BNUMBER: B-271821; B-271821.2
DATE: August 22, 1996
TITLE: Sigmatech, Inc.
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
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:Sigmatech, Inc.
File: B-271821; B-271821.2
Date:August 22, 1996
Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and David A. Vogel, Esq.,
Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for the protester.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Carol P. Rosenbaum, Esq., Department of
the Army, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Agency reasonably determined that offerors were required to have
experience with particular weapon systems supported by contract, and
protester's assertion that its experience with other weapon systems
should have been considered equivalent reflects mere disagreement with
the agency's judgment.
2. Agency reasonably concluded that overall level of personnel
proposed by protester was inadequate to meet the government's
requirements under a task order contract where protester's proposed
staffing level was based on the unrealistic assumption that the
government's requirements would be met through a steady-state level of
effort equal to an average of the total contract requirements.
3. Where awardees each proposed over three times more personnel with
demonstrated experience supporting the weapons systems to be supported
by this contract than did the protester, and solicitation provided
that an offeror's evaluated capabilities to perform the contract
requirements was significantly more important than any other
evaluation factor, there is no basis to conclude that protester's
slightly lower-cost proposal offered greater value to the government
than awardees' proposals.
4. Where solicitation provided that failure to demonstrate relevant
experience would be a negative evaluation factor, agency's advice
during pre-proposal conference that offerors' abilities to
affirmatively demonstrate such experience would be an enhancement did
not mislead offerors so as to warrant sustaining the protest.
DECISION
Sigmatech, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's contract awards
to Dynamics Research Corporation (DRC), Decisions and Advanced
Technology Associates, Inc. (DATA) and System Dynamics International,
Inc. (SDI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAJ09-95-R-0608.
The RFP sought support services for the Army's Aviation and Troop
Command (ATCOM) and Program Executive Office (PEO) in connection with
the Programmatic and Technical Support (PATS) III program. Sigmatech
maintains that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as
unacceptable, and asserts that its proposal should have been assessed
as offering greater value to the government than those of the
awardees.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
On September 22, 1995, the Army issued the solicitation at issue
here.[1] The RFP contemplated the award of multiple
cost-reimbursement task order contracts to provide programmatic
support for specified ATCOM/PEO weapons systems. Specifically, the
RFP stated: "the Government contemplates up to three awards (full and
open, small business, 8a),"[2] and established a minimum value of
$300,000 and an estimated maximum value of $33 million for each
contract.
Section M of the RFP states that proposals would be evaluated in three
areas--capabilities, past performance, and cost--and that capabilities
were significantly more important than past performance, which was, in
turn, more important than cost. Regarding evaluation of offerors'
capabilities, section M states:
"This Evaluation Area is used to gauge the Government's
perception of the ability of a Contractor to successfully
complete the diverse and potentially complex work likely to be
tasked under the SOW in support of multiple weapon systems set
forth in Attachment 2."[3]
Section M further established three factors to be considered in
evaluating offerors' capabilities: corporate capabilities, corporate
historical experience, and key personnel. With regard to key
personnel, the RFP required offerors to submit resumes for the prime
and subcontractor personnel being proposed, stating that up to 200
resumes could be submitted. Regarding evaluation of key personnel,
section M stated:
"The Government plans to evaluate that the offeror has identified
sufficient personnel with ample qualifications to perform
applicable tasks/capabilities delineated by the Core Competencies
set forth in Exhibit F[[4]] and the SOW[[5]] for the future
support requirements of the weapon systems set forth in
Attachment 2."
The RFP states that proposals must be considered acceptable under each
factor to be eligible for award and provides that awards would be
based on the proposals offering the best value to the government, all
factors considered.
On October 17, the agency conducted a pre-proposal conference during
which it provided answers to various questions concerning the
procurement. Although not incorporated into the solicitation, the
record of the pre-proposal conference was subsequently provided to
offerors. Nine proposals were submitted by the November 9 closing
date, including the proposals of Sigmatech, DRC, DATA, and SDI.
