BNUMBER: B-276122
DATE: May 13, 1997
TITLE: Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited, B-
276122, May 13, 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:Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited
File: B-276122
Date:May 13, 1997
Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for the protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Laurie Stiteler, Esq., Department of the
Air Force, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency conducted meaningful discussions with the protester regarding
its staffing level where during discussions the agency reasonably
informed the protester that its proposed staffing may not be
sufficient and requested the protester to address this concern.
DECISION
Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited, protests
the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Air Force, San
Antonio Air Logistics Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F41650-96-R-0008 for the maintenance and repair of military family
housing at Kelly Air Force Base. A Plus contends that the Air Force
failed to conduct meaningful discussions, as required, prior to
rejecting its proposal as technical unacceptable.
We deny the protest.
The RFP was issued on August 21, 1996, as a section 8(a) set-aside.
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with certain
materials, parts, and supplies to be reimbursed at cost by the
government, for a base period of 1 year with 3 option years.
The evaluation scheme in the RFP provided for a best value award;
however, only proposals determined technically acceptable with regard
to certain listed technical factors, either initially or as a result
of discussions, were to be considered for award, which was to be based
on price and performance risk. The technical factors were evaluated
with regard to the offeror's compliance with, understanding of, and
soundness of approach in meeting the requirements stated in the
performance work statement (PWS) and the solicitation. Offerors were
cautioned to submit sufficient information to enable the technical
evaluators to fully ascertain each offeror's capability to perform all
the requirements. One of the technical areas for evaluation was
"PLANNING," for which offerors were required to submit a manning and
staffing plan that demonstrated a clear understanding of the tasks in
the RFP's PWS.
The Air Force received [DELETED] proposals, including A Plus's, by the
November 18 due date. In the "Capacity to Meet the Requirements"
section of its proposal, A Plus presented its staffing manning plan,
which provided for a total of [DELETED] FTEs (Full-Time
Equivalent--2,080 hours per year) positions for this contract. In its
manning chart, A Plus noted that the stated FTEs did not constitute
the actual number of personnel to be deployed. A Plus also included
an organizational chart in its proposal which provided a synopsis of
the responsibilities of corporate officials and employee
classifications by position and title.
The agency's technical evaluator rated A Plus's proposal as
unacceptable because, among other things, A Plus "provided a confusing
staffing and manning plan with inadequate FTEs and provided no
assurance or indication their plan could meet the requirements" of the
PWS. Nonetheless, the Air Force apparently determined that the
proposal was "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable," and in
a letter dated December 20, 1996, the contracting officer informed A
Plus that its "[t]echnical proposal was found to be deficient in the
following areas, and that additional information is needed to complete
our review."
"(a) Your offer failed to address an adequate manning and
staffing plan, that demonstrated a clear understanding of the
PWS, inasmuch as:
"(1) Manning Chart - Indicates [DELETED] Full Time Employees.
Organization chart indicates [DELETED] Full Time Employees.
Need to verify which is the correct number to adequately meet the
requirement of the PWS.
. . . . .
"(3) Staffing Manning Plan - Incomplete, need to verify
sufficient number of people."
The letter offered A Plus an opportunity to correct these and other
listed deficiencies, and stated that no further discussions were
anticipated.
A Plus submitted a written response to the contracting officer's
discussion letter on December 30. With regard to item (a)(1), A Plus
explained the manning chart was based on FTEs to be utilized for this
contract, which it increased to [DELETED], but that the manning chart
did not indicate the actual number of personnel to be deployed. A
Plus also replaced the original organizational chart with an
organizational chart which showed an average number of [DELETED]
personnel (including part-time) A Plus proposed to deploy for this
contract. In response to item (a)(3), concerning A Plus's staffing
manning plan, A Plus stated that it included the number of estimated
personnel to be deployed by position and title in its organizational
chart.
