BNUMBER: B-271868.3
DATE: September 3, 1996
TITLE: Engineering & Environment, 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:Engineering & Environment, Inc.
File: B-271868.3
Date:September 3, 1996
J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester, for the protester.
Al Reisz, for Reisz Engineering, an intervenor.
Nicholas P. Reston, Esq., and Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq.,
Department of the Army, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody,
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the
preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest against exclusion of protester's lower-rated, lower-priced
proposal for environmental support services from revised competitive
range is denied where the relative weaknesses in, and risks associated
with, protester's proposed approaches to sample task requirement and
professional staffing were such that the proposal was less
advantageous than the proposals included in the revised competitive
range and lacked a reasonable chance for award.
DECISION
Engineering & Environment, Inc. (EEI) protests the Department of the
Army's award of a contract to Reisz Engineering under request for
proposals (RFP) No. DABT02-95-R-0002, for environmental support
services at Fort McClellan, Alabama. EEI challenges the agency's
exclusion of its proposal from a revised competitive range.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP, a 100-percent small business set-aside, contemplated award of
a fixed-price requirements contract under which delivery orders would
be issued for individual environmental engineering and remediation
tasks, for a base period (the remainder of fiscal year 1996) and 3
option years. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the
proposal most advantageous to the government, that is, "[a] proposal
that offer[s] value in meeting the requirements--quality performance
with acceptable risk at a fair and reasonable price." The
solicitation provided for evaluation of "technical/managerial
acceptability" and cost (price), stating that technical/management was
"somewhat more important" than cost, but that cost would increase in
importance as the quality differences between proposals decreased.
With respect to cost, the RFP listed estimated hours for various
required labor categories, for which offerors were to provide unit and
extended prices, and stated that the evaluation would include
consideration of cost reasonableness, total cost, and distribution of
cost throughout the life of the contract. With respect to the
technical and management factors, the agency's source selection
evaluation plan (SSEP) provided for point scoring proposals; 700 of
the overall 1,000 points were available under the technical factor
(including 450 points for an offeror's response to a required sample
task) and the remaining 300 points were available under the management
factor. At issue here is the evaluation of EEI's proposal under (1)
the technical subfactor for comprehension of the sample task
requirement and, specifically, the subfactor element for
implementability of the sample task solution (worth 50 weighted
points, and the fourth most important sample task subfactor element),
and (2) the management subfactor for compensation plan for
professional employees (worth 10 weighted points, and the least
important management subfactor).
Eleven proposals were received by closing time; seven--including EEI's
and Reisz's--were included in the initial competitive range.
Following discussions, the Army requested best and final offers
(BAFO). After evaluation of BAFOs, the contracting officer reduced
the competitive range to four proposals; EEI's proposal was
excluded.[1]
EEI's BAFO offered the lowest price ($1,579,370), but the Army
determined that in a number of areas EEI's proposed
technical/management approach was either less advantageous and/or
posed a greater risk than the approaches in the revised competitive
range proposals. Among the areas of concern were (1) EEI's failure to
provide adequate detail with respect to its sample task plan to
implement tank removal and disposal, and (2) EEI's failure to propose
professional salaries and a per diem/travel allowance sufficient to
assure the delivery of uninterrupted high quality work. Although only
21 points separated the proposals, the contracting officer found that
"[t]he true difference was that Reisz submitted an excellent proposal
as compared to EEI's satisfactory proposal." As a result, EEI's
proposal was eliminated from the revised competitive range on the
basis that it did not have a reasonable chance for award compared to
the four superior proposals included in the range, all of which
presented little or no technical/management risk and had realistic
prices. In making the award decision, the contracting officer
essentially determined that the four revised competitive range
proposals were technically/managerially equal, and thus made award to
Reisz on the basis of its low price ($1,900,974). EEI's protest
ensued.
EEI argues that its proposal was technically/managerially equal to
Reisz's, and therefore should not have been eliminated from the
revised competitive range. Had its proposal been included, EEI
concludes, it would have been in line for award based on its lower
price (compared to Reisz's).
The evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a
proposal is in the competitive range are principally matters within
the contracting agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible
for defining their needs and for deciding the best method of meeting
them. Advanced Sys. Technology, Inc.; Engineering and Professional
Servs., Inc., B-241530; B-241530.2, Feb. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 153.
