Preferred Systems Solutions, B-291750, February 24, 2003

B-291750 Feb 24, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied. Since these matters were reasonably and logically encompassed by the management plan factor stated in the solicitation. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors: past performance. The technical factors were evaluated on an adjectival basis. The past performance and management plan factors were of equal importance and the technical proposal was more important than the price proposal. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the "best value" to the government. Six offerors' proposals were included in the competitive range. The final evaluation results were as follows: . Noted that PSS's price proposal was lower than Access's. Because neither of these items was required by the RFP. View Decision Preferred Systems Solutions, B-291750, February 24, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. (PSS) protests the award of a contact to Access Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-02-R-1284, issued by the Department of the Navy for services in support of the U.S. Joint Forces Command. PSS challenges the technical evaluation and the price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. The RFP, a section 8(a) set-aside, sought proposals for technical, administrative, and clerical services in and around Norfolk, Virginia in the following labor categories: program manager, senior management analyst, management analyst II, management analyst I, administrative assistant, word processor 2, word processor 1, facilities clerk, food services coordinator, foodservice clerk, and librarian. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ), time and materials contract for a base year, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors: past performance, management plan, and cost/price. The technical factors were evaluated on an adjectival basis--highly acceptable (meets and exceeds requirements), acceptable (meets all requirements), unacceptable (a) (meets most requirements), and unacceptable (b) (fails to meet requirements). The past performance and management plan factors were of equal importance and the technical proposal was more important than the price proposal. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the "best value" to the government. Fifteen offerors, including PSS and Access, submitted proposals. After an initial evaluation, six offerors' proposals were included in the competitive range, and the agency requested final proposal revisions (FPR) from these firms. PSS and Access submitted FPRs that changed their proposed prices, but not their technical proposals. The final evaluation results were as follows: . Past Performance Management Plan Price PSS Acceptable Acceptable $18,574,220 Access Acceptable Highly Acceptable The contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), noted that PSS's price proposal was lower than Access's, but determined that the benefits associated with Access's superior management plan more than justified its slightly higher price. He concluded that this made Access's proposal the best value, and made award to the firm. After receiving a debriefing, PSS filed this protest. UNSTATED EVALUATION CRITERIA PSS asserts that the agency improperly awarded Access's proposal credit for submitting a transition plan and resumes of incumbent personnel. In the protester's view, because neither of these items was required by the RFP, the agency's reliance on them constituted the application of significant unstated evaluation criteria. In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, we will consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. CWIS, LLC, B-287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD Para. 119 at 2. In evaluating a proposal, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. North Am. Military Hous., LLC, B-289604, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD Para. 69 at 5; TESCO, B-271756, June 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 284 at 2. Under the management plan factor, offerors were required to demonstrate, in sufficient detail, a management approach that would successfully accomplish the statement of work (SOW). Offerors were also to "address the risk associated with implementation of the offeror's management plan as well as the steps to mitigate this risk" and "any other information the offeror considers relevant to the SOW." RFP at 28. Access's management plan included the names, resumes/qualifications, and (for most) letters of commitment of some 80 personnel, including incumbent employees, current qualified employees of Access and its subcontractor, and "pre-qualified" potential personnel.