Immediate Systems Resources, Inc., B-292856, December 9, 2003

B-292856 Dec 09, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency properly rejected protester's best and final offer as late where the record shows that the proposal was not under government control prior to the time set for the receipt of proposals. Included the following language: Sealed offers in original and 5 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place spelled out in Item 8. The technical evaluation factors listed in the RFP were (1) soundness of approach. The first and second technical factors were equally weighted. Each was more important than either of the other two technical factors. Which were also equally weighted. The totality of the technical factors was significantly more important than price. View Decision Immediate Systems Resources, Inc., B-292856, December 9, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Immediate Systems Resources, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. CMS-HPMS-03, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to develop, maintain and support the implementation of the Health Plan Management System (HPMS) and its software modules. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a time-and-materials type contract for a base year with 4 option years. The RFP included a street address and mail stop number for delivery of offers in Block 7, and, in Block 9, included the following language: Sealed offers in original and 5 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place spelled out in Item 8, or if hand-carried, contact the contract specialist until May 1, 2003 prevailing local time 10:00 a.m. The technical evaluation factors listed in the RFP were (1) soundness of approach, (2) understanding of the HPMS and its role in the Medicare + Choice program, (3) management plan, and (4) corporate experience and past performance. The first and second technical factors were equally weighted, and each was more important than either of the other two technical factors, which were also equally weighted. The totality of the technical factors was significantly more important than price. The RFP contemplated that the offerors whose proposals were included in the competitive range would conduct an oral presentation, the purpose of which was "to enable the technical evaluation panel [TEP] to assess each offeror's relative level of familiarity with and understanding of the work that it would have to perform under the prospective task order" and would "be used to supplement and provide the Government a more thorough understanding of the offeror's written proposal utilizing the same technical evaluation factors." RFP Sec. M.2. CMS received 15 proposals, including Immediate's, in response to the RFP. The TEP established a competitive range of five proposals, including Immediate's. Immediate's proposal was the lowest rated of those included in the competitive range; Immediate's proposal was rated at the upper end of satisfactory, as compared to one proposal rated outstanding, and three proposals rated very good. Immediate's proposal also failed to include prices for the option years as required. The competitive range offerors each made an oral presentation to the TEP on June 17 or 18. There was some problem in scheduling Immediate's oral presentation because messages could not be left at Immediate's published phone number; it was not until June 17 that Immediate was notified that its oral presentation was scheduled for June 18. Immediate's oral presentation was found by the TEP to be a "rambling, disjointed, and chaotic presentation that did not address any of the concerns about the proposal, but instead raised questions about [Immediate's] capabilities and the scope of its subcontracting." TEP Chairperson's Declaration at 2. After the oral presentations, on July 2, the agency removed Immediate's proposal from the competitive range. After a debriefing, Immediate persuaded the agency to place its proposal back into the competitive range by addressing some of the concerns raised by its oral presentation. On July 16, the agency submitted written discussion questions to the competitive range offerors, advising each offeror of the areas of concern in its proposal that needed to be addressed, and requesting a best and final offer (BAFO) addressing these concerns be submitted no later than 2 p.m., July 21. On July 17, the agency, at Immediate's request, extended the due date for submission of BAFOs to 2 p.m. on July 24. On July 21, the agency conducted oral discussions with Immediate at that firm's request. During this meeting, according to the contracting officer, he explained that Immediate was expected to provide five BAFO technical and past performance volumes, and five separate red-lined copies of the same volumes indicating any changes to its earlier proposal.