D.N. American, Inc., B-292557, September 25, 2003

B-292557 Sep 25, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's use of color coded scoring methodology was unobjectionable. Where color scheme was consistent with. Where evaluation is consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and agency's conclusions are reasonably based. 3. Protest that agency failed to conduct adequate discussions is denied. Army Corps of Engineers. /1/ The help desk is to be the single point of contact for all software and hardware problems and service requests of the District employees. The selected contractor is to provide "all of the personnel. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated to be the "most advantageous to the Government. Combined technical factors were "significantly more important than" price. /2/ However. View Decision D.N. American, Inc., B-292557, September 25, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION D.N. American, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Daston Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW69-03-R-0022, issued by the Department of the Army for computer help desk services. D.N. challenges the reasonableness of the Army's evaluation and rating methodology. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, sought "multi-tiered" help desk services for the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division of the Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. /1/ The help desk is to be the single point of contact for all software and hardware problems and service requests of the District employees. The required help desk services include an off-site Answer Call Service (ACS) for answering, logging, and solving calls related to commercial off-the-shelf and Corps-owned software; on-site support covering hardware, software, and network support; field dispatch on-site support; services requiring a "Subject Matter Expert;" and administrative services. The selected contractor is to provide "all of the personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision and other items necessary" to perform these services. RFP at 7-9. The RFP provided for award of a blanket purchase agreement for a base year with nine 1-year options under the selected contractor's General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated to be the "most advantageous to the Government," considering, in descending order of importance, past performance, help desk model, contractor expertise, and price. Combined technical factors were "significantly more important than" price. /2/ However, the RFP provided that as technical merit became more equal, price would become more important in the selection and could be the "deciding factor" for award. RFP amend. 1, at 10, 17. With regard to past performance, the RFP required offerors to identify a minimum of three company projects that "are similar in scope" to this effort. RFP amend. 1, at 17. The RFP further stated that contractors "shall have existing services that support a similar size and scope specified in this contract and demonstrate the ability to accommodate this additional workload without significant expansion of their existing help[]desk service infrastructure." RFP at 7. Under the help desk model evaluation factor, offerors were to describe each component of the help desk model they were proposing, "addressing at a minimum, service levels, . . . answer call, on-site support, field dispatch, continuous improvement, tracing software, [k]nowledge base software, and reports." RFP amend. 1, at 17. For contractor expertise, offerors were to identify for evaluation the "[c]ontractor qualifications/expertise [that] are listed in paragraph 15 [of the RFP]" /3/ and any additional expertise. Id. Pricing was to be provided on a fixed-price "per seat" basis for the base year and the first 4 option years; the RFP specified that offerors' pricing for the options years would be considered along with the base year to determine the lowest priced offer. RFP at 2, 7; amend. 1, at 17. D.N. and Daston were among eight offerors that submitted proposals in response to the RFP. The Army evaluated each proposal and rated it green (superior), blue (exceptional), purple (acceptable), yellow (marginal), or red (unacceptable) under each of the technical evaluation factors. /4/ Each color rating was defined in a manner that was tailored to the evaluation criteria. For example, blue and purple were defined under the past performance factor as follows: EXCEPTIONAL (BLUE): The technical proposal clearly demonstrates the offeror's experience on projects with similar work. A minimum of three current company projects that are similar in scope including points of contact, titles, and phone numbers are provided. All references for past performance are at least very high (exceptional).