B-299702; B-299702.2, Data Management Services Joint Venture, July 24, 2007

B-299702; B-299702.2, Data Management Services Joint Venture, July 24, 2007 TITLE: B-299702; B-299702.2, Data Management Services Joint Venture, July 24, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299702; B-299702.2 DATE: July 24, 2007 *************************************************************************** B-299702; B-299702.2, Data Management Services Joint Venture, July 24, 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: Data Management Services Joint Venture File: B-299702; B-299702.2 Date: July 24, 2007 Joseph G. Billings, Esq., for the protester. Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Jeremy Becker-Welts, Esq., Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP, for Alon, Inc., an intervenor. Gary L. Brooks, Esq., and Stephani L. Abramson, Esq., National Archives & Records 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. Where, for purposes of evaluation under corporate experience subfactor, request for quotations (RFQ) defined relevant work as work similar in scope, magnitude, and nature to solicited effort, it was not consistent with the terms of the RFQ for the evaluators to consider work of lesser magnitude relevant; protest is denied, however, where agency had reasonable basis for viewing efforts not meeting solicitation definition as relevant, and there is no evidence that protester was prejudiced by the agency's relaxation of its criteria for determining relevance. 2. Since, to demonstrate an impermissible "bait and switch," a protester must show not simply that a firm represented that it would rely on specific personnel whom it did not intend to furnish, but also that the misrepresentation had a material impact on the evaluation, allegation that successful vendor intends to substitute equally (or better) qualified personnel for the individuals specified in its quotation is legally insufficient since such a substitution could not materially affect the evaluation results. 3. Protest arguing that successful vendor's Federal Supply Schedule contract does not contain all required labor categories is denied where agency reasonably determined that vendor had proposed equivalent labor categories. DECISION Data Management Services Joint Venture (DMSJV) protests the National Archives & Records Administration's (NARA) issuance of a delivery order to Alon, Inc. under that firm's General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract No. GS-35F-0325R.[1] The order was issued pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. NAMA-07-Q-0004 for support staff for NARA's Electronic Records Archives (ERA) Program Management Office (PMO). The protester argues that the agency erred in its evaluation of quotations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, which was issued on November 3, 2006, sought quotations from firms holding FSS Information Technology Schedule 70 contracts. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of an order on a time-and-materials basis for a base period of 12 months, with four option periods of 12 months each. The RFQ included descriptions of, and requested pricing for, 64 labor categories; 13 of the 64 labor categories were designated as core positions.[2] Vendors were required to submit detailed information regarding the education and experience of the individuals whom they were proposing for the 13 core positions. The RFQ provided for issuance of an order to the vendor whose quotation was determined to represent the best value to the government, with quotations to be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: achievement of socio-economic objectives; personnel; understanding of the work statement; past performance; and price. The understanding of the work statement factor, which was to be addressed through an oral presentation, consisted of two equally weighted subfactors: staff management and corporate experience. The solicitation explained that in the determination of best value, the achievement of socio-economic objectives factor would be significantly more important than the personnel factor, the personnel factor significantly more important than the understanding of the work statement factor, and the understanding of the work statement factor and the past performance factor of equal weight. The solicitation further explained that the technical evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Five vendors submitted quotations by the December 11, 2006 due date.