Rockwell Electronic Commerce Corporation, B-286201; B-286201.2; B-286201.3, December 14, 2000

B-286201.6 Aug 30, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of agency's corrective action in response to a General Accounting Office decision sustaining earlier protest is sustained where the agency reopened discussions and requested proposal revisions from only one offeror in the competitive range. Where the agency's corrective action did not resolve the improprieties that were the basis for the prior decision. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis with price being the most important evaluation factor. Offerors were permitted to use the FTS 2001 network in their proposed solutions. Offerors were required to specifically identify in their proposals all unique FTS 2001 services and the associated costs. Rockwell was one of the offerors proposing a VPN-based solution. View Decision Rockwell Electronic Commerce Corporation, B-286201.6, August 30, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rockwell Electronic Commerce Corporation protests the Social Security Administration's (SSA) implementation of our recommendation in Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., B-286201 et al., Dec. 14, 2000, 2001 CPD Para. 65, aff'd, Social Sec. Admin.; MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. -- Recon., B-286201.4, B-286201.5, Apr. 19, 2001, 2001 CPD Para. __. In that decision, we sustained Rockwell's protest of an award to MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA RFP-00-3929, issued by SSA for network-based telephone services to handle the agency's toll free call traffic from the FTS 2001 network, as well as the agency's associated administrative call traffic. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period with 6 option years. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis with price being the most important evaluation factor. The RFP requested proposals for the best solution available in the industry to handle both the toll-free and administrative call traffic. Offerors were permitted to use the FTS 2001 network in their proposed solutions; in such cases the agency would pay the cost of using FTS 2001 services under the FTS 2001 contract /1/ rather than under the solicited contract. Since those payments would be a cost to SSA associated with such a proposal regardless of which contract applied, the RFP stated that the cost of FTS 2001 services unique to a given proposal would be included in the price evaluation. As such, offerors were required to specifically identify in their proposals all unique FTS 2001 services and the associated costs. Of the [DELETED] proposals submitted, [DELETED] proposed virtual private networks (VPN) for both toll-free and administrative call traffic, and the other [DELETED] proposed using FTS 2001 services to varying degrees. Rockwell was one of the offerors proposing a VPN-based solution, which had no FTS 2001 costs for handling administrative call traffic. MCI proposed a solution which would necessarily entail unique FTS 2001 costs for handling administrative call traffic; however, MCI's proposal did not specifically identify those unique FTS 2001 costs as was required by the RFP, and SSA did not consider such costs in the price evaluation as required by the RFP. The two proposals that relied on VPN-based solutions were higher priced than MCI's evaluated price. Under the other evaluation factors, Rockwell's proposal was rated the same as MCI's, and the other VPN proposal was rated the same as or better than MCI's proposal. SSA awarded the contract to MCI. Rockwell's protest was filed within 5 days of receiving a required debriefing, and the agency was required by law to suspend performance under MCI's contract unless the head of the procuring activity authorized in writing the performance of the contract notwithstanding the protest. 31 U.S.C. Secs. 3553(d)(3), (d)(4) (1994). SSA authorized overriding the required suspension of performance, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(d)(3)(C)(i)(I), based on a determination that performance was in the best interests of the government. Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., supra, at 5 n.3. Among other things, Rockwell protested that the evaluation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP because SSA did not evaluate all of FTS 2001 costs associated with MCI's proposed solution. In the agency's report and supplemental report responding to the protest, the agency contended that the RFP did not require the agency to evaluate unique FTS 2001 costs for handling administrative call traffic.