement for its
customer service procedure. Technology Services received a "good"
performance rating, while Oahu received a "neutral" performance rating
because it had no experience. Oahu submitted a BAFO priced at
$4,827,522 and Technology Services's BAFO was priced at $6,550,368;
both offerors' prices were determined to be reasonable, realistic, and
complete.
Based upon the foregoing evaluation, the source selection authority
(SSA) determined Oahu and Technology Services's proposals to be
technically equal and, because Oahu proposed the lowest price,
concluded that Oahu's BAFO represented the best value. Award was made
to Oahu on February 18. This protest followed.
The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the
contracting agency. Our Office will only question the agency's
evaluation where it lacks a reasonable basis or conflicts with the
stated evaluation criteria for award. Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc.,
B-274689, Dec. 26, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 241 at 3.
Technology Services argues that the agency's evaluation of Oahu's
technical proposal was unreasonable, particularly with regard to the
quality control subfactor because Oahu's BAFO failed to include a work
scheduling system which shows by day and time when all requirements in
the PWS would be accomplished. We agree.
Our review of the record confirms that Oahu's proposal failed to
provide a work scheduling system showing the day and time work was to
be done as was required by the RFP. The record indicates that instead
of providing such a work scheduling system (which was expressly
requested during discussions), Oahu promised to develop and provide
the work schedule after the contract was awarded, generally described
what this schedule would contain, and generally agreed to perform
various requirements under the PWS on certain days. The schedule
included in the BAFO did not address each area to be maintained or
specify the frequencies of the tasks necessary to fulfill each PWS
requirement. In contrast, Technology Services provided a work
schedule, which reflected the day and time by area for the performance
of each type of service in each area under the PWS and specified the
frequencies of each service.
The Air Force argues that notwithstanding the lack of day and time
breakdown in Oahu's proposal, Oahu's mere promise to provide such a
schedule was sufficient to support its rating. The record does not
support this argument. First, the RFP language specifically and
unambiguously calls for the work scheduling system to show by area the
day and time when all requirements covered under the PWS would be met,
and it is not disputed that Oahu's proposal does not contain such a
system. Second, as indicated above, the "performance based" RFP
intended that offerors provide the precise details of how the work was
to be accomplished, and that the work schedule developed by the
offerors would be the subject of the agency's evaluation and would be
incorporated into the terms of the contract and reflect the
contractor's binding commitment.
We therefore do not believe that the Air Force evaluators could have
reasonably rated Oahu's proposal "blue" under the quality control
factor, notwithstanding its one recognized value-added enhancement,
because the quality control plan did not contain a required element.
As noted, a blue rating was reserved for proposals that exceeded the
specified performance and had no significant weaknesses, and Oahu's
proposal not containing the requisite work schedule cannot reasonably
be said to contain no weaknesses. Since the record does not support
the agency's evaluation of Oahu's proposal under the quality control
subfactor, we cannot conclude that the SSA's determination, based
solely upon the evaluators' color ratings, that Oahu's and Technology
Services's proposals were technically equal overall is reasonably
supported.[1] See Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270012.2, Mar. 19,
1996, 96-1 CPD para. 177 at 6; Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270012.4,
Oct. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 137 at 4.
We recommend that the Air Force reevaluate the proposals, conduct
discussions if necessary, and make a new source selection. If the Air
Force determines that award should be made to Technology Services, the
Air Force should terminate Oahu's contract and make award to
Technology Services. In addition, we recommend that the protester be
reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including
reasonable attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.8(d)(1) (1997). The
protester should submit its certified claim for costs to the
contracting agency within 60 days of receiving this decision. 4
C.F.R. sec. 21.8(f)(1).
The protest is sustained.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Technology Services also protests the agency's technical evaluation
of its proposal and the agency's price evaluation of Oahu's proposal.
We have reviewed the protester's allegations in these respects and
find them to be without merit. For example, while Technology Services
contends that Oahu's price should have been assessed as unreasonably
low because it was premised on a much lower staffing level than that
proposed by Technology Services, the record shows that the agency
reasonably determined that Oahu's price reflected its proposed
technical approach that the agency considered to be acceptable.