Locus Technology, Inc., B-293012, January 16, 2004

B-293012 Jan 16, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Locus Technology, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal and the issuance of a purchase order to Topaz Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NHLBI-PS-2002-105, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for animal facility management software for NIH's Veterinary Research Program (VRP). We sustain the protest. View Decision B-293012, Locus Technology, Inc., January 16, 2004 Decision Matter of: Locus Technology, Inc. File: B-293012 Date: January 16, 2004 Ragnhild Larkins for the protester. Mike Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging proposal evaluation is sustained where record reveals that agency failed to consider significant portions of protesters revised proposal in its evaluation and failed to consider offerors prices in source selection decision. DECISION Locus Technology, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal and the issuance of a purchase order to Topaz Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NHLBI-PS-2002-105, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for animal facility management software for NIHs Veterinary Research Program (VRP). We sustain the protest. The RFP, which was originally issued on August 21, 2002, sought commercially available software to assist the VRP in managing its animal facilities and resources. The RFP specified required functionalities of the software pertaining to animal health, animal husbandry, animal husbandry reporting, animal procurement, protocol management, protocol reporting, billing for services, query, and additional functionality. For example, under the heading animal husbandry, the RFP required the ability to collect data on animal holding; to create a species room inventory; to enter census records manually; and to scan, track and report census data electronically from a barcode reading device. The solicitation instructed offerors to format their technical proposals to clearly identify that the proposed commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) Animal Facility Management Software meets/does not meet the requirements of the statement of work, and to indicate whether the proposed commercially available software required customization to meet the RFPs requirements. RFP at 20. The RFP advised offerors that they would be required to provide an active demonstration of their software. It also instructed them to submit past performance information. The RFP provided for award to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, price and other factors (technical approach, product demonstration, and past performance) considered.[1] The RFP did not specify the relative importance of the evaluation factors. Five offerors, including Locus, submitted proposals by the closing date, as extended, of September 16, 2002. The contract specialist contacted Locus by e-mail on November 18, and again on November 19, to schedule its product demonstration and to seek supplemental and clarifying information regarding its proposal.[2] Locuss demonstration was scheduled for December 4, and Locus submitted additional information in response to the contract specialists inquiries by e-mail message of December 5. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) convened on January 16, 2003. Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the following point scheme: Evaluation factor Maximum available points Technical proposal/approach 25 Product demonstration 55 Past performance 20 Technical scores ranged from a high of 77.3 for Topaz to a low of 40.5 for Locus. The discrepancy between the two offerors scores was almost entirely attributable to the differences in their scores under the two areas: (1) the technical proposal/approach factor, under which Locus received only 5.3 (of 25) points, due in large part to the protesters perceived failure to identify clearly in its written proposal the requirements of the statement of work that its software did or did not meet; and (2) their scores under the past performance factor, under which Locus received a score of 0 (of 20) points, apparently based on its failure to submit past performance references with its initial proposal. Under the product demonstration factor, the two proposals received similar scores.