B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4, SAP Public Services, Inc., February 10, 2006

B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4, SAP Public Services, Inc., February 10, 2006 TITLE: B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4, SAP Public Services, Inc., February 10, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4 DATE: February 10, 2006 ******************************************************************************** B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4, SAP Public Services, Inc., February 10, 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: SAP Public Services, Inc. File: B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4 Date: February 10, 2006 David S. Cohen, Esq. and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP; Richard B. Oliver, Esq., Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and Kevin J. Slattum, Esq., McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., William J. Colwell, Esq., Daniel P. Graham, Esq., and Kevin J. Plummer, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for Oracle Corporation, an intervenor. Maj. Derek S. Sherrill, Maj. Michael S. Martin, and Lt. Col. Michaelisa M. Tomasic-Lander, Department of the Air Force, 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 1. Protest that awardee's quotation was "noncompliant" with solicitation requirements regarding commercial availability of software is denied where the procurement record indicates that awardee's quotation complied with the solicitation requirements and protester expressly acknowledges that it has "no proof" to support its allegation. 2. Protester's disagreement with the agency's subjective assessments of the protester's and awardee's quotations with regard to non-price evaluation factors do not provide a basis for sustaining the protest where agency evaluation is supported by the record. 3. Where solicitation stated that agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations would include risk assessments regarding, among other things, the potential for increased costs, agency's "best value" determination properly considered such risk assessments without quantifying the potential impact on vendors' costs. 4. In making a "best value" determination, agency properly performed a cost/technical tradeoff based on the evaluated prices that were calculated consistent with the solicitation's provisions. DECISION SAP Public Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Oracle Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8770-04-Q-0061 to provide software, licenses, technical support, and training for the expeditionary combat support system (ECSS) program. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2005, the Air Force issued the RFQ to obtain competitive quotations pursuant to the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS).[1] The solicitation sought quotations for a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software product (or suite of products), licenses, technical support and training for a new expeditionary combat support system (ECSS) which is intended to improve weapon systems availability by improving the effectiveness of U.S. Air Force logistics.[2] RFQ at 2. The solicitation stated that "to the greatest extent possible, [ECSS will] replace Air Force retail and wholesale logistics legacy systems with commercially available products," and that the products sought "will consist of a core COTS ERP product and any necessary COTS bolt-on products that provide specific capabilities that are not available or robust enough in the ERP software."[3] RFQ at 7. Vendors were advised that award would be made on the basis of a "best value" determination considering the following evaluation factors--mission capability,[4] quote risk,[5] and price[6]--and that the non-price factors, when combined, would be significantly more important than price. RFQ attach. 6, at 1. With regard to the agency's evaluation under the non-price evaluation factors, the solicitation stated: "Since COTS products are being procured for ECSS, the Government acknowledges that the COTS products may not meet all of the stated functional and technical requirements. Consequently, the vendor's [quotations and demonstrations] will be evaluated to determine how well the quoted products comply with the [functional and technical] requirements." Id. With regard to price, vendors were instructed that "[p]rices shall be based upon the Projected Cumulative Concurrent ECSS Users set forth in Table 3-1 of the RFQ." RFQ attach 1, Instructions to Vendors, at 17.