BNUMBER: B-274945, B-274945.2; B-274945.3
DATE: January 15, 1997
TITLE: Roy F. Weston, 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:Roy F. Weston, Inc.
File: B-274945, B-274945.2; B-274945.3
Date:January 15, 1997
Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., and David F. Dowd, Esq., Miller & Chevalier,
for the protester.
Paul Shnitzer, Esq., and Mark D. Taylor, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, an intervenor.
Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., and Paul A. Gervas, Esq., Department of Energy,
for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is
denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's conclusion does not render the
evaluation unreasonable.
2. Protest that agency did not conduct meaningful discussions because
it failed to advise the protester of two weaknesses in its proposal
and failed to inform the protester that the agency did not obtain
additional information on the protester's prior contracts is denied
where the allegation concerning one weakness is factually incorrect,
the protester fails to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by the
agency's alleged failure to obtain additional information, and the
protester was not adversely affected by one poorly worded discussion
question regarding a minor weakness.
3. Agency reasonably used a cost realism analysis approach based on
revised labor estimates reflecting an average of proposed composite
labor rates.
4. Under a solicitation in which technical factors were more
important than price, a cost/technical tradeoff which resulted in
selection of the awardee on the basis of its overall technical
superiority, notwithstanding its higher price, is unobjectionable and
consistent with the evaluation scheme where the agency reasonably
determined that the awardee's higher-priced proposal, which offered
superior key personnel, program management, and technical approach,
was worth the associated additional cost.
DECISION
Roy F. Weston, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Booz-Allen &
Hamilton under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP01-95RW00312,
issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for management and technical
services to support DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management (OCRWM).[1] Weston has raised a number of objections to the
award.[2] Most significantly, the protester challenges the agency's
evaluation of technical and cost proposals, the conduct of
discussions, and the source selection decision.[3]
The protests are denied.
The RFP, issued August 3, 1995, provides for the award of a
cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort, task assignment type contract
for a 2-year base period with three 1-year options. The successful
offeror is to provide management and technical support services for
OCRWM staff at DOE Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at the Yucca
Mountain Site Characterization Office in Las Vegas, Nevada.[4] The
statement of work (SOW) informed offerors that the required total
level of effort was 219,480 direct productive labor hours (DPLH) per
year for a total of 1,097,400 hours in 41 labor categories. Half of
the DPLH were to be provided at DOE Headquarters and half at the Las
Vegas office.
The RFP called for the submissions of separate technical and
cost/price proposals. The technical proposal was of significantly
greater importance than the cost proposal. The RFP provided that
award would be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the
solicitation, was determined to be most advantageous to the
government. The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and
subfactors:
1. Past Performance
2. Personnel
a. Key Personnel
b. Support Staff
3. Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work
4. Program Management and Responsiveness[5]
Offerors were also informed that proposals would be evaluated to
determine the probable cost to the government. The solicitation
advised that the government would determine if the compensation plans
and professional salary rates and benefits that offers were to submit
reflected a sound management approach and understanding of the
contract requirements.
Three proposals were received, including those of Weston and
Booz-Allen, by the September 15 closing date. The proposals were
reviewed individually by each of the four members of the technical
evaluation committee (TEC). Each TEC member prepared individual lists
of significant and minor strengths and significant and minor
weaknesses for each proposal.[6] The evaluators then met, discussed
their findings and created a consensus list of significant and minor
strengths and significant and minor weaknesses for each proposal.
Based on the consensus list,[7] the evaluators rated each factor and
subfactor using adjectival ratings and corresponding point values on a
scale of 0 to 10 (10 for outstanding; 8 for good; 5 for adequate; 2
for poor; and 0 for unacceptable).[8] The numerical rating was
multiplied by the weight for the factor and the scores for each factor
were totaled. A proposal that received all outstanding ratings would
receive a maximum point score of 1,000.
The cost evaluator performed a preliminary cost review and the initial
TEC report and preliminary cost analysis were used to determine the
competitive range. Only the proposals submitted by Weston and
Booz-Allen were included in the competitive range.
DOE held written discussions with Weston and Booz-Allen and on July 12
requested best and final offers (BAFO). The TEC reviewed the BAFOs
and the contract specialist performed a cost evaluation, which
included the results of audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) of offerors and their proposed subcontractors. The TEC awarded
the following scores for the proposals:
Maximum Weston Booz-Allen
Past Performance 350 280 280
Personnel
a. key personnel 200 100 160
b. support staff 150 150 150
Technical approach
Understanding
150
120
150
Program Mgmt.
