DIGICON Corporation

DIGICON Corporation BNUMBER: B-275060; B-275060.2 DATE: January 21, 1997 TITLE: DIGICON Corporation ********************************************************************** 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:DIGICON Corporation File: B-275060; B-275060.2 Date:January 21, 1997 Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for the protester. Alexander D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Matthew A. Anzaldi, Esq., Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge, for Computech, Inc., the intervenor. Arthur I. Rettinger, Esq., and William P. McGinnies, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency properly considered in its evaluation of proposals and source selection the risk associated with the unreasonably low labor rates contained in the protester's proposal where the solicitation advised offerors that among other things their compensation rates would be evaluated to assess their impact on the recruitment and retention of professional employees. 2. Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal under an evaluation subcriterion relating to past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's judgment unreasonable. DECISION DIGICON Corp. protests the award of a contract to Computech, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-94-032, issued by the Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, for services in support of the agency's Automated Commercial System (ACS). DIGICON contends that the award to Computech was not consistent with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria, and that the evaluation of its and Computech's proposals was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The ACS is the central comprehensive tracking, controlling, and processing system that automates commercial applications and tasks required for import and duty collection, and is used for processing the import transactions of the international trade community, enforcing import and export laws, and generating trade statistics. The Customs Service, through the ACS, oversees the processing of $687 billion worth of products imported into the United States each year. The successful contractor under the RFP will provide support services for the ACS, primarily involving the maintenance of the system and the development of new applications software. The RFP provided for the award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. 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 significantly more important than price. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation criteria and subcriteria: 1. Past Performance a.Personnel/Resumes b.Project Descriptions/Abstracts 2. Technical Approach a.Technical Approach b.Understanding the Requirements 3. Management Approach a.Management Plan b.Staffing and Transition Plan The RFP informed offerors that the past performance criterion was significantly more important than the technical approach and management approach criteria, and that the technical approach evaluation criterion was slightly more important than the management approach evaluation criterion. The RFP included the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 52.222-46 (FAC 90-41), "Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees."[1] Among other things, FAR sec. 52.222-46 advises offerors that the agency will evaluate the offerors' compensation plans for the professional employees covered by the solicitation in order to assess the impact of the plan on recruitment and retention of professional employees. Consistent with this provision, the RFP added that while "[p]rice [would] not be a scored factor," proposals would be evaluated to determine if proposed prices "accurately and adequately portray[ed] the work . . . to be performed, and if they are reasonable and realistic." The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and requested that offerors submit separate technical and business/price proposals.