ACS Government Services, Inc., B-293014, January 20, 2004

B-293014 Jan 20, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACS Government Services, Inc. (ACS) protests the issuance of a purchase order to Metrica, Inc. under a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA), Department of the Army, for installation and training services of the Defense Medical Logistics Standard System (DMLSS) Deployment Release 3.X. ACS argues that Metrica materially misrepresented the availability of certain key personnel, that the Army's evaluation of Metrica's quotation was unreasonable, and that the agency's source selection decision was improper. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-293014, ACS Government Services, Inc., January 20, 2004 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: ACS Government Services, Inc. File: B-293014 Date: January 20, 2004 Robert J. Sherry, Esq., Kathleen M. Paralusz, Esq., and Marc R. Baluda, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, for the protester. Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for Metrica, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Anissa N. Parekh, Capt. M. Turner Pope, Jr., and Kenneth J. Allen, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that awardee misrepresented that three proposed key personnel had agreed to work for the firm is sustained where the record shows that the three individuals had not so agreed, and where the misrepresentation materially affected the evaluation of the awardees proposal. DECISION ACS Government Services, Inc. (ACS) protests the issuance of a purchase order to Metrica, Inc. under a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA), Department of the Army, for installation and training services of the Defense Medical Logistics Standard System (DMLSS) Deployment Release 3.X. ACS argues that Metrica materially misrepresented the availability of certain key personnel, that the Armys evaluation of Metricas quotation was unreasonable, and that the agencys source selection decision was improper. We sustain the protest. Background DMLSS Deployment Release 3.X is part of an automated information system which standardizes medical inventory management practices, equipment management, medical maintenance, financial accounting and tracking, customer area inventory management, electronic and web-based ordering, and warehousing function throughout a medical treatment facility (MTF) for defense health care operations. Contracting Officers Statement at 1. The procurement here is to acquire the support services necessary to the functional implementation of DMLSS Deployment Release 3.X at specified Army MTFs. The specific tasks required to be performed by the contractor include: (1) conducting onsite/telephonic pre-deployment site surveys, (2) coordinating in-briefing and out-briefing meetings, (3) conducting pre-conversion database validations, (4) providing onsite deployment support to the gaining MTF, and (5) providing extensive onsite training. Statement of Work (SOW) 1.1. On July 23, 2003, the Army issued the RFQ to five vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for information technology services. The solicitation included the SOW, instructions to vendors regarding the submission of quotations, and the evaluation factors for award. Contracting Officers Statement at 2. The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price purchase order for 1 year, with one 1-year option.[1] The solicitation established four evaluation factors: technical qualifications of key personnel, past performance, managements technical approach, and price. The RFQ stated that the first two evaluation factors were of equal importance and that each was more important than the managements technical approach factor. The solicitation advised vendors that all non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price (price, however, could become the deciding factor if quotations were evaluated and determined to be technically equivalent). The solicitation also notified vendors that the basis for award was best value, based on an overall consideration of the evaluation factors.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Evaluation Factors for Award, at 1. Three vendors, including ACS and Metrica, submitted quotations, each consisting of a technical proposal and price proposal, by the August 8 closing date.[3] An Army source selection evaluation board (SSEB) rated vendors technical proposals using an adjectival rating system: excellent, above average, average, and unacceptable. After the initial evaluation of quotations, the Army conducted written discussions with all three vendors.