TITLE: B-310066, Eggs & Bacon, Inc., November 20, 2007
BNUMBER: B-310066
DATE: November 20, 2007
***********************************************
B-310066, Eggs & Bacon, Inc., November 20, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Eggs & Bacon, Inc.

   File: B-310066

   Date: November 20, 2007

   Kevin Thomas for the protester.

   Lt. Col. David Newsome, Jr., Department of the Army, 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

   Protest challenging source selection of higher-rated, higher-priced
   proposal over lower-rated, lower-priced proposal is denied where the
   agency's determination was based upon a reasonable evaluation consistent
   with the evaluation scheme that gave greater weight to non-price factors.

   DECISION

   Eggs & Bacon, Inc. protests the award of a contract to View One, Inc.
   under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-07-R-0016, issued by the
   Department of the Army, for pre-production, production, and
   event-production services.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued May 14, 2007, sought proposals for a fixed-price contract
   to provide non-military personnel, equipment, tools, materials,
   supervision, and any other non-personal services necessary to perform
   pre-production, production, and event-production services for the U.S.
   Army's "Spirit of America" (SOA) 2007 production at three venues.[2] The
   RFP provided for award on a best-value basis considering five evaluation
   factors: (1) prior institutional experience; (2) personnel
   skill/experience; (3) technical capability; (4) past performance; and (5)
   price. The non-price factors were equally weighted and combined were
   significantly more important than price.

   Eggs & Bacon and View One were the only firms that submitted proposals in
   response to the RFP by the June 13 closing date. Eggs & Bacon submitted
   the lowest priced proposal at $2,232,435, while View One's proposal was
   for $2,537,800.[3] The non-price factors were evaluated as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Offerors|Prior Institutional    |Personnel       |Technical |Past       |
   |        |Experience             |Skill/Experience|Capability|Performance|
   |--------+-----------------------+----------------+----------+-----------|
   |Eggs &  |Good                   |Acceptable      |Marginal  |Excellent  |
   |Bacon   |                       |                |          |           |
   |--------+-----------------------+----------------+----------+-----------|
   |View One|Excellent              |Excellent       |Excellent |Excellent  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report, Tab 10, SSEB Report, at 2.

   Based upon the "evaluation of the proposals and a detailed assessment of
   the advantages and disadvantages associated with each" proposal, the
   source selection authority (SSA) determined View One's proposal was the
   best overall value, recognizing Eggs & Bacon's lower price but finding
   that this low price did not overcome View One's significant technical
   advantage. Agency Report, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision Document. On
   July 10, the Army awarded View One the contract. After the agency denied
   Eggs & Bacon's agency-level protest challenging the award, this protest to
   our Office followed.

   Eggs & Bacon essentially challenges the agency's conclusion that awarding
   the contract at a higher price was the best-value and claims that its
   proposal was in fact superior to View One's.[4]

   In a best-value procurement such as this, award may be made based upon a
   higher-priced proposal where the award decision is consistent with the
   evaluation criteria and the agency reasonably determines that the
   technical superiority of the higher-priced proposal outweighs the price
   difference. American Material Handling, B-297536, Jan. 30, 2006, 2006 CPD
   para. 28 at 4.

   The record demonstrates that the agency did undertake a detailed
   comparison of the View One and Eggs & Bacon proposals, from which it
   reasonably concluded that View One had a significantly better technical
   proposal than Eggs & Bacon that was worth the associated price premium and
   overcame Eggs & Bacon's price advantage. Agency Report, Tab 10, SSEB
   Report; Tab 11, Source Selection Decision Document.

   Specifically, the SSA adopted View One's proposal's excellent ratings
   under all of the evaluation factors. The SSA found that View One possessed
   extensive experience organizing SOA events and other similar productions,
   proposed personnel with extensive experience, had an "immense pool of
   talent that would benefit this production," had a technical proposal that
   contained precise information that addressed all aspects of the
   performance work statement (PWS), and had excellent past performance
   reference evaluations. Agency Report, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision
   Document, at 3-4.

   While Eggs & Bacon also had excellent past performance reference
   evaluations, its proposal was otherwise rated inferior to View One's. Eggs
   & Bacon's prior experience, rated good, involved similar type of
   productions but was based largely on trade shows of short duration. Eggs &
   Bacon proposed experienced personnel, but did not explain exactly how they
   would be organized for this effort and there were indications that the
   proposed personnel had not worked together as a group, and thus its
   proposal was considered only acceptable under this factor. Eggs & Bacon's
   proposal was rated marginal under the technical capability factor because
   there was insufficient detail and clarity as to how and with what
   equipment the PWS requirements would be met, including such requirements
   as local editing facilities and certain specialized requirements, such as
   wide angle resolution, digital imaging and the use of rear projection of
   at least 1,300 square feet. Id. at 2-3.

   Our review of the record, including the proposals, provides us with no
   basis to question the reasonableness of this evaluation, or the decision
   to select View One's higher-rated, higher-price proposal over Eggs &
   Bacon's lower-rated, lower-priced proposal since this result was permitted
   by the evaluation scheme, particularly given price's lesser weight in the
   evaluation scheme. In fact, Eggs & Bacon does not specifically question
   the agency's evaluation of its proposal despite having had access to this
   part of the record.[5]

   Instead, Eggs & Bacon primarily questions the qualifications of the
   evaluators to evaluate the merits of its proposal. However, the selection
   of individuals to serve as proposal evaluators is a matter within the
   discretion of the agency; accordingly, we will not review allegations
   concerning the qualifications of evaluators of the composition of
   evaluation panels absent a showing of possible fraud, conflict of
   interest, or actual bias on the part of evaluation officials, none of
   which have been shown here. Glatz Aeronautical Corp., B-293968.2, Aug. 10,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 160 at 3 n.1.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The protester was not represented by counsel who could be admitted to
   a protective order and therefore the protester did not have access to
   source selection sensitive and proprietary information. Accordingly, our
   discussion in this decision is necessarily general. Our conclusions,
   however, are based on our review of the entire record.

   [2] The SOA is an Army showcase that brings the Army story to the public,
   honors the past and present sacrifices of American soldiers, and enhances
   Army recruiting efforts.

   [3] The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) determined the proposed
   prices were fair and reasonable.

   [4] While Eggs & Bacon argues that its debriefing was inadequate and
   otherwise flawed, we will not consider these issues, inasmuch as the
   adequacy and conduct of a debriefing is a procedural matter that does not
   involve the validity of an award. Healthcare Tech. Solutions Int'l,
   B-299781, July 19, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 132 at 5. Although Eggs & Bacon
   also complains that the agency did not fairly consider its agency-level
   protest, our bid protest jurisdiction is limited to review of whether an
   agency's procurement actions complied with procurement statutes and
   regulations, 31 U.S.C. sections 3551-3552 (2000); the procedural fairness
   of an agency's review of an agency-level protest is not a matter within
   the scope of our bid protest jurisdiction. LLH & Assocs., LLC, B-297804,
   Mar. 6, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 52 at 5 n.8.

   [5] The protester has suggested that the agency could have conducted
   discussions to address questions about its proposal. However, the RFP here
   provided for award without discussions and cautioned offerors that their
   initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and
   technical standpoint. RFP at 8. Moreover, contrary to the protester's
   arguments, communications during a debriefing, whose purpose was to advise
   an offeror of the reasons for its failure to receive the award, do not
   constitute discussions to allow the offeror to improve its proposal.
   Consolidated Eng'g Servs., Inc., B-293864.2, Oct. 25, 2004, 2004 CPD para.
   214 at 5.