B-297791.2, Ideamatics, Inc., May 26, 2006

B-297791.2 May 26, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ideamatics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kadix Systems LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-06-R-4904, issued by the Marine Corps for technical support services, including system analysis and functionality upgrades, for the maintenance and enhancement of its manpower mobilization assignment system used to track active, reserve, and retired personnel. The protester generally challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of the proposals and the award to Kadix, which submitted a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297791.2, Ideamatics, Inc., May 26, 2006 Decision Matter of: Ideamatics, Inc. File: B-297791.2 Date: May 26, 2006 David L. Danner for the protester. Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., and Sean P. Bamford, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, for Kadix Systems LLC, an intervenor. David P. Ingold, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and protester's arguments amount to mere disagreement with agency's conclusions. DECISION Ideamatics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kadix Systems LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-06-R-4904, issued by the Marine Corps for technical support services, including system analysis and functionality upgrades, for the maintenance and enhancement of its manpower mobilization assignment system used to track active, reserve, and retired personnel. The protester generally challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of the proposals and the award to Kadix, which submitted a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest.[1] The RFP, issued on November 17, 2005, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, for a base year plus four option periods. The RFP listed the following three technical evaluation factors: understanding and approach; personnel; and past performance (with the first factor having slightly more weight than the two other equally-weighted factors). The RFP provided that overall technical merit was of significantly greater importance than price, but that price would increase in importance the closer the proposals were in technical merit. An earlier award to Kadix under the RFP had been challenged by Ideamatics; after the agency took corrective action in that case, agreeing to hold discussions, issue an amendment to the RFP, and make a new award decision, Ideamatics withdrew its protest. During the subsequent discussions, Ideamatics was advised of a list of weaknesses in its proposal, primarily related to a lack of detail regarding the firm's proposed approach to meeting many of the RFP's requirements (including, for example, system analysis and quality assurance work), and regarding its proposed personnel's roles and responsibilities. Shortly after discussions were held, the agency issued an amendment revising the RFP's evaluation terms. The initial RFP had called for evaluation of an offeror's –experience with— certain required services; the amended solicitation called for evaluation of the offeror's –approach to— performing the services. RFP amend. 2. Upon receiving the amended evaluation terms, Ideamatics asked for an extension of time to prepare a revised proposal, stating as follows: There is a significant difference between the terms –experience with— and –approach to.— That the RFP would be changed in this way was never mentioned or even suggested in the Discussions. We had written our proposal to address what was requested. The revisions now necessitate that we not only must revise our proposal to address the weaknesses that were identified at the Discussions, but that we significantly revise our proposal in areas that had not been addressed in the Discussions. Ideamatics Discussion Clarifications, at 1. The agency responded that –this change was made to clarify what we are evaluating. We are evaluating the technical approach, in which we are taking the 'experience with' into account.— Final Proposal Revisions Questions and Answers, at 2. The agency denied the protester's request for an extension to the closing time set for revised proposals.[2] Revised proposals were received and evaluated. The Ideamatics proposal, at an evaluated price of $2,364,115.18, was found to have some significant strengths as well as significant weaknesses; the proposal was rated –acceptable— under both the understanding and approach, and personnel factors, and was assigned a rating of low performance risk under the past performance factor.