B-298020; B-298020.2, IPlus, Inc., June 5, 2006

B-298020; B-298020.2, IPlus, Inc., June 5, 2006 TITLE: B-298020; B-298020.2, IPlus, Inc., June 5, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298020; B-298020.2 DATE: June 5, 2006 *********************************************** B-298020; B-298020.2, IPlus, Inc., June 5, 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: IPlus, Inc. File: B-298020; B-298020.2 Date: June 5, 2006 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq., and David S. Stern, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Janice Davis, Esq., Davis & Steele, for Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc., an intervenor. David H. Turner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's post-proposal submission exchanges with awardee regarding price proposal were clarifications rather than discussions where the errors corrected were obvious on the face of the awardee's proposal. Other exchanges with awardee that may have resulted in discussions were not prejudicial to protester. 2. Agency reasonably considered experience and past performance of both prime and subcontractor who were participants in Small Business Administration 8(a) mentor-protege program. DECISION IPlus, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc. (DysTech) under request for proposals (RFP) N00140-05-R-1526, issued by the Department of the Navy for services in support of the Navy College Program (NCP). The protester contends that the agency conducted unequal discussions, improperly evaluated offerors' proposals, and made an improper source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency sought proposals to provide support for the NCP, which is a "voluntary education program" that provides assistance for active duty and retired military and eligible civilian personnel to pursue personal and professional academic development. Offerors were required to propose all labor, management, and supervision to perform the support services required for the NCP. The RFP identified three categories of personnel required to perform the statement of work (SOW), education advisors, test examiners, and call center agents. RFP at 48. The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a base performance period of 1 year, with four 1-year option periods. Id. at 94. The competition was restricted to participants in the Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a) program for small, disadvantaged businesses. Id. at 80. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of four non-price factors, each of which was of equal importance: management plan, technical approach, corporate experience, and past performance. RFP at 94. For purposes of award, the RFP stated that award would be made to the "responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value," and that "[t]he evaluation of proposals will consider the offeror's technical proposal more important than the offeror's price proposal." Id. The agency received seven proposals in response to the RFP. Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 4.