AAC Associates, Inc.

B-274928 Jan 13, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where the protester's contentions are unsupported by the evaluation record. The contractor will be required to support the NLM's LAN and related data communications systems by providing installation. The contractor will also be required to provide direct support to the end users of the LAN and communications systems. That technical merit was more important than price. Offerors were informed that they were to provide resumes for all proposed personnel. That their technical proposals were to address "their ability to provide technically competent staff starting on the effective date of the contract.". The RFP added here that "[i]t is required that two-thirds (2/3) of the offeror's staff. View Decision Matter of: AAC Associates, Inc. File: B-274928 Date: January 13, 1997 * Redacted Decision Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, submitted in response to a solicitation for technical services in support of a local area network and data communications systems, is denied where the protester's contentions are unsupported by the evaluation record, and the record demonstrates that the agency reasonably evaluated proposals. Attorneys DECISION AAC Associates, Inc., protests the award of a contract to The MIL Corp., under request for proposals (RFP) No. NLM 96-107/RMC, issued by the National Library of Medicine (NLM), Department of Health and Human Services, for technical services in support of a local area network (LAN) and data communication systems. AAC, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency improperly evaluated MIL's technical proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a total set-aside for small businesses, provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. The contractor will be required to support the NLM's LAN and related data communications systems by providing installation, configuration, monitoring, troubleshooting, operation, evaluation, test and documentation of communications hardware and software systems services. The contractor will also be required to provide direct support to the end users of the LAN and communications systems, and to analyze, evaluate, and test new hardware and software products, and occasionally develop custom software interfaces. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government, price and other factors considered, and that technical merit was more important than price. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation criteria and their relative weights: A. Qualifications and Availability of Proposed Personnel 50% B. Understanding the Statement of Work and Method of Accomplishing Objectives 20% C. Management Plan 20% D. Past Performance 10% The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals and requested that offerors submit separate technical and business proposals. Offerors were informed that they were to provide resumes for all proposed personnel, and that their technical proposals were to address "their ability to provide technically competent staff starting on the effective date of the contract." The RFP added here that "[i]t is required that two-thirds (2/3) of the offeror's staff, to include key personnel, be available on-site at NLM on the effective date of the contract," and specified that the ability to comply with this requirement would be evaluated under the management plan evaluation criterion. The agency received eight proposals by the RFP's closing date. The technical proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation group (TEG), and four proposals, including AAC's and MIL's, were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held, and best and final offers (BAFO) received and evaluated as follows: Firm BAFO Score Total Proposed Price AAC 92 $10,493,445 MIL 89.5 $ 7,799,065 Offeror #3 84.5 $ 8,446,020 Offeror #4 81.75 $ 7,621,550 The agency determined that MIL's and AAC's proposals were "approximately equal" in technical merit, and that because MIL's price was "significantly lower" than AAC's, MIL's proposal offered the best value to the government. NLM made award to MIL, and this protest followed. AAC protests that the agency's evaluation of MIL's proposal under the qualifications and availability of proposed personnel and the management plan evaluation criteria, as well as under the past performance criterion, was unreasonable. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency because the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 16.