TITLE:  American Systems Consulting, Inc., B-294644, December 13, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294644
DATE:  December 13, 2004

**********************************************************************

   Decision

   Matter of:   American Systems Consulting, Inc.

   File:            B-294644

   Date:              December 13, 2004

   Daniel A. Bellman, Esq., and William R. Wernet, Esq., for the protester.

   Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Orest J. Jowk, Esq.,
Shaw Pittman LLP, for ManTech Advanced Systems International, an
intervenor.

   William Mayers, Esq., Defense Information Technology Contracting
Organization, and Robert D. Bourne, Jr., General Services Administration,
for the agencies.

   Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and Guy. R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Award of a blanket purchase agreement based on a competition among Federal
Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors using Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 8
procedures, is improper, where awardee's quotation contains services not
identified on its FSS contract. 

   DECISION

   American Systems Consulting, Inc. (ASCI) protests the award of blanket
purchase agreement (BPA) No. HC1013-04-A-5001 to ManTech Advanced Systems
International under a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Defense
Information Technology Contracting Organization (DITCO) for systems
applications and support for the Defense Commissary Agency (DCA).  The BPA
resulted from a competition conducted among Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
vendors using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8 procedures. 
ASCIA contends, among other things, that some of the purchased services
are outside the scope of ManTech's FSS contract.

   We sustain the protest.

   The RFQ sought quotations for software systems engineering support
services for three of DCA's business systems[1] and the development of new
business systems applications.  These systems will be used to support
worldwide commissary operations for the Department of Defense.  The list
of services to be provided are detailed in a performance work statement
(PWS) incorporated into the RFQ, and include project management; systems
analysis, evaluations, design, development and testing; systems
maintenance; software quality assurance; user support (help desk
services); systems deployment support; software configuration management;
maintenance of on-line documentations; user training; and local support. 
PWSA SSA 1.0, 2.0. 

   The PWS stated that vendors are required to provide "highly skilled
professional personnel" for the accomplishment of these tasks.  Id. S
5.0.  In this regard, the PWS detailed the job and education requirements
for each of the key and other personnel positions, id., and required
vendors, in their quotations, to identify the labor category from their
FSS contract that "most nearly equat[ed]" to each PWS-defined position. 
RFQ, Quotation Preparation Instructions, SA D.4.b.  Offerors were also
required to list, for each labor category, their GSA schedule pricing, as
well as any discounted hourly rates for this quotation.  Id.,
TableA 2.

   The RFQ provided for award of a fixed-price BPA for a 1-year phase-in
period followed by a base year with four 1-year options, with
time-and-material line items for labor and a reimbursable line item for
travel.  The RFQ stated that award would be made on a best-value basis,
considering (in descending order of importance) technical and management
capability, present and past performance, and cost/price.  RFQ, Evaluation
Factors for Award, S 1.a.  The price evaluation was to be based on a
"discounted life cycle cost" for each proposal, based on the proposed
prices and hours listed in the quotation over the entire 6-year contract
period. 

   Both ASCI and ManTech submitted quotations in response to the RFQ under
their respective General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule 70
(Information Technology) contracts.  The agency held discussions with each
vendor, and obtained revised quotations.  Both vendors' final quotations
were rated "green" or "acceptable" under the technical and management
capability factor (although ManTech was rated more favorably in terms of
risk[2]), and "high confidence" under the present and past performance
factor; however, ManTech's discounted life-cycle cost of $16,000,923 was
found to be approximately $8.5 million less than ASCI's (which was
$24,540,509).[3]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 15A, Final Evaluation Report,
atA 35-36; Tab 15B, Price Analysis Memorandum, at 1.  Award was made to
ManTech and this protest followed.  

   ASCI contends that the BPA was improperly awarded to ManTech because it
contains services not on ManTech's FSS contract. 

