BNUMBER: B-273027
DATE: November 15, 1996
TITLE: Engineered Systems, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Engineered Systems, Inc.
File: B-273027
Date:November 15, 1996
David B. Gilfillan for the protester.
Kenneth A. Lechter, Esq., and Jerry A. Walz, Esq., Department of
Commerce, for the agency.
Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Contention that agency unreasonably evaluated protester's technical
proposal, and improperly concluded that the awardee's significantly
higher-rated, slightly higher-priced proposal offered the best value
to the government, is denied where the record shows that the agency
evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation
criteria.
DECISION
Engineered Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
Independent Technology, Inc. (INTEC) pursuant to request for proposals
(RFP) No. 52-DGNW-6-00010, issued by the Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for
maintenance and logistics support of the NOAA Weather Radio
Transmitter Network. Engineered Systems argues that the agency
improperly evaluated its proposal under every evaluation criterion and
unreasonably selected INTEC's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
NOAA issued the RFP on October 10, 1995, seeking offers to maintain
and support the Weather Radio Transmitter Network, which provides
critical weather warnings to the nation. The RFP generally
anticipated award of a fixed-price requirements contract, although
some elements of the contract were to be priced on a
time-and-materials basis. The RFP advised that proposals would be
evaluated using four evaluation factors--personnel, technical
approach, past performance, and corporate experience--and that the
personnel and technical approach evaluation factors would be
significantly more important than the past performance and corporate
experience factors. One of these factors, technical approach,
included four subfactors: field maintenance support, integrated
logistics support, test procedures plan, and property control plan.
The RFP further advised that the agency would select the proposal
offering the greatest value to the government, considering both
technical expertise and price.
Four offerors responded to the RFP. After each of the proposals was
evaluated by a five-member technical evaluation committee, two were
found technically unacceptable, leaving only the proposals submitted
by Engineered Systems and INTEC in the competitive range. After
holding discussions with both offerors, and requesting best and final
offers (BAFO), the evaluation committee again reviewed the proposals.
The record shows that each evaluator assigned a color rating--blue
(excellent), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal), and red
(unacceptable)--for each factor and subfactor in the evaluation
scheme. At the conclusion of the evaluation, Engineered Systems's
proposal was rated green (acceptable) under every factor and subfactor
with the exception of the corporate experience factor and the
integrated logistics support subfactor, which were rated yellow
(marginal). Thus, Engineered Systems's proposal received an overall
rating of green. INTEC's proposal was rated blue (excellent) under
every evaluation factor and subfactor, and received an overall rating
of blue.[1]
Given the evaluation committee's conclusion that the INTEC proposal
significantly surpassed the Engineered Systems's proposal under every
evaluation factor and subfactor, and given their relative prices of
$7.4 million (Engineered Systems) and $7.8 million (INTEC), the source
selection official concluded that the proposal of INTEC was worth its
slightly higher price. On July 30, the agency awarded the contract to
INTEC and this protest followed.
DISCUSSION
Engineered Systems argues, in essence, that under every evaluation
criterion both offers should have been rated acceptable. Thus, the
protester argues that the agency should have concluded that the
proposals were technically equal and should have declined to pay a
premium for INTEC's services.
In considering protests against an agency's evaluation of proposals,
we will examine the record to determine whether the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Atmospheric
Research Sys., Inc., B-240187, Oct. 26, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 338. Here,
we have considered both Engineered Systems's and INTEC's proposals,
the evaluation materials, the agency's responses to each of the
protester's arguments, and information discussed in a conference call
among the protester, our Office, and representatives of the agency,
including the contracting officer and the chairman of the technical
evaluation committee. As a result of our review, we find no basis for
concluding that the evaluation was unreasonable or not in accordance
with the stated evaluation criteria. To illustrate our conclusion, we
will discuss in detail the evaluation results under the two most
important evaluation factors--personnel and technical approach.
Personnel
Under the personnel evaluation factor, Engineered Systems's proposal
received a green (acceptable) rating, while INTEC's proposal was rated
blue (excellent). In general, Engineered Systems challenges any
conclusion that INTEC's personnel should receive a higher rating than
Engineered Systems's personnel. Specifically, Engineered Systems
argues that the agency: wrongly concluded that its personnel might
not be trained in time to perform the contract; overlooked the
experience of its field technicians, especially those with Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) licenses or other commercial
certifications; and unreasonably gave INTEC's proposal an excellent
rating in the personnel area when, according to Engineered Systems,
INTEC's personnel had no experience with some of the newest
transmitters covered by this contract.[2]
In its initial protest filing, Engineered Systems complains that NOAA
representatives stated during the debriefing that its personnel could
not be trained within the 6-week phase-in period. The agency explains
that while it expressed a concern about training risk, this concern
was secondary to the broader concern that the protester's proposed
field technicians did not show high levels of experience with the kind
of equipment covered by this contract. With respect to the training
issue, the agency explains that the protester's personnel had the
technical background to allow them to master the specifics of
repairing the weather radio transmitters, but lacked direct experience
with the transmitters. Thus, the evaluators expressed a concern that
there was a risk training might not be completed in time for
performance to begin.
With respect to whether the agency overlooked the background of the
protester's personnel, the agency explained that the proposed field
technicians had radio transmitter background but there was no showing
that they had experience with high power transmitters in the
1,000-watt range. According to the agency, there was a significant
difference in experience between the protester's field technicians and
those proposed by INTEC.
