B-299904, Synergetics, Inc., September 14, 2007

B-299904 Sep 14, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Synergetics, Inc. protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Vistronix, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. AG-3144-S-07-0012, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), for information systems development, support, and maintenance services. Synergetics challenges the technical and price evaluations and the award determination. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299904, Synergetics, Inc., September 14, 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: Synergetics, Inc. File: B-299904 Date: September 14, 2007 Charles R. Lucy, Esq., Holland & Hart LLP, for the protester. John E. Jensen, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Vistronix, Inc., an intervenor. Heather M. Self, Esq., Department of Agriculture, and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., and John W. Klein, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation allowed for consideration of past performance of services the same or similar to those being procured, agency reasonably gave approximately equal evaluation credit to protester for its incumbent performance as subcontractor and to non-incumbent awardee based on contracts of similar size with procuring agency and other federal agencies, and proposal of key personnel with relevant technical expertise and knowledge. 2. In unrestricted competition under Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), vendor considered to be small disadvantaged business (SDB) at time of its FSS contract award did not misrepresent itself as SDB--even though it had since exited from SDB program and had an application pending for recertification--where solicitation only contemplated consideration of SDB status at the time of award of its FSS contract. 3. Price evaluation was unobjectionable where agency did not consider protester's proposal of additional, but undefined, discounts that were not in accordance with solicitation pricing requirements. 4. Where underlying evaluation record confirms agency's finding of no significant difference in technical quality between protester's and awardee's equally'rated quotations, source selection authority reasonably concluded that awardee's lower'priced quotation represented –best value— to the government. DECISION Synergetics, Inc. protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Vistronix, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. AG-3144-S-07-0012, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), for information systems development, support, and maintenance services. Synergetics challenges the technical and price evaluations and the award determination. We deny the protest. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a single BPA against the successful vendor's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract for a base year, with 4 option years. Work under the BPA was to be accomplished through issuance of task orders for technology, operations, and management support services, primarily in the areas of software and database analysis, design, development, integration, deployment, support, and maintenance at NRCS in Fort Collins, Colorado and other locations across the country. Quotations were to be evaluated under five factors--technical approach, past performance, socioeconomic business status (small business preference), socioeconomic business status of the overall contractor team arrangement, if proposed, and price. Under the technical approach factor, quotations were to be evaluated on the vendor's BPA master management plan, draft task order management and quality control plans, transition plan, and technical experience, including key personnel. Past performance was to be evaluated on the basis of how well vendors had performed the same or similar work, as described in the statement of work (SOW). Price was to be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness based on each vendor's BPA skill category listing and a lump sum, fixed-price, level-of-effort price for a draft task order. The RFQ did not identify the order of importance of the technical factors, and warned that there was to be no formal quantitative ranking or scoring of quotations.