M-Cubed Information Systems, Inc., B-284445; B-284445.2, April 19, 2000

M-Cubed Information Systems, Inc., B-284445; B-284445.2, April 19, 2000 TITLE: M-Cubed Information Systems, Inc., B-284445; B-284445.2, April 19, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284445; B-284445.2 DATE: April 19, 2000 ********************************************************************** M-Cubed Information Systems, Inc., B-284445; B-284445.2, April 19, 2000 Decision Matter of: M-Cubed Information Systems, Inc. File: B-284445; B-284445.2 Date: April 19, 2000 Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, for the protester. Kenneth J. Ingram, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, for STG, Inc., an intervenor. Daniel J. Mazella, Esq., and William J. Erle, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably determined that the awardee's price was realistic based on comparison with other offerors' prices and with the prior contract price for the same services and properly based its award selection on low price where competing proposals were reasonably determined to be otherwise equal. 2. Contention that agency misevaluated awardee's proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION M-Cubed Information Systems, Inc. (MC) protests the award of a contract to STG, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FHQ99R01280, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service (FMS). MC challenges the agency's evaluation of the MC and STG proposals and objects to the agency's price realism analysis. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on July 1, 1999, as a three-part competitive 8(a) set-aside denominated as the FMS Enterprise Infrastructure Contract (EIC), for certain software and hardware, engineering and operational services and maintenance. Part I of the RFP covers labor support services, part II covers maintenance services, and part III covers supply acquisition. Offerors could elect to propose on all of the RFP or on any one or two of the three parts. RFP part IV, sect. B.IV.1. This protest concerns part II only. Under part II, the solicitation provided for the award of a single, fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for various specified maintenance services for a l-year base period with four l-year options. RFP part IV, sect. L.IV.17. Under contract line item (CLIN) No. 00025, offerors were to provide a fixed 1-month price for these maintenance services for hardware/software components. RFP part II.A. This amount constitutes the total monthly maintenance cost based on an attached inventory list denominated as section J.IV.1 of the RFP. Id. The monthly maintenance price was to be multiplied by 12 (months) to arrive at the yearly maintenance cost. The RFP further provided that at contract award, the awardee under the maintenance portion would provide FMS with a detailed list of maintenance unit prices of all equipment to be maintained, as well as a complete breakdown of the monthly maintenance charge in CLIN No. 00025. Id. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. RFP part IV, sect. M.IV.2. The RFP provided for an integrated assessment to determine "the overall value of the proposals when judged in the context of program risk; i.e., cost, schedule, and the technical capability to provide expertise required by the program," id., and permitted award without discussions. RFP part IV, sect. M.IV.3.3. The RFP identified past performance, project management, technical approach and price as evaluation factors, with past performance of slightly greater importance than project management, which was of significantly greater importance than technical approach. RFP part IV, sect. M.IV.5. While non-cost factors were significantly more important than price, the RFP provided that as proposals became more equal in technical merit price would increase in importance. RFP part IV, sect. M.IV.2. Under past performance, an offeror was to be evaluated on its past performance in providing hardware/software/ component maintenance services during the past 3 years, for five projects of a relevant scope and complexity. RFP part IV, sect. M.IV.5.A. Finally, the RFP provided that price proposals would not be point scored, but that price would be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness and appropriateness. RFP part IV, sect. M.IV.5.D. The agency received [deleted] proposals by the August 10 closing date.