ACS Government Solutions Group, Inc., B-282098; B-282098.2; B-282098.3, June 2, 1999

ACS Government Solutions Group, Inc., B-282098; B-282098.2; B-282098.3, June 2, 1999 TITLE: ACS Government Solutions Group, Inc., B-282098; B-282098.2; B-282098.3, June 2, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282098; B-282098.2; B-282098.3 DATE: June 2, 1999 ********************************************************************** ACS Government Solutions Group, Inc., B-282098; B-282098.2; B-282098.3, June 2, 1999 Decision Matter of: ACS Government Solutions Group, Inc. File: B-282098; B-282098.2; B-282098.3 Date: June 2, 1999 Timothy B. Harris, Esq., for the protester. Frances Cox Lively, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly failed to evaluate offers consistent with instructions to offerors in solicitation for comprehensive loan servicing services is sustained where offerors were prohibited from proposing a solution that assumed that the agency would permit an electronic interface between the agency's and the successful offeror's data systems, and the record shows that the awardee's technical approach and price relied significantly on the existence of such an interface for performing the requirement. 2. Allegation that agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal under the prior experience evaluation factor is sustained where the solicitation contemplated the evaluation of corporate and key personnel experience separately, and the record contains no basis upon which the agency could reasonably have determined that the awardee's demonstrated corporate performance was, in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, the "same" as or "similar" to the solicitation requirements. 3. Allegation that discussions with protester were not meaningful is sustained where the record shows that the evaluators were concerned over the protester's pricing methodology and the source selection official shared that concern, but the protester was not afforded an opportunity during discussions to explain its pricing strategy. DECISION ACS Government Solutions Group, Inc. (ACS) protests the issuance of a task order to Deloitte & Touche (D&T) under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-DEN-00614, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for comprehensive loan servicing services. ACS argues that HUD failed to adhere to the instructions to offerors; improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal; failed to conduct meaningful discussions with ACS and held improper discussions with the awardee; and based its selection on a flawed price/technical tradeoff analysis. We sustain the protest. Background The RFP, issued on November 19, 1998, contemplated the issuance of a task order for a base period with up to three 1-year option years. RFP sect. B, para. 1.3, at B-1, B-2 and sect. E para. 1.3(f)(1). The contractor is to perform a full range of comprehensive servicing of HUD's Secretary-held single family mortgage portfolio. Id. sect. C-1, para. 1.1. The required services include initial loan set-up, servicing the loan, and accounting-related functions. Id. The RFP specifically limited proposals to those firms included on a General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), for Loan and Other Asset Servicing/Management services. Id. sect. E, para. 1.2. The RFP provided for a two-phase procurement cycle. In the first phase, offerors were required to submit a statement of qualifications and past performance, which was to be reviewed by an evaluation panel to determine which firms would be invited to participate in the second phase of the procurement. Id. sect. E, para. 1.2(b). In the second phase, offerors were required to submit a written business proposal and provide an oral presentation for their technical and management proposals. Id. Upon completion of the oral presentations, a technical evaluation panel (TEP) was to conduct discussions and obtain clarifications from the offerors. The RFP stated that upon conclusion of all oral presentations, the TEP would perform a final technical evaluation of the presentations and offerors would be afforded an opportunity to submit written final proposal revisions (FPR) based upon the discussions. Id. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance (respective weights, which were not disclosed in the RFP, are shown in parentheses): quality control (50 points), plan of accomplishment (40 points), management capability (35 points), and prior experience (25 points), for a maximum possible score of 150 points. Id. sect. E, para. 1.7(a)(2); Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement, Mar. 30, 1999 at 3. Price was not to be numerically scored. [1] RFP sect. E, para. 1.8(a). The RFP stated that combined relative merit under the technical evaluation factors was to be considered more significant than price. Id. para. 1.8(a).