BNUMBER: B-270086; B-270086.2
DATE: February 8, 1996
TITLE: Metrica, 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:Metrica, Inc.
File: B-270086; B-270086.2
Date:February 8, 1996
Joseph D. Gebhardt, Esq., and Steven B. Schwartzman, Esq., for the
protester.
James S. Phillips, Esq., and Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., for Kajax
Engineering, Inc., the intervenor.
Jane H. Talley, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Award to the offeror submitting the more technically advantageous,
higher-priced proposal was reasonable where it was consistent with the
solicitation's evaluation scheme and the agency reasonably determined
that the documented technical advantages of the awardee's
higher-priced proposal outweighed the price advantage of the
protester's proposal.
DECISION
Metrica, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kajax Engineering,
Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 00-95-1015BB, issued by
the Department of Agriculture for on-site automated data processing
support services at the National Computer Center in Kansas City,
Missouri, the National Finance Center in New Orleans, Louisiana and
the Washington Service Center in Washington, D.C. Metrica challenges
the agency's evaluation of its and Kajax's proposals, and the agency's
selection of Kajax's higher-priced proposal for award.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued as a competitive set-aside under section 8(a) of the
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 637(a) (1994), provided for the award
of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 1
year with four 1-year options. The RFP informed offerors that
proposals would be evaluated for compliance with certain "mandatory
standards" contained in the solicitation, such as "qualify[ing] as a
firm participating in the 8(a) program" under the relevant standard
industrial code, and compliance with applicable Department of Labor
wage determinations. The RFP also listed the following technical
evaluation factors and subfactors:
Factor 1.Corporate Experience
Subfactor A.Recent Past Experience
Subfactor B.Corporate Background, Organization, and Stability
Subfactor C.Recruitment, Employee Development, and Stability
Factor 2. Technical Approach
Subfactor A.Understanding the requirements of the solicitation
Subfactor B.Management Coordination and the Authority Delegated
to the Lead Operators
Subfactor C.Problem Resolution
Subfactor D.Staffing and Operational Plan
Subfactor E.Transition Plan
Subfactor F.Quality Assurance
The solicitation informed offerors that factors 1 and 2 were equal in
importance, and that within factor 1, subfactor A was equal in
importance to subfactors B and C combined. The RFP further provided
that within factor 2, subfactors A and B were equal to each other,
subfactors C and F were equal to each other, and subfactors D and E
were equal to each other, and that subfactors A and B combined were
slightly more important than subfactors C through F combined. The RFP
provided for the award of a contract to the offeror whose proposal
offered the greatest value to the agency, cost and other factors
considered, and stated that "[t]echnical factors will have a slightly
higher weight than cost and other factors in making the award
decision." The RFP requested the submission of a technical proposal,
and a cost and business proposal, and provided detailed instructions
for the submission of proposals.
The agency received five proposals, including Metrica's and Kajax's,
by the RFP's closing date of June 30, 1995. The proposals of Metrica
and Kajax were included in the competitive range, discussions
conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) received. Kajax's BAFO
received an overall score of 1,597.5 out of 1,800 total points at a
price of $8,233,133.[1] Metrica's BAFO received an overall score of
1,370.5 points at a price of $7,279,713. The agency determined that
Kajax's proposal represented the best value based on technical and
price considerations, and made award to that firm. After being
informed that Kajax had received the award, and being provided with
written and oral debriefings, Metrica filed this protest.
Metrica protests that the agency's evaluation of its and Kajax's
proposals under the Staffing and Operational Plan evaluation subfactor
was unreasonable.
The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the
discretion of the contracting agency because the agency is responsible
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.
Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD para.
16. In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate an
agency's evaluation, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation
to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Decision Sys.
Technologies, Inc.; NCI Information Sys., Inc., B-251786 et al., Sept.
7, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 167. An offeror's mere disagreement with the
agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. McDonnell Douglas
Corp., B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 51. Based
upon our review of the record, and as discussed more fully below, we
find that the agency's evaluation of Metrica's and Kajax's proposals
under the Staffing and Operational Plan evaluation subfactor was
reasonable and in accordance with the RFP.
The RFP informed offerors that their technical proposals were to
include an "organization chart" and to "[p]rovide the name, title, and
length of time employed by the offeror of each person included in the
chart." Offerors were also instructed to provide, for the Staffing
and Operational Plan subfactor, a resume for each individual listed on
the organization chart, to provide a staffing plan for each facility,
resumes for designated key employees, and to "[s]pecifically identify
proposed staff who are not current employees of the offeror(s)."
