Computer Products, Inc., B-284702, May 24, 2000

B-284702 May 24, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST In a competitive procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule program in which the solicitation announced that award would be made on a best value basis and that technical factors were more important than price. That the RFQ stated that technical merit was more important than price and the Navy did not credit CPI for its technically superior quote. The vendors were informed that 11. 955 staff hours were required to perform the RFQ requirement and that they should quote a mix of labor categories from their FSS schedule contracts. A statement of work was provided that described the services to be provided. Quoters were informed that the evaluation of past performance factor would be based upon the vendor's "experience and past performance on contracts and subcontracts currently on-going or completed within the last five years that are directly similar in scope. View Decision Matter of: Computer Products, Inc. File: B-284702 Date: May 24, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Computer Products, Inc. (CPI) protests the award of an order to Tessada & Associates, Inc. under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 3-GR-2553, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center. CPI complains that the Navy selected Tessada for award as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quote, but that the RFQ stated that technical merit was more important than price and the Navy did not credit CPI for its technically superior quote. We sustain the protest. The Navy issued the RFQ on January 13, 2000 to [DELETED] FSS vendors, including CPI and Tessada, seeking quotes for financial reconciliation and prevalidation of obligations services. RFQ Cover Letters. The vendors were informed that 11,955 staff hours were required to perform the RFQ requirement and that they should quote a mix of labor categories from their FSS schedule contracts. Id. A statement of work was provided that described the services to be provided, including that the contractor would be required to use "the Computer Optimized Batch Reconciliation Application (COBRA) in order to efficiently perform the required work." RFQ at 2. The RFQ stated that award would be made to the "responsible GSA [General Services Administration] vendor who proposes the best value to the Government, cost and other factors considered" and listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: past performance, personnel, and cost. RFQ at 3. Quoters were informed that the evaluation of past performance factor would be based upon the vendor's "experience and past performance on contracts and subcontracts currently on-going or completed within the last five years that are directly similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements in the [RFQ's statement of work]." Id. The evaluation would include assessing the vendor's knowledge and ability to perform the statement of work tasks, including mechanization of contract administration services, standard accounting and reporting systems, negative unliquidated obligations, unmatched disbursements, official undistributed disbursements, COBRA, and Defense Finance and Accounting Service working relationships. Id. With respect to personnel, the RFQ stated that the evaluation would be based on the availability of personnel to perform the requirements and on the vendor's hiring plan to meet the government's immediate needs. The RFQ did not provide for any consideration of quoters' offered labor skill mix. Vendors were also informed in the RFQ's cover letter that the Navy would follow the "new procedures established by GSA." Although not provided with the RFQ, the "new procedures" are "ordering procedures for services" that GSA has published on its Internet site. /1/ See Agency Report, Tab 2, GSA Ordering Procedures for Services. Among other things, this guidance provides that agencies when ordering services should prepare RFQs that "notify contractors what basis will be used for selecting the contractor to receive the order." Id. at 1. It also provides as follows: After responses have been evaluated against the factors identified in the request for quotes, the order shall be placed with the schedule contractor that represents the best value and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special qualifications, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the Government's needs. Id. at 2. For requirements that exceed micro-purchase threshold ($2,500), agencies are directed to document the evaluation of quotes that formed the basis for the selection of the vendor receiving the order and to document the rationale for any tradeoffs made in making the selection. Id. at 3. The Navy received and evaluated quotes from the [DELETED] vendors.