B-310551.2, American Cybernetic Corporation, February 1, 2008

B-310551.2 Feb 01, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Cybernetic Corporation (ACC) protests the award of a contract to Svanaco, Inc. d/b/a as American Eagle under request for proposals (RFP) No. BPD-CSB-07-CI-0001, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt on behalf of the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), for website redesign and hosting services. ACC, which submitted a significantly higher-priced proposal, challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's "best value" determination that resulted in the award to Svanaco, which submitted the highest technically rated, lowest-priced proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310551.2, American Cybernetic Corporation, February 1, 2008 Decision Matter of: American Cybernetic Corporation File: B-310551.2 Date: February 1, 2008 Harry Steinberg for the protester. Mary C. Schaffer, Esq., and David T. Copenhaver, Esq., Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, 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 against agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where record shows allegations are without merit, or that alleged evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester. DECISION American Cybernetic Corporation (ACC) protests the award of a contract to Svanaco, Inc. d/b/a as American Eagle under request for proposals (RFP) No. BPD-CSB-07-CI-0001, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt on behalf of the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), for website redesign and hosting services. ACC, which submitted a significantly higher-priced proposal, challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's –best value— determination that resulted in the award to Svanaco, which submitted the highest technically rated, lowest-priced proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule for a base period, with four 1-year options, for a contractor to redesign CSB's public use internet website and external hosting activities. RFP at 3, 6, 13. CSB is an independent federal agency responsible for investigating industrial chemical accidents and the CSB website, hosted internally on a server at CSB headquarters, is an important tool for informing the public about the agency's activities and disseminating safety information. The RFP included a detailed performance work statement that set forth a detailed listing of tasks and deliverables required. Id. at 6-13. Proposals were to be evaluated on a –best value— basis considering the following factors: (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; (3) personnel qualifications; (4) quality assurance plan; and (5) price. RFP at 18-20. The non-price factors when combined were stated to be approximately equal to price, and offerors were advised that price would become more important as proposals became technically more equal. Id. at 18. Proposals were received from four firms, including ACC and Svanaco, which were evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation team, using an adjectival rating system which was not disclosed in the solicitation. The consensus evaluation and technical rankings were as follows: Factor Svanaco Offeror A Offeror B ACC Technical Approach Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Past Performance Highly Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Personnel Qualifications Outstanding Marginal Marginal Satisfactory Quality Assurance Plan Outstanding Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Ranking 1 2 3 4 Total Price $351,680 $697,995 $388,240 $789,300 Agency Report exh. 11, Award Recommendation; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1-2. The contracting officer reviewed the evaluation findings and made award to Svanaco, finding that Svanaco's proposal--which was the highest-rated and lowest-priced offer received--represented the best value to the government. In doing so, the contracting officer concluded that the two highest-priced proposals, while technically acceptable, were too expensive to justify an award regardless of their technical score. COS at 2. After a debriefing, ACC filed this protest. ACC raises a number of objections to the evaluation of its proposal under each evaluation factor.