BNUMBER: B-271619
DATE: July 15, 1996
TITLE: Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc.
File: B-271619
Date:July 15, 1996
Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., and Antonio R.
Franco, Esq., Pilero, Mazza & Pargament, for the protester.
Thomas Duffy, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protester's proposal was properly eliminated from the competitive
range where the proposal did not adequately respond to request for
statement of work and approach to performing statement of work for
unit conversion such that this aspect of proposal would have to be
completely rewritten to be considered for award.
DECISION
Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc. (ESCI) protests the elimination
from the competitive range of the proposal it submitted in response to
request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA90-95-R-0024, issued by the
National Guard Bureau for technical support and management assistance.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation included statements of work (SOW) for long range
planning support, acquisition technical support and management
assistance, and Air Force Test Center test and evaluation support.[1]
It also required offerors to develop a SOW for Unit Conversion Support
pursuant to instructions which were provided. Offerors were required
to submit a technical proposal which addressed each SOW (including the
unit conversion SOW), a management proposal, a past performance
proposal, and a cost proposal. The technical proposal was to be
evaluated against the following criteria:
Technical Approach
PWS Approach
Manhour Estimates
Staff Technical Expertise
Depth of Knowledge
Staff Experience
Demonstrated Corporate Experience
Areas of Experience
Quantity and Level of Experience
Performance
The technical proposals were assigned a color-coded rating for each
factor for each SOW, for the factor overall and for the technical
proposal overall.[2] The evaluators also assigned proposal and
performance risk ratings under each factor. The solicitation provided
that the government would make up to three contract awards on a best
value basis with technical factors considered most important in the
award decision.
Four proposals, including the protester's, were received. Following
the initial evaluation, ESCI's proposal was rated orange overall with
high performance and proposal risk. In the technical area, ESCI's
proposal was rated orange overall, with a yellow rating under
technical approach and orange ratings under staff technical expertise
and corporate experience. The agency concluded that ESCI's proposal
could only be made acceptable with a major rewrite and therefore
excluded it from the competitive range.
ESCI argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal, and that any
deficiencies the agency did find could have been corrected during
discussions had it been included in the competitive range.
In reviewing challenges to the exclusion of a proposal from the
competitive range, we will not reevaluate the proposal; rather, our
review is limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. International
Resources Corp., B-259992, Apr. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 200. Agencies
properly may eliminate a proposal from the competitive range where the
proposal would require major revision to become acceptable. W.N.
Hunter & Assocs.; Cajar Defense Support Co., B-237259; B-237259.2,
Jan. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 52.
The agency found a number of deficiencies in ESCI's response to the
different tasks. Its proposal was eliminated from the competitive
range, however, primarily based on its response to the unit conversion
task.
As a result of the defense downsizing and reconsideration of its role
and mission, the Air National Guard (ANG) is changing the functions of
several operational and support units. This solicitation required
offerors to provide a SOW to support the ANG's conversion of an F-16
unit into a KC-135 unit. The instructions outlined the key tasks
that offerors were expected to incorporate in the proposed SOW. In
evaluating ESCI's proposal with respect to the unit conversion task,
the agency found (1) ESCI's proposal did not include all required
tasks; (2) ESCI had no corporate experience performing unit
conversions, and had personnel with limited (generally as government
employees) experience with aircraft conversions; and (3) ESCI's
experience did not include tracking conversion programs or planning
and supporting site activation task forces at the converting
locations, tasks which were contemplated by the solicitation. The
agency's biggest concern, however, was ESCI's approach to performing
the unit conversion. Specifically, the agency found that ESCI's
approach to performing the SOW it prepared for the unit conversion
failed to address items that it included in the SOW as items it would
perform. Instead, most of ESCI's approach discussed tasks that the
government would be performing during the unit conversion. This led
the agency to conclude that ESCI did not understand the requirement.
