B-297444.2, Low & Associates, Inc., April 13, 2006

B-297444.2 Apr 13, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Low & Associates, Inc. (LAI) protests the National Science Foundation's (NSF) award of a contract to Dynamic Research Corporation (DRC) to provide visual information support services pursuant to solicitation No. DCCA 050054. LAI protests, among other things, that the agency waived material solicitation requirements. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-297444.2, Low & Associates, Inc., April 13, 2006 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: Low & Associates, Inc. File: B-297444.2 Date: April 13, 2006 Daniel S. Koch, Esq., and Bibi M. Berry, Esq., Paley Rothman Goldstein Rosenberg Eig & Cooper, for the protester. Sandra M. Wozniak, National Science Foundation, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency is required to perform its evaluation and make its source selection decision on the basis of the criteria and requirements stated in the solicitation, and may not alter or relax those criteria and requirements without amending the solicitation and permitting all contractors an opportunity to compete on an equal basis. DECISION Low & Associates, Inc. (LAI) protests the National Science Foundation's (NSF) award of a contract to Dynamic Research Corporation (DRC) to provide visual information support services pursuant to solicitation No. DCCA 050054. LAI protests, among other things, that the agency waived material solicitation requirements.[1] We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND In May 2005, the agency issued request for quotations (RFQ) No. DCCA 050054 to obtain visual information support services for a base-year period and four 1-year option periods.[2] The requirements being sought reflected a combination of requirements previously performed under two expiring contracts. LAI was the incumbent for one of these expiring contracts; DRC was the incumbent for the other. Section M of the solicitation advised offerors that award would be based on the quotation that –offers the best value to the National Science Foundation based on technical merit, past performance, and cost,— and further established that technical merit was more important than cost/price, which was more important than past performance. RFQ at 30. With regard to technical merit, the solicitation established two subfactors: qualifications of proposed personnel and technical approach. RFQ at 30'31. With regard to the qualifications of proposed personnel, contractors were directed to –include resumes and certification of availability— for all personnel proposed and were advised that the agency would assess specified qualifications of the proposed personnel. [3] RFQ at 27, 30. Section L of the solicitation directed offerors to submit a –combined technical and cost quotation for services as required and described in the SOW [statement of work].— RFQ at 27. Under the heading –Level of Effort,— the SOW stated: [i]t is envisioned that, over a period of 12 months, the office will require two full-time graphic artists (4,160 hours), 1 graphic artist/animator (2080 [hours]), two full-time web page designers/page developers (4,160 hours) and the equivalent of two full-time image research assistants (4,160 hours). . . . It is expected that at least six of the seven contract staff personnel (two graphics designers/scientific illustrators, two web designer[s]/page developers, one graphic artist/animator and one image researcher) will be located on site. RFQ at 11-12. In short, the solicitation provided that the agency sought quotations for specifically identified personnel to fill a total of seven personnel positions--two graphic artists, one graphic artist/animator, two web page designers/developers, and two image research assistants--and stated that the personnel filling all of these positions, except for one of the two image researcher positions, were expected to be located on-site at NSF's facility in Arlington, Virginia. In June 2005, LAI and DRC each submitted quotations responding to the solicitation.[4] DRC's proposal, under the heading –Staff Location,— clearly stated that one of the two web page designer/developer positions would be filled by a combination of two individuals working –from their office in New York,— [5] elaborating that –[the [deleted] principals'] office in New York provides access to cutting-edge multimedia resources with no draw on the NSF space.— AR, Tab 8, DRC Proposal (June 20, 2005), at 6. In evaluating DRC's submission, it is clear the agency evaluators understood that DRC was planning for the [deleted] principals to perform one of the web page designer/developer positions off-site.