Responsiveness
150
120
150
Total 1,000 770 890
Weston proposed a total cost plus fixed fee of [deleted] while
Booz-Allen proposed a total cost plus fixed fee of $65,605,862. As a
result of the agency cost realism evaluation, the agency estimated
Weston's cost plus fixed fee to be [deleted] and Booz-Allen's to be
$68,784,147. Based on the evaluation and cost analysis, the source
selection official awarded the contract to Booz-Allen on September 20.
Weston challenges the evaluation of its proposal under each of the
evaluation factors, the cost analysis and the cost technical tradeoff
resulting in the selection of Booz-Allen.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
Past Performance
The RFP instructed each offeror to submit for itself and for each of
its proposed major subcontractors[9] a list of its five most recent
contracts and/or subcontracts completed within the last 3 years that
were similar in size, scope and complexity to that required by the
statement of work (SOW) and all contracts and subcontracts that were
currently in process that are similar in size, scope and complexity to
that required by the SOW. The offeror was also to provide information
on any problems encountered on the contracts and subcontracts
identified and corrective actions taken and to describe any quality
awards or certifications that indicate high-quality products or
services. The RFP informed offerors that the agency might send past
performance questionnaires to some or all of the references identified
by the offeror.
The RFP stated at section M that offerors would be evaluated on their
performance on prior or in-process contracts and subcontracts for
similar services in the following areas: (1) quality of product or
service; (2) timeliness of performance;
(3) cost control; and (4) customer satisfaction. The evaluation would
focus on demonstrated quality of performance relative to the size,
scope and complexity of the procurement under consideration, the
number and severity of problems and the effectiveness of the offeror's
corrective actions.
For the purposes of evaluation, definitions of size, scope and
complexity were given to the TEC. Size was defined as performance
analogous to the dollar amount of costs incurred. In practice, the
agency states that although there was not a "bright line cutoff"
concerning size, a contract cost of approximately $9 to $10 million
per year was considered equivalent. Scope meant the type of work
similar to the work described in the SOW. The TEC evaluated
similarity of scope by comparing the identified contract or
subcontract with the seven work areas identified in the SOW: (1)
management and planning; (2) policy development and coordination; (3)
product development; (4) analysis and review; (5) human resource
management; (6) financial management; and, (7) general management
support. Complexity meant the extent and degree that contracts or
subcontracts demonstrated a similar myriad of tasks involving similar
degrees of difficulty in the performance of the work.
Each contract or subcontract listed by an offeror was evaluated in six
areas: (1) quality of product/service, including timeliness, cost
control, and customer satisfaction; (2) problems encountered and
corrective actions taken; (3) awards; (4) size; (5) scope; and (6)
complexity.
In its proposal, Booz-Allen listed six past contracts[10] and five
in-process contracts; Weston listed 10 past contracts[11] and eight
in-process contracts. The TEC noted that Weston is the current
contractor to OCRWM Headquarters and thus has experience in almost all
areas of the SOW. The TEC noted that Booz-Allen had an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) contract in which it provided support to EPA
Headquarters and 10 regional offices--a work requirement similar to
the requirement under this solicitation. Also, Booz-Allen had
received two "Hammer" awards and numerous other awards. The TEC found
that both offerors met all and exceeded some of the past performance
evaluation criteria. Both were rated "good," with weighted point
scores of 280 under this factor.
Weston argues that DOE misevaluated past performance and applied
unstated evaluation criteria. Specifically, Weston argues that the
RFP required that DOE first determine whether an identified contract
was similar in size, scope and complexity and then, assuming the
identified contract was similar in all three respects, to evaluate the
offeror's performance on that contract. Because DOE considered each
identified contract performed within the requisite time frame with
respect to each of the six areas set forth above individually,
including size, scope and complexity, the protester argues that DOE
evaluated experience in addition to past performance, which was not
contemplated by the solicitation.
Weston also argues that the factors of quality of product or service,
timeliness of performance, cost control and customer satisfaction were
improperly grouped into one factor for the purposes of evaluation and
thus not accorded their proper weight.
