Planned Systems International, Inc., B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5, October 30, 2003

Planned Systems International, Inc., B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5, October 30, 2003 TITLE: Planned Systems International, Inc., B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5, October 30, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5 DATE: October 30, 2003 ********************************************************************** Planned Systems International, Inc., B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5, October 30, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Planned Systems International, Inc. File: B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5 Date: October 30, 2003 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & Allen, for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., and Dean M. Dilley, Esq., Patton Boggs, for Advanced Management Technology, Inc., an intervenor. David T. Troung, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably determined that awardee was eligible for award where solicitation required that vendors be included on a particular Federal Supply Schedule, and awardee at one time was included on that schedule but subsequently was listed instead on a single, consolidated corporate schedule that included services under several schedules, including the specified schedule. 2. Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester*s quotation is denied where record shows that agency reasonably determined that the quotation, among other things, did not demonstrate a full understanding of the solicitation requirements or offer a fully qualified project manager. 3. Selection of higher-rated, higher-priced quotation was not improper where solicitation provided that price was less important than technical factors, and agency reasonably concluded that the technical advantages of awardee*s quotation outweighed protester*s price advantage. DECISION Planned Systems International, Inc. (PSI) protests the award of a delivery order to Advanced Management Technology, Inc. (AMTI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DACS-03-0032, issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for information technology (IT) services. PSI complains that AMTI is not eligible for award and that NSF improperly evaluated the two firms* quotations. We deny the protest. Currently, NSF has a computer system known as FastLane that allows the agency to communicate through the Internet with those who receive funds from the agency for research and education projects. The agency also has an internal IT help desk that provides staff members with desktop and related support services. The RFQ here, for Information Technology Help Central Services (ITHCS), was issued to integrate these two systems into one IT service. NSF conducted the procurement using the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), and limited the competition to five small businesses that held a contract under Schedule 70, Special Item Number (SIN) 132-51. The RFQ provided for award on a *best value* basis based on an evaluation of technical, past performance and price, which consisted of fixed labor rates and a fixed price for a phase-in period. The technical factors were: management approach (with management plan, phase-in plan, and continuing management plan subfactors); program manager and key personnel; and relevant experience/corporate qualifications. The technical and past performance factors together were significantly more important than price. The agency intended to award the contract without holding discussions, although clarifications were contemplated. Following review of the quotations, including information submitted in response to clarification requests,[1] PSI*s and AMTI*s submissions were rated good and excellent, respectively, under the technical factor and excellent for past performance. NSF also conducted a risk assessment for integration, ITHCS service performance, and FastLane support; PSI received ratings of medium/high, very high/high, and very low, compared to AMTI*s ratings of low, low/medium, and low.[2] AMTI and PSI quoted prices of $14,691,354 and [DELETED], respectively. NSF determined that AMTI*s technical advantages outweighed PSI*s lower price, and thus selected AMTI for award. AMTI*S ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD PSI protests that AMTI was not eligible for award because it does not hold a contract under Schedule 70, SIN 132-51. This argument is without merit. NSF explains that Schedule 70 defines the broad scope of services, in this case IT services, and the SIN defines the more specific help desk support services sought here.