Keane Federal Systems, Inc., B-280595, October 23, 1998

B-280595 Oct 23, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal with respect to management and cost issues is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that contracting agency's best value analysis improperly distorted the solicitation's evaluation scheme and resulted in an irrational award decision is denied where. BACKGROUND The STARS program is the result of INS's desire to form an alliance with information technology contractors to obtain a full range of technological solutions to support the agency in achieving its mission objectives and information technology needs into the 21st century. Is the vehicle by which INS planned to obtain the services of its STARS contractors. View Decision Matter of: Keane Federal Systems, Inc. File: B-280595 Date: October 23, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Keane Federal Systems, Inc. protests the award of contracts to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS), and Lockheed Martin Technical Services, Inc. (LM) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ-97-13, issued by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), in support of its Service Technology Alliance Resources (STARS) program, under which INS intends to meet all of its information technology needs into the next century. Keane primarily contends that INS improperly evaluated its proposal with respect to management and cost and conducted an irrational and arbitrary best value analysis that improperly distorted the solicitation's evaluation scheme. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The STARS program is the result of INS's desire to form an alliance with information technology contractors to obtain a full range of technological solutions to support the agency in achieving its mission objectives and information technology needs into the 21st century. RFP Sec. C.1.1. This solicitation, issued on September 16, 1997, is the vehicle by which INS planned to obtain the services of its STARS contractors. To fulfill the STARS program strategy INS intended to award one contract for system management and integration services; three hybrid, indefinite-delivery performance contracts /1/ to three other firms for systems development, implementation, operations, and maintenance services; and one contract to a fifth firm for independent verification and validation services. RFP Sec. C.1.2. All work to be performed under the STARS contracts will be assigned by task orders issued over 1 base year, with up to 4 option years available. RFP Sec. B, C.1.2. This protest concerns the award of the performance contracts. The performance contractors will be responsible for, among other things, ongoing systems engineering and integration to support implementation of a comprehensive information systems architecture; systems maintenance and sustaining engineering; systems management; designing, developing, installing, operating, and maintaining existing and planned communications and electronic systems; and assisting INS with system definition and providing development, installation, operation, maintenance of existing and planned end-user automated data processing support systems or services, user training, and video services. RFP Sec. C.4. Since software development is the heart of the STARS program, the RFP required offerors to possess a documented Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) at level 2 or higher. /2/ Offerors not meeting this mandatory requirement were not eligible for evaluation or award--their proposals were to be rejected. Offerors with documented Software CMM levels higher than 2 were to be given credit in the overall best value analysis. /3/ RFP Sec. L.7.2.1., M.2. Awards were to be made to the offerors whose proposals represented the greatest overall value to the government, cost and other factors considered. RFP Sec. M.3.2. The solicitation set forth five evaluation factors: management, experience and past performance, technical, cost, and other business factors. RFP Sec. M.4. Within the management factor, the contract management subfactor was more important than the corporate management subfactor; the RFP also set forth numerous elements to be considered under each management subfactor. RFP Sec. M.4.1(a), M.4.3.1. The experience and past performance factor consisted of two equally important subfactors, experience and past performance. RFP Sec. M.4.1(a). Within the technical factor, each sample task response was considered to be equally important. RFP Sec. M.4.1(b). All of these factors and their components were to be adjectivally rated. RFP Sec.