BNUMBER: B-259917.2
DATE: July 5, 1995
TITLE: Matter of: EG&G Team
**********************************************************************
REDACTED VERSION[*]
Matter of: EG&G Team
File: B-259917.2
Date: July 5, 1995
James S. Hostetler, Esq., Robert S. Ryland, Esq., and Susan K. Fitch,
Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, for the protester.
Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., James J. McCullough, Esq., and Anne B. Perry,
Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for John J. McMullen &
Associates, Inc., an interested party.
James Y. Miyazawa, Esq., and Eric A. Lile, Esq., Department of the
Navy, for the agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that evaluation failed to adequately consider the
relevance and quality of protester's prior experience, as required by
the solicitation evaluation scheme, is denied where record shows
agency gave due consideration to protester's prior experience.
2. Selection of the awardee's proposal on the basis of its overall
technical superiority, notwithstanding approximately 20 percent higher
price, was proper where agency determined technical superiority of
awardee's proposal was worth the additional cost, and cost/technical
tradeoff was consistent with the evaluation scheme.
DECISION
EG&G Team[1] protests the award of a contract to John J. McMullen &
Associates, Inc. (JJMA) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N00600-94-R-1565, issued by the Department of the Navy for pollution
prevention, environmental, and technical support services. EG&G
argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal under the
corporate experience factor, and failed to justify award to a
higher-priced offeror.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, as amended, sought proposals for a cost-plus-fixed-fee
contract for a base year with 4 option years. The RFP required
offerors to submit separate technical and cost proposals. Evaluation
of the technical proposals would be based on the following factors, in
descending order of importance: (1) key personnel; (2) technical
approach; (3) management plan (staffing plan); and (4) corporate
experience. Proposals were to be scored on the basis of adjectival
ratings of "outstanding," "better," "acceptable," "marginal," and
"unacceptable." The cost proposals were to be evaluated for realism.
Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal
represented the best value to the government, cost and other factors
considered. The RFP warned offerors that "an acceptable proposal with
the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher-priced
proposal affords the government a greater overall benefit," and that
"the government may elect to pay a price premium of up to
approximately 35 percent to select a technically superior offer."
The Navy received two proposals--JJMA's and EG&G's--both of which were
included in the competitive range. The Navy conducted three rounds of
discussions, and requested and received best and final offers (BAFO)
after each round. The Navy evaluated the final BAFOs as follows:
TECHNICAL EG&G JJMA
Key Personnel better better
Technical Approach better outstanding
Management Plan better outstanding
Corporate Experienceacceptable outstandingOverallbetteroutsta
nding
EVALUATED COST $39,859,958 $49,298,556
In comparing EG&G's and JJMA's BAFOs, the contracting officer
determined that, although JJMA's evaluated cost was approximately $9.5
million higher than EG&G's, JJMA's BAFO represented the best value in
light of its (1) highest overall technical rating, and (2) outstanding
ratings under each technical factor, except the most important factor
(key personnel), under which EG&G and JJMA received the same ratings.
The Navy thus awarded the contract to JJMA. This protest followed.
CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
EG&G argues that the Navy's evaluators failed to adequately consider
the extent to which EG&G's performance of the contracts listed in its
proposal reflected the relevance and quality of its corporate
experience in performing the work contemplated here, as required by
the RFP. The protester specifically maintains that, although its
proposal contained "exhaustive detail on specific deliverables and
results achieved" on its prior contracts "and the relevancy of those
deliverables to the current contract," the evaluation documentation
failed to reflect a similar level of detail.
In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency evaluation of
proposals, we will not independently evaluate the proposals. ACM
Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-242064, Mar. 7, 1991, 91-1 CPD 255. Rather,
as the determination of the proposals is primarily a matter of agency
discretion, we will review an evaluation only to determine whether it
was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Columbia
Research Corp., B-247073; B-247073.2, Apr. 23, 1992, 92-1 CPD 385.
