Joint Management & Technology Services, B-294229; B-294229.2, September 22, 2004

Joint Management & Technology Services, B-294229; B-294229.2, September 22, 2004 TITLE: Joint Management & Technology Services, B-294229; B-294229.2, September 22, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294229; B-294229.2 DATE: September 22, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Joint Management & Technology Services File: B-294229; B-294229.2 Date: September 22, 2004 David P. Metzger, Esq., Michele M. Brown, Esq., and Anand V. Ramana, Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester. G. Lindsay Simmons, Esq., and James Eric Whytsell, Esq., Jackson Kelly, for Prologic, Inc., an intervenor. Thomas J. Russial, Esq., Nancy Toppetta, Esq., Patricia D. Graham, Esq., and Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that, because agency destroyed individual evaluator sheets, record does not include adequate documentation supporting the agency's evaluation and source selection decision, is denied where consensus evaluation materials and source selection decision contain a detailed explanation of the agency's evaluation conclusions and source selection decision. 2. Protest allegations challenging agency's evaluation of protester's proposal are denied where either the allegations are without merit, or the alleged evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to protester. 3. Protester is not an interested party to challenge evaluation of awardee's proposal where record shows that another firm, not the protester, would be in line for award if protester's challenge were sustained, and protester does not challenge evaluation of the other firm's proposal. DECISION Joint Management & Technology Services (JMTS), a Small Business Administration-approved mentor-protege joint venture, protests the award of a contract to Prologic,A Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP26-03NT41820, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) to acquire information technology and engineering support services for its National Energy Technology Laboratory. JMTS asserts that the agency misevaluated proposals and, as a result, made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee task order contract for a base period of 3 years, with two 1-year options. Firms were advised that the agency intended to make award to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the "best value" to the government considering cost and the following five non-cost criteria (weighted): technical approach (35 percent); key/critical personnel (25 percent); management approach (20 percent); experience (10 percent); and past performance (10 percent). RFP atA 162.[2] The agency received 11 proposals, including the protester's and the awardee's. After evaluating the proposals and arriving at consensus scores, the agency determined that, of the 11 proposals submitted, 6 were weak, 4 (including the protester's) were satisfactory, and 1 (the awardee's) was outstanding. The agency arrived at these conclusions using a scoring system outlined in the agency's source selection plan; proposals were scored under each of the evaluation criteria with numeric ratings of either 0 (unacceptable), 2 (weak), 5 (satisfactory), 8 (very good) or 10 (outstanding). AR, exh. E-1, at 7. The numeric scores were assigned based on the number and quality of strengths and weaknesses found (and described by the evaluators in narrative form) for each proposal under each criterion. These numeric ratings were then multiplied by the relative weight for each evaluation criterion, resulting in a maximum possible score of 1,000 points. The scores assigned to the satisfactory and outstanding proposals were as follows: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Key/ | | | | | | | Tech. Approach | | Mgmt. Approach | Experience | Past Perf.