BNUMBER: B-270374
DATE: March 1, 1996
TITLE: McWane and Company, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:McWane and Company, Inc.
File: B-270374
Date:March 1, 1996
Gilbert J. McWane for the protester.
John Donaldson, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
The procuring agency properly determined that the protester's low
priced proposal was technically unacceptable where the protester
failed to provide sufficient information, as required by the
solicitation, to allow the agency to evaluate a required key person
and the protester's proposal demonstrated a lack of understanding of
the contract requirements.
DECISION
McWane and Company, Inc. (MACI) protests the award of a contract to
Consulting and Program Management Services, Inc. (CPMS) by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DTNH22-95-R-04122 for inventory and property control support services.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the
award of a firm, fixed-priced contract for 1 base with 4 option years.
The RFP's statement of work described the agency's need for a
full-time inventory clerk, with supervision as necessary, to support
the overall maintenance of an existing automated property control
system for approximately 10,000 items of non-expendable personal
property located at headquarters, field facilities, and contractor
sites. The contractor is to provide qualified personnel on-site
during normal office hours, not to exceed 40 hours per week. The
solicitation included the agency's standard operating procedures for
property management, and requires the contractor to process incoming
property, excess property, and transfers of property, and to perform
an annual inventory in accordance with these standard operating
procedures. The RFP also stated that contractor personnel will be
supplied with the necessary equipment and supplies to perform the
property management task.
A best value basis for award was stated, and the following technical
evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance:
qualifications of project personnel; program management; and
experience of the organization. Offerors were informed that technical
considerations were of primary importance and that a higher-priced
proposal could be accepted if technical considerations made the offer
most advantageous to the government. Offerors were also informed that
the government intended to make award on initial proposals without
conducting discussions and, accordingly, offerors were cautioned to
submit proposals on the most favorable basis.
The agency received proposals from six offerors, including MACI and
the awardee. Three proposals, including the awardee's, were
determined to be technically acceptable. MACI's proposal and another
offeror's proposal was found to be technically unacceptable but with
correction potential, and another offeror's proposal was found to be
technically unacceptable and not correctable. Regarding MACI's
proposal, the agency found that MACI had provided insufficient
information to allow the agency to evaluate the qualifications of its
proposed inventory clerk. Also, MACI's proposal was "geared toward
the implementation, start-up, and management of a new property
system," rather than on-site support for the agency's existing system;
in the agency's judgment, this demonstrated a lack of understanding of
the solicitation requirements.
The contracting officer determined that given the adequate price
competition obtained from the technically acceptable offerors,
discussions were not necessary. Award was made to CPMS, the firm
submitting the lowest-priced and highest-rated offer. MACI requested
and received a debriefing, and this protest followed.
MACI challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and asserts
that it is entitled to award as the offeror submitting the lowest
price.[1]
In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency's evaluation
of proposals, it is not the function of our Office to independently
weigh the merits of the offers. Microeconomic Applications, Inc.,
B-258633.2, Feb. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 82. Rather, the evaluation of
proposals is a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency
since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best
method of accommodating them. Ascom Hasler Mailing Sys., Inc.,
B-257327, Sept. 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 137. Consequently, we will
question an agency's evaluation only where the record clearly shows
that the evaluation does not have a reasonable basis or is
inconsistent with the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP.
Engineering Inc., B-257822.5, Aug. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 130. A
protester's mere disagreement with the agency does not render the
evaluation unreasonable. Id. Here, we find that the agency
reasonably determined that MACI's proposal was technically
unacceptable.[2]
First, MACI's proposal was evaluated as providing insufficient
information concerning its proposed inventory clerk. The agency
considered this a significant deficiency under the qualifications of
project personnel factor, the most heavily weighted evaluation factor.
Under this factor, offerors were required to provide information
regarding the education, experience and availability of the key
personnel (the inventory clerk and property manager) that would be
assigned to this contract. The instructions stated that this may be
in the form of a recruiting announcement (including a position
description) or resumes of existing personnel. The statement of work
required that on-site contractor personnel, such as the on-site
inventory clerk, have relevant experience "in property management data
entry and filing, and shall be thoroughly familiar with data entry
using a keyboard and CRT type screen, and filing of documentation."
MACI provided the following information regarding the inventory clerk
in its proposal:
"On-site Person: MACI's policy is to not necessarily commit to a
new hire when an incumbent contractor has people in place.
However, we have a number of candidates who are well qualified
for this position. Accordingly, upon notification of award, we
will be in a better position to determinate whether to retain the
existing on-site person or bring in one of our candidates. As a
successful offeror, our access to the information needed to make
this critical decision would be more readily available.
"The MACI qualifications for this position are: property
management/supply clerk with solid data entry skills. Must be a
self starter, customer oriented and able to work independently.
Previous bar coding experience a plus."
While MACI correctly notes that it was not required to identify a
specific individual to fill the inventory clerk position, the
solicitation required offerors to provide sufficient information to
allow the agency to evaluate the quality and acceptability of the
inventory clerk the agency could expect to receive. Specifically, the
RFP required that offerors, at a minimum, identify the educational and
experience qualifications that would be required of potential
inventory clerks and the availability of such candidates. Here, MACI
merely informed the agency that it had candidates in mind, and that
the qualifications for these candidates included "solid data entry
skills," being a "self starter," and "customer oriented." We agree
with the agency that this information does not demonstrate the
education or experience that the agency could expect to receive in the
inventory clerk position during contract performance. MACI also did
not provide information regarding the availability of any proposed
candidates, other than to state that such candidates exist. In this
regard, MACI's statement that it might consider hiring the incumbent
inventory clerk also does not indicate availability of an inventory
clerk because MACI does not state whether it has approached this
individual to inquire of his availability or interest in employment
with MACI. We think that the agency properly downgraded MACI for the
qualifications of project personnel factor.
The record also supports the agency's downgrading of MACI's proposal
under the next most important evaluation factor, program management.
The agency found that MACI's proposal evidenced a lack of
understanding of the limited role of the contractor in supporting the
property management function; that MACI essentially proposed to "take
over," rather than merely support, the existing property management
function. For example, MACI purposed to analyze the existing system
for possible improvements; to perform random spot checks; and to
develop a standard bar code placement guide for each type of
equipment, "a pre-inventory plan" for an initial inventory, and
"better ways of providing responsible inventory and customer service
through the use of reasonably available technology." The RFP here did
not seek development of, or changes to, the existing property
management process and system. While MACI argues that it has offered
the agency more than what was required by the RFP, the fact is its
proposal did not indicate its understanding that the contractor is
merely to support the agency's day-to-day operational service of an
existing system and not remake the system. We find the agency's
evaluation of this aspect of MACI's proposal to be reasonable. See
Hill's Capitol Sec., Inc., B-233411, Mar. 15, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 274.
In sum, we find that the agency properly determined that MACI's
proposal was technically unacceptable as submitted, based on the two
deficiencies discussed above, and that given the agency's
determination to make award on initial proposals, a determination
which MACI has not protested, the agency properly did not consider
MACI's proposal for award.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Initially, MACI complained that it did not receive a debriefing
within 5 days of its request. Because the agency addressed this issue
in its report, and the protester did not respond in its comments, we
consider this protest ground to be abandoned. See CSR, Inc.,
B-260955, Aug. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 59.
2. Although MACI asserts that it was informed in its debriefing that
its proposal was found to be technically acceptable, the record shows
that the technical evaluators and contracting officer evaluated MACI's
proposal as technically unacceptable.