BNUMBER: B-262051; B-262051.2
DATE: November 21, 1995
TITLE: Fluor Daniel, Inc.
**********************************************************************
REDACTED DECISION
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a
GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Fluor Daniel, Inc.
File: B-262051; B-262051.2
Date: November 21, 1995
Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., and Janine S.
Benton, Esq., Epstein, Becker & Green, for the protester.
Kenneth S. Kramer, Esq., James M. Weitzel, Jr., Esq., and Lawrence E.
Ruggiero, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for Raytheon
Support Services Company, an interested party.
Richard J. McCarthy, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the
agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to conduct
meaningful discussions with the protester is denied where the
weaknesses first identified to the firm during its debriefing did not
preclude award to the firm and did not render the firm's proposal
deficient; agencies need not discuss every aspect of a proposal that
receives less than the maximum score, but must only lead offerors into
the areas of their proposals considered deficient.
2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's
technical/program management proposal is denied where the record shows
that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated
evaluation criteria.
3. Protest that contracting agency's cost realism analysis improperly
failed to upwardly adjust the awardee's evaluated costs associated
with staffing is denied where the agency's explanation that the costs
would likely not increase is not shown to be unreasonable or
arbitrary.
4. Protest that solicitation's relevant experience/past performance
evaluation factor is a definitive responsibility criterion is denied
where the requirement contains no specific and objective standards for
the measurement of an offeror's ability to perform the contract; the
protester's related argument that the contracting agency's evaluation
improperly considered the experience and past performance of the
awardee's parent corporation is denied where, given the relationship
between the two firms described in the offeror's proposal, there is no
basis to conclude that the agency acted unreasonably.
DECISION
Fluor Daniel, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Raytheon
Support Services Company (RSSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DTFA01-94-R-00004, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
for technical support services to implement the FAA's facilities and
equipment programs in the Aviation System Capital Investment Plan.
Fluor Daniel primarily argues that the FAA improperly failed to
conduct meaningful discussions with the firm; improperly evaluated the
offerors' technical/program management and business management
proposals; and improperly conducted its cost realism analysis of
RSSC's proposal.
We deny the protests.
BACKGROUND
The Aviation System Capital Investment Plan delineates the
improvements in operational facilities and equipment planned for
implementation in the National Airspace System (NAS) by the end of
this century. The Plan describes the specific facilities, systems,
subsystems, and schedules that are in progress, or being planned, for
NAS system expansion or replacement, including air traffic control
computer and display systems, flight service systems, ground-to-air
systems, interfacility communication systems, and maintenance and
operations support systems. The Plan also provides the basis for
scheduling facilities and equipment installation project work
throughout the FAA.
The solicitation, issued March 7, 1994, anticipated award of a
cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort contract to supplement FAA
facilities and engineering staff in accomplishing installation and
implementation of the NAS over a 3-year base period, with up to two
2-year option periods. The contractor is to provide all labor,
management, services, supplies, materiel, data, and facilities
required to accomplish efforts ordered through the issuance of work
releases. Work shall include efforts in four areas: facility site
selection and recommendations; site preparation; environmental
remediation; and installation and testing related to Plan programs.
Section M of the RFP identified four evaluation areas:
technical/program management, risk assessment, cost, and business
management.
The evaluation of technical/program management volumes was divided
into two sections, with section B slightly more important than section
A. Under section A, evaluators would apply three equally important
evaluation factors--understanding, approach, and resources--to each of
the four work areas.[1] Offerors were to focus on each of three types
of facilities--voice communication facilities, radar facilities, and
navigation aids/instrument landing system (ILS) facilities--in their
discussion of all work areas save for environmental remediation. For
that work area, offerors were to evaluate any one of these facilities
to identify hazardous materials and plan, develop, and execute a
remediation plan. Under section B, evaluators would consider each of
six managerial plans provided by each offeror, including a staffing
plan. The technical/program management proposals would be given
weighted numerical scores and would also be reviewed to identify any
risks posed by the offeror's proposal.
The adjectival risk assessment analysis would assess and evaluate
potential risks associated with the selection of each offeror's
overall proposal for fulfilling the solicitation's requirements. Cost
proposals would be analyzed for completeness, reasonableness, and
realism. Finally, business management proposals would be evaluated
under three equally important sections, including relevant
experience/past performance. Each section would be rated acceptable
or unacceptable. All sections had to be rated acceptable in order for
the business management proposal to be rated acceptable overall.
