GAO Report from B-294836

B-294836 Dec 30, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The MIL Corporation protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. CM1303-03-RP-0019, issued by the Department of Commerce, for the award of governmentwide acquisition contracts, referred to as the Commerce Information Technology Solutions Next Generation (COMMITS NexGen) program. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-294836, The MIL Corporation, December 30, 2004 Decision Matter of: The MIL Corporation File: B-294836 Date: December 30, 2004 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and Joseph E. Ashman, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for the protester. Lauren Kalish, Esq., Terry Hart Lee, Esq., and Mark Langstein, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's unfavorable evaluation of protester's proposal under a past performance subfactor was improper where the effect of the low rating was to penalize the protester for a lack of past performance information that the agency deemed relevant to this subfactor. 2. Agency's "best value" (price/technical tradeoff) analysis in which minimal consideration was given to proposed prices is improper because it fails to consider price as a meaningful evaluation factor, as required by 41 U.S.C. 253a(c)(1)(B) (2000) and the terms of the solicitation. DECISION The MIL Corporation protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. CM1303-03-RP-0019, issued by the Department of Commerce, for the award of governmentwide acquisition contracts, referred to as the Commerce Information Technology Solutions Next Generation (COMMITS NexGen) program. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued as a total set-aside for small businesses, provided for the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to provide certain information technology services. The RFP stated that "[w]hile no maximum number of contracts to be awarded has been determined, the Government will keep the number of awards to a reasonable amount" based upon the consideration of certain factors set forth in the solicitation. [2] RFP M.1. The RFP provided that the competition would be conducted in "multiple phases," with the first phase being a "down-select[] process" during which offerors would respond to a "series of identified technical questions from the government as well as providing information on their experience and past performance references as well as pricing information." RFP L.11. The solicitation advised that "[o]nly those offerors deemed as most qualified [would] be invited to participate in the second phase." Id. The second phase of the procurement involved the selected offerors' submission of written technical and price proposals. [3] RFP L.11. Offerors were informed that during the second phase proposals would be evaluated and selected for award based upon the following evaluation factors and subfactors: Mission Capability [4] Use of innovative business practices Experience in ID/IQ environment Team arrangements with other Industry Entities Past Performance Awards Past performance management Successful relationships with Industry Entities Price RFP M.3. The solicitation provided that in selecting proposals for award, the mission capability and past performance factors would be considered equal in importance, and each of these non-price factors would be considered more important than price. RFP M.3.4. The subfactors within the mission capability and past performance factors were stated to be equal in importance with each other. RFP M.3.1, M.3.2. The agency received numerous submissions from Tier II offerors in response to the solicitation, and evaluated proposals from 44 Tier II offerors, including MIL, during the second phase of the procurement. [5] AR, Tab 7, COMMITS NexGen Phase 2, Tier II Evaluation. MIL's proposal was evaluated as "blue" under each of the subfactors comprising the mission capability factor, and "blue" overall under the mission capability factor. With respect to the past performance factor, MIL's proposal was evaluated as "red" under the awards subfactor (the rating at issue in this protest), "blue" under the past performance management and successful relationships with industry entities subfactors, and "green" overall. With regard to price, MIL's proposal received a "blue" rating. The agency evaluated MIL's proposal as "green" overall. [6] Id. The agency ultimately selected 24 Tier II proposals for award, each of which had received a "blue" rating overall. [7] AR, Tab 10, Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Report, attach. 2. The proposals selected had all received "blue" ratings under the mission capability and past performance evaluation factors, and 12 of these proposals had also received "blue" ratings under the price evaluation factor.