B-299804, TELESIS Corporation, August 27, 2007

B-299804 Aug 27, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TELESIS Corporation protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS59-06-R-00016, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for information technology (IT) support services. TELESIS primarily asserts that the technical evaluation was flawed. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299804, TELESIS Corporation, August 27, 2007 Decision Matter of: TELESIS Corporation File: B-299804 Date: August 27, 2007 Payal Tak for the protester. Terence W. Carlson, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where record shows that agency reasonably downgraded proposal, and where other alleged evaluation errors involved such minor considerations that they did not prejudice protester. DECISION TELESIS Corporation protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS59-06-R-00016, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for information technology (IT) support services. TELESIS primarily asserts that the technical evaluation was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on June 1, 2006 as a section 8(a) set'aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ), time and materials contract for a base year, with 4 option years. The performance work statement (PWS) covered 12 areas of IT support: service center and network operations center; telecommunications services; messaging and directory services; network management and administrative; desktop services; consolidated server services; systems and asset management; application design, development, and maintenance; web development and maintenance; network security; disaster recovery and business continuance operations; and IT operations consulting. RFP at C-3. The total estimated ceiling value of the contract, including the option years, was $155,000,000. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the –best value— to the agency, with the evaluation to be based on price and three technical evaluation factors: management approach (worth 30 percent of the total technical score), technical response (50 percent), and past performance (20 percent). Technical proposals were to include a chapter addressing several specified areas under each of the technical evaluation factors: the management approach chapter was to address nine areas (such as business management qualifications, and an organizational management structure); the technical response chapter included seven areas (such as ability to provide IT staffing resources consistent with applicable security requirements and IT certifications); and the past performance chapter was to address seven aspects of past performance. Technical merit (the three technical evaluation factors) was –somewhat more important— than price. RFP at M'1. Nineteen proposals were received and evaluated by a technical team. TELESIS's proposal received a management approach score of 20.33 points (of 30 available), a technical response score of 31.92 points (of 50 available), and a past performance score of 7.27 points (of 20 available), for a total technical score of 59.52 (of 100 total available points). TELESIS's evaluated price (a –base year composite cost—) was $6,533.07. Agency Report (AR), CompetitionRange Decision Document, at 3. The agency concluded that TELESIS's proposal did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award, and thus eliminated it from the competitive range. The agency included only one proposal--submitted by 1 Source Consulting, Inc., and receiving a technical score of 88.37, with an evaluated price of $6,668.00--in the competitive range.[1] After a debriefing, TELEIS filed this protest. TELESIS argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal with respect to each of the four evaluation factors, specifically challenging numerous technical proposal evaluated weaknesses and one price proposal weakness. The determination of whether a proposal belongs in the competitive range is principally a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. Dismiss Charities, Inc., B'284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 84 at 3. Our Office will review an agency's evaluation of proposals and determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the criteria and language of the solicitation, as well as applicable statues and regulations. Novavax, Inc., B'286167, B'286167.2, Dec. 4, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 202 at 13.