B-298411; B-298411.2, Advanced Systems Development, Inc., September 19, 2006

B-298411; B-298411.2, Advanced Systems Development, Inc., September 19, 2006 TITLE: B-298411; B-298411.2, Advanced Systems Development, Inc., September 19, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298411; B-298411.2 DATE: September 19, 2006 **************************************************************************** B-298411; B-298411.2, Advanced Systems Development, Inc., September 19, 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: Advanced Systems Development, Inc. File: B-298411; B-298411.2 Date: September 19, 2006 Paul E. Pompeo, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., and David J. Craig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Peter A. Riesen, Esq., and Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Venable LLP, for KENROB Information Technology Solutions, Inc., an intervenor. Andrew Blumenfeld, Esq., and Andy Bramnick, Esq., Washington Headquarters Services, Department of Defense, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's contention that the agency conducted flawed discussions regarding price is sustained where (1) the agency corrected an error in the awardee's pricing; (2) the agency concluded that the awardee's price, as corrected, violated the solicitation's price target; (3) the agency advised the awardee in discussions that its price violated the solicitation's price target, though it did not, but never disclosed the upward adjustment it had made to correct the pricing error; (4) the awardee lowered its price in its final proposal, but repeated the pricing error it had made before; and (5) the agency selected that offeror for award after concluding that its significant price advantage offered the best value to the government. Thus, the record, as a whole, shows that the flawed discussions led the awardee to significantly lower its price, and the selection decision turned on the price differential between awardee and the protester. 2. Protester's contention that the agency failed to evaluate price proposals for completeness is sustained where the record shows that: (1) the solicitation expressly advised that price proposals would be assessed for completeness, including an assessment of the traceability of price estimates, and required that offerors submit detailed pricing data showing the traceability of those estimates in a work breakdown structure; (2) the agency never performed the completeness review; and (3) it is reasonable to conclude that, had it not been compelled to structure its proposal to comply with this solicitation requirement, the protester could have employed a different approach to structuring its proposal which could have resulted in a lower price. 3. Protester's contention that the evaluation of technical proposals was unreasonable is sustained where the record shows that the evaluation deviated from the stated evaluation criteria under one of the technical subfactors. DECISION Advanced Systems Development, Inc. (ASD) protests the award of a contract to KENROB Information Technology Solutions, Inc. by Washington Headquarters Services, Department of Defense (DOD), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0034-06-R-1012, seeking information technology (IT) services, including hardware and software. ASD argues that the award to KENROB was improper because the agency conducted flawed discussions regarding price and performed an unreasonable price and technical evaluation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND Washington Headquarters Services is a field activity of the Department of Defense comprised of 11 directorates which provide support to the Secretary of Defense and other DOD activities. These activities are spread across the 280-acre Pentagon Reservation, as well as scattered throughout 15 leased office buildings in Arlington, Alexandria, and Vienna, Virginia. Desktop IT support for these organizations and locations is currently provided under six separate support contracts held by five different IT support contractors. In addition, WHS currently operates five different IT help desks and four separate e-mail systems. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1-3. On March 9, 2006, WHS issued the solicitation here to consolidate these IT support services into a single, more efficient contract, and set aside the procurement for small businesses. The RFP anticipated the award of a performance-based services contract for a base period (of approximately 8 months) followed by three 1-year options.