Team BOS/Naples-Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen
B-298865.3: Dec 28, 2007
Additional Materials:
- Full Report:
Contact:
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov
Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov
Team BOS/Naples--Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen (BOS) protests the award of a contract to Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A. (JVP) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for base operations services. The protester argues that the Navy unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical proposals, failed to conduct a reasonable price realism evaluation, and that the agency's selection decision was flawed both because of the above-referenced evaluation errors, and because of certain other errors in the information relied upon by the source selection authority (SSA) in his selection decision.
We deny the protest.
B-298865.3, Team BOS/Naples--Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen, December 28, 2007
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.
Decision
Matter of: Team BOS/Naples--Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen
Philip J. Davis, Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., John W. Burd, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, and Reed L. von Maur, Esq., for the protester.
T. Wayne Gray, Esq., Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Megan M. Mocho, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP for Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A.; SEB.CO S.a.s.; CO.PEL.S.a.s., an intervenor.
Damon Martin, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest challenging evaluation of offerors' technical and price proposals is denied where agency's evaluation was reasonable and supported by the record.
2. Protest challenging the adequacy and reasonableness of the agency's source selection decision is denied where the record supports the source selection authority's explanation that certain errors in the selection decision did not affect underlying rationale.
DECISION
Team BOS/Naples--Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen (BOS) protests the award of a contract to Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A. (JVP) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for base operations services. The protester argues that the Navy unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical proposals, failed to conduct a reasonable price realism evaluation, and that the agency's selection decision was flawed both because of the above-referenced evaluation errors, and because of certain other errors in the information relied upon by the source selection authority (SSA) in his selection decision.
BACKGROUND
The RFP was originally issued on
With regard to the organizational experience criterion, the RFP instructed joint venture offerors to provide a single page that lists the joint venture partners along with the percentage of work each partner is proposed to perform for the [contract] and that briefly describes the specific work that each partner will be performing. RFP sect. M-2. The RFP further advised that if the Joint Venture offeror fails to comply with the requirement in this paragraph, then the Joint Venture offeror cannot be assigned a rating of satisfactory or better for this factor.
As relevant here, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate offerors' price proposals as follows:
FACTOR 5, PRICE:
2. Price proposals will not be given an adjectival rating but may be evaluated for realism, completeness, balance and reasonableness using methods described below:
i) Realism. Prices are compatible with the scope of solicitation, performance requirements, and proposed technical approach. . . .
3. Unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced pricing may cause a proposal to be determined unacceptable, or cause a reduction in price proposal rankings.
RFP sect. M-2.
The agency received proposals from 12 offerors by the
JVP | BOS | |
OVERALL TECHNICAL | EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT |
-- Organizational Experience | Excellent | Excellent |
-- Organizational Past Performance | Excellent | Good |
-- Management Approach | Excellent | Excellent |
-- Staffing Plan and Resources | Excellent | Excellent |
PRICE | [deleted] | 55.6 million |
AR, SSB Report,
The SSB noted that three offerors, including JVP, submitted incomplete price proposals. The SSB recommended, and the SSA agreed, that these offerors should not be considered further for award. With regard to the remaining offerors, the SSB disagreed with the evaluation methodology of the TEB because of several inconsistently-, or wrongly-, applied strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and ratings to the proposals. AR, SSB Report,
(1) proposed staffing plan is very well detailed and shows a more than adequate number of Managers and QCs; (2) proposed number of FTEs is more than adequate and well distributed among the various Annexes; (3) proposed number of FTEs for both the Prime and Subcontractor Management system is also more than adequate; (4) proposed list of equipment includes all required instruments for each different ELIN in a more than adequate number.
AR, TEB Report,
Following the SSB's reevaluations, the board recommended award to BOS because its proposal was the lowest-priced and highest technically rated.
