B-296526, Integrate, Inc., August 4, 2005

B-296526 Aug 04, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Integrate, Inc., protests the award to EarthSoft, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-GA-05-00012 issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for environmental data management software. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296526, Integrate, Inc., August 4, 2005 Decision Matter of: Integrate, Inc. File: B-296526 Date: August 4, 2005 Michael D. Crouch, Ph.D., for the protester. Kenneth A. Redden, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's quotation to provide environmental data management software was reasonably rejected as technically unacceptable where quotation did not demonstrate that the proposed software satisfied the –essential requirements— of the solicitation. DECISION Integrate, Inc., protests the award to EarthSoft, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-GA-05-00012 issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for environmental data management software. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued as a combined solicitation/synopsis, sought software to manage environmental data from various programs adminstered by Region 4 of the EPA, and included related licenses, ancillary software, and maintenance support. The RFQ stated that the environmental data management sofware procured had to be –easy to us— and have a –browser-based interface that will allow casual users to generate standard tables, reports, and charts based on specified criteria.— RFQ para. 2. To achieve this, the RFQ contained a number of –essential requirements.— For example, the system was required to be –non-proprietary,— allow for the –easy or transparent exchange of data with EPA Region 4 member[s] . . . [and] natively support the Region 5,— and be capable of supporting –100+ users.— Id. paras. 3.d, 3.h, 3.n. The source code and data model was to be –made available so that the EPA Region 4 may make any modifications to the system that are demed necessary or desirable.— Id. para. 3.c. The system was to have the ability to –place data (such as a queried subset) into and tightly integrate with other software without the user having to manually export, then import it (for example, into Microsoft Excel for graphing, ArcGIS for mapping, Surfer 8.5 for contouring, RockWorks 2002 for boring logs, etc.),— and to allow for importing data via integration with –Lotus Notes e-mail.— Id. paras. 3.l, 3.m. The RFQ also required that vendors provide past performance information –where same software systems, including [the] current proposed version, were provided to a customer similar in size to an EPA Region Office or State Organization.— Id. at 3. Integrate and four other firms submitted quotations in response to the RFQ. Integrate proposed to provide its –TerraBase [version] 3.0— software, but did not submit past performance references identifying persons that had actually used this software. Instead, all nine of Integrate's references were users of a previous version of the TerraBase software, version 2.7.1.[1] The agency contacted these references, but they could not confirm whether Integrate's proposed system met the –essential requirements— of the RFQ. The agency advised Integrate that the firm's –quotation, as submitted, lacked sufficient information for [the EPA] to determine whether it met the requirements of the RFQ,— and asked Integrate to provide additional information to support its claims. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Integrate responded with two e-mails containing 40 .pdf file attachments containing –screen shots,— a sales brochure, and –frequently asked questions.— After reviewing this information, the agency determined that Integrate's quotation was technically unacceptable. In this regard, the agency found that Integrate did not adequately address a number of the –essential requirements— of the solicitation, in some cases merely restating the solicitation requirement without addressing how the proposed software addressed the requirements. It noted that the screen shots and marketing materials did not illustrate technical acceptability, and in some instances demonstrated that the software was technically unacceptable. For example, one of the –essential requirements— was that the software –be capable of generating cross-tab tables of data in various formats,— RFQ para. 3.j, but Integrate's screen shots for the TerraBase 3.0 software showed that the .pdf format was not supported.