Tomco Systems, Inc.

Tomco Systems, Inc. BNUMBER: B-275551; B-275551.2; B-275551.3 DATE: March 13, 1997 TITLE: Tomco 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:Tomco Systems, Inc. File: B-275551; B-275551.2; B-275551.3 Date:March 13, 1997 Paralee White, Esq., Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., and Gordon Brent Connor, Esq., Cohen & White, for the protester. Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Matthew A. Anzaldi, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, an intervenor. Marleen J. Phillips, Esq., Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation announced that the Department of the Navy intended to evaluate proposals and make award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions, and agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal as "marginal" (defined in the solicitation as "less than acceptable") was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, agency's award to technically acceptable offeror at slightly higher price was reasonable. DECISION Tomco Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Troy Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-95-R-3384, issued by the Department of the Navy for information processing support services for the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Washington, D.C. Tomco contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP provided that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors; offerors were advised that their initial proposals should therefore contain the offerors' best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Section M of the RFP provided the following technical evaluation factors for award listed in descending order of importance: technical approach; key personnel; management plan; and corporate experience. Key personnel was to be evaluated on the extent to which personnel resumes submitted by the offeror "clearly as a minimum meet, or exceed" the education and experience required by the labor qualifications listed in sections C and L of the RFP. Section C, among other things, provided that the stated qualification requirements were minimum requirements, and that the senior technical specialist was required to have a minimum of 9 years of "recent experience in the use of advanced information technology to develop and/or integrate complex [automated information systems]." The RFP provided that: "[t]he term 'recent experience' means that the most recent portion of the qualifying experience must have been acquired no less recently than two (2) years prior to the date the individual's resume is submitted to the government for review. For proposal evaluation the two (2) years recent experience is from closing date of solicitation." Section L of the RFP further advised offerors of the agency's intent to make an award on the basis of initial proposals and that personnel resumes must demonstrate that the proposed personnel meet or exceed stated personnel qualifications. Section M of the RFP provided that the agency's evaluators would rate technical proposals under each evaluation factor and "as a whole" using the following adjectival ratings: outstanding; better; acceptable; marginal; and unacceptable. Offerors were advised that a finding of unacceptable in one technical factor could result in the entire technical proposal being found to be unacceptable. The rating of "marginal" was defined in the RFP as: "[l]ess than acceptable. There are some deficiencies in the [t]echnical proposal. However, given the opportunity for discussions, the technical proposal has a reasonable chance of becoming at least acceptable . . . . If award is made on initial offers, there will not be an opportunity for discussions or a chance to become at least acceptable." Past performance also was to be evaluated; the RFP provided that past performance was less important than technical approach and more important than key personnel. The cost proposals were to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism, and the technical proposals were to be significantly more important than cost. The closing date for receipt of proposals was December 8, 1995. Tomco's proposal (at an evaluated price of [deleted]) and Troy's proposal (at an evaluated price of [deleted]) were among the 10 proposals received by the closing date.