Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc., B-290789.4, B-290789.5, January 22, 2003

Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc., B-290789.4, B-290789.5, January 22, 2003 TITLE: Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc., B-290789.4, B-290789.5, January 22, 2003 BNUMBER: B-290789.4, B-290789.5 DATE: January 22, 2003 ********************************************************************** Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc., B-290789.4, B-290789.5, January 22, 2003 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: Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc. File: B-290789.4, B-290789.5 Date: January 22, 2003 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq. and Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, for Synoptic Systems Corporation, and Darcy V. Hennessey, Esq., Moore Hennessy & Freeman, for Contract Services, Inc., the protesters. Capt. Charles K. Bucknor, Jr. and Raymond Saunders, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., GAO participated in the preparation of this decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's assertion that solicitation was *devoid* of any requirements regarding proposal content is without merit where request for proposals (RFP) S: M listed multiple evaluation factors and subfactors, RFP S: L contained separate instruction paragraphs for each evaluation factor and subfactor describing information offerors were expected to provide, and the solicitation advised offerors that *proposals may be considered technically unacceptable due to lack of minimum content or failure to address all evaluated areas.* 2. Agency reasonably evaluated protesters' proposals as unacceptable where evaluation record supports source selection authority's conclusion that both protesters' proposals failed to comply with multiple solicitation requirements. DECISION Synoptic Systems Corporation (SSC) and Contract Services, Inc. (CSI) protest the Department of the Army's evaluation of proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF19-02-R-0002 to provide installation logistics support services at Fort Riley, Kansas. SSC and CSI each protest that the agency improperly evaluated their respective proposals as technically unacceptable, and that the agency improperly evaluated the proposal submitted by Logistics & Environmental Support Services Corporation (LESCO) as technically acceptable. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND On April 25, 2002, the Army published the solicitation at issue, seeking proposals to provide various base support services[1] for a 1-year base period and six 6-month option periods,[2] and advised offerors that *award will be made using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process.* Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 106. The RFP required offerors to submit *quality* proposals in the form of oral presentations,[3] and directed that the oral presentations address the following non-price evaluation factors: quality control plan; management plan;[4] work execution;[5] experience;[6] and past performance. Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 106-07. RFP S: L contained proposal instructions and identified specific information that offerors were expected to provide under each evaluation factor. RFP S: M warned offerors that *proposals may be considered technically unacceptable due to lack of minimum content or failure to address all evaluated areas.* Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 106. Finally, the solicitation advised offerors *there will be no negotiations or discussions,* and stated that price proposals *will be requested only from those offerors whose Quality Proposal[s are] determined to meet all evaluation factors and criteria in section L.* Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 106. Proposal slides and required certifications[7] were submitted by four offerors prior to the specified May 31 closing date; thereafter, oral presentations were made by each offeror. Following the oral presentations, the agency reviewed and evaluated the proposals. Although the solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be rated only as to acceptability/unacceptability,[8] the agency initially evaluated proposals using a relative ranking system.[9] Based on that evaluation, the agency found two proposals (including SSC's) acceptable, and two proposals (including CSI's) unacceptable. On June 26, CSI filed a protest with this Office challenging various aspects of the agency's evaluation.[10] Following our development and review of the record in that matter, this Office conducted a telephone hearing during which testimony was provided by various Army personnel involved in that initial evaluation.