Technical proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation
board (SSEB) using an adjectival rating system of exceptional (E),
very good (VG), acceptable (A) and unacceptable (U). With regard to
cost proposals, the agency assigned a most probable cost to each
proposal and assessed an associated cost risk. The proposals of
Sigmatech and the three awardees were rated as follows:
DRC SDI DATA Sigmatech
Capabilities E E- E-/VG+ U
Past Performance VG A VG E
Most Probable Cost $36.969 $38.289 $35.795 $35.773
(in millions)
Cost Risk low low low low
Sigmatech's proposal was evaluated as unacceptable in the area of
capabilities based on its failure to identify sufficient personnel to
perform the contract requirements. Specifically, the SSEB report
concluded:
"Sigmatech provided 76 resumes of individuals representing
limited depth of programmatic expertise relative to the
applicable SOW/Core Competencies/Weapons Systems . . . .
Sigmatech has limited capability (depth or breadth) demonstrated
in any aviation or troop weapon systems[[6]]. . . . The
Sigmatech proposal does not demonstrate adequate resources to
respond to most Government requirements . . . . Sigmatech is a
small disadvantaged 8(a) business and would be required to
perform at least 50% of the labor as the prime."
In contrast, the SSEB concluded that DRC's proposal provided 134
resumes and "documented depth and breadth of capability in all weapon
systems"; that SDI's proposal provided 155 resumes demonstrating
"outstanding aviation system capability in all aviation weapon
systems"; and that DATA's proposal provided 159 resumes demonstrating
"experience in all aviation weapon systems."[7]
On April 8, the agency selected DRC, DATA and SDI for contract
awards.[8] On April 19, Sigmatech filed an initial protest with our
Office which it supplemented on May 9.
DISCUSSION
Sigmatech protests the agency's determination that its proposal failed
to include sufficient personnel with adequate capabilities to perform
the contract requirements. First, Sigmatech maintains that the agency
should have considered the experience of Sigmatech's personnel with
systems other than ATCOM/PEO systems, including missile systems, to be
equivalent to experience with the ATCOM/PEO systems. Second,
Sigmatech challenges the agency's determination that 76 persons was an
inadequate staffing level, arguing that the 76 resumes submitted in
its proposal represented the maximum number of people that could be
required to perform the contract.[9] Overall, Sigmatech maintains
that the qualifications of the personnel it proposed should have been
considered more than adequate to respond to the government's
requirements and that, as a result, its low-cost proposal offered
greater value to the government than the awardees' proposals.
The agency responds that offerors' demonstrated experience with the
ATCOM/PEO weapon systems supported by this contract was considered to
be the most reliable indicator of an offeror's capabilities to
successfully perform the contract requirements.[10] Accordingly,
Sigmatech's limited experience with ATCOM/PEO weapon systems, combined
with the low overall level of personnel it proposed, resulted in the
unacceptable rating.
In explaining that the alternative experience demonstrated by
Sigmatech's personnel was inadequate, the agency relied on the unique
complexities of the ATCOM/PEO weapon systems at issue, explaining
generally:
"Multiple ATCOM/PEO, Aviation requirers anticipate programmatic
efforts in support of complex weapon systems which require a high
degree of technical understanding in order to accomplish the
required coordination and support with minimum expenditure of
time and resources . . . . Knowledge of the mission of the
system, critical performance parameters and at least a working
knowledge of subsystems, qualification and testing requirements,
as well as eventual operation utilization are essential to
successful execution of a program. This is especially true for
aviation systems since they are an integral part of the total
battlefield . . . . Understanding the technical issues, system
operation, and development status is critical to providing risk
mitigation in establishment of acquisition strategy. Aviation
systems are the most complex and diversified of all the DOD
systems."
More specifically, the agency referenced the unique technical and
engineering aspects of certain weapon systems to be supported,
including the Comanche and the Kiowa Warrior, stating that a working
knowledge of the subsystems, qualification and testing requirements,
and eventual operational utilization of these systems is critical for
successful contractor performance. Due to the unique aspects of the
ATCOM/PEO weapon systems, the agency concluded that Sigmatech's
alternative experience, including its missile system experience, was
not an adequate substitute to ensure successful performance.
