BNUMBER: B-265852
DATE: December 29, 1995
TITLE: Management Plus, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Management Plus, Inc.
File: B-265852
Date: December 29, 1995
Charles W. Surasky, Esq., and Karl Dix, Jr., Esq., Smith, Currie &
Hancock, for the protester.
Christopher Solop, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for KCA Corporation, an
interested party.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., and Joseph M.
Zima, Esq., Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate
General, for the agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal for failing to
demonstrate corporate experience, where the protester, a newly formed
corporate entity, relied upon the qualifications of its proposed
personnel to establish its corporate experience, but the solicitation
provided for a separate evaluation of corporate and personnel
experience.
DECISION
Management Plus, Inc. (MPI) protests the Department of the Army's
award of a contract to KCA Corporation, under request for proposals
(RFP) No. DAKF40-94-R-0002, for food and dining attendant services at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina. MPI challenges the evaluation of its
proposal.
We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a
base year, with four 1-year options. The solicitation stated that
technical proposals would be evaluated based on the following four
factors: (1) technical excellence; (2) management; (3)
quality control; and (4) cost. Each technical factor contained
various subfactors. The solicitation stated that the cumulative
weight of the first three factors was somewhat more important than
cost; technical excellence was somewhat more important than
management; and quality control was substantially less important than
either technical excellence or management. The RFP provided for
award to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed to
the RFP and was considered most advantageous to the government.
Nineteen proposals were received by the closing time; seven of the
proposals, including MPI's and KCA's, were included in the competitive
range. Following written and oral discussions with the offerors, best
and final offers (BAFO) were requested. The BAFOs were evaluated as
follows:
MPI KCA
Technical Excellence 72.65 83.30
Management 68.24 85.46
Quality Control 83.15 87.00
TOTAL CONSENSUS[1] 71.95 84.53
EVALUATED COST $49,869,350 $51,143,422
The Army determined that although MPI's proposal had the lowest
evaluated cost, the technical strengths of KCA's proposal were worth
the evaluated cost premium ($1,274,072). The Army thus found KCA's
proposal to be the most advantageous to the government and made award
to the firm.
MPI challenges the Army's determination to award MPI's proposal only
7.5 of 15 available weighted points for technical experience
related to functional areas, a subfactor of the technical excellence
factor, and none of the 15 available weighted points for related
management and contract experience, a subfactor of the management
factor. MPI argues the Army improperly failed to consider under these
subfactors the experience of three proposed key personnel--the
contract manager (who is also president of MPI), the quality control
manager, and the contract administrative manager--who, MPI contends,
were highly qualified and had substantial experience during the past 5
years performing services similar to those required here with firms
other than MPI.[2]
In reviewing protests against an agency's technical evaluation, we do
not independently evaluate proposals or substitute our judgment for
that of the agency; instead we review the record to determine whether
the agency's judgments were reasonable and in accordance with the
listed criteria and whether there were any violations of procurement
statutes or regulations. Facilities Management Co., Inc., B-259731.2,
May 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD 274. Here, we conclude that the evaluation
was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation language.
The record shows MPI's initial technical and management proposals
contained information on only the experience of its proposed key
personnel under both subfactors; MPI did not demonstrate experience as
a corporate entity because it was a newly formed company which had not
previously performed any commercial or government contracts for food
services. As a result, the Army gave MPI initial scores of 3 of 15
available weighted points under the technical experience subfactor and
0 of the 15 available weighted points under the related management and
contract experience subfactor. When informed during discussions that
its failure to describe the firm's corporate experience was viewed as
a deficiency under these subfactors, MPI in its BAFO simply described
in more detail the experience and qualifications of its proposed key
personnel. Based on this information, the Army determined that MPI's
key personnel had "excellent experience and qualities," and thus
raised its BAFO score under the technical experience subfactor from 3
to 7.5 points; the Army did not award MPI any more points under this
subfactor because its BAFO failed to indicate any corporate
experience. Likewise, the Army did not raise MPI's score of 0 points
under the related management and contract experience subfactor because
MPI failed to describe any corporate experience performing contracts
similar to the RFP here.
