Cincom Systems, Inc.

Cincom Systems, Inc. BNUMBER: B-275055; B-275055.2 DATE: January 21, 1997 TITLE: Cincom Systems, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Cincom Systems, Inc. File: B-275055; B-275055.2 Date:January 21, 1997 Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for the protester. Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, for Western Data Systems, an intervenor. Johnny L. Litman III, Esq., and P.E. Zanfagna, Jr., Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly conducted a cost realism analysis under solicitation providing for fixed-price contract is denied where solicitation provided for price realism analysis and cost of implementation analysis as part of the best value determination. Agency reasonably added costs of additional software necessary to utilize offeror's proposal based on agency's evaluation of information in offeror's proposal. 2. In making its award determination, agency reasonably concluded that awardee's proposal, though technically equivalent to protester's proposal, provided more benefits and was less expensive than the protesters under appropriate cost of implementation analysis. DECISION Cincom Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Western Data Systems (WDS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67004-96-R-0006, issued by the U.S. Marine Corps for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software for use in reparables management at Department of Defense (DOD) maintenance depots. Cincom challenges the agency's technical and price realism evaluations and contends that under a proper evaluation it is entitled to the award. We deny the protest. Department of Defense depots, operated by the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, are responsible for repair of the operating forces' tactical equipment and weapons. The COTS software, known as Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP II) software, is to be a component system of the depot maintenance program. The depot maintenance program is comprised of automated information systems supporting depot unique business functions. The software will perform planning, scheduling and tracking functions for repair of depot maintenance reparable items. Under the terms of the RFP, the COTS system offered was to have been developed and tested by the vendor and capable of operating in the depot environment upon acquisition and installation. The RFP contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract including certain time and materials line items for a base year with 5 option years. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of technical and price considerations. Proposals were first evaluated on the basis of certain screening factors which included features which the offered software was required to possess in order to be considered further in the evaluation. Only proposals meeting the screening factors were to be included in the detailed evaluation for technical merit. This detailed evaluation was based on six factors: functional capabilities (38 percent); technical capabilities (18 percent); past performance (18 percent); interface capabilities (15 percent); life cycle support (9 percent); and subcontracting plan goals (2 percent). Offerors whose proposals were in the competitive range were allowed to provide an operational capability demonstration (OCD) which was approximately one-half as important as the detailed evaluation. Proposals were scored numerically with corresponding colors in descending order of merit: "Blue," "Green," "Yellow," and "Red." Price was evaluated on the basis of all line items in both the basic and option periods. Offers also were evaluated for price realism to determine whether the goods and/or services could be furnished at the proposed prices. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government determined by comparing the differences in the value of technical merit features with the associated cost to the government. In making the comparison, the government was more concerned with obtaining superior technical performance than with making an award at the lowest overall cost. To this end, the RFP provided for the conduct of a cost-benefit tradeoff analysis which would take into consideration seven listed factors including government implementation costs, ease of use, and additional functional capabilities. Cincom, WDS, and a third offeror submitted proposals by the May 24, 1996, closing date.