TITLE: B-296526, Integrate, Inc., August 4, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296526
DATE: August 4, 2005
*****************************************
B-296526, Integrate, Inc., August 4, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: Integrate, Inc.

   File: B-296526

   Date: August 4, 2005

   Michael D. Crouch, Ph.D., for the protester.

   Kenneth A. Redden, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency.

   Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protester's quotation to provide environmental data management software
   was reasonably rejected as technically unacceptable where quotation did
   not demonstrate that the proposed software satisfied the "essential
   requirements" of the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Integrate, Inc., protests the award to EarthSoft, Inc. under request for
   quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-GA-05-00012 issued by the Environmental
   Protection Agency (EPA) for environmental data management software.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued as a combined solicitation/synopsis, sought software to
   manage environmental data from various programs adminstered by Region 4 of
   the EPA, and included related licenses, ancillary software, and
   maintenance support.

   The RFQ stated that the environmental data management sofware procured had
   to be "easy to us" and have a "browser-based interface that will allow
   casual users to generate standard tables, reports, and charts based on
   specified criteria." RFQ para. 2. To achieve this, the RFQ contained a
   number of "essential requirements." For example, the system was required
   to be "non-proprietary," allow for the "easy or transparent exchange of
   data with EPA Region 4 member[s] . . . [and] natively support the Region
   5," and be capable of supporting "100+ users." Id. paras. 3.d, 3.h, 3.n.
   The source code and data model was to be "made available so that the EPA
   Region 4 may make any modifications to the system that are demed necessary
   or desirable." Id. para. 3.c. The system was to have the ability to "place
   data (such as a queried subset) into and tightly integrate with other
   software without the user having to manually export, then import it (for
   example, into Microsoft Excel for graphing, ArcGIS for mapping, Surfer 8.5
   for contouring, RockWorks 2002 for boring logs, etc.)," and to allow for
   importing data via integration with "Lotus Notes e-mail." Id. paras. 3.l,
   3.m. The RFQ also required that vendors provide past performance
   information "where same software systems, including [the] current proposed
   version, were provided to a customer similar in size to an EPA Region
   Office or State Organization." Id. at 3.

   Integrate and four other firms submitted quotations in response to the
   RFQ. Integrate proposed to provide its "TerraBase [version] 3.0" software,
   but did not submit past performance references identifying persons that
   had actually used this software. Instead, all nine of Integrate's
   references were users of a previous version of the TerraBase software,
   version 2.7.1.[1] The agency contacted these references, but they could
   not confirm whether Integrate's proposed system met the "essential
   requirements" of the RFQ.

   The agency advised Integrate that the firm's "quotation, as submitted,
   lacked sufficient information for [the EPA] to determine whether it met
   the requirements of the RFQ," and asked Integrate to provide additional
   information to support its claims. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2.
   Integrate responded with two e-mails containing 40 .pdf file attachments
   containing "screen shots," a sales brochure, and "frequently asked
   questions."

   After reviewing this information, the agency determined that Integrate's
   quotation was technically unacceptable. In this regard, the agency found
   that Integrate did not adequately address a number of the "essential
   requirements" of the solicitation, in some cases merely restating the
   solicitation requirement without addressing how the proposed software
   addressed the requirements. It noted that the screen shots and marketing
   materials did not illustrate technical acceptability, and in some
   instances demonstrated that the software was technically unacceptable. For
   example, one of the "essential requirements" was that the software "be
   capable of generating cross-tab tables of data in various formats," RFQ
   para. 3.j, but Integrate's screen shots for the TerraBase 3.0 software
   showed that the .pdf format was not supported. In other instances, such as
   where Integrate claimed that its software could interface with third-party
   ancillary software through an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) link, the
   agency contacted the software companies and confirmed that the software
   "does not support an ODBC link." The past performance references, too,
   could not confirm technical acceptability, since Integrate failed to
   provide references that used the proposed TerraBase 3.0 software, as was
   required by the RFQ. AR, Tab 11, Integrate's Technical Evaluation, at 1-4.

   The agency notified Integrate that its quotation was technically
   unacceptable and that award was made to EarthSoft in the amount of
   $87,440.00. Integrate protested to our Office, contending that the
   agency's finding of technical unacceptability was unreasonable and that
   Integrate's lower-priced quotation of $77,943.10 should have been selected
   for award.

   Our Office reviews challenges to an agency's technical evaluation to
   determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the
   solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statues and
   regulations. Godwin Corp., B-2902941, June 17, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 103 at
   3. It is a vendor's burden to submit an adequately written quotation and
   it runs the risk that its quotation will be evaluated unfavorably where it
   fails to do so. Id. On the record before us, we find no basis to question
   the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of Integrate's quotation.

   Our review of Integrate's proposal confirms that the firm did little more
   than repeat without elaboration the requirements of the RFQ, which led the
   agency to reasonably question whether the proposed software would in fact
   satisfy the "essential requirements" of the RFQ. The record further shows
   that the agency reasonably found that neither the screen shots, marketing
   material, nor third-party software vendors sufficiently demonstrated
   technical acceptability, and in fact proved to the agency, in at least two
   instances (e.g., ability to support the .pdf format and interface with
   third-party software), that the Terrabase 3.0 software did not meet
   "essential requirements" of the RFQ. With regard to past performance
   references, Integrate failed to identify current users of the system, as
   was required by the RFQ, and on this basis alone, its proposal could have
   been rejected.[2] Although, during the development of this protest,
   Integrate provided to our Office a detailed chart asserting, for each of
   the "essential requirements," its disagreement with the agency's
   assessment of technical unacceptability, Integrate does not explain, nor
   does its

   quotation show, how the TerraBase 3.0 meets the RFQ's "essential
   requirements." In sum, it has not shown the agency's conclusions that its
   quotation was unacceptable to be unreasonable.[3]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] One reference could not recall which version of software he used, but
   confirmed that "ArcGIS" software was not supported by the version he was
   using, as was required to satisfy one of the "essential requirements."
   Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, Integrate's Technical Evaluation, at 2.

   [2] Integrate complains that the agency improperly considered comments
   from its identified references in evaluating technical acceptability;
   however, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's use of past
   performance to determine whether the product it is seeking performs as
   asserted. Given that the RFQ specified that references were to be users of
   the proposed software and Integrate did not provide such references, we
   cannot find the agency unreasonable for doubting technical acceptability
   of the TerraBase 3.0 here.

   [3] Integrate complains that one of the evaluators was biased against the
   firm. However, Integrate's representative admitted during a telephone
   conference with our Office on July 19, 2005 that he was aware of this
   individual's participation in the evaluation "within a few days" of the
   May 25, 2005 award and had raised concern with the contracting officer at
   that time that the evaluator was biased against the firm. However,
   Integrate failed to raise these allegations in its initial protest, and
   thus this protest ground is untimely. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2005).