Labat-Anderson, Inc., B-287081; B-287081.2; B-287081.3, April 16, 2001

Labat-Anderson, Inc., B-287081; B-287081.2; B-287081.3, April 16, 2001 TITLE: Labat-Anderson, Inc., B-287081; B-287081.2; B-287081.3, April 16, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287081; B-287081.2; B-287081.3 DATE: April 16, 2001 ********************************************************************** Labat-Anderson, Inc., B-287081; B-287081.2; B-287081.3, April 16, 2001 Decision Matter of: Labat-Anderson, Inc. File: B-287081; B-287081.2; B-287081.3 Date: April 16, 2001 Thomas L. McGovern, III, Esq., Michael J. Vernick, Esq., Agnes P. Dover, Esq., and Janet P. Holt, Esq., Hogan & Hartson, for the protester. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., and Janet L. Eichers, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, and Peter M. Kilcullen, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for JHM Research and Development, Inc., an intervenor. Michael K. Cameron, Esq., Immigration and Naturalization Service, for the agency. Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that contracting agency improperly eliminated proposal from consideration for award because it failed to comply with solicitation requirement to clearly explain the rationale for including hard-coded entries in electronic version of its priced estimating model is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably found the protester's explanation for these entries insufficient, and where the solicitation specifically provided that this failure could result in the elimination of a proposal from consideration. DECISION Labat-Anderson, Inc. protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to JHM Research and Development, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HQ-0-Q-0044, issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to obtain service center operations support services for its direct mail and records management program. Labat contends that INS improperly evaluated its price proposal and eliminated its proposal from consideration based upon the results of that evaluation; improperly evaluated its technical proposal; failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm; and performed a flawed best value analysis leading to the selection of JHM's proposal for award. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND Under INS's direct mail and records management program, aliens seeking benefits under immigration and nationality laws are required to mail their applications and petitions to one of four service centers located across the United States. RFQ Statement of Work (SOW) para. 2. The services required to support the program include the following task areas: mailroom operations; file assembly; data collection, capture, and scanning; document preparation; fee collection and processing; fileroom operations; word processing; quality control; project management; business process reengineering; and other records management functions. SOW para. 3. INS currently processes approximately 5 million applications and petitions annually. Id. Pursuant to this RFQ, issued June 26, 2000, INS planned to award a single BPA to a contractor holding a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract under the General Services Administration's Document Management Services and Products Schedule, Special Item Number (SIN) 51-504, "Records Management Services," and other applicable SINs. INS estimated that the volume of purchases through this agreement would be $344 million over 60 months. RFQ para. 2.3. The initial task order was to be issued on a fixed-price basis, and follow-on task orders were to be issued on fixed-price or time-and-materials bases. RFQ para. 1.1. Offerors were required to submit separate technical and price proposals for evaluation by a technical evaluation committee (TEC) and a business evaluation committee (BEC), respectively. Proposals were to clearly demonstrate the offeror's understanding of the overall and specific requirements of the proposed BPA, and any proposal in which material information requested was not furnished or where indirect or incomplete answers or information were provided might be considered unacceptable. RFQ para. 3.4. Offerors were required to submit both hard and electronic copies of their proposals. RFP para. 3.4.9. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government based on three evaluation factors: technical approach, past performance, and price. The technical approach and past performance factors were equally weighted, and the two combined were significantly more important than price. RFQ para. 3.3.