Skip to main content

Matter of: Global Industrial Services, Inc. File: B-260287.2 Date: July 18, 1995

B-260287.2 Jul 18, 1995
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

Was in the middle of the range for the five proposals received. The deficiencies were largely informational in nature such that they could be addressed through discussions. Proposed cost was similar to the other firms'. Award was to be made to the offeror which submitted the best overall proposal. The quality factor was significantly more important than cost. Which were evaluated on a 100-point scale. Also were assigned adjectival ratings (outstanding. The other proposal scores were 81.4. All five proposals were included in the competitive range. Multiple rounds of written and oral discussions were conducted and best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and received. Global argues that its proposal should not have been included in the competitive range in light of its initial low evaluation.

View Decision

Matter of: Global Industrial Services, Inc. File: B-260287.2 Date: July 18, 1995

Agency reasonably included protester's proposal in competitive range where initial evaluation score, while poor, was in the middle of the range for the five proposals received, the deficiencies were largely informational in nature such that they could be addressed through discussions, and proposed cost was similar to the other firms'; agency reasonably concluded that protester had reasonable chance of receiving award.

Attorneys

DECISION

Global Industrial Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's actions under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF06-94-R-0001, for operation and maintenance services at Evans Army Community Hospital and other medical buildings. The protester questions the inclusion of its proposal in the competitive range.

We deny the protest.

The RFP solicited proposals for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year and 4 option years. Award was to be made to the offeror which submitted the best overall proposal, when evaluated on the basis of two factors: quality and cost. The quality factor was significantly more important than cost. Five offerors submitted proposals, which were evaluated on a 100-point scale, and also were assigned adjectival ratings (outstanding, excellent, satisfactory, poor, and substandard). Global's proposal received an initial evaluation rating of 69.2; the other proposal scores were 81.4, 79.9, 66.4, and 63.7. All five proposals were included in the competitive range. Multiple rounds of written and oral discussions were conducted and best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and received. After determining that J&J Maintenance, Inc.'s BAFO represented the best value to the government, the Army made award to that firm.

Global argues that its proposal should not have been included in the competitive range in light of its initial low evaluation, which included poor and substandard ratings under the technical and past performance and experience subfactors of the quality factor, and the fact that its price was the highest. Global maintains it had no reasonable chance for award without major revisions to its proposal, and asserts that the agency's failure to timely exclude its proposal from the competitive range caused it to unnecessarily expend considerable time and money. Global asks that it be reimbursed for all costs incurred for preparing and submitting a BAFO.

The competitive range consists of all proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for award, that is, those proposals which are reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable through discussions. Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 15.609(a); Mainstream Eng'g Corp., B-251444, Apr. 8, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 307. If doubt exists as to whether a proposal is in the competitive range, the proposal should be included. As a general rule, an agency should endeavor to broaden the competitive range since this will maximize the competition and provide fairness to the various offerors. Avondale Technical Servs., Inc., B-243330, July 18, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 72.

The agency reasonably included Global's proposal in the competitive range. Although the Army found that Global's initial proposal contained several weaknesses--i.e., its proposed manpower was excessive, the resumes of its key personnel lacked specific details, it failed to submit quality control methods and details for all functional areas of the performance work statement, and its corporate experience was found wanting--these are largely deficiencies which generally can be corrected through the discussions process: manpower can be reduced, resume details can be provided, and quality control can be more thoroughly addressed. Although Global's corporate experience could not be improved through the discussions process, that factor was only a minor element of the evaluation. Further, while Global's proposal received only 69.2 points, this score was only 12 points lower than the eventual awardee's; meanwhile, its evaluated cost of $11,230,884 was similar to that of the other offerors (costs ranged from $10,142,172 to $11,458,559, and the government estimate was $10,537,989). Thus, a relatively modest improvement in the proposal clearly could have moved Global into close contention for the award. This potential provided a reasonable basis for the agency to include Global's proposal in the competitive range; the fact that Global ultimately was unable to address the agency's concerns or reduce its cost adequately does not establish that the agency's determination to include the proposal was unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs