B-297508; B-297508.2, The MIL Corporation, January 26, 2006

B-297508; B-297508.2, The MIL Corporation, January 26, 2006 TITLE: B-297508; B-297508.2, The MIL Corporation, January 26, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297508; B-297508.2 DATE: January 26, 2006 *********************************************************** B-297508; B-297508.2, The MIL Corporation, January 26, 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: The MIL Corporation File: B-297508; B-297508.2 Date: January 26, 2006 Louis D. Victorino, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., Aleksander Lamvol, Esq., and Marko W. Kipa, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Richard J. Huber, Esq., and Robin Coll, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest issue raised subsequent to a post-award debriefing provided to a vendor in a Federal Supply Schedule procurement is untimely where it was filed more than 10 days after the basis of protest was known; since the procurement was not conducted on the basis of competitive proposals, the timeliness rules based on protests which challenge a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and required are not applicable. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of vendors' quotations is denied where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria. 3. Protest alleging that, in its evaluation of the protester's quotation, the agency unreasonably ignored information that was "simply too close at hand" (but not contained in the protester's quotation) is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that the information in question was known to the individuals involved in the evaluation of the quotation. 4. Protest that agency improperly changed the stated basis for award from "best value" to low priced/technically acceptable is denied where the record reflects that the agency found the quotations of the awardee and protester to be, at best, technically equal and made award to the lower-priced vendor; the fact that no price/technical tradeoff was required does not negate the fact that the agency properly adhered to the best-value award basis. DECISION The MIL Corporation (MIL) protests the issuance of a task order to the Anteon Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00421-05-T-0229, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), Naval Air Systems Command, Department of the Navy, for information technology (IT) help-desk support services. MIL argues that Anteon had impermissible organizational conflicts of interest, that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations was unreasonable, and that the resulting award decision was improper. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on September 8, 2005, to 12 vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for IT services, contemplated the award of a time-and-materials task order for a 1-year period of performance. The solicitation included a statement of work (SOW), a summary of the anticipated labor hours and labor categories required, instructions to vendors regarding the submission of quotations, and the evaluation factors for award. The RFQ established four evaluation factors of approximately equal importance: management plan/staffing; past performance; technical approach; and price.[1] RFQ, Evaluation Criteria, at 1. Award was to be made to the vendor whose quotation was determined to be the "best value" to the government based upon an integrated assessment of all evaluation factors. RFQ, Cover Letter, at 1. Five vendors, including Anteon and MIL, the incumbent, submitted quotations by the September 19 due date. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) consisting of two agency employees evaluated vendors' quotations under the nonprice evaluation factors using an adjectival rating system: outstanding; highly satisfactory; satisfactory; marginal; and unsatisfactory. The TEP did not develop consensus evaluation ratings for each vendor's quotation; rather, each evaluator separately submitted his/her own evaluation ratings, including worksheets and narrative comments, to the contracting officer.