RGII Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration and Protest, B-

RGII Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration and Protest, B- BNUMBER: B-278352.2; B-278352.3 DATE: April 14, 1998 TITLE: RGII Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration and Protest, B- 278352.2; B-278352.3, April 14, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:RGII Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration and Protest File: B-278352.2; B-278352.3 Date:April 14, 1998 James K. Kearney, Esq., and Theodore W. Atkinson, Esq., Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, for the protester. Edward V. Gregorowicz, Jr., Esq., and Frederick P. Hink, Esq., for For Your Information, Inc., an intervenor. Kimberly A. Kegowicz, Esq., U.S. Coast Guard, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Request for reconsideration of a decision sustaining a protest of an award based on a technically unacceptable best and final offer (BAFO) and recommending award based on the only apparent technically acceptable BAFO is denied where the BAFO in question did not satisfy the stated key personnel qualification requirements, the agency had conducted discussions, on this issue, and the resulting BAFO remained unacceptable. 2. Agency may waive as a minor informality an offeror's failure to comply with a solicitation requirement for the submission of one original set and seven copies of oral presentation slides by the deadline for submission of initial proposals, where an offeror submitted seven copies of the set of slides by the deadline and the set of original slides submitted after the deadline duplicated the content of the copies previously submitted. DECISION RGII Technologies, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, For Your Information, Inc., B-278352, Dec. 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 164, sustaining a protest by For Your Information, Inc. (FYI) of an award to RGII under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-97-R-HRM001, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard for information technology support services. RGII also protests the agency's decision, in response to our recommendation in For Your Information, Inc., supra, at 5, to terminate RGII's contract and to make award to FYI. We deny the request for reconsideration and the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. Sections M.2 and M.3 of the RFP stated that award would be based on the proposal offering the greatest value to the government, as determined by an evaluation of the stated criteria for Phase I (mini-proposal and past performance survey) and the evaluation factors listed for Phase II (oral presentation slides, personnel data forms (PDF), and cost). There were 28 subfactors to be evaluated under the oral presentation factor. Section I.12 and paragraph 4.2.1 of section L.9 of the RFP listed 10 labor categories, all designated as key personnel positions, and required offerors to submit PDFs for a stated percentage of the personnel proposed for each labor category. Pursuant to section L.8 of the RFP, the PDFs were to include the qualifications and history of education and employment for an offeror's proposed personnel. Section C.1.4 of the RFP stated the minimum qualifications for personnel proposed for each labor category. Section M.4 of the RFP stated: The quality and quantity of all proposed personnel must meet the stated minimum qualification in Section C. Section H.9(a) of the RFP stated: The contractor agrees to assign to the contract those persons whose [PDFs] were submitted with the proposal. After the Phase I evaluation was completed, the Coast Guard received Phase II initial proposals from five offerors, including RGII and FYI, by the August 4 due date. All of the offerors proposed personnel in their PDFs who failed to meet the RFP's minimum personnel qualifications. The agency conducted discussions on this issue and on cost, and requested best and final offers (BAFO). All five offerors submitted BAFOs. Although all BAFOs were rated as "green/satisfactory" overall, only FYI's proposed personnel met all of the minimum qualifications; the BAFOs submitted by RGII and the other offerors proposed personnel who did not meet the minimum personnel qualifications. Even though the technical evaluation team initially recommended award to FYI or a third offeror, the source selection official ultimately noted that all proposals were rated green/satisfactory overall, and awarded the contract to RGII, the lowest-priced offeror. FYI protested that award to our Office on a number of bases, including that RGII's proposal was technically unacceptable.