BNUMBER: B-280922
DATE: December 4, 1998
TITLE: Teltara Inc., B-280922, December 4, 1998
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Teltara Inc.
File: B-280922
Date:December 4, 1998
Ralph B. Wahlberg and Michael W. Campbell for the protester.
Pamela Langston-Cox, Esq., Internal Revenue Service, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Source selection decision is not reasonable where the record does not
provide any documentation or explanation which supports the decision,
and the source selection memo essentially contains only percentage
comparisons between the technical point score and price of the
awardee's proposal and the technical point scores and prices of the
other proposals, which do not support the purported best value
determination.
DECISION
Teltara Inc. protests the award of a contract to TMI Services, Inc.
under request for proposals (RFP) No. TIRWR-97-R-00005, issued by the
Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for
janitorial services at the Ogden Service Center, Ogden, Utah. Teltara
asserts that the agency's selection decision is unreasonable and does
not accurately take into account the relative proposal evaluations.
We sustain the protest.
The solicitation, issued on August 1, 1997 as a competitive small
business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract
for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. RFP sec. B.1, B.2.
The solicitation provided that award would be made to the offeror
whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government,
to be determined "by comparing differences in the value of the
technical features with differences in the offerors' prices." RFP sec.
M.2. The RFP further stated that "[i]n making this comparison the
Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance
between technical features and price to the Government." Id. Under
the evaluation criteria section, the solicitation provided that
technical proposals would be scored on the basis of plan of
accomplishment (30 points), business management (35 points) and
business experience (35 points), for a possible total of 100 points,
and provided that price proposals would not be point-scored, but would
be compared and considered with the technical score in determining
which proposal offered the best overall value to the government. RFP sec.
M.3.B. The RFP did not specify the relative importance of price and
technical factors.
Fourteen firms, including Teltara and TMI, submitted proposals by the
amended September 10 closing date. Source Selection/Technical & Cost
Evaluation Memo at 1. The proposals were individually evaluated by a
four-member evaluation team, after which the individual scores were
averaged to obtain a final score under each evaluation criterion and
these final scores were totaled to obtain each offeror's total
technical score. Id. at 2. Based on this evaluation, six proposals,
including Teltara's and TMI's, were included in the competitive range.
Two rounds of discussions were conducted and best and final offers
(BAFO) were received from the six competitive range offerors, as a
result of which prices were revised but the technical evaluation
scores for all offerors remained unchanged. Id. at 2-4. Technical
scores and BAFO prices for Teltara and TMI were as follows:
Technical ScorePrice
Teltara 78.1 $3,716,275.16
TMI 93.1 $4,458,381.00
The contracting officer determined to make award to TMI as offering
the best overall value to the government, concluding that the
16.65-percent price advantage associated with the lowest-priced
Teltara proposal did not offset the 16.11-percent inferiority of
Teltara's technical proposal relative to TMI's higher-scored technical
proposal. Id. at 4-5. Award was made to TMI and this protest
followed. While Teltara was entitled to a statutory stay of
performance, the agency determined to override the stay and permit TMI
to perform on the basis that it was in the best interest of the
government. IRS Determination and Findings, September 2, 1998.
Teltara challenges the reasonableness of the agency's best value
determination, pointing out that the RFP provided "no formula or
process for determining 'best overall value'" and that its proposal,
which was evaluated 16.11 percent lower technically than TMI's
proposal was also 16.65 percent lower in price, thus offering a better
value because a direct comparison of these percentages results in a
.54 percent advantage to Teltara. Protester Comments at 2.
In a negotiated procurement, the government is not required to make
award to the firm offering the lowest price unless the RFP specifies
that price will be the determinative factor. Shirley Constr. Corp.,
B-240357, Nov. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 380 at 6. Since the RFP did not
provide for award on the basis of the lowest priced technically
acceptable proposal, but instead stated that the award would be made
to the offeror whose offer represented the best overall value to the
government, considering price and technical factors, the contracting
officer had the discretion to determine whether the technical
advantage associated with TMI's proposal was worth its higher price.
This discretion exists notwithstanding the fact that price and
technical factors are of equal weight.[1] Id. The propriety of the
price/technical tradeoff decision turns not on the difference in the
technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection
official's judgment concerning the significance of the difference was
reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP evaluation
scheme. Cygnus Corp., B-275181, Jan. 29, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 63 at 11.
In order for our Office to perform a meaningful review of an agency's
selection determination, an agency is required to have adequate
documentation to support its evaluation of proposals and its selection
decision. Biospherics Inc., B-278508.4
et al., Oct. 6, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 96 at 4; Arco Management of
Washington, D.C., Inc. B-248653, Sept. 11, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 173 at 3.
