KPMG Consulting LLP, B-290716; B-290716.2, September 23, 2002

KPMG Consulting LLP, B-290716; B-290716.2, September 23, 2002 TITLE: KPMG Consulting LLP, B-290716; B-290716.2, September 23, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290716; B-290716.2 DATE: September 23, 2002 ********************************************************************** KPMG Consulting LLP, B-290716; B-290716.2, September 23, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: KPMG Consulting LLP File: B-290716; B-290716.2 Date: September 23, 2002 William A. Roberts, III, Esq., David M. Southall, Esq., Timothy W. Staley, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., Elizabeth W. Newsom, Esq., and J. Catherine Kunz, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for International Business Machines Corporation, an intervenor. John F. Ruoff, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under a request for quotations (RFQ) issued in a competitive procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule, where the RFQ does not contain a late quotation clause, the contracting agency may accept quotation modifications received prior to the source selection if acceptance will not prejudice the other competitors. 2. In a competitive procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule program with a stated *best value* evaluation plan whereby the technical factor is significantly more important than all the other factors combined and price is the least important factor, the contracting agency's decision to select a substantially higher-priced quotation, even though the lower-level evaluation did not produce ratings that showed a significant overall difference in technical merit between the quotations, is reasonable where the higher-level evaluators and source selection authority reasonably identified significant advantages in technical merit in the higher-priced quotation, consistent with the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation, which justified an award based on the higher-priced quotation. DECISION KPMG Consulting LLP protests an award to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. MDA210-02-T-0003, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), for the development and maintenance of a DOD-wide Financial Management Enterprise Architecture (FMEA) for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued November 29, 2001, contemplated a single-award blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to cover orders under General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for 5 years, or until expiration of the GSA schedule, whichever comes first. The RFQ set forth a *best value* evaluation plan considering the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical, management, past performance, and price. The RFQ stated that the technical factor *is more important than the other factors combined.* RFQ at 9. Under the technical factor, the RFQ identified four equally weighted subfactors: (1) understanding the problem, (2) solution approach, (3) integrated solution, and (4) risk mitigation. Under the management factor, the RFQ identified three equally weighted subfactors: (1) management approach, (2) delivery schedule, and (3) personnel.[1] RFQ at 5‑6, 9. Under the price factor, the RFQ indicated that the cost of the initial task order, which constituted the largest portion of the FMEA, would be evaluated, although this was *not susceptible to a high degree of estimation, but primarily will consist of labor.* A government estimate of labor hours for various categories was stated in the RFQ, and vendors were requested to submit *applicable proposed discounted labor rates* to be applied to these estimates to evaluate the vendors' prices. RFQ at 7, 12. The RFQ, as amended, stated that the agency might require oral presentations, and that such presentations and corresponding materials would be considered by the agency in making a final award selection. However, oral presentations, if held, would not be considered discussions, and the agency reserved the right to make award without discussions. RFQ at 13 (added by amend. 0001). The RFQ stated that *[r]esponses shall arrive by January 25, 2002.* RFP amend. 0003 at 1. No late submission clause was included in the RFQ.