B-299383, Able Business Technologies, Inc., April 19, 2007

Case: B-299383 Agency: Protester: B Date: 2007-04-19 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-299383 Apr 19, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Able Business Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNS060162866R, issued by the John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for telecommunications service to the SCC via a route from the north. Able argues that the evaluation of its technical proposal and the evaluation of Bell South's past performance were unreasonable. The protester also asserts that Bell South had an unfair advantage over other firms in the competition. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299383, Able Business Technologies, Inc., April 19, 2007 Decision Matter of: Able Business Technologies, Inc. File: B-299383 Date: April 19, 2007 Daniel R. Gilliam for the protester. Scott W. Barber, Esq., and Michael D. Harbart, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 1. Protest is denied where record demonstrates reasonable basis for agency findings pertaining to weaknesses in protester's proposal. 2. Agency was not required to equalize the competition to compensate for competitive advantage that one offeror enjoyed as a result of (1) its greater knowledge regarding government facility's infrastructure, and (2) its own existing facilities. DECISION Able Business Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNS060162866R, issued by the JohnC. Stennis Space Center (SSC), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for telecommunications service to the SCC via a route from the north. Able argues that the evaluation of its technical proposal and the evaluation of Bell South's past performance were unreasonable. The protester also asserts that Bell South had an unfair advantage over other firms in the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency explains that at present, the SSC's telecommunication pathway runs along the Gulf Cost, where it is vulnerable to hurricane damage. Most notably, in 2005, the SSC suffered a total loss of communications services as a result of Hurricane Katrina. NASA has determined that the best way to lower the risk of future communications pathway failures is to provide an alternate fiber pathway leading north from the SSC to a metropolitan service area where multiple inter-exchange carrier points of presence (POP) are available, such as Jackson, Mississippi. NASA personnel originally believed Bell South to be the only source capable of satisfying the agency's requirement and thus did not intend to conduct a competitive acquisition. After receiving statements of interest from additional firms in response to a notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, the contracting officer determined that a basis for competition did in fact exist, however. On September 11, 2006, the agency issued the subject solicitation. The RFP contemplated the award of a 5-year, fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for the installation and servicing of an OC-192 circuit and various channels. The solicitation explained that NASA required an OC-192 access service to a northern POP from the demarcation point in Building 1201 at the SCC, and that this access service was to include channelization at each end to allow the provisioning of multiple T1/DS1, DS3, OC3, OC12, and OC48 circuits in various combinations. RFP at 25. Offerors were instructed that their technical proposals should depict the routing of their communications pathway and describe the method of routing for each segment (e.g., aerial, direct bury, microwave, or other); describe inherent redundancies in the route; describe any approvals needed; identify the address of the POP and identify all carriers available at the POP; describe emergency facility support; specify a timeline for completion of the OC-192 and each circuit; describe the procedures for handling trouble calls; and describe the offeror's experience with similar projects. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. In the determination of best value, price was to be worth 50 percent, technical merit 35 percent, and past performance 15 percent. Factors to be considered in the evaluation of technical merit were the extent to which the offeror's approach exhibited understanding of the requirement, was acceptable within industry standards, was likely to fulfill the objective, would be timely delivered, and reduced the risk of communication disruption. Three offerors submitted proposals prior to the October 2, 2006 closing date.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...