Federal Management Systems, Inc., B-293336, February 20, 2004

B-293336 Feb 20, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest is denied where the protester failed to demonstrate that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal. Frederick) and in North Carolina (Research Triangle Park). /1/ The RFP was issued pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 and the Circular's Revised Supplemental Handbook (RSH) to determine whether it would be more economical to perform the required services in-house or to contract for these services under the referenced RFP. MSI was the only offeror to submit a proposal in the private-sector portion of this A-76 cost comparison. FMSI argues that the agency did not have a reasonable basis to reject its proposal as technically unacceptable. The RFP further defined technical acceptability as follows: Technically acceptable is defined through the performance levels in the PWS [Performance Work Statement] ([Sec.]. View Decision Federal Management Systems, Inc., B-293336, February 20, 2004 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Federal Management Systems, Inc. (FMSI) protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-03-P(GK)-0059, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, for administrative support services for grants application management, program, and review support for NIH facilities in Maryland (Bethesda, Rockville, and Frederick) and in North Carolina (Research Triangle Park). /1/ The RFP was issued pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 and the Circular's Revised Supplemental Handbook (RSH) to determine whether it would be more economical to perform the required services in-house or to contract for these services under the referenced RFP. MSI was the only offeror to submit a proposal in the private-sector portion of this A-76 cost comparison. FMSI argues that the agency did not have a reasonable basis to reject its proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. On May 22, 2003, NIH issued the RFP on an unrestricted basis in order to select a private-sector offeror to compete against the government's "most efficient organization" (MEO) under the A-76 cost comparison process. /2/ More specifically, the RFP stated that the agency would conduct the cost comparison between the MEO and the private-sector offeror that submitted the low priced, technically acceptable proposal. As relevant here, in determining the technical acceptability of a private-sector offeror's proposal, the RFP contained the following four equally weighted technical evaluation factors: (1) past performance; (2) understanding of the requirements/technical approach; (3) understanding of staffing requirements; and (4) understanding of management requirements. For each of these technical evaluation factors, the RFP provided that proposals could receive one of the following adjectival ratings: (1) excellent; (2) good; (3) marginal; and (4) poor. /3/ For each of the four technical evaluation factors, the RFP specifically stated that a proposal "must receive a rating of good or excellent to be considered technically acceptable." RFP at 124-26. The RFP further defined technical acceptability as follows: Technically acceptable is defined through the performance levels in the PWS [Performance Work Statement] ([Sec.] C, and [Sec.] J attachments). This requires meeting all the requirements (services and service levels) and standards within the workload variances. Technically acceptable is NOT meant to imply "marginal," "partial compliance," or "what is acceptable on other contracts." NIH has specific and unique extramural programs and requirements. Technically acceptable in this case implies a historical level of performance that effectively achieves the NIH mission in a cost efficient manner. Id. at 122. The RFP advised that a private-sector offeror's initial proposal should contain the firm's most favorable terms since the agency could select a proposal from a private-sector offeror and proceed to the A-76 cost comparison without having conducted discussions with the private-sector offerors. RFP Cover Letter. Section C of the RFP contained the PWS requirements. Section C-1 required that the private-sector offeror or the MEO, depending on the outcome of the A-76 cost comparison, provide all management, supervision, administration, and labor to support the grants management, program, and review support services identified in this "Performance-based [PWS]." RFP Sec. C-1, General Information, at 1. The PWS stated that the "major functional requirements" contained in the PWS describe the supplies and services the government will purchase and, therefore, are the foundation of the RFP. RFP Sec. C-5, Specific Tasks, at 37. The PWS further stated that the "functional area approach . . . express[es] minimum performance requirements . . .