Hence, it is not the function of our Office to evaluate proposals de
novo; we will not disturb a competitive range determination absent a
clear showing that it was unreasonable or in violation of procurement
laws or regulations. Institute for Int'l Research, B-232103.2, Mar.
15, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 273.
Based on our review of the protest record, including the record of a
hearing conducted by our Office,[2] we find some questionable areas of
the technical evaluation--with respect to the sample task activities
of cleaning and stenciling the tank and testing the tank for
structural integrity--where, although the agency found that only EEI's
proposal lacked sufficient detail and was otherwise lacking, in fact
EEI's and Reisz's proposals appear to contain similar detail and types
of information. However, our review indicates that the agency has
reasonably determined that, in other respects, EEI's proposal was less
advantageous than the proposals included in the revised competitive
range, such that EEI lacked a reasonable chance for award. We discuss
some areas of the evaluation below.
SAMPLE TASK
EEI challenges the Army's evaluation of responses to the sample task
requirement. In this regard, offerors were to propose an approach to
the excavation and remediation/disposal of contaminated soils--i.e.,
soils with a total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration above 200
mg/kg--at a site near the flight line on an Army air field and
adjacent to a hangar, described as containing leaking fuels from a
20,000 gallon underground storage tank that had been taken out of
service. The sample task further required the transportation of the
excavated tank, soils, and other wastes to the installation's Defense
Reutilization Management Office for ultimate disposal by the Army.
The RFP advised offerors that their proposals "must provide evidence
that you comprehend the scope of support and services that you will be
required to provide for [t]he sample task" and indicate an "ability to
assess problems, to develop recommendations, and to implement those
recommendations in an effective and efficient manner."
During discussions, the Army issued EEI an item for negotiation (IFN)
on the implementability of its sample task approach, as follows:
"The offeror should address a plan for tank removal and
disposal, inspection of the tank for structural integrity, and
planning and coordination of excavation activities. The tank
vapors should be monitored prior to tank removal. There
should be some presentation of systems modification at various
stages in the project where uncertainties may require this."
The Army determined that EEI's subsequent BAFO response "did not
address this negotiation point in sufficient detail to allow the
committee to fully assess [the] implementability" of its proposed
approach. In this regard, the agency stated at the hearing that it
viewed EEI's removal/disposal plan as lacking in detail and procedure,
particularly in the area of planning for contingencies, i.e., changing
conditions occurring during the removal/disposal process, and as
relatively less advantageous than Reisz's proposed approach.
Specifically, the agency viewed Reisz's proposal as including more
detail and proposed procedure in such areas as monitoring the tank
vapor state for changed conditions, notifying appropriate agency and
state officials of the existence of any gross TPH soil contamination
levels, shoring up of the adjacent hangar if necessary, and providing
for any ground water encountered in the excavation. VT
1:32:32-1:59:36; AT, side 2.
Monitoring Tank Vapors
EEI maintains that its proposal was similar to Reisz's with respect to
monitoring the tank vapors for flammable/combustible gas.
Specifically, EEI states, it proposed to "regularly test" both the
excavation area and tank atmosphere with a combustible gas indicator
until the tank had been removed from both the excavation and the site.
EEI further notes that it specifically provided that "[r]eadings of 20
percent or less of the lower flammable limit will be obtained before
the tank is considered safe to remove from the ground" and that it
would retest the tank after lifting it from the pit.
The Army responds that, although both proposals provided for testing
of the tank vapors, Reisz's indicated that Reisz would closely monitor
the tank vapor state to ensure that it had not changed, i.e., that it
remained below the explosive limit. AT side 2. Specifically, Reisz
provided that testing of the tank atmosphere and excavation site would
be "performed prior to the start of each work day and hourly
thereafter"; that its "safety and quality assurance manager will be
responsible for assuring that organic vapor concentrations remain
below the lower explosive limit of 19 percent"; and that "[c]onsistent
readings of 19 percent or less of the lower explosive limit will be
recorded before the tank is considered safe to remove from the
ground." On this basis the agency determined that Reisz's proposal
was more advantageous than EEI's.