Regarding the overall level of personnel proposed by Sigmatech, the
agency explains that Sigmatech's assertion that it can adequately
perform the contract with 76 people is based on an unrealistic
assumption that the task order requirements of this contract will be
met by providing a steady-state level of effort equal to an arithmetic
average of the maximum contract requirements; further, the skill mix
reflected in the task order requirements would have to precisely match
the skill mix of Sigmatech's proposed personnel. The agency asserts
that Sigmatech's assumptions are particularly unrealistic in the
context of this procurement where, as discussed in the solicitation,
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) has recommended
that the ATCOM/PEO aviation missions and functions be transferred to
other locations during the anticipated term of the contract. The
agency explains that this transfer activity is likely to require the
contractors to provide simultaneous responses to complex tasks in
multiple locations, thereby requiring substantially more direct labor
at certain times than an arithmetic average of the overall contract
requirements. In short, the agency maintains that rather than
reflecting the maximum number of individuals that could be required to
perform the contract, Sigmatech's proposed level of personnel would be
adequate to meet the government's requirements only under a set of
unrealistic circumstances. Accordingly, the agency maintains that it
properly evaluated Sigmatech's proposal as unacceptable.
Procuring agencies are generally in the best position to determine
their actual requirements and the best method for meeting them. In
reviewing protests challenging technical evaluations, our Office will
not substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we will
review the record to determine whether the agency's actions were
reasonable and consistent with the listed criteria and whether there
were violations of procurement statutes or regulations. See, e.g.,
Facilities Management Co., Inc., B-259731.2, May 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD para.
274; RMS Indus., B-247233; B-247234, May 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 412.
Here, we find no basis to question the agency's subjective
determination that demonstrated experience with the relevant ATCOM/PEO
systems constitutes the most reliable indicator of an offeror's
capability to perform the contract and that the alternative experience
of Sigmatech's personnel was insufficient. In making its
determination, the agency considered its own contract experience
supporting the ATCOM/PEO weapons systems and the complexity and unique
requirements of the tasks to be performed. The record provides no
basis to question the agency's conclusion that the expertise
demonstrated by Sigmatech personnel with respect to alternative
weapons systems was not an adequate substitute to ensure successful
contract performance. Sigmatech's contrary assertion merely reflects
its disagreement with the agency's judgment, which provides no basis
for sustaining the protest. Calspan Corp., B-258441, Jan. 19, 1995,
95-1 CPD para. 28.
Even if Sigmatech's proposed personnel had demonstrated adequate
experience with the ATCOM/PEO weapons systems, or equivalent
expertise, the overall level of personnel it proposed was reasonably
evaluated as inadequate to meet the contract requirements. Using
Sigmatech's own calculations, the record shows that the level of
personnel it proposed would meet the government's potential tasking
requirements only in the event those requirements did not exceed an
arithmetic average of the total requirements and were distributed by
skill and experience in a manner matching the skill and experience of
Sigmatech's proposed personnel.[11] We believe the agency reasonably
determined that successful contract performance would require
performance by some personnel who were not dedicated on a full time
basis to this contract. In short, where Sigmatech's own calculations
demonstrate that it proposed only enough personnel to match the total
number of staff years that could be required, we cannot question the
agency's determination that Sigmatech's proposed level of personnel
was inadequate.
In any event, our review of the proposals, along with the
solicitation's evaluation scheme, leads us to conclude that, even if
Sigmatech's proposal had been considered acceptable in the area of
capabilities, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that it
represented the best value to the government. The record shows that
each of the awardees' proposals demonstrated significantly greater
capabilities in the context of the contract requirements. Most
importantly, each of the awardees proposed over three times the level
of personnel demonstrating relevant experience with the ATCOM/PEO
weapons systems than was proposed by Sigmatech.[12] Based on our
review, we conclude that the level of capabilities demonstrated by the
personnel uniquely offered by each of the awardees, augmented by the
capabilities of the "shared personnel," was substantially superior to
the capabilities demonstrated by Sigmatech's proposed personnel.
