Computer Technology Associates, Inc., B-288622, November 7, 2001

B-288622 Nov 07, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CTA asserts that there is no evidence to support the disqualification. Future task orders were to be awarded as FSS needs dictated. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of technical quality factors and price. Multiple BPAs were to be awarded based on the technical acceptability of proposals on all five task orders. Each task order was to be awarded to the vendor whose task order proposal offered the most advantageous solution to the government from a price and technical standpoint. These oral presentations were held with each vendor individually. Were transcribed by a court reporter. Who was then with the deputy PM (DPM). The CEO was unable "to have a serious conversation with him at that time. View Decision Computer Technology Associates, Inc., B-288622, November 7, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Computer Technology Associates, Inc. (CTA) protests its disqualification from further participation under a request for quotation (RFQ) issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Supply Service (FSS), for information technology (IT) services. CTA asserts that there is no evidence to support the disqualification. We deny the protest. The RFQ provided for the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for IT applications maintenance, enhancement, technical support, program management, and transition services to maintain and enhance existing FSS IT applications. The RFQ also provided for the award of five task orders, each for a base period, with nine 1-year options. Future task orders were to be awarded as FSS needs dictated. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of technical quality factors and price, with technical quality considered significantly more important than price. Multiple BPAs were to be awarded based on the technical acceptability of proposals on all five task orders. Each task order was to be awarded to the vendor whose task order proposal offered the most advantageous solution to the government from a price and technical standpoint. Three vendors, CTA (the incumbent contractor for the FSS requirement), Unisys Corp., and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), submitted quotations. In addition to written technical and price proposals, each vendor made a 90 minute oral technical presentation. These oral presentations were held with each vendor individually, with only agency and vendor personnel present, and were transcribed by a court reporter. Upon receipt of the transcripts on August 2, the contracting officer sent copies by e-mail to her assistant and to a technical evaluation team member. She also e-mailed each vendor a copy of its own transcript. On Thursday, August 2, CTA's help desk operator obtained Unisys's and SAIC's transcripts from GSA's e-mail system. Agency Report (AR) at 2-3. This employee then gave the transcripts to CTA's project manager (PM), who was then with the deputy PM (DPM). PM Declaration (Decl.) Para. 1, 4. The PM then notified and sought guidance from CTA's chief executive officer (CEO). PM Decl. Para. 2. The CEO was unable "to have a serious conversation with him at that time," and directed the PM to contact his supervisor, the president of CTA's Internet services unit, the unit responsible for submitting CTA's proposal. CEO Supplemental (Suppl.) Decl. Para. 2; PM Decl. Para. 2. When the PM indicated that he had copies of the oral presentations of CTA's competitors, CTA's unit president arranged to meet him the next day (August 3). Unit President's Decl. Para. 2. The PM then "reviewed the SAIC transcript and skimmed the Unisys transcript" and highlighted portions of both. PM Decl. Para. 2; Suppl. AR, Cover Letter. On Friday, August 3, the unit president was out sick, so the PM gave the transcripts to the DPM and asked him to review them over the weekend. Unit President's Decl. Para.2; DPM Decl. Para. 2. While the DPM, who was involved in preparing CTA's proposal, did not believe there would be anything of use or advantage to CTA in the transcripts, he subsequently read and marked portions of SAIC's, but not Unisys's, transcript. /1/ DPM Decl. Paras. 3-4.; Suppl. AR, Cover Letter. On Monday, August 6, CTA's unit president returned to his office and found a printout of the transcripts apparently transmitted by the PM. Unit President's Decl. Para. 3. He did not review them and directed his secretary to seal them and store them in a secure place. Id. He also directed the PM to have any additional copies sealed and sent to his office. That same day, the CEO arrived in Washington, D.C. from his home in California to meet with the contracting officer. CEO Decl. Para. 8. On August 7, the contracting officer issued final technical questions and requests for clarifications to all three vendors, with an August 9 deadline for proposal revisions. The agency identified 23 questions for CTA, 20 of which concerned cost issues.