Interactive Communication Technology, Inc.

B-271051 May 30, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was properly excluded from the competitive range as not having a reasonable chance of being selected for award in light of other. The agency excluded ICT's proposal from the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award due to numerous weaknesses identified in the proposal. ICT contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and its proposal was improperly excluded from the competitive range. 10 proposals were evaluated as technically acceptable. ICT's proposal was the lowest priced and lowest ranked with a technical score of 62. ICT's proposal was among four technically acceptable proposals excluded. ICT's proposal was excluded from the competitive range because the contracting officer concluded it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award due to numerous weaknesses in the proposal and its unrealistically low price. View Decision Matter of: Interactive Communication Technology, Inc. File: B-271051 Date: May 30, 1996 Incumbent's proposal, which lacked detailed information concerning technical approach and staffing, was properly excluded from the competitive range as not having a reasonable chance of being selected for award in light of other, more highly rated proposals received. Attorneys DECISION Interactive Communication Technology, Inc. (ICT) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DU100C000018418, issued by the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) for audio/video production services. The agency excluded ICT's proposal from the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award due to numerous weaknesses identified in the proposal. ICT contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and its proposal was improperly excluded from the competitive range. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract for a base year with 2 options years. The RFP set forth a best value evaluation scheme with technical factors significantly more important than price in the source selection decision. It advised offerors that technical proposals would be numerically rated under four evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: qualification and experience, technical approach, quality control, and creative and technical quality of sample productions. Thirteen firms submitted initial proposals. An evaluation panel evaluated the technical proposals and prepared a composite score for each proposal. Following the initial technical evaluation, 10 proposals were evaluated as technically acceptable. Of these, ICT's proposal was the lowest priced and lowest ranked with a technical score of 62. The contracting officer established a competitive range consisting of 6 of the 10 technically acceptable proposals, with composite technical scores ranging from 95 to 82. ICT's proposal was among four technically acceptable proposals excluded. ICT's proposal was excluded from the competitive range because the contracting officer concluded it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award due to numerous weaknesses in the proposal and its unrealistically low price. Among the weaknesses identified was ICT's failure to demonstrate either through experience, discussion or submission of sample videos the capability to perform two-way broadcast productions for television and radio or live multi-site video teleconferencing via satellite transmission, as contemplated by the RFP. In addition, the evaluators found ICT's technical approach discussion lacked details (such as its logistical approach to achieving live two-way audio and video communications or the logistics required for audio/video broadcasts from multiple sites) and failed to address the specifics of the solicitation requirements concerning project management, scheduling, equipment and personnel. The evaluators also were concerned with ICT's failure to include a detailed discussion in its quality control plan for providing and assuring an adequate and qualified work force or the availability of all necessary supplies and equipment. As to the video sample submitted by ICT, the evaluators noted that it was an example of only a single production, which precluded them from evaluating the firm's diversity of audiovisual productions. Finally, the agency considered ICT's price unrealistic and questioned whether that price indicated a lack of understanding of the RFP's requirements. ICT, the incumbent contractor, argues that because it is successfully performing under a similar contract for HUD it possesses the "unique advantage" of being familiar with the type of services required by this solicitation.