BNUMBER: B-271050
DATE: June 7, 1996
TITLE: Systems Integration & Development, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Systems Integration & Development, Inc.
File: B-271050
Date:June 7, 1996
E. W. Smith, Jr. for the protester.
William L. Ensign, Acting Architect of the Capitol, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Agency properly evaluated under the solicitation's generally
worded experience criterion the qualifications of an offeror's
proposed personnel and the experience of the firm itself with computer
aided design systems, the primary functional computer architecture to
be supported under the contract, since the agency may evaluate the
extent to which offerors have experience directly related to the work
required by the solicitation.
2. Agency reasonably selected the incumbent contractor's technically
superior, higher-priced proposal for award where it was reasonably
determined that the proposal's technical advantages justified the
payment of a price premium and the stated evaluation methodology
provided that technical evaluation factors were more important than
price in selecting the proposal most advantageous to the government.
DECISION
Systems Integration & Development, Inc. (SID) protests the award of a
contract to Independent Network Consultants, Inc. (INC) under request
for proposals (RFP) No. 9607, issued by the Architect of the Capitol
(AOC) for comprehensive computer support services in the Capitol
Complex of Buildings, Washington, D.C. SID challenges the evaluation
of its proposal and the award to INC, a higher technically rated,
higher-priced offeror.
We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a
base period with a 1-year option period. The RFP described the
equipment and systems currently in use in the Capitol and various
congressional office buildings. The RFP required an offeror to
propose four individuals and to demonstrate their knowledge, skills,
and abilities in several areas, including "[i]n depth knowledge of
network operating systems, network protocols and network management
schemes"; "[e]xpert skill in developing and implementing methodologies
to seamlessly implement highly complex heterogenous network (LAN)
[local area network] services"; and "[e]xpert skill in assessing new
technologies and their applicability to specific AOC requirements
[and] the ability to adapt these technologies to specific
applications." The RFP also required an offeror to identify at least
three projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to the
requirements of the RFP which were performed by the offeror within the
previous 3 years, specifically detailing the types of hardware and
software systems serviced. Finally, the RFP required an offeror to
describe its management approach.
The RFP stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror
whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government, price
and technical evaluation factors considered. The technical evaluation
factors tracked the RFP requirements and were weighted as follows:
(1) technical personnel (40 points); (2) corporate experience and past
performance (40 points); and (3) management approach (20 points). The
RFP provided that higher scores would be assigned to offerors which
demonstrated in their proposals more extensive personnel
qualifications and experience in performing the RFP requirements. The
RFP also provided that the technical evaluation factors were
considered more important than price, and that an offeror's proposed
price would only become more important as the technical merit of
proposals became more equal.
Of the 23 firms which submitted initial proposals, the proposals of 10
firms, including SID and INC, the incumbent contractor, were
determined to be in the competitive range. Following oral discussions
with each competitive range offeror and interviews with proposed
personnel, the agency requested best and final offers from each
offeror. The final technical evaluation scores for SID and INC (the
only offerors whose proposals were ultimately considered eligible for
award) were as follows:
SID INC
Technical personnel 32 36
Corporate experience/
past performance 30 38
Management Approach 20 17
Total 82 91
SID's proposed price was $420,502, and INC's proposed price was
$486,720.
Since INC scored higher than SID in the two most important technical
evaluation areas--technical personnel and corporate experience/past
performance--and since INC had a higher total technical evaluation
score, the agency determined that INC's proposal was technically
superior to SID's proposal and that this technical superiority
justified the payment of a price premium. Accordingly, the agency
awarded the contract to INC.
SID argues that its proposal was improperly downgraded for the
technical personnel and corporate experience/past performance
technical evaluation factors based on the agency's use of an unstated
evaluation factor, namely, consideration of whether an offeror's
proposed personnel were qualified to support computer aided design
(CAD)[1] hardware and software systems and whether the firm itself had
experience in providing CAD support services. Moreover, SID complains
that INC, as the incumbent contractor, received an unfair competitive
advantage.
In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency's evaluation
of proposals, we will examine an agency's evaluation to ensure that it
was fair and reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria
stated in the RFP. Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., B-239223,
Aug. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 129; Institute of Modern Procedures, Inc.,
B-236964, Jan. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 93. Based on our review of the
record, we conclude that in evaluating SID's proposal, the agency
reasonably evaluated the qualifications of SID's proposed personnel
and its own corporate experience/past performance and did not utilize
an unstated evaluation factor. Further, we conclude that INC did not
receive an unfair competitive advantage.