Similarly, with regard to corporate historical experience, another
evaluation factor under the capabilities area, each of the awardees
and their proposed subcontractors demonstrated significantly greater
experience than did Sigmatech.[13]
The solicitation provided that an offeror's capabilities to perform
the contract requirements would be "significantly" more important than
its evaluated past performance which, in turn, would be more important
than cost. In light of this evaluation scheme, even if Sigmatech's
proposal had been rated acceptable in the area of capabilities, its
higher past performance rating and slightly lower cost could not
reasonably be considered to offset the awardees' clear superiority in
the "significantly" more important evaluation area of capabilities.
Accordingly, there is no reasonable basis to challenge the conclusion
that the awardees' proposals offered the best value to the
government.[14]
Finally, Sigmatech protests that it was misled during the pre-proposal
conference regarding the importance the agency intended to place on
ATCOM/PEO weapon systems experience. In this regard, Sigmatech
references the following question and answer provided by the agency:
"Q.Do [contractor] personnel have to have experience supporting
the weapon systems shown at [attachment] 2, or is experience
with similar systems to be considered equivalent? Will not
having the experience on the specific weapon systems be a
negative evaluation consideration?
A. Experience on weapon systems shown at [attachment] 2 is deemed
of value to the Government and will be considered as an
enhancement in the evaluation."[15]
Sigmatech asserts that the agency's response constituted a statement
that it would not consider an offeror's lack of ATCOM/PEO weapon
systems experience as a negative evaluation consideration.
As noted above, section M of the solicitation specifically advised
offerors that, in evaluating key personnel, the agency would assess
whether each offeror "identified sufficient personnel with ample
qualifications to perform applicable tasks/capabilities . . . for the
future support requirements of the weapon systems set forth in
Attachment 2." Similarly, in describing the evaluation of corporate
historical experience, another factor under capabilities, the
solicitation stated, "inability to show corporate historical
experience that the [agency] deems germane to the SOW(atch 1)/core
competencies (ExhF)/current ATCOM PEO, Aviation, weapon systems (Atch
2) will be a negative consideration in the assignment of an adjectival
descriptor for the Capabilities Evaluation Area." (Emphasis added.)
In light of this language, we believe the solicitation reasonably put
offerors on notice that a lack of ATCOM/PEO weapons systems experience
would be a negative evaluation factor. We do not believe the agency's
statement that an offeror's affirmative demonstration of such
experience would also be considered an enhancement contradicts the RFP
provision that the absence of such experience would be a negative
factor. While the agency's response to the question may not have been
a model of clarity, it does not provide a basis for sustaining the
protest.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. At that time, the agency also issued two other solicitations
relating to the PATS III program--one for technical support and one
for logistical support. Contracts awarded under those solicitations
are not at issue in this protest.
2."8a" refers to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sec.
637(a) (1994), which provides for contract awards to small
disadvantaged business concerns.
3. The ATCOM/PEO weapon systems listed in attachment 2 included:
various helicopter systems including the Apache, Kiowa Warrior,
Comanche RAH-66, Cobra, UH-1, as well as "utility helicopters," and
"light observation helicopters"; various special operations aircraft;
all army fixed-wing aircraft; and various transportation systems,
bridging equipment, water equipment, and environmental systems.
4. Exhibit F identified various core competencies likely to be
required, including: aerospace engineering, metallurgy, composite
materials engineering, computer resources engineering, and
financial/cost management.
5. The statement of work contemplated a broad range of tasks
including: resource management support, cost estimating and analysis,
schedule development and assessment, plans and integration, strategic
planning analysis, and engineering data and configuration management
support.
6. In assessing "depth" of personnel, the agency considered the number
of individuals that had relevant experience and were otherwise
qualified; in assessing "breadth" of proposed personnel, the agency
considered the number of competencies and systems in which the
offeror's personnel demonstrated experience and expertise.