Kajax's proposal received a score of 132 out of the 150 total points
available under the Staffing and Operational Plan subfactor. The
agency found in evaluating Kajax's proposal that Kajax had submitted
detailed staffing plans for each of the three sites, and had
identified and supplied the resume of each person proposed to staff
the contract. Although certain of the individuals proposed to staff
the National Finance Center in New Orleans were identified as
contingency hires, Kajax supplied letters of commitment for each of
these individuals.
Metrica's proposal received a score of 90 points under the Staffing
and Operational Plan subfactor. In contrast to Kajax's detailed
staffing plan, which identified individuals to staff every position
required to perform the contract, Metrica's plan caused the agency
concern because it included 23 vacant positions. Metrica's staffing
and operational plan also caused the agency additional concern because
each of the individuals specifically identified by Metrica to staff
the contract were located in Washington, D.C., and would thus have to
relocate to Kansas City or New Orleans to perform the contract, and
because Metrica had not identified any contingency hires or newly
recruited personnel. The agency concluded that because of Metrica's
lack of either current, newly recruited, or contingency hires local to
the Kansas City or New Orleans sites, the staffing plan was "high
risk."
Despite having access under the General Accounting Office protective
order to, among other things, Kajax's proposal and the agency's
evaluation documentation, Metrica, in its comments on the agency
report, does not substantively respond to the propriety of the
agency's evaluation of Kajax's and Metrica's proposals under the
Staffing and Operational Plan subfactor. Because of this, and based
upon our review of the record, we conclude that Metrica's objection to
this aspect of the agency's evaluation constitutes, at best, its mere
disagreement with the evaluation results, and does not demonstrate
that the agency's evaluation of the proposals under the Staffing and
Operational Plan evaluation subfactor was unreasonable. Medland
Controls, Inc., B-255204; B-255204.2, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 260.
Metrica argues in its comments on the agency report that the agency's
evaluation of Metrica's proposal under the "Recent Past Experience"
evaluation subfactor was unreasonable. The agency contends that this
aspect of Metrica's protest is untimely because the protest basis--the
propriety of the agency's evaluation of Metrica's proposal under the
Recent Past Experience subfactor--is new and substantively different
from those raised by Metrica in its initial protest, and was not filed
until 16 calendar days after Metrica's receipt of the agency report.
Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests not based upon
solicitation improprieties be filed not later than 14 calendar days
after the basis of protest is known, or should have been known,
whichever is earlier. Section 21.2(a)(2), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,740
(Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(2)). The
timeliness of a specific basis of protest raised after the filing of a
timely protest depends upon the relationship the later-raised basis
bears to the initial protest. GE Gov't Servs., B-235101, August 11,
1989, 89-2 CPD para. 128. Where the later basis presents a new and
independent ground for protest, it must independently satisfy our
timeliness requirements. Conversely, where the later basis merely
provides additional support for an earlier, timely raised protest
basis, we will consider the later-raised arguments. Id.
In our view, the argument raised in Metrica's comments constitutes a
new and independent basis of protest, rather than additional
supporting material for either of its earlier protest contentions.[2]
In this regard, Metrica's later-raised argument challenges the
agency's evaluation of its proposal under the Recent Past Experience
evaluation subfactor, and provides no support and is distinct from
Metrica's argument that its and Kajax's proposals were improperly
evaluated under the Staffing and Operational Plan evaluation
subfactor. Additionally, and despite the protester's view to the
contrary, a challenge to an agency's evaluation of proposals under a
specific evaluation subfactor is distinct from a challenge to the
agency's best value determination. Although the propriety of the
agency's evaluation of proposals under the criteria set forth in the
RFP may be relevant to the reasonableness of the agency's best value
determination, that relevance in itself does not permit a protester,
who has protested in general the agency's best value determination, to
later present a specific, and otherwise untimely argument concerning
the evaluation of proposals. GE Gov't Servs., supra. As such,
Metrica's argument that the agency's evaluation of its proposal under
the Recent Past Experience subfactor is untimely because it was raised
more than 14 days after the protester received the agency report and
thus knew or should have known of this basis for protest. Id.
