Information Spectrum, Inc., B-285811; B-285811.2, October 17, 2000

Information Spectrum, Inc., B-285811; B-285811.2, October 17, 2000 TITLE: Information Spectrum, Inc., B-285811; B-285811.2, October 17, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285811; B-285811.2 DATE: October 17, 2000 ********************************************************************** Information Spectrum, Inc., B-285811; B-285811.2, October 17, 2000 Decision Matter of: Information Spectrum, Inc. File: B-285811; B-285811.2 Date: October 17, 2000 Claude P. Goddard, Jr., Esq., and Brian P. Waagner, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, for the protester. David R. Johnson, Esq., and Michael K. Murphy, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for PricewaterhouseCoopers, the intervenor. John A. Thompson, Esq., Kathy B. Cowley, Esq., and R. David Gale, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Even though the contemporaneous evaluation documentation was inadequate, the General Accounting Office finds, based upon credible testimony consistent with the contemporaneous record, that the agency reasonably evaluated the staffing level proposed by the awardee in its quote for technical support services to be obtained from a Federal Supply Schedule contract, where the record reflects that the agency evaluators considered, in addition to the total number of hours proposed, the awardee's proposed organizational structure, quality of personnel, and balance of hours between tasks. DECISION Information Spectrum, Inc. (ISI) protests the award of an order to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00600-99-Q-2444, issued by the Department of the Navy, for technical support services. ISI contends that the Navy's evaluation of its and PWC's quotes was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued for the operation and maintenance of the Navy Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Cost (VAMOSC) database for the Naval Center for Cost Analysis (NCCA). Agency Report at 1. The VAMOSC database tracks the operating and support cost portion of the life cycle costs of various naval weapon systems. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 8, 12. The RFQ included a statement of work (SOW) that listed six tasks, each with subtasks and relevant deliverables, to be performed by the successful contractor. [1] RFQ, amend. No. 1, at 5-8. The RFQ stated that award would be made to "the contractor who provides the best value based on the combination of capability, performance history and price," and listed the following evaluation criteria: technical and management capability, past performance, and cost/price. Id. at 8, 10. The solicitation specified that in determining which quote would be selected for award, technical and management capability would be more important than past performance and cost/price, and that past performance and cost/price would be equal in importance. Id. at 10. The RFQ requested that vendors submit quotes addressing each of the three evaluation criteria (technical and management capability, past performance, and cost/price). The RFQ provided that the technical and management capability section was to include, at a minimum, an organizational chart, resumes for staff, and a completed copy of the "staffing-task matrix" included in the RFQ. The staffing-task matrix included, on one axis, the tasks and sub-tasks that were detailed in the RFQ's SOW, and required the vendors to provide their proposed labor categories on the other axis, and insert their proposed number of hours in the field. Id. at 8-9. Vendors were also instructed to provide "hours, rates and prices to perform the tasks and provide the deliverables described in the [solicitation's] SOW," and were instructed here to ensure that their proposed hours were consistent with their staffing-task matrices. Id. at 9. The RFQ added that vendors were to provide "current GSA [General Services Administration] schedule pricing only," and informed vendors that the agency expected "a discount on prices for this requirement if it exceeds the maximum order limitations under [the] schedule." RFQ at 1. With regard to past performance, vendors were instructed to provide "a brief summary . . . of up to five recent projects comparable in scope and complexity to VAMOSC." RFQ, amend. No. 1, at 9. The agency received quotes from three vendors, including ISI and PWC. The quotes were forwarded to the cognizant technical evaluation team (TET). Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact at 2. The TET evaluated the quotes under the technical and management capability criterion using the following three subcriteria: management and team organizational structure; understanding requirements and reasonableness of proposed hours; and staff knowledge, skills, and abilities.