TITLE:  Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289513.3, March 26, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-289513.3
DATE:  March 26, 2004
**********************************************************************
Dismas Charities, Inc., B-289513.3, March 26, 2004

   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:   Dismas Charities, Inc.
    
File:            B-289513.3
    
Date:              March 26, 2004
    
Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for
the protester.
Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Esq., and Kevin M. Cox, Esq., for Bannum, Inc., an
intervenor.
Christopher J. Van Horne, Esq., Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Prisons, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest of agency*s evaluation of proposals and source selection is denied
where evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with
solicitation*s evaluation terms.
DECISION
    
Dismas Charities, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Bannum, Inc.
under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0665-SE, issued by the
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for Community
Corrections Center services for federal offenders in Tupelo,
Mississippi.Dismas generally challenges the agency*s determination that
the Dismas and Bannum proposals were substantially technically
equal.Dismas argues that notwithstanding its higher price, it should have
been selected for award based on its proposal*s slightly higher evaluation
point score.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for
a 2‑year base period and 3 option years.  The RFP provided for award
to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to
the agency under four evaluation factors:  past performance, technical,
management, and price.  Past performance was the most important factor
(worth 325 points), and the remaining three factors were equal in
importance (worth 225 points each).  The RFP advised offerors that the
evaluation of past performance would be a subjective assessment that would
be highly influential in determining the relative merits of the proposals,
as past performance was the most important evaluation factor.  The RFP
also provided that if proposals were close in terms of technical merit,
cost could become the determining factor for award.
    
Two proposals were received in response to the RFP, Bannum*s and
Dismas*s.  Numerous strengths and weaknesses were noted for each proposal
under each non-cost factor, including past performance.  Dismas*s proposal
received 292.50 points for past performance (of the available 325 points);
Bannum*s proposal received
263.25 points.  Under the technical factor, Dismas*s proposal received 144
points (of the available 225); Bannum*s proposal received 137.25.  Both
proposals received 141.75 points under the management factor (of the
available 225 points).[2]  Overall, the Dismas proposal received 75
percent of the available 775 points for the technical evaluation; Bannum*s
received 70 percent of them.  Bannum proposed a lower price (at
$2,792,250) and received the 225 points available under the cost factor;
Dismas*s price proposal (at $3,149,585) received a proportionate point
score of 200.25 under the cost factor.  Out of the possible 1,000 overall
evaluation points, Bannum*s proposal received 767.25 points and Dismas*s
received 778.50 points.
    
In determining which of the proposals offered the *best value* to the
agency, the source selection authority (SSA) sought to determine if the
Dismas proposal, which received the most technical evaluation points, had
*perceived benefits which merit the additional cost* associated with the
proposal.  Source Selection Decision at 2.  Noting that the
point/adjectival ratings were only guides to his source selection
decision, the SSA reports that he reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of
both proposals.  As to past performance, 17 prior contracts were reviewed
for each offeror; Bannum*s past performance references rated 7 contracts
as excellent, 6 as good, and 4 as fair, and Dismas*s references rated 11
contracts as excellent, 5 as good, and 1 as fair.  The SSA confirmed that
the differences were reasonably reflected in the past performance point
scores assigned to the proposals.  High past performance ratings were
received by both firms for overall contract compliance, customer
satisfaction and business relations.  The SSA then noted specific
strengths identified by the evaluators relating to each contractor*s past
performance. 
    
Having considered the overall technical evaluation findings, the SSA
determined that the proposals were substantially technically equal. 
Noting his review of the strengths and weaknesses of both proposals, and
finding that the offerors met or exceeded the requirements, the SSA
concluded that either of the firms could satisfactorily perform the
services.  Given his determination that the proposals were substantially
technically equal, the SSA concluded that payment of the cost premium of
$357,335 associated with Dismas*s proposal was not warranted.  Bannum*s
proposal was selected for award as the most advantageous to the agency. 
This protest followed.
    
Dismas challenges the agency*s determination that the proposals were
substantially technically equal, in light of its higher past performance
rating.  In this regard, Dismas argues that, since past performance was
the most important evaluation factor, it should have been determinative
for award.  Dismas, however, does not challenge the numerous strengths
noted for Bannum*s past performance, nor does the firm point to any
particular aspect or noted strength in its own past performance proposal
to support its general contention that its past performance is
substantially superior to Bannum*s.  Rather, the protester only generally
argues that the agency failed to give appropriate weight to the evaluation
of past performance.
    
