TITLE:  Planned Systems International, Inc., B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5, October 30, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5
DATE:  October 30, 2003
**********************************************************************
Planned Systems International, Inc., B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5, October
30, 2003

   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:   Planned Systems International, Inc.
    
File:            B-292319.3; B-292319.4; B-292319.5
    
Date:              October 30, 2003
    
Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & Allen, for the
protester.
Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., and Dean M. Dilley, Esq., Patton Boggs, for
Advanced Management Technology, Inc., an intervenor.
David T. Troung, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Agency reasonably determined that awardee was eligible for award where
solicitation required that vendors be included on a particular Federal
Supply Schedule, and awardee at one time was included on that schedule but
subsequently was listed instead on a single, consolidated corporate
schedule that included services under several schedules, including the
specified schedule.
    
2.  Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester*s quotation is
denied where record shows that agency reasonably determined that the
quotation, among other things, did not demonstrate a full understanding of
the solicitation requirements or offer a fully qualified project manager.
    
3.  Selection of higher-rated, higher-priced quotation was not improper
where solicitation provided that price was less important than technical
factors, and agency reasonably concluded that the technical advantages of
awardee*s quotation outweighed protester*s price advantage.  
DECISION
    
Planned Systems International, Inc. (PSI) protests the award of a delivery
order to Advanced Management Technology, Inc. (AMTI) under request for
quotations (RFQ) No. DACS-03-0032, issued by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) for information technology (IT) services. PSI complains
that AMTI is not eligible for award and that NSF improperly evaluated the
two firms* quotations.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
Currently, NSF has a computer system known as FastLane that allows the
agency to communicate through the Internet with those who receive funds
from the agency for research and education projects.  The agency also has
an internal IT help desk that provides staff members with desktop and
related support services.  The RFQ here, for Information Technology Help
Central Services (ITHCS), was issued to integrate these two systems into
one IT service. 
    
NSF conducted the procurement using the General Services Administration
(GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), and limited the competition to five
small businesses that held a contract under Schedule 70, Special Item
Number (SIN) 132-51.  The RFQ provided for award on a *best value* basis
based on an evaluation of technical, past performance and price, which
consisted of fixed labor rates and a fixed price for a phase-in period. 
The technical factors were:  management approach (with management plan,
phase-in plan, and continuing management plan subfactors); program manager
and key personnel; and relevant experience/corporate qualifications.  The
technical and past performance factors together were significantly more
important than price.  The agency intended to award the contract without
holding discussions, although clarifications were contemplated.
    
Following review of the quotations, including information submitted in
response to clarification requests,[1] PSI*s and AMTI*s submissions were
rated good and excellent, respectively, under the technical factor and
excellent for past performance.  NSF also conducted a risk assessment for
integration, ITHCS service performance, and FastLane support; PSI received
ratings of medium/high, very high/high, and very low, compared to AMTI*s
ratings of low, low/medium, and low.[2]  AMTI and PSI quoted prices of
$14,691,354 and [DELETED], respectively.  NSF determined that AMTI*s
technical advantages outweighed PSI*s lower price, and thus selected AMTI
for award. 
    
    
AMTI*S ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD
    
PSI protests that AMTI was not eligible for award because it does not hold
a contract under Schedule 70, SIN 132-51. 
    
This argument is without merit.  NSF explains that Schedule 70 defines the
broad scope of services, in this case IT services, and the SIN defines the
more specific help desk support services sought here.  NSF further
explains that, in an attempt to simplify the procurement process, GSA
instituted a corporate schedule that permits businesses with multiple FSS
contracts to consolidate them into one contract; AMTI did hold a Schedule
70, SIN 132-51 contract, but has included that contract under its
consolidated GSA corporate schedule contract.  PSI does not dispute that
AMTI holds a corporate contract that encompasses the services required or
that AMTI previously held a Schedule 70, SIN 132-51 contract, and since
the FSS contract and SIN numbers merely defined the services being
acquired, there is no basis for finding AMTI ineligible for award.  In any
case, we fail to see how PSI was competitively prejudiced by the agency*s
inclusive interpretation.  While PSI asserts generally that it made
competitive decisions based on its understanding of the field of
competition, it has not provided any elaboration as to what those
decisions were, or as to how it would have changed its quotation to
increase its chances of receiving the award.  See  SWR, Inc., B-284075,
B-284075.2, Feb. 16, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 43 at 3.
    
