Computer Technology Services, Inc.

B-271435 Jun 20, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower-priced offeror is unobjectionable where (1) although solicitation stated that technical superiority was more important than price. CTSI contends that the agency improperly awarded the contract to an offeror with a technical proposal that was lower rated than CTSI's. 000 points (total number of points available for each factor is shown in parenthesis): (1) technical approach (350 points). Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government considering price and technical factors. The summary report concluded that NATI was "an acceptable contractor. " and was the SSEP's second choice for award of the contract. The SSA pointed out that NATI's lower-rated proposal was $3.5 million lower in total price than the protester's proposal. View Decision Matter of: Computer Technology Services, Inc. File: B-271435 Date: June 20, 1996 Award to technically slightly lower-rated, lower-priced offeror is unobjectionable where (1) although solicitation stated that technical superiority was more important than price, the solicitation did not provide for award solely on the basis of the highest technical point score, and clearly stated that price would be considered a substantial factor in the evaluation; and (2) the source selection evaluation panel (SSEP) considered the relative strengths and weaknesses in the protester's and the awardee's proposal and, despite a specific request from the source selection authority to do so, the SSEP could not identify any strengths in the protester's proposal sufficient to justify paying its higher price. Attorneys DECISION Computer Technology Services, Inc. (CTSI) protests the award of a contract to North American Telecommunications, Inc. (NATI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASW01-95-R-0267, issued by the Department of the Army, Defense Supply Service -- Washington (DSSW), for material handling, moving, and storage services, and warehouse operations support. CTSI contends that the agency improperly awarded the contract to an offeror with a technical proposal that was lower rated than CTSI's. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 30, 1995, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period with up to four 1-year options. [1] Section M of the RFP explained that the government would evaluate proposals by assigning numerical ratings to each proposal in accordance with the following five factors worth a total of 1,000 points (total number of points available for each factor is shown in parenthesis): (1) technical approach (350 points); (2) understanding the project (225 points); (3) personnel experience and qualifications (125 points); (4) innovation (100 points); and (5) corporate past performance record on projects of similar size and scope (200 points). Within each factor, the RFP listed subfactors and the maximum point value for each. The RFP stated that technical superiority would be most important in the evaluation. Although price would not be point-scored, the RFP stated that price would be considered a substantial factor in the evaluation. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government considering price and technical factors. Four offerors submitted proposals by the time set on August 21 for receipt of initial proposals. A source selection evaluation panel (SSEP) rated the initial technical proposals by assigning numerical scores under each evaluation factor and subfactor in accordance with section M of the RFP. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement, reviewed the results of the SSEP's initial evaluation and concluded that the evaluators had provided insufficient information concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals to permit an intelligent selection decision. The SSA requested that the SSEP reconvene, clarify the evaluation results, and provide explanatory details in support of the numerical ratings assigned the proposals. In response to that request, the SSEP reconvened and reevaluated all four proposals, and on September 22, submitted more detailed evaluations to the SSA, with the following point-score results: Offeror Tech. Score CTSI 963 NATI 894 C 544 D 456 For each factor and subfactor rated, the SSEP identified strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the proposals, and provided a narrative explanation in support of the numerical ratings assigned each proposal. The SSEP also identified any areas requiring discussions with the offerors. Subsequently, on September 29, the SSEP submitted a "consolidated technical evaluation report summary" to the SSA.