Finally, Weston argues that DOE failed to consider whether the
contract evaluated encompassed hazardous material and/or radioactive
waste. The protester argues that the term "similar services" used in
section M of the solicitation can only mean contracts dealing with
hazardous materials and/or radioactive waste. The protester complains
that by ignoring this relevancy requirement and by merely counting the
number of strengths and weaknesses assigned to size, scope, and
complexity, DOE failed to consider the interrelationship between these
factors and "similar services," as required by the RFP and thus
improperly credited Booz-Allen on this factor, citing, as an example,
a Booz-Allen contract for the construction of railroads.
Weston's insistence that the term "size, scope and complexity" used in
the RFP required that an offeror's past performance on a contract not
be evaluated unless the contract was equivalent based on all three
factors is not supported by the RFP language. The RFP does not state,
as the protester suggests, that a contract would not be considered if
it were not equivalent to the anticipated contract under all three
factors. Rather, the language in section M states that the quality of
performance on prior contracts would be measured relative to the size,
scope, and complexity of the prior procurements. The more general
requirement that offerors furnish a list of contracts similar in size,
scope and complexity must be read in conjunction with the provision
setting forth how the agency would evaluate past performance. When
the two provisions are read together,[12] the only reasonable reading
of them is that the past performance evaluation would take into
account the size, the scope, and the complexity of each prior
contract. Indeed, if the RFP meant what Weston alleges, there would
be no need for the provision stating that the agency would evaluate
past performance relative to size, scope and complexity. Accordingly,
the protester's allegation that the agency, by using this evaluation
methodology, has improperly evaluated experience with past performance
is without merit.
We disagree with the protester that the agency improperly weighted
quality of product/service, timeliness, cost control and customer
satisfaction. As noted above, the RFP listed these four areas as
considerations in its evaluation of past performance. Contrary to
Weston's assertions, there is nothing in the RFP to support its claim
that these considerations are subfactors or to indicate the importance
assigned to these considerations by the agency. An agency has wide
discretion in how it will structure its evaluation and our Office will
not question an agency's evaluation so long as it is reasonable and
follows the stated evaluation criteria. Pathology Assocs., Inc., 69
Comp. Gen. 269 (1990), 90-1 CPD para. 292. Here, the TEC considered
product/service quality, timeliness, cost control and customer
satisfaction, noting significant/minor strengths and weaknesses for
each, and then consolidated the ratings into a collective rating.
This approach is not contrary to anything in the RFP. Therefore,
notwithstanding Weston's disagreement, we find no reason to object to
the agency's methodology in this regard.
As to Weston's allegation that DOE failed to evaluate past and current
contracts for their relevance to hazardous material and radioactive
waste, the agency takes the position that the solicitation did not
require that offerors provide evidence of contracts in hazardous
materials and radioactive waste. We agree. When the instructions in
section L of the solicitation and the evaluation criteria in section M
are considered together, it is plain that the agency intended to
consider all experiences related to the work requirements of the SOW.
The SOW listed the seven work areas noted above. Thus, offerors could
submit, as did Booz-Allen, and the agency could properly credit,
contracts concerning "similar" work, for example, in management and
planning, human resources management, and financial management. Since
the RFP allowed for consideration of "similar" work and the agency
defined "similar" work as the seven work areas outlined in the SOW,
Booz-Allen's experience is relevant, and the agency's evaluation is
unobjectionable. Weston's contentions to the contrary merely reflect
disagreement with the agency's evaluation, which does not render the
evaluation unreasonable.[13] Cardinal Scientific, Inc., B-270309,
Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 70.
Finally, we do not agree with Weston's contention that the agency
merely counted the number of strengths and weaknesses assigned to
size, scope and complexity and failed to consider the
interrelationship between these factors and "similar services."
Indeed, there is no comprehensive computation of Weston's or
Booz-Allen's past performance strengths and weaknesses in the
evaluation documents. Contrary to the protester's assertion, the
evaluation was not merely a mechanical assessment of each offerors'
strengths and weaknesses on the various factors, but an assessment of
quality relative to the seven work areas listed in the SOW and to
size, scope and complexity. Moreover, the protester complains about
DOE's alleged failure to evaluate the interrelationship between size,
scope and complexity in terms of relevancy to experience with
hazardous material and/or radioactive waste. As discussed above,
experience with hazardous material and radioactive waste was not
specifically evaluated under this factor.