While adjectival ratings and point scores are useful as guides to
decision-making, they generally are not controlling, but rather, must
be supported by documentation of the relative differences between
proposals, their strengths, weaknesses and risks, and the basis and
reasons for the selection decision. Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) sec. 15.608(a)(3), 15.612(d)(2) (June 1997); Century Envtl.
Hygiene, Inc., B-279378, June 5, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 164 at 4; Arco
Management of Washington, D.C., Inc., supra, at 3.
Here, the source selection decision is unreasonable on its face and is
not supported by the record. The contemporaneous documentation of the
agency's technical evaluation process in the IRS report to our Office
consists of copies of the evaluation sheets completed by the
evaluation team members and the contracting officer's Source
Selection/Technical & Cost Evaluation Memorandum. The proposal
evaluation sheets completed by the evaluators contain numerical scores
for each factor and subfactor, total point scores and narrative
responses to questions concerning the proposals. There is also a
sheet titled "Averaged Scores" that was completed for each proposal,
which contains the scores assigned by each evaluator on each factor.
These scores are averaged and the averages totaled to arrive at a
total technical score for each proposal. While the agency report
states that each proposal was scored independently and that the
evaluation forms "were compiled to tally all the scores given for each
offeror," Contracting Officer's Statement at 3, there is no indication
that the evaluators discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the
proposals or otherwise looked beyond the individual point scores in
mechanically establishing a total technical score for each proposal.
The contracting officer's Source Selection/Technical & Cost Evaluation
memo provides only the total technical scores and prices for the
competitive range proposals and percentage comparisons between TMI's
technical score and price and the technical scores and prices of the
other competitive range proposals. The contracting officer's memo
contains no hint as to the basis for the scoring of the proposals; in
fact, there is nothing in the record which indicates that the
contracting officer was ever made aware of the individually noted
strengths and weaknesses in TMI's or Teltara's proposals. Indeed, the
record before us lacks any evidence that the contracting officer did
anything more than make percentage comparisons among the competitive
range proposal scores and prices in order to determine which offeror
should be awarded the contract.
It is improper to rely, as the IRS essentially did here, on a purely
mathematical cost/technical tradeoff methodology, unless the
application of such a methodology is consistent with the RFP source
selection scheme. General Offshore Corp.-Riedel Co., a Joint Venture,
B-271144.2, B-271144.3, July 2, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 42 at 8. In this
case, beyond the mechanical comparison of the percentage differences
in the price and technical scores, the contracting officer's only
qualitative assessment of the technical differences between Teltara's
and TMI's technical proposals consists of her observation that TMI's
was highest and Teltara's lowest among the competitive range
proposals.[2]
Moreover, the agency's mechanical comparative analysis of these scores
is flawed. Specifically, as the protester points out, a simple
comparison of Teltara's 16.11-percent technical inferiority with its
16.65-percent lower price, does not result in an advantage to TMI
where, as here, technical merit and price are equal in weight. While
the contracting officer's determination appears to assume that TMI's
technical point score is of greater significance than Teltara's low
price, the IRS offers no support for this position, nor is it
consistent with the agency's mechanical application of the RFP source
selection scheme. Accordingly, the source selection decision,
apparently based only upon the point score percentage differentials,
is inadequately supported by documentation and the record lacks
evidence to ensure its reasonableness.
Since we find that IRS failed to document the reasonableness of its
evaluation and award decision, we recommend that IRS reassess the
relative technical merits and prices of the BAFOs, consistent with the
RFP evaluation criteria, and make a proper and documented source
selection determination. After doing so, if TMI's proposal is no
longer considered the best overall value, the agency should terminate
TMI's contract for the convenience of the government and award the
contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the
best value. In addition, we recommend that the protester be
reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 4 C.F.R. sec.
21.8(d)(1) (1998). The protester should submit its certified claim,
detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly 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. Where, as here, a solicitation fails to indicate the relative
importance of price and technical factors, they are considered to be
equal in weight. Great Lakes Roofing Co., Inc., B-240731, Nov. 28,
1990, 90-2 CPD para. 439 at 3; Video Ventures, Inc., B-240016, Oct. 19,
1990, 90-2 CPD para. 317 at 3.
2. In the contracting officer's statement prepared after award for
this protest, the only substantive comparison between any of the
proposals consists of the contracting officer's recognition that
"Teltara had the least technical merit of those in the competitive
range," and her statement that: "[t]he difference between the
awardee's technical merit and Teltara's is dramatic and provides for
an assurance of quality performance at a reasonable price."
Contracting Officer's Statement at 3.