BNUMBER: B-276576
DATE: July 1, 1997
TITLE: Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics, B-276576, July 1, 1997
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics
File: B-276576
Date:July 1, 1997
Michael J. Moran, Esq., for the protester.
Gary M. Henningsen, Esq., and Catherine Barnum, Esq., Department of
the Army, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that agency used an unstated evaluation factor by considering
the substantive contents of letters of recommendation concerning work
performed by the offeror on prior contracts is denied where the
solicitation required letters in order to assess offeror past
performance.
DECISION
Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics protests the award of contracts to Dale
Schnackel Company, C.J. Schneider Engineering, and Dhillon Engineers,
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA45-96-R-0031, issued by
the Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Omaha District,
for drafting services. Mid-Atlantic contends that the agency used
unstated evaluation criteria in evaluating its letters of
recommendation and that the proposal evaluation was biased.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation, issued July 26, 1996, contemplated the award of a
maximum of three indefinite delivery contracts for a base year with a
1-year option. Delivery orders issued under the contracts were to
include drafting services associated with architectural, sanitary,
mechanical, electrical, and structural disciplines and required
conventional and computer-aided drafting and design (CADD)
technologies, including AutoCAD and Microstation requirements.
Offerors were to submit their proposals in three volumes. Volume I,
the technical proposal, was to provide 10 samples of projects for
architectural, civil, electrical, mechanical, sanitary and structural
drafting completed within the last 5 years. Offerors were required to
describe the nature of their responsibilities, the type of contract,
the firms' role as prime or subcontractor, the scope of work, and the
extent to which CADD and conventional drafting services were utilized.
Offerors were to list personnel and to provide personnel resumes,
including experience in the different types and disciplines of
drafting. Offerors were also to list the number of CADD workstations
available, both AutoCAD and Microstation, and provide a description of
their salient characteristics. Volume II was to contain past
performance information. The RFP directed offerors to "provide at
least three (3) performance evaluations and/or letters of
recommendation on quality of work and compliance with schedules from
previous clients. Work for which evaluation or letter is submitted
must have been completed in the past ten (10) years." Volume III was
for prices.
The RFP provided for awards to the responsible offerors whose offers
were found most advantageous to the government considering, in
descending order of importance, technical factors, past performance,
and cost. The solicitation set forth three technical evaluation
factors and listed various subfactors, with point ranges from
acceptable to high, with a maximum possible technical point score of
1,020.
Past performance, including the quality of work and compliance with
performance schedules on past drafting services contracts as indicated
by performance evaluations and/or letters of recommendation from
previous clients, was also scored on an acceptable/high range of from
150 to 200 points.
The Army received 25 offers by the August 30 closing date. Volumes I
and II of each proposal were point scored by the source selection
board (SSB). Nineteen proposals, including Schnackel's, Schneider's,
Dhillon's and Mid-Atlantic's, were considered technically acceptable
and, after obtaining answers to certain questions from these offerors,
the Army, by letter dated December 9, requested best and final offers
(BAFO), of which 17 were received.
The scores of the four top-rated proposals, including Schnackel's and
Schneider's, ranged from 94 percent to 96 percent of the maximum
possible score, and these proposals were therefore judged essentially
equal in technical ability and past performance. On the basis of
their high scores and relatively low prices, Schnackel's and
Schneider's proposals were selected for two of the three awards.
Dhillon's proposal was the fifth highest technically rated at 91
percent of the maximum score. Dhillon offered the second lowest
price, which was 23 percent lower than the highest technically rated
offeror's. Because the highest technically rated proposal was
significantly higher priced than the next three, the agency determined
that its slightly greater technical ability and past performance did
not warrant payment of the extra cost.
Mid-Atlantic's proposal, the sixth highest technically rated, received
technical and past performance scores equal to 87 percent of the
maximum score possible, 9 percent lower than the top-scoring
firm and 4 percent lower than Dhillon's. Mid-Atlantic's price was
only slightly lower than Dhillon's. The agency noted that half of the
point difference in the technical scores between the Dhillon and
Mid-Atlantic proposals (30 out of 55 points) was in the most important
area of experience. In addition, Mid-Atlantic's proposal received
only an acceptable score--150 points--under past performance because
Mid-Atlantic's letters of recommendation were generally silent
regarding the type of drafting services the company had performed and
the technologies it had employed.[1] The SSB determined that the
greater technical ability and better past performance scores of
Dhillon were worth the slightly higher associated cost. After the
agency awarded contracts to Schnackel, Schneider and Dhillon, this
protest followed.
Mid-Atlantic protests that the agency employed unstated evaluation
criteria in the way it used the letters of recommendation to evaluate
past performance, and contends that its proposal was improperly
downgraded for lack of detail in its recommendation letters.
Specifically, Mid-Atlantic argues that, contrary to the agency's
evaluation criteria, nothing in the RFP required that the letters
describe the nature of the contractual services for which the
recommendation was written. The protester argues that if the agency
intended to evaluate the letters with respect to the nature of the
contractual services in them, the RFP requirement did not make what
Mid-Atlantic calls this "subtle interpretation" clear and the agency
should resolicit. The protester also takes the position that, because
it submitted the required three recommendation letters, it is entitled
to the maximum possible score under the past performance factor. We
disagree.
Solicitations must identify all significant factors and any
significant subfactors that will be considered in awarding the
contract, and the evaluation of proposals must be based on the factors
set forth in the solicitation. Federal Acquisition Regulation sec.
