Systems Research Group, Inc., B-291855, March 21, 2003

B-291855 Mar 21, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Was technically unacceptable. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) was to evaluate proposals against four factors. The successful offeror's proposal must have received an overall rating of technically acceptable considering all evaluation factors other than cost. The RFP stated that the technical factor was more important than the management and past performance/past experience factors. SRG's protest is limited to the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the technical factor. View Decision Systems Research Group, Inc., B-291855, March 21, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Systems Research Group, Inc. (SRG) protests the Department of the Army's determination that its proposal to perform selected requirements at the Army's Directorate of Information Management at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, was technically unacceptable. SRG's proposal responded to request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT60-01-R-3024, which the Army issued in connection with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 commercial activities study. We deny the protest. The Army issued this solicitation on January 16, 2002 to select a commercial offeror to compete against the government's in-house "most efficient organization" (MEO) pursuant to the procedures of the OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison process. /1/ The solicitation, which included requirements for information management/information technology services, administrative services, and video-teleconferencing services, anticipated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the 90-day phase-in period, and a cost-plus-award-fee contract for the base and option years. The Army planned to select the technically acceptable offer with the lowest most probable cost, determined by a cost realism analysis, to compare with the MEO. RFP Sec. M, at 71. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) was to evaluate proposals against four factors--technical, management, past performance/past experience, and cost--in order to make its selection decision. Id. The successful offeror's proposal must have received an overall rating of technically acceptable considering all evaluation factors other than cost; the RFP stated that the technical factor was more important than the management and past performance/past experience factors. Id. at 72. SRG's protest is limited to the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the technical factor, which was comprised of five subfactors: phase-in plan, staffing plan, technical approach, work scheduling, and quality control. The RFP stated that the staffing plan and technical approach subfactors were the most important subfactors, and that all other subfactors were of relatively equal importance. Id. The overall rating was to be unacceptable if the proposal was rated unacceptable under either of these two subfactors. Id. Four of the seven offers submitted were included in the competitive range. The contracting officer forwarded written discussion questions to each competitive range offeror, including SRG, and the SSEB evaluated offerors' proposal revisions. The proposals submitted by Communications Technologies, Inc. (COMTek) and another firm were found to be technically acceptable, with COMTek offering the lowest MPC of $14,295,056. /2/ The proposals submitted by SRG and the fourth offeror were found to be technically unacceptable and, as a result, the agency did not further analyze SRG's proposed cost of $7,994,824. The SSEB found SRG's proposal technically unacceptable based upon its unacceptable ratings under the technical and management factors. /3/ These ratings were based, in turn, upon SRG's final ratings of unacceptable under four of the five technical subfactors, and under one of the three management subfactors. The SSEB's final evaluation report indicates that the SSEB believed SRG's responses to its discussion questions were "mixed," that some of the firm's answers were incomplete or did not fully address the question, and that, as discussed below, SRG failed to provide a "complete, legible" work breakdown structure (WBS). Final SSEB Evaluation Report at 2. Based upon the SSEB's findings, the contracting officer recommended the selection of COMTek's offer for comparison with the MEO, and the source selection authority concurred on November 4. SRG was notified of this decision by letter dated November 13, the same day the Army determined that the cost comparison between COMTek's offer and the MEO resulted in a tentative decision that performance be accomplished in-house.