We find that the evaluation of MPI's experience was reasonable. While
an agency may, in appropriate circumstances, evaluate the corporate
experience of a new business by reference to the experience of its
principal officers, or parent company, an agency is not obligated to
do so in every case. See York Sys. Corp., B-237364, Feb. 9, 1990,
90-1 CPD 172; Allied Management of Texas, Inc., B-232736.2, May
22, 1989, 89-1 CPD 485; see generally Talon Corp., B-248086, July
27, 1992, 92-2 CPD 55. Here, the solicitation clearly indicated
that the Army considered a firm's experience to be different from its
employees' individual experience. The RFP described the technical
experience to be evaluated under the technical experience subfactor as
"that specific experience related to the functional areas, and
includes direct experience of personnel, the company, or business
entity, and of any proposed subcontractors." In contrast, the
solicitation included under the management factor separate evaluation
subfactors for related management and contract experience and for
qualifications of key personnel, and instructed offerors in responding
to the related management and contract experience subfactor to
"[d]escribe the company's background pertinent to performance of large
service contracts during the past five years, especially contracts
similar to this solicitation, and relate that experience to the
requirements of this contract." Although the RFP stated that both
corporate and personnel experience were to be evaluated under the
technical experience subfactor, it only requested information
concerning corporate experience under the related management and
contract experience subfactor of the management factor and provided a
separate personnel qualifications subfactor under the management
factor. Thus, we believe that the RFP contemplated a separate
evaluation of corporate and personnel experience. In these
circumstances, we see no basis to question the agency's refusal to
consider the experience of MPI's key personnel as a substitute for its
lack of corporate experience, and the consequent downgrading of its
proposal under the technical experience and the related management and
contract experience subfactors. See Precision Elevator, Inc.,
B-259375, Mar. 20, 1995, 95-1 CPD 152.
MPI also argues that one of the evaluators improperly downgraded MPI's
BAFO under the technical experience subfactor on the basis that it
failed to state that MPI intended to hire the incumbent contractor's
work force; according to MPI, its BAFO clearly states it intended to
hire all of the incumbent's personnel.
Although the record shows that one evaluator apparently believed that
MPI's BAFO did not state the firm intended to hire the incumbent
contractor's personnel, when MPI's BAFO, in fact, did contain this
statement, it does not appear that MPI suffered any competitive
prejudice as a result of this error. See PHP Healthcare Corp.;
Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4,
1993, 93-1 CPD 366 (competitive prejudice is an essential element
that must be shown by a protester if it is to prevail in its protest).
Even if this evaluator had known of MPI's stated intention to hire the
incumbent contractor's personnel and had given MPI a higher score as a
result, there is no basis for concluding that the evaluator would have
awarded MPI the maximum score here. On the contrary, the record
indicates that MPI's failure to demonstrate corporate experience was
the primary reason for the evaluator's finding MPI's BAFO deficient
under this subfactor, and the evaluator specifically states that he
would not consider MPI's intention to hire the incumbent's work force
as correcting this weakness. Further, nowhere in the consensus
technical evaluation report was there any reference to MPI's proposal
being considered deficient or weak because of a failure to commit to
hiring the incumbent's work force; nor is there any other evidence in
the record that the consensus evaluation panel took into account this
individual evaluator's conclusion with respect to MPI's hiring plans
in determining MPI's score under this subfactor. In any event, again
the record indicates that the consensus panel, like the evaluator,
would not have given MPI's BAFO the maximum score or significantly
increased its score under the technical experience subfactor, since
the proposal had already earned 7.5 of 15 available weighted points
under that subfactor and the panel considered MPI's BAFO deficient in
this regard for failure to demonstrate corporate experience. Given
MPI's significantly lower overall score under the more important
non-cost factors, nothing in the record indicates that the one
evaluator's misunderstanding of MPI's intention to hire the
incumbent's work force deprived MPI of the award.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The final scores for each evaluation factor were not the average of
the scores assigned by the individual evaluators, but instead were
consensus scores.
2. MPI also argues that the evaluation of its proposal was
inconsistent with the Army's own source selection plan. However,
alleged deficiencies in the application of an agency evaluation or
source selection plan do not provide a basis for questioning the
validity of the award selection; these plans are internal agency
instructions and as such do not give outside parties any rights.
Quality Sys., Inc., B-235344; B-235344.2, Aug. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD
197. Rather, the agency is required to follow the evaluation scheme
set forth in the RFP for the information of potential offerors, and to
conduct its evaluation in a manner that will reach a rational result.
Id. Here, it is clear from the record that MPI's proposal was
reasonably evaluated using the evaluation factors set forth in the
RFP.