Metrica also challenges the agency's selection of Kajax's
higher-priced proposal for award. Metrica argues in general that the
agency, in selecting Kajax for award, gave undue weight to Kajax's
evaluated technical superiority, and specifically contends that the
agency gave undue weight in its selection decision to Kajax's
evaluated superiority under the Staffing and Operational Plan
subfactor.
In a negotiated procurement, award may be made to an offeror
submitting a higher-rated, higher-priced offer, where the decision is
consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and the agency
reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the
higher-priced offer outweighs the price difference. D & M Gen.
Contracting, Inc., B-259995; B-259995.2, May 8, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 235.
We find that the agency's selection of Kajax for award was reasonable
and in accord with the RFP's evaluation scheme. In selecting Kajax
for award the agency noted that Kajax's proposal was technically
superior to Metrica's overall, as evidenced by Kajax's overall higher
point score of 1,597.5 as compared to Metrica's overall score 1,370.5.
Indeed, Kajax's proposal was rated higher than Metrica's under each of
the RFP's evaluation factors and subfactors. In addition to the
overall superiority of Kajax's proposal, the agency noted Kajax's
clear technical superiority under four of the evaluation subfactors:
Recent Past Experience; Management Coordination and Authority
Delegated to Lead Operators; Problem Resolution; and Staffing and
Operational Plan. For example, with regard to the offerors' proposals
under the most important evaluation subfactor, Recent Past Experience,
wherein Kajax's proposal received a score of 405 out of 450 available
points and Metrica's proposal received 337.5 points, the agency found
that Kajax had significant experience in staffing and managing
mainframe computer operations, such as those at the National Finance
Center, National Computer Center, and Washington Service Center, which
are in operation 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, and that Metrica
did not. The agency also found here that all of the references cited
by Kajax in its proposal recommended Kajax highly, in contrast to
Metrica's references, which were characterized by the agency as being
"lukewarm" concerning Metrica's performance.
Regarding the Management Coordination and Authority Delegated to Lead
Operators subfactor, the agency explains that delegating authority to
on-site supervisors is essential to prompt problem resolution.
Although both offerors proposed to delegate authority to their on-site
supervisors, Kajax's proposal received a score of 178 and Metrica's
proposal received a score of 140 under this subfactor because of
problems, as reported by Metrica's references, concerning Metrica's
actual delegation of authority during contract performance.
With regard to the merits of the proposals under the Problem
Resolution evaluation subfactor, the agency found that Kajax had
provided an "excellent plan" for problem resolution in its proposal,
which included the use of electronic reporting of problems and a
response team comprised of specialists who will be assigned to work on
different aspects of any problems which arise. The agency also noted
that Kajax had provided specific examples of past success in problem
resolution. Kajax's proposal received a score of 142.5 points out of
150 under the Problem Resolution subfactor. In contrast, the agency
determined that although Metrica's proposal contained a well-written
problem resolution plan, the examples of past success were generic in
nature rather than specific; Metrica's proposal received a score of
112.5 under this evaluation subfactor.
As indicated by the discussion above, the record demonstrates that the
agency's selection of Kajax for award was based upon the overall
technical superiority of Kajax's proposal, and the proposal's
significant superiority under certain of the evaluation subfactors.
Although Kajax's superiority under the Staffing and Operational Plan
evaluation subfactor was considered by the agency in its best value
determination, the record does not evidence, as the protester
suggests, that the agency gave undue weight to the merits of Kajax's
proposal under this subfactor in selecting Kajax for award.
In sum, as evidenced by the examples above and the previous discussion
of the agency's conclusions regarding the merits of the offerors'
staffing and operational plans, the record shows that the agency found
Kajax's proposal significantly better than Metrica's under the most
important evaluation subfactor, and superior to Metrica's under every
other evaluation subfactor and overall. The record reflects that the
contracting officer, in selecting Kajax for award, weighed Kajax's
evaluated technical superiority against Metrica's lower price, and
determined that Kajax's technical superiority more than offset the
associated additional cost. Although Metrica disagrees with this
assessment, it has not demonstrated that the agency's judgment is
unreasonable.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The agency did not disclose in the RFP either its plan to point
score the offerors' proposals on a 1,800-point scale or the specific
point value of each evaluation factor or subfactor.
2. Although our Bid Protest Regulations require that comments be filed
within 14 days after the report is received, Metrica requested and
received an extension. Bid Protest Regulations, section 21.3(h)
supra. The granting of such an extension does not waive the
timeliness requirements for filing bid protests. Keci Corp.--Recon.,
B-255193.2, May 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 323.