B-400109.2, Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated, July 28, 2008

B-400109.2 Jul 28, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated protests the issuance of a task order to The MIL Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB1341-08-RP-0009, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for support services for NIST's Business Systems Division (BSD). The competition was limited to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts. Savantage asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its technical and cost proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-400109.2, Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated, July 28, 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: Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated File: B-400109.2 Date: July 28, 2008 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, and Jon W. van Horne, Esq., VHT Law PLLC, for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for The MIL Corporation, an intervenor. Lauren Kalish, Esq., and Mark Langstein, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Evaluation of protester's technical proposal was unobjectionable where agency reasonably found weaknesses associated with sufficiency of information regarding firm's proposal of project management tool and project manager; risk connected to extensive hiring process; and lack of experience with customized help desk software. DECISION Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated protests the issuance of a task order to The MIL Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB1341-08-RP-0009, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for support services for NIST's Business Systems Division (BSD). The competition was limited to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts. Savantage asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its technical and cost proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP sought functional and technical support services for the BSD with the principal goal of supporting the agency's commerce business system. Proposals were to include a description of the vendor's technical approach, including its FSS labor categories and estimated hours. The RFP contemplated issuance of a labor'hour type task order under the successful vendor's FSS contract for a 1-year base period, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated for –best value— on the basis of six factors (with relevant subfactors)--(A) technical approach; (B) management plan (quality control plan, project management plan, and staff recruitment/retention plan); (C) key personnel (resumes of project manager, testing lead, and development lead); (D) experience; (E) past performance; and evaluated cost. Factor A was most important and was slightly more important than factors B and C, which were approximately equal to one another. Factors B and C, individually, were more important than factors D and E, which were approximately equal in importance. The non-cost factors were rated on an adjectival basis (exceptional, acceptable, marginal, unacceptable, and, for past performance only, neutral). Evaluated cost was approximately equal in importance to the non-cost factors combined and was not scored. Instead, the agency would determine whether proposed costs were consistent with the cost proposal instructions and, if necessary would ensure that the costs reflected 1,920 hours multiplied by the proposed fully burdened hourly rate for each NIST functional title. Hourly rates that exceeded applicable FSS rates were to be adjusted downward and rates that did not reflect an appropriate escalation rate were also to be adjusted. Four vendors, including Savantage and MIL, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a proposal evaluation board (PEB) (without conducting discussions).