MiTech, Inc., B-275078, January 23, 1997

B-275078 Jan 23, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where record provides ample support for the agency's conclusion that awardee's technical proposal was substantially superior to that of the protester. The RFP stated "The Government will accept the offer that is considered the best value to the Government. Cost are considered equal in importance. The remaining areas will become more important in the selection decision.". The Government will evaluate each Offeror's experience on the basis of the relevance of that experience to the work to be performed under the prospective contract and on its depth and breadth. "b. The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the Offeror's key personnel on the basis of their formal education. View Decision Matter of: MiTech, Inc. File: B-275078 Date: January 23, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION MiTech, Inc. protests the award of a contract by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to Signal Corporation under request for proposals No. DTFH61-96-R-00046 for information technology services supporting the FHWA's Office of Information and Management Services. MiTech asserts that the agency failed to properly evaluate various portions of its proposal and performed an unreasonable cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 26, 1996, the FHWA issued RFP No. DTFH61-96-R-00046 as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, seeking proposals to provide information technology services supporting the FHWA's Office of Information and Management Services. The RFP required offerors to propose the necessary personnel to perform various services including data communications support, computer applications development and maintenance, and systems integration and contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee for a base period with four 1-year option periods. Regarding the basis for award, the RFP stated "The Government will accept the offer that is considered the best value to the Government. The three evaluation factors, Technical, Past Performance, and Cost are considered equal in importance. As competing Offerors approach being essentially equivalent in any of the three areas, the remaining areas will become more important in the selection decision." Regarding the technical evaluation factor, the RFP established the following subfactors: "a. Experience. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's experience on the basis of the relevance of that experience to the work to be performed under the prospective contract and on its depth and breadth. "b. Qualifications of key personnel. The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the Offeror's key personnel on the basis of their formal education; the relevance and relative depth and breadth of their experience; and, on their reputation for honesty, competence, cooperativeness, and effectiveness. "c. Approach/Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed approach and management capability to perform the prospective contract, to include contract and Task Order management, staffing (depth and breadth), and staying abreast of current applicable technology (hardware and software). "d. Understanding of the Government's requirements and of the nature of the work to be performed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements including transition between contracts, and its relative understanding of the nature of the work to be performed under the prospective contract on the basis of its oral presentation of its responses during the question and answer session." On or before the June 10 closing date, 10 offerors, including MiTech and Signal, submitted initial proposals. The agency evaluated the proposals, determined that five, including MiTech's and Signal's, were in the competitive range and, subsequently, conducted both written and oral discussions with each competitive range offeror. In the written discussion questions sent to MiTech, the agency requested that MiTech: "1. Elaborate on [deleted]. "2. Elaborate on [deleted]. "3. Elaborate on [deleted] "4. Elaborate on [deleted]" Subsequently, best and final offers (BAFOs) were requested and submitted. MiTech's BAFO stated that it was not making any changes to its technical proposal. The agency's evaluation of BAFOs resulted in the following ratings and evaluated prices. Technical Past Score Performance (80 pts poss) Price MiTech Excellent 60.20 $[deleted] Signal Excellent 72.80 32,225,360 On September 26, the source selection official (SSO) determined that Signal's proposal offered the best value to the government on the basis that its technical superiority, reflected in a score that was roughly 20 percent higher than that of Mitech's proposal, outweighed the associated [deleted] percent price premium. MiTech was notified of the source selection on October 4.