In February 2007, the Navy reevaluated the technical proposals of the three offerors, including JVP, that had been eliminated from award consideration due to their incomplete price proposals. AR, Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM),
On March 23, the agency requested revised proposals from offerors. The agency provided offerors' with their technical evaluation ratings, a summary of their evaluated strengths and weaknesses, and an assessment of their proposed price relative to the government's estimate and the lowest-priced offeror's proposal. The Navy also issued amendment No. 7 to the RFP, which added new requirements to the performance work statement, including, as relevant here, a recycling program.
The Navy received revised proposals from the offerors, including JVP and BOS, which were evaluated by the SSB; the agency did not, as it did in the initial competition, use a TEB or PEB. In its evaluation of BOS's revised proposal under the staffing plan and resources factor, the SSB credited the company with a strong recycling plan and noted updates to BOS's corporate experience and past performance references. AR exh. 9, SSB Report,
In evaluating JVP's revised proposal, the SSB similarly credited JVP with a strength for its recycling plan, but--as in its evaluation of BOS--concluded that the technical ratings did not merit revision.
The SSB concluded that the agency could not make award based on the revised proposals, and should instead conduct additional discussions because at this time no proposal is eligible for award, as submitted, due to the assessment of technical deficiencies, pricing deficiencies, or both.
In its discussions with JVP, the Navy identified four concerns regarding the realism of JVP's prices. These concerns were as follows: (1) JVP's overall price was low, (2) the proposed price escalation was erratic and negative in the first two [option] periods,[2] (3) the revised proposal contained a significant increase in phase-in costs, despite a reduction in the overall price, and (4) there was significant variance between certain of JVP's proposed line item prices and the government estimates. AR exh. 11, JVP Discussions Questions,
With regard to the first concern, the agency advised JVP that its total evaluated price is significantly low. AR exh. 11, JVP Discussions Questions,
The retention of the Naples BOS contract is a key part of our overall corporate strategy to [deleted] to provide an economy of scale that allows management and staffing efficiency for [deleted]. Maintaining this economy of scale allows us to provide the outstanding services we do at a lower price than our competitors. Furthermore, the intense competitive pressures caused by the re-evaluation of proposals following release of general pricing for all offerors has required us to reduce our offer to the fullest extent prudent.
AR, exh. 13, JVP Discussions Responses, at 2.
JVP also responded with charts showing the actual full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing for the various contract requirements,
Second, the agency expressed concern that the escalation of JVP's pricing is erratic and negative in the first two periods. AR exh. 11, JVP Discussions Questions,
The Navy concluded that JVP had addressed the second concern because the pricing structure was intended to maintain a competitive advantage, and the offeror had provided a detailed breakdown of the cost savings related to [deleted]. AR, exh. 14, SSB Report,
Third, the agency noted that [t]here is a significant increase in the Phase In costs and, at the same time, a significant decrease in total price from the original proposal to the revised proposal. AR exh. 11, JVP Discussions Questions,
After evaluating offeror's responses to the discussions questions, the SSB concluded that all of the concerns regarding JVP's and BOS's price realism had been satisfactorily addressed. In its final evaluation, the SSB did not revise the technical evaluations for either BOS or JVP. The agency's final evaluation of BOS's and JVP's proposals was as follows:
JVP | BOS | |
OVERALL TECHNICAL | EXCELLENT | EXCELLENT |
-- Organizational Experience | Good | Excellent |
-- Organizational Past Performance | Good | Good |
-- Management Approach | Excellent | Excellent |
-- Staffing Plan and Resources | Excellent | Excellent |
PRICE | 50.7 million | [deleted] |
AR exh. 15, SSD,
The SSA selected JVP's proposal for award, concluding that JVP's lower-priced, lower-technically rated proposal was the better value as compared to BOS's higher-priced, higher-technically rated proposal.
During the course of this protest, the agency acknowledged that a portion of the selection decision document contained erroneous references to documents relied upon by the SSA in his determination. As discussed above, the reevaluation of offerors' proposals performed by the Navy following the protests at our Office and the COFC was performed by the SSB; thus, the TEB and PEB did not conduct new technical evaluations or price evaluations or produce new reports. In the selection decision, however, the CO stated that the proposals had been evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Board/Source Selection Board/Price Evaluator assigned for this contract, and that he relied upon his review of the reports provided by the TEB and SSB in conducting an independent assessment of the proposal and report information.