The CAD system is the primary functional computer architecture which
AOC uses to satisfy its facility management requirements. For one
building, the RFP stated that "[s]ervices currently supplie[d] for
networked PCs [personal computers] are heavily configured for . . .
[CAD]. The CAD system is an Intergraph 6400 Series Unix Server which
utilizes the TCP/IP [Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol]." The RFP also specified that the current CAD software was
Intergraph's Microstation 4.0. According to the RFP, other buildings
must use the specified CAD software to access the CAD server.
In evaluating proposals, the agency did not limit its consideration to
whether an offeror's proposed personnel were generally qualified in
working with computer hardware and software systems and whether a firm
had corporate experience/past performance with computer systems in
general. Rather, the agency specifically considered whether the
proposed personnel had CAD qualifications and whether an offeror had
CAD corporate experience/past performance. While CAD qualifications
and experience were not specifically described in the evaluation
criteria, the RFP evaluation criteria section stated that proposed
employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities would be assessed, with
higher ratings given for those with "more extensive qualifications,
knowledge, skills and abilities when measured against" RFP
requirements. A similar statement was set forth regarding the
evaluation of corporate experience/past performance. In addition, the
RFP's technical instructions required submissions to reflect an
offeror's proposed personnel's "[i]n depth knowledge of network
operating systems . . . " and their "expert skills in assessing new
technologies and their applicability to specific AOC requirements
[and] the ability to adapt these technologies to specific
applications." The offerors also were to discuss hardware and
software systems previously serviced in connection with projects of
"similar size, scope and complexity to that required by" the RFP.
Given that the CAD system is AOC's primary functional computer
architecture, offeror and proposed personnel experience with CAD was
obviously important to AOC and properly considered under the technical
personnel and corporate experience/past performance evaluation
criteria. In this regard, we have long recognized that an agency,
under generally-worded experience criteria, properly may evaluate the
extent to which offerors have experience directly related to the work
required by the RFP. See Human Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers,
Inc., B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 21, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 35; FMS Corp.,
B-255191, Feb. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 182. Thus, we do not agree with
SID that the agency relied upon an unstated evaluation factor.
We also find the actual evaluation of SID's proposal to be reasonable.
In evaluating SID's proposed personnel, the agency considered the
resumes furnished for each of the proposed individuals and the
interviews with two of these individuals. In evaluating SID's
corporate experience/past performance, the agency contacted references
and considered SID's description of its relevant experience, including
a detailed list of its systems integration expertise which was broken
down into numerous categories (e.g., operating systems, communication
protocols and architectures, languages, graphical user interfaces,
multimedia, imaging software, "CASE" engineering software, database
management systems, hardware, desk top publishing, and mailing
system). While the agency determined that SID's proposed personnel
were "technically experienced" and "appeared to have the depth of
personnel experience to easily meet the technological requirements of
[AOC]," and SID's references reported that the firm satisfactorily
performed required services and SID personnel were technically
qualified, competent, and conducted themselves in a professional
manner, the record supports the agency's conclusions that none of
SID's proposed personnel described experience with CAD systems,[2] and
SID itself did not reference any CAD experience. In particular, the
agency noted that although SID had experience with communication
protocols that CAD systems use, SID neither had general CAD experience
nor specific Intergraph CAD experience as described in the RFP.
In contrast, one of INC's proposed personnel, as evidenced by the
resume furnished with INC's proposal, expressly listed experience with
the "installation, integration, and configuration of Microstation CAD
system, with the goal of optimization of performance" and INC, as the
incumbent contractor, had direct experience with all AOC equipment and
systems, including the CAD system. In fact, INC's proposed personnel
developed the current system configuration. The agency determined
that INC's proposed personnel were "very strong and ha[d] substantial
experience" and INC's references, particularly the one from AOC
commenting on INC's performance as the incumbent contractor, reported
that the firm fulfilled its contract "above and beyond" the
reference's satisfaction and that INC personnel were "outstanding . .
. ready to go above and beyond" in terms of technical qualifications,
competence, and professional conduct. In evaluating INC's proposal,
we think the agency reasonably considered INC's relevant incumbent
experience. Incumbency carries with it certain advantages;
consideration of an incumbent's experience does not result in an
unfair competitive advantage. See Dayron, B-265875.2, Jan. 11, 1996,
96-1 CPD para. 10.
