Command Technology, Inc., B-277538.2, April 28, 1998

B-277538.2 Apr 28, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The RFP evaluation factors were (1) past performance. Past performance was the most important factor. The combined weight of the past performance factor and the technical understanding and approach/oral presentation factor was significantly more important than price. The possible technical proposal ratings were "outstanding. " while the possible past performance ratings were "neutral. Were put in the competitive range. Which were rated as follows: Docucon CTI Active Systems Doc-U-Care Price $77. 471 Past Performance Outstanding Outstanding Better Outstanding Technical Outstanding Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Those proposals that were lower-rated and higher-priced than Docucon's were not considered in the price/technical tradeoff. View Decision Matter of: Command Technology, Inc. File: B-277538.2 Date: April 28, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Command Technology, Inc. (CTI) protests its failure to receive an award under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-96-R-3241, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for scanning and conversion services in support of the Defense Automated Printing Service. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of one or more contracts for the conversion of documents in a paper or microform format to an electronic data base. RFP Sec. M.1. The RFP provided for the award(s) to be made on a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery basis for a base year plus 4 option years. RFP Sec. B, L.17. The RFP advised that the government may elect to pay a price premium to select a technically superior proposal for award. RFP Sec. M.3(e). The RFP evaluation factors were (1) past performance, (2) technical understanding and approach/oral presentation, and (3) price, including options. RFP Sec. M.2(a), M.6, M.7. Past performance was the most important factor, and the combined weight of the past performance factor and the technical understanding and approach/oral presentation factor was significantly more important than price. RFP Sec. M.3(d), M.7(a). The technical understanding and approach/oral presentation factor provided for an evaluation of the offeror's ability to perform the contract and its understanding of the eight work categories encompassed by the RFP. RFP Sec. M.2(a). The past performance factor provided for an evaluation of the quality, depth, and relevance of the offeror's past performance, considering information obtained from the offeror and its past performance references. RFP Sec. L.11(c), M.7(b), (c). The RFP stated adjectival ratings for the evaluation of technical and past performance proposals. The possible technical proposal ratings were "outstanding," "better," "acceptable," "marginal," or "unacceptable," while the possible past performance ratings were "neutral," /1/ "outstanding," "better," "satisfactory," and "marginal." RFP Sec. M.2(b), M.3(c), M.7(d). The RFP stated that a "marginal" past performance rating would not render a proposal ineligible for award, but warned that "an acceptable technical proposal and marginal past performance [proposal] . . . with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher-priced proposal affords the Government a greater overall benefit." /2/ RFP Sec. M.3(e), M.7(d). The agency received 13 proposals in response to the RFP. Nine proposals, including CTI's, were put in the competitive range. One firm withdrew from the competition, and the agency, after conducting two rounds of discussions, received best and final offers from the remaining eight offerors on September 22, 1997. On November 20, the Navy completed a price/technical tradeoff between the four lowest-priced proposals, which were rated as follows: Docucon CTI Active Systems Doc-U-Care Price $77,763,250 $76,922,500 $67,333,175 $58,463,471 Past Performance Outstanding Outstanding Better Outstanding Technical Outstanding Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Those proposals that were lower-rated and higher-priced than Docucon's were not considered in the price/technical tradeoff. Based upon the evaluation results, the agency made awards to Docucon, Doc-U-Care, and ActiveSystems, but not to CTI. The agency concluded that CTI's technical advantage over ActiveSystems was not worth the associated $9,589,325 price premium, while Docucon's technical advantage over CTI was worth the associated $840,750 price premium. Doc-U-Care's lowest-priced proposal, which was rated technically equal to CTI's, was also selected--CTI does not challenge Doc-U-Care's award. In performing the tradeoff between CTI's and ActiveSystems' proposals, the agency determined that the technical superiority of CTI's proposal was not significant enough to overcome ActiveSystems' $9,589,325 price advantage.