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
    
PSI*s good (rather than excellent) rating under the technical factor
reflected, in part, the agency*s finding that PSI did not demonstrate a
clear understanding of the requirement or how it would integrate the help
desks; identified an unqualified program manager and a weak phase-in plan;
and provided relevant experience that did not demonstrate the depth and
breadth of corporate resources required under the RFQ.  PSI challenges
each of these evaluation conclusions.
    
In reviewing a protest against a procuring agency*s evaluation, our role
is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent
with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and
regulations.  National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999,
99-1 CPD P: 5 at 3.  We have reviewed the record here and find all of
PSI*s arguments to be without merit.[3]  We discuss PSI*s primary
arguments below.
    
HELP DESK INTEGRATION APPROACH/
UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENT
    
Under the management plan subfactor, vendors were to *[d]escribe and
identify [their] approach to integrate and perform the total work scope as
a single consolidated technical effort.*  RFQ at 3.  NSF found that PSI
described how the work would be performed after the help desks were
integrated, but did not adequately explain how it planned to integrate the
desks.  This deficiency also led NSF to question whether PSI understood
the requirement.
    
PSI maintains that its quotation did in fact fully describe how it would
organize, staff and integrate its help desk team.  For example, PSI
asserts that it addressed integration by proposing [DELETED].  PSI further
notes that it provided a detailed integrated workflow diagram illustrating
how it would integrate both functions. 
    
PSI*s argument is without merit.  The information cited by PSI is the
information NSF identified as describing how the work would be performed
after the desks were integrated; this information contributed positively
to PSI*s good rating.  PSI*s argument does not address the information the
agency found was lacking:  a discussion of the steps that PSI would take
to convert the two current help desks, which are supported by two
different contractors, into one integrated desk.  For example, the agency
states it was looking for a discussion of issues related to disruption of
service, customer outreach, standardization across networks, and
maintaining the incumbent workforce.  Supplemental Agency Report at 4-5. 
Since these considerations, on their face, clearly relate to the agency*s
concerns regarding integration of the help desks, and PSI has not shown
otherwise, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency*s evaluation in this
area. 
    
PROGRAM MANAGER
    
The RFQ required vendors to provide, in resume format, the program
manager*s (PM) work experience, education, and related experience.  In
addition, appendix 4 of the statement of work (SOW) provided that the PM
must have 15 years of technical experience, with at least 8 years as a
manager, and described the PM*s duties as including, among other things,
exercising control over all aspects of the delivery order performance,
deliverables, schedules, and cost, and maintaining an adequate staffing
level and skill mix.
    
PSI identified its current FastLane manager for the PM position.  NSF
found that the   resume provided did not show that this individual was
well qualified to be the PM for the more complex integrated support
services function.  Specifically, the agency found that the resume did not
show that the individual had experience with typical project management
activities, such as budgeting, forecasting, resource allocation, planning,
or integrating services across multiple functional areas. 
    
PSI disputes NSF*s conclusions, noting that the project management
activities (such as budgeting and resource allocation) cited by the
agency, were not listed in the RFQ as minimum PM qualifications.  PSI
asserts that, in any case, the resume provided for the PM lists projects
of similar complexity under which the PM was responsible for budgeting,
forecasting, resource allocation, and integration efforts. 
    
The evaluation was reasonable.  While the RFQ did not list activities such
as budgeting and resource allocation as minimum qualifications for the PM,
it did specify them as PM responsibilities.  SOW, Appendix 4.  Thus, NSF
could properly consider them in evaluating the PM*s experience.  See
Resource Applications, Inc.,
B-271079, B-271079.2, May 20, 1996, 96-1 CPD P: 244 at 6.  Further,
insofar as PSI argues that the proposed PM did perform such activities
under prior contracts, this was not evident from her resume; contracting
agencies are not responsible for evaluating information that is not
included in a quotation.  See General Sec. Servs. Corp., B‑280388,
B-280388.2, Sept. 25, 1998, 99-1 CPD P: 49 at 4 n. 3. 
    
