Rockville Mailing Service, Inc.

Rockville Mailing Service, Inc. BNUMBER: B-275073; B-275073.2 DATE: January 23, 1997 TITLE: Rockville Mailing Service, 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:Rockville Mailing Service, Inc. File: B-275073; B-275073.2 Date: January 23, 1997 Jeffrey A. Lovitky, Esq., for the protester. Louis J. Kozlakowski, Jr., Esq., Blum, Yumkas, Mailman, Gutman & Denick, P.A., an intervenor. Lyman Goon, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging acceptability of awardee's proposal on the basis that awardee cannot fulfill solicitation requirement to obtain discounts for 5-digit zip code presorted mail is denied where the solicitation does not require 5-digit sorting of mail. DECISION Rockville Mailing Service, Inc. (RMS) protests the award of a contract to Jetsort Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-95-2255, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA), for mail sorting services. RMS challenges the technical acceptability of Jetsort's proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for all services necessary to prepare first-class metered mail to qualify for rate discounts under the United States Postal Service (USPS) barcoded and presorted first-class discount programs. First-class mail that is presorted may qualify for discount rates when specified minimum volumes are met. In this regard, the RFP contemplates that the contractor will commingle the SSA's mail with its own sorted first-class mail to qualify for better volume rate discounts. Under the contract, the contractor will pick up SSA's first-class mail from the agency's Woodlawn, Maryland facility on a daily basis, sort the SSA's mail, add it to the contractor's other sorted first-class mail, and then deposit it at the post office for delivery. In order to permit SSA to evaluate the estimated volume of first-class mail that each offeror could commingle with SSA's first-class mail during sorting to qualify for rate discounts, the RFP required offerors to include the average daily volume of their current National Distribution Mail (NDM) in their technical proposals. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best value basis, with technical factors more important than price. The solicitation contained the following technical evaluation factors and points (with a possible total of 100 points): (1) understanding of the requirements of the statement of work (SOW) (10 points); (2) offeror's technical approach (20 points); (3) experience of offeror's proposed technical staff (15 points); (4) experience of offeror's proposed management staff (15 points); (5) offeror's experience in barcoding and presort operations to include volumes of mail handled, amount of experience and qualification rates achieved in the barcoding/presorting of national distribution mail (25 points); and (6) facilities and equipment (15 points). The agency received five proposals in response to the initial solicitation and four best and final offers (BAFO), including those submitted by RMS and Jetsort. The source selection official (SSO) determined that the technical proposals of Jetsort, RMS and another offeror were technically equivalent and recommended award to RMS based on its low price. Award was made to RMS on September 29, 1995. During an on-site inspection of RMS' facilities after award, the agency noted that RMS' volume of first-class mail appeared to be below the level represented in its proposal. The agency concluded that RMS might have misinterpreted the requirement, that the RFP might have been ambiguous, and that reopening discussions and reevaluating proposals was necessary. RMS protested SSA's decision to reopen negotiations; we denied the protest. Rockville Mailing Serv., Inc., B-270161.2, Apr. 10, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 184. Thereafter, on April 24, 1996, amendment No. 6 was issued advising the four original offerors who submitted BAFOs that negotiations were reopened. All four offerors submitted revised proposals by the May 28 closing date. The revised proposals were scored as follows: OFFEROR TECHNICAL SCORE PRICE Jetsort, Inc.