Our review confirms the agency's findings; ESCI did not address all
requirements of the SOW. Specifically, ESCI did not task the
activities to update the ANG's Unit Type Code (UTC) Management
Information Systems (UMIS) Database and Force Structure Database, or
address the requirements to track all financial aspects of execution
of the conversion plan and provide forewarning of potential problem
areas. Further, in providing its approach to performing the SOW it
prepared, ESCI either failed to discuss tasks listed in its SOW, or
mentioned the tasks without providing details as to how they would be
performed and primarily focused on tasks that the government would
perform. For example, in its SOW for the unit conversion, ESCI
proposed to assist in determining petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL)
delivery capability shortfall/excesses and to track
acquisition/disposition of assets required for the new mission,
including determining vehicle spares and maintenance manpower. In its
approach to performing the SOW, however, ESCI's proposal did not
discuss this task and provided no details regarding how ESCI would
collect and track the data and report the information to the ANG.
As another example, while ESCI's approach stated that it would provide
a risk assessment, including a funding analysis, after each proposed
phase of the unit conversion, the proposal did not include information
as to what this risk assessment would include, how it would be
performed, or what reports the agency would receive. Instead, ESCI's
proposed approach detailed the government's function at each step of
the conversion process. For example, ESCI's proposal stated that
during the second phase of its four phase approach, ". . . [t]he unit
will start to upgrade and enhance its facilities. Unit leadership
will identify key flying and maintenance personnel who will start
formal training courses." The proposal also states that this phase
"[a]ffords that unit an opportunity to start training aircrew,
maintenance, and support personnel without affecting the unit's
operational status." These are all government, rather than support
contractor, tasks. To the extent ESCI's proposal listed any tasks
that it would perform as a support contractor, such as a funding
analysis, as discussed above, the proposal did not provide any details
about how the tasks would be performed.
ESCI does not dispute the agency's conclusion that it lacks corporate
experience as a support contractor for unit conversions. ESCI does
dispute the agency's conclusions regarding the experience of the
personnel it proposed to perform the unit conversion, but ESCI's
proposal provided almost no detail showing that its personnel had more
than minimal unit conversion experience. ESCI argues that a chart
included in its proposal showed the unit conversion experience of its
team members. However, this chart does no more than list the team
members, a project (presumably a conversion project), the place where
the project was performed and the date it was performed.[3] The chart
provides no information as to the named individual's function during
the project. Even where ESCI did attempt to provide information
regarding the experience of its key personnel in performing unit
conversions, it did so without providing any detail and did not show
that the employee had extensive experience. For example, the resume
of one key team member provides simply, "[a]s Director of (a
government unit) he negotiated acquisition and modification contracts
for four unit conversions," and "[h]e tracked conversion programs for
modifying budget allocations from the National Guard Bureau"; the
resume does not provide any information about specific duties under
the program, which is the kind of detail the agency required to
evaluate personnel experience. Accordingly, the agency had no basis
to conclude that ESCI's proposed personnel had adequate experience.
Our review thus supports the agency's position that ESCI's proposal
did not address or demonstrate an understanding of the unit conversion
task. For its proposal to become eligible for award, ESCI would have
to revise its SOW for the unit conversion task to address the
activities to update the UMIS Database and Force Structure Database
and to track all financial aspects of execution of the conversion plan
and provide forewarning of potential problem areas. In addition, ESCI
would have to completely rewrite the section of its proposal dealing
with its approach to the unit conversion task to discuss tasks that
the contractor would be required to perform and to provide details as
to how those tasks would be carried out. This would also require the
protester to revise its proposed level of effort. Even with those
changes made, since ESCI does not have support contractor experience
with unit conversions, ESCI would be unable to improve this aspect of
its proposal. We conclude that the deficiencies in ESCI's proposal
were sufficiently substantial that the agency reasonably determined it
would have to be substantially rewritten to be eligible for award.
The agency thus was justified in eliminating ESCI's proposal from the
competitive range.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The solicitation also included a SOW for general requirements which
was not used for evaluation purposes.
2. The ratings were blue--exceeds expectations; green--fully
acceptable; yellow--marginally acceptable; orange--could be made
acceptable; and red--unacceptable.
3. The chart information was laid out as follows, with no explanation
of the entries:
Name Old New Place Time Frame
xxxx MH-53 HH-3 Hurlburt Field 1989