BNUMBER: B-278187
DATE: January 5, 1998
TITLE: J&E Associates, Inc., B-278187, January 5, 1998
**********************************************************************
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.
Matter of:J&E Associates, Inc.
File: B-278187
Date:January 5, 1998
Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., James S. DelSordo, Esq., and Leigh H.
Turner, Esq.,
James S. Phillips Law Offices, for the protester.
Richard A. Pelletier, Esq., Quinto & Wilks, P.C., for Zeiders
Enterprises, Inc., an intervenor.
Theresa Chesnut, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is
denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance
with the factors announced in the solicitation, and the record
reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions.
DECISION
J&E Associates, Inc. protests the award of a firm, fixed-price
contract to Zeiders Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals
(RFP) No. N00244-97-R-5017, issued by the Department of the Navy to
operate and manage Family Service Centers (FSC) at three installations
in the San Diego, California commuting region. J&E argues that the
Navy's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were
improper.
We deny the protest.
The three FSCs at San Diego Naval Station, North Island Naval Air
Station, and the San Diego Submarine Base currently provide
comprehensive programs and services to single and married Navy members
and their families to improve the personal and family readiness of the
military personnel and to assist with adaptation to military life.
The successful contractor will provide administrative and professional
staff, equipment, materials and supervision necessary to perform the
specific categories of programs and services identified in the RFP's
performance work statement.
The RFP was issued on April 30, 1997, for the purpose of determining
the cost of in-house versus contractor performance under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76. The solicitation contemplated
the award of a fixed-price contract plus award fee for a base period
with four 1-year options. Offerors were to submit a written proposal
and to make an oral presentation. The purpose of the oral
presentation was to assess the offeror's knowledge and understanding
of the solicitation requirements, the offeror's technical capability
to provide these services, and the offeror's ability to sustain
quality and cost effective programs and services for the life of the
contract.
The RFP provided that award would be to the responsible offeror whose
offer, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be the most
advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered.
As amended, the RFP listed four evaluation factors: technical
approach oral presentation (25 percent); management plan (25 percent);
past performance (50 percent); and price (the combined weight of the
three technical factors was approximately equal to that of price).
The RFP cautioned offerors to submit their best terms in their initial
proposals, since the agency intended to evaluate proposals and select
a contractor without discussions unless the agency subsequently
determined that discussions were necessary.
[deleted] including Zeiders and J&E, submitted proposals in response
to the RFP. A technical evaluation board evaluated the technical
proposals under an adjectival rating scale of outstanding, highly
satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal, and unacceptable. The
evaluation board's consensus adjectival rating and evaluated prices
were as follows:
[deleted]
Based on these evaluation results, the agency's source selection
authority decided that Zeiders's proposal, which received the second
highest technical rating overall and was the lowest priced,
represented the best value to the government. A subsequent cost
comparison between Zeiders's proposal and the government's proposal
resulted in the determination that contractor performance was
preferable to performance in-house. Following a debriefing, J&E filed
this protest.
J&E contends that its proposal was misevaluated under the management
plan and past performance factors compared to Zeiders's proposal.
More specifically, J&E's challenge of the agency's evaluation of its
management plan proposal focuses on two subfactors: organizational
structure and staffing plan. J&E argues that its proposal was
improperly downgraded because of the agency's judgment that [deleted].
It is not the function of this Office to evaluate technical proposals
de novo; rather, in reviewing a protest against an allegedly improper
evaluation, we will examine the record only to determine whether the
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated
evaluation factors. Richard M. Milburn High School, B-277018,
Aug. 19, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 53 at 3. The protester's disagreement with
the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. ESCO, Inc.,
66 Comp. Gen. 404, 410 (1987), 87-1 CPD para. 450 at 7. Here, based upon
our review of the agency report, including each evaluator's narrative
explanation supporting each rating, and the evaluators' consensus
findings, we find that the agency's evaluation of proposals was
reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme and the
selection of Zeiders's proposal was reasonable.
The record shows that the most significant concern identified by the
agency in the protester's proposal related to its management plan,
which was rated [deleted] overall. The management plan evaluation
factor included five subfactors--organizational structure, staffing
plan, operating procedures, transition plan, and inspection/quality
control plan. Under each of these five subfactors, the evaluators had
concerns regarding J&E's proposal. [deleted] since the protester did
not provide convincing evidence that such an approach could fulfill
the agency's needs. [deleted].
We see no basis to find the agency's assessment unreasonable or
inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. While the
protester asserts that its approach adequately addressed the
management requirements for the FSCs, we think the agency reasonably
could conclude that J&E's approach was [deleted]. Further, we think
the agency had a reasonable basis for concluding that J&E's [deleted].
While the protester correctly states that the RFP [deleted].
With regard to the staffing plan, another of the five subfactors
within the management plan factor, [deleted].
J&E's basic response is that [deleted]. We do not find that this
rebuts the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation. First, this
does not address the agency's concern [deleted]. Second, J&E's
response essentially expresses disagreement with the agency's view
[deleted]. Under these circumstances, we have no basis to question
[deleted] under the staffing plan subfactor.
In sum, we find that the agency's evaluation of these two subfactors
of the management plan was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation's evaluation criteria. Since the protester does not
challenge the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the other
three subfactors--operating procedures, transition plan, and
inspection/quality control plan--about which the evaluators also had
concerns, we conclude that the agency's overall evaluation of J&E's
management plan as [deleted] was reasonable.
In light of this conclusion, we need not reach the other protest
issues, because they could not call into question the reasonableness
of the source selection. Particularly relevant in this regard is the
fact that the protester has not challenged the evaluation under the
technical approach factor--where Zeiders's proposal was rated
[deleted] while J&E's was rated [deleted]. As to the remaining
technical evaluation factor, past performance, even identical ratings
for the protester and the awardee would not outweigh the evaluation
advantage enjoyed by Zeiders' proposal under the technical approach
and management plan factors, particularly since Zeiders's price was
lower than J&E's.[1]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Regarding price, J&E argues that Zeiders's proposal was improperly
based on compensation rates so low as to be insufficient to attract
and retain a quality professional staff, as required by the RFP. This
argument is without merit. The record shows that the direct labor
rates proposed by Zeiders were comparable to the rates proposed by the
other offerors, including J&E. Thus, the average direct labor rate
for Zeiders is [deleted] whereas the rate for J&E is [deleted] and for
[deleted], respectively. The agency found Zeiders's compensation
rates to be adequate and in line with the other offerors', and there
is nothing in the record to indicate that the agency's analysis or
conclusions were erroneous.