BNUMBER: B-275395.2
DATE: April 2, 1997
TITLE: Trend Western Technical Corporation, B-275395.2, April 2,
1997
**********************************************************************
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:Trend Western Technical Corporation
File: B-275395.2
Date:April 2, 1997
Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Andrew D. Fallon, Esq., Department of
the Air Force, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency selection of a higher-priced, higher technically rated offer
instead of the low-priced, lower-rated offer was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria which provided
that all factors, when combined, were significantly more important
than price, where the protester's proposed staffing levels were
reasonably found to be low and insufficient.
DECISION
Trend Western Technical Corporation protests the award of a contract
to TECOM, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F05604-96-R-9006,
issued by the Department of the Air Force, for base supply and vehicle
operation and maintenance in support of Peterson Air Force Base,
Colorado Springs, Colorado. Trend Western objects to the evaluation
of its proposal and the agency's best-value award determination.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued April 23, 1996, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract on a best value basis to the offeror whose
proposal best satisfied the specified requirements in light of the
RFP's evaluation criteria. To this effect, the RFP stated:
"Three evaluation areas will be considered: technical,
management and price. Technical and Management Areas are
considered equal in importance and are significantly more
important than cost or price. All evaluation factors other than
cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important
than cost or price. Even though cost is less important, it will
by necessity bear considerable effect on the source selection
decision."
Under the Technical area, the listed evaluation factors were Computer
Support and Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, Supply Fuels Management,
and Vehicle Operations; the first two technical factors were said to
be equal in importance, while the other technical factors were equally
important but less important than the first two factors. Under the
Management area, the factors, listed in descending order of
importance, were Functional Management, Personnel, and Quality Control
Program. Regarding the personnel factor, the RFP advised offerors
that "[t]he [g]overnment would assess the offeror's soundness of
approach and understanding of the requirement to satisfying the
staffing and key personnel qualification requirements necessary for
performance" of the contract. The RFP also provided that offerors'
proposals would be evaluated for proposal risk and performance risk
under the technical and management evaluation areas and factors.[1]
Cost/Price was to be evaluated for completeness, realism, and
reasonableness.
The Air Force received six proposals by the June 10 closing date for
receipt of proposals. Three proposals, including TECOM's and Trend
Western's, were included in the competitive range. Discussions were
conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received on September
6. Trend Western submitted the lowest- priced BAFO of $28,505,240,
which the agency rated green/acceptable with low proposal risk for all
of the technical and management factors except Personnel, which
received a yellow/marginal rating with a moderate proposal risk
because the proposed staffing was found to be "low" in all areas with
"insufficient manning to perform some supply functions." Trend
Western's performance risk for both the technical and management areas
was rated low. TECOM submitted the second low-priced BAFO of
$31,565,631, which was rated green/acceptable with low proposal risk
for all of the technical and management factors, and with low
performance risk for the technical and management areas. The third
proposal received identical ratings to those received by TECOM, but
was higher priced.
In making the best value award determination, the agency found no
significant strengths/weaknesses distinguishing the three proposals
under the technical and management factors, except under the personnel
factor. The agency rated Trend Western's BAFO yellow/marginal with a
moderate proposal risk under the personnel factor because, even after
the agency raised its concern about Trend Western's low staffing
during discussions, Trend Western's BAFO reflected "low staffing in
all areas and insufficient manning to adequately perform the supply
function." Specifically, the agency noted:
"Trend Western proposed [DELETED] personnel below the government
estimate in computer support and operations (based on workload
provided). They did not demonstrate clear evidence of their
ability to perform the required tasks with the manning proposed.
[DELETED] No advanced technology or methods were proposed to
alleviate [g]overnment concerns. Worldwide support . . . could
be seriously jeopardized, leading to mission degradation and
possible work stoppages. The recent change in shopper
authorization procedures will mean the average number of
customers will actually increase, generating even more issues.
The proposed manning by Trend Western failed to meet the
personnel standard of providing staffing adequate to meet
necessary performance throughout the contract period."
Since successful timely performance of the contract was considered
more important than price, the agency found that the price advantage
associated with Trend Western's proposal was offset by the concern for
"potential non-performance of required services, increases in required
government surveillance, and risk associated with low manning in a
critical function." In contrast, the agency found that there was
little doubt that TECOM (or the highest-priced offeror) could
successfully perform the contract, as indicated by its higher
technical ratings. Consequently, TECOM's proposal was determined to
be the best overall value. Award was made to TECOM on December 11 and
this protest followed.[2]
Trend Western first argues that the agency unreasonably determined its
level of staffing to be inadequate because the government's manning
estimate was faulty and because the agency did not reasonably consider
Trend Western's innovative staffing approach to meeting the RFP
requirements, [DELETED].
In reviewing an agency's evaluation conclusion, we examine the record
to determine whether the judgment was reasonable and in accord with
the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation. A protester's
mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation determination does not
demonstrate that the evaluation was unreasonable. Research Analysis
and Maintenance, Inc., B-272261; B-272261.2, Sept. 18, 1996, 96-2 CPD para.
131 at 6.