The admittedly erroneous [TEB] and [PEB] references in my Source Selection Authority Decision dated August 27, 2007 (the SSAD), resulted when a staffer using Microsoft WORD to cut text from previous sample SSADs that included [TEB] and [PEB] references, pasted such text into the SSAD. I inadvertently failed to delete such [TEB] and [PEB] references from my final version of the SSAD. . . . Despite the unfortunate typo, I did not rely therefore upon any reports other than the SSB [report] to reach my evaluation and award decisions.Id.
Following its selection determination, the Navy notified BOS that the contract had been awarded to JVP. After receiving a debriefing by the Navy, BOS filed this protest.
DISCUSSION
BOS raises three primary arguments: the technical evaluation was flawed because the agency improperly evaluated BOS's proposal to provide a 24-hour staffing presence at the Naval Hospital and treated JVP and BOS unequally regarding this matter; the agency's price realism analysis was unreasonable; and the selection decision was unreasonable because of the alleged flaws in the technical and price evaluations cited by BOS, and because of certain errors regarding citations to the record, which have been acknowledged by the CO. For the reasons discussed below, we find that none of these protest grounds have merit.[4]
A. Technical Evaluation
BOS first argues that the agency's technical evaluation failed to credit the protester for its proposal to provide, as part of its staffing plan, the 24-hour presence of a BOS employee at the
The evaluation of an offeror's proposal is a matter within the agency's discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method for accommodating them. U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3,
BOS states that after it was awarded the contract in September 2006, the Navy informed BOS at the pre-performance meeting that they [placed] substantial value on this round-the-clock presence. Decl. of BOS Project Manager, at 1. Additionally, BOS states that, following our Office's denial of JVP's protest in January 2007, the Navy reinstated the award to BOS and confirmed its position as to the importance of the PMI service during the second pre-performance meeting, and requested confirmation that BOS would continue to provide such service.
To the extent that the protester believes the Navy should have credited BOS with a strength for proposing to provide 24-hour PMI, we disagree. As the protester acknowledges, the RFP did not contain a requirement for 24-hour PMI services, nor did the agency state that it would evaluate offeror's proposals to provide such services. Protester's Comments on the Supplemental AR (SAR) at 7. Thus, the Navy's determination as to whether it would give credit to BOS for proposing to exceed the minimum technical requirements is a matter of the agency's discretion. See U.S. Textiles, supra. The protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment here provides no basis to sustain the protest. See C. Lawrence Constr., supra. Furthermore, even if, as BOS contends, certain unnamed agency officials stated during pre-performance meetings that they valued the 24-hour PMI services, such statements could not bind the evaluators or SSA to favorably evaluate BOS during the subsequent recompetition.
The protester also argues that the Navy treated the offerors unequally because the protester learned that the agency still valued the services and would obtain them from JVP. BOS contends that JVP did not propose similar services, and that, if the agency intends to obtain the same level of these services from JVP, the agency should have determined that JVP's prices were unrealistic because they did not account for such staffing costs. As the Navy and intervenor note, however, JVP proposed services that were similar to those proposed by BOS, e.g., dedicated personnel for preventative maintenance and operations at the Naval Hospital, including [deleted]. AR, JVP Technical Proposal, at 6. To the extent that BOS argues that the agency may ask JVP to provide a level of services that is exactly the same as those proposed by BOS, or that such services will have higher costs to JVP than those JVP already proposed, such allegations are speculative at best and provide no basis to sustain the protest. See, e.g., Ogden Logistics Servs., B-257731, et al.,
Next, the protester contends that the agency evaluated JVP under the organizational experience factor in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation. As discussed above, the RFP stated that offerors were required to submit in their proposals a single page that lists the joint venture partners along with the percentage of work each partner is proposed to perform for the [contract] and that briefly describes the specific work that each partner will be performing. RFP sect. M-2.
