Network Engineering, Inc., B-292996, January 7, 2004

B-292996 Jan 07, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher technically rated quotation is denied where record shows evaluation and selection were reasonable and consistent with solicitation. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its quotation was improper and that it should have been the successful vendor because its quotation was technically acceptable and it offered a lower price than did Access. Was issued on August 21. The source selection was to be based on the agency's determination of which quotation presented the best overall value considering the following three evaluation factors. Firms were to describe their relevant experience and provide up to three references for recent similar work. Firms were to include detailed staffing plans. View Decision Network Engineering, Inc., B-292996, January 7, 2004 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Network Engineering, Inc. protests the agency's evaluation of quotations, and the selection of a higher-rated, slightly higher-priced quotation from another vendor, Access Systems, Inc., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 9821-03-Q121, issued by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for information technology systems support services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its quotation was improper and that it should have been the successful vendor because its quotation was technically acceptable and it offered a lower price than did Access. We deny the protest. The RFQ, set aside for small business concerns, was issued on August 21, 2003 under simplified acquisition procedures. The solicitation contemplated a base year blanket purchase agreement, with four option periods, for local area network (LAN) support services, including assistance in planning, installing, and optimizing hardware, software, and procedures for information technology systems. The source selection was to be based on the agency's determination of which quotation presented the best overall value considering the following three evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance of a similar nature; relevant staff experience and availability; and price. For the past performance factor, firms were to describe their relevant experience and provide up to three references for recent similar work. For the evaluation of relevant staff experience and availability, firms were to include detailed staffing plans, letters of intent for certain positions, and information regarding recruiting and training employees. Five vendors submitted quotations which, along with their oral presentations, were evaluated and ranked by the agency. Access's quotation, at an evaluated price of $1,424,924, was ranked highest for technical merit; Network's quotation, at an evaluated price of $1,384,059.60, was ranked fourth. Access's quotation received ratings of "exceptional" under both technical evaluation factors (past performance and staff experience/availability), and an overall technical rating of "exceptional." Network's quotation received a rating of "good" under the past performance factor, a rating of "poor" under the staffing factor, and an overall technical rating of "good." Finding the difference in price between Access's and Network's quotations minimal, the agency concluded that the quotations were essentially equal in terms of price, and that technical merit would become the discriminator in the source selection. /1/ The agency determined that the technical superiority of the Access quotation, primarily under the staffing factor, presented the best value to the agency and was worth the minimal additional cost. Network learned of the agency's source selection on September 26. This protest followed the firm's October 1 debriefing. Network contends that the agency's evaluation of its quotation was improper, arguing that the agency unfairly failed to give the firm credit for offering to consider the use of incumbent personnel; alternatively, Network argues that the agency failed to advise vendors that additional evaluation credit would be granted for using incumbent personnel. Network also generally protests the agency's evaluation of its past performance. We will review an agency's technical evaluation to ensure that it is reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations; a protester's disagreement with an agency's evaluation does not render it unreasonable. See Lynwood Mach. & Eng'g, Inc., B-285696, Sept. 18, 2000, 2001 CPD Para. 113 at 4. In a best-value procurement, there is no requirement that the source selection be made on the basis of lowest price unless the solicitation so specifies; rather, price/technical tradeoffs may be made and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the solicitation's evaluation terms.