GCI Information Services, Inc., B-282074, May 28, 1999

B-282074 May 28, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that in evaluating offerors' experience agency applied an allegedly undisclosed criterion of whether offerors had handled a volume of shelving comparable to that required under the solicitation is denied where the solicitation put offerors on notice that similarity of experience would be considered. 2. Protest that the contracting agency misevaluated the protester's proposal under the criterion of understanding the requirement is denied where record shows that the evaluation was reasonable. Were significantly more important than cost or price. The RFP required that proposals provide a detailed plan indicating how each aspect of the statement of work was to be accomplished. This plan was to include strategies. View Decision Matter of: GCI Information Services, Inc. File: B-282074 Date: May 28, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION GCI Information Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to the incumbent contractor, TeleSec CORESTAFF, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NHLBI-OR-P-98-250, issued by the Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, for library support services for the NIH Bethesda Campus library and potentially for other federal government libraries throughout the Washington metropolitan area. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on September 8, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price labor hour contract for a base year with four 1-year options to provide library support including the "qualified personnel, materials and services" required for the complete maintenance and collection control of library materials at the NIH library, and potentially also for other federal libraries as required by individual task orders/work assignments. RFP Sec. B.1. The RFP provided for a best value award, listing the evaluation factors in order of importance as technical, cost and past performance and stating that all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, were significantly more important than cost or price. RFP Sec. M.1. The RFP went on to list the following technical evaluation factors and assigned weights for technical proposal evaluation purposes: 1. Staffing and Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience 45 Points 2. Similar or Related Experience 35 Points 3. Understanding the Requirement 20 Points Total Possible Points 100 Points RFP Sec. M.3. With respect to the "understanding the requirement" evaluation factor, the RFP required that proposals provide a detailed plan indicating how each aspect of the statement of work was to be accomplished. RFP Sec. M.3.A. This plan was to include strategies, technologies, and methodologies that would be used to meet the project objectives. Id. For purposes of the "similar or related experience" factor, offerors were required to furnish a discussion of the similarities and differences of this proposed effort versus other contracts that they had performed. RFP Sec. M.3.C. The RFP elsewhere provided that past performance would be evaluated after determination of the competitive range. RFP Sec. M.5. The agency received three proposals by the closing date, of which two, GCI's and TeleSec's, were included in the competitive range. Written discussions were held, and final proposal revisions were requested and received. TeleSec's and GCI's revised proposals were evaluated and received technical point scores of 99 and 92, respectively. TeleSec's proposed price for the first task order, the NIH library, was $[deleted] and GCI's was $[deleted]. Source Selection Statement, Jan. 22, 1999, at 6, 12, 14. The two proposals were equally rated as acceptable under the past performance factor. The contracting officer concluded that TeleSec's proposal was technically superior to GCI primarily because TeleSec had a long history of successfully performing services similar to those required at the NIH library, while GCI was determined not to have experience handling volumes comparable to that indicated here in the statement of work (SOW). Recommendation for Award, Dec. 28, 1998, at 1. Further, TeleSec's proposal showed a clear understanding of the requirement, while GCI's proposal reflected that the offeror lacked a full understanding of the requirements. Id. The agency concluded that the difference in cost did not outweigh the technical superiority of the TeleSec proposal. Source Selection Statement, Jan. 22, 1999, at 14. On January 20, 1999, award was made to TeleSec. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, GCI filed this protest with our Office on February 17, 1999. GCI argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and reflects the application of criteria which had not been specifically set forth or called for in the solicitation.