Kathpal Technologies, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., B-283137.3; B-283137.4; B-283137.5; B-283137.6, December 30, 1999

Kathpal Technologies, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., B-283137.3; B-283137.4; B-283137.5; B-283137.6, December 30, 1999 TITLE: Kathpal Technologies, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., B-283137.3; B-283137.4; B-283137.5; B-283137.6, December 30, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283137.3; B-283137.4; B-283137.5; B-283137.6 DATE: December 30, 1999 ********************************************************************** Kathpal Technologies, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., B-283137.3; B-283137.4; B-283137.5; B-283137.6, December 30, 1999 Decision Matter of: Kathpal Technologies, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc. File: B-283137.3; B-283137.4; B-283137.5; B-283137.6 Date: December 30, 1999 Robert M. Nutt, Esq., for Kathpal Technologies, Inc., and Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettman, Tolchin & Majors, for Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., the protesters. Terry Hart Lee, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under a solicitation for the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, government-wide acquisition contracts for information technology services and products, the procuring agency improperly excluded the protesters' technically acceptable offers from consideration for award based upon the ratings of a single technical subfactor without considering price or evaluating the complete proposals under all of the solicitation factors. 2. In not allowing technically acceptable offerors to make oral presentations as part of their technical proposals, agency acted inconsistently with the solicitation provision that all offerors would be afforded the opportunity to make oral presentations. DECISION Kathpal Technologies, Inc. and Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc. (CHM) protest the rejection of their proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-SAAA-9-00010, issued by the Department of Commerce for the award of government-wide acquisition contracts, referred to as the Commerce Information Technology Solutions (COMMITS) program. Kathpal and CHM contend that Commerce did not evaluate their complete technical and price proposals before eliminating their proposals from the competition. We sustain the protests. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, provided for the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts to provide a "full range of information technology" resources (services and products). The RFP contemplated awards in three functional areas: information systems engineering (ISE); information systems security (ISS); and systems operations and management (SOM). RFP sect. C.1. The statement of work described generally the resources that could be ordered under each of the functional areas. RFP sect. C.2. Offerors were informed that they could offer services in one or more of the functional areas, but that each offer for a functional area must be a separate proposal. RFP sect. L.6. The RFP also provided that a maximum number of contracts to be awarded had not been established, but that the agency would award a reasonable number of contracts considering such factors as maintaining a sufficient number of contractors to allow for adequate task order competition; avoiding unecessary and burdensome contract administration; and ensuring that all contractors have an opportunity to receive a meaningful level of task order work. [1] RFP sect. M.1. The RFP also stated that the maximum cumulative value that could be awarded to all contractors combined was $1.5 billion. RFP sect. B.2. The RFP provided for award, without discussions, on a cost/technical tradeoff basis, and stated the following evaluation criteria for award: Non-Price Factors 1. Past Performance a. Quality Recognition/Certifications (QRC) b. Past Performance Management (PPM) 2. Team Composition Price Factors 1. Realism 2. Reasonableness RFP sect.sect. M.2.b, M.2.f, M.3.a. The past performance factor was stated to be significantly more important than the team composition factor. Within the past performance factor, the QRC subfactor was stated to be significantly more important than the PPM subfactor. Each of the non-price factors was stated to be more important than the price factor, and together the non-price factors were stated to be significantly more important than the price factor. RFP sect. M.3.b. Regarding the QRC subfactor, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate the quality, relevance and currency of the offerors' recognition or certification.