BEST VALUE DETERMINATION
    
PSI argues that the award was improper because AMTI*s higher price cannot
be justified even if AMTI*s quotation was properly rated superior to
PSI*s. 
    
Our review of an agency*s price/technical tradeoff decision is limited to
a determination of whether it was reasonable and consistent with the
evaluation criteria enunciated by the solicitation.  Construction Tech.
Labs., Inc., B-281836, Apr. 12, 1999, 99-1 CPD P: 71 at 11.  An agency may
select a higher-priced, higher‑rated quotation where the decision is
consistent with the evaluation criteria and the agency reasonably
determines that the superiority of the higher-priced quotation outweighs
the price difference.  National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B‑281074.2,
Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD P: 5 at 7. 
    
The source selection official (SSO) was aware of the price difference
between the submissions, and recognized that AMTI*s very good rating under
the technical factor reflected, among other things, a well thought out
approach to integrating and performing the total work scope, a clear
understanding of the requirement, and a well-qualified PM.  Source
Selection Document at 6.  The SSO similarly was aware that PSI*s inferior
rating reflected the failure, among other things, to provide an integrated
approach for consolidating the requirements, the lack of a clear
understanding of the requirement, and the failure to propose as qualified
a project manager.  The SSO concluded that AMTI clearly had the best
technical submission, and that
    
the AMTI strength of consolidation of the scope of work into an integrated
effort, more than offset a minor evaluated cost disadvantage.  Given the
technical findings, including the risk assessment evaluation, the
magnitude of change to NSF culture and operations, and the potential for
long term efficiency and cost savings, the NSF is better served by
potentially spending a little more money now to increase the probability
of exceptional results in the future.
PSI argues that the selection is not justified because the evaluation
record does not identify any potential for long-term efficiency or cost
saving associated with performance by AMTI, and that, as AMTI was not
rated excellent under the technical factor, there is no basis to conclude
that there is an increased probability of exceptional results from AMTI. 
These arguments are without merit.  We view the agency*s conclusions as a
reasonable extension of its findings that AMTI*s quotation was superior to
PSI*s in terms of technical considerations and risk; there is nothing
unreasonable in an agency*s concluding that a higher-rated, lower-risk
competitor presents a higher likelihood of exceptional performance, which
potentially equates with both greater efficiency and cost savings (e.g.,
resulting from having the work performed correctly the first time).  We
conclude that NSF*s tradeoff decision was reasonable and consistent with
the RFQ criteria. 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

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

   [1] PSI protests that, in evaluating quotations, NSF did not consider
information submitted in response to clarification requests.  NSF disputes
this, asserting that evaluations were completed after clarification
responses were submitted, and all information was considered.  PSI has not
demonstrated that clarification responses were not considered; for
example, it has not pointed to any specific information that it believes
was ignored.  There thus is no basis for questioning the evaluation in
this regard.
[2] PSI protests that NSF has not adequately documented the risk
assessment.  This argument is without merit.  The risk evaluation record
specifically discusses why, based on the evaluation, each quotation
presents certain risks.  Re-evaluation Summary at 8.  
[3] In its initial protest, PSI challenged the agency*s conclusion that
PSI did not have the required depth and breadth of experience, arguing
that experience was not an evaluation factor.  PSI specifically stated,
*Had PSI known that *relevant experience* was an evaluation criteria . . .
it would have provided comprehensive information relative to this topic.* 
Protest at 14.  In its report comments responding to the position NSF
presented in its report, PSI changed its argument to claim that it in fact
had sufficiently addressed experience.  Protest Comments at 16-17. 
Protest arguments such as this must be raised no later than 10 days after
the basis for the argument was or should have been known.  4 C.F.R. S:
21.2(a)(2) (2003).  On August 1, 2003, when PSI filed its initial protest,
it was aware that the agency had found its quotation lacking in depth and
breadth with respect to experience.  If PSI believed that this assessment
was incorrect, it should have protested on this basis at that time, rather
than concede, essentially, that it had not presented *comprehensive
information.*  We conclude that this aspect of the protest is
untimely.