Avalon Integrated Services Corporation

B-290185 Jul 01, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) contract award for strategic support communications services, contending that the agency failed to conduct discussions with it and the agency misevaluated its proposal. GAO found that, in competitive procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule program, agencies are not required to conduct discussions, even in the absence of a solicitation clause warning vendors that the award might be made without discussions; and (2) FHWA was not required to hold discussions with vendors prior to selecting the vendor with which to place the order. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Avalon Integrated Services Corporation, B-290185, July 1, 2002 * REDACTION DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Avalon Integrated Services Corporation protests the issuance of a task order to ICF Consulting, Inc. under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. PR#45-02-2011, issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for strategic support communications services. The protester contends that ICF's schedule contract does not include several of the schedule item numbers (SIN) under which services are sought; that the agency improperly failed to conduct discussions with it; and that the agency misevaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, which sought proposals to furnish technical, editorial, graphics, and other support services to FHWA's Office of Research, Development, and Technology and in support of the agency-wide Research and Technology program, was issued on January 31, 2002, to seven vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule 738, Marketing, Media and Public Information Services. The solicitation identified the staff positions to be filled and furnished an estimate as to the level of effort required for each. A period of performance not exceeding 60 months (a base year, plus four 1-year options) was contemplated. The RFP provided for a two-phase evaluation process culminating in issuance of an order to the vendor whose proposal was considered most advantageous to the government. Under phase I, written proposals were to be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Qualifications of Key Personnel (Primary and Supporting)--30 points 2. Relevant Experience--30 points 3. Management Approach and Understanding of the Government's Requirements--40 points a. Proposed team b. Understanding of Government requirements c. Plan of performance d. Innovative approach The solicitation provided that offerors "found to be in the competitive range" would then move on to phase II, which would consist of an oral presentation "addressing criteria published in the Statement of Work." The oral presentations were to be evaluated in accordance with the same criteria as the written proposals. Four vendors submitted proposals prior to the February 22 closing date. After reviewing and scoring the written proposals, the evaluation panel invited all four vendors to make oral presentations. The oral presentations were conducted on March 12, and vendors were then given until March 14 to submit final prices. The evaluators assigned ICF's proposal the highest technical rating; in addition, ICF's overall price of $3,933,138 was lowest. Avalon's price was $4,679,227.81. On March 26, the FHWA issued an order to ICF and notified Avalon that it was not the successful vendor. Avalon argues that ICF's FSS contract does not include several SINs under which services are to be provided; accordingly, the protester asserts, the task order issued to ICF is beyond the scope of ICF's contract. The protester alleges in this regard that ICF has a contract for SIN 738-8 only, whereas the solicitation also requires services under SINs 738-2, 738-3, and 738-10. Schedule 738 is comprised of 12 SINs. SIN 738-2 is for website design and maintenance services; SIN 738-3 is for trade shows/exhibits and conference and events planning services; and SIN 738-10 is for commercial photography services. SIN 738-8 is for full service marketing, media, and public information services, /1/ and the schedule instructs ordering agencies to use this SIN when their task requires at least two or more services specified under other SINs. Avalon holds schedule contracts for SINs 738-1, 738-2, 738-3, 738-4, 738-5, 738-6, 738-8, 738-10, 738-11, and 738-12. ICF holds a contract for only SIN 738-8. GSA, which is responsible for administering the FSS program, states that in view of the variety of services identified in the SOW, /2/ it believes that FHWA was correct in using SIN 738-8, which is to be used when two or more services available under other SINs are needed to fulfill a requirement. Letter from the Director, Special Program Division, Services Acquisition Center, GSA, to the Contracting Officer, Apr. 24, 2002, at 3.