B-310489; B-310489.2, Superlative Technologies, Inc., January 4, 2008

B-310489; B-310489.2, Superlative Technologies, Inc., January 4, 2008 TITLE: B-310489; B-310489.2, Superlative Technologies, Inc., January 4, 2008 BNUMBER: B-310489; B-310489.2 DATE: January 4, 2008 ********************************************************************* B-310489; B-310489.2, Superlative Technologies, Inc., January 4, 2008 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: Superlative Technologies, Inc. File: B-310489; B-310489.2 Date: January 4, 2008 Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Rafael A. Madan, Esq., and John L. Pensinger, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency did not have a reasonable basis for canceling solicitation where agency states that cancellation was necessitated by the agency's disclosure of source selection information, which the agency believed gave an "unfair advantage" to at least one offeror, and where the agency subsequently awarded a sole-source contract to a contracting team that included the same contractor to whom the source selection information was disclosed. DECISION Superlative Technologies, Inc. (SuperTec) protests the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 2007Q-025 for services to support the information security programs of OJP's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO),[1] and the agency's subsequent sole-source acquisition of those services from a team comprised of Technical Management Resources, Inc. (TMR) and ManTech International Corporation (ManTech). We sustain the protest. BACKGOUND On June 21, 2007, OJP issued RFQ No. 2007Q-025[2], "seek[ing] contractors to provide support for the OCIO Information Technology Security Division (ITSD)," [3] and stating that "award will be made under the GSA [General Services Administration] Information Technology Contract Schedule 70."[4] RFQ 2007Q-025, at 1. The solicitation contemplated award of a contract for a 12-month base period, with four 12-month option periods, and a total estimated value of $13.5 million. The solicitation provided for award based on the proposal "most advantageous to OJP," and established various technical and cost/price evaluation factors, stating that "technical merit is more important than cost or price." Id. at A-3. On July 12, proposals were submitted by three offerors, including SuperTec and ManTech.[5] Thereafter, the agency determined that, although ManTech's proposal "came the closest" to meeting the solicitation requirements, none of the initial proposals met all of the solicitation requirements, and that discussions were necessary. Contracting Officer's Statement, Nov. 5, 2007, at 2. On July 23, the agency opened discussions with the offerors, identifying various aspects of their proposals that required revision. Each offeror was provided with the agency's evaluation documents related to its proposal; these documents identified various technical strengths and weaknesses. Id. On July 24, the ITSD director, who was also the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) and had been involved in developing the statement of work (SOW) for this solicitation, sent an email to the contracting officer and the deputy chief information officer stating that she (the COTR) should be "recused from further proceedings." AR, Tab F. The email revealed that, prior to submission of proposals, the COTR had "consulted with ManTech and [the third offeror]" regarding "requirements, pricing and labor categories," and that her communications "may have provided an unfair advantage to ManTech and [the third offeror] because they had an idea what the labor categories might be in advance." Id. She concluded that she "needed to disclose what [she] had done in order to protect the reputation of OJP as well as [her own] reputation as Director of ITSD." Id.[6] Thereafter, the contracting officer cancelled the solicitation, summarizing the basis for cancellation as follows: Prior to receipt of revised proposals, [I] learned of a potential procurement integrity issue that occurred during market research activities.