B-297994, Client Network Services, Inc., April 28, 2006

B-297994 Apr 28, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Client Network Services, Inc. (CNSI) protests the Department of Transportation's award of a contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTRT57-05-R-20106, for on-site Transportation Information Project Support (TRIPS) services at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. CNSI challenges the evaluation of proposals and the cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297994, Client Network Services, Inc., April 28, 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: Client Network Services, Inc. File: B-297994 Date: April 28, 2006 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., and Peter A. Riesen, Esq., Venable, for the protester. Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., and Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., Computer Sciences Corporation, for the intervenor. Lee Wolanin, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal under staffing factor evaluation where proposal did not meet solicitation's formatting requirements with respect to page limits and font size; offerors are required to prepare their proposals within format limitations established in solicitation, and assume risk that proposal pages beyond limits will not be evaluated or that proposal will otherwise be downgraded. DECISION Client Network Services, Inc. (CNSI) protests the Department of Transportation's award of a contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTRT57-05-R-20106, for on-site Transportation Information Project Support (TRIPS) services at the VolpeNationalTransportationSystemsCenter in Cambridge, Massachusetts. CNSI challenges the evaluation of proposals and the cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a predominantly cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, with a transition period of up to 90 days and a 5-year base period, to furnish information systems (IS) and information technology (IT) professional services in support of a variety of Volpe Center transportation and logistics projects. The TRIPS contractor is expected to support approximately 75 to 100 projects (on behalf of approximately 20 sponsor organizations) with strategic and detailed technology assessments, requirements analysis, concept development, architecture design and alternatives analysis, software development, test and integration, system training, system maintenance, and system operational support for both transportation and logistics management IS. Determination to Continue Contract Performance at 2; RFP sect. C.4, at 16. The solicitation established detailed education and experience requirements for the types of personnel typically furnished in support of VolpeCenter projects. In addition, the solicitation required offerors to propose and furnish resumes for several personnel--a transition manager, a program manager, contract management and administration personnel, and 22 IS specialists in six labor categories--that –demonstrate the qualifications of the Offeror's proposed personnel in terms of its technical expertise, experience, education, capabilities, and accomplishments relevant to the functional area requirements of this contract.— RFP sect. L.5.B, at 83. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to –provide the greatest overall value to the Government— based on consideration of cost (including probable cost, consistency between technical and cost proposals, compensation of professional employees, and proposed fees) and five technical evaluation factors: (1) technical excellence, including the offeror's understanding of the key IS issues and future directions, understanding of and approach to the portfolio of IS tasks currently performed at the Volpe Center, and understanding of the government's requirements as shown by the effectiveness of the offeror's response to four hypothetical tasks set forth in the solicitation; (2) management approach, including approach to managing staffing and staffing fluctuations; (3) transition approach; (4) staffing; and (5) past performance. RFP sect. M.1.A, at 111. Technical excellence and management approach were of equal weight; transition approach and staffing were of equal weight, but each was less important than either technical excellence or management approach; and past performance was least important. Overall, the technical evaluation factors when combined were significantly more important than cost.