Ashe Facility Services, Inc.B-292218.4 March 31, 2004 [Note: This same information appears under multiple IDs: B-292218.4, B-292218.3 Protest: Ashe Facility Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kira, Inc. for base operating support services support services Psychology Non-health care-related ancillary services–eg, transportation, financial aid, support groups, homemaker services, respite services, and other services at two Navy installations in Florida under request for proposals (RFP (Request For Proposal) A document that invites a vendor to submit a bid for hardware, software and/or services. It may provide a general or very detailed specification of the system. 1. (business) RFP - Request for Proposal. 2. ) No. N69272-03-R-1010, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering The term "facilities engineering" evolved from "plant engineering" in the early 1990s as U.S. workplaces became more complex. Practitioners preferred this term because it more accurately reflected the multidisciplinary demands for specialized conditions in a wider variety of indoor Command (NAVFAC NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC Naval Facility ). Ashe principally alleges that the RFP's price evaluation provision contained a latent ambiguity and that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, as well as the proposal submitted by Kira. Decision: We sustain the protest Decision Summary: 1. Protest is sustained where solicitation contained an ambiguity regarding whether the agency intended to include indefinite-quantity prices in its evaluation of total price or whether the agency intended to evaluate indefinite-quantity prices solely for reasonableness. Because the ambiguity was latent, the issue was timely when raised after award. 2. Protest that agency improperly failed to consider the protester's key personnel under the corporate experience factor is sustained where the record reveals that the agency considered the awardee's key personnel when it evaluated the awardee's corporate experience. 3. Protest that awardee's proposal contained material misrepresentations regarding its status as a qualified Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concern is dismissed; protest ultimately involves issue of whether awardee was a qualified HUBZone concern, a matter within the exclusive statutory authority of the Small Business Administration. |
|
||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion