Systems Integration & Development, Inc.

B-271050 Jun 07, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Since the agency may evaluate the extent to which offerors have experience directly related to the work required by the solicitation. Higher-priced proposal for award where it was reasonably determined that the proposal's technical advantages justified the payment of a price premium and the stated evaluation methodology provided that technical evaluation factors were more important than price in selecting the proposal most advantageous to the government. Complexity to the requirements of the RFP which were performed by the offeror within the previous 3 years. The RFP stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: Systems Integration & Development, Inc. File: B-271050 Date: June 7, 1996 Agency properly evaluated under the solicitation's generally worded experience criterion the qualifications of an offeror's proposed personnel and the experience of the firm itself with computer aided design systems, the primary functional computer architecture to be supported under the contract, since the agency may evaluate the extent to which offerors have experience directly related to the work required by the solicitation. Agency reasonably selected the incumbent contractor's technically superior, higher-priced proposal for award where it was reasonably determined that the proposal's technical advantages justified the payment of a price premium and the stated evaluation methodology provided that technical evaluation factors were more important than price in selecting the proposal most advantageous to the government. Attorneys DECISION Systems Integration & Development, Inc. (SID) protests the award of a contract to Independent Network Consultants, Inc. (INC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 9607, issued by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for comprehensive computer support services in the Capitol Complex of Buildings, Washington, D.C. SID challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the award to INC, a higher technically rated, higher-priced offeror. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a base period with a 1-year option period. The RFP described the equipment and systems currently in use in the Capitol and various congressional office buildings. The RFP required an offeror to propose four individuals and to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and abilities in several areas, including "[i]n depth knowledge of network operating systems, network protocols and network management schemes"; "[e]xpert skill in developing and implementing methodologies to seamlessly implement highly complex heterogenous network (LAN) [local area network] services"; and "[e]xpert skill in assessing new technologies and their applicability to specific AOC requirements [and] the ability to adapt these technologies to specific applications." The RFP also required an offeror to identify at least three projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of the RFP which were performed by the offeror within the previous 3 years, specifically detailing the types of hardware and software systems serviced. Finally, the RFP required an offeror to describe its management approach. The RFP stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government, price and technical evaluation factors considered. The technical evaluation factors tracked the RFP requirements and were weighted as follows: (1) technical personnel (40 points); (2) corporate experience and past performance (40 points); and (3) management approach (20 points). The RFP provided that higher scores would be assigned to offerors which demonstrated in their proposals more extensive personnel qualifications and experience in performing the RFP requirements. The RFP also provided that the technical evaluation factors were considered more important than price, and that an offeror's proposed price would only become more important as the technical merit of proposals became more equal. Of the 23 firms which submitted initial proposals, the proposals of 10 firms, including SID and INC, the incumbent contractor, were determined to be in the competitive range. Following oral discussions with each competitive range offeror and interviews with proposed personnel, the agency requested best and final offers from each offeror.