The technical/program management factor was slightly more important
than risk assessment, but risk assessment would become relatively more
significant as the difference in the technical/program management
scores diminished. Cost was less important than risk assessment and
would become relatively more significant if the difference between the
technical/program management scores diminished and the risk assessment
was relatively equal among proposals. Business management would be
rated either acceptable or unacceptable. An integrated assessment of
all evaluation areas would be considered by the source selection
official (SSO) in determining which proposal provided the greatest
overall value to the government, and that proposal would be selected
for award of the contract.
The FAA received initial proposals from three offerors, including
Fluor Daniel and RSSC, by the August 4 closing date. A technical
evaluation team (TET), risk assessment team, cost evaluation team, and
business management evaluation team evaluated their respective
portions of the initial proposals, all three of which were included in
the competitive range. Two rounds of face-to-face discussions were
conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted on February
15, 1995. After the evaluators reviewed the BAFOs, one offeror was
eliminated from further consideration. The source evaluation board
(SEB) reviewed the evaluator teams' reports and prepared its own
report, listing the final evaluation results as follows:
RSSC Fluor Daniel
Technical/Program Management 76.45 72.88
Risk Assessment Low Low
Cost $881,696,968 $874,524,483
Business Management Acceptable Acceptable
The contracting officer prepared a report for the SSO which stated
that both offerors submitted conforming proposals and both were
capable of performing the contract and otherwise eligible for award.
RSSC's proposal had a higher technical/program management score than
Fluor Daniel's proposal based on higher scores in three of four
technical work areas and all six management plans, and contained twice
as many strengths. Moreover, RSSC's proposal contained 12 positive
discriminators and 1 negative discriminator, while Fluor Daniel's
proposal contained 6 positive discriminators and no negative
discriminators.[2]
In his source selection decision, the SSO stated that he had
considered the SEB report, the oral presentation, and the
solicitation's evaluation factors, and, based on his consideration of
the integrated assessment of all evaluation areas, determined that
RSSC submitted the proposal which satisfied the solicitation's
requirements and provided the greatest overall value to the
government. The SSO determined that RSSC's technical advantage was of
greater significance than the overall slightly lower proposed cost of
Fluor Daniel, and that the higher technical/program management score
earned by RSSC, combined with a risk and cost equivalency between the
proposals, warranted award to that firm. The contract was awarded to
RSSC on June 22 and, after its June 30 debriefing, Fluor Daniel filed
its initial protest in our Office. The firm's supplemental protest
followed its receipt of the agency report.
TECHNICAL/PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
Discussions
Fluor Daniel argues that a number of the weaknesses attributed to
section A of its technical/program management proposal were first
disclosed to the firm during its debriefing. As a result, the
protester contends that it was deprived of meaningful discussions.
Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all
competitive range offerors. Price Waterhouse, B-254492.2, Feb. 16,
1994, 94-1 CPD 168. For discussions to be meaningful, agencies must
generally point out weaknesses, excesses, or deficiencies in proposals
that require amplification or correction, and afford offerors an
opportunity to revise their proposals to satisfy the government's
requirements. Id. This does not mean that offerors are entitled to
all-encompassing discussions or that an agency must "spoon-feed" an
offeror as to each and every item that must be revised, added, deleted
or otherwise addressed to improve a proposal; rather, an agency must
only lead offerors into the areas of their proposals considered
deficient. SeaSpace Corp., B-252476.2, June 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD 462.
Agencies need not discuss every aspect of the proposal that receives
less than the maximum score, Medland Controls, Inc., B-255204;
B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD 260, or identify relative
weaknesses in a proposal that is technically acceptable but presents a
relatively less desirable approach than others. SeaSpace Corp.,
supra. In this case, because the weaknesses in section A of Fluor
Daniel's technical/program management proposal did not preclude award
to the firm, and did not render Fluor Daniel's proposal deficient, we
cannot conclude that the FAA was required to raise these weaknesses in
discussions with Fluor Daniel.
It is undisputed that the FAA considered Fluor Daniel's proposal to be
fully acceptable and to have fully satisfied the solicitation's
requirements. Further, the documents specifically referred to by the
SSO as those bearing upon his selection decision do not discuss any
offeror's weaknesses. In fact, these weaknesses were of so little
significance to the ultimate decision that they were not even
mentioned in the SEB report, or the contracting officer's report to
the SSO, which only listed the offerors' strengths and
discriminators.[3] In this incremental evaluation process, the last
place that any weaknesses are addressed is the TET's final technical
evaluation report. As discussed below, a review of this report and
the underlying evaluation documents confirms that these weaknesses
were not significant factors in the evaluation process or the
selection decision.