The Air Force evaluated A Plus's response, and with regard to items
(a)(1) and (3), determined that A Plus proposed inadequate staffing to
accomplish the work, and that because its proposal "still confused the
issue" and failed to explain how it would meet the requirements with
its proposed staffing, the Air Force believed that A Plus did not
understand the RFP requirements and had not developed a sound approach
to meeting the requirements. Based on this (and other, less
significant reasons), A Plus's proposal was rejected as technically
unacceptable.
The gravamen of A Plus's protest is that the Air Force did not conduct
meaningful discussions with regard to its staffing level.
Discussions, when they are conducted, must be meaningful and must not
prejudicially mislead offerors. SRS Technologies, B-254425.2, Sept.
14, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 125 at 6. Although discussions need not be
all-encompassing, an agency is required to point out weaknesses or
deficiencies in a proposal as specifically as practical considerations
permit so that the agency leads the offeror into areas of its proposal
which require amplification or correction. E.L. Hamm & Assocs., Inc.,
B-250932, Feb. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 156 at 3-4. An agency may not
mislead an offeror, through the framing of a discussion question, into
responding in a manner that does not address the agency's concerns.
Price Waterhouse, B-254492.2, Feb. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 168 at 9.
A Plus argues that the Air Force's December 20 discussion letter was
deficient because it failed to inform A Plus of the agency's paramount
concern, based on the government estimate of [DELETED] personnel
required to perform the contract, that A Plus's proposed staffing
level was unacceptably low, but instead focused on the apparent
discrepancy between the staffing and organizational charts; this
assertedly misled A Plus into believing that it merely needed to
verify the correct number of personnel it was proposing or to explain
why the total on its staffing and organizational charts did not match.
A Plus also contends that the Air Force's request that A Plus verify
that there were a sufficient number of people in its staffing manning
plan needs to be viewed in the same context, i.e., another way of
asking A Plus to choose between the [DELETED] and [DELETED] figures,
in its manning and organizational charts, respectively.[1]
The protester relies on our decision in Professional Servs. Group,
Inc., B-274289.2, Dec. 19, 1996, 97-1 CPD para. 54 at 4, to argue that
since the staffing level proposed by A Plus was considered by the Air
Force to be a deficiency, the agency was required to provide A Plus
with the opportunity to either change its staffing level or persuade
the agency that its lower level of staffing could satisfy the agency's
requirements. In that case, we found that an agency had failed to
conduct meaningful discussions where it merely sent a generic request
to all offerors to provide more detailed staffing plans in a
particular format and "never once hinted to [the protester] that its
proposed staffing was inadequate." Id. at 3.
By contrast, here, the Air Force's December 20 discussion letter
revealed the agency's concerns with A Plus's proposed staffing level.
Under heading (a) of the letter, the contracting officer informed A
Plus that its "offer failed to address an adequate manning and
staffing plan that demonstrated a clear understanding of the PWS." In
this context, it should have been reasonably apparent to A Plus that
in asking it in item (1) to verify which is the correct number of
employees it was proposing--the [DELETED] indicated in the manning
chart or the [DELETED] indicated in the organization chart--"to
adequately meet the requirement of the PWS," and by informing it in
item (3) that its staffing manning plan was incomplete and that A Plus
needed to verify that a "sufficient number of people" were in its
staffing manning plan, the Air Force was questioning the sufficiency
of A Plus's proposed staffing level. Indeed, in A Plus's December 30
response to the Air Force's discussion letter, A Plus stated that it
had "made appropriate changes to ensure adequate staffing to satisfy
the requirements of the [PWS]." Accordingly, the record shows that
the discussions conducted here were adequate because the Air Force led
A Plus into the area of its proposal considered deficient and of
primary concern to the agency. See D'Wiley's Servs., Inc., B-251912,
May 11, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 377 at 4-5; Centro Management, Inc.,
B-249411.2, Dec. 2, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 387 at 6-7.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Although A Plus raised other issues concerning the Air Force's
evaluation of its staffing plan, such as the Air Force's apparent
concerns over cross-utilization of employees and use of part-time
employees, the record confirms that the central reason that its
proposal was considered unacceptable was its low overall staffing
level and its failure to persuade the agency that the work could be
done with its proposed staffing. Thus, we need not address A Plus's
other contentions.