The agency's determination was reasonable. Reisz's plan for hourly
testing, having one person specifically responsible for "assuring"
that vapor concentrations do not exceed a lower explosive limit of 19
percent, and requiring "consistent" readings below the lower explosive
limit before the tank is considered safe to remove from the ground,
reasonably indicated an approach to monitoring the tank that would be
more likely to assure that the vapor state remains below the explosive
limit. In our view, the agency reasonably could view such a detailed
and intensive program of close monitoring of the tank as superior to
EEI's more general proposal to "regularly test" the area and tank.
Monitoring TPH Levels
EEI argues that its proposal was similar to Reisz's in the manner in
which it provided for the monitoring of TPH soil contamination levels
(by means of organic vapor analyzer readings). As noted by the
agency, however, Reisz's proposal provided not only for taking soil
readings, but also for communicating information on any gross TPH
contamination--(i.e., beyond the 200 mg/kg value specified in the
sample task as acceptable for backfilling)--to the appropriate agency
and state officials. VT 1:56:54. In this regard, Reisz's proposal
stated that:
". . . [i]f gross [TPH] contamination is noted at the stated or
imposed limits . . . the project manager will notify the
contracting officer's representative and directorate of
environmental management [at Fort McClellan] immediately that
further investigative work is needed. The Alabama Department of
Environmental Management will be notified within 24 hours of the
discovery."
EEI's proposal did not contain a similar notification provision. This
notification approach, not found in EEI's proposal, further supported
the agency's determination that Reisz's proposal was superior in the
area of contingency planning.
Shoring and Ground Water
As discussed at the hearing, shoring was another area in which the
agency viewed Reisz's proposal as superior to EEI's. VT 1:45:52. As
acknowledged by EEI in its comments on the agency report, Reisz's
proposal provided that it would "[s]hor[e] the adjacent structure
foundation [i.e., the hangar] . . . if the foundation's integrity is
in question." In contrast, EEI's proposal did not provide for such
shoring. Finally, in the area of contingency planning, the agency
viewed Reisz's discussion of ground water as a further indication of
the superiority of its proposal. VT 1:56:10. EEI denies that its
proposal is significantly inferior to Reisz's in this area, noting
that, like Reisz, it provided for measures such as plastic sheeting
and berming to control ground water run off. However, Reisz's
proposal also discussed the documentation and pumping of any ground
water that might be encountered.[3] Again, we believe that the agency
reasonably determined that Reisz's greater attention to detail made
its proposal more advantageous in this area.[4]
The primary purpose of a sample task requirement is to test offerors'
understanding of the technical requirements of the contemplated
contract. See Fluor Daniel, Inc., B-262051; B-262051.2, Nov. 21,
1995, 95-2 CPD para. 241. In view of Reisz's more detailed and
comprehensive discussion of its sample task approach and, in specific,
its greater attention to assuring safe operations, we conclude that
the Army could reasonably evaluate Reisz's proposal as demonstrating a
greater understanding of the technical requirements and, on that
basis, find EEI's proposal to be technically inferior to Reisz's.[5]
PROFESSIONAL STAFFING
EEI's BAFO also was evaluated as less advantageous than Reisz's in the
area of staffing. In this regard, offerors were to describe their (1)
management approach and understanding of the contract requirements,
(2) "ability to provide uninterrupted high quality work," and (3)
compensation plan, "setting forth salaries and fringe benefits
proposed for the professional employees who will work under this
contract." In addition, the RFP incorporated by reference the clause
at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 52.222-46, Evaluation of
Compensation for Professional Employees, which provides for an
assessment of offerors' ability to provide uninterrupted, high-quality
work, considering the realism of the proposed professional
compensation and its impact upon recruiting and retention. The FAR
provision specifically provides that the "compensation levels proposed
should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and
should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure
to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission
objectives." The FAR provision cautions that "[p]rofessional
compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable
relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the
contractor's ability to attract and retain competent professional
service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend
the complexity of the contract requirements."
During discussions, the agency issued EEI the following IFN:
"The offeror does not describe a connection between pay levels
and providing uninterrupted quality of work. Quality of work
is contingent on a variety of reasons other than pay, e.g.,
management, location, benefits. Since the offeror plans to
recruit for the project on site, there is no guarantee that he
will be able to find and retain employees to provide
uninterrupted high quality work for the duration of the
project."
