National Systems Management Corporation, B-286112.2, November 16, 2000

B-286112.2 Nov 16, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is unobjectionable where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. Under best value solicitation in which technical factors were more important than price. Selection on the basis that protester's technical advantage on most important technical factor did not warrant the associated price premium is unobjectionable and consistent with the evaluation scheme. Management and past performance evaluations were flawed and that the agency improperly altered the relative importance of the stated evaluation factors. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose conforming proposal was determined to be the best value to the government and set forth four technical evaluation factors. View Decision Matter of: National Systems Management Corporation File: B-286112.2 Date: November 16, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION National Systems Management Corporation protests the award of a contract to Sierra Management and Technologies, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-00-R-0116, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, as a small business set-aside for technical support services in the acquisition and life-cycle management of aircraft weapons systems and government-furnished equipment. National contends that the agency's technical, management and past performance evaluations were flawed and that the agency improperly altered the relative importance of the stated evaluation factors. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued November 22, 1999, contemplated the award of a time-and-materials indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity 12-month contract with four 1-year options for technical assistance support, including program management support, information management support, configuration and acquisition production support, and administrative support at Lexington Park, Maryland and the Naval Air Station, Patuxant River, Maryland. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose conforming proposal was determined to be the best value to the government and set forth four technical evaluation factors, including personnel, technical (which entailed responses to sample tasks), past performance, and management. Personnel was more important than technical, past performance, and management, which were stated to be of equal importance, and cost was least important. The RFP advised that the agency reserved the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or the offeror with the highest technical score if the agency determined that to do so would result in the best value to the government. Five proposals, including National's and Sierra's, were received by the January 20, 2000 closing date. The proposals were evaluated by five evaluation teams, including one for each technical evaluation factor and a cost evaluation team. Members of the technical evaluation teams individually evaluated each proposal and, in internal discussions, reached a consensus on the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal. Proposals were assessed under each evaluation factor using five adjectival ratings: "outstanding," "highly satisfactory," "satisfactory," "marginal," or "unsatisfactory." The evaluation teams also assigned a risk rating of "high," "medium," or "low" under the personnel, technical and management factors. The risk ratings for past performance were "very low," "low," "moderate," "high," "very high," and "unknown." Based on the initial evaluation, four proposals, including National's and Sierra's, were included in the competitive range. On June 9, discussions in the form of written items for negotiations were issued along with the request for final proposal revisions (FPRs). FPRs were received by June 19. The final ratings and evaluated costs for the awardee's and the protester's proposals were as follows: National Sierra Rating/Risk Rating/Risk Personnel outstanding/low highly satisfactory/low Technical satisfactory/low satisfactory/low Management satisfactory/low satisfactory/low Past Performance low risk low risk Evaluated Cost $12,295,635.20 $10,807,603.20 The evaluation teams forwarded their evaluation results to a five-member competitive award panel (CAP), which reviewed the evaluations and recommended to the source selection authority (SSA) that award be made to Sierra. The SSA approved the award recommendation and award was made to Sierra on August 17. After an August 28 debriefing, National protested to our Office. EVALUATION Technical National protests that the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the technical and management factors was improper.