Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc., B-292322; B-292322.2; B-292322.3, August 25, 2003

Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc., B-292322; B-292322.2; B-292322.3, August 25, 2003 TITLE: Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc., B-292322; B-292322.2; B-292322.3, August 25, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292322; B-292322.2; B-292322.3 DATE: August 25, 2003 ********************************************************************** Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc., B-292322; B-292322.2; B-292322.3, August 25, 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: Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. File: B-292322; B-292322.2; B-292322.3 Date: August 25, 2003 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., and Benjamin A. Winter, Esq., Venable, Baetjer & Howard, for the protester. J. Michael Slocum, Esq., Slocum & Boddie, for Aaron B. Floyd Enterprises, Inc., an intervenor. Patricia A. Papas, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under procurement that gave technical factors more importance than cost, source selection decision selecting the low-priced, technically-inferior proposal as the best value, instead of the protester*s higher-priced, higher-rated proposal, was not reasonably based, where the agency did not reasonably explain why the benefits associated with the evaluated technical superiority of the protester*s proposal were not worth the price premium and where the source selection authority was not aware of the actual differences in costs that would be incurred under the competing proposals. 2. Protest that agency misevaluated proposals under a subfactor which contemplated a qualitative evaluation is sustained where the proposals received the same ratings, even though the supporting narrative indicated that there should be differences in the ratings. DECISION Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. (PSS) protests the award of a contract to Aaron B. Floyd Enterprises, Inc. (ABF) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DCA100-03-R-4019, a small business set-aside issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for technical support services. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued December 23, 2002, sought technical support services on behalf of the Joint Staff Support Center (JSSC) to support its Integrated Information Management System in the areas of operating systems software support, application support, security analysis and risk assessment, data communications installation and management, database management/administration, network monitoring/administration, visual information systems support, development and use of training materials for designated computer systems, and management of the training process within JSSC.[1] The defined work efforts under this contract were included in eight separate task orders: (1) installation and management of data communications networks, (2) systems administration support, (3) Global Command and Control System (GCCS) enterprise management services implementation, (4) Automated Information Systems security support, (5) visual information systems support, (6) Joint Operations Support Center GCCS Helpdesk Support, (7) GCCS and National Military Command Center user training support, and (8) Global Status of Resources and Training System applications user and operation support. Most of the tasks had a number of sub-tasks. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract, under which either fixed-price, cost‑reimbursement, or time-and-material task orders could be issued. The total amount of all task orders issued cannot exceed $70 million over the base period plus six 1-year options. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal *contain[ed] the combination of factors offering the best overall value to the Government* and that *[i]n making this evaluation, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical skills than with making an award to the Offeror with the lowest proposed price.* RFP S: M.3.c. The following factors and subfactors were listed in the RFP for proposal evaluation purposes: Factor 1: Task Order Competence (Technical Solutions) Sub-factor A: Corporate Experience Sub-factor B: Key Personnel Experience Sub-factor C: Labor Mix Analysis Factor 2: Corporate Past Performance[2] Factor 3: Cost and Price RFP S: M.4.1.a. Task order competence was the most important evaluation factor,[3] which was followed by corporate past performance, which was followed by cost/price.