The evaluation of EG&G's corporate experience was adequately
documented. Specifically, in reviewing the 22 prior and current
contracts listed in EG&G's proposal, the evaluators stated in the
consensus report that EG&G's proposal showed that the firm "has
provided support similar [to the current RFP] requirements in the
following areas: HAZMAT Program planning, ODS initiatives, waste
minimization, PRIME, pollution prevention studies, and in-depth
packing research and analysis." In addition, the evaluators observed
that EG&G's proposal provided "a good summary of these efforts" and
correlated "past contract efforts and relevancy to [statement of work]
areas[,]" which showed that EG&G "delivered high quality products and
measurable results on time and within budget." The evaluators'
references to EG&G's performance on specific types of services similar
to those required here and their review of EG&G's on-time delivery of
support products clearly shows that the quality and relevance of
EG&G's experience were considered in the evaluation of its proposal
under the corporate experience factor. While the evaluation record
does not detail how every single element of EG&G's proposal was viewed
under the corporate experience factor, this level of detail in the
evaluation was not required. Columbia Research Corp., supra. We
conclude that this aspect of the evaluation was unobjectionable.
COST/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF
EG&G raises numerous challenges to the cost/technical tradeoff. It
argues, for example, that the contracting officer has not adequately
documented her determination that the benefits of JJMA's higher-rated
proposal warranted the $9.5 million higher cost, given that the
technical factors and cost were to be accorded equal weight.
Cost/technical tradeoffs made in selecting an awardee under a best
value evaluation scheme are subject only to the tests of rationality
and consistency with the established evaluation factors. Litton
Indus., Inc., B-236720, Dec. 26, 1989, 89-2 CPD 595. We find that
the tradeoff here was proper; EG&G's arguments are without merit.
Documentation
First, although the RFP did not identify the specific weighing of the
cost and technical factors, as indicated, it did provide that the
"[g]overnment may elect to pay a price premium of up to approximately
35 percent to select a technically superior offer." This provision
clearly put offerors on notice that the government might pay a premium
for technical superiority.
Second, we find that the tradeoff is adequately documented. The
record shows that in making the award decision the contracting officer
found that, although the firms received the same rating of better
under the most important key personnel factor, JJMA's ratings of
outstanding overall and under each of the other three technical
evaluation factors showed its proposal was superior to EG&G's.
Specifically, the contracting officer found under the technical
approach factor that JJMA's sample tasks "demonstrated first-hand
knowledge of processes required, comprehensive labor analyses, and
detailed procedures," such that JJMA would "produce exceptional work
plans." The contracting officer also determined that JJMA's
management plan was advantageous because it delineated the lines of
responsibility and authority, which would "facilitate timely
completion of tasks" and "allow necessary flexibility" and "rigorous
project control"; that JJMA's "exceptional staffing plan," which
proposes current, knowledgeable employees "with whom JJMA has
contingency hire agreements," would "minimize start-up delays and
associated costs"; and that JJMA's recruiting program is
"well-substantiated by previous successful" efforts on contracts
similar to the current requirement. In addition, the contracting
officer highlighted JJMA's exceptional "corporate experience in
performing same or similar work," which would "minimize costs and
delays in task completion," since "JJMA will not need to expend
extensive time in analyzing requirements, devising work plans, and
developing staffing requirements." Finally, the contracting officer
viewed JJMA's proposed key personnel who were "currently performing
similar tasks under a number of Navy contracts" as highly beneficial
since the staff's technical knowledge and experience "would bring
efficiency and timeliness in the completion of the tasks under this
contract," thus reducing the need for government guidance during
contract performance. The contracting officer then specifically
concluded that JJMA's higher proposed cost was justified by its
proposal's technical advantages.
We see nothing unreasonable with this conclusion or with the adequacy
of the documentation supporting it.
