Integrated Technology Works, Inc.-Teltara, Inc., B-286769.5, August 10, 2001

B-286769.5 Aug 10, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was unobjectionable. Where agency's reformatting approach was reasonable. The technical factors were Past Performance. Subfactors were listed for each factor. The RFP instructed offerors that the proposal's technical volume was limited to 30 pages and "must be legibly typed on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper with margins no less than one inch on each border. Which were evaluated by a technical evaluation board (TEB). The TEB found that ITW's proposal was not typed in the 12-pitch required by the RFP. Arguing that the 10-point font it used to type its proposal was equivalent to 12-pitch type. Is not equivalent to the required 12-pitch type. The agency conceded that 12-pitch is not equivalent to 12-point. View Decision Integrated Technology Works, Inc.-Teltara, Inc., B-286769.5, August 10, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Integrated Technology Works, Inc.-Teltara, Inc. (ITW) protests the award of a contract to Nova Commercial Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-00-R-7734, issued by the Department of the Navy for janitorial services. ITW asserts that the Navy improperly determined that its technical proposal exceeded the 30-page limit imposed by the solicitation, and therefore improperly failed to evaluate the entire proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award on a "best value" basis with technical factors approximately equal to price, and notified offerors that the agency intended to award the contract without holding discussions. The technical factors were Past Performance, Experience and Management/Administration Plan. Subfactors were listed for each factor, including (relevant here) the following Management/ Administrative Plan subfactors: C1 - Management Plan for Work Accomplishment, C2 - Detailed Management Plan for Quality Control, C3 - Management Plan for Contract Administration, and C4 - On Site Staff and Organizational Structure. RFP amend. 3, Sec. M, at 2-3. The RFP instructed offerors that the proposal's technical volume was limited to 30 pages and "must be legibly typed on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper with margins no less than one inch on each border, and a type not smaller than 12 pitch." /1/ Id., Sec. L, at 1-2. Fourteen offerors, including ITW and Nova, submitted technical proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation board (TEB). The TEB found that ITW's proposal was not typed in the 12-pitch required by the RFP. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR) at 1. Rather than reject the proposal, the agency chose to retype a sample of it in the correct size type to determine what information properly fell within the 30-page limit, and should be evaluated. Id. Initially, the agency retyped part of ITW's proposal in 12-point Times New Roman font, and determined that the proposal information related to subfactors C3 and C4 fell outside the 30-page limit. The agency thus assigned ITW unacceptable ratings under these subfactors and, as a result, for its overall technical proposal. Subsequently, the agency determined that Nova's proposal represented the best value to the government and made award to that firm. ITW protested the award to our Office (B-286769.2), arguing that the 10-point font it used to type its proposal was equivalent to 12-pitch type, and that the Navy improperly retyped its proposal in a 12-point font which, it claimed, is not equivalent to the required 12-pitch type. The agency conceded that 12-pitch is not equivalent to 12-point, but disagreed that ITW's proposal as submitted was typed in a font equivalent to the required 12-pitch type. The agency explained in this regard that fixed-spaced varieties of 10-point fonts, such as 10-point Courier New, are 12-pitch type, because (being fixed-spaced) they always type 12 characters per inch; the 10-point Times New Roman type that ITW used in parts of its proposal was not equivalent to 12-pitch type, because it used proportional spacing, and therefore included more than 12 characters per inch. Agency Report (AR) at 10. Thereafter, the Navy informed our Office and ITW that it would take corrective action by reformatting ITW's entire proposal in 12-pitch type, and reevaluating any previously unevaluated information that fell within the 30-page limit. As a result, our Office dismissed the protest as academic. (The agency also decided to reformat Nova's proposal in 10-point Courier New after determining that it was not typed in 12-pitch type.) The reformatting resulted in bringing the subfactor C-3 information in ITW's proposal within the 30-page limit. Evaluation Memorandum, Apr. 16, 2001, at 2. (Nova's entire proposal remained within the page limit.) However, the information related to subfactor C-4 still fell outside the 30-page limit and therefore was not evaluated; as a result, ITW's rating for that subfactor remained unacceptable. Id. The agency determined that this unacceptable rating made an award to ITW too risky, id.