The Navy effectively acknowledges that JVP did not submit its organizational information in the manner specified in the RFP. SAR at 15. However, the Navy contends that all of the required information was submitted, and that the agency was able to evaluate JVP's proposal.
In our view, the agency's decision to waive the single-page requirement has not, in any way, prejudiced the protester. Our Office will not sustain a protest without evidence of prejudice to the protester; that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126,
The protester has not alleged that it would have changed its proposal had it known that the agency would relax this requirement. Indeed, given that the requirement pertained solely to the format in which information was submitted, we find no possibility that other offerors such as BOS could have been prejudiced by the agency's decision to accept the required information in a different format.
B. Price Realism Evaluation
The protester contends that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate JVP's proposal for price realism. As discussed above, the agency identified four areas in which it had concerns regarding the realism of JVP's proposed prices. The protester contends that JVP's responses failed to address the Navy's concerns in three of those areas, and that the agency's evaluation after receipt of those responses unreasonably concluded that JVP's proposed prices were realistic. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree.[6]
Agencies are required to perform a cost realism analysis when the solicitation anticipates the award of a cost-reimbursement contract. Under such a contract, an offeror's proposed costs are not considered controlling because, regardless of the costs proposed, the government is bound to pay the contractor its actual and allowable costs. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sections 15.305(a)(1), 15.404-1(d). Consequently, an agency must perform a cost realism analysis to determine the extent to which an offeror's proposed costs represent what the contract should cost, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. FAR sect. 15.404-1(d)(2);
In contrast, where, as here, an RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract, or fixed-price portion of a contract, an agency may provide in the solicitation for the use of a price realism analysis for the limited purpose of measuring an offeror's understanding of the requirements or to assess the risk inherent in an offeror's proposal.
Cost realism analyses may also be used on competitive fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts when new requirements may not be fully understood by competing offerors, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates that contractors' proposed costs have resulted in quality or service shortfalls. Results of the analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. However, proposals shall be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation, and the offered prices shall not be adjusted as a result of the analysis.
FAR sect. 15.404-1(d)(3).
As an initial matter, the protester contends that the agency's price realism evaluation was unreasonable because the agency failed to consider JVP's technical proposal in its evaluation. The protester draws an inference that because the SSB did not perform a new technical evaluation at the same time it evaluated JVP's responses to the agency's price realism discussions questions, the agency must have ignored JVP's technical approach. The record does not support this assumption.
While, as discussed above, the SSB identified errors with the TEB's evaluation methodology during the initial competition, the record shows that the Navy reevaluated both JVP's and BOS's technical proposals to correct these errors. AR, SSB Report,
The fact that the SSB did not reconsider or revise the technical evaluation factor ratings in its final
With regard to the four specific concerns about JVP's price proposal identified by the Navy, BOS argues that JVP failed to adequately address three of them, and that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate JVP's responses. In general, the protester disagrees with the level of scrutiny applied by the agency to JVP's responses. The depth of an agency's price realism, however, is a matter within the sound exercise of the agency's discretion. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13,
As set forth below, BOS contends that its challenges to three of the four Navy concerns about JVP's price proposal fall into two primary categories--JVP's overall low price and its negative price escalation. Our responses in both areas follow.
1. JVP's Overall Low Price
First, the protester notes that the first and third discussions questions regarding JVP's price addressed similar concerns, specifically, why JVP's price was low overall, and why JVP's revised price decreased by approximately [deleted] from its initial proposal. As discussed above, JVP cites three primary reasons for its low price, and why it was reduced: (1) JVP will take advantage of economies of scale; (2) JVP can perform at those prices, as evidenced by its supporting data; and (3) JVP recognized the need to lower its price during the recompetition, and intends for the contract to be part of its overall strategy to [deleted].
