B-298880.3, B-298880.4, MASAI Technologies Corporation, September 10, 2007

B-298880.3, B-298880.4, MASAI Technologies Corporation, September 10, 2007 TITLE: B-298880.3, B-298880.4, MASAI Technologies Corporation, September 10, 2007 BNUMBER: B-298880.3, B-298880.4 DATE: September 10, 2007 ************************************************************************** B-298880.3, B-298880.4, MASAI Technologies Corporation, September 10, 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: MASAI Technologies Corporation File: B-298880.3, B-298880.4 Date: September 10, 2007 Janine S. Benton, Esq., and Kathy C. Potter, Esq., Benton & Potter PC, for the protester. Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., David Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for Denysys Corp., an intervenor. Maj. ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably determined that protester's proposal failed to comply with solicitation requirements regarding personnel qualifications, properly evaluating protester's proposal as [deleted] under that evaluation factor. 2. Agency's review of protester's and awardee's prior activities to assess whether potential conflicts of interest existed reasonably supports agency's conclusion that awardee did not have an unfair competitive advantage. DECISION MASAI Technologies Corporation (MTC) protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Denysys Corporation pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. W81XWH-06-T-02857[1] to provide computer and technical support for the Army's new medical logistics information system, known as the "Theater Wide Enterprise Logistics System" (TEWLS). MTC protests that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal and failed to adequately consider an alleged conflict of interest. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was originally issued in August 2006, and contemplated award of a contract for a 1-year base period and two 1-year option periods to provide commercial services for "sustainment support" of TEWLS.[2] More specifically, the solicitation's performance work statement (PWS) provides that the contractor will "analyze functional business process requirements" and "provide strategic-level consultation and product improvement modifications" in performing this contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 13. The solicitation provided that award would be made on the basis of the proposal considered most advantageous to the government, and established the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: personnel qualifications, technical approach, past experience, and price.[3] RFQ at 23-25. Offerors were advised that, "[i]n order to be considered for award, the proposal must achieve at least a satisfactory rating in all non-cost factors." RFQ at 25. With regard to the required qualifications of proposed personnel, the solicitation provided, among other things: "At a minimum, all contractor employees must possess approved National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) and be a US citizen to gain access to U.S. Government computer systems." RFQ at 12. The solicitation further stated: Proposed personnel must be immediately available no more than two business days from contract award. . . . Personnel cannot be substituted or replaced without the written agreement of the Contracting Officer. RFQ at 23. Finally, the solicitation stated that the agency intended to award a contract without discussions, RFQ at 21, and provided that "[a]ny offer, modification, revision, or withdrawal of an offer received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is `late' and will not be considered."[4] RFQ at 20. Initial proposals were submitted by MTC and Denysys on August 24;[5] in September, MTC filed its first protest, alleging that an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) existed with regard to BearingPoint, Inc. (BPI), a Denysys subcontractor. More specifically, MTC maintained that BPI had an unfair competitive advantage due to its prior performance of other Army contracts.[6] In response, the agency stated that it would amend the solicitation to require all offerors to provide representations regarding potential OCIs, and that the agency would thereafter make a determination regarding whether OCIs existed and, if so, whether they could be avoided, neutralized or mitigated.