For Your Information, Inc., B-278352, December 15, 1997

B-278352 Dec 15, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Coast Guard contract award for information technology support services, contending that the awardee did not satisfy the personnel qualification requirements. GAO held that the awardee's proposal was technically unacceptable. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Coast Guard terminate the contract, make award to the protester, and reimburse the protester for its protest costs. View Decision Matter of: For Your Information, Inc. File: B-278352 Date: December 15, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION For Your Information, Inc. (FYI) protests the award of a contract to RGII Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-97-R- HRM001, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard for information technology support services. FYI contends that RGII's proposal did not satisfy the RFP's personnel qualification requirements and was unacceptable. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with fixed-price, hourly labor rates on a best value basis. Offerors were informed that the procurement would be conducted as a two-phased competition, restricted to small business concerns certified under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program. Phase I was stated to be less important than phase II. Under phase I, the agency would evaluate "mini-proposals" and past performance, and advise offerors of their chances of receiving award. Under phase II, proposals would be evaluated under the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: oral presentation/slides, [1] personnel data forms (PDF), and cost/price. The phase II technical evaluation factors together were stated to be significantly more important than cost/price. The RFP identified 10 labor categories, all designated as key personnel positions. Minimum personnel qualification requirements for personnel proposed in each labor category were listed in the statement of work. Section M of the RFP informed offerors that "[t]he quality and quantity of all proposed personnel must meet the stated minimum qualification in Section C." Offerors were required to submit PDFs for 50 percent of the personnel proposed for each labor category. For each PDF, offerors were to include the individual's qualifications, education, and employment history to demonstrate compliance with the qualification requirements. Phase I proposals were received from 51 firms; only those firms whose proposals were evaluated to be blue/superior in phase I were asked to continue, although all firms were permitted to do so. [2] RGII and FYI, the incumbent contractor, were not asked to continue because their proposals were evaluated to be green/satisfactory. Phase II proposals were received from 5 firms, including RGII and FYI. RGII's and FYI's proposals (and all but one of the remaining proposals) were evaluated by the technical evaluation team (TET) to be green/satisfactory overall. The other proposal was rated yellow/marginal overall. The TET assessed all phase II proposals as red/unsatisfactory under the PDF factor. Discussions were conducted with all offerors on cost/price and PDFs, and best and final offers (BAFO) requested. All offerors submitted BAFOs, all of which the TET found to be green/satisfactory overall. Only FYI's BAFO, however, was found to satisfy the stated personnel qualification requirements. RGII's BAFO was assessed to be yellow/marginal under the PDF factor because personnel identified under 5 of the 10 labor categories did not satisfy the qualification requirements. All of the BAFOs were determined to have reasonable and realistic prices. RGII's BAFO was the lowest priced, and FYI's BAFO was the third lowest priced. The TET recommended award either to the offeror proposing the highest price or to FYI. [3] The source selection official (SSO), noting that all proposals were rated green overall, requested that the TET justify its recommendation for making award on a basis other than lowest price. The TET informed the SSO of its concern with RGII's low-priced proposal and that it doubted RGII's ability to obtain qualified personnel, particularly because RGII failed to propose qualified personnel even after discussions. The SSO then requested that the TET and contracting officer verify RGII's past performance. The contracting officer informed the SSO that RGII's past performance was superior. The SSO determined that RGII's offer was the best value to the government, finding: The risk associated with PDFs is minimized since the Coast Guard must approve all PDFs prior to employees coming on board.