   The FSS program, directed and managed by GSA, gives federal agencies a
simplified process for obtaining commonly used commercial supplies and
services.  FAR SA 8.401(a).  The procedures established for the FSS
program satisfy the requirement for full and open competition.  41 U.S.C.
S 259(b)(3); FAR S 6.102(d)(3); Symplicity Corp., B-291902, Apr. 29, 2003,
2003 CPD P 89 at 4.  Non-FSS products and services may not be purchased
using FSS procedures; instead, their purchase requires compliance with the
applicable procurement laws and regulations, including those requiring the
use of competitive procedures.  Symplicity Corp., supra, at 4; OMNIPLEX
World Servs. Corp., B-291105, Nov. 6, 2002, 2002 CPD P 199 at 4-5.

   ASCI contends that the procurement of services to fill a "user support
(customer assistance) manager" position required by the PWS are outside
the scope of ManTech's FSS contract.  It contends that the labor category
that ManTech identified in its quotation to perform this function (task
manager) does not include user support functions or have the requisite
background and experience to meet the PWS's requirements for user support.

   The agency asserts that the RFQ did not require perfectly matched labor
categories to those required by the PWS, but only ones that were "most
nearly equating" to those categories.  In this regard, it asserts that
ManTech's FSS task manager position is sufficiently similar to that of the
PWS's description for a user support manager so as to justify award.  We
disagree.

   The RFQ requires the selected vendor to provide help desk support to
business system users 24 hours a day, 7A days a week.  This support may be
as simple as resolving "recurring [or] minor problems such as printer
jamm[ing]," or may require more complex troubleshooting of "systems'
applications, data, interfaces, and systems' environments."  Help desk
support may also require "senior analysts and technical personnel with
development and/or maintenance knowledge and experience on the systems
applications, databases, data, interfaces, and system's environment" to
resolve system problems.  RFQ S 3.5

   The user support manager, which will oversee this function, is required to
"provide leadership and management of the user support personnel,"
"create[] the User Support Plan which defines the policies and procedures
for providing [24 hours a day, 7 days a week] support for [DCA's business]
systems," "manage multiple time sensitive tasks involving end user
support," and "be available to provide on-call support."  Education and
experience requirements for this position are a Master's degree in
"Information Technology, Computer Science, Business" and 8 years of
relevant experience, or a Bachelor's degree and 10 years of relevant work
experience.  "The two years of the relevant experience must be in managing
a User Support (Help Desk) operation providing around the clock support
for more than 100 end users."  PWS SA 5.6.

   As noted above, ManTech's quotation identified a task manager to fill the
user support manager position.  ManTech's FSS contract describes the task
manager position as follows:

   Directs all financial management and administrative activities, such as
budgeting, manpower and resource planning, and financial reporting. 
Performs complex evaluation of existing procedures, processes, techniques,
model, and/or systems related to the management problems or contractual
issues which would require a report and recommends solutions.  Develops
work breakdown structures, prepares charts, tables, graphs, and diagrams
to assist in analyzing problems.  Provides daily supervision and direction
to staff.  Defines and directs technical specifications and tasks to be
performed by team members, defines target dates of tasks and subtasks. 
Provides guidance and assistance in coordinating output and ensuring the
technical adequacy of the end product.

   ManTech's FSS Contract at 22. 

   The task manager position included in ManTech's FSS contract has a minimum
of 6A years working experience, with at least 3 years "specialized"
experience in "preparation and analysis of financial statements,
development of complex project schedules and similar activities," and
"general" experience in "accounting or management activities."  The
minimum education requirement is a Bachelor's degree in "Computer Science,
Information Systems, Engineering, Business, Accounting, or other related
scientific or technical discipline" with 6 years of relevant experience; a
Master's degree with 4 years of general experience of which at least 2
years is specialized; or no degree if the individual has 10 years of
general experience of which at least 8 years is specialized.  Id.

