Optimum Technology, Inc.

B-266339.2 Apr 16, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) contract award for an integrated network management system, contending that DISA: (1) should have excluded the awardee, since one of its subcontractors had an organizational conflict of interest which gave it an unfair competitive advantage; and (2) failed to follow the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme. GAO held that the: (1) protester was not prejudiced by the awardee's proposed subcontractor, since it was not involved in preparation of the instant procurement; (2) proposed subcontractor's prior relationship with DISA did not create an organizational conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage for the awardee; and (3) protester was not prejudiced by DISA failure to follow the solicitation's evaluation scheme regarding lesser-weighted evaluation factors, since appropriate application of the weighted factors would have benefited the awardee. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Optimum Technology, Inc. File: B-266339.2 Date: April 16, 1996 Prior performance of similar requirements by awardee's subcontractor does not give rise to prohibited organizational conflict of interest or provide an unfair competitive advantage where subcontractor's prior work did not affect the requirements being solicited and any advantage accruing is merely that of an incumbent contractor. Agency's equal weighting of certain evaluation factors under solicitation which stated that lower-listed factors would be afforded less weight does not provide basis to sustain protest where record clearly establishes that protester was not prejudiced as a result. Where solicitation stated that evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance, actual weighing of the factors applied by the agency is unobjectionable where it reflected a reasonable downward progression. Attorneys DECISION Optimum Technology, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Excel Management, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DCA100-95-R-0051, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). Optimum asserts that Excel should have been excluded from the competition because the prior contract performance of one of its proposed subcontractors created an impermissible organizational conflict of interest, and that the award was otherwise improper because the agency failed to follow the RFP's stated evaluation scheme. We deny the protest. On April 5, 1995, the agency issued the RFP at issue (hereafter referred to as "-0051") as a competitive set-aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1994). The solicitation contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to design and install an Integrated Network Management System (INMS) for the DISA Columbus Regional Control Center (RCC). The system is intended to provide the capability to interface with a variety of network element management systems and contains options for the management of classified networks and maintenance. The solicitation stated that award would be made on the basis of cost, technical, and management factors, with technical and management factors more important than cost. [1] On April 24, the agency conducted a site visit to provide potential offerors an opportunity to receive a detailed technical briefing regarding the existing systems. On April 25 and 26, potential offerors were given guided tours through the Columbus facility to see the operational areas and physically review the systems. On or before the June 19 closing date, proposals were submitted by several offerors including Optimum and Excel. All of the offerors proposed various subcontractors that offered some familiarity with the INMS environment at the Columbus facility. Excel's proposal stated that Excel intended to use I-Net, Inc. as a subcontractor; I-Net had previously provided INMS services for several DISA sites including the Columbus facility. Upon evaluation of the proposals, the agency established a competitive range which included the Optimum and Excel proposals and thereafter conducted discussions and requested best and final offers (BAFOs), which were submitted on September 5. Optimum's BAFO received a technical/management rating of 9.38; Excel's BAFO received a technical/management rating of 9.33. [2] Excel's and Optimum's BAFOs were both rated "excellent" and were considered to be technically equal. However, Excel's proposed price was approximately 20 percent lower than Optimum's.