B-297215; B-297215.2; B-297215.3; B-297215.4, Systems Plus, Inc., December 16, 2005

B-297215; B-297215.2; B-297215.3; B-297215.4, Systems Plus, Inc., December 16, 2005 TITLE: B-297215; B-297215.2; B-297215.3; B-297215.4, Systems Plus, Inc., December 16, 2005 BNUMBER: B-297215; B-297215.2; B-297215.3; B-297215.4 DATE: December 16, 2005 *********************************************************************************** B-297215; B-297215.2; B-297215.3; B-297215.4, Systems Plus, Inc., December 16, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Systems Plus, Inc. File: B-297215; B-297215.2; B-297215.3; B-297215.4 Date: December 16, 2005 David Kasanow, Esq., Thomas C. Papson, Esq., Alison L. Doyle, Esq., Dana Pashkoff, Esq., and Karri Garrett, Esq., McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Robert E. Gregg, Esq., Steven Tibbets, Esq., and Margaret L. Maciulla, Esq., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP, for Aquilent, Inc., an intervenor. Dennis Adelson, Esq., Department of Labor, and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency's evaluation of quotations and selection decision is denied where record shows they were reasonable and consistent with solicitation. DECISION Systems Plus, Inc. protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement to Aquilent, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DOL059RQ20030, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for information technology services. The protester contends that the selection of Aquilent's higher-rated, higher-priced quotation was inconsistent with the evaluation scheme in the solicitation. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on April 29, 2005, as a small business set-aside, sought quotations from Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractors for information technology software development services. The solicitation advised that award could be made to other than the lowest-priced vendor, and that the award would be made to the vendor submitting the quotation determined to be in the best interest of the government. RFQ at 1, 32. The RFQ specifically advised that the agency's determination of which quotation represents the best value to the government was to be based upon consideration of three evaluation factors: technical (with subfactors for understanding, statement of work, performance requirements summary, qualifications, availability of staff, institutional experience, and project management), past performance, and price; the RFQ did not state that any of the three factors was more important than any other of the factors. Id. at 32. Technical quotations were to demonstrate an understanding of the RFQ's statement of work, objectives, performance measures, and staffing needs. Id. at 33. The evaluation of past performance was to include a review of past performance reference surveys for contracts described in the firms' quotations, as well as any other information available to the contracting officer. Id. For evaluation purposes, vendors were to quote a total price, based on multiplying estimated hours by fixed hourly rates by labor category; the use of service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses would also be considered by the agency in making its "overall best value determination." Id. Five vendors submitted quotations. Aquilent's quotation was rated highest for technical merit (under both the technical and past performance factors). Specifically, the Aquilent quotation received a rating of "strong" under five of the six subfactors of the technical factor, and a rating of "exceptional" for past performance. Aquilent's quoted price, the second-highest received, was $17,275,979.