Dynamic Marketing Services, Inc., B-279697, July 13, 1998

B-279697 Jul 13, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range where the proposal contained numerous weaknesses and deficiencies under each of the five technical evaluation factors and would have required major revisions in order to become technically acceptable. Dynamic asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable and contends that the proposal should have been included in the competitive range. Which are distributed to the public upon request. The agency explained that this procurement was significantly different from prior product distribution contracts. Stating: This contract is significant because the U.S. Department of Education (ED) will be for the first time centralizing their dissemination function for all of its principal offices. View Decision Matter of: Dynamic Marketing Services, Inc. File: B-279697 Date: July 13, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dynamic Marketing Services, Inc. (DMSI) protests the Department of Education's exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range and the subsequent award of a contract to Aspen Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 98-001. The solicitation sought proposals to operate a "state of the art one-stop center" for distribution of the agency's various publications. Dynamic asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable and contends that the proposal should have been included in the competitive range. We deny the protest. The Department of Education yearly creates hundreds of information products, including reports, fliers, videos, brochures and posters, which are distributed to the public upon request. For several years, DMSI has performed as a subcontractor under another Department of Education contract for some of these product distribution services. On April 17, 1997, the agency issued the solicitation at issue, seeking fixed-price proposals to operate a "state of the art" distribution center. In a cover letter accompanying the solicitation, the agency explained that this procurement was significantly different from prior product distribution contracts, stating: This contract is significant because the U.S. Department of Education (ED) will be for the first time centralizing their dissemination function for all of its principal offices. Key features of the One Pubs center will be an 800 line from which customers can request any ED publication, a state of the [art] inventory system, data base searches, publication storage, effective mail handling, referral capabilities, and maintenance of mailing lists. Previously the Government acquired much of its support services on a cost reimbursable basis using for the most part cost plus fixed fee contracts. In many cases this was simply a level of effort contract in which the contractor was paid for hours incurred . . . . . . . . . The One Pubs contract contains a performance based statement of work, a sophisticated surveillance plan, and incentive and deduct provisions written into the performance requirement summary. The Department with this performance based methodology is anticipating the contractor will come forth with creative ideas to improve ED's information product distribution efficiency. We expect that One Pubs will be a state of the art, one stop information products center. Among other things, the RFP's statement of work (SOW) contained requirements that the contractor use computer technology for a variety of functions in operating the new, centralized distribution center. In addition to stating that "[t]he purpose of this contract is to support principal offices throughout the [agency] by providing a state of the art one-stop center," the SOW required that, "[t]he [c]ontractor shall accept and process on-line requests . . . (phone, TDD, fax, letters, Internet, e-mail, electronic orders, on line forms) for information products"; required that the contractor be responsible for production of publications in alternative formats, including computer diskettes; and required that the contractor "shall deliver electronic versions of education information products . . . over electronic networks such as the Internet via electronic mail." SOW Sec. 100.3, 200.2, 200.3. Section M of the solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of technical merit, past performance, and price, stated that technical merit and past performance were "significantly more important than cost or price," and established the five following technical evaluation factors: quality of technical approach; facilities, staff experience and capability; corporate capability; understanding the project; and sample questions. RFP Sec.