DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: July 6, 1994 GSBCA 12830-P, 12834-P IMS SERVICES, INC., and SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Protesters/Intervenors, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent, and CTA INCORPORATED, Intervenor. Keith L. Baker, Sean P. Morgan, and Darin R. Bartram of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester/ Intervenor IMS Services, Inc. James J. McCullough, Joel R. Feidelman, and Deneen J. Melander of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, DC, and Grant L. Clark of Science Applications International Corporation, San Diego, CA, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Science Applications International Corporation. Ellen D. Washington, M. Elizabeth Hancock, David P. Andross, Thomas L. Frankfurt, Stirling Adams, and Lis B. Young, Information Technology Acquisition Center, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Michael J. Ladino of CTA Incorporated, Rockville, MD, counsel for Intervenor CTA Incorporated. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). ORDER Two offerors, IMS Services, Inc., and Science Applications International Corporation, protested the award by the Department of the Navy to CTA Incorporated of a contract for information systems and automated data processing support services. The protests were consolidated and each protester intervened in the other's case. CTA intervened in both. The protests contained numerous allegations, which we grouped into four general categories. According to the protesters, the Navy's discussions with the various offerors were inadequate, unequal, and misleading; the agency's scoring of parts of various technical proposals was unreasonable; the agency weighed technical factors in a manner which was different from what was prescribed in the solicitation; and the cost/technical tradeoff and ensuing source selection decision were unreasonable. Each protester maintained that but for these errors, its proposal would have been judged to be most advantageous to the Government. On the morning of June 23, as the hearing on the merits of the protests was about to begin, the parties informed the Board that they had agreed to settle the cases. On July 6, they filed a joint motion to dismiss the protests with prejudice to reinstatement. They also submitted a joint stipulation which recites the following agreement: The Navy admits that it made errors in evaluating and scoring CTA's technical proposal, such that the score given that proposal was inflated. The Navy further admits that as a result of the inflated CTA score, the agency's cost/technical tradeoff was not valid and the source selection decision lacked a rational basis and was not in accordance with the solicitation's criteria. The solicitation did not prohibit multiple awards. The parties agree that given proper scoring of technical proposals, the most advantageous course of action for the Navy is to award contracts to both protesters as well as CTA. The agency will make these awards. The joint motion is GRANTED; the protests are now DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge