B-299086, Synectic Solutions, Inc., February 7, 2007

B-299086 Feb 07, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Synectic Solutions, Inc. (SSI) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Evolving Resources, Inc. (ERI) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-04-R-0023 to provide information technology (IT) support services at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Point Mugu, California. SSI challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical and price proposals, the agency's determination not to conduct discussions, and the agency's cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299086, Synectic Solutions, Inc., February 7, 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: Synectic Solutions, Inc. File: B-299086 Date: February 7, 2007 Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and Nicole S. Allen, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., for the protester. Andre Long, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's technical and price evaluations is denied where the record supports the reasonableness of the evaluations. 2. Protest challenging agency's determination not to conduct discussions is denied where the solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended to make award without conducting discussions, and the record establishes that the agency had a reasonable basis for making its source selection decision. DECISION Synectic Solutions, Inc. (SSI) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Evolving Resources, Inc. (ERI) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-04-R-0023 to provide information technology (IT) support services at the NavalAirWarfareCenter, Point Mugu, California. SSI challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical and price proposals, the agency's determination not to conduct discussions, and the agency's cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on December 27, 2004, restricting competition to participants in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program for small, disadvantaged businesses, and seeking proposals for a cost-reimbursement contract to provide IT support services including –full spectrum development, systems engineering, systems integration, software support, and lifecycle support services for various communications, electronic, information technology, wireless technology, and command and control systems— for Navy fleet and range operational requirements. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 62. As initially issued, the RFP established January 31, 2005 as the date for receipt of proposals. The agency subsequently amended the RFP to provide for receipt of proposals on February 11, 2005; a second amendment then changed the proposal due date to February 10, 2005.[1] The solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of cost and the following equally-weighted non-cost evaluation factors: technical-management,[2] past performance, and experience.[3] The technical-management evaluation factor was comprised of four equally-weighted subfactors: technical approach, management structure, communications approach, and key personnel/ staffing. RFP sect. M, at 107-09. The solicitation advised offerors that the non-cost evaluation factors combined were –significantly more important than cost,— and provided that cost proposals would be evaluated for –fairness and reasonableness,— as well as for cost realism. Id.Finally, offerors were advised that –[t]he Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions.— Id. Eight offerors, including SSI and ERI, submitted proposals by the specified closing date. Thereafter the agency evaluated the offerors' various proposal submissions,[4] with the following final results regarding ERI's and SSI's proposals:[5] SSI ERI Technical-Management (Score/Risk Rating) Satisfactory/ Low Risk Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk Technical Approach Satisfactory/ Low Risk Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk Management Structure Satisfactory/ Low Risk Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk Communications Approach Satisfactory/ Medium Risk Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk Key Personnel/ Staffing Marginal/ Medium Risk Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk Past Performance Low Risk Very Low Risk Experience Medium Risk Low Risk Evaluated Cost [deleted] $23,695,334 Agency Report (AR) at 6-7; Tab G, Source Selection Decision, at 4-6. As shown in the table above, ERI's proposal was rated higher than SSI's proposal under each of the non-cost evaluation factors and subfactors.