B-298833.4; B-298833.5, IBM Global Business Services, March 1, 2007

B-298833.4; B-298833.5, IBM Global Business Services, March 1, 2007 TITLE: B-298833.4; B-298833.5, IBM Global Business Services, March 1, 2007 BNUMBER: B-298833.4; B-298833.5 DATE: March 1, 2007 ******************************************************************* B-298833.4; B-298833.5, IBM Global Business Services, March 1, 2007 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: IBM Global Business Services File: B-298833.4; B-298833.5 Date: March 1, 2007 Thomas Humphrey, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., David Z. Bodenhiemer, Esq., Rebecca K. Lee, Esq., Steven H. Talkovsky, Esq., and Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan, Esq., Crowell & Moring; Todd Hutchen, Esq., IBM Global Business Services, for the protester. Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Computer Sciences Corporation, for the intervenor. Brent Curtis, Esq., Richard C. Bean, Esq., Maj. Angela L. Penny, and Maj. Erik A. Troff, Department of the Air Force, 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 In procurement for system integrator to deploy commercial off-the-shelf software product suite and change management techniques, quotation was reasonably evaluated as high risk where vendor intended to involve too few government personnel in change management process to accomplish important change management activities; protester's defense of its ratio of government personnel to contractor consultants is undercut by fact that ratio was significantly lower than that in typical commercial implementations. DECISION IBM Global Business Services protests the Department of the Air Force's issuance of a task order to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8770-05-Q-0022, to serve as the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) System Integrator (SI). IBM challenges the terms of the solicitation and the evaluation of quotations. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4, to vendors holding Federal Supply Schedule Department of Defense Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems Integration Services Blanket Purchase Agreements. The RFQ called for an SI to deploy a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software product suite and change management techniques, which would replace legacy logistics systems and antiquated business processes. The SI is required to configure, integrate and implement the COTS software, as well as provide leadership and resources to redesign and transform Air Force logistics operations so as to improve logistics results and reduce support costs. The RFQ generally contemplated a phased approach. The initial phase encompasses preparing the organization for change and defining how the selected COTS product suite will be configured to meet the agency's requirements, which will include such activities as: (1) change management, that is, the process by which executives, middle managers, and end users are prepared to accept changes in business processes; (2) blueprinting, that is, creating descriptions of the Air Force's business processes and determining how the COTS product suite will support the agency's business needs; and (3) continuing efforts of "Pathfinders" to prototype COTS implementations and to prove that they can work in an Air Force logistics environment. In the second phase, the SI will undertake implementation of ECSS, performing all work necessary to configure and test the ECSS solution in preparation for deployment; in the third phase, the SI will undertake deployment of ECSS into a live production operation; and in the fourth phase, the SI will transition ECSS into Air Force managed sustainment. ECSS Request for Quote sections 3, 4, 5; ECSS Task Descriptions; ECSS Statement of Objectives (SOO); Agency Comments, Feb. 10, 2007, at 11 n.10, 41 n.30, 57. Award was to be made to the vendor whose quotation represented the "best value" to the government based on three evaluation factors: (1) mission capability/quote risk (including subfactors for program execution, change management, and program management); (2) past performance; and (3) price (comprised of the value of the task order plus the value of any government-furnished personnel and property). Under each mission capability subfactor, quotations were to be rated X+ for exceeding minimum performance or capability objectives in a beneficial way, X for meeting minimum objectives, X- for not clearly meeting minimum objectives, or F for failing to meet minimum objectives.