TITLE:	Information Systems Technology Corporation
BNUMBER:	    B-288490.2
DATE:		    July 3, 2002
**********************************************************************
Information Systems Technology Corporation, B-288490.2, July 3, 2002

Decision


Matter of:   Information Systems Technology Corporation

File:            B-288490.2

Date:              July 3, 2002

Paul J. Chun, Ph.D., for the protester.
Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Scott A. Schipma, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for
Spherix, Inc., an intervenor.
David T. Truong, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is denied
where the record shows that the evaluation and source selection were
reasonable and consistent with evaluation factors.

DECISION

Information Systems Technology Corporation (ISTC) protests the award of a
contract to Spherix, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
OPM-RFP-00-01037DHH, issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), for
call center services for the Retirement Information Office (RIO).  ISTC
argues that the agency misevaluated its revised proposal and unreasonably
downgraded ISTC's technical score.

We deny the protest.

OPM's Retirement and Insurance Service (RIS) provides retirement, health
benefits, and life insurance services to more than 2.4 million federal
retirees and their survivors.  The RIO serves as the primary point of
contact for federal annuitants to obtain information relating to their
benefits and to make changes to their retirement and insurance accounts.
The RIO consists of three separate call centers located at different
geographic locations and staffed by approximately 120 customer service
specialists.  The call centers are accessed by a single toll-free number
that is "front ended" by an automated response system.  Callers can bypass
the call centers' automated system and speak with a customer service
specialist.  The specialist is available to answer retirement-related
questions and perform a number of transactions relating to an annuitant's
retirement and health insurance accounts.

The RFP was issued on October 4, 2000 electronically through OPM's
procurement website to acquire services necessary to handle "overflow"
telephone calls to the RIO.  The RFP contemplated the award of a
fixed-priced, indefinite- delivery/indefinite-quantity contract.  The
contractor is required to establish and staff a call center to handle
overflow telephone calls at an estimated 22,000 to 25,000 calls per month,
process and transact a wide range of actions relating to the caller's
account, and transmit these transactions to OPM's mainframe system on a
daily basis and in a compatible format.  RFP ï¿½ C.2.  The RFP provided that
an offeror first must demonstrate that it has successfully completed at
least three similar projects, one within the past year, and has successfully
transmitted data to an outside entity.
After offerors satisfied this initial go/no-go criterion, they would be
evaluated under the following technical evaluation factors in descending
order of importance:

(1)              Firm's Experience and Qualifications in Similar Projects
a.                  Corporate Experience
b.                  Personnel Experience
c.                  Past Performance
(2)              Understanding the Problem and the Approach to Solving the
Problem
a.                  Operating Plan
b.                  Management Plan
c.                  Quality Assurance Plan

The RFP stated that the technical factors would be afforded a significantly
higher weight than cost in selecting the successful offeror.  Award would be
made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the
government, considering primarily the offeror's demonstrated technical
excellence with price and other factors considered.

Seven offerors submitted proposals that were reviewed by a four-person
technical evaluation panel (TEP).  Only the proposals of ISTC and Spherix
were determined by the contracting officer to have a reasonable chance of
being selected for award.  The agency subsequently found both proposals to
be conditionally acceptable and included both proposals in the competitive
range.  The TEP identified several weaknesses in both proposals and sent
both ISTC and Spherix discussion questions.

The TEP reviewed the offerors' responses to the discussions questions.  As a
result, ISTC's technical score increased from 83 points out of a possible
100 points to
92 points.  Spherix increased its technical score from 91 points to 99
points.

On April 12, 2001, the agency held oral negotiations with ISTC and Spherix.
The contracting officer informed ISTC that the purpose of the meeting was to
discuss concerns the agency had with respect to ISTC's understanding of the
requirement because of its extremely low price.  Specifically, the agency
wanted to discuss with ISTC the T-1 telecommunications line requirement,
staffing needs in the event of an emergency, and ISTC's understanding of the
requirement for real-time display for monitoring activities.  In responding
to the agency's concerns, ISTC advised that of two alternate approaches it
proposed in its initial proposal for interacting with OPM's database system
it intended to implement the batch file transfer approach.[1]  ISTC
described a process in which OPM would ship a copy of OPM's entire annuitant
database to ISTC daily, and ISTC would update the files to reflect the
changes that were made as a result of telephone requests by annuitants, and
then ship the files back to OPM in the evening for processing.

After the oral negotiations, OPM faxed both offerors letters summarizing the
discussions and setting the date and time for final proposal revisions.  In
its fax to ISTC, the agency requested additional information as to how ISTC
intended to obtain additional staff in the event of an emergency and asked
that ISTC address its plan for providing a real time display for monitoring
activities.  ISTC timely submitted its proposal revisions.  After evaluating
ISTC's final proposal submission, the TEP reduced the total points awarded
to ISTC from 92 to 81.  The TEP concluded that ISTC's file transfer approach
presented an unacceptable risk to contract performance and was totally
impractical for a number of reasons, including security concerns related to
allowing its database outside of OPM's control.  The TEP also continued to
question the viability of ISTC's plan for providing additional customer
service specialists to handle OPM calls in the event of an emergency or
disaster.

