AT&T Corporation

B-260447.4 Mar 04, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A definitive responsibility criterion is a specific and objective standard. That is established by a contracting agency in a solicitation to measure an offeror's ability to perform a contract. A selection decision by a contracting agency is not automatically voided because of an allegedly inadequate contemporaneous evaluation record. So that we can determine whether the selection decision is supportable. We do not limit our review to the question of whether the agency determination was properly documented at the time it was made. That the agency's "best value" determination was arbitrary and unsupported. BACKGROUND This requirement is to enable DISA to obtain domestic and international C- and Ku-band satellite transponder leases and bandwidth management and control services for a global CSCI network. View Decision Matter of: AT&T Corporation File: B-260447.4 Date: March 4, 1996 * Redacted Decision A definitive responsibility criterion is a specific and objective standard, qualitative or quantitative, that is established by a contracting agency in a solicitation to measure an offeror's ability to perform a contract. Further, in order to be a definitive responsibility criterion, the solicitation provision must reasonably inform offerors that they must demonstrate compliance with the standard as a precondition to receiving award. A selection decision by a contracting agency is not automatically voided because of an allegedly inadequate contemporaneous evaluation record. In reviewing a selection decision, the General Accounting Office looks at the entire record, including statements and arguments made in response to a protest, so that we can determine whether the selection decision is supportable; we do not limit our review to the question of whether the agency determination was properly documented at the time it was made. Where selection officials reasonably regard proposals as being essentially equal technically, cost may become the determinative factor in making an award notwithstanding that the evaluation criteria assigned cost less importance than technical considerations. Attorneys DECISION AT&T Corporation protests the award of a contract to Comsat RSI, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DCA200-94-R-0067, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for the Commercial Satellite Communications Initiative (CSCI) network. The protester principally argues that Comsat failed to meet a definitive responsibility criterion established by the solicitation; that the agency improperly permitted Comsat to gain an unfair competitive advantage due to an organizational conflict of interest; that Comsat violated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders; and that the agency's "best value" determination was arbitrary and unsupported. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This requirement is to enable DISA to obtain domestic and international C- and Ku-band satellite transponder leases and bandwidth management and control services for a global CSCI network, as well as systems engineering and international negotiating services. [1] The RFP was issued on August 19, 1994, and contemplated an indefinite quantity/indefinite delivery (IDIQ) contract with fixed unit prices except for a small labor-hour portion of the requirements. Because of certain technical specifications and the global coverage requirements, each offeror was obligated to propose INTELSAT transponders only available through Comsat World Systems, Inc. [2] for at least a portion of this requirement. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the government. The RFP stated that three general areas would be evaluated: technical, management, and price. The RFP also stated that the technical area was substantially more important than the management area. The RFP provided that if technical/management proposals were deemed to be substantially equal, total price was to be "a major factor in selection of a proposal for award." Conversely, the RFP stated that where there was a significant difference in technical/management proposals, overall price to the government would be considered, but would not be a major factor in making a determination as to which proposal offered the greatest value to the government. The agency, in evaluating the technical area, considered the following three elements: (1) bandwidth management center operations; (2) surge support; and (3) CSCI life-cycle planning. The evaluation of the management area also focused on three elements: (1) contract management; (2) organizational structure; and (3) past experience and performance.