B-161352, JUL 19, 1967

B-161352, JUL 19, 1967

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

LYON ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 1, 1967, PROTESTING THE REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL FOR THE AWARD OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1968 TURKEY BASE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. F61353-67-R-0027, ISSUED NOVEMBER 23, 1966, BY THE BASE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS, TUSLOG, ANKARA, TURKEY.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT FIRMS WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT A FIXED PRICE FOR SERVICES AS LISTED IN THE RFP'S STATEMENT OF WORK. THE WORK WAS TO COMMENCE JULY 1, 1967, WITH PROVISION MADE FOR RENEWALS. PROPOSALS WERE REQUESTED IN TWO PARTS: PART I, THE PRICE PROPOSAL; PART II, THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. PROPOSERS WERE ADVISED THAT IN ADDITION TO PRICE, OTHER FACTORS WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE AWARD EVALUATION, SUCH AS PRIOR EXPERIENCE, PHASE-IN PLANNING, QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT, AND FINANCIAL ABILITY. INSTRUCTIONS WERE PROVIDED AS TO THE INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN EACH AREA.

PROPOSALS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY FEBRUARY 17, 1967, AT WHICH TIME FIVE PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED FOR EVALUATION. THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT THE EVALUATION WAS CONDUCTED BY A SOURCE SELECTION GROUP (SSG) COMPRISED OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL AT HEADQUARTERS, TUSLOG, ASSISTED BY SEVERAL TECHNICAL PANELS COMPOSED OF EXPERTS IN THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SERVICES REQUIRED. THE TECHNICAL PARTS OF THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED BY THE TECHNICAL PANELS FOR RESPONSIVENESS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF EACH OF THE FIVE AREAS SPECIFIED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS. REPORTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER:

"EACH WORKING PANEL WAS REQUIRED TO ANSWER A SERIES OF PRE ESTABLISHED QUESTIONS DERIVED FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP. ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR AN OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRACTORS CAPABILITY IN EACH FUNCTIONAL AREA COVERED BY THE CONTRACT. THE RESULTS OF THIS WORKING PANEL EVALUATION WERE THEN PRESENTED TO THE SOURCE SELECTION GROUP WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERALL PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

"WORKING PANELS CONDUCTED THEIR EVALUATION ON A TECHNICAL BASIS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PRICES. THE PANELS WORKED INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER AND THERE WAS NO CROSS-FEED OF EVALUATIONS BETWEEN THE PANELS."

FINALLY, THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED BY THE SSG IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRITERIA AND A WEIGHTED POINT EVALUATION SYSTEM ADOPTED BY THE SSG PRIOR TO THE EXAMINATION OF ANY PROPOSAL.

THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT THE WORKING PANELS IDENTIFIED CERTAIN DEFICIENCIES IN YOUR PROPOSAL. HOWEVER, DESPITE THESE DEFICIENCIES, THE SSG DECIDED THAT YOUR PROPOSAL HELD SUFFICIENT PROMISE TO WARRANT FURTHER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, YOUR FIRM, ALONG WITH TWO OF THE OTHER PROPOSERS, WAS INVITED TO ANKARA, TURKEY, DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 10 THROUGH MARCH 20, 1967, TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS RELATIVE TO PROPOSALS. (TWO PROPOSALS HAD BEEN REJECTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AS TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE.)

REGARDING THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS THAT FACT- FINDING SESSIONS WERE HELD WITH THE PROPOSER'S REPRESENTATIVES; THAT THESE SESSIONS WERE DEFINED TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR PROPOSED METHOD OF SATISFYING THEM; AND THAT THE FACT-FINDING FORMAT WAS DESIGNED SO THAT THE AIR FORCE TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS (IN THIS INSTANCE WORKING PANEL CHAIRMEN) THROUGH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, COULD DISCUSS THE RFP AND THE PROPOSER'S RESPONSE IN DETAIL. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FURTHER REPORTS THAT DURING THIS FACT-FINDING, A SERIES OF QUESTIONS PERTINENT TO AREAS WHEREIN THE PROPOSAL WAS JUDGED INADEQUATE WERE ADDRESSED TO AND DISCUSSED WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT EACH AREA QUESTIONED BY A WORKING PANEL WAS COVERED.

FOLLOWING THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE THREE PROPOSERS WERE INVITED TO SUBMIT REVISED PROPOSALS BY APRIL 3, 1967, AND ALL THREE FIRMS DID SUBMIT REVISED PROPOSALS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY LETTER OF APRIL 10, 1967, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOUR FIRM THAT ITS REVISED PROPOSAL HAD FAILED TO RESPONSE ADEQUATELY TO CERTAIN SIGNIFICANT REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP AND WAS THEREFORE FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE AWARD.