As indicated above, the Air Force downgraded Trend Western's proposal
under the personnel factor because its proposed manning level was
considered low, as compared with the government's estimates,
particularly for certain critical supply functions where Trend
Western's manning level was considered insufficient. The Air Force
reports that the manning estimate, developed as a means of measuring
the sufficiency of the offerors' manning levels, was based upon the
current contract manning levels, the work load estimates reflected in
the RFP, and the agency's professional judgment. While the protester
generally disputes the agency's conclusions as to the proper manning
levels, an agency may properly use a manning estimate as an aid in the
evaluation of proposals, where, as here, the manning estimate is
reasonably based on tasks in the solicitation and reflects the
agency's business judgment, considering its own experience and current
requirements, concerning the minimum number of personnel necessary to
perform the work. Aerostat Servs. Partnership, B-244939.2, Jan. 15,
1992, 92-1 CPD para. 71 at 4.
The record reflects that the Air Force considered Trend Western's
staffing approach, including [DELETED] but was not persuaded that the
agency's mission requirements could be met with Trend Western's low
staffing levels. For example, the agency found that the [DELETED].
Also, the agency found that given the number of requisitions processed
by the agency per month, monitoring, performing follow-ups, and taking
aggressive actions on overdue requisitions would require more than the
few personnel proposed for this function by Trend Western,
particularly since it was projected that the number of requisitions
would increase in the future. Moreover, the agency found that
[DELETED] did not seem to be a satisfactory solution because Trend
Western proposed significantly less personnel.
Trend Western argues that the agency's concerns are not valid and
reflect that the agency did not understand Trend Western's staffing
approach, and that the contract requirements could be successfully met
with the quality and level of manning proposed by Trend Western. As
noted by the agency, Trend Western's now advanced explanations of the
advantages of its staffing approach were not so clearly elucidated in
its proposal. Moreover, the agency still finds these explanations
unpersuasive, given Trend Western's low staffing, particularly in some
critical areas. In any case, Trend Western's arguments in this regard
merely represent the protester's disagreement with the agency's
conclusions and thus do not show that the agency's evaluation of Trend
Western's manning approach was unreasonable. See Proteus Corp.;
United Int'l Eng'g, Inc., B-270094; B-270094.2, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para.
165 at 4.
Trend Western also argues that the Air Force's best value
determination to select TECOM's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal
over Trend Western's lower-priced, slightly lower-rated proposal gave
undue weight to the personnel factor, did not give the "considerable
effect" to price contemplated by the RFP evaluation scheme, and did
not adequately account for Trend Western's low performance risk.
Where, as here, the RFP provides that the award is to be based upon
the best value to the government with technical considerations
considered more important than price, agency selection officials have
broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they
will make use of the technical and price evaluation results in making
price/technical tradeoffs, subject only to the tests of rationality
and consistency with the established evaluation factors. Criterion
Corp., B-266050, Jan. 23, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 217 at 4; Engineering and
Professional Servs., Inc., B-262179, Dec. 6, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 266 at
4.
As indicated above, the record demonstrates that the Air Force
reasonably found and documented that the cost advantage associated
with Trend Western's proposal did not outweigh the noted disadvantages
and risks associated with its low or insufficient manning levels, as
compared to TECOM's proposal's satisfactory manning levels.
Trend Western argues that the agency deviated from the RFP evaluation
scheme by giving too much weight to the personnel factor. The
protester notes in this regard that the only technical/management
discriminator among the proposals noted in the best value award
determination was under the personnel factor, and the RFP evaluation
scheme only stated that the combined weight of the technical and
management factors was "significantly more important" than price. We
disagree.
In a best value procurement, particluarly where technical factors are
more important than price, an agency may ultimately focus on a
particular discriminator in deciding not to select the low-priced
offeror. Teledyne Brown Eng'g, B-258078; B-258078.2, Dec. 6, 1994,
94-2 CPD para. 223 at 12-13. Here, the agency found that Trend Western's
low staffing rendered its proposal significantly inferior to the other
competitive range proposals, which reflected adequate staffing, so as
to offset Trend Western's $3 million price advantage. Specifically,
the record shows that the Air Force reasonably found that Trend
Western's low price did not outweigh the risks of possible degradation
in service associated with an undermanned proposal, particularly given
that a delay in the delivery of parts could disrupt critical agency
missions, increase costs, and jeopardize national security.
Trend Western argues that its low performance risk rating was not
considered in the best value award determination because its track
record demonstrates that it could successfully perform the contract
with fewer but higher quality staff. This argument evidences some
confusion between performance risk and proposal risk. While Trend
Western was credited for its quality past performance in the best
value award determination, the agency's concern with Trend Western's
proposal involved the staffing levels in its proposal in response to
this RFP, that is, its proposal risk. In other words, notwithstanding
Trend Western's highly rated past performance, its proposal here was
reasonably found to represent a moderate proposal risk because of the
agency's reasonably based concerns that Trend Western may not be able
to successfully accomplish the contract requirements with its proposed
staffing.
In sum, the agency reasonably found in accord with the RFP evaluation
scheme that TECOM's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal was worth the
$3 million price premium, given the disadvantages and risks presented
by the low-priced proposal.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Proposal risk was to "assess the offeror's proposal risks inherent
in a proposed approach [and] the economic impacts on cost and schedule
associated with the approach." Performance risk was to assess the
quality of "relevant performance on contracts of a similar nature."
2. The agency initially awarded the contract to TECOM on October 16,
but this award was protested by Trend Western and later withdrawn
after the agency undertook a new source selection because of an error.
Trend Western filed this second protest after the agency again awarded
the contract to TECOM.