15.406-5(c), 15.605(d). While agencies are required to identify the
major evaluation factors, they are not required to identify all areas
of each factor which might be taken into account, provided that the
unidentified areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the
stated criteria. Cobra Technologies, Inc., B-272041;
B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 73 at 3; Avogadro Energy Sys.,
B-244106, Sept. 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 229 at 4. Here, the agency's
consideration of whether or not the recommendation letters indicated
the nature of the services provided and the types of technologies used
on prior contracts is consistent with the past performance evaluation
criterion, under which the reference letters were considered.
The RFP makes clear that the agency sought a drafting firm with
sufficient specialized experience in three types and five disciplines
of drafting services. While the solicitation did not explicitly
outline the specific information that should be included in the
recommendation letters, we view a clear statement as to the nature of
services provided as intrinsically related to and encompassed by the
past performance solicitation criterion, for which the letters were
provided. See ORI Servs. Corp., B-261225, July 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD para.
55 at 2-4; Bioqual, Inc., B-259732.2; B-259732.3, May 15, 1995, 95-1
CPD para. 243 at 4.
Here, Mid-Atlantic provided five letters of recommendation,[2] but
only one letter referred to either the type of drafting work performed
by Mid-Atlantic or the technology used by the firm.[3] None of the
other letters indicated the type of drafting services performed or the
technologies used. One letter simply stated that Mid-Atlantic had
supplied scanning services, while another referenced "the preparation
of electronic files from original drawings." One of the letters
simply stated that the writer was pleased to recommend Mid-Atlantic
and that he had been satisfied with Mid-Atlantic's work, without any
explanation as to the type of work performed, the technologies used,
or the performance timeframe.
In contrast, the recommendation letters supplied by the awardees were
significantly more specific and detailed. For example, one
recommendation letter on behalf of Schnackel states that the
evaluation "reflects the Computer-Aided Drafting Design services"
provided, another states that Schnackel had provided mechanical and
electrical design services for the past 4 years, including CADD
drafting services. Schnackel also provided an evaluation of its
performance on one contract. Similarly, a letter of recommendation
for Schneider references mechanical, electrical, architectural and
structural design and engineering work, and another references
mechanical and electrical engineering services. Dhillon's letters
were not as detailed as Schnackel's or Schneider's and its score was
therefore reduced, but its proposal did receive 175 points under past
performance, reflecting the fact that its recommendation letters
referenced electrical engineering work and that Dhillon provided a
performance evaluation and a copy of an award for outstanding
architect-engineering services.
In our view, the agency properly considered the types/technologies of
drafting services referenced in the recommendation letters and,
because specifics were not provided in the protester's letters of
recommendation concerning the services provided by Mid-Atlantic, the
agency properly downgraded Mid-Atlantic's proposal under the past
performance factor. Contrary to the protester's allegation, we find
no ambiguity in the solicitation; a prudent offeror should have
expected that the letters would be examined and evaluated with respect
to the relevancy of the offerors' past performance to the services
required. Mid-Atlantic's position that its mere submission of the
required number of reference letters, irrespective of their content,
required the agency to award its proposal the maximum possible score
is, in our view, unreasonable.
The protester also argues that the awards were motivated by a
geographical bias in favor of firms in or near Omaha. The protester
asserts that Schnackel and Schneider are both located in Omaha and
that Dhillon is located "across the river in Iowa." Mid-Atlantic also
challenges a small number of points awarded to Schnackel's and
Schneider's proposals as evidence of bias.
Because government officials are presumed to act in good faith, we do
not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to them on the basis of
inference or supposition. Ameriko Maintenance Co., B-253274;
B-253274.2, Aug. 25, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 121 at 5. Thus, where a
protester alleges bias on the part of government officials, the
protester must provide credible evidence clearly demonstrating a bias
against the protester or for the awardee and that the agency's bias
translated into action that unfairly affected the protester's
competitive position. Dynamic Aviation--Helicopters, B-274122, Nov.
1, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 166 at 4.
Here, there is no credible evidence of bias. Contrary to the
protester's assertions, not all three awardees are located in or near
Omaha. While Schnackel and Schneider are Omaha firms, Dhillon is
located in Portland, Oregon. Moreover, the record shows that other
firms located in or near Omaha did not receive awards. Two of these
firms submitted proposals that received higher technical scores than
those of the successful offerors but were not selected for award
because of their high prices. If the agency were biased in favor of
Omaha firms, one would expect it to have selected either of these
firms rather than Dhillon, the firm from Oregon. Moreover, the
limited number of contested points that Mid-Atlantic views as evidence
of bias are insignificant in relation to the overall evaluated point
difference between Mid-Atlantic's proposal and the proposals whose
scores it challenges. Even if Schnackel's and Schneider's scores were
lowered to correct for any impropriety in the areas challenged (and
Mid-Atlantic has not, in fact, established that any such impropriety
occurred), it would have no impact on the relative technical rankings
of the offerors. In any event, Mid-Atlantic has provided no credible
evidence that any scoring errors, even if such occurred, resulted from
bias.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The technical scores for the four relevant proposals were as
follows:
Schnackel Schneider Dhillon Mid-Atlantic
Technical Score 970 960 945 915
Past Performance Score 190 190 175 150
TOTAL 1,160 1,150 1,120 1,065
2. One of the letters stated that it was the policy of the agency not
to write letters of recommendation. Instead, the letter merely
provided the name of a reference who could be contacted concerning
Mid-Atlantic's abilities and past history.
3. This one letter referred to Mid-Atlantic's successful performance
in providing computer-aided drafting support services.