Planning Systems, Inc., B-292312, July 29, 2003

B-292312 Jul 29, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably selected awardee's proposal as representing the best value to the government where awardee's technical proposal was properly evaluated as being superior to protester's proposal on the basis of evaluated strengths related to awardee's technical approach. Awardee's proposed cost/price was lower than protester's proposed cost/price. BACKGROUND The RFP was published on November 22. /2/ and participation of small businesses and small disadvantaged business entities. /3/ Offerors were advised that the combined technical evaluation factors were more important than cost/price. Offerors were required to propose. Were submitted by the January 31. Discussions were conducted with the competitive range offerors and those offerors were invited to submit final revised proposals (FRP). View Decision Planning Systems, Inc., B-292312, July 29, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Planning Systems, Inc. (PSI) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to International Business Machines Business Consulting Services (IBM) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-03-R-L803 to perform various information technology support services at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. PSI protests that the agency improperly rated IBM's proposal as technically superior to PSI's proposal, and that the agency failed to perform a proper cost realism analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was published on November 22, 2002, seeking proposals to provide system maintenance and resources to design, develop and implement improvements to an enterprise information system at the U.S. Navy Submarine Maintenance Engineering Planning and Procurement Activity, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. /1/ Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 14. The RFP contemplated award of a cost plus fixed fee contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, required offerors to submit separate technical and cost/price proposals, and established the following technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical approach, personnel resources, management plan approach, corporate experience, past performance, /2/ and participation of small businesses and small disadvantaged business entities. /3/ Offerors were advised that the combined technical evaluation factors were more important than cost/price. Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 59. With regard to cost/price proposals, offerors were required to propose, for each contract period, a "complete and detailed price/cost breakdown," including "labor rates and hours, burden rates, material lists and costs, travel charges, and 'other direct costs.'" Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP at 58. Four proposals, including those of PSI and IBM, were submitted by the January 31, 2003 closing date. The agency evaluated each proposal and established a competitive range consisting of three proposals, including those of PSI and IBM; thereafter, discussions were conducted with the competitive range offerors and those offerors were invited to submit final revised proposals (FRP). Each competitive range offeror timely submitted its FPR, and these submissions were subsequently evaluated. /4/ The final technical evaluation results with regard to PSI's and IBM's proposals were as follows: /5/ . IBM PSI Technical Approach [deleted] [deleted] Personnel Resources [deleted] [deleted] Management Plan Approach [deleted] [deleted] Corporate Experience [deleted] [deleted] Past Performance [deleted] [deleted] Small/Disadvantaged Business Participation [deleted] [deleted] Overall Rating [deleted] [deleted] Agency Report, Contracting Officers Statement, at 13. With regard to the technical approach evaluation factor, the RFP provided: "The offeror shall submit a technical approach in detail, which demonstrates how the offeror will successfully perform the statement of work (SOW). . . . Unique methods for technically resolving problems identified under the SOW are encouraged . . . ." Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 55. In evaluating IBM's proposed technical approach as [deleted] the agency identified various strengths including: use of rapid application development/joint application development (RAD/JAD) techniques; /6/ implementation of the Navy Web Portal; and a proposed staffing plan that relied on readily available existing corporate resources. Agency Report, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 14-17. In contrast, PSI's proposal was rated as [deleted] with regard to technical approach on the basis that [deleted]. Agency Report, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 17. With regard to the next evaluation factor, personnel resources, the RFP required offerors to provide one resume for each of five specified labor categories, /7/ and stated: "Each labor category is equal to a subfactor and . . . are of equal importance." Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 56.