Bank of America, B-287608; B-287608.2, July 26, 2001

Bank of America, B-287608; B-287608.2, July 26, 2001 TITLE: Bank of America, B-287608; B-287608.2, July 26, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287608; B-287608.2 DATE: July 26, 2001 ********************************************************************** Bank of America, B-287608; B-287608.2, July 26, 2001 Decision Matter of: Bank of America File: B-287608; B-287608.2 Date: July 26, 2001 Eugene D. Gulland, Esq., John B. Denniston, Esq., Alan A. Pemberton, Esq., Timothy J. Keefer, Esq., and Siobhan E. Dupuy, Esq., Covington & Burling, for the protester. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., Phillip H. Harrington, Esq., Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., and Derek A. Yeo, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for National City Bank of Indiana, an intervenor. John F. Ruoff, Esq., Defense Finance and Accounting Service, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where agency knew or should have known that the protester interpreted the solicitation as limiting technical proposals to 100 pages, discussions with the protester were not meaningful when the agency did not advise protester that the solicitation permitted 200 page proposals, declined to advise the protester of the agency's repeatedly expressed concerns that the protester's proposal lacked detail, and advised the protester there were no technical weaknesses in its proposal. DECISION Bank of America (BOA) protests the award of a contract by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), to National City Bank of Indiana (NCB) under request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA210-00-R-CPB3 to provide banking services for U.S. personnel stationed overseas. BOA protests that NCB's technical proposal failed to comply with the RFP's page limitation provision, that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and that the agency's cost and technical evaluations were materially flawed. We sustain the protest due to the agency's lack of meaningful discussions. BACKGROUND On January 13, 2000, DFAS published the solicitation at issue, seeking proposals to provide commercial banking services to U.S. personnel stationed overseas under the authority of DOD's Overseas Military Banking Program (OMBP). [1] BOA is currently the incumbent contractor and has been providing these services since 1995; prior to that time, NCB had provided the services under a predecessor contract. The solicitation contemplated award of a multi-year contract with a 5-year base period and five 1-year option periods. [2] The agency estimates that the contract will have a total value in excess of [deleted]. [3] Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The RFP provided that award would be based on the proposal offering the best value to the government considering cost/price, past performance, and technical factors, [4] and stated that technical factors were more important than either cost/price or past performance, which were of equal importance. Agency Report, Tab H, RFP sect. M-6. The RFP was issued on January 13, 2000 and, as initially published, explicitly advised offerors that technical proposals must not exceed 100 pages, specifically defined a "page" as being not larger than 8 � by 11 inches, specified mandatory type-size, spacing, and margins, and stated that each 8 � by 11 inch page would be counted as one page. Specifically, as initially issued, RFP sect. L-1(b) stated: Technical proposals must be legible, double spaced (personal resumes may be single spaced), typewritten (on one side only), in a type-size not smaller than 12 point proportional, on paper not larger than 8 � by 11 inches and not to exceed 100 pages for the Technical Proposal and an additional, not to exceed 50 pages, for the attachments and/or exhibits to the Technical Proposal. One inch margins shall be on all sides of the paper. Pages in excess of the aforementioned limitation shall not be read, and the proposal shall be evaluated as if the excess pages did not exist. Some fold-out charts or diagrams may be used within the 50-page limitation for attachments and/or exhibits. Each 8 � by 11 page fold-out will be counted as one page (i.e., one fold-out with two pages will be counted as two 8 � x 11 pages). Agency Report, Tab I, Initial RFP at L-192-93. On February 17, the agency conducted a pre-proposal conference during which agency personnel responded to questions from potential offerors. During this conference, a potential offeror asked whether proposal information regarding innovations and the transition period must be included within the 100-page limitation. The agency spokesperson responded in the affirmative, but noted that the RFP provision requiring that proposals be double spaced "should read double-sided." Agency Report, Tab I, Transcript of Pre-Proposal Conference, at 46.