Alliance Technical Services, Inc.
B-311329,B-311329.2, May 30, 2008
Alliance Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) protests contract awards to Gryphon Technologies, LC and EHS Technologies Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65530-06-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Navy for engineering, technical analysis, and support services for naval ship hull, mechanical and electrical, and combat support systems. ATS complains that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions and failed to document its "best value" determination.
We deny the protest.
B-311329; B-311329.2, Alliance Technical Services, Inc., May 30, 2008
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.
1. Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with protester regarding experience is denied where record shows that there is no merit to allegation and that, even if protester's proposal received highest possible evaluation score in area where discussions allegedly were insufficient, its proposal would remain lower technically rated and higher priced than awardees' proposals; since protester thus would not be in line for award, it was not prejudiced by any insufficient discussions.
2. Protest that agency improperly failed to conduct comparative evaluation of proposals in determining best value is denied where proposals selected for award were highest technically rated and lowest priced.
The RFP, issued on August 10, 2006, contemplated the best value award of one or more contracts based on an evaluation of technical factors (personnel, with subfactors for senior engineering technician, senior corrosion control technician and program manager; corporate experience and past performance; management quality assurance, with subfactors for technical understanding, organizational structure, management ability and quality assurance plan; and facilities, with subfactors for physical access, hardware capabilities and software capabilities) and price (which was to be evaluated for realism). RFP at 63, 64.
Four offerors responded to the RFP. Following the evaluation of initial proposals, discussions, and the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions, Gryphon's proposal was ranked first technically with 95.7 (of 100 available) points--44.6 (of 47) points for personnel, 33.4 (of 35) points for experience/past performance, 11.7 (of 12) points for management quality assurance, and 6 (of 6) points for facilities. EHS's proposal was ranked second technically with 85.8 points--40 for personnel, 30.1 for experience/past performance, 9.9 for management, and 5.8 for facilities.
Under the corporate experience subfactor, offerors were evaluated for demonstrated experience in providing engineering and technical services related to the statement of work. RFP at 59. Among other things, offerors were specifically required to supply three work examples related to surface ship corrosion control post shakedown availabilities, and two examples related to monitoring surface ship shipboard work during an availability period while in a building yard or shipyard. RFP Amend. 4, at 5. The agency found
This argument is without merit. The statements of the individual evaluator to which
BEST VALUE DETERMINATION
This argument is without merit. First, the lack of documents prepared by individual evaluators does not render an agency's evaluation unreasonable per se; rather, we consider the record adequate if the consensus documents and source selection decision sufficiently document the agency's rationale for the evaluation. Joint Mgmt. and Tech. Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 208 at 3-4; Global Eng'g and Constr., LLC, B-290288.3, B-290288.4, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 180 at 3 n.3. Here, the evaluation documentation is sufficient because it includes the evaluators' consensus report, which details the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals that formed the basis for both the agency's evaluation ratings for each offeror and the selection decision itself. With respect to the absence of a detailed comparative evaluation of the proposals, since the proposals selected for award were both higher technically rated and lower priced than
In an April 14 supplemental protest,
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest not based on an apparent solicitation impropriety must be filed within 10 calendar days after the basis of protest is known, or should have been known, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2008). Where a protester files supplemental protest grounds, each new ground must independently satisfy the timeliness requirements of our Regulations. QualMed, Inc., B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 94 at 12-13. Here,
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
The score sheet provided by the agency indicates EHS's total score as 86.7 points, instead of the correct sum of 85.8 points.
Some of the issues