Professional Software Engineering, Inc.

B-272820 Oct 30, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest alleging that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester is denied where discussion question reasonably led protester into area of its technical proposal that needed amplification. Protest against award to other than the low-cost offeror is denied where award to higher-rated. Higher-cost offeror was permissible under solicitation and agency reasonably determined overall technical superiority and lower risk of awardee's proposal justified payment of cost premium. The contract is for 1 base year and 4 option years. Contract performance is to be accomplished through the issuance of task orders during the contract term. Offerors were informed by the RFP that the information in their technical proposals would the basis for the technical evaluation. View Decision Matter of: Professional Software Engineering, Inc. File: B-272820 Date: October 30, 1996 * Redacted Decision Protest alleging that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester is denied where discussion question reasonably led protester into area of its technical proposal that needed amplification. Protest against award to other than the low-cost offeror is denied where award to higher-rated, higher-cost offeror was permissible under solicitation and agency reasonably determined overall technical superiority and lower risk of awardee's proposal justified payment of cost premium. Attorneys DECISION Professional Software Engineering, Inc. (Prosoft) protests the award of a contract to Information Management Consultants, Inc. (IMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 101-53-95, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) for software development, systems maintenance, and related support services to assist VBA in modernizing its computerized systems for administering monetary benefits to veterans and their families. Prosoft protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal, the agency's alleged failure to conduct meaningful discussions, and the agency's cost/technical trade-off decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued in September 1995, contemplated the award of two indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, one through full and open competition and one through competitive negotiations with firms in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program; this protest concerns the latter award. The contract is for 1 base year and 4 option years; contract performance is to be accomplished through the issuance of task orders during the contract term. Section L and section M of the RFP advised offerors that they must demonstrate in their technical proposals an understanding of all requirements and a capability to provide the required services. Offerors were informed by the RFP that the information in their technical proposals would the basis for the technical evaluation, were instructed of the importance of proposal clarity and completeness, and informed of the requirement for a detailed description of how each offeror would fulfill each requirement. Section M (incorporating section L) of the RFP set forth the following technical evaluation factors for award, listed in descending order of importance: technical excellence; personnel qualifications; and management strength. Subfactors for each evaluation factor were also set out in the RFP. A management strength subfactor was project management, which encompassed an offeror's proposed quality assurance program; offerors were instructed to provide "proof of adequate quality assurance capability as required during performance of the [c]ontract." [1] The RFP provided that technical factors were more important than cost and that the agency could award a contract to other than the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror if the technical merit of the offeror's proposal justifies the additional cost; the RFP advised offerors that the degree of the importance of cost would increase as proposals became more equal in technical merit. A color code rating system (including, in descending order, blue, green, yellow, and red) was to be used by the technical evaluators for each factor; the evaluators were also to provide accompanying narrative rationale. [2] Each proposal was also to be assessed for its perceived implementation risk (high, medium or low). Under the RFP's "best value" terms, award was to be made to the offeror determined to have submitted the proposal considered most advantageous to the government, all factors considered. Seven proposals were received for the competitive 8(a) award and were evaluated. Four proposals, including those submitted by Prosoft and IMC, were included in the competitive range for discussions. After discussions, revised proposals and best and final offers were received and evaluated.