Integration Technologies Group, Inc., B-291657, February 13, 2003

B-291657 Feb 13, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Misrepresented status of a large business firm as a member of its team is sustained where discussions between the awardee and its proposed large business subcontractor had consisted of essentially nothing more than the large firm's transmittal of a proposal to perform nearly all of the work. Which the awardee recognized was unacceptable under the solicitation limitation on subcontracting. ITG asserts that the favorable evaluation of COMTek's proposal was not a proper basis for award. Because it was based in part on a misrepresentation. The computers and printers are located at approximately 2. Award was to be made to an offeror with at least 3 years experience in maintaining AS/400 computers and laser printers whose conforming proposal was most advantageous to the government based on three evaluation factors. View Decision Integration Technologies Group, Inc., B-291657, February 13, 2003 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Integration Technologies Group, Inc. (ITG) protests the Department of Agriculture's award of a contract to Communications Technologies, Inc. (COMTek), under request for proposals (RFP) No. FSA-R-003-02DC, for maintenance of computers and printers. ITG asserts that the favorable evaluation of COMTek's proposal was not a proper basis for award, because it was based in part on a misrepresentation. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to a small business concern for a base year, with 4 option years, for remedial and preventive maintenance of an estimated 2,557 Farm Service Agency (FSA) IBM AS/400 Model 170 computers, 3,130 IBM Model 4317 laser printers, and a small quantity of other laser printers (6 IBM Model 4028 and 12 IBM Model 5262). The computers and printers are located at approximately 2,370 county Field Service Centers, 50 state FSA offices, 10 Caribbean offices, and headquarters offices in Washington, D.C., Kansas City, Missouri, and St. Louis, Missouri. The RFP established required response times for any necessary remedial maintenance, with the contractor required to return the computer or printer to operation within 4 to 18 business hours--depending on the location of the equipment--of the government's reporting the problem to the contractor. RFP Secs. 10.2.1, 16. Award was to be made to an offeror with at least 3 years experience in maintaining AS/400 computers and laser printers whose conforming proposal was most advantageous to the government based on three evaluation factors--technical capability, past performance and price. Technical capability and past performance together had a weight of 50 percent, and price had a weight of 50 percent. The agency received [DELETED] proposals. Based on the technical/past performance evaluation, the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) recommended that [DELETED] offerors, [DELETED] of which proposed teaming or partnering with IBM (the current maintenance service provider) be considered for award. COMTek's proposal was ranked [DELETED] in the technical/past performance evaluation, with a technical/past performance score of [DELETED] points, an overall rating of [DELETED] and a [DELETED] risk assessment; its price ($[DELETED]) was significantly lower than that of any of the other [DELETED] highest-ranked offerors. ITG's proposal was ranked [DELETED] in the technical/past performance evaluation, with a technical/past performance score of [DELETED] points, an overall rating of [DELETED] and a [DELETED] risk assessment; its price ($[DELETED]) was the [DELETED] lowest among the top [DELETED] ranked firms. The agency determined that the combination of COMTek's technical score and low price made its proposal the most advantageous. Upon learning of the resulting, October 10 award to COMTek, and after being debriefed, ITG filed this protest with our Office. ITG asserts that COMTek's statement in its proposal that IBM was a team member was a misrepresentation. According to the protester, IBM was neither a member of COMTek's team, nor likely to become a member, at the time COMTek submitted its proposal. Indeed, notes the protester, COMTek has still not reached an agreement with IBM on becoming a team member. ITG concludes that, because the evaluation was based in significant part on this misrepresentation, it was flawed and did not provide a reasonable basis for making award to COMTek. An offeror's material misrepresentation in its proposal can provide a basis for disqualification of the proposal and cancellation of a contract award based upon the proposal. A misrepresentation is material where the agency relied upon it and it likely had a significant impact upon the evaluation. Sprint Communications Co. LP; Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc.--Protests and Recon., B-288413.11, B-288413.12, Oct. 8, 2002, 2002 CPD Para. 171 at 4; AVIATE L.L.C., B-275058.6, B-275058.7, Apr.