In addition, the agency issued the following two related cost IFNs to
EEI on professional staffing:
"Concern if the contractor can get the professional staffing
at the hourly rates provided in the proposal. Does contractor
intend to hire these employees locally."
"No cost for travel and per diem identified."
In its BAFO, EEI stated that it "will establish a full service office
at Anniston, Alabama [location of Fort McClellan]" and "[e]mployees
will be hired locally." EEI explained that it "propose[d] to staff
the [Fort] McClellan office with 12 full-time positions," with its
"home office . . . provid[ing] personnel to fill 5 positions, i.e. 35
percent of the staff requirements of the project office." The
protester further explained that "t]he project manager will activate
the recruiting program upon arrival at site"; "[t]he recruitment will
continue and 5 to 8 positions will be filled within 60 days after
contract award to attain the 75 percent staffing level"; and "[t]he
remaining positions [will be] filled as needed in response to
temporary or sudden workload fluctuations, with the support to be
provided by the subcontractors identified in the proposal."
EEI also revised its proposed hourly wage rates and stated that it
planned to use a salary structure with starting salaries equivalent to
GS-11, senior level salaries equivalent to GS-12, and the project
manager's salary equivalent to GS-13. With respect to per diem/travel
costs, EEI added a BAFO line item for $1,000 (per year) to the RFP's
price schedule, and designated it "travel in accordance with [federal
travel regulations] procedures." EEI explained in its BAFO that the
"[e]stimated travel cost is included in the bid schedule," and that
"[a]ll travel cost will be charged in accordance with government
regulations." EEI claimed that its compensation practices would be
"consistent with the requirements outlined in FAR sec. 52.222-46," and
stated that it did "not anticipate a problem in providing
uninterrupted high quality work."
The Army concluded that EEI's proposal to hire 65 percent of its work
force locally--interpreted as within a 30-mile radius of
Anniston--posed a significant performance risk. The agency questioned
EEI's ability to recruit and hire the highly educated and experienced
personnel required by the RFP for performance of the contract--e.g.,
engineers and geologists required to possess bachelor of science
degrees and 3 to 5 years experience at a minimum--from the local area
around Fort McClellan, a post scheduled for closure within 3 years,
and thus unable to offer long-term employment opportunities, at the
wages and per diem/travel costs proposed by the protester.
In this same connection, the Army evaluated EEI's proposed salary
rates as unrealistically low. While EEI indicated in its BAFO that
its proposed salaries were based on the GS pay scales provided for in
the solicitation as the equivalent rates for federal hires under the
Service Contract Act, and which were used by the government in
developing its independent government estimate (IGE), the agency's
cost evaluation committee noted that the proposed price of EEI's
proposal was $418,300 lower than the IGE. The evaluators compared the
IGE labor rates to EEI's rates and determined that the significant
difference between the two was that the IGE rates included per diem
costs, while the protester's rates did not. VT 2:15:23.
(Essentially, the IGE rates were based on the assumption that the
professional staff positions would not be available locally, and that
payment of a per diem thus would be necessary.) In this regard, the
evaluators determined that, even without considering travel costs, the
line item of $1,000 per contract year for per diem/travel which EEI
added in its BAFO was understated with respect to the likely per diem,
estimated to be at least $336,920 (based on a rate of $85.00 per day,
or $10.62 per hour, multiplied by 31,725 total estimated hours for the
technical positions for the 4 contract years. VT 2:20:10). The
agency concluded that the protester's professional wage rates were
unrealistic because they did not include per diem and per diem was not
otherwise provided for in sufficient amounts elsewhere in the
proposal. In addition, the evaluators noted that EEI proposed the
lowest wage rates of the seven offerors in the initial competitive
range for 11 of the 13 required technical positions. VT 2:11:33.
This comparison further indicated to the agency that EEI's proposed
compensation plan was unrealistic.
The Army reportedly expected EEI to respond to the IFNs in this area
with a detailed justification of its staffing approach, indicating,
for example, that the firm had completed a market survey to determine
the availability of the personnel needed to perform the contract. EEI
did not do so, and the agency believed this called into question the
firm's ability to assure the delivery of uninterrupted, high quality
work, creating a significant management risk. In this regard, the
agency reports, if the required positions cannot be filled, or if they
are filled with less qualified personnel, the result could be
additional cost, delays, poor performance, and unmet regulatory
deadlines.
