Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., B-289334, January 10, 2002

B-289334 Jan 10, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where record shows that discussion questions in fact reflected solicitation requirements. That evaluation was reasonable. These conferences are the government's principal effort to disseminate information on federal R&D opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses and small technology-based companies. Proposals were to be evaluated under three technical factors totaling 100 points: management plan (35 points). Cost proposals were not scored. Were evaluated to assess their realism and the probable cost to the government. The technical and cost factors were approximately equal in weight. Award was to be made based on the greatest value to the government. Were included in the competitive range after initial technical and cost evaluations. View Decision Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., B-289334, January 10, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to DelaBarre & Associates Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DMI-000002, issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as a HUBZone small business set-aside for support services for federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) conferences. Imagine protests various aspects of the technical and cost evaluations. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide support services for planning, promoting, and conducting 10 large conferences on federal research and development (R&D) for small high-tech companies. These conferences are the government's principal effort to disseminate information on federal R&D opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses and small technology-based companies. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for 3 years, with two 1-year options. Proposals were to be evaluated under three technical factors totaling 100 points: management plan (35 points); capability and experience of staff (35 points); and technical approach (30 points). Cost proposals were not scored, but were evaluated to assess their realism and the probable cost to the government. The technical and cost factors were approximately equal in weight, and award was to be made based on the greatest value to the government. Four proposals, including Imagine's and DelaBarre's, were included in the competitive range after initial technical and cost evaluations. The agency conducted three rounds of discussions with these offerors and evaluated their responses. In reviewing the cost proposals, the evaluators calculated the most probable cost (MPC) of each proposal by adjusting costs to account for arithmetic errors, incorrect rates, and omitted costs. The final evaluations under all factors were as follows: Factors (Avail. Imagine DelaBarre Offeror 3 Offeror 4 Points) Technical (100) 55.8 92.5 82.6 57.2 Management Plan (35) 19.3 32.9 28.5 21.3 Capability/Staff 19.5 32.1 26.8 19.4 Experience (35) Technical Approach 17.0 27.5 27.3 16.5 (30) MPC $2,945,161 $2,392,416 $2,347,146 $2,473,754 In making the award selection, the source selection official (SSO) reviewed the reports of the technical and business evaluation panels, along with their recommendations. Imagine's and Offeror 4's proposals were eliminated because of their lack of technical expertise and their high MPCs. As between DelaBarre's and Offeror 3's proposals, the SSO considered DelaBarre's higher technical score and Offeror 3's lower MPC and found that the cost savings would be more than offset by the time and effort that would be necessary to ensure successful performance by Offeror 3. Accordingly, the SSO concluded that DelaBarre's proposal represented the greatest value. After receiving notice of the award to DelaBarre and a debriefing, Imagine filed this protest. UNDISCLOSED CRITERIA Imagine asserts that the agency improperly asked offerors during discussions to identify backups for key personnel and to identify which, if any, key personnel were certified meeting professionals or had meeting management credentials. In Imagine's view, because the RFP did not mention the need for backups or the requested credentials, these questions had the effect of establishing undisclosed evaluation criteria. This argument is without merit. The RFP specifically called for proposals to include resumes for all key personnel, including qualifications and specific information on each individual's education, past experience, and most recent experience. RFP Sec. L.5.B(d). It should have been evident to Imagine from this call for information that the agency intended to consider in the evaluation key personnel experience, including certifications, which relate to the level of an employee's experience.