B-297252.3, TruLogic, Inc., January 30, 2006

B-297252.3 Jan 30, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TruLogic, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Command Technology, Inc. (CTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8104-05-R-0414, issued by the Department of the Air Force for Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) systems development and Technical Order (TO) "sustainment." TruLogic challenges the agency's technical and price evaluation, and contends that the source selection authority (SSA) was biased. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297252.3, TruLogic, Inc., January 30, 2006 Decision Matter of: TruLogic, Inc. File: B-297252.3 Date: January 30, 2006 Theresa Armentrout for the protester. Igor Boris, Command Technology, Inc., for the intervenor. Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter, Department of the Air Force, 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 Source selection authority's (SSA) disagreement with the majority of the evaluators and acceptance of the minority's recommendation that the awardee be selected for award is unobjectionable and does not evidence a lack of –impartiality,— where the SSA reached a reasoned conclusion, supported by the record, that the awardee's lower-priced, lower-rated proposal deserved a higher technical rating than was assigned by the majority and represented the best value to the government. DECISION TruLogic, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Command Technology, Inc. (CTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8104-05-R-0414, issued by the Department of the Air Force for Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) systems development and Technical Order (TO) –sustainment.— TruLogic challenges the agency's technical and price evaluation, and contends that the source selection authority (SSA) was biased. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND TruLogic previously protested an Air Force decision to award a contract for IETM system development to CTI under the RFP. We dismissed the protest after the Air Force notified our Office that it was taking corrective action. The agency then amended the RFP, sought and evaluated revised proposals, and once again selected CTI for award. This protest challenges the new award to CTI.[1] The RFP, set aside for small businesses, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for IETM systems development and TO sustainment support for specific Air Force engines. An IETM is a secure computer solution that distributes standards-based electronic technical data. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), sect. 2.1. The required tasks in the SOW included developing IETM systems from government-furnished digital TO source files, converting TOs from legacy paper format to an Air Force-approved IETM system format, providing sustainment support for applicable TOs after the IETM systems are built, and providing improvements and enhancements to the IETM systems during the course of the contract. Id. sect. 1.1. The agency did not dictate how the IETM systems were to be built. Rather, it left to the offerors to determine which –methodology— and –processes— to use to develop the IETM systems. The SOW did state that the IETM and all deliverables had to be compliant with Air Force, Department of Defense, and other identified standards, as well as certain specified –functionality requirements.— Id. sections 2.1.2, 2.2. The RFP provided that award would be made to a General Services Administration (GSA) contract holder under the firm's GSA Federal Supply Schedule contract for a base period with four 1-year options. The RFP stated that award would be made on a –best-value— basis, considering mission capability (including two equally weighted subfactors for program management[2] and technical performance[3]), proposal risk, past performance, and price. The first three factors were stated to be of equal importance and combined were –significantly more important than price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.— RFP, Evaluation Factors for Award, sections 2.1, 2.2. With regard to the program management subfactor of the mission capability factor, offerors were requested to –describe in detail a sound and rational approach to program management for the IETM [systems] program— that addressed –at a minimum— each of the identified –essential components— of the approach. With regard to the technical performance subfactor of the mission capability factor, offerors were instructed to –describe in detail a sound and rational approach to program management for the IETM [systems] program— and include with their proposals a –demonstration disk— to demonstrate –basic functionalities and enhancements— listed in the SOW.