Personnel
Weston next argues that DOE improperly evaluated the skills and
experience of seven of its proposed key personnel and that DOE did not
evaluate its and Booz-Allen's proposed key personnel in a fair and
even-handed manner. We have reviewed the evaluation record and the
proposals, including the resumes submitted with each proposal, and we
conclude that the evaluation under the personnel factor, with the
exceptions noted below, was reasonable and consistent with the RFP.
The solicitation required that each offeror submit resumes for four
senior management positions and 15 task leaders (one task leader for
each of 15 job areas). The offeror was to identify the labor category
for each task leader. Specific education and experience requirements
were set forth in the solicitation for each labor category.
Additionally, "preferences" as to education and experience were listed
for some labor categories.
The agency used the same rating plan and definitions in evaluating
personnel as it used in evaluating past performance; that is, proposed
personnel were evaluated as demonstrating significant/minor strengths
or weaknesses in relation to the evaluation criteria. To determine a
final rating for a candidate, the agency used a complex evaluation
plan, pegged to the identified strengths, weaknesses, requirements and
preferences. The plan included five categories: outstanding, good,
adequate, poor and unacceptable.[14] The TEC rated Weston's proposal
"adequate" for key personnel, with a weighted point score of 100.
Booz-Allen's proposal received a "good" rating, with a weighted point
score of 160.
Weston alleges that for three of its proposed key personnel DOE, among
other things, improperly treated preferences in educational background
and experience as if they were requirements and therefore assigned
Weston's proposed personnel weaknesses for meeting but not exceeding
the requirements specified in the RFP.
As noted above, for several labor categories, the RFP listed
preferences in educational background or experience. For example, the
RFP states, for assistant manager, waste acceptance, storage and
transportation, that DOE "requires a Bachelors degree from an
accredited college or university, preferably in a technical field."
Although DOE would accept a candidate with a Bachelor's degree in any
field, the RFP makes clear that the agency would rather have someone
with a Bachelor's degree in a technical field. Similarly, for human
resource management specialist, the RFP specifies that DOE requires a
Bachelor's degree, preferably in a business-related field; for
strategic planning/policy analyst, the RFP states that DOE requires a
Bachelor's degree but that a scientific or engineering degree is
preferred. Obviously, while a candidate meeting the minimum
requirement would be acceptable, the agency would reasonably consider
such a candidate relatively weak when compared to a candidate with the
preferred credentials. Regardless, however, of whether Weston's
proposed personnel should have been formally assigned weaknesses, the
overall evaluation for its key personnel would not change. Under the
agency's evaluation approach, if Weston's three minor weaknesses in
the area were replaced with the higher, neutral ratings, Weston's
overall adequate rating would not increase.
Weston also challenges other aspects of the evaluation of its
personnel. Based on our review of the record, including the resumes
submitted, we find that, with two exceptions,[15] the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. For
example, Weston challenges the evaluation of its proposed assistant
manager for waste acceptance, storage, and transportation. DOE found
that Weston's proposed assistant manager did not demonstrate that he
met the
3-year management experience requirement for a project of similar
magnitude and complexity. Weston argues that its candidate is serving
in this position under its current contract and his position is
"nearly identical" to the position proposed. DOE apparently believes
that, because the work under the solicitation includes the Las Vegas
site, the assistant manager's current position is not of the same
magnitude or complexity as the position under the solicitation.
Since, presumably, inclusion of the Las Vegas site will result in
responsibility for managing additional personnel, a significantly
increased work load, and the need for increased coordination, DOE's
position appears to be reasonable.
Weston also alleges that DOE evaluated Booz-Allen's proposed personnel
more favorably than it evaluated Weston's proposed personnel. To
support its position, Weston compares the evaluations of each of the
offerors on three positions. For example, Weston challenges the
evaluation of its and Booz-Allen's proposed task leader for
administration. Weston alleges that, while its proposed candidate was
required to have extensive experience with budgeting, Booz-Allen's
proposed candidate has no budgeting experience.
The agency explains that Booz-Allen's task leader for administration
was proposed in the labor category of information management
specialist. The RFP for this labor category did not require budgeting
experience. Rather, the requirements for this labor category focused
on information resource management experience and skills. The
protester alleges that these "fine distinctions" between task leader
and position descriptions for labor categories do not justify the
different evaluations.
Weston's argument that DOE improperly relies on distinctions between
labor categories is without merit. Proposed personnel were evaluated
on their qualifications within their specific labor category, not on
task leadership per se.[16] This is consistent with the RFP
evaluation scheme. Accordingly, the fact that the two task leaders,
proposed in different labor categories, were not evaluated against the
same specific requirements provides no basis to object to the agency's
evaluation.
