B-297910.2; B-297910.3, Foresight Science & Technology, Inc., November 30, 2006

B-297910.2; B-297910.3, Foresight Science & Technology, Inc., November 30, 2006 TITLE: B-297910.2; B-297910.3, Foresight Science & Technology, Inc., November 30, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297910.2; B-297910.3 DATE: November 30, 2006 ******************************************************************************* B-297910.2; B-297910.3, Foresight Science & Technology, Inc., November 30, 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: Foresight Science & Technology, Inc. File: B-297910.2; B-297910.3 Date: November 30, 2006 William W. Goodrich, Jr., Esq. and Zachary J. Stewart, Esq., Arent Fox PLLC, for the protester. David P. Metzger, Esq. and Michele Mintz Brown, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Dawnbreaker, an intervenor. Sandra M. Wozniak, Esq., National Science Foundation, 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 shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Foresight Science & Technology, Inc. protests the selection of Dawnbreaker and Development Capital Networks LLC (DCN) as the successful vendors under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DCCA-06-0006, issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for technical assistance in commercialization planning for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) phase I awardees.[1] Foresight, an incumbent contractor for these services, challenges the reasonableness of the evaluation of quotations and the agency's source selection decision.[2] The RFQ contemplated the issuance of one or more fixed-price delivery orders for a 1-year base period and two 1-year option periods, to the firm(s) submitting the quotation(s) providing the best value to the government considering technical, past performance, and price factors. RFQ amend. 2, at 9. The technical factor was the most important, and the technical and past performance factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. The technical factor was composed of two subfactors, understanding of the statement of work/technical approach (worth 85 points) and personnel (worth 15 points). The understanding of the statement of work/technical approach subfactor was further divided into the following six criteria: (1) training small companies in commercialization planning; (2) understanding of technology transfer and successful commercialization in small businesses; (3) documented assistance process meeting phase II proposal submission deadlines; (4) quality and availability of mentors (with a breadth of technological expertise, expertise to assist with required financial analysis and identifying financing opportunities, market research expertise, and experience in developing intellectual property strategies in small businesses); (5) capability to staff requirements by labor category within the maximum $4,000 per grantee fee, with an understanding of the needs and assessment of phase I grantees; and (6) documented performance in obtaining third-party funding for small businesses. Id. at 7-8. Vendors were advised that, while a phase I awardee's commercialization plan would be critical to its phase II funding application, since most applicants do not receive phase II awards due to budget limitations, "[i]t is essential that training in the commercialization planning process be provided as part of the technical assistance in order for unsuccessful companies [to] have a planning platform for future endeavors." RFQ attach.1, at 1.[3] Past performance was to be evaluated for relevance to the current requirements. Id. at 8. For the evaluation of price, vendors were to provide labor rates, direct costs such as travel, applicable general and administrative rates, and any discounts. Id. Since maximum compensation was capped at $4,000 per phase I awardee, quotations were to show the firms' cost buildup within that budget. Id. at 9. The RFQ provided that pricing for the fixed-price effort would not be weighted or point scored, but that "resource realism and consistency to the proposed technical approach will be considered." Id. Four quotations were received and evaluated. All four vendors' quotations were rated excellent for past performance; each of the vendors proposed to perform the work at the $4,000 per client maximum.