B-242914.4, Mar 4, 1992, 71 Comp.Gen. 302

B-242914.4, Mar 4, 1992, 71 Comp.Gen. 302

PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Offers - Competitive ranges - Exclusion - Discussion In a procurement for the acquisition of lightning data, agency properly excluded protester from competitive range where it reasonably determined that pricing and technical deficiencies in protester's initial alternate proposals, which had been pointed out in discussions, had not been eliminated in protester's revised proposal. PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Offers - Competitive ranges - Exclusion - Administrative discretion Where agency had reasonable basis for concluding that protester had no chance for award, exclusion of protester from further consideration was proper, notwithstanding that as a consequence only one firm remained in competitive range. PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Discussion - Adequacy - Price negotiation Discussions concerning price were meaningful, and thus unobjectionable, where, after evaluation of initial alternate proposals, agency advised protester that its prices exceeded the government estimate and provided it an opportunity to submit revised proposals. There is no merit to protester's allegation that agency also was required to disclose protester's relative price standing, which agencies generally are prohibited from disclosing during discussions.

GeoMet Data Services, Inc.:

GeoMet Data Services, Inc. (GDS) protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-DDNW-1 00012, issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce, for the acquisition of lightning data. GDS contends that the agency had no basis for rejecting its technical proposal, and improperly failed to advise it of perceived pricing deficiencies during discussions.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation called for the provision of lightning data for use by NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) and other federal agencies. The RFP required offerors to propose communications hardware and software to display certain lightning characteristics and to provide a digital stream of data. The solicitation further stated that data acquired by the contractor would be used in government operations at receiving and transmitting sites, and would be used in the production and distribution of NWS and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) graphic products and storm warnings. The RFP also required the contractor to maintain, or permit the government to maintain, an archive of data collected under the contract, for use by several government agencies. At the time of award, the contractor would be required to provide lightning data coverage for 60 percent of the coterminous United States and an area extending up to 250 kilometers beyond U.S. borders; 80 percent coverage of that area by January 1992] and 100 percent coverage by April. Award was to be based on an integrated assessment of technical and cost proposals, with the offeror's technical approach twice as important as its qualifications, and the combination of those two factors more important than cost.

GDS submitted a primary proposal and an alternate proposal. On August 12, the agency advised GDS in a formal deficiency letter that the prices of both proposals were "substantially higher than the government's estimate." The letter also stated that, although GDS' primary proposal was unacceptable as submitted, both it and the alternate proposal were considered susceptible to being made acceptable through discussions. Accordingly, NOAA advised GDS that both proposals were being included in the initial competitive range, subject to the elimination of deficiencies identified in the letter and in oral discussions, which were held on August 16.

Aside from GDS, the competitive range consisted of one other offeror, Atmospheric Research Systems, Inc. (ARSI), which submitted four different proposals. Of the four, NOAA found one unacceptable. The other three, like GDS', were considered to be susceptible to being made acceptable and were retained in the initial competitive range for discussions.

On August 29, following the written and oral discussions, GDS submitted a single revised proposal, which incorporated elements of each of its initial proposals. After evaluating this revised proposal, NOAA advised GDS on October 18 that it had been eliminated from the revised competitive range. NOAA explained in part that GDS' "proposed costs were significantly higher than those of other competing offerors," and that "several of the mandatory requirement deficiencies previously identified in your initial ... proposals ... have not been corrected and still exist in your revised proposal." /1/

TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

GDS asserts that the agency had no basis for finding that either its initial primary proposal or its revised proposal failed to meet the mandatory requirements of the solicitation. GDS argues that the rejection of its revised proposal was particularly objectionable.