B-311002; B-311002.2, LEADS Corporation, March 26, 2008

B-311002; B-311002.2, LEADS Corporation, March 26, 2008 TITLE: B-311002; B-311002.2, LEADS Corporation, March 26, 2008 BNUMBER: B-311002; B-311002.2 DATE: March 26, 2008 ******************************************************* B-311002; B-311002.2, LEADS Corporation, March 26, 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: LEADS Corporation File: B-311002; B-311002.2 Date: March 26, 2008 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Peter A. Riesen, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, P.L.L.C., for Enterprise Information Services, Inc., the intervenor. William R. Covey, Esq., and Lisa J. Obayashi, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's selection of a lower-rated, lower-priced quotation for the issuance of a task order is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the protester's quotation's higher rating under the solicitation's experience and transition plan evaluation factors did not outweigh the awardee's quotation's lower price. DECISION LEADS Corporation protests the issuance of a task order to Enterprise Information Services, Inc. (EIS) under a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for program management support services. LEADS, the incumbent contractor, argues that the selection of EIS's lower-rated, lower-priced quotation for award was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest. The RFQ provided for the issuance of a fixed-price, level of effort task order to a vendor holding a General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contract on the Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services schedule. RFQ at 1. The solicitation provided for the issuance of an order with a 1-year base period with 4 option years to the vendor submitting the quotation found to represent the best value to the government under the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: experience; past performance; transition plan; key personnel; and price. Id. at 14, 17. The RFQ also informed vendors that "[t]he non-price factors when combined are more important than price." Id. at 17. The agency received quotations from three vendors, including LEADS and EIS. LEADS's quotation was evaluated as "excellent" under each of the factors at an evaluated price of $16,998,200. Agency Report (AR), Tab 26, Technical Evaluation Report, at 1-5; Tab 29, Source Selection Decision, at 3. EIS's quotation was evaluated as "good" under the experience and transition plan factors and "excellent" under the past performance and key personnel factors at an evaluated price of $15,243,018. AR, Tab 29, Source Selection Decision, at 2-3. In making this source selection, the agency noted that, although "LEADS Corp. was higher rated than EIS in the categories of Experience and Transition Plan," the "higher rating is due to the fact that, as the incumbent, LEADS Corp. has performed the identical requirement in the past and transition to a new contract would be completely seamless." Id. at 4. The agency concluded that "the higher technical rating of the LEADS' [quotation] does not outweigh the significant price advantage of the EIS [quotation]," and thus determined that EIS's quotation represented the best value to the government. Id. at 5. LEADS challenges the agency's determination that EIS's quotation represents the best value to the government, arguing that in selecting EIS's lower-rated, lower-priced proposal for award, the agency placed undue emphasis on price and essentially converted the basis for award from a determination of "best value" to one of "lowest-cost, technically acceptable." Protest at 9, 12. The protester also asserts that the agency's source selection decision is not adequately documented, and that it misrepresents the relative merits of LEADS's and EIS's quotations. Source selection officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and cost/price evaluation results; tradeoffs may be made, and the extent that technical superiority may be sacrificed for a cost/price advantage is governed by the test of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors. Joppa Maint. Co., Inc., B-281579; B-281579.2, Mar.