UPON RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, MR. CHARLES MODISETTE OF YOUR ORGANIZATION WROTE TO HEADQUARTERS, TUSLOG, ON APRIL 12, 1967, REQUESTING A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE ALLEGED FAILURES FOUND. ON APRIL 14, 1967, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPLIED AS FOLLOWS:

"DURING A DISCUSSION WITH MR. MODISETTE ON 12 APRIL 1967, I POINTED OUT TO HIM THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) POLICY REGARDING THIS MATTER, AND STATED THAT THIS OFFICE WOULD RESPOND TO HIS LETTER AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE TIME."

HOWEVER, NO FURTHER EXPLANATION REGARDING THE REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL WAS RECEIVED BY YOUR FIRM.

IT IS YOUR OPINION THAT YOUR REVISED PROPOSAL WAS RESPONSIVE TO ALL THE SIGNIFICANT REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP. ALSO, YOU CONTEND THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE VIOLATED THE INTENT OF ASPR 3-508, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE OFFEROR SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH A GENERAL INDICATION AS TO THE REASONS FOR HIS BEING ELIMINATED FROM AWARD CONSIDERATION.

REGARDING THE REJECTION OF YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT THE REVISED PROPOSAL WAS DECLARED NON RESPONSIVE WITH RESPECT TO APPENDICES A, K AND M. THE SPECIFIC AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE ARE SET FORTH AS FOLLOWS:

"A. APPENDIX A (OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF BASE FACILITIES). THE PROPOSER INDICATED INADEQUATE RECOGNITION OF THE POWER PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FUNCTION THROUGHOUT TUSLOG BY PROVIDING ONLY TOKEN MANNING AT DETACHMENT 118, NO MANNING AT DETACHMENT 29 AND SIGNIFICANT OVER-MANNING AT DETACHMENTS 193 AND 95. THE PROPOSER DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR WATER AND WASTE OPERATING CAPABILITY AT DETACHMENTS 10, 29, 30, 118 AND 171. INDICATED MANNING AT THESE DETACHMENTS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE THE FUNCTION. IN REFUSE COLLECTION AT DETACHMENTS 10, 30, 118, 171, 95 AND 3-2, THE SAME PROBLEM EXISTED. THE PROPOSER'S OVERALL ROADS AND GROUNDS MANNING WAS SO LOW AS TO INDICATE AN INABILITY TO PERFORM THE FUNCTION.

"B. APPENDIX K (OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF POST FACILITIES). THE REVISED PROPOSAL WAS CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE DUE TO LACK OF CONSIDERATION IN THE AREAS OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TEAMS, REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL, WATER SUPPLY OPERATION AND SEWAGE PLANT OPERATION. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSAL WAS SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT IN PROPOSED MANNING FOR THE FOLLOWING: SHEET METAL SHOP - GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE 7, PROPOSED 3; CARPENTER SHOP - GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE 14, PROPOSED 6; ROADS AND PAVEMENT SECTION - GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE 18, PROPOSED 13; POWER PLANT OPERATORS - GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE 24, PROPOSED 9; REFRIGERATION/AIR CONDITIONING - GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE 10, PROPOSED 4.

"C. APPENDIX M (MOTOR POOL OPERATION AND MOTOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, ARMY). DRIVER MANNING AT BOTH DETACHMENTS WAS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPENDIX. AT DETACHMENT 4, LYON PROPOSED A DRIVER FORCE OF APPROXIMATELY 30 PERCENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE (14 PROPOSED VERSUS 47 ESTIMATED). AT DETACHMENT 27, A DRIVER FORCE OF 58 WAS PROPOSED AS COMPARED TO THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF 70. THE TECHNICAL PANEL CONSIDERED THE SKILL LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THE SERVICE STATION MANAGER INAPPROPRIATELY LOW AND INDICATIVE OF LACK OF APPRECIATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FUNCTION."

BASED ON THESE FINDINGS, THE AIR FORCE DETERMINED THAT YOUR FIRM LACKED A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OR WAS UNABLE TO SATISFY THOSE REQUIREMENTS. WE NOTE THAT OF THE THREE FIRMS SUBMITTING REVISED PROPOSALS THE FIRM WHICH ULTIMATELY RECEIVED THE AWARD, THE TUMPANE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, SUBMITTED A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER PRICE THAN YOUR FIRM SUBMITTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCLUDE THAT YOUR FIRM WAS PROPERLY ELIMINATED FROM THE AWARD SELECTION.

FURTHERMORE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF ASPR 3-508. UNDER ASPR 3 508.1(II), OVERSEAS NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PRE-AWARD NOTICE OF UNACCEPTABLE OFFERS. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT AT THE MEETING WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN ANKARA ON APRIL 12, 1967, HE DID OFFER A GENERAL INDICATION OF THE REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL, AND THAT HIS FAILURE TO RESPOND TO YOUR REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE MATTER WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS PLACED ON TEMPORARY DUTY FOR TWO WEEKS AND IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE FOR HIM TO RESPOND DURING THAT TIME.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.