Computer Systems Development Corporation

B-275356 Feb 11, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher technically rated offeror is denied where solicitation's evaluation scheme gave greater weight to technical merit than to price. Agency reasonably determined that awardee's proposal was technically superior to protester's. Were: (1) past performance. Each factor was to be evaluated with a color rating and risk assessment. Proposed cost was to be evaluated for realism. The RFP provided in this regard that "[w]hile the evaluated probable cost to the government is a substantial area to be taken into account in the overall integrated assessment of offers. The non-cost factors collectively are of greater importance. Acceptable offer if it is determined that the additional capability offered is worth the additional cost in relation to other acceptable offers.". View Decision Matter of: Computer Systems Development Corporation File: B-275356 Date: February 11, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys 19970211 DECISION Computer Systems Development Corporation (CSDC) protests the award of a contract to Cost Management Systems, Inc. (CMS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0006-96-R-0004, issued by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), Department of Defense (DOD), to provide support services for automated information systems (AIS). The protester argues that BMDO improperly evaluated proposals and unreasonably selected CMS for award despite CMS' higher price. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 2-year base period with two 1-year options, on a best value basis. The technical evaluation factors, in descending order of importance, were: (1) past performance, (2) personnel, (3) understanding and approach, (4) corporate experience, and (5) management; each factor was to be evaluated with a color rating and risk assessment. Proposed cost was to be evaluated for realism, completeness and reasonableness; the results of the cost realism analysis would be used to adjust proposals to the most probable cost (MPC) to the government, which in turn would be used to assist in the best value determination. The RFP provided in this regard that "[w]hile the evaluated probable cost to the government is a substantial area to be taken into account in the overall integrated assessment of offers, the non-cost factors collectively are of greater importance," and that "[t]herefore, the government may select other than the lowest cost/priced, acceptable offer if it is determined that the additional capability offered is worth the additional cost in relation to other acceptable offers." Ten proposals were received, five of which, including those from CSDC and CMS, were evaluated at an acceptable level and included in the competitive range. Discussions were held and best and final offers (BAFO) requested. CMS' BAFO was rated blue under three of the five technical factors--past performance, understanding and approach, and corporate experience--and green for the remaining factors and also received a low risk assessment. [1] CSDC's BAFO was rated green under all factors and received a low risk assessment. (Two other proposals received technical ratings higher than CSDC's, but are not relevant here.) CSDC's BAFO cost was low at $5,819,303--but was adjusted upward to a $5,894,937 MPC--while CMS' was second high at $7,013,870. The source selection evaluation team (SSET) determined that the value impact of the quantifiable discriminators of CMS' highest rated proposal was $1,224,426, which was greater than the $1,118,933 cost advantage offered by CSDC's low MPC, and thus would result in a cost savings or benefit to the government of $105,495. [2] The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the SSET's evaluation and determination, concluded that the benefits of CMS' technical proposal indeed outweighed CSDC's proposal's lower cost, and thus selected CMS for award. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CSDC challenges various aspects of the technical evaluation and essentially concludes that its proposal should have been evaluated as technically equal to the awardee's, and that it therefore should have received the award based on its low MPC. Our Office will not question an agency's evaluation of proposals unless it was inconsistent with the RFP or unreasonable. Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp.Gen. 284 (1990), 90-1 CPD Para. 203; Dylantic, Inc., B-261886, Oct. 30, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 197. We find nothing objectionable with the evaluation here. Past Performance CSDC challenges the evaluation of past performance on the basis that the agency improperly failed to consider the dollar value similarity of the offerors' prior contracts to the procurement here.