JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc., B-293235.6, April 29, 2004

B-293235.6 Apr 29, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. CM1301-03-RP-0019, issued as a total small business set-aside by the Department of Commerce for information technology (IT) services. JAVIS asserts that the evaluation of its proposal was inconsistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP and was otherwise unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293235.6, JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc., April 29, 2004 Decision Matter of: JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. File: B-293235.6 Date: April 29, 2004 John W. Long for the protester. Mark Langstein, Esq., Terry Hart Lee, Esq., and Lauren Kalish, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging contracting agency's evaluation of protester's proposal and exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where agency's evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria. DECISION JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. CM1301-03-RP-0019, issued as a total small business set-aside by the Department of Commerce for information technology (IT) services. JAVIS asserts that the evaluation of its proposal was inconsistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP and was otherwise unreasonable. We deny the protest. This protest concerns the Phase I competition for Tier I offerors in the Commerce Information Technology Solutions Next Generation (COMMITS NexGen) procurement.[1] Issued on August 18, 2003, and amended several times, the RFP contemplates the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity task order contracts with a 5-year ordering period. RFP amend. 6, B.3, at 2. The RFP provided for a three-tier classification system for the submission and evaluation of offerors' proposals as well as for task order competition among the ultimate contract awardees.[2] The RFP provided that the COMMITS NexGen procurement may encompass several competitive range determinations in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(c)(2), RFP amend. 6, Cover Letter, at 1, and advised offerors that the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. RFP L.2(f)(4), at 59. Under Phase I, offerors were to respond to a series of technical questions (referred to in the solicitation as the –down-select questions—); the number of questions to which each offeror was required to respond was determined by its size. Tier I firms were required to respond to any four of ten technical questions. RFP amend. 6, L.11.2.1, at 65. Offerors also were required to complete a pricing matrix and provide labor rates on both an hourly and annual basis for the specified labor categories. RFP attach. J-6, Pricing Matrix; RFP amend. 6, L.11.2.1.2, at 65a. The RFP advised that the purpose of the pricing matrix was to allow the agency to compare pricing among all offerors and further advised that all proposed labor rates must have been negotiated on a prior government procurement within a year of the response to this solicitation. RFP amend. 6, L.11.2.1.2, at 65a. The Phase I down-select responses were to be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: quality (denominated as past performance);[3] experience/technical capability (denominated as overall experience);[4] and price.[5] The RFP further provided that the quality and experience/technical capability factors were of equal importance and that each was more important than price. RFP amend. 6, M.4, at 74. With regard to the price evaluation, section M stated that price proposals would be evaluated for realism and reasonableness and would be examined to determine if they deviated above or below what was expected. The solicitation further stated that a designated sample of proposed rates would be compared against those of other offerors to determine if they were reasonable. RFP amend. 6, M.4.3, at 74. The agency received numerous Tier I proposals, including JAVIS's, by the solicitation's extended closing date. Under the quality factor, the agency evaluators assigned JAVIS's proposal the highest possible rating of blue. Under the experience/technical capability factor, the evaluators assigned JAVIS's proposal the second highest possible overall rating of green based on the firm's four responses to the down-select questions. Specifically, the evaluators rated the protester's response to down-select question No.