BNUMBER: B-275896
DATE: April 16, 1997
TITLE: Matter of:Telford Aviation, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Telford Aviation, Inc.
File: B-275896
Date:April 16, 1997
Howell Roger Riggs, Esq., for the protester.
Thomas G. Jeter, Esq., and Mark J. Meagher, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo,
L.L.P., for Doss Aviation, Inc., the intervenor.
Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Department of the Army, for the
agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that the evaluation of protester's technical and price
proposals was flawed is denied where agency reasonably followed the
evaluation criteria in scoring proposals and the protester's argument
essentially reflects its disagreement with the evaluators based on a
view that its proposal should not have been downgraded merely because
it complied with the solicitation's minimum technical requirements.
2. Record provides no basis to object to cost/technical tradeoff
based on reasonable technical and price evaluations where protester's
allegation is premised on its contrary view of the underlying
evaluation.
DECISION
Telford Aviation, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Doss
Aviation, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT51-95-R-0034,
issued by the Department of the Army for aircraft maintenance and
repair services at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
Telford alleges that the evaluation of its proposal was improper and
also challenges the cost/technical tradeoff decision resulting in the
selection of Doss.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract
to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best
value to the government based on price and other factors. The
solicitation provided that technical and management factors were more
important than price, which was, in turn, more important than past
performance. The evaluation factors listed in section M of the RFP,
together with the associated maximum scores that could be assigned by
the evaluators, as listed in the source selection plan[1], were as
follows:
Factor/ Subfactor Maximum Possible Points
Technical 60
Staffing 20
Policies and Procedures 33
Personnel Qualifications 7
Management 30
Aviation Quality Management 10
Aviation Logistics Support 9
General Management 7
Other Management Areas 4
Past Performance Not Numerically Scored
Four initial proposals were received. One was immediately rejected as
unacceptable and another was withdrawn from the competition.
Discussions were held with Doss and Telford and each was invited to
submit a best and final offer (BAFO). The final evaluation scores
were as follows:
EVALUATION CATEGORY DOSS TELFORD
Technical
Staffing 19.00 5.60
Policies and Procedures 20.10 7.00
Personnel Qualification 7.00 6.25
Total Technical (60 Maximum)46.10 18.85
Management
Aviation Quality Management 8.50 2.50
Aviation Logistics Support 7.20 3.15
General Management 5.60 0.00
Other Management Areas 3.33 0.94
Total Management (30 Maximum)24.63 6.59
TOTAL OVERALL[2] (90 Maximum)70.73 25.44
Telford's BAFO price was $4,665,297 for a base year with three 1-year
options as compared to Doss's price of $6,205,365. Doss's price was
determined to be realistic while Telford's was questioned because the
firm proposed to pay experienced technical workers only the minimum
wages required by law. The past performance evaluation resulted in
Doss being credited for more relevant aircraft experience than
Telford. While recognizing the substantial price differential, the
contracting officer selected Doss stating that its higher
technical/management score in the most important evaluation factor,
better past performance, and realistic price represented the best
value to the government in view of the agency's willingness to pay a
reasonable premium for reliability and technical excellence. The
tradeoff analysis was performed despite the agency's assessment that
Telford's proposal was technically unacceptable. Following
notification of the award and a written debriefing received on
December 31, Telford filed this protest on January 6, 1997.
PROTEST AND ANALYSIS
The protester principally challenges the propriety of the
technical/management evaluation, the price realism evaluation, and the
cost/technical tradeoff.
Technical/Management Evaluation
The protester challenges four aspects of the technical/management
evaluation, namely those involving minimum manning under the staffing
subfactor, property control and nondestructive testing under the
policies and procedures subfactor and aviation logistics support under
the management factor.
Because the evaluation of proposals is an inherently subjective
process our Office will not substitute its judgment for that of the
agency's evaluators. In order for us to disagree with the agency, the
record must show that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable; a
protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not
establish that it was unreasonable. Scientific Management Assocs.,
Inc., B-238913, July 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 27 at 4.
Minimum Manning Under the Staffing Subfactor
Two contract line items called for offerors to propose a minimum
number of maintenance and repair personnel at Fort Bliss and Fort
Huachuca respectively; these positions were described in the RFP and
constituted the technical minimum manning necessary to perform the
contract. Two separate line items, one for each fort, called for
offerors to propose "administrative personnel, office personnel,
management, staff and supervisory personnel" which were, by the terms
of the RFP, not to be duplicates of the minimum manning personnel.
Telford was downgraded for proposing a number of personnel positions
incorporating multiple functions which included both the minimum
manning category and the supervisory/support category. The most
prominent of these was the offeror's proposal that its test pilot at
each fort also function as the project manager at that location.
Telford objects to this downgrading on the basis that the RFP did not
preclude assigning multiple functions to the same individual. Telford
also maintains that the Army is incorrect in believing that one
individual cannot successfully perform in multiple roles.