EEI argues that its intention to hire staff locally was limited to
only 37.5 percent of the professional staff (or two to five people),
not the 65 percent assumed by the Army. According to the protester,
this should have been evident to the agency from (1) EEI's proposal to
transfer five home office personnel to the project office, (2) the
areas of work that would be performed by EEI and its subcontractors,
and (3) the additional EEI home office personnel who would be
available to the project. According to the protester, the Army should
have known that, at most, EEI was planning to recruit only 50 percent
of the project office staff, and that three of the staff to be hired
were nonprofessional staff, none of which would be difficult to
obtain. As for the remaining professional staff to be hired, EEI
contends that a market survey was unnecessary because of the proximity
of the large urban centers of Atlanta, Georgia; Birmingham, Alabama;
and Huntsville, Alabama, each of which is located within 100 miles of
the Fort McClellan/Anniston area, since there is no shortage of the
required specialized technical personnel in those markets.
As for its proposed staff salaries, EEI maintains that the evaluators'
conclusion that the rates were unrealistic is based on an incomplete
comparison of EEI's and Reisz's BAFO prices. According to the
protester, although EEI's unit labor prices were lower than Reisz's
for 11 of the 13 professional staff labor categories, for 5 of the 13
categories the offerors proposed virtually identical prices; for 3
more categories EEI's prices were lower because of Reisz's reliance
upon an "overpriced large business subcontractor"; and for 3 of the
remaining 5 categories, EEI already had on its staff, or under
subcontract, the professional staff personnel at the prices proposed.
As a result, EEI maintains, the evaluators' conclusion that EEI's
prices were unrealistically low is supported by the difference in
proposed prices for only two labor categories--the regulatory
specialist and staff scientist--and the differences were related to
the cost structure and competitive pricing strategies of the two
offerors, rather than the understatement of cost by EEI. With respect
to per diem/travel, EEI asserts that its proposed price included more
than $183,000 in overhead to cover travel and per diem costs and that
a "simple comparison" of EEI's initial proposal pricing and required
cost breakdown with EEI's BAFO pricing and response to the standard
cost format would have revealed this.
We find that the evaluation in this area was reasonable. First, the
agency reasonably questioned EEI's ability to hire professional staff
locally at the wages proposed. Although EEI challenges the agency's
assumption that it had proposed to hire up to 65 percent (8 positions)
of its professional staff locally, we note that in describing its
plans for hiring the required professional staff, EEI's BAFO
specifically stated--in sections entitled "Compensation Plan for
Professional Employees" and "Staffing and Recruiting Plan"--that it
intended to "staff the [Fort] McClellan office with 12 full-time
positions"; its "home office [would] provide personnel to fill 5
positions, i.e. 35 percent of the staff requirements of the project
office"; and the remaining "5 to 8 positions" would be recruited "at
site." In addition, EEI responded to the agency's IFN on professional
staffing salaries and local hiring by stating that "it will establish
a full service office at Anniston, Alabama[;] [e]mployees will be
hired locally," and there was no clear indication in the firm's
proposal that three of the positions it stated would be recruited at
site were non-professional, as the protester now contends. Moreover,
the fact that the discussion in this regard appeared in the section of
the firm's BAFO entitled "Compensation Plan for Professional
Employees" (emphasis added) reasonably could have led the agency to
assume that the five to eight positions to be recruited were all
professional positions.[6] Similarly, EEI's proposal did not clearly
define its intended local area of recruitment as including areas as
far away as Atlanta, Birmingham, and Huntsville. In these
circumstances, we believe that the agency reasonably read the
protester's proposal as indicating that up to 65 percent of EEI's
professional staff--or as many as eight positions--would be recruited
from the immediate local area of Fort McClellan in Anniston,
Alabama.[7] [8]
Further, given its reasonable determination that the professional
staff would not be available locally in the Fort McClellan/Anniston
area at EEI's professional staffing rates, we think the agency could
reasonably view the apparent lack of any significant per diem in EEI's
proposal as evidence of the unrealistic character of its staffing
approach. While the protester argues that $183,000 in the firm's BAFO
overhead amount was available to cover per diem and travel costs for
non-locally recruited staff, that was not explained in or otherwise
apparent from the firm's BAFO; instead, the firm's BAFO specifically
indicated a per diem/travel amount of only $1,000 per contract year,
significantly less than the $336,920 in per diem the agency determined
would be necessary. (The protester has not challenged the agency's
estimate in this regard.) In these circumstances, we find that the
agency reasonably downgraded EEI's BAFO for failure to demonstrate a
clear ability to assure timely acquisition of the necessary
professional staffing, either through its proposed local recruitment
or through travel from other areas.