The TEP concluded that the Spherix proposal was technically superior to
ISTC's.  The agency determined that Spherix had experience in projects
closely related to the current requirement and its overall technical
approach and understanding of the agency's needs were superior to ISTC's.
Although the evaluated cost for Spherix was 18 percent higher than ISTC, the
agency concluded that Spherix's solid understanding of the agency's needs,
overall technical approach and demonstrated performance of similar work
outweighed the price difference.  Award was thus made to Spherix on July 17,
2001.

On August 2, 2001, ISTC filed a protest with our Office.  In that protest,
ISTC argued that the agency had improperly evaluated its proposal, that the
best value determination was not in accordance with the solicitation's
evaluation criteria, and that the agency had failed to conduct adequate
discussions.  During a conference call to request that the agency further
address the protester's allegation concerning the adequacy of discussions,
our Office expressed concerns about whether the agency had conducted
meaningful discussions with the protester.  Specifically, it appeared that
the agency had not discussed with the protester its position that the
protester's proposed batch method for interacting with OPM's retirement
system database was not acceptable.  OPM subsequently decided to reopen
discussions, request and evaluate proposal revisions, and make a new award
decision.  In light of the agency's actions, our office dismissed the
protest.

OPM subsequently amended the solicitation to advise the two competitors that
the batch file approach was not acceptable.  The amendment, while not
changing the award determination basis, provided further explanation in
support of the evaluation factors as follows:

A.                 Experience & Qualifications

(1)  Corporate Experience
-Relevance and Scope of Prior Process Operations
-Relevance and Scope of Transaction Processing
-Relevance and Scope of Data Transmissions
-Extent Facilities are in Place
(2)  Personnel Experience
-Relevance of Prior Personnel Experience
-Degree of Commitment of Staff to the Project
-Staff Education Requirement
B.                 Understanding the Problem
(1)  Operating Plan
-Awareness of Problem Areas
-Feasibility of Proposed Approach
(2)  Management Plan
-Coordination and Monitoring Activities
-Resource/Staffing Plan[2]

Discussions were reopened with both offerors and revised proposals were
requested.  In the discussion letter to ISTC, the agency advised ISTC that
it had the opportunity to change its file transfer approach and asked ISTC
to fully describe how it would handle the estimated 25,000 calls per month.
Additionally, ISTC was asked to more fully describe how the company would
obtain staff in the event of a disaster or emergency affecting the OPM
telephone system, including where the staff would come from, how long it
would take to obtain the necessary staff, and how long the staff would be
committed to the project.  Spherix was asked to consider reducing its price.

Final proposal revisions were received by October 31, 2001.  Spherix elected
not to revise its proposal or reduce its price.  After evaluation of final
proposal revisions, ISTC received 81 out of a possible 100 points.  Since
Spherix elected not to revise its proposal, the agency did not reevaluate
its proposal, and therefore Spherix's initial evaluation score of 99
remained unchanged.

In reviewing ISTC's final proposal revision, the agency found multiple
deficiencies in its proposed approach to interfacing with OPM's database.
Specifically, the agency found that ISTC did not indicate whether the
hardware and software it proposed to utilize for the interface with OPM's
database would be located in the facility that would house the call center.
[3]  The agency also determined that ISTC's online data entry approach posed
a security concern.  In addition, the agency noted that ISTC failed to
describe in detail how it would handle the calls received in the event of
emergency or disaster.  The agency also found that ISTC's staffing plan did
not adjust coverage for the increase of calls during peak call periods.
Further, ISTC's proposal did not establish that ISTC possessed a sufficient
number of personal computers and workstations to handle the OPM telephone
calls.  Finally, the agency expressed concern that the workstations ISTC
planned to use would not be able to support the required graphic user
interface.

In comparison, the agency found Spherix's proposal demonstrated a clear
understanding of the needs of the project and proposed safeguards to address
contingencies.  For example, Spherix proposed back-up facilities in the
event of an emergency or down time at its primary location or in the event
of an emergency or disaster affecting the OPM telephone system.
Additionally, Spherix's call center facilities included all necessary call
center infrastructure and equipment, as well as furniture and workspace for
staff.  The agency found that Spherix's proposal demonstrated in-depth risk
management and an acceptable contingency plan with the goal of uninterrupted
services.  The agency concluded that Spherix's proposal was technically
superior to ISTC's and represented the best value to the government despite
its associated higher price.  On March 21, 2002, ISTC was notified that
award had been made to Spherix.  Following, a debriefing, ISTC filed this
protest with our Office.

The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its revised proposal
was unreasonable and disagrees with all of the evaluation findings discussed
above.  We have considered all of ISTC's allegations, many of which are
unfocussed and unclear, and find them without merit.  Our review of the
record shows that the protester's proposal was reasonably evaluated in
accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria.  We will limit our
discussion in this decision to several representative issues.