The protester contends that the economies of scale cited by JVP are illusory, and that the Navy did not understand or properly evaluate JVP's response. Specifically, BOS argues that JVP's response anticipates efficiencies and cost savings based on economies of scale from contracts that JVP might win in the future, rather than economies of scale that it can currently leverage to achieve lower costs.
Although the protester contends that JVP's response permits only one possible interpretation, i.e., that JVP is hinging its prices on assumptions of winning future contracts, we disagree. JVP's response states that the [deleted]. AR exh. 13, JVP Discussions Responses, at 2. While the protester may parse JVP's response to draw the conclusion that JVP's efficiencies will occur in the future, we think another reasonable interpretation is that JVP currently has an economy of scale which it seeks to maintain through winning the contract. The record indicates that the agency interpreted JVP's response consistent with this view, i.e., that the company currently benefits from an economy of scale: [JVP] explains that the low price is achieved by a robust presence that provides an economy of scale. AR, exh. 14, SSB Report,
Next, the protester argues that the chart of supporting data provided by JVP does not demonstrate that the prices themselves are realistic. Put differently, BOS contends that merely listing the information does not demonstrate that the prices are reasonable, and that the agency failed to adequately scrutinize the data provided by JVP.
We think that the Navy reasonably relied on JVP's information. As the Navy notes, the agency's technical evaluation determined that JVP's proposed staffing approach was adequate for the contract requirements. AR, BCM,
Finally, the protester argues that the primary motive for JVP's reduction of its proposed price was merely to win the contract, and was not based on actual achievable savings. JVP stated in its response to the Navy's discussions questions that the intense competitive pressures caused by the re-evaluation of proposals following release of general pricing for all offerors has required us to reduce our offer to the fullest extent prudent. AR exh. 13, JVP Discussions Responses, at 2. BOS contends that this statement should have caused the agency to subject JVP's proposal to heightened scrutiny regarding JVP's explanations for why its prices were realistic.
To the extent that BOS argues that JVP improperly lowered its proposed price simply to respond to what JVP called intense competitive pressures, this argument is unavailing. As a general matter, it is unobjectionable for an offeror to submit a below-cost proposal for a fixed-price contract, since fixed-price contracts generally are not subject to adjustment during performance and the contractor, not the agency, bears the financial risk. Crown Title Corp., B-298426,
2. JVP's Negative Price Escalation
Next, the protester argues that JVP did not adequately respond to the agency's concern that its proposed pricing escalation was erratic and negative. The Navy asked JVP to address why JVP's proposed price declined following the base period and first two option years of the contract. AR exh. 11, JVP Discussions Questions,
The protester argues that the data regarding JVP's recycling proposal do not address the Navy's negative escalation concerns. Specifically, BOS argues that JVP's statement in response to the discussions questions that it would achieve savings through [deleted] stands in contrast to more qualified language in its technical proposal that JVP [deleted]. See AR, JVP [deleted], at 1 ([deleted]).
We do not think that BOS's challenges regarding the tone JVP used in describing its [deleted] provides a basis for our Office to conclude that the agency's evaluation in this area was unreasonable. As discussed above, the fixed-price nature of this contract places the financial risk on the contractor, rather than the government. The Navy identified a concern regarding the negative escalation, and reasonably concluded that the protester's response addressed this concern.
In sum, although the protester disagrees with the level of scrutiny the Navy applied to JVP's responses to the discussions questions, we conclude the record here shows that the agency reasonably satisfied its obligation under the FAR and the RFP to perform a price realism evaluation.
