Information Systems Technology Corporation, B-280013.2,

B-280013.2 Aug 06, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The invitation letter also announced that three task orders were available for immediate consideration. Stated that if a vendor was proposing on only the basic. If the vendor was proposing on any or all of the task orders. Past performance) was paramount. These scores were supported by narratives of the strengths and weaknesses in the vendors' proposals. The basis for the low scores assigned to ISTC's task order proposals was the firm's failure to demonstrate its understanding of the task order SOW requirements. The agency canceled task order Nos. 0001 and 0002 because they were not directly related to supporting HCFA's millennium compliance efforts. ISTC maintains that there was information in its task order proposals which. View Decision Matter of: Information Systems Technology Corporation File: B-280013.2 Date: August 6, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Information Systems Technology Corporation (ISTC) protests the decision of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health & Human Services, not to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the firm for independent verification and validation (IV&V) and system testing support services. ISTC protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal for the BPA. We deny the protest. By invitation letter dated January 29, 1998, the agency notified eight vendors on Federal Supply Schedule 70 for automated data processing services that the agency intended to establish four to six BPAs for IV&V/system testing support services. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 8.404(b)(4). The letter invited vendors to make an oral technical presentation tailored to the BPA statement of work (SOW) included with the invitation letter. The invitation letter also announced that three task orders were available for immediate consideration. The invitation letter included a SOW for task order No. 0001, and prior to the oral presentations, the agency issued SOWs for task order Nos. 0002 and 0003. The invitation letter advised vendors that they could propose on "any, all, or none" of the task orders, and in this regard, stated that if a vendor was proposing on only the basic, i.e., BPA, SOW, that the presentation should not exceed 1 hour, and if the vendor was proposing on any or all of the task orders, that the presentation should not exceed 2 hours. The invitation letter stated that technical merit (technical approach, project management plan, personnel, Medicare program comprehension, and past performance) was paramount, and that the selections would be based on technical merit and the overall best values to the government. Cost/price would not be a factor in establishing the BPAs, but would be a consideration in issuing the task orders. All eight firms, including ISTC, responded to the invitation letter by submitting limited technical proposals consisting of the firm's oral presentation viewgraphs and written textual supplementation, key personnel resumes, and past performance information. ISTC submitted a proposal responding to the SOWs for the BPA and for each of the task orders, and made a 2-hour oral presentation. The agency evaluated a vendor's proposal for the BPA without considering information in the vendor's task order proposals. The agency evaluated a vendor's task order proposals independently from each other. Thus, depending on the number of task orders, in addition to the BPA, for which a vendor submitted a proposal, the agency could perform from one to four individual technical evaluations per vendor with each individual proposal being scored on a 600-point scale. In selecting vendors for the BPAs, the agency did not consider the evaluation results for the vendors' task order proposals. As relevant to this protest, ISTC's proposal for the BPA received 264.1 points; the scores for the proposals of the other seven vendors ranged from 336.7 to 549.9 points. These scores were supported by narratives of the strengths and weaknesses in the vendors' proposals. With respect to ISTC, the agency basically determined that the firm failed to sufficiently demonstrate in its proposal for the BPA that it understood the technical requirements of the BPA SOW. The agency established BPAs with the four vendors with the highest technical scores. With respect to the agency's evaluation of the vendors' proposals for the task orders, ISTC's task order proposals received significantly lower scores compared to the scores for the task order proposals of the highest-rated vendors. The basis for the low scores assigned to ISTC's task order proposals was the firm's failure to demonstrate its understanding of the task order SOW requirements. However, subsequent to the establishment of the BPAs, the agency canceled task order Nos.