B-299322.3, Optimum Management Systems, LLC, May 23, 2007

B-299322.3 May 23, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Optimum Management Solutions, LLC protests the decision by the Department of the Interior to terminate its contract and instead make award to SofTec Solutions, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NBC07003, issued by the Department of the Interior for financial systems support for its National Business Center (NBC). The protester argues that the agency's selection of SofTec for award was inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299322.3, Optimum Management Systems, LLC, May 23, 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: Optimum Management Systems, LLC File: B-299322.3 Date: May 23, 2007 Randall H. Miller, Esq., and James N. Phillips, Esq., Holme Robert & Owen, LLP, for the protester. Mike Lebofsky for SofTec Solutions, Inc., an intervenor. Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of Interior, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of award to offeror with lower-rated, lower-priced proposal is denied where agency reasonably determined that premium involved in awarding to offeror with higher-rated, higher-priced proposal was not justified. DECISION Optimum Management Solutions, LLC protests the decision by the Department of the Interior to terminate its contract and instead make award to SofTec Solutions, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NBC07003, issued by the Department of the Interior for financial systems support for its National Business Center (NBC). The protester argues that the agency's selection of SofTec for award was inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on November 9, 2006 as an 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity/indefinite-delivery contract for a base and 4 option years. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government, with proposals to be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: management approach and technical capabilities, personnel qualifications, organizational experience, past performance, and price. The solicitation advised that the technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Ten firms submitted proposals by the December 1, 2006 closing date. Each of four evaluators rated each proposal on a scale of 1-4 under each of the four non-price factors;[1] these points were then totaled to yield the offeror's overall technical score.[2] The evaluators determined only the following three proposals to be technically acceptable: Offeror Technical Score Price OMS 59 $9,450,410 SofTec 56 $7,249,312 Offeror A 56 $9,069,406 The contracting officer determined that OMS's proposal represented the best value to the government based on its having received the highest technical score. On December 22, the agency awarded a contract to OMS and posted notice of the award on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. SofTec, the incumbent contractor, learned of the award to OMS on December 26 and requested a debriefing the following day. SofTec also filed a protest with our Office on December 27, alleging that the award to OMS was improper because OMS had not proposed, and did not intend, to meet the solicitation requirement for a quality assurance (QA) manager working on-site at the NBC 20 hours per week. In a supplemental submission to our Office dated January 15, 2007, SofTec further argued that the proposed hourly rate for OMS's QA manager was unrealistically low. While SofTec's initial protest was pending, SofTec again contacted the agency and renewed its request for a debriefing. In reviewing the request, the contract specialist realized that she had overlooked SofTec's December 27 debriefing request and agreed to furnish SofTec a debriefing. The debriefing was held on January 24. On January 29, SofTec filed a second protest, objecting to the evaluation of its own proposal. This protest was based on information learned by SofTec at the debriefing. By decision dated January 30, we dismissed SofTec's initial protest, finding that its allegations concerning OMS's QA manager were unsupported and concerned a matter of contract administration not subject to our review. Eight days later, on February 7, the agency notified us that it was taking corrective action in response to SofTec's second protest.