TITLE: B-400346, View One, Inc., July 30, 2008
BNUMBER: B-400346
DATE: July 30, 2008
***************************************
B-400346, View One, Inc., July 30, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: View One, Inc.

   File: B-400346

   Date: July 30, 2008

   Tenley A. Carp, Esq., David S. Cohen, Esq., and John J. O'Brien, Esq.,
   Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester.
   Joseph C. Cohen, Esq., Wolf, Slatkin & Madison P.C., for Eggs & Bacon,
   Inc., an intervenor.

   Scott N. Flesch, Esq., and Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Department of the
   Army, for the agency.

   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where protest does not challenge agency's conclusion that protester's
   proposal reflected only a "very slight technical superiority" over
   awardee's proposal, and the agency concluded that such technical merit did
   not outweigh protester's cost/price premium, protester's bare allegation
   that the agency "failed to perform a proper price/technical tradeoff,"
   with neither evidence nor explanation to support its theory, fails to
   comply with this Office's requirement that a protest include a detailed
   statement of the legal and factual grounds for asserting that a violation
   of statute or regulation has occurred.

   DECISION

   View One, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract
   to Eggs & Bacon, Inc. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No.
   W91QV1-08-R-0016 to perform event production services in connection with
   the U.S. Army's Spirit of America 2008 production.[1] As discussed below,
   View One has failed to state sufficient legal and factual grounds for this
   Office to further consider this matter.

   We dismiss the protest as factually and legally insufficient.

   View One acknowledges that it received notice of award from the agency,
   along with both a written and oral debriefing, on July 7, 2008. As part of
   the debriefing, View One was provided with all of the adjectival ratings
   for both offerors' proposals, as well as with each offeror's evaluated
   cost/price for the base period and option period. Specifically, the
   agency's debriefing disclosed the following:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Evaluation Factors[2]         |     View One      |    Eggs & Bacon     |
   |------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------|
   |Institutional Experience      |     Excellent     |        Good         |
   |------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------|
   |Personnel Skill/Experience    |     Excellent     |        Good         |
   |------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------|
   |Technical Capability          |     Excellent     |      Excellent      |
   |------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------|
   |Past Performance              |     Excellent     |      Excellent      |
   |------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------|
   |Cost/Price                    |                   |                     |
   |------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------|
   |Base Period                   |    $2,588,556     |     $2,327,312      |
   |------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------|
   |Option Period                 |    $2,652,000     |     $2,501,858      |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Debriefing Document at 2.

   The agency's debriefing further explained that View One's proposal was
   evaluated under the non-cost/price evaluation factors as reflecting only a
   "very slight technical superiority" over the awardee's proposal, and that
   such slight superiority was "not sufficient to justify paying the
   $411,385.50 [approximately 8.5%] premium [associated with View One's
   proposal]." Debriefing Document, at 2.

   View One's protest does not challenge any of the information disclosed
   above. More specifically, View One's protest does not assert that the
   non-cost/price ratings assigned to either of the proposals were improper;
   nor does it challenge the evaluated cost/price associated with either
   proposal, or the agency's consideration of a $411,385 premium associated
   with View One's proposal; nor does it challenge the agency's assessment of
   only a "very slight" difference in the technical merit of the two
   proposals. Rather, View One merely protests that it "submitted a quality
   proposal at a competitive price" and "[u]pon information and belief, the
   Contracting Officer has failed to perform a proper price/technical
   tradeoff in light of the Evaluation Criteria set forth in this RFP."
   Protest at 3, 17.

   The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest
   provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C.
   sections 3551-3556 (2000 & Supp. IV 2004). Our role in resolving bid
   protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open
   competition are met. Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-278698,
   B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 69 at 4. To achieve this end, our
   Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.1(c)(4) and (f)(2008), require
   that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual
   grounds for the protest. This requirement contemplates that protesters
   will provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence sufficient for
   this Office to reasonably conclude that a violation of statute or
   regulation has occurred. See, e.g., Saturn Landscape Plus, Inc.,
   B-297450.3, Apr. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 66 at 9. Bare assertions that an
   award was improper, with neither evidence nor explanation of the
   protester's theory regarding the alleged violation, are insufficient to
   satisfy this Office's requirements. Id.; Siebe Envtl. Controls,
   B-275999.2, Feb. 12, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 70 at 2.

   Here, as discussed above, View One protests that, notwithstanding the
   agency's undisputed conclusion that there was only a "very slight"
   difference in the technical merit of the two proposals, and the undisputed
   conclusion that View One's cost/price was more than 8.5 % higher than the
   awardee's, the agency must have failed to perform a proper cost/technical
   tradeoff. This bare allegation, with no further evidence or even
   explanation of View One's theory, fails to comply with the requirement
   that a protest provide a sufficiently detailed statement of the legal and
   factual grounds for the protest, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.1.(c)(4) and (f);
   accordingly, it is insufficient to warrant further consideration by this
   Office.

   The protest is dismissed.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The Spirit of America 2008 production is described as "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." Protest at 1.

   [2] Each of the four non-cost/price evaluation factors were of equal
   importance and, together, the non-cost/price factors were "significantly
   more important than cost." Protest at 13.