Social Security Administration; MCI WorldCom, B-286201.4; B-286201.5, April 19, 2001

Social Security Administration; MCI WorldCom, B-286201.4; B-286201.5, April 19, 2001 TITLE: Social Security Administration; MCI WorldCom, B-286201.4; B-286201.5, April 19, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286201.4; B-286201.5 DATE: April 19, 2001 ********************************************************************** Social Security Administration; MCI WorldCom, B-286201.4; B-286201.5, April 19, 2001 Decision Matter of: Social Security Administration; MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-286201.4; B-286201.5 Date: April 19, 2001 DECISION The Social Security Administration (SSA) and MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. request reconsideration of our decision in Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., B-286201 et al., Dec. 14, 2000, 2001 CPD para. __, sustaining Rockwell's protest of an award to MCI under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-00-3929, issued by SSA for network-based services to replace the agency's call answering system. Our decision found that the agency failed to follow the price evaluation plan stated in the RFP, and that Rockwell was prejudiced by the agency's actions. The requesters contend that we erred in finding prejudice. We deny the requests for reconsideration. In order to obtain reversal or modification of a decision, the requesting party must show that our prior decision contains either errors of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that warrants such action. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.14(a) (2000). Repetition of arguments made during consideration of the original protest or mere disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard. RGII Techs., Inc.--Recon. and Protest, B-278352.2, B-278352.3, Apr. 14, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 130 at 3. SSA has approximately 12,000 call center representatives working at 38 call centers nationwide servicing incoming toll-free calls. SSA receives incoming toll-free calls from the public under the General Services Administration's (GSA) FTS 2001 contract with MCI (selected by SSA from GSA's available contractors). In pertinent part, the RFP requested proposals that would provide the best solution for distributing within SSA both incoming calls received from the FTS 2001 contractor, and administrative calls, which are initiated by SSA's staff. Offerors could propose from a variety of call distribution system designs. The potential continuum of call distribution systems ranged from substantial reliance on the FTS 2001 contractor by feeding calls back into the FTS 2001 system for distribution within SSA, to total reliance on a distribution network independent from the FTS 2001 system and dedicated to handling SSA's calls, e.g., a virtual private network (VPN). Use of the FTS 2001 system would require SSA to pay the costs of such call distribution services directly to the FTS 2001 contractor under the terms of that contract; thus, not all of the costs of call distribution are included in the network-based services contract's fixed price. In the case of VPNs, once an incoming call is received from the FTS 2001 contractor, no FTS 2001 costs are incurred for call distribution; thus, all of the costs of call distribution are included in the network-based services contract's fixed price. The RFP provided for evaluating FTS 2001 costs in the price evaluation. To facilitate this evaluation, the RFP required offerors to identify in their price proposals the specific FTS 2001 costs that their proposed call distribution systems would incur. Evaluated price was the most important evaluation factor. Two of four offerors submitted proposals based on VPNs. Rockwell was one of the offerors proposing a VPN; MCI was not. MCI's proposed solution relied in part on the FTS 2001 system to distribute calls. However, MCI's price proposal did not identify specific FTS 2001 resources and/or associated FTS 2001 costs for call distribution. The evaluated price of MCI's proposal was approximately $[DELETED] lower than Rockwell's. Since the two proposals received the same ratings on the remaining best value evaluation factors, MCI's proposal was selected for award. The agency conceded during the protest process that where a proposal, such as MCI's, did not identify the specific FTS 2001 costs to be incurred, SSA could not know what FTS 2001 costs SSA would incur under that proposal. Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., supra, at 7. Consistent with this concession, we determined that the FTS 2001 costs applicable to MCI's proposal could not be definitively determined from the record. Id. at 9. Thus, SSA's price evaluation did not consider all of the FTS 2001 costs applicable to MCI's proposed solution, such that the price evaluation and source selection were not consistent with the terms of the RFP. As discussed in our prior decision, the agency initially did not contemplate the need to evaluate FTS 2001 costs for administrative call traffic.