Technical Approach and Program Management
Under this factor, offerors were to provide a description of their
technical approach that would demonstrate their understanding of the
SOW and to respond to two representative problems.[17]
While Weston's and Booz-Allen's evaluations on their technical
approaches were equal, Booz-Allen's responses to the two
representative problems received higher scores. Booz-Allen's proposal
was rated "outstanding," under this factor, with a weighted score of
150; Weston's proposal was rated "good" under this factor, with a
weighted score of 120.
Weston argues that DOE evaluated the offerors unequally with regard to
these representative problems. Specifically, the protester alleges
that, although both offerors' proposals were similar in language and
approach, only its proposal was downgraded. For example, Weston notes
that, for the first problem, each offeror recommended the
establishment of [deleted] and that in their proposed methodology,
each addressed [deleted]. Weston also complains that, although both
offerors stated that [deleted], only it was downgraded for [deleted].
For the second problem, Weston complains that while it was downgraded
for [deleted], Booz-Allen was highly rated even though it did not
[deleted].
The agency found that while Weston's response to the first problem was
clear and orderly and provided a listing of critical factors, Weston
did not integrate the factors into a comprehensive, cohesive plan.
DOE felt that Weston provided only an unintegrated list or "bill of
materials" for a plan and that, in contrast, Booz-Allen merged the
technical, regulatory and political considerations. The record does
not support DOE's position. Weston's response specifically stated
that development of a plan should be [deleted]. Booz-Allen similarly
recommended the establishment of a [deleted]. Weston also listed
[deleted] specific steps necessary to implement a plan and provided an
exhibit listing [deleted] alternatives and various possible impacts of
an [deleted]. While Booz-Allen provided an exhibit outlining the
contingency plan development process, it did not list specific steps.
Finally, contrary to DOE's findings, Weston identified the relevant
parties with as much specificity as did Booz-Allen. Notwithstanding
this evaluation discrepancy, we cannot conclude that it had an impact
on the selection decision. Under the RFP evaluation scheme, Weston
would be entitled to an additional 15 points in this area. Given the
large scoring differential overall, we do not believe the additional
points would alter the technical rankings of the offeror or affect the
selection decision.
As to Weston's concerns relating to the second problem, the record
shows that, contrary to Weston's assertion, Booz-Allen did provide a
[deleted] for meeting the January 1998 implementation date established
in the problem. As to Weston's failure to demonstrate a [deleted] we
note that its [deleted] exhibit merely divided the time frame
available [deleted]. Weston provided little explanation for the
[deleted]. Moreover, Weston's narrative did not [deleted]. In
contrast, Booz-Allen demonstrated its awareness and concern about the
short time frame by repeatedly [deleted]. While Weston disagrees with
the agency's assessment of this aspect of its proposal, we find no
basis to question it.
Program Management and Responsiveness
Under this factor, each offeror was to address organization, corporate
responsiveness and management, and control systems. Offerors were to
provide, among other things, an organizational chart, describe the
lines of authority and explain how the organization would address the
requirements of the SOW, show their ability to provide quick
response--within 4 hours--to OCRWM requests for meetings and
briefings, and describe their overall project management system.
Weston's proposal was evaluated as "good" on this factor; Booz-Allen's
was evaluated as "outstanding."
Again, Weston complains that DOE evaluated offerors unequally on this
factor, noting that while Booz-Allen proposed a response time of
between [deleted] with a draft to OCRWM within [deleted], Weston has
demonstrated on the current DOE contract a response time of [deleted].
Weston also argues that, since it did not receive any weaknesses on
this factor, it should have been rated "outstanding."
DOE reasonably rated Booz-Allen's proposal higher because Booz-Allen,
while proposing a [deleted] response time, extensively described its
plans for corporate responsiveness, [deleted]. Weston, in contrast,
provided little detail concerning the tasks to be accomplished to meet
the deadline.
In response to Weston's argument that it should have received an
"outstanding" rating on this factor, DOE correctly points out that
Weston ignores its standard for an "outstanding" rating. As noted
above, to receive an outstanding rating on a factor, the offeror's
proposal must meet all and clearly exceed most performance
requirements. Thus, while Weston received no weaknesses on its
evaluation, this does not translate into an "outstanding" rating and,
other than the protester's [deleted] response time, the protester has
not provided any specific areas where it believes its evaluation
should be elevated.
MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS
Weston also argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful
discussions because DOE never disclosed that "government experience
did not qualify as experience under the RFP" and that it had not
obtained additional information regarding prior and in-progress
contracts, as required by the RFP.[18]
We find nothing in the agency report to support Weston's assertion
that government experience was discounted. Indeed, in our review of
the evaluation of Weston's key personnel, we found only one reference
to government experience where the candidate was not given credit for
the experience. However, the record shows that it was not the
government experience that the agency downgraded, but the failure of
that particular experience to match DOE's requirement.
As to DOE's alleged obligation to obtain information about prior
contracts, the protester does not provide any specifics as to what
information it believes the agency failed to obtain. While Weston
asserts generally that its past performance rating would have improved
had DOE obtained "information regarding Weston's performance," the
protester provides no examples or any other information to
substantiate this claim. Under these circumstances, we see no basis
to support Weston's contentions that the agency was obligated to raise
this issue in discussions.
COST REALISM ANALYSIS
Weston contends that DOE failed to conduct a reasonable cost realism
analysis of Booz-Allen's proposal. According to Weston, although DOE
recognized that Booz-Allen's proposed labor rates were "extremely
low," DOE averaged the proposed rates of both offerors and their
subcontractors to adjust the rates to the market price for each
position. Weston contends that this methodology permits Booz-Allen to
continue to take advantage of its unrealistically low rates in the
cost analysis because Booz-Allen's own low rates lower the average.
Where, as here, a cost reimbursement contract is to be awarded, the
offerors' estimated costs of contract performance should not be
considered as controlling since the estimates may not provide valid
indications of the final actual costs which the government is required
to pay. See FAR sec. 15.605(c). Consequently, the contracting agency
must perform a cost realism analysis to determine the realism of an
offeror's proposed costs and to determine what the costs are likely to
be under the offeror's technical approach, assuming reasonable economy
and efficiency. CACI, Inc.-Fed., 64 Comp. Gen. 71 (1984), 84-2 CPD para.
542.
An agency is not required, however, to conduct an in-depth analysis or
to verify each item in conducting a cost realism analysis. Hattal &
Assocs., 70 Comp. Gen. 632 (1991), 91-2 CPD para. 90. A cost realism
assessment necessarily involves the exercise of informed judgment and
the agency is clearly in the best position to make that assessment;
therefore, our Office will review such a determination only to
ascertain whether it had a reasonable basis. Id.
Here, the record shows that the agency, after considering the proposed
base year composite rates of the offerors and their
subcontractors,[19] revised its estimates based on an average of these
rates, and then adjusted the offerors' proposed rates where
appropriate based upon the revised estimates. Booz-Allen's proposed
costs were upwardly adjusted by $3,178,285, Weston's by [deleted].
The protester has not shown that the agency's revised estimates are
unsound; accordingly, we have no reason to question the agency's
approach, which actually adversely impacted
Booz-Allen's evaluated costs significantly more than it did Weston's.
SOURCE SELECTION DECISION
Weston also argues that DOE did not perform a proper cost/technical
tradeoff. The protester argues that DOE relied almost exclusively on
the technical ratings given to the offerors and failed to
qualitatively distinguish between Booz-Allen's and Weston's proposals.
Source selections officials in negotiated procurements have broad
discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will
make use of technical and cost evaluation results. Grey Advertising,
Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD para. 325; Mevatec Corp.,
B-260419, May 26, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 33. Agencies may make
cost/technical tradeoffs in deciding between competing proposals and
the propriety of such tradeoffs turns not on the difference in
technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection
official's judgment concerning the significance of that difference was
reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP evaluation
scheme. See Wyle Labs., Inc.; Latecoere Int'l, Inc., 69 Comp. Gen.
648 (1990), 90-2 CPD para. 107.
Contrary to the protester's allegation, the record shows that the
source selection official reviewed the full technical evaluation
record (including strengths, weaknesses, and concerns cited for the
proposals), as well as the resulting point scores, adjectival ratings,
and cost evaluation results. The award determination statement
concluding that Booz-Allen offered the most advantageous proposal to
the government points out, for example, that Booz-Allen offered many
key personnel who meet or exceed the requirements and demonstrated
superior experience in the management and execution of activities
similar in size, scope, and complexity to the activities required by
the SOW. The award determination also notes Booz-Allen's outstanding
technical approach, its in-depth understanding of the work, its
organizational structure, and its outstanding management and control
systems. The determination states that the superiority of Booz-Allen
in these critical factors "represents meritorious differences of
significance to OCRWM."
