Matter of:Telestar Corp.

B-275855 Apr 04, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging agency's conclusion that protester's proposal is technically unacceptable is denied where record demonstrates that agency's evaluation of the proposal was reasonable. Agency was not required to conduct discussions with offeror whose proposal reasonably had been determined technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range. Maintenance and software installation and deinstallation. [1] Competition under the solicitation was limited to socially and economically disadvantaged firms in the transitional stage of the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program. Vendor Relationships 5 Offerors were advised that in addition to submitting a written proposal. View Decision Matter of: Telestar Corp. File: B-275855 Date: April 4, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Telestar Corp. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS-IRM-96-177, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the acquisition of microcomputer hardware and software, laser printers, and microcomputer support services. The protester takes issue with the technical evaluation of its proposal and objects to the agency's failure to hold discussions with it. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought a contractor to furnish computer software and hardware and laser printers and to provide computer support services, including hardware moves, upgrades, and maintenance and software installation and deinstallation. [1] Competition under the solicitation was limited to socially and economically disadvantaged firms in the transitional stage of the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the most advantageous technical/cost relationship, with technical merit a more significant factor than cost in the selection process. The solicitation identified the technical evaluation factors (and subfactors) and their corresponding weights as follows: I. Technical Competence 45 A. Key Personnel 20 B. Technical Approach 20 C. Technical Documentation 5 II. Corporate Experience and Contractor Past Performance 45 III. Program Management and Project Reporting 5 IV. Vendor Relationships 5 Offerors were advised that in addition to submitting a written proposal, they would be required to make an oral technical presentation and to participate in an interview conducted by government representatives. The sole purpose of the oral presentation and the interview, the RFP explained, was to permit the agency to test and evaluate the offeror's knowledge and competence with regard to the government's requirements and program objectives, the relevant technology, and program challenges and risks. The solicitation further advised that the oral presentation and interview answers were not part of the offers and could not include changes to the offers; that neither the presentation nor the interview would constitute discussions within the meaning of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secs. 15.601 FAC (90-40) and 15.610 FAC (90-31), nor would they obligate the government to entertain revisions to the offers or to solicit best and final offers; and that the NRC intended to award without discussions. Five offerors submitted timely written proposals. The proposals were reviewed by members of the source evaluation panel (SEP), who noted areas requiring clarification. Each of the offerors was then scheduled for an oral presentation/interview. After each oral presentation, the SEP convened and decided on interview questions to ask the presenters. The questions were intended to clarify written materials, to amplify areas not adequately explained and to probe the qualifications and abilities of the key personnel proposed. Upon completion of each interview, the panel reconvened to score the proposal in question. The five proposals received scores ranging from 95.99 (Sylvest Management Systems Corp.) to 16.99; Telestar's score of 27.65 was second low. [2] The SEP concluded that Telestar's proposal was technically unacceptable due to the deficiencies in the technical and management proposals as well as its corporate experience. The SEP determined that since Sylvest's score so far exceeded any of the others, and since its evaluated costs were lower than those of the only other proposal that could possibly have been made acceptable through negotiations, it was the only firm that stood a reasonable chance of receiving the award; accordingly, the SEP recommended a competitive range of one, i.e., Sylvest. The contracting officer accepted the panel's recommendation and notified the four firms other than Sylvest that their proposals had not been included in the competitive range.