Compro Computer Services, Inc., B-278651, February 23, 1998

B-278651 Feb 23, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Are performance obligations considered under the contracting officer's general responsibility determination. Compro contends that MFSI's proposal should have been rejected because MFSI does not meet certain alleged definitive responsibility criteria contained in the solicitation. These computers are used in Yuma's testing and data reduction requirements. The successful contractor is required to provide all necessary parts and personnel to perform the maintenance as required under the terms of the statement of work (SOW). Corporate Maintenance Expertise: The KTR shall have reserve expertise available to maintenance personnel. The KTR shall have established lines of communication with this reserve so that consultation is available by telephone. View Decision Matter of: Compro Computer Services, Inc. File: B-278651 Date: February 23, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Compro Computer Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to MFSI under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD01-97-R-0013, issued by the Department of the Army for maintenance and parts support of computer workstations at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground. Compro contends that MFSI's proposal should have been rejected because MFSI does not meet certain alleged definitive responsibility criteria contained in the solicitation. We deny the protest. The solicitation, as amended, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with 4 option years to provide preventive maintenance services, on-call maintenance services, and parts exchange services for 39 Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) workstations. These computers are used in Yuma's testing and data reduction requirements. The successful contractor is required to provide all necessary parts and personnel to perform the maintenance as required under the terms of the statement of work (SOW). Section 12 of the SOW, entitled "Contractor Requirements," contains individual sections which read as follows: C.12.1. This section specifies the minimum requirements which must be met by the KTR [contractor]. The KTR shall give evidence that these requirements shall be met, thus assuring . . . that the KTR has the background, experience, and resources that the Government considers necessary for successful performance of the resulting contract. C.12.2. Corporate Maintenance Expertise: The KTR shall have reserve expertise available to maintenance personnel. This expertise shall extend to cover all aspects of the electronic and eletro-mechanical components and corresponding software which comprise the [SGI] Systems. The KTR shall have established lines of communication with this reserve so that consultation is available by telephone, or if needed, by personnel from this reserve, who are expert in the referenced areas, who may be transported to the [Yuma] site, on a temporary basis, to aid in the diagnosis of malfunction or other maintenance considerations at no additional cost to the Government. C.12.3. Maintenance Personnel: Maintenance personnel supplied under the terms of this contract must be factory trained in maintaining the [SGI] Systems specified . . . . Contractor shall be required to authenticate factory training. The RFP at Attachment 7 detailed the evaluation plan including sample evaluation sheets, the composition of the evaluation team, and the scoring methodology. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of three areas, in descending order of importance: technical/management, past performance, and price. The technical/management area was divided into two factors: technical/management merit, and corporate expertise and understanding work performance merit. Each of these was further divided into four subfactors. The factors were rated on a color coded basis: red, fails to meet requirements of the SOW; yellow, weak, but may meet requirements through clarifications; blue, meets minimum requirements; and green, significantly exceeds requirements. RFP, Attachment 7. Award was to be made to the offeror whose technical/management and price proposals, considered together with past and present performance, represented the best buy to the government. Compro and MFSI were the only offerors to submit proposals by the June 30, 1997, closing date. After receipt of proposals, the agency amended the RFP, substantially reducing the level of effort required under the SOW, and requested revised price proposals.