Garner Multimedia, Inc., B-291651, February 11, 2003

B-291651 Feb 11, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where technical proposals are requested and award was to be to the vendor submitting lowest priced technically acceptable quotation. Agency lacked reasonable basis to reject lowest priced quotation as technically unacceptable where the solicitation contained no information about what information was expected in the technical proposal and the proposal addressed. Garner contends that the Army improperly determined that its quotation was technically unacceptable. This procurement is to acquire a technology-based program that provides Internet-based programs and support services to U.S. " and stated: The Government will award a single award resulting from this [RFQ] to the responsible offeror whose technical proposal meets the minimum needs of the Government at the lowest overall price to the Government. View Decision Garner Multimedia, Inc., B-291651, February 11, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Garner Multimedia, Inc. protests the issuance of a delivery order to MountainTop Technologies, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DASW01-02-F-1516, issued by the Department of the Army for the "Salute Our Services" pilot program. Garner contends that the Army improperly determined that its quotation was technically unacceptable. We sustain the protest. This procurement is to acquire a technology-based program that provides Internet-based programs and support services to U.S. Army active and reserve components and their dependents. The "Salute Our Services" pilot program covered by this procurement includes four main task areas: (1) the development and implementation of an interactive ".com website," (2) the development of a mentoring program, (3) the development of an outreach partnership program with private sector corporations and businesses, and (4) the development and implementation of appropriate training to facilitate the use of the website by families and loved ones. The 6-page statement of work (SOW) for the program contains the program background, states the objectives and the various project tasks of each of the main task areas, and requires a detailed action work plan to be submitted to the agency within 10 working days of the order. The agency sent the RFQ for this program to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for web-site design and maintenance services. The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price purchase order for 1 year with a 1-year option. The RFQ requested vendors "to prepare and submit a price and technical proposal in accordance with the [SOW]," and stated: The Government will award a single award resulting from this [RFQ] to the responsible offeror whose technical proposal meets the minimum needs of the Government at the lowest overall price to the Government. The RFQ did not include any guidance concerning the contents of the technical proposal or list any evaluation criteria. The agency received two quotations, from Garner and MountainTop, in response to the solicitation. Garner's quotation was priced at $2,200,048.05, and MountainTop's at $2,307,600. Both vendors submitted technical proposals that responded to the SOW requirements. Regarding Garner's and MountainTop's technical proposals, the agency's evaluator stated the following: It appears to me that Garner . . . simply restated the tasks in the SOW with no corroborating data or description of what is involved in performing the tasks. There is no reference to the type of technology they will use, i.e. servers, database software. I do not find that they are technically capable to perform this contract. MountainTop . . . explained in detail how they would accomplish the tasks, even providing diagrams of the technological aspect of the servers. Agency Report, Tab 9, Source Selection Technical Evaluation, at 1. Determining that Garner's quotation was technically unacceptable, the agency made award to MountainTop. After filing an agency-level protest, which was denied, Garner filed the present protest in our Office. Garner protests the rejection of its quotation as technically unacceptable, arguing that it was never advised what information the agency was expecting to be included in its quotation. Garner contends that its quotation was technically acceptable, inasmuch as its 36-page technical proposal did not simply recite the SOW requirements, but addressed each SOW item, providing details of how it would accomplish each task so as to demonstrate that it had the personnel, management skills and corporate experience necessary to perform the required tasks. Where an agency treats the selection of vendors for an FSS order as a competition in a negotiated procurement, and a protest is filed challenging the outcome of the competition, we will review the agency's actions to ensure that the evaluation was fair, reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.