TITLE:  Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc, B-278074; B-278074.2, December 23, 1997
BNUMBER:  B-278074; B-278074.2
DATE:  December 23, 1997
**********************************************************************
Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc, B-278074; B-278074.2, December 23,
1997

Decision

Matter of: Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc

File: B-278074; B-278074.2

Date: December 23, 1997

Victor Zupa, Esq., Neville Shaver Hubbard & McLean, for the protester.

Lori S. Chofnas, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's
and awardee's competing proposals for instructional services under the
management evaluation factor with regard to their respective approaches to
the scheduling of daily training is denied, where the record shows that the
agency reasonably determined that the protester's scheduling approach was
unacceptable and that the awardee's well-documented scheduling approach was
acceptable; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's
evaluation unreasonable.

DECISION

Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc. (MES), a small, disadvantaged
business concern (SDB), protests the award of a contract to Lockheed Martin
Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-97-R-1850,
issued by the Department of the Navy, for instructional services. MES
contends that the agency's evaluation of its and Lockheed's proposals, as
well as the selection of Lockheed's proposal for award, were unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite
quantity contract, with fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract line
items, for a base with 4 option years. The successful contractor under the
RFP will be required to schedule and provide flight simulator, classroom,
and interactive courseware (ICW) instructional services at five naval air
stations located in Texas, Florida, and Mississippi.

The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the
proposal representing the best overall value to the government, price/cost
and other factors considered, with technical merit being considered more
important than price/cost. The solicitation listed the following evaluation
factors:

Management Plan
Instructional Services Approach
Personnel Resources
Quality Control Plan
Corporate Experience
Past Performance

The RFP informed offerors that the evaluation factors were listed in
descending order of importance, except that the corporate experience and
past performance factors were equal in importance. The RFP included the
standard "Notice of Evaluation Preference for Small Disadvantaged Business
Concerns," set forth at Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement sect. 252.219-7006, which provides that offers will be evaluated by
adding a factor of 10 percent to the evaluated cost/price of all offers
except those received from SDBs. The RFP provided detailed instructions for
the preparation of proposals, and requested that offerors organize their
technical proposals into six volumes, with each volume addressing one of the
six technical evaluation factors.

The agency received six proposals, including those of MES and Lockheed (the
incumbent contractor) by the RFP's closing date. Lockheed's proposal was
rated as "acceptable" overall, and the other proposals, including MES', were
rated as "unacceptable" overall with the capacity of being made acceptable
as a result of discussions.1 [1] The agency included all six proposals in
the competitive range. Discussions were held, and best and final offers
(BAFO) were requested, received, and evaluated.2 [2]

The agency evaluated MES' BAFO as "unacceptable" under the management
approach evaluation factor; "acceptable" under the instructional services,
quality control, corporate experience, and past performance evaluation
factors; "highly acceptable" under the personnel evaluation factor; and
"unacceptable" overall, at a proposed cost/price of $72,122,003. The agency
evaluated Lockheed's proposal as "acceptable" under the management approach,
instructional services, and past performance evaluation factors; "highly
acceptable" under the personnel, quality control, and corporate experience
evaluation factors; and "acceptable" overall. Lockheed's proposed total
cost/price of $74,779,014 was evaluated at $82,256,915 because of the
application of the SDB evaluation preference. Of the remaining three
proposals, one was evaluated as "acceptable" overall at evaluated cost/price
of $82,663,866, and two as "unacceptable" overall at evaluated cost/prices
of $71,194,299 and $83,723,575.

The agency determined that Lockheed's proposal represented the best overall
value to the government. After being informed by the agency that it had
awarded a contract under the solicitation to Lockheed, and requesting and
receiving a debriefing, MES filed this protest.

MES protests that the agency's evaluation of its and Lockheed's technical

proposals under the management approach evaluation factor was unreasonable.
Specifically, MES argues its proposal was unfairly criticized with regard to
MES' proposed approach to the scheduling of simulator instructional
services, and that in any event, its and Lockheed proposals are similar in
this respect and the proposals should therefore have received the same
rating.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and the best method of accommodating them. Marine Animal Prods. Int'l,
Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 16 at 5. In reviewing an
agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead
will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. MAR, Inc.,
B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 367 at 4. An offeror's mere disagreement
with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. McDonnell
Douglas Corp., B-259624.2, B-259624.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 51 at 18.

