BNUMBER: B-278182
DATE: November 10, 1997
TITLE: JRS Management, B-278182, November 10, 1997
**********************************************************************
Matter of:JRS Management
File: B-278182
Date:November 10, 1997
Jacqueline Sims for the protester.
Joshua Kranzberg, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Where principal employee proposed by protester tendered resignation
prior to initial closing date, protester accepted resignation prior to
closing date, agency advised protester of the need to provide
replacement individual with required supporting past performance
information, and protester failed to do so, agency reasonably rated
protester's proposal unacceptable for past performance and rejected
it.
DECISION
JRS Management protests the rejection of its proposal under request
for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB08-97-R-0028, issued by the Department of
the Army for financial education and counseling services at Fort
Monmouth, New Jersey.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, as amended, provided for award to the offeror submitting the
best overall proposal based on evaluation of three factors listed in
descending order of importance--technical capabilities/oral
presentation, past performance, and price. For the proposed program
manager, the principal employee under the contract, the solicitation
required offerors to submit a detailed resume, a certification of 2
years of specialized experience providing consumer/financial affairs
counseling, and three references.
Two offerors--JRS and the Life Enhancement Company--submitted
proposals by the September 18, 1997, amended closing date. For the
program manager position, the protester's proposal included the resume
and references for an individual who is currently performing the
protester's incumbent contract for similar services. This same
individual also submitted her own independent, competing proposal, in
the name of Life Enhancement. By letter dated September 4, the
individual notified JRS that she was resigning as an employee,
effective September 30, to coincide with the conclusion of the
protester's current contract. By letter dated September 8, the
individual further notified JRS that she would not represent JRS in
the firm's oral presentation for this solicitation. In a letter dated
September 15, JRS accepted the individual's resignation effective
September 30. The individual notified the Army's contracting officer
of these events, and in letters dated September 19, September 22, and
September 23, the contracting officer requested that JRS provide a
resume and three references for "a prospective [candidate] that will
be available to begin working on the expected [commencement] date of 1
Oct 97." JRS did not do so. As a result, on September 25, the
contracting officer rejected the firm's proposal as unacceptable under
the past performance factor for failure to provide the required resume
and references for an individual shown to be available to perform as
the program manager.
JRS contends that the credentials of the individual it named as its
proposed program manager should have been sufficient to satisfy the
past performance requirement, since (1) that individual "was an
employee of the firm at the time [the firm's] proposal was submitted
and there was no reason for us to believe or for the agency to assume
that [the firm] would not be able to reach an agreement with [that
individual] for continued employment under the new contract," and (2)
the RFP did not require letters of commitment/availability.
We will review a proposal evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable
and consistent with the solicitation and applicable statutes and
regulations. Professional Software Eng'g, Inc., B-272820, Oct. 30,
1996, 96-2 CPD para. 193 at 4.
The evaluation was proper. Notwithstanding that JRS may believe it
could have come to agreement with the individual it proposed as
program manager to return as an employee in the future, the only
information available to the agency during the evaluation indicated
that she had terminated her association with JRS, effective upon the
conclusion of the current contract. Further, although the proposals
received showed that the individual was interested in continuing
performance of the requirement through Life Enhancement, there was no
information available to the agency (and none has been presented in
connection with the protest) showing that she was interested in
employment with JRS in the event JRS received the award. In light of
the available information, the agency discounted both the fact that
the individual was an employee at the time the proposal was submitted,
and the absence from the RFP of a letter of commitment/availability
requirement, and concluded that there was at least substantial
uncertainty as to whether the individual would be available to perform
as the protester's program manager. We see nothing unreasonable in
this conclusion. It follows that the agency reasonably disregarded
the individual's past performance as part of the evaluation of the
protester's proposal and, after JRS declined to provide a different
individual for evaluation as its proposed program manager, properly
rejected the protester's proposal.
JRS also challenges certain RFP provisions as improper. These
arguments are largely untimely, since they were initially raised in an
agency-level protest, but were not then raised in a protest to our
Office within 10 days of initial adverse agency action--i.e., the
agency's issuance of RFP amendments which allegedly failed to resolve
the issues--as required under our Bid Protest Regulations. 4 C.F.R. sec.
21.2(a)(3) (1997); Tucson Mobilephone, Inc.--Recon., B-247055.3, Feb.
6, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 158 at 2. Two of the protester's additional
arguments--concerning allegedly restrictive requirements for the
program manager position--were timely filed. However, given our
conclusion that the Army reasonably rejected the protester's proposal,
and since the firm does not argue that, but for these provisions, it
could have submitted an acceptable offer, these arguments would not
change the outcome.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States