C. Source Selection Decision
Finally, the protester contends that the selection decision here cannot withstand scrutiny because of certain factual errors in the document that have been acknowledged by the
As discussed above, the CO acknowledges that the selection decision erroneously states that the record considered when selecting JVP for award included evaluations by TEB and PEB evaluators. Decl. of CO,
The CO's clarification is consistent with the record. Although the selection decision refers to recommendations reported by the TEB and Price Evaluator, AR exh. 15, SSD, at 1, the source of the information relied upon in the tradeoff determination clearly comes from the SSB report. First, the technical ratings for JVP reflect the SSB's reevaluation of that offeror's proposal that were conducted in February 2007, following the Navy's decision to take corrective action in response to JVP's COFC protest. See AR, BCM,
Next, the prices cited in the selection decision are clearly those from the offerors' final proposals, submitted during the 2007 recompetition. Both JVP's and BOS's revised prices, and the differences between them, are cited in the selection decision and reflect the 2007 proposals, rather than the initial proposals which were evaluated by the PEB in 2006.[9]
In sum, all of the information cited by or relied upon in the selection decision for the award determination is clearly based on the
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] The agency used an evaluation scheme of Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Poor. Offerors without relevant past performance were assigned a rating of Neutral.
[2] By negative escalation, the agency meant that JVP's proposed prices decreased in the first two option years from the base period price.
[3] Although the Navy identified a fourth price realism concern regarding JVP proposed ELIN pricing, the protester does not specifically challenge JVP's response or the agency's evaluation of that response. Thus, we do not discuss this matter in this decision.
[4] In addition to these protest grounds, BOS filed a supplemental protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the level of JVP's proposed staffing for hospital maintenance. The documents pertaining to this protest allegation, specifically, the February 2007 BCM, were not provided by the Navy in its report on the protest, despite the agency's assurance that all relevant documents had been provided. Instead, the agency produced the documents after BOS and JVP filed their comments on the agency report, in response to the protester's argument that the record regarding the evaluation of JVP's technical proposal was not complete. Because this new protest ground arose too late to be considered in this decision, we will consider the challenge to the evaluation of JVP's proposed staffing in a separate decision.
[5] In its comments on the agency report, the protester argued that the Navy failed to reevaluate JVP's proposal following the SSB's disagreement with the TEB's August 2006 evaluation. As discussed above, the record shows that this argument is factually incorrect because the agency did reevaluate JVP's technical proposal in February 2007. In arguing that it was prejudiced by the agency's failure to reevaluate JVP's technical proposal, BOS also argued that the agency should not have determined that JVP's proposed staffing was more than adequate to perform the solicitation requirements. Although the protester notes that it proposed more FTEs than JVP under certain labor categories, the protester does not explain how these isolated differences rendered unreasonable the Navy's overall evaluation of the offerors' proposals as equal under the staffing plan and resources factor. To the extent that the protester believes these differences warranted a lower evaluation for JVP, this disagreement does not provide a basis to sustain the protest.
[6] The Navy and intervenor argue that BOS's protest of the agency's price realism analysis should be denied because the RFP stated only that offerors' proposed prices may be evaluated for realism. RFP sect. M-2 (emphasis added). This argument is without merit. Although the RFP states that the agency may conduct a price realism analysis, the RFP also advised that [u]nrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced pricing may cause a proposal to be determined unacceptable, or cause a reduction in price proposal rankings.
[7] The protester also notes that, throughout the course of this protest, the Navy's counsel has argued that the evaluation of JVP's technical proposal is not relevant to the price realism evaluation. See, e.g., Email from Agency Counsel,
[8] BOS also argues that the selection decision was flawed based on the underlying technical and price realism evaluation errors that the protester identified in its protest. As discussed above, however, we find no basis to sustain any of the protester's arguments concerning the underlying technical or price realism evaluations.
[9] Additionally, the selection decision states that the proposal submitted by another offeror, [deleted], was considered ineligible for award due to a rating of marginal under the management approach evaluation factor. AR exh. 15, SSD, at 2. This evaluation rating was assigned to [deleted]'s proposal for the first time in the SSB's August 16 evaluation; prior to that evaluation, [deleted]'s proposal had received a rating of good under the management approach factor. AR exh. 14, SSB Report,
Jan 27, 2021
Jan 26, 2021
Jan 25, 2021
-
Crowley Government Services, Inc.; Petro Star, Inc.
We sustain the protests.
B-419347,B-419347.2,B-419347.3 -
Looking for more? Browse all our products here