In reviewing protests of allegedly improper evaluations, our Office will
examine the record to determine whether the agency*s judgment was
reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation scheme, and in
accordance with applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  Merdan
Group, Inc., B-231880.3, Feb. 28, 1989, 89-1 CPD P: 210 at 2.  Source
selection officials are vested with a very broad degree of discretion to
determine the manner and extent to which they will make use of evaluation
results.  PRC, Inc., B-274698.2, B-274698.3, Jan. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD P:
115
at 7.  Point scores are useful as guides but do not mandate automatic
selection of a particular proposal.  Id. at 12.  Whether a given point
spread between two competing proposals indicates a significant superiority
of one proposal over another depends on the facts and circumstances of
each procurement and is primarily a matter within the discretion of the
procuring agency; factors to be considered include effect on performance
and what it would cost for the government to take advantage of any
perceived superiority.  Where proposals reasonably have been considered
substantially technically equal, cost may properly become the determining
factor for award notwithstanding that the evaluation criteria assigned
cost less importance than technical factors.  The Parks Co., B-249473,
Nov. 17, 1992, 92-2 CPD P: 354 at 4.  Even if one proposal receives a
higher technical evaluation score in a procurement where technical factors
are more important than cost, the award to the lower-priced offeror is
proper where the cost premium is not justified given the level of
technical competence available at the lower cost.  PRC, Inc., supra, at
12.
    
Dismas has provided, and we see, no basis to question the reasonableness
of the agency*s selection of Bannum for award.   As Dismas contends, past
performance was the most important evaluation factor, and we think that
the importance of the factor is reasonably reflected in the agency*s
assignment of 325 points to the past performance factor and only 225
points for each of the remaining factors.  Further, despite Dismas*s
30-point advantage under the past performance factor, the record shows
that, overall, the Dismas technical proposal was scored only 5 percent
higher than Bannum*s overall technical proposal (considering past
performance, technical and management scores), as Dismas*s proposal
received 75 percent of the available 775 technical points, and Bannum*s
proposal received 70 percent of those points.  Most important, however, is
that, as stated above, point scores and adjectival ratings are only guides
to assist in the evaluation of proposals and selection for award; they do
not mandate automatic selection of a particular proposal.  The question
ultimately is whether the record supports the agency*s conclusions
regarding the relative merits of the proposals.  SDS Int*l, Inc.,
B-291183.4, B-291183.5, Apr. 28, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 127 at 9.
    
In this regard, the protester does not challenge any of the strengths and
weaknesses cited by the evaluators for each proposal; rather, Dismas only
generally argues that the SSA failed to conduct an analysis of the
relative merits of the proposals, particularly under the past performance
factor, and instead made his source selection based solely upon the point
scores assigned to the proposals.[3]  Our review of the record, however,
does not support the protester*s contention.  Rather, the record shows
that the evaluators and the SSA conducted a detailed review of the
proposals, listing many strengths and weaknesses for each proposal and
noting similarities in approaches and experience.  Both offerors were
credited for their substantial successful experience performing similar
services, and both offerors received many highly favorable reports from
past performance references.  Our review confirms the reasonableness of
the evaluation as the greater number of ratings of excellent received from
Dismas*s past performance references appears to be reasonably reflected in
the point differential between the proposals under the past performance
factor.[4] 
    
The record also shows a comparative list of past performance strengths for
each offeror.  For example, while Dismas was noted for strengths in its
food service program, landscaping, staff morale, volunteer recruitment,
improved living conditions, community relations, and a juvenile offenders
program, Bannum was commended for its exceptional filing system, its
facility sanitation and life safety, staff morale, compliance
documentation, inmate accountability, resident morale, employment
placement, facility improvements, community relations, and professional
staff.  Contrary to the protester*s contention that the SSA failed to
conduct a comparative evaluation of the proposals, the record shows that
the SSA considered the particular underlying merits of the proposals,
reasonably considered them to be substantially technically equally, and
reasonably concluded that in light of Bannum*s lower price, that firm*s
proposal was the most advantageous to the agency.  Specifically, in light
of the level of technical competence reflected in the Bannum proposal, the
SSA reasoned that the cost premium associated with the Dismas proposal was
not warranted.  The protester*s general challenges provide no basis to
question the propriety of the evaluation or the source selection
determination.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] This protest relates to a re-evaluation of proposals conducted as
corrective action in response to an earlier protest filed by Dismas
against the agency*s initial award to Bannum under the RFP.
[2] The number of points received under each factor determined an
adjectival rating assigned to the proposal for each evaluation factor.
[3] Dismas focuses its protest upon the evaluation under the past
performance factor, as it reflects the greatest point score disparity
between the proposals under any factor.  Although Dismas notes that its
proposal also received a score almost 7 points (out of 225 available
points) higher than the Bannum proposal under the technical factor, we see
no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency*s determination of
substantial technical equality under that factor.
[4] The overall importance of that past performance point score
differential, however, necessarily lessens when the scores from the other
evaluation factors are also considered, since the offerors* overall point
scores relate to the total 775 technical evaluation points available.