For example, as to the three weaknesses at issue under site
preparation--Fluor Daniel's discussion of ILS power systems, cable
cuts, and topographic surveys--only one evaluator considered the first
to be a weakness in the initial evaluation, and he deemed it minor.
Although, during the BAFO evaluation, that same evaluator
characterized the weakness as significant, and also made note of the
other two weaknesses as significant, we do not believe that this one
evaluator's adjectival assessment is controlling, given the contents
of the SEB report, SSO report, and source selection document.
Further, even if all of the raw points by which Fluor Daniel's BAFO
was conceivably downgraded for these weaknesses were restored, its
weighted score for both the site preparation area and the
technical/program management proposal overall would change very
little. We view this as additional evidence that these weaknesses
were not significant in the evaluation and selection decision.
Next, the weaknesses identified under installation and test--Fluor
Daniel's discussion of operational constraints during testing
procedures and development of an installation procedure--were
considered to be minor or moderate, and were noted by only one
evaluator.[4] Although most of these weaknesses were not noted until
the BAFO evaluation, Fluor Daniel's installation and test raw score
increased rather than decreased thereafter, which would not be
expected if the weaknesses were significant. See Nat'l Academy of
Conciliators, B-241529, Feb. 19, 1991, 91-1 CPD 181.
As a final matter, Fluor Daniel contends that the FAA failed to
conduct meaningful discussions with the firm because the record
contains inconsistencies as to the number of weaknesses attributed to
the firm's proposal and because all of the weaknesses do not track
back and forth throughout the process of the procurement. However,
the overriding concern in the evaluation process is that the final
results accurately reflect the actual merits of the proposals, not
that they be mechanically traceable back to the results initially
given by the individual evaluators. See Dragon Servs., Inc.,
B-255354, Feb. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD 151; The Cadmus Group, Inc.,
B-241372.3, Sept. 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD 271. It is the ultimate
evaluation by the agency which is governed by the tests of rationality
and consistency with the RFP evaluation criteria, not the assessment
by lower-level evaluation teams or boards. See Contel Fed. Sys., 71
Comp. Gen. 11 (1991), 91-2 CPD 325. The evaluation of proposals
here was a cumulative process during which the group leaders and the
TET chairman reviewed individual evaluator findings to validate or
reconcile opposing points of view; consolidate duplicate findings;
arbitrate differences; and discard insubstantial findings. After
receiving BAFOs, the individual evaluators prepared comparison sheets
to identify changes in findings and scores from the initial
evaluation, and, again, the group leaders and TET chairman reviewed
these findings to consolidate duplicate weaknesses and to reconcile or
explain opposing points of view for the preparation of the final TET
report. In our view, the extremely detailed and notated record in
this case belies Fluor Daniel's assertions of impropriety on the part
of the FAA.
Evaluation of Fluor Daniel's Proposal
Fluor Daniel argues that eight weaknesses assigned to section A of its
technical/program management proposal "do not exist," and that the FAA
overlooked relevant information provided in its proposal.
We have already reviewed most of these weaknesses in the context of
Fluor Daniel's allegation that it was deprived of meaningful
discussions. As we stated there, these weaknesses were not
significant factors in the evaluation process or the selection
decision. Thus, even if we were to find that the agency improperly
assessed these weaknesses, it is not clear that such a finding would
have any effect on the selection decision. In any event, in
considering such a protest, we examine the record to determine whether
the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated
evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. ESCO,
Inc., 66 Comp. Gen. 404 (1987), 87-1 CPD 450. As the following
examples of the weaknesses under the most important work area show,
the FAA reasonably evaluated Fluor Daniel's proposal.[5]
In the section of Fluor Daniel's proposal devoted to ILS site
preparation, the firm's list of typical tasks for a new ILS included
the installation of uninterruptible power supply and power
conditioning. The FAA believed the proposal improperly implied that
these power systems are installed with Category I ILS systems. Fluor
Daniel argues that the FAA should have known it was referring to a
Category III ILS because the installation and test work area of its
proposal referred to such an ILS. However, offerors were required to
provide "pointers" between work areas whenever references in one work
area also applied to another, and Fluor Daniel did not do so here.
Offerors bear the burden for failing to submit an adequately written
proposal, donald clark Assocs., B-253387, Sept. 15, 1993, 93-2 CPD
168, and contracting agencies are not obligated to go in search of
needed information which the offeror has omitted or failed adequately
to present.[6] Telos Field Eng'g,
B-251384, Mar. 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD 271.
