CDA Investment Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration

B-272093.3 Mar 11, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not show that prior decision denying its protest contained any errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision. The technical qualifications factor was more important than the other three. Technical and price were worth 75 and 25 percent. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was deemed to be most advantageous to the government. The TEP concluded that no discussions were necessary with any offeror. Disclosure's was ranked first and CDA's third. Disclosure's and CDA's proposals were ranked first and second. The contents of which are discussed further below. View Decision Matter of: CDA Investment Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-272093.3 Date: March 11, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION CDA Investment Technologies, Inc. requests that we reconsider our decision in CDA Investment Technologies, Inc., B-272093; B-272093.2, Sept. 12, 1996, 97-1 CPD Para., in which we denied CDA's protest of the award of a contract to Disclosure, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SECHQ1-94-R-0013, issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for processing various forms required to be filed with the SEC. We deny the request for reconsideration. To obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.14(a) (1996). As explained in detail below, CDA's request for reconsideration does not meet this standard. BACKGROUND The RFP required the contractor to perform several tasks, including keying in and processing data filed with the SEC on Forms 13F, 3, 4, 5, and 144. [1] Section M of the RFP stated that technical proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following four factors: (1) technical qualifications; (2) experience and references of key individuals; (3) past performance; and (4) facilities. The technical qualifications factor was more important than the other three, and had four subfactors (demonstrated ability including past performance on similar contracts; reliability and maintainability of the computer system; computer flexibility to respond to requests for special projects; and understanding of contract requirements). Of the total number of points available in the evaluation, technical and price were worth 75 and 25 percent, respectively. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was deemed to be most advantageous to the government. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated the six proposals the agency received by the time set on January 12, 1995, for receipt of initial proposals. The TEP concluded that no discussions were necessary with any offeror, but directed the contracting specialist to ask the offerors to clarify their intent with respect to their proposed use of subcontractors. Out of a maximum possible score of 75 weighted points, CDA's technical proposal received 69.3 points, while Disclosure's proposal received 70.3 points. Of the six technical proposals, Disclosure's was ranked first and CDA's third, based on these scores. Both proposals received the maximum number of points in the price area. [2] Based on the combined technical and price scores, Disclosure's and CDA's proposals were ranked first and second, respectively (95.3 points for Disclosure's proposal, 94.3 points for CDA's). The TEP recommended that award be made to Disclosure. Based on the TEP's recommendation, the contracting officer offered the contract to Disclosure on May 1, 1996, expressly incorporating its January 1995 proposal. Disclosure signed the contract on May 1 and returned it to the SEC with a cover letter dated May 2, the contents of which are discussed further below. On May 2, the contracting officer signed the contract on behalf of the government. In its protest, CDA maintained that the evaluation of Disclosure's proposal was unreasonable because it was based on inaccurate information regarding Disclosure's proposed use of subcontractors. CDA also argued that prior to award the SEC improperly permitted Disclosure to modify its proposal, without giving CDA a similar opportunity. [3] Evaluation of Disclosure's Proposal CDA contended that the SEC failed to identify and evaluate the subcontractors Disclosure intends to use to perform the data-entry services and instead improperly evaluated Disclosure's proposal under the assumption that the firm would perform all work in-house. Since Disclosure indicated its intent to use a subcontractor for some data entry, and since the TEP failed to evaluate this aspect of the proposal, CDA believed that the evaluation was unreasonable.