B-299542.3; B-299542.4, AT&T Corp., November 16, 2007

B-299542.3; B-299542.4, AT&T Corp., November 16, 2007 TITLE: B-299542.3; B-299542.4, AT&T Corp., November 16, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299542.3; B-299542.4 DATE: November 16, 2007 ***************************************************** B-299542.3; B-299542.4, AT&T Corp., November 16, 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: AT&T Corp. File: B-299542.3; B-299542.4 Date: November 16, 2007 Thomas C. Papson, Esq., John G. Horan, Esq., Jason A. Carey, Esq., Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Grant B. Rabenn, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., Todd R. Overman, Esq., and Ann M. Lichter, Esq., Hogan & Hartson LLP, for Nortel Government Solutions, Inc., an intervenor. Seth Binstock, Esq., Lucinda Davis, Esq., Ellen Rothschild, Esq., and Uri Ko, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's discussions with protester were not meaningful where the agency found the protester's staffing plan contained significant weaknesses but failed to sufficiently identify the scope of the agency's concerns in discussions. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of awardee's management approach proposal (specifically, its proposed staffing plan) is sustained where the agency subsequently reached conclusions that differed from the underlying evaluation findings, and provided no explanation for the inconsistency. 3. Protest challenging the evaluation of offerors' technical proposals is denied where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. 4. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester's past performance is denied where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION AT&T Corp. protests the award of a contract to Nortel Government Solutions, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-06-1031, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the agency's telephone systems replacement project (TSRP). AT&T argues that the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and subsequent source selection decision were improper. AT&T also contends that the agency's discussions with the protester regarding the offeror's proposed staffing plan were not meaningful. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The SSA, the federal government agency charged with administering the social security trust fund, has a staff of over 65,000 employees. In addition to the agency's headquarters, SSA has a field organization consisting of 10 regional offices, 6 program service centers, and more than 1,500 field offices to provide services at the local level. The TSRP represents SSA's replacement of its current telephone systems with an enterprise voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephone solution, to support the agency's current and future requirements and the transition to Internet protocol (IP) telephones. In general terms, the statement of work here required the contractor to remove SSA's existing telephone system, and to provide all hardware, software, and services necessary to engineer, install, and integrate the TSRP solutions with SSA's government-furnished equipment.[1] RFP amend. 6, SOW sections C.1.1 -- C.1.3. The RFP, issued on August 10, 2006, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year together with nine 1-year options.[2] The RFP identified five evaluation factors: technical approach, past performance, key personnel qualifications, management approach, and price.[3] The solicitation stated that the four technical/non-price (hereinafter technical) factors were listed in descending order of importance and, when combined, were more important than price. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be the "best value" to the government, all factors considered. RFP amend. 3, sect. M.1. Four offerors, including AT&T and Nortel, submitted proposals by the November 9 closing date.