The FAA also criticized Fluor Daniel's discussion of ILS site
preparation because the firm did not mention the importance of
topographic surveys in ILS site preparation. While Fluor Daniel's
proposal did include the phrase "topographic surveys," the evaluator's
concern lay in the firm's failure to discuss the importance of
topographic surveys to ILS site preparation.
Finally, Fluor Daniel's discussion of site preparation for
communications facilities included its approach to minimizing
disruptions in these facilities. The FAA criticized the firm for
failing to mention the potential disruptions from cable cuts because
they were a "possibility of communication facility site preparation
work on airports." While the protester argues that it did mention
these potential disruptions, the passages to which it points do not
clearly refer to field cables at airports, the subject at issue. We
also reject Fluor Daniel's contention that a reference to cable cuts
in the ILS section of its proposal was sufficient to allay the
agency's concern. This weakness is specifically identified with voice
communications facilities, not ILS facilities.
In a related argument, Fluor Daniel contends that the FAA arbitrarily
lowered its scores for the site preparation work area between the
initial proposal and the BAFO. In our view, the FAA has adequately
explained its evaluation here. The evaluator at issue was the group
leader for this work area. During the evaluation of initial
proposals, his written comments were not factored into the proposal
scoring, but, during the BAFO evaluation, he became an evaluator as
well, with proposal scoring responsibilities. That he was more
critical of Fluor Daniel's proposal than other evaluators were does
not make the evaluation arbitrary.
Evaluation of RSSC's Proposal
Fluor Daniel argues that the FAA improperly evaluated RSSC's business
management proposal under the staffing plan consideration.
The evaluation of the staffing plan included four areas: ability to
provide personnel; recruitment program; overall qualification and
experience levels of work force; and qualifications, including
education and experience levels, of proposed personnel. In its review
of the last area, the FAA noted that 34 of the 456 non-key personnel
proposed by RSSC did not meet at least one of the basic requirements
specified in the solicitation--19 lacked an educational requirement,
11 did not meet the minimum experience requirements, 3 lacked both
education and experience, and 1 lacked specific project management
experience. As a result, RSSC was assessed both a weakness under this
consideration and a low risk under the risk assessment analysis. This
concern also represented the sole negative discriminator identified in
RSSC's technical/program management proposal. In contrast, Fluor
Daniel proposed two unqualified non-key personnel and was assigned a
strength under this consideration, as well as a positive discriminator
overall.
Fluor Daniel argues that the evaluation must be arbitrary because,
despite the distinction between the two proposals in terms of the
number of unqualified non-key personnel proposed, both received
similar point scores in this area. However, when technical proposals
are point scored, the closeness of the scores does not necessarily
indicate that the proposals are essentially equal. See Integrity
Private Sec. Servs., Inc., B-254513, Oct. 25, 1993, 93-2 CPD 249.
Fluor Daniel fails to consider other variables within the scope of
this area, such as the fact that additional points were given for
higher educational and experience levels. In addition, Fluor Daniel
was assessed a positive discriminator here, and RSSC was not. On the
whole, Fluor Daniel has not provided us any reason to find this
evaluation unreasonable.[7] See McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2;
B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD 51.
COST REALISM ANALYSIS
Fluor Daniel argues that the FAA's cost realism analysis of Raytheon's
proposal improperly failed to consider the cost impact of Raytheon's
proposal of 34 non-key personnel who did not meet all of the RFP's
minimum requirements, as discussed above. The protester contends that
the FAA should have considered that qualified personnel cost more than
unqualified personnel, and that the actual cost difference between the
offers may be greater than reflected in the cost realism analysis.
When agencies evaluate proposals for the award of a cost reimbursement
contract, an offeror's proposed estimated costs are not dispositive
because, regardless of the costs proposed, the government is bound to
pay the contractor its actual and allowable costs. Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.605(d). Consequently, a cost
realism analysis must be performed by the agency to determine the
extent to which an offeror's proposed costs represent what the
contract should cost, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.
CACI, Inc.--Fed., 64 Comp. Gen. 71 (1984), 84-2 CPD 542. Because
the contracting agency is in the best position to make this cost
realism determination, our review of an agency's exercise of judgment
in this area is limited to determining whether the agency's cost
evaluation was reasonably based and not arbitrary. General Research
Corp., 70 Comp. Gen. 279 (1991), 91-1 CPD 183, aff'd, American
Management Sys., Inc.; Dept. of the Army--Recon., 70 Comp. Gen. 510
(1991), 91-1 CPD 492; Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111
(1976), 76-1 CPD 325.