Price Premium
EG&G argues that the RFP's price premium clause permitted paying a
substantial price premium (such as JJMA's 20.15 percent higher price)
only where the higher-priced proposal is rated outstanding and the
lower-priced proposal is rated acceptable, not, as here, where the
lower-priced proposal is rated better. This argument is without
merit. As indicated, the only guidance in the RFP as to the
permissible tradeoff was the statement that up to a 35 percent price
premium could be paid for a technically superior proposal. JJMA's
20.15 percent premium fell well within this limit. Nothing in the RFP
provided that tradeoffs of certain cost differences would be made only
where there was a certain degree of technical superiority.[2]
Corporate Experience
EG&G argues that, in making the tradeoff, the contracting officer
repeatedly considered corporate experience under all the technical
factors (rather than only under the least important corporate
experience factor), thereby improperly elevating it to the most
important factor, contrary to the announced evaluation scheme.[3]
The contracting officer gave corporate experience no undue weight in
the tradeoff. Rather, corporate experience was an inherent element of
some of the other factors that went into the tradeoff decision. For
example, under the management plan (staffing plan) factor, offerors'
proposed recruiting/hiring programs were to be supported with
"examples of previous successful recruiting/hiring/staffing efforts on
contract(s) of a similar magnitude." The contracting officer regarded
JJMA's proposal advantageous under this factor on the basis that its
proposed recruiting/hiring/staffing program was well substantiated by
previous similar efforts. Thus, while corporate experience arguably
was considered, in a sense, under this factor, it was considered in a
manner consistent with the factor as described in the RFP. EG&G cites
the key personnel factor as one under which corporate experience was
considered. The record shows otherwise. This factor provided that
the evaluation of personnel would be based on the extent to which
their resumes showed they met or exceeded the educational and
experience requirements in the RFP. The contracting officer's
comments on JJMA's advantage in this area--e.g., "JJMA's highly
qualified personnel" were timely and efficient, and its proposed
"subcontractors are currently performing similar tasks under a number
of Navy contracts")--clearly were properly focused on the individual
employees' qualifications, not on JJMA's corporate experience.
Uncompensated Overtime
The protester maintains that the contracting officer improperly
considered its proposal of uncompensated overtime (UCOT) negatively in
the tradeoff, since this was not a stated evaluation factor. However,
while UCOT may not have been identified as a separate evaluation
factor, in allowing offerors to propose UCOT the RFP required
proposals to identify "any hours against which the UCOT rate is
applied" and required the use of accounting practices "consistent with
[the offeror's] cost accounting practices" to estimate UCOT overtime.
The RFP further warned that "[p]roposals which include unrealistically
low rates, or which do not otherwise demonstrate cost realism, will be
considered in a risk assessment and evaluated for award in accordance
with that assessment." We think these statements in the RFP were
sufficient to put offerors on notice that any proposal which included
uncompensated overtime would be subject to scrutiny on that basis.
There thus is no basis for objecting to the contracting officer's
considering UCOT in the tradeoff decision.
Error
EG&G maintains that the tradeoff erroneously attributed an EG&G
proposal strength--its proposed use of lower level, lower cost
personnel who could perform the required work most efficiently--to
JJMA. However, the agency found that JJMA proposed "a work force
which will most efficiently support the government requirement by
ensuring the highest quality work effort within established delivery
schedules." In other words, the record shows that the efficient
staffing of contracts was a strength in both offerors' proposals.
Thus, there is no basis for concluding that the tradeoff was erroneous
in this regard.
In conclusion, since the contracting officer identified specific
strengths in JJMA's proposal as justifying JJMA's higher cost, and
the technical factors were more important than cost, we think the
contracting officer reasonably concluded that the technical
superiority of JJMA's proposal warranted paying JJMA's higher price,
and that JJMA's proposal offered the best value to the government.
The protest is denied.
Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
* The decision issued on July 5, 1995, contained proprietary
information and was subject to a General Accounting Office protective
order. This version of the decision has been redacted or approved by
the parties involved for public release.
1. EG&G Team is a joint venture consisting of EG&G Washington
Analytical Services; Center, Inc.; SRS Technologies; Basic Technology
Corporation; and Radian Corporation.
2. The protester also maintains that its interpretation of the clause
is supported by the source selection plan. However, allegations of
deviations from a source selection plan do not constitute a basis for
questioning the validity of an award selection. See National Steel &
Shipbuilding Co., B-250305.2, Mar. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD 260.
3. EG&G asserts that the agency's overemphasis of corporate experience
resulted in deemphasizing its superior proposed key personnel in the
tradeoff. However, there is no basis for assuming that EG&G's key
personnel were considered superior to JJMA's in any significant way.
Of the 29 resumes EG&G submitted, 9 were rated outstanding, 18 better,
and 2 acceptable. Five of JJMA's resumes were rated outstanding, 20
better, and 4 acceptable. The evaluators did not consider this
difference to warrant EG&G's proposal receiving a higher rating than
JJMA under the key personnel factor, and there is no reason to believe
the contracting officer would come to a different conclusion. Thus,
the matter of the corporate experience factor aside, there simply is
no basis for concluding that the contracting officer underemphasized
EG&G's proposed key personnel in the tradeoff decision.