Our review of the agency evaluation materials does not support a
conclusion that the agency overlooked the background of Engineered
Systems's personnel or unreasonably expressed concern about completion
of training. The materials show that NOAA's evaluators recognized the
technical background of the protester's personnel as acceptable for
performing these services, but also recognized that the unique
equipment at issue here would require training in the specifics of
maintaining and repairing this equipment. Thus, the concern about
training expressed during the debriefing, and repeated in the
protester's initial filing, simply reflected the evaluators' principal
concern that the protester's personnel for the most part would be new
to this particular equipment. Given that the majority of the
transmitters here use older technology, and involve higher powered
transmitters than those with which many of the protester's personnel
have experience, there was nothing unreasonable about the evaluators'
training concern, especially since the evaluators nonetheless
concluded that the protester's personnel were acceptable.
In contrast, our review shows that the awardee's personnel
demonstrated significant prior experience with the equipment at issue
here. Not only is the awardee the incumbent on this contract, but
several of the awardee's proposed field technicians have experience
with the SRS transmitters under earlier contracts. In fact, our
review of the awardee's proposal shows that its field technicians have
approximately 85 years of combined experience working on the SRS
transmitters. We see nothing unreasonable in the agency's awarding of
high scores under the personnel evaluation factor for such significant
levels of experience.
Finally, the protester argues that the agency could not reasonably
discriminate between the two offerors with respect to their ability to
service the Energy-Onix transmitters since the transmitters are so new
that neither offeror has significant experience with them. While we
agree with the protester that neither offeror has significant
experience with the transmitters, the record supports the agency's
conclusion that the awardee has more experience in this area than the
protester. In addition, we note that the Energy-Onix transmitters
make up a very small percentage of the total number of transmitters
required to be maintained here. For this reason, even if the two
offerors were equal in their ability to service the Energy-Onix
equipment, it would not render unreasonable the agency's otherwise
well-documented and reasonable assessment of the comparative strengths
of these two offerors in the area of personnel.
Technical Approach
In the technical approach area, the initial protest filing complained
that the agency unreasonably criticized Engineered Systems for failing
to provide specifics in its technical proposal. As with the other
evaluation factors, the protester argues that but for the agency's
unreasonable evaluation, both offerors' proposals would have been
rated acceptable, and Engineered Systems's lower-priced proposal would
have been selected for award. During the course of the protest,
Engineered Systems urged our Office to verify its concerns in this
area by comparing its test procedures plan with that of the awardee.
We did so, and our review supports the agency's assessment in this
area.
The RFP here, at paragraph L.6.3(f)2.(b)3., required offerors to
include a test procedures plan with the following instruction:
"the plan shall include procedures for post-repair testing of the
spare assemblies listed in Attachment 1C and the transmitter
systems listed in Attachment 1D. The plan submitted by the
Offeror will form a part of any resultant contract."
The contracting officer explained that the protester's plan did not
provide specific procedures. Instead, Engineered Systems's plan "was
a generic outline of the process to develop a plan instead of
specifically addressing the unique and specific needs of testing the
[NOAA weather radio] transmitter parts and repaired assemblies. . . ."
Contracting Officer's Statement, Sept. 9, 1996, at 8.
As stated above, our review supports the agency's assessment in this
area. The awardee's test procedures plan listed each of the parts
covered in attachments 1C and 1D in the solicitation, and specified
how it would troubleshoot those parts. In contrast, the protester's
proposal is best described as a plan to develop procedures, and not
the procedures themselves. For example, the plan begins as follows:
"Detailed test procedures will be developed that identify the
step-by-step testing operations to be performed on transmitter systems
and each separate subassembly." Proposal, Appendix AP-3 at 2. In
addition, our review shows that after identifying this weakness in the
protester's proposal, the agency clearly voiced its concerns in this
area during discussions. Specifically, in its written discussion
questions the agency asked the protester to "[p]rovide specific [t]est
and [p]roperty [c]ontrol plans as required by . . . the RFP." Letter
from the Contracting Officer to Engineered Systems, May 15, 1996, at
4. The protester's response, in essence, was to resubmit its earlier
plan.
In summary, the record here shows that the agency reasonably concluded
that the protester's test procedures plan was significantly less
detailed and responsive than the plan submitted by INTEC. In
addition, none of the other issues raised by the protester in this
area supports its conclusion that its proposal was unreasonably
evaluated under the technical approach evaluation factor. Since the
RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was
determined most advantageous to the government, and since the
protester has failed to show that its proposal was unreasonably
evaluated, we have no basis to question the agency's conclusion that
INTEC's proposal--with its substantially higher technical rating and
slightly higher price--offered the best value to the government. See
Irwin & Leighton, Inc., B-241734, Feb. 25, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 208.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The summary of the agency evaluation materials set forth above
averages the rating assessments assigned by the five evaluators for
each factor and subfactor. The agency, on the other hand, made its
decision using a matrix showing each evaluator's assessment under
every category and prepared only one overall color rating for the
entire proposal. Under our summary, if three evaluators assigned a
green rating, and two evaluators assigned a blue rating, we report the
rating as green.
2. This contract covers two types of transmitters: transmitters built
by Scientific Radio Systems, Inc. (SRS), which use vacuum tube
technology and were installed in the 1970s; and transmitters built by
Energy-Onix, which use solid-state technology and were installed in
early 1996. The contract requires field maintenance of 121 SRS
transmitters and 6 Energy-Onix transmitters, and logistics support for
an additional 194 SRS transmitters and 9 Energy-Onix transmitters.