The FAA explains that, for many labor categories, the minimum
requirements included both general experience in specialized skill
areas and specialized experience related to the particular skill
category, and that many of the individuals who failed to meet the
minimum experience requirements had more than the required number of
years of experience, but less than the required general experience.
In all likelihood, the FAA asserts, the actual labor rates proposed
were higher, rather than lower, than the actual costs of personnel who
only met the minimum requirements but had less specialized
experience--any cost adjustment would have been downward, rather than
upward.
While Fluor Daniel discounts this explanation as an "after-the-fact"
rationalization, we consider the entire record, including statements
and arguments made in response to a protest, in determining whether an
agency's decision is supportable. Dyncorp, 71 Comp. Gen. 129 (1991),
91-2 CPD 575. We have no reason to dispute the FAA's view that the
cost of minimally acceptable personnel would not differ significantly
from the cost of the personnel proposed by RSSC, or that it would be
less than that cost. Further, while Fluor Daniel's protest set forth
a methodology under which RSSC's evaluated costs should be adjusted
upward by $5 million, the FAA's cogent criticisms of that
methodology's assumptions have not been specifically answered by the
protester. In any event, even if RSSC's evaluated cost were adjusted
upward by $5 million, the difference between the offerors' evaluated
costs would be less than 1.5 percent of the value of the procurement.
Given the technical advantages of RSSC's proposal, evaluated as having
twice as many strengths and positive discriminators as Fluor Daniel's
proposal, we cannot conclude that such a difference would be
significant.[8]
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
Fluor Daniel argues that the relevant experience/past performance
factor applied in evaluating business management proposals is a
definitive responsibility criterion which RSSC did not meet because
the relevant experience/past performance it described was not its own,
but that of the firm's parent and affiliated companies. Fluor Daniel
argues that the FAA should have rated Raytheon unacceptable under this
consideration or, at the least, assessed it a risk.
The requirement at issue is as follows:
"The offeror's Relevant Experience/Past Performance will be
evaluated to assess how well the offeror has performed on past
contracts of a similar nature and magnitude as the [initial
contract]. Evaluation criteria are equal in importance and will
consist of
a.Related corporate and technical experience on contracts of a
similar nature, magnitude, and complexity;
b.Demonstrated ability to meet schedule and cost constraints;
c.Demonstrated ability to achieve program objectives;
d.Quality of services delivered on past efforts; and
e.Inputs with respect to the offeror's schedule, cost, and
quality performance on past contracts obtained from
outside sources (i.e., Government and industry points of
contact) familiar with the offeror's past efforts."
Definitive responsibility criteria are specific and objective
standards established by an agency for use in a particular procurement
for the measurement of an offeror's ability to perform the contract.
These special standards of responsibility limit the class of offerors
to those meeting specified qualitative and quantitative qualifications
necessary for adequate contract performance, e.g., unusual expertise
or specialized facilities. FAR 9.104-2; Topley Realty Co., 65 Comp.
Gen. 510 (1986), 86-1 CPD 398; Tutor-Saliba Corp., Perini Corp.,
Buckley & Co., Inc., and O & G Indus. Inc., A Joint Venture, B-255756,
Mar. 29, 1994, 94-1 CPD 223.
The requirement at issue here is not a definitive responsibility
criterion. It contains no specified qualitative or quantitative
qualifications and, moreover, does not even require an offeror to
possess the experience described. Fluor Daniel's argument that the
requirement is a definitive responsibility criterion because it calls
for an evaluation of experience "separate from the technical
evaluation" not only overlooks the absence of these qualifications but
fails to recognize that the technical, or non-cost, considerations
here were broken out into the technical/program management and
business management volumes. See, e.g., Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
B-256346, June 14, 1994, 94-1 CPD 365; Noslot Cleaning Servs., Inc.,
B-251264, Mar. 18, 1993, 93-1 CPD 243; Rolen-Rolen-Roberts Int'l;
Rathe Prods., Inc./Design Prod., Inc., B-218424 et al., Aug. 1, 1985,
85-2 CPD 113.
