Digital Systems Group, Inc., B-286931; B-286931.2, March 7, 2001

Digital Systems Group, Inc., B-286931; B-286931.2, March 7, 2001 TITLE: Digital Systems Group, Inc., B-286931; B-286931.2, March 7, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286931; B-286931.2 DATE: March 7, 2001 ********************************************************************** Digital Systems Group, Inc., B-286931; B-286931.2, March 7, 2001 Decision Matter of: Digital Systems Group, Inc. File: B-286931; B-286931.2 Date: March 7, 2001 Robert G. Fryling, Esq., and Edward J. Hoffman, Esq., Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley, for the protester. J. Andrew Jackson, Esq., and Tina D. Reynolds, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, for Oracle Corporation, the intervenor. Maria G. Bellizzi, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's allegation that the evaluation of its technical proposal as posing a "high" risk contradicts the rating of its cost proposal as "low" risk is denied, where the record shows that technical and cost proposals were rated separately by different evaluation teams which considered different factors, and the different ratings merely reflect the independent judgments of the evaluators and are reasonably supported by the record. 2. Agency was not required to conduct discussions regarding two weaknesses identified in the protester's proposal regarding its past performance since the two weaknesses (which pertained to only 2 out of 20 performance questionnaire items) were not considered significant, and protester's performance record was rated acceptable overall. Agencies are not required to point out every element of acceptable proposals that receive less than the maximum evaluation rating. 3. Protester's allegation that the agency improperly conducted discussions is denied, where the record shows that during several rounds of discussions, the agency reasonably led the protester into areas of its proposal requiring revision, and the protester's failure to make those revisions because it feared jeopardizing its favorable cost rating reflected its own business judgment, rather than any improper agency action. 4. Discussions with offeror whose otherwise acceptable proposal took exception to certain solicitation requirements were unobjectionable where agency reasonably determined that proposal could be made acceptable through discussions and that exceptions were primarily the result of defects in solicitation; ultimate decision to amend the solicitation to cure defects was unobjectionable since agency advised all offerors of the changed requirements and all offerors responded to the amended solicitation in final proposals. 5. Allegation that contracting officer's (CO) multiple roles impermissibly compromised his independence is denied, where there is no evidence in the record that the CO had any influence over the evaluation of technical or cost proposals, or that the CO's carrying out of his responsibilities in any way compromised the source selection. DECISION Digital Systems Group, Inc. (DSG) protests the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Oracle Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. TFW-00-0002, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), FTS/Financial Management Systems Services Center, for an integrated financial management system for the Peace Corps. DSG challenges the issuance of the BPA on several grounds, including that GSA unreasonably evaluated its technical and cost proposals; failed to conduct adequate discussions with DSG; improperly failed to provide DSG with an opportunity to comment on allegedly negative past performance information obtained from one reference; and improperly conducted multiple rounds of discussions to favor Oracle. DSG also challenges the contracting officer's role in the procurement and contends that the cost/benefit tradeoff decision was not adequately justified. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on April 21, 2000, contemplated that GSA would issue a BPA for the acquisition of an integrated financial management system, for a base year with up to nine 1-year options. Agency Report (AR) exh. 1, RFQ sect.sect. B.1, B.5.1, sect. L.19. [1] The RFQ stated that the objective was to procure a fully integrated financial management system supporting all of the Peace Corps's financial management and business processes. Id. sect.sect. C.2, C.2.1, at C-11, C-12. Vendors were required to submit separate technical and cost proposals, id. sect. L.2., and were to provide fixed prices for software, maintenance, training, and documentation (i.e., products), and fixed hourly rates for technical assistance (i.e., services); the Peace Corps would issue task and/or delivery orders based on this price list.