As noted above, although EEI's proposal was lower priced than Reisz's,
the solicitation provided that cost was less important than
technical/management considerations and it was such considerations
that led the contracting officer to conclude that Reisz's proposal was
a superior, "excellent" proposal (as compared to EEI's merely
"satisfactory" proposal). Given the relative weaknesses in, and risks
associated with, EEI's proposed approaches to the sample task
requirement and professional staffing, we believe that its BAFO
reasonably could be found to be sufficiently less advantageous than
Reisz's proposal (the lowest-rated proposal in the revised competitive
range), such that EEI lacked a reasonable chance for award
notwithstanding its lower proposed price.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The total evaluated scores for the offerors in the revised
competitive range ranged from Reisz's 922 points to 938 points; EEI's
proposal received 901 total points.
2. The hearing commenced with a video teleconference (with references
indicated in videotape (VT) time), and it concluded with a telephone
conference (with references indicated in audiotape (AT) side).
3. For example, Reisz noted that:
". . . [I]n the unlikely event that ground water or free/floating
product is encountered in the tank excavation, pumping may
generate phase-separated material. If this occurs [Reisz] will
recover free product for resale if practicable. Non-hazardous
waste generated during the project will be recycled whenever
practicable. Waste disposal for non-recyclables will be
conducted on a daily basis, and [an] approved disposal location
will be utilized."
4. We also note that, at the hearing, the agency cited Reisz's
approach to plugging holes in the tanks as an additional area where
Reisz's proposal was superior. AT side 2. Although EEI questions the
agency's position on the basis that both proposals discussed plugging
or capping all accessible holes in the tank, our review of the
proposals indicates that Reisz's proposal went beyond the plugging of
accessible holes, providing in addition for the plugging of corrosion
holes. In this regard, the American Petroleum Institute Recommended
Practice No. 1604, "Removal and Disposal of Used Underground Petroleum
Storage Tanks," referred to by the protester, recommends the plugging
of both accessible holes and corrosion holes in underground storage
tanks.
5. We further note that the agency has expressed concern that EEI's
original proposal contained many typographical errors and
misspellings. Although these errors were corrected in EEI's BAFO and
the firm was not downgraded in this regard, the agency maintains that
because it will depend on the quality of the data and written reports
generated by the contractor during the performance of this
environmental support services contract, similar problems in this
regard could result in additional costs for the government if checking
the accuracy of data and correcting reports becomes necessary. The
agency notes that none of the other proposals exhibited a
corresponding inattention to detail. This was a proper basis for
comparing the relative merits of the proposals. See Pannesma Co.
Ltd., B-251688, Apr. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 333 ("sloppy proposal" that
reflected a "casual approach" a proper consideration for evaluation).
6. Indeed, since the RFP provided for 13 categories of professional
staff, the agency would have had no reason to believe that the total
10 to 13 positions the protester discussed in its BAFO as being filled
from either its home office or recruitment were other than
professional positions.
7. The agency was not required to piece together disparate parts of
the firm's proposal and compare them to the RFP in order to discern
what the protester actually intended concerning its professional staff
hiring. See Interaction Research Inst., Inc., B-234141.7, June 30,
1989, 89-2 CPD para. 15. Rather, it was the protester's responsibility to
submit an adequately written proposal. See Herndon Science and
Software, Inc., B-245505, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 46. The protester
did not do so in this area, and as a result, it must bear the
responsibility for any miscommunication of its intentions that may
have occurred.
8. While EEI also maintains that, as claimed in its proposal, there
were sufficient back-up staff resources available from its home office
and its subcontractors to assure uninterrupted quality work, the
agency reasonably viewed these resources as not negating its concern
with the protester's intended primary method of obtaining staff, i.e.,
local recruitment. In our view, the agency reasonably could view the
potential for delay resulting from the expected failure of EEI's
proposed primary recruitment effort as representing a risk to timely,
successful contract performance.