The solicitation contract line item format, which indicated separate
categories for maintenance/repair personnel and
supervisory/administrative personnel and included the proviso that the
latter should not duplicate the former, clearly conveyed to offerors
that proposing multiple functions for a single person was a less than
acceptable method of staffing. Given the clarity of the RFP in this
regard and Telford's election to disregard it, we find that the agency
had a reasonable basis to downgrade the protester's proposal because
less-than full-time key management positions were proposed. See
Scientific Management Assocs., Inc., supra at 4-5, Lincoln Property
Co., B-247664, May 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 469. Finally, as to Telford's
generalized disagreement with the evaluators about whether individuals
can successfully perform more than one role, we note that such a
disagreement alone does not render the agency's position unreasonable.
Scientific Management Assocs., Inc., supra at 4,7.
Property Control and NonDestructive Testing Under the Policies and
Procedures Subfactor
With respect to the downgrading of its proposal based on inadequate
understanding of property control systems, the protester principally
alleges that the scoring was improperly based on Telford's failure to
submit a detailed supply procedural manual which was not required by
the RFP. The record, however, indicates that Telford was downgraded
in this area because the discussion it did include on the subject of
managing government furnished property was inadequate. For example,
the agency found that Telford's proposal to conduct a joint inventory
with the incumbent was impermissible as was the protester's proposal
to use hand receipts for the transfer of property from the incumbent.
Telford's comments on these, and other, specific findings merely
establish its disagreement with the agency's assessment of its
proposal, which does not afford a legal basis for sustaining the
protest. Id.
With regard to the downgrading of its proposal in the area of
nondestructive testing, Telford asserts in its protest that it
currently operates nondestructive inspections under another government
contract for which it should be credited. The technical evaluators,
however, properly considered only information contained in Telford's
proposal. Intelcom Support Servs., Inc., B-225600, May 7, 1987, 87-1
CPD para. 487 at 6. The record shows that those evaluators found that
Telford's proposal did not adequately establish that the firm had a
thorough understanding of procedures for nondestructive testing; all
Telford has presented for our review is its general disagreement with
this finding. We therefore find no merit to this aspect of the
protest. Scientific Management Assocs., Inc., supra at 4,7.
Aviation Logistics Support Under the Management Factor
The aspect of the evaluation in this area on which Telford focuses is
the agency's finding that its proposal did not adequately address the
need for separate treatment of logistics at each of the forts covered
by the contract. Telford objects to the fact that no discussions were
held on this specific point. The allegation is untimely because it
was first raised in the comments filed by the protester in this matter
on March 13. The issue was made known to Telford on December 31 when
it received the debriefing which described this specific logistics
concern of the Army. A protester may not introduce a new issue in its
comments that it could have raised in its initial submission to our
Office. Our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the
unwarranted piecemeal presentation of protest issues. Concrete Sys.,
Inc., B-259283, Mar. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 158 at 4 n. 2.
Finally, we note that the areas challenged by Telford were worth a
maximum of 20.2 points out of the possible total of 90. Telford's
score in these areas was 5.6. Thus, even if we were to conclude that
the protester was completely correct in its position with regard to
each of the areas and should have been awarded the maximum number of
points possible, its score would only increase by 14.6 points from
25.44 to a total of 40.04 points out of the possible 90. Even in this
circumstance it appears highly unlikely that the selection decision
would have been different. See Naho Constr., Inc., B-244226, Sept.
12, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 241 at 4.
Price Realism Evaluation
Telford objects to the agency determination that its price was less
realistic than the awardee's based on the Army's concern about whether
the protester would be able to secure and retain a reliable work force
in view of its proposal to pay its experienced personnel only the
minimum required by law.
The manner in which a price realism analysis is conducted is a matter
subject to a contracting agency's sound discretion which we will not
disturb unless it lacks a reasonable basis. See Research Management
Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 368 (1990), 90-1 CPD para. 352. Compensation rates
properly may be considered as part of a realism analysis. PHP
Healthcare Corp.; Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799
et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 366; see also Wackenhut Servs., Inc.,
B-255781.3, July 10, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 6 at 5-6. Telford has presented
nothing which causes us to question the Army's price analysis.
Moreover, Telford has not responded at all to the agency's specific
concerns that its proposed health and welfare benefits, general and
administrative expense, and profit rates were all understated.
Accordingly, we find this aspect of the protest to be without merit.
Cost/Technical Tradeoff Decision
The objections raised by Telford to the cost/technical tradeoff are
predicated on the assumption that it was defective because it resulted
from defective underlying technical and price evaluations. Because
the above analysis shows that the underlying evaluations were
reasonably based, this aspect of the protest is without merit.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The factors and subfactors listed below were further subdivided and
the subdivisions were weighted. In our comparative analysis of
section M and the source selection plan the record indicated some
slight differences in emphasis in certain areas, none of which is
material to the resolution of the protest.
2. These totals differ slightly, and inconsequentially, from those
reported in the narrative in the agency report (75 for Doss and 22 for
Telford) because of minor methodological and arithmetic anomalies in
the manner in which the evaluators assigned and totaled the scores.
These figures are based on the original individual evaluators' scoring
sheets using the methodology and weights contemplated by the source
selection plan and assigning the maximum points possible to each
offeror for two sub-subfactors which were, for some reason, overlooked
in the scoring. It is clear from the record that these anomalies are
inconsequential with respect to the resolution of the protest.