The RFP's performance work statement (PWS) detailed the contractor's overall
responsibilities for the scheduling of instruction, and set forth specific
scheduling procedures to be followed in performing the contract.
Specifically, the PWS informed offerors that the agency would provide the
contractor with the agency's requirements relative to trainees and simulator
instruction by 8 p.m. on the day before the instruction was to occur. Based
upon the agency's identified requirements, the contractor was to determine
which instructor and simulator

device would meet the agency's requirements for the particular instruction
identified, and schedule an instructor and simulator device for that
instruction. The PWS added:

Because of the inherent relationship between the aircraft/helicopter flight
schedule and the simulator schedule, factors such as weather, student
loading, detachments, medical status of students, fleet-wide grounding of
type aircraft or a host of other unanticipated events, perturbations are
created in the simulator schedule. These fluctuations in day-to-day
operational requirements are a normal part of Naval Aviation.

The RFP's proposal preparation instructions informed offerors that in the
management approach volumes of their technical proposals they were to
"demonstrate in sufficient detail a management approach that will
successfully accomplish the [PWS]," and specified, among other things, that
their management plans should address their approaches to "scheduling [and]
scheduling perturbations."

The agency evaluated MES' initial proposal as technically "unacceptable"
overall in large part because of evaluated deficiencies in its approach to
scheduling, noting that MES' proposal "failed to demonstrate an acceptable
understanding of the RFP requirements by presenting conflicting information
on who would be responsible for performing the critical scheduling
function." For example, the agency noted in evaluating MES' proposal that,
while it stated in one area that instructors would assist in scheduling, the
detailed position descriptions for instructors, furnished in another area of
the proposal, did not mention scheduling as one of their responsibilities.

During discussions, the agency informed MES that, among other things, its

proposal failed to clearly delineate who will perform the critical
scheduling functions. In the position description section (Volume I, page
36), the administrative assistant is the only one identified to prepare the
daily schedule. However, page 9 specifies that one or more instructors will
be assigned as a scheduler.

MES responded in its BAFO that its "Site Manager, through the Lead
Instructors and designated 'additional duty' schedulers, is responsible for
accomplishing all schedul[e] functions . . . and for monitoring and
adjusting schedule implementation." MES' BAFO response continued by pointing
out where, in MES' view, its proposal addressed how scheduling would be
performed and by whom. MES clarified that its proposed Administrative
Assistants would "not develop or implement work schedules," but rather would
provide "scheduling support to the Site Manager, Lead Instructors, and
additional duty schedulers as directed by the Site Manager." MES'

BAFO revised the position descriptions for Simulator/Classroom Instructor
and ICW Instructor/Administrator to include the phrase "Perform Additional
Duties, such as Scheduler/Assistant Scheduler," and revised the position
description for its proposed Administrative Assistant "to preclude giving
the impression that the Administrative Assistant has any management or
tasking authority or responsibility in the scheduling process."3 [3]

The agency concluded that MES' BAFO was technically "unacceptable" under the
management plan evaluation factor because of evaluated deficiencies with
regard to MES' proposed approach to scheduling, and thus remained
technically "unacceptable" overall. Specifically, the agency determined
that:

given the instructor duties of the ICW Instructor, the physical
restraints associated with scheduling, and scheduling perturbations, MES did
not describe in sufficient detail how the ICW instructors would perform the
scheduling. The ICW instructor will spend approximately [8] hours each day
performing instructor duties. In addition, the ICW classrooms are not
co-located with the flight simulators at any of the locations covered by the
contract. Thus, the information necessary to perform the scheduling duties
is not physically located in the buildings with the ICW classrooms. In
addition, as described in the [PWS], the Navy can change the simulator
schedule as late as 8:00 p.m. the night before training is to take place.
MES did not describe in its BAFO how the ICW Instructors will perform these
critical scheduling duties given their instructional duties, the physical
constraints and the scheduling perturbations.

MES maintains that the agency's evaluation of MES' scheduling plan was
unreasonable in light of the information requested by the RFP and provided
by MES in its proposal. MES explains in its protest that its "site manager
and lead instructor are responsible for scheduling," and that "[a]dditional
input concerning simulator or classroom scheduling can be done by any
individual who is in the pool of people that can be selected by the site
manager--including the ICW instructor." MES states "that the ICW manning
levels proposed created almost 17 [percent] of excess hours available (on an
annual basis) which could be devoted to the
additional duty of scheduling," and provides a chart depicting "ICW
instructor staffing and excess hours available, that could be used for other
support/ instructional activities." MES concludes that its "concept of
cross-utilization of instructors is woven throughout the MES proposal and
the assignment of additional duties and collateral tasks is used universally
as a management initiative to better utilize people."