7. The total number of resumes listed for each offeror in the SSEB
report was slightly different than the numbers subsequently verified
by the agency as having been submitted. After reviewing the file, the
agency subsequently concluded that DRC had actually submitted 3 more
resumes (137) that SDI had submitted 1 less resume (154) and that DATA
had submitted 5 less resumes (154).
8. DRC was awarded the contract for which all offerors were
considered. SDI was awarded the contract for which only small
businesses were considered. DATA was awarded the contract for which
only 8(a) firms were considered. Sigmatech, a certified 8(a) firm,
was eligible to be considered for each of the contracts.
9. Sigmatech bases its assertions regarding total manning requirements
by dividing the contract value of $33 million by [deleted ]concluding
that [deleted] is the maximum number of contract hours that could be
required. Sigmatech then divides that total contract hours by
[deleted] to conclude that no more than 380 man years could be
required. It then divides total manyears by the 5-year contract
period to conclude that no more than 76 individuals will be required
to perform the contract.
10. The contracting officer explains that, in the two preceding PATS
contracts, offerors' capabilities were evaluated on the basis of
"rhetorical responses" to the statements of work and narrative
descriptions of proposed approaches to theoretical tasks, and that
evaluation of offerors' capabilities based on such input had not
always been accurate. Accordingly, in structuring this solicitation,
the agency intentionally provided that offerors' demonstrated
accomplishments would be given greater consideration in evaluating
their capabilities. Thus, section M of the solicitation put offerors
on notice that the agency would be evaluating offerors' capabilities
to support the specific weapons systems listed at RFP attachment 2,
and that demonstrated experience with those particular systems was of
vital importance to the agency.
11. Sigmatech's calculations also make no allowance for non-productive
employee time such as vacation, sick leave, and time spent performing
activities not properly billed to the contract.
12. Sigmatech argues that the number of resumes submitted by each of
the awardees is not a valid indicator of their individual capabilities
because some of the resumes were included in more than one proposal,
thereby indicating that those individuals will not be dedicated full
time to each offeror. However, even when considering only the resumes
"unique" to each proposal, each awardee's proposed personnel
demonstrate substantially greater experience with ATCOM/PEO weapons
system than Sigmatech's proposed personnel. Further, proposals
reflecting "shared personnel" are consistent with the realistic
assumption that not all individuals will be dedicated on a full time
basis to a given contract.
13. With regard to corporate historical experience, the RFP required
offerors to list each of the government contracts performed by the
offeror and its subcontractors during the preceding three years, in
which billings exceeded $100,000. The listings of DRC and its 10
subcontractors exceeded those of Sigmatech and its 4 subcontractors by
45 percent. The listings of SDI and its 15 subcontractors also
exceeded those of Sigmatech and its subcontractors by 45 percent. The
listings of DATA and its 12 subcontractors exceeded those of Sigmatech
and its subcontractors by 35 percent.
14. Sigmatech also argues that it was facially unreasonable for the
agency to evaluate its proposal as exceptional in the area of past
performance and unacceptable in the area of capabilities. We
disagree. As the agency points out, evaluation in the area of past
performance considered only the quality of the offeror's performance
history and did not assess the relevance of that prior performance to
the requirements of this solicitation. In contrast, the agency's
evaluation in the area of offerors' capabilities, which included the
corporate historical experience and key personnel factors, focused on
the ability of the offeror to perform the particular requirements of
this solicitation.
15. This question and answer was one of over 160 provided to the
offerors as part of the pre-proposal conference record. Although the
record was not formally incorporated into the solicitation, our Office
has stated that: "where . . . an agency disseminates written
responses to offerors' questions during the course of a procurement,
even where the questions and answers are not expressly incorporated
into the RFP, the agency is bound by its responses, where they are not
inconsistent with the RFP and one or more of the offerors would be
prejudiced if the agency does not adhere to its statements." Meridian
Management Corp.; Consolidated Eng'g Servs., Inc., B-271557 et al.,
July 29, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. .