In its comments to the agency report, SID maintains that two of its
proposed personnel, as well as the firm, have experience with imaging
systems, experience which SID suggests is comparable to CAD
experience, that is, "[t]he CAD system behave[s] similar to imaging
systems".[3] According to SID's proposal, it has developed for
corporate information providers a large image storage system which
"helps information providers store their information on the network
and allows their subscribers to download the information on demand to
their workstation." SID states it has "designed and developed [this]
imaging system to handle large images including [very complex] CAD
drawings."
While SID may have expertise and experience in storing and retrieving
CAD drawings, drawing storage and retrieval processes and techniques
appear to be distinct from the processes and techniques involved in
originally generating these drawings. Thus, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we cannot conclude that AOC should have
considered SID's expertise and experience with image storage and
retrieval systems as comparable to expertise and experience with using
CAD systems to generate original CAD drawings.
SID also challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff which
resulted in the award to INC, a higher technically rated,
higher-priced offeror. SID maintains that with such a slight
difference in total technical evaluation scores, as the lower-priced
offeror, it should have received the award as the offeror submitting
the most advantageous proposal.[4]
In a negotiated procurement, where the solicitation does not provide
for award on the basis of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable
proposal, an agency has the discretion to make award to an offeror
with a higher technical score and a higher price where it reasonably
determines that the price premium is justified and the result is
consistent with the evaluation criteria. See LSS Leasing Corp.,
B-259551, Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 179.
While INC's price was approximately 14 percent higher than SID's
price, INC's proposal was, as discussed, reasonably determined by AOC
to be technically superior to SID's proposal in the areas of technical
personnel and corporate experience/past performance, the two most
heavily weighted technical evaluation factors. Moreover, INC had a
good performance record, particularly with AOC, which, the agency
states, has led it to develop substantial confidence in INC's ability
to isolate and correct network failures. (For example, in the source
selection document, the agency explains that during an early phase in
network implementation, there was a network failure which resulted in
the failure of the agency's accounting staff to process vendor
payments and to provide accounting information to management. Because
of the inability of the contractor at that time to isolate and correct
the failure, the agency replaced that contractor with INC which
expeditiously restored full network service.) Under the
circumstances, we have no basis to question the agency's decision to
award to INC at a higher price than offered by SID.[5]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. CAD is a technique in which the computer is used for drawing and
problem solving in technical fields, such as architecture and
engineering systems. The agency's architectural, engineering, and
facility management staff use the CAD system to change congressional
room assignments and to make structural changes within a building.
The agency states that any failure in the CAD system would result in
its inability to provide necessary congressional services, a result
which would be seriously disruptive and unacceptable.
2. In its comments to the agency report, SID simply states that one of
its proposed technicians "has extensive experience with CAD system."
SID, however, does not even identify the individual in its proposal to
whom it refers. We have reviewed the resumes for each of SID's
proposed personnel and are unable to confirm that any of SID's
proposed personnel had relevant CAD experience.
3. Unlike SID's previous reference to one proposed technician having
CAD experience, we were able to confirm, based on our review of the
resumes, that SID's proposed team leader and another proposed employee
had experience with imaging systems.
4. SID states that after award, it was told that the total point
differential between its proposal and INC's proposal was 6 points, not
9 points. In its report, the agency explains that there was a
clerical error in the evaluation documents, but that the 9-point
differential is correct. Regardless of the point differential, we do
not place much weight on the differential since the scores themselves
are not controlling as to the significance of actual proposal
differences; point scores are useful only as guides to intelligent
decision-making. See Earle Palmer Brown Cos., Inc., B-243544;
B-243544.2, Aug. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 134. In this case, putting aside
the relative closeness of the point differential, the agency
determined that INC's proposal was technically superior to SID's
proposal in the areas of technical personnel and corporate
experience/past performance and that INC offered real advantages as
the incumbent contractor. The agency did not rely on the point
differential as the basis for making the selection decision. Even
assuming a closer point differential, the record clearly shows that
the reasons for selecting INC for award would remain.
5. We note that the agency calculated that if SID were awarded the
contract, it would incur approximately $44,000 in various transition
costs, thus significantly diminishing the price savings associated
with SID's proposal.