Marquette Medical Systems, Inc., B-277827.5; B-277827.7, April 29, 1999

Marquette Medical Systems, Inc., B-277827.5; B-277827.7, April 29, 1999 TITLE: Marquette Medical Systems, Inc., B-277827.5; B-277827.7, April 29, 1999 BNUMBER: B-277827.5; B-277827.7 DATE: April 29, 1999 ********************************************************************** Marquette Medical Systems, Inc., B-277827.5; B-277827.7, April 29, 1999 Decision Matter of: Marquette Medical Systems, Inc. File: B-277827.5; B-277827.7 Date: April 29, 1999 Mitchell W. Quick, Esq., Michael, Best & Friedrich, for the protester. William M. Weisberg, Esq., and Monica C. Parchment, Esq., Tucker Flyer, for Hewlett-Packard Company, an intervenor. Col. Nicholas P. Retson, and Maj. Jonathan C. Guden, Department of the Army, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation for a fixed-price contract stated that offerors could propose either to provide new items or to upgrade the existing ones and that proposed prices would be calculated by adding the total proposed price for the basic requirement to the prices proposed for all option periods, agency improperly deviated from solicitation's evaluation criteria when it adjusted proposed prices to take into account the agency's expectations of savings associated with the offer of new items and additional costs associated with upgraded ones. 2. Agency's "normalization" of offerors' prices was not reasonable where it double counted the cost difference associated with the use of new rather than upgraded existing items by both deducting the price of new items from the total price of the offeror proposing them and adding the price of replacement items to the price of the offeror proposing to upgrade existing ones. 3. Protest ground alleging that technical evaluation of awardee's proposal was improper is denied where there is ample support in the record for the evaluators' determination that the awardee had extensive prior experience and for the evaluators' high rating of the awardee's proposal on quality of technical approach. DECISION Marquette Medical Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Hewlett-Packard Company by the Department of the Army pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAMD17-94-R-0052, for a Cardiology Medical Information System (CMIS system) to replace the Department of Defense's (DoD) existing computerized medical information system. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals and award decision were unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. Protest at 6-10; Supplemental Protest at 2-4. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND Issued on April 5, 1996, the RFP requested proposals for providing hardware, software, documentation, training, support and maintenance services relating to storage, retrieval and interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECG). RFP sect. B. The CMIS system would be deployed at 15 major medical centers and approximately 200 hospitals and medical clinics throughout the United States. RFP sect. J, apps. E, G; Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The RFP stated that there were 950 ECG carts in the existing system and specifically invited offers based upon either replacing or upgrading the existing ECG cart inventory. RFP sect.sect. C.2.4; J, app. G, at J-15. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price contract for a base period of 1 year with options for 7 additional years. RFP sect. F-2(a). Essentially, the Army was buying all hardware and software required to operate the CMIS system, as well as documentation, training, and support services, during the base period of the contract, and extended maintenance and support services in the option years. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. Marquette has been the incumbent contractor since the present medical information system was put into operation in 1980. Id. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be the best overall value, after consideration of price and other factors. RFP sect. M.2. The technical evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance (factors (3) and (4) were comparatively equal), were (1) quality of technical approach; (2) contract management; (3) understanding of overall contract requirements; (4) past performance and relevant experience; and (5) key personnel qualifications. RFP sect. M.1.b. The RFP defined the best overall response as the response that was evaluated as most superior technically with a realistic estimated cost. RFP sect. L.d, at L-9. The RFP stated that price was considered less important than technical considerations and that the agency would evaluate price by adding the total price for all option periods to the total price for the basic requirement. RFP sect.sect.