B-299798; B-299798.3, Savantage Financial Services, Inc., August 22, 2007

B-299798; B-299798.3, Savantage Financial Services, Inc., August 22, 2007 TITLE: B-299798; B-299798.3, Savantage Financial Services, Inc., August 22, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299798; B-299798.3 DATE: August 22, 2007 ************************************************************************* B-299798; B-299798.3, Savantage Financial Services, Inc., August 22, 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: Savantage Financial Services, Inc. File: B-299798; B-299798.3 Date: August 22, 2007 Jon W. van Horne, Esq., Law Office of Jon W. van Horne, for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan, Esq., and Adelicia Cliffe Taylor, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for IBM Global Business Services, the intervenor. Maj. Geraldine Chanel, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was unreasonable. DECISION Savantage Financial Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to IBM Global Business Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. W74V8H-06-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army, for educational support services for the GoArmyEd program. Savantage challenges the evaluation of its technical and price proposals and the resulting source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army Continuing Education System (ACES) promotes lifelong learning opportunities for soldiers by providing and managing quality self-development education programs and services. Historically, ACES programs and services have been provided through an installation-centric model; however, through the GoArmyEd contract, ACES will offer active duty soldiers anytime, anywhere access to high quality educational opportunities from participating colleges and universities through the GoArmyEd web portal.[1] RFP Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 5-8. The RFP, issued on September 29, 2006, contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with nine 1-year options. Award was to be made without discussions unless discussions were otherwise determined to be necessary. RFP amend. 5, at 2. With regard to contract performance, the solicitation set forth the major tasks the contractor will be expected to perform, including--program management, operation and maintenance of the GoArmyEd portal, soldier support and educational services, management of GoArmyEd portal schools, programmatic and technical support, and transition management. RFP PWS, at 15-49. The RFP provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering six evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance--technical approach, management capabilities and approach, corporate recent and relevant experience, small business participation plan (large businesses only), past performance and price/cost. RFP amend. 4, at 47-51. The RFP advised that only proposals rated at least acceptable under the technical approach factor and the management capabilities and approach factor were to be considered for award. The RFP also stated that the agency was "more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government." RFP amend. 4, at 44. Overall, the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. As part of their price/cost proposal, offerors were required to provide their pricing for applicable items identified in section B of the solicitation. In addition, the RFP required that offerors' price proposal "shall contain sufficient price detail (i.e., a breakout) for labor, equipment, hosting, etc., to support the proposed Firm Fixed Price." RFP amend. 5, at 14. The solicitation further advised that price/cost proposals would be evaluated for completeness and that the agency would perform a price analysis to ensure fair, reasonable and realistic prices. RFP amend. 4, at 44, 51. The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals and requested, among other things, that offerors organize their proposals to correspond to the solicitation's evaluation factors.