AdvanChip Corporation, B-282571, July 29, 1999

B-282571 Jul 29, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester's past performance is denied where record shows information submitted by protester did not demonstrate that protester had performed contracts with scientific instrumentation applications. Technical excellence was worth twice as much as resource availability and past performance. Which were equal to each other. Past performance was to be evaluated based on the offeror's successful development of similar systems. Offerors were to provide information on all government contracts they were performing or had completed within the past 3 years. Eight offers were received. Were included in the competitive range. Although CyberMetrix's proposal was higher-cost than AdvanChip's. View Decision Matter of: AdvanChip Corporation File: B-282571 Date: July 29, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION AdvanChip Corporation protests the award of a contract to CyberMetrix, Inc. under request for proposals No. 98CRSS1011, issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the development of a data acquisition and manipulation software package for use on a PC-based data collection platform, for the agency's network of magnetic observatories. AdvanChip maintains that the agency misevaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided that the contract would be awarded on the basis of the best value to the government, with the non-price factors (technical excellence, resource availability and past performance) being more important than price. RFP Secs. M.4 M2320(b), M.5 M2335(a). With respect to the non-price factors, technical excellence was worth twice as much as resource availability and past performance, which were equal to each other. RFP Sec. M.4 M2320(b). Past performance was to be evaluated based on the offeror's successful development of similar systems, including complexity and diversity of systems, and timeliness of performance. RFP Sec. M.4 M2320(b)(3). Toward this end, offerors were to provide information on all government contracts they were performing or had completed within the past 3 years. RFP Sec. L.17 L2160 (d)(3). Eight offers were received, two of which--the protester's and the awardee's--were included in the competitive range. After holding two rounds of discussions and receiving and evaluating final proposal revisions, the agency determined that, although CyberMetrix's proposal was higher-cost than AdvanChip's, it was superior technically. In this regard, CyberMetrix's proposal was rated superior under both the technical excellence and past performance factors (due to a stronger background in scientific and engineering applications like those required by the solicitation). Contracting Officer's Statement at 5-6. The agency therefore determined that CyberMetrix's proposal represented the best value to the government and awarded the contract to CyberMetrix. Id. at 6. AdvanChip asserts that the agency misevaluated its proposal under the past performance factor. /1/ AdvanChip submitted information on two contracts it had performed. AdvanChip Proposal at 21. The first, for a machinery control message acquisition system, was described in AdvanChip's proposal as involving the "design of a message acquisition system with 7 microsecond message acquisition rate for a 17 bits word." Id. The second, for a Structure Maintenance Automated Report Transmittal System (SMART), was described as "a computerized data management system that provides comprehensive, up-to-date bridge management information for decision-makers to maintain structural and economic integrity of bridges." Id. AdvanChip explained that this productivity enhancement tool "collects, stores, retrieves and distributes all information related to bridge inspection and maintenance," and that "[t]his information management system significantly reduces the laborious effort and lengthy time required to collect, process and report bridge inspection data." Id. The USGS reviewed this information and concluded that AdvanChip's past performance was not directly related to the USGS requirements and applications because it was in business-related applications and database management systems, rather than in the development of systems involving geophysical and scientific instrumentation. Memorandum from Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) Chairman, Mar. 22, 1999. AdvanChip maintains that the machinery control message acquisition system under the first contract is in fact a scientific instrument for message acquisition applications. According to AdvanChip, this contract is similar to the USGS procurement in that both projects are for electronic information acquisition. AdvanChip Comments, May 29, 1999, at 3.