The award determination goes on to describe the differences in
Weston's proposal, citing, for example, the determination that a
number of Weston's key personnel did not demonstrate extensive
managerial experience and Weston's weaknesses in its technical
approach, understanding of the SOW and program management. Finally,
the award determination specifically states that while Weston offered
the lower cost, the cost savings were not significant given the
technical advantages of Booz-Allen's proposal.
We see nothing improper in the selection decision. It reflects an
appropriate comparison of the competing proposals and includes a
reasoned determination for selection of the higher-cost offer. Under
these circumstances, and given that technical factors were more
important than price, we have no basis to object to the award
selection.
The protests are denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. OCRWM is charged with the disposal of high-level radioactive waste
and is responsible for the development of repositories for the
permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear
fuel, including development of interim storage and transportation
capabilities in a manner that fully protects public health and safety
and the quality of the environment.
2. In its several submissions to this Office, Weston raised a wide
range of arguments and examples to support its allegations that the
evaluation and award decision were unreasonable and unfair; DOE
responded to each argument, justifying its actions during each phase
of the procurement; the awardee responded as well. We have reviewed
the entire record, including all evaluation and award decision
documents, and find no basis for sustaining the protest. However, we
will discuss only the more significant arguments in this decision.
3. As a preliminary matter, Weston also alleges that DOE's evaluation
was not solely based on the RFP and the content of the proposals
submitted, but was impermissibly influenced by the hostile atmosphere
toward Weston at OCRWM. To support its allegation of a hostile
atmosphere, Weston alleges that the agency's Inspector General (IG) is
conducting an investigation into alleged derogatory or pejorative
statements made by high level OCRWM officials within the last 2 years.
Weston submitted an affidavit to our Office in which one of its
employees states that she was informed of the investigation by a DOE
employee.
The procuring agency, which indicates that it is not aware of any
pending IG investigation, points out that the protester's allegations
are vague, indefinite and unsupported and has submitted a rebuttal
affidavit in which the DOE employee alleged to have informed the
Weston employee about the investigation states that he merely told the
Weston employee that he "had heard hallway talk" about an
investigation and that he was only passing on a "rumor."
There is nothing in the record to support Weston's allegations that
the evaluation was not based on the RFP and the proposals. In any
event, our decision is not based on an investigation, and our Office
is not privy to whatever information may be before DOE's IG. Our
decision is based on a review of the written record presented to our
Office by the parties. Complere Inc., B-257946, Nov. 23, 1994, 94-2
CPD para. 207.
4. The protester is the incumbent contractor providing support to
OCRWM at DOE Headquarters. TRW Environmental Safety Services, Inc. is
currently providing support services at the Las Vegas office.
5. Past performance and personnel were each weighted 35 percent of the
evaluation. Within personnel, key personnel was weighted 20 percent
and support staff was weighted 15 percent of the evaluation.
Technical approach/understanding of the work and program management
and responsiveness were each weighted 15 percent.
6. A strength was defined as an aspect of a proposal that, when
compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to positively
affect the probability of successful performance of the contract. A
significant strength is likely to have other than only a minor effect
on performance; a minor strength is likely to have little or no impact
on performance. A weakness was defined as an aspect of a proposal
that, when compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to
negatively affect the probability of successful performance on the
contract. A significant weakness is likely to have more than only a
minor effect on performance and may be correctable with difficulty; a
minor weakness is likely to have little or no impact on performance
and is easily correctable. Several minor weaknesses within a
criterion may create a significant weakness.
7. Weston argues that DOE's consensus evaluation is inconsistent with
the evaluation of individual members. Weston bases this allegation on
the individual evaluation records of the one TEC member who retained
his individual records. Because this individual's scores are
sometimes more favorable toward Weston than the consensus scores,
Weston argues that the consensus evaluation is "unfounded and
unreasonable."
There is nothing in the record to support this allegation; individual
evaluators may have evaluation results inconsistent with those of
other evaluation team members. Such inconsistencies do not provide a
basis to challenge the validity of the evaluation. Stat-a-Matrix,
Inc. et al., B-234141 et al., May 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 472.
