Following a best value determination, the agency made award to Evolver. VMD's FPR, priced at $80,843,360, was rated average for experience, above average for technical approach and management approach, and outstanding for past performance, while Evolver's FPR, priced at $73,662,436, was rated above average for experience, technical approach, and past performance and average for management approach. The agency took corrective action in response to that protest it held a new round of discussions and permitted offerors to submit new final proposal revisions (FPR). VMD challenged the award in a protest filed with the Court of Federal Claims. Award was made to Enterprise Information System. Four offerors responded to the solicitation. The RFP provided for a best value award, on a fixed-price basis, applying the following evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): experience, technical approach, management approach, past performance, and price. VMD principally asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Evolver's and VMD's proposals, and improperly held discussions only with Evolver.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for end user information technology support services. VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Evolver, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. Agency request that offerors indicate whether their proposed rates had been audited by Defense Contract Audit Agency constituted clarification, not discussions, notwithstanding that awardee provided more detailed explanation than other offerors in response, since awardee did not modify its proposal and information was not used in evaluation of proposals. Protest that agency misevaluated similarity of awardee's experience to solicited work by considering only dollar value of prior contracts, rather than specific elements of similarity-such as contract type and complexity-is denied agency reasonably determined that dollar value reflects several aspects of similarity and record shows that agency also considered offerors' descriptions of work under prior contracts in concluding that awardee's experience was of size, type and complexity similar to that described in solicitation.Ĥ. Protest that agency improperly failed to credit protester's proposal with claimed strength is denied where protester fails to establish that claimed strength would provide benefit to agency contemplated by evaluation scheme.ģ. Protest that agency's realism analysis of awardee's proposal was inadequate-because it was based on comparison of awardee's average labor rates to incumbent contractor's average rates-is denied agency's chosen methodology was within its discretion given fixed-price nature of contract to be awarded, and thus provided reasonable basis for agency to conclude that awardee's price did not present a performance risk.Ģ. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.ġ. Patent and Trademark Office, for the agency. King, Esq., Barton, Baker, Thomas & Tolle, LLP, for Evolver, Inc., an intervenor. O'Brien, Esq., Cohen Mohr, LLC, for the protester.
0 kommentar(er)
