GAO Report from B-2954502

B-295450.2 Mar 07, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ace Info Solutions, Inc., a small disadvantaged business, protests the failure of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJJL-04-RFP-2068, for the information technology (IT) support services program, referred to as the ITSS III program. Ace Info argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and, as a result, failed to award the firm one of the three small business awards contemplated by the solicitation. The protest is denied. View Decision B-295450.2, Ace Info Solutions, Inc., March 7, 2005 Decision Matter of: Ace Info Solutions, Inc. File: B-295450.2 Date: March 7, 2005 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes & Gordon, for the protester. Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Jennafer M. Seeley, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, PLLC, for Acess Systems, Inc.; Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., William J. Grimaldi, Esq., and Joseph E. Ashman, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for BAE Systems Information Technology; Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., for Computer Sciences Corporation; the intervenors. John R. Caterini, Esq., and Barry C. Hansen, Esq., Department of Justice, 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 evaluation of protester's technical/management proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and is supported by the record. DECISION Ace Info Solutions, Inc., a small disadvantaged business, protests the failure of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJJL-04-RFP-2068, for the information technology (IT) support services program, referred to as the ITSS III program. Ace Info argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and, as a result, failed to award the firm one of the three small business awards contemplated by the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The primary purpose of this procurement is for the successful contractor(s) to provide nonpersonal, labor hour services for a wide range of IT related tasks and processes as described in the statement of work (SOW) to support the DOJ and other federal agencies. As a secondary purpose, the solicitation provides for the acquisition, delivery, installation, warranty, maintenance, or upgrade of IT hardware, IT software, IT communications technology, and other equipment and supplies. RFP amend. 2, at 11, 22. As amended, the RFP provided for the award of up to 12 indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, each for a base year with six 1-year options. The RFP provided for the award of at least three of the contracts to small business concerns. RFP amend. 2, at 8-9, 46. The ITSS III contractor(s) will be required to provide all management, administration, staffing, planning, scheduling and procuring for all items of service or supply required by the contract and/or task order. Id. at 22. The RFP stated that performance of all services under the ITSS III contracts would be initiated by the agency's issuance of task orders in response to a work plan request (WPR). Id. at 12, 23-24. [1] The RFP warned that the agency intended to award the contracts without conducting discussions, and cautioned offerors to submit their best proposals initially. Id. at 97, 112, 115. Under the RFP, each award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The RFP identified an evaluation scheme in which the combined non-price evaluation factors were significantly more important than price. The RFP instructed each offeror to submit a technical/management proposal addressing all technical evaluation factors, as well as a separate business/pricing proposal consisting of offeror certifications, teaming and subcontracting participation plan, completed business management questionnaire, pricing tables, and small business subcontracting plan (large business offerors only). The evaluation factors and subfactors, as well as their respective weights were as follows: Factor Weight 1. Offeror's comprehensive Technical Capability 110 points a. Management Plan and Approach 20 points b. Key and Core Personnel 20 points c. Technical Proficiency 10 points d. Experience 25 points e. Past Performance (worth 15 points) and Multiple Award Vehicle Statistics (worth 10 points) 25 points f. Small Business Usage 10 points 2. Total Evaluated Price [2] RFP amend.