MES' explanation regarding the availability of its ICW instructors to
participate in the scheduling process, as set forth above, appeared for the
first time in MES' protest. That is, MES' proposal did not include any
statement, chart, or other information from which the agency could
reasonably determine that MES' ICW manning levels included excess hours
which would be available for scheduling. Further, with the exception of
adding the phrase "Perform Additional Duties, such as Scheduler/Assistant
Scheduler" to the various instructor position descriptions in response to
the agency's concerns expressed during discussions regarding MES' scheduling
plan, MES' BAFO failed to include a statement or any other explanation
regarding its purported "cross-utilization of instructors." Because MES'
BAFO failed to include this information, the agency reasonably was concerned
that MES' ICW instructors would be unable to effectively participate in the
scheduling process, and that MES' proposed approach to scheduling--which as
described by MES relied in part on the ICW instructors' participation in
scheduling--was unacceptable.4 [4] The offeror has the burden of submitting
an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate. GEC-Marconi Elec.
Sys. Corp., B-276186, B-276186.2, May 21, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 23 at 7. In light
of MES' failure to fulfill its obligation in this regard, we see no basis to
criticize the agency's evaluation of this aspect of MES' proposal as
unreasonable.

We also find that the agency's evaluation was consistent with the RFP. As
mentioned previously, the RFP requested that the management plan volume of
proposals include the offerors' approaches to scheduling and scheduling
perturbations, and stated that the offerors' management plans would be
considered the most important aspect of the offerors' proposals in the
agency's conduct of the technical evaluation. Given that the agency
reasonably concluded that MES' approach to scheduling was unacceptable, and
in light of the criticality of this task as set forth in the RFP and during
the agency's conduct of discussions, we cannot find unreasonable the
agency's conclusion that the deficiencies of MES' proposal in this regard
rendered the proposal technically unacceptable under the management plan
evaluation factor and thus technically unacceptable overall.

The agency points out that Lockheed's proposal is similar to MES' in that it
[DELETED]. Lockheed, however, unlike MES, included in its proposal
[DELETED]. The agency adds that Lockheed's proposal also provides [DELETED].
Thus, Lockheed's proposed approach to performing the scheduling function was
considerably more detailed than MES', and identified [DELETED] in accordance
with the agency's requirements. As such, we disagree with the protester that
Lockheed's proposed approach to scheduling was so similar to MES' that the
agency acted unreasonably in evaluating Lockheed's and MES' proposals as
"acceptable" and "unacceptable," respectively, under the management plan
evaluation factor.

MES also protests that the agency unreasonably determined that MES' price
proposal represented "significant risk to the successful performance of the
contract" because MES reduced certain of its proposed indirect cost rates in
its BAFO without explanation and proposed [DELETED] profit for one of its
subcontractors. Since the agency properly found MES' proposal technically
unacceptable, we do not reach the question of whether the agency reasonably
determined that MES' price proposal represented significant risk.

MES finally protests that the award selection was unreasonable because
Lockheed's evaluated cost/price was $10,134,912 higher than MES'. However,
since MES' proposal was properly found unacceptable and since there is
another proposal besides Lockheed's that was found acceptable, MES is not an
interested party under our Bid Protest Regulations eligible to protest the
cost/technical tradeoff. See Hughes Technical Servs. Co., B-245546.3, Feb.
12, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 179 at 8.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The adjectival ratings used by the agency in evaluating proposals were
highly acceptable, acceptable, unacceptable (with the "capacity to be made
acceptable as a result of discussions), unacceptable ("[n]ot capable of
correction through discussions without submission of what would amount to an
entirely new proposal), and neutral (applicable to the past performance
evaluation factor only).

2. One offeror withdrew its proposal from further consideration prior to the
conduct of discussions.

3. MES' BAFO does not specifically identify an "additional duty scheduler"
position. It appears from MES' inclusion in the instructor position
descriptions of the phrase "Perform Additional Duties, such as
Scheduler/Assistant Scheduler," that MES' BAFO is referring to instructors
when it mentions "additional duty schedulers."

4. While the protester asserts that it is unreasonable to find its proposal
unacceptable for this reason, because ICW instructors represent only 5
percent of the total instructors, the record shows that the ICW instructors
satisfy a mandatory requirement and that MES' proposal did not demonstrate
how these instructors could perform their designated duties.