To the extent that Fluor Daniel challenges the evaluation itself, we
have no reason to find the FAA's consideration of the experience of
RSSC's parent corporation improper. The RFP does not require that the
relevant experience/past performance of the offeror be restricted to
that offeror. Cf. Tutor-Saliba Corp., Perini Corp., Buckley & Co.,
Inc., and O & G Indus. Inc., A Joint Venture, supra. Moreover, RSSC's
proposal specifically states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Raytheon Service Company, the incumbent contractor here, and that each
shares the same top management and many of the support functions. The
record also shows that Raytheon will act as an "interdivisional" to
RSSC on this contract, and will provide mainly management effort.
Where the experience of an affiliated corporation is clearly related
to an offeror's proposed contract performance, it may be reasonable
for an agency to give credit for the affiliate's related experience.
See Contract Servs. Co., Inc., B-246604.2 et al., June 11, 1992, 92-1
CPD 508. Given the relationship between RSSC and Raytheon described
in RSSC's proposal, as well as Raytheon's proposed participation in
this effort, we cannot conclude that it was unreasonable for the
agency to consider Raytheon's experience in its evaluation. In any
event, even if Raytheon's experience had not been considered, there is
no reason to believe that RSSC's business management proposal would
have been rated unacceptable under this factor or assessed a risk,
given the unchallenged experience possessed by its proposed
subcontractors.[9] Fluor Daniel's argument to the contrary amounts to
a mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation. See Laidlaw
Environmental Servs., Inc., supra.
The protests are denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Site preparation and installation and test were equally important,
and each was more important than site selection, which was slightly
more important than environmental remediation.
2. Discriminators were positive or negative attributes that were not
evident in the proposals of one or more of the other offerors, and
therefore tended to differentiate one proposal from another in either
a positive or negative manner.
3. As noted above, RSSC's proposal received twice as many strengths
and positive discriminators as Fluor Daniel's proposal, and Fluor
Daniel's proposal had no negative discriminators.
4. In a related matter, the FAA's notice to the firm, during
discussions, that it had not fully addressed schedules or included
sufficient time for completion of portions of the effort was
sufficient to lead it to the weakness concerning its scheduling of
leased communications circuits. See Medland Controls, Inc., supra.
Similarly, Fluor Daniel's weaknesses concerning its proposal of a
limited scenario under environmental remediation did not require
discussion. The requirements for this work area are akin to a sample
task requirement, wherein an offeror's response is the basis for
evaluating its understanding of the requirements. Agencies are not
obligated to point out deficiencies, let alone the mere weaknesses at
issue here, in sample tasks, since to do so would defeat the primary
purpose of the sample task scenario--to test the offeror's
understanding. See Syscon Servs., Inc., 68 Comp. Gen. 698 (1989),
89-2 CPD 258; NDI Eng'g Co., B-245796, Jan. 27, 1992, 92-1 CPD
113. In any event, the evaluators considered Fluor Daniel's proposal
to be acceptable in this regard, and only believed that its failure to
select a more imaginative scenario precluded its receipt of additional
credit. See Northern Virginia Serv. Corp., B-258036.2; B-258036.3,
Jan. 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD 36.
5. Since most of the allegations here have been fully rebutted by the
agency, with no meaningful response from the protester, we see no
purpose in discussing them further.
6. Similarly, Fluor Daniel's insistence, in the context of its
scheduling and quality control weakness, that it was not required to
provide "pointers" within work areas, only between them, is
unpersuasive. The fact that it was told to cross-reference between
work areas does not imply, by omission, that it need not
cross-reference within a work area where appropriate.
7. Fluor Daniel's allegation that the source selection decision was
based upon insufficient information is baseless, since the SSO was
provided with the SSO briefing charts; final technical/program
management evaluation, risk evaluation, cost evaluation, and business
management evaluation reports; SSO report; section M of the RFP; and
the source selection plan prior to making his decision. Further,
given the SSO's access to these detailed documents, we reject Fluor
Daniel's assertion that his reference to the offerors' point scores
means that his decision was based solely on those scores.
8. Given our conclusions here, we decline to consider Fluor Daniel's
argument that the FAA should have given Raytheon's proposal a risk,
under the risk assessment analysis, not only for the technical impact
of these unqualified personnel, but for the cost impact.
9. In its supplemental comments, Fluor Daniel cobbles together bits
and pieces of prior GAO decisions to cast aspersions upon RSSC's past
performance record. However, since Fluor Daniel was on notice of
these publicly available details at the time it filed its supplemental
protest, but did not raise them in any detail until it filed its
supplemental comments, they are untimely and will not be considered.
Management Sys. Applications, Inc., B-259628; B-259628.2, Apr. 13,
1995, 95-1 CPD
216.