The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility of the
contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs
and the best method of accommodating them, and it must bear the burden of
any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation.  Federal Envtl.
Servs., Inc., B-260289, B-260490, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD ï¿½ 261 at 3.  In
reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will
not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of
proposals; rather we will examine the agency's evaluation only to ensure
that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation
criteria, and with procurement statutes and regulations.  Honolulu Marine,
Inc.,
B-245329, Dec. 27, 1991, 91-2 CPD ï¿½ 586 at 3.  A protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not render it unreasonable.
CORVAC, Inc., B-244766, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD ï¿½ 454 at 5.

With respect to the call center hardware location, ISTC argues that it
demonstrated that the additional hardware would be installed at the call
center site.  The record shows that ISTC proposed initially that its call
center would be located in Columbia, Maryland.  In its final revised
proposal, as explained above, ISTC indicated that some of the equipment to
be used in performance of the requirement was currently located in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania and was being used in support of other government
projects.  As noted by the agency, ISTC's revised proposal did not provide
any details concerning whether or when it intended to move this equipment
from Pennsylvania to Maryland, or how it would connect this equipment to the
call center if it was not going to physically move the equipment.   ISTC
also failed to explain how it could make use of the equipment in
Pennsylvania when it is currently dedicated to other government projects.
The protester primarily argues that Exhibit 2-1 of its revised final
proposal demonstrates that the new hardware would be installed with the
existing equipment at its Columbia location.  This exhibit is a diagram of
the major components of the call center computer and telephone system.  It
does not address location of the systems.  In any event, ISTC's revised
proposal did not provide a plan or timeline for removal of the equipment
from Pennsylvania to Maryland.  Even in its comments to the agency report
submitted in response to this protest, ISTC does not provide an explanation
of how it intended to integrate and connect the equipment in the two
facilities.  Given these legitimate concerns, we think the agency reasonably
downgraded ISTC for not adequately addressing how its equipment and
facilities would satisfy agency requirements under the "Extent Facilities
are in Place" area.

ISTC also argues that the agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal with
respect to the on-line data entry operation on the basis of unwarranted
security problems.  The record shows that the agency's major concern with
ISTC's approach was that it lacked validation procedures.  Specifically, the
agency found that ISTC failed to describe how it would verify a caller's
identity while OPM's database system was down.  ISTC provided in its
proposal that "[d]uring this period (in the event of an OPM system
malfunction), every telephone call will be responded to by the [customer
service specialist].  However, the caller's request will be recorded using
the Online Data Entry System with the information on the callers and call
content."  Tab 9, ISTC's Revised Proposal at 8.  ISTC maintains that its
approach does not constitute a security risk.  ISTC argues that its proposal
provides for workstations to return to normal operations once the system is
functioning, and the transactions recorded would be entered online.

The record shows that ISTC in its proposal never described a procedure for
verifying a caller's identification in the event of the system malfunction.
From ISTC's protest submissions, it appears that ISTC believed that this
matter would be resolved during the transition period when OPM is obligated
to provide the contractor with a password to access the OPM database.  ISTC
Additional Response at 4.  However, ISTC's apparent willingness to address
security issues after contract award does not explain ISTC's failure to
address its proposed approach to verifying the identity of callers in the
event the database was unavailable; nothing in its submissions to our Office
explains how it plans to handle caller identification.  Thus, the agency's
downgrading of ISTC's proposal in the areas of the "Awareness of Problem"
and "Feasibility of Proposed Approach" for not addressing this concern was
reasonable.

ISTC also alleges that OPM in its reevaluation unreasonably and unfairly
reduced its technical point score of 92 to 81 points.[4]  It is ISTC's
position that instead of performing a complete revised proposal evaluation,
the agency should have used
92 points as the base and then evaluated the results of the limited proposal
revision to the following two issues:  online processing approach and
staffing plan.  We do not find it unreasonable that the agency did not rely
on any previous score as a starting point in its reevaluation of ISTC's
proposal.  In its revised proposal, for the first time, ISTC provided
details with respect to its proposed direct access method for interacting
with OPM's database system.  In fact, while ISTC's revised proposal






was downgraded in several areas, ISTC's proposal also was rated higher in
several areas.  In our view, the record shows that the agency conducted a
reasonable evaluation of ISTC's proposal based on ISTC's revised approach.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel








                          -------------------------

[1] In its initial proposal, ISTC proposed two alternate approaches:  (1)
direct access to OPM's database or (2) file transfer in batch mode.
[2] Although not discussed in the record and not a protest issue, the
amendment language omitted past performance as a specific evaluation
subfactor under the first technical factor and quality assurance plan as a
subfactor under the second technical factor.
[3] ISTC proposed to house the OPM call center at a location in Columbia,
Maryland.  However, ISTC also indicated in its final proposal revision that
some of the equipment it planned to use in performance of the requirement
was located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and currently dedicated to other
government projects.
[4] ISTC also alleges that the agency improperly evaluated its price.  The
agency reports that ISTC's price was evaluated at a lower amount than
proposed because the proposed price failed to take into consideration that
the base year was only 4 months instead of a full year.  As the agency
points out, ISTC was not prejudiced in the agency's cost/technical tradeoff
by being evaluated at a lower price.