   Based on our review and comparison of the PWS with ManTech's FSS contract,
we find that the user support manager services are outside the scope of
ManTech's FSS contract.  We reach this conclusion because the RFQ required
ManTech to identify the labor category from its FSS contract that "most
nearly equat[ed]" to each PWS-defined position, and the task manager
labor category identified by ManTech does not appear to match the user
support manager position defined in the PWS.  For example, the task
manager description does not include performing the help desk or systems
support services described in the PWS.  Rather, the task manager position
is focused on financial management activities, with some general
administrative management duties.  The task manager experience level also
does not include at least 2 years of help desk experience, as is required
for the user support manager position.  Since ManTech's "most nearly
equat[ing]" labor category (i.e., task manager) does not perform the
services required for the user support manager, and neither the agency nor
ManTech argue that a more closely related labor category exists on
ManTech's FSS contract to fill the position, it appears that ManTech's
quoted services are outside the scope of its FSS contract.[4]   

   The agency argues, however, that the matching of FSS labor categories to
the PWS requirements ignores the actual personnel qualifications
identified by ManTech in its quotation for the various positions.  We
think this argument misses the point; when concern arises that a vendor is
offering services outside the scope of its FSS contract, the relevant
inquiry is not whether the vendor is willing to provide the services that
the agency is seeking, but whether those services are actually included in
the vendor's FSS contract as reasonably interpreted.  If the quoted
services are not listed on the vendor's FSS contract, they cannot be
purchased using FAR Part 8 procedures, but instead must be purchased using
competitive procedures.  Symplicity Corp., supra, at 4-5.  The fact that a
vendor may state in its quotation that it is willing, and in fact is able,
to provide such services does not obviate the agency's obligation to make
certain that all of those services are within the scope of the vendor's
FSS contract.[5]  Where a portion of the services are outside the scope of
that contract, as is the case here, then the agency must use competitive
procedures to procure them.[6]

   We recommend that the agency evaluate quotations to determine whether
services identified in vendors' quotations appear in their respective FSS
contracts.  The agency may also wish to reopen discussions and seek
revised quotations.  We recommend that the protester be reimbursed its
costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys
fees.  4 C.F.R. S 21.8(d)(1) (2004).  The protest should submit its
certified claim for these costs, detailing the time expended and costs
incurred, directly to the contracting agency within 60 days of receiving
this decision.  4 C.F.R. S 21.8(f)(1).

   The protest is sustained.[7]

   Anthony H. Gamboa 

   General Counsel

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

   [1] These systems are the DCA Interactive Business System, the Computer
Assisted Ordering System, and the Pick Management System. 

   [2] ManTech was rated low risk under the technical and management
capability factor, whereas ASCI was rated moderate risk.

   [3] Both vendors' discounted life-cycle costs were lower than the
government's estimate of discounted life cycle costs.  See AR at 17.

   [4] In response to our request, the General Services Administration (GSA)
submitted comments on the protest.  Taking a position not advanced by
DITCO, GSA argues that "there are several labor categories [in Mantech's
FSS contract] which have the level of expertise required to provide `user
support' as required by DITCO."  However, GSA does not identify any
specific labor category that includes the user support manager services
within its scope and, in any event, ManTech proposed to fill this position
using the task manager position.

   [5] Similarly, the RFQ's reference to "nearly equating" labor categories,
which the agency argues contemplates some variation in the labor
categories between the PWS and vendors' quotations, does not permit the
agency to use FSS procedures to purchase services that are not on a
vendor's FSS contract.

   [6] ASCI raises a number of other examples of "mismatched" labor
categories, arguing that ManTech identified labor categories to fill the
program manger, technical manager, configuration management manager,
information assurance manager, and documentation/training manager
positions that are not the best matched labor categories to the PWS
positions, and that other labor categories in its FSS are better suited to
these positions.  This, ASCI argues, violated the RFQ requirement that
vendors identify their "most nearly equating" labor category to the PWS
positions, and required the agency to downgrade ManTech's evaluation
ratings.  In light of our recommendation above, we need not address this
issue, but recommend that the agency consider ASCI's arguments when
reevaluating quotations.  DITCO may also wish to revise its RFQ to clarify
how quotations will be evaluated in this regard.

   [7] ASCI raised a number of other objections to the agency's evaluation of
ManTech's quotation which we need not address, given our recommendation
that the agency reevaluate quotations.