Here, the agency's evaluation plan emphasized that TEC members were to
make a serious effort to reach a consensus; a shift in position by
individual evaluators is inherent in the consensus process. Moreover,
the individual evaluator whose records were retained states in an
affidavit to our Office that his "views . . . were taken into
account." The evaluator suggest that Weston has selectively
highlighted portions of his evaluation and that this selectivity
incorrectly conveys the idea that his evaluation is significantly
different from the consensus. He states that the TEC reached a common
consensus on the strengths and weaknesses and on the rating to be
assigned.
8. The adjectival ratings were also defined in detail. For example,
an "outstanding" rating indicated that the proposal meets all, and
clearly exceeds most performance requirements for the evaluated
criterion or subcriterion, demonstrates significant strengths, no
significant weaknesses and few, if any, minor weaknesses that have no
impact on performance. A "good" rating indicates that the proposal
meets all and exceeds several performance requirements, demonstrates
significant strengths, few, if any, significant weaknesses that may be
correctable and few, if any, minor weaknesses that may or may not be
correctable. An "adequate" rating indicates that the proposal meets
all performance requirements, demonstrates few, if any, significant
strengths, demonstrates significant weaknesses that can be corrected
and minor weaknesses that may or may not be corrected.
9. A major subcontractor was defined as a subcontractor that would
perform
25 percent or more of the total DPLH for the contract.
10. One of Booz-Allen's completed contracts was not completed within
the past
3 years as required by the RFP and was not evaluated.
11. Initially, Weston listed five past contracts for itself and its
major subcontractor, [deleted]. An additional five contracts were
identified in Weston's BAFO. Booz-Allen did not propose a major
subcontractor for this contract.
12. To the extent Weston sees these provisions as inconsistent, Weston
should have protested the inconsistency prior to the time set for
receipt of initial proposals. Bid Protest Regulations, section
21.2(a)(1), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (July 26, 1996) (to be codified
at 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(1)).
13. In its objections to DOE's past performance evaluation, Weston
also complains that the agency failed to obtain information from
identified references as required by the RFP. The solicitation,
however, stated only that DOE "may" contact "some or all of the
references identified by the offeror." There was no obligation that
the agency contact all, or any particular number of, references.
14. To receive an outstanding rating, a candidate had to meet all and
clearly exceed most performance requirements, demonstrate significant
strengths and no significant weaknesses, and demonstrate few minor
weaknesses that have no impact on performance. To receive a good
rating, a candidate had to meet all and exceed several performance
requirements, demonstrate significant strengths and few, if any,
significant weaknesses that may be correctable and demonstrate few, if
any, minor weaknesses which may or may not be correctable. To receive
an adequate rating, a candidate had to meet all the performance
requirements, demonstrate few, if any, significant strengths,
demonstrate significant weaknesses that could be corrected and
demonstrate minor weaknesses that may or may not be correctable.
15. In our review, we found that the agency improperly downgraded
Weston's proposed task leader for environmental and operational
activities and its proposed task leader for regulatory integration.
We found that the resumes for both of these individuals, contrary to
DOE's assessment, demonstrated the required environmental-related
experience. Our assessment of these two key positions, however, would
have no effect on the technical rankings of the two offerors.
16. While specific requirements for task leadership positions were not
delineated in the RFP, the record shows that DOE expected that
proposed personnel for task leadership positions would have some
experience relevant to that position, for example, a proposed task
leader for environmental and operational activities would have some
environmental experience and a proposed task leader for administration
would have some administrative experience.
17. The first problem asked offerors to discuss the factors to be
considered in the development of a contingency plan in the event that
the Yucca Mountain site proves to be inadequate. The second problem
asked offerors to assume that DOE has been directed to take title to
and manage spent nuclear fuel at utility sites not later than January
1998 and to discuss the factors to be considered and the necessary
steps to implement this directive.
18. Weston also cites a discussion question that it argues was poorly
written and did not inform Weston that the agency believed the
experience of one of its proposed task leaders was irrelevant and
unrelated to the required experience. We have reviewed the question
and agree that it was inartfully worded. However, Weston concedes
that this was the only question where it was difficult to discern the
agency's concern. Since it is clear from the record that a rating
increase on only one key personnel position would not have affected
Weston's overall personnel evaluation and therefore its overall
technical evaluation, this matter is inconsequential.
19. Including subcontractors, there were more than 16 companies whose
rates were used.