BNUMBER:  B-279707 
DATE:  July 9, 1998
TITLE: HSQ Technology, B-279707, July 9, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:   HSQ Technology

File:     B-279707

Date:July 9, 1998

Donald O. Pratt, Esq., Pratt & Sanderford, for the protester.
Christopher M. Bellomy, Esq., Arthur F. Thibodeau, Esq., and George N. 
Brezna, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range 
as not having a reasonable chance of being selected for award in view 
of agency's receipt of significantly higher-rated proposals; 
protester's proposal lacked information showing satisfaction of 
experience requirements by proposed key personnel even after agency 
requested, in two rounds of discussions, that the required information 
be provided. 

DECISION

HSQ Technology protests the elimination of its proposal from the 
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N47408-97-R-1806, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command 
for a supervisory control and data acquisition system to be known as 
the Pier Power Monitoring/Utility Control System.  HSQ contends that 
the Navy misevaluated HSQ's proposal and improperly eliminated the 
proposal from the competitive range.  

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on January 6, 1997 for a predominantly electrical 
system to be configured as a supervisory control and data acquisition 
(SCADA) system for the Naval Station in San Diego, California.  The 
requirement is to provide, install, maintain, repair, replace, and 
test systems that will monitor, control, analyze, and provide 
historical and billing information for certain utility services.  The 
RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quanti
ty contract with provisions for both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable 
pricing.  Award was to be made on the basis of best value to the 
government.

The RFP set forth the following five general evaluation factors:  
technical; past performance; cost; subcontracting; and software 
license agreement.  The technical and past performance factors were 
stated to be of equal importance and their combined weight was 
significantly greater than that of cost.  The technical evaluation 
factor included equally weighted subfactors, one of which was 
corporate management and key personnel.  Offerors were required to 
assign their key personnel in their proposals and were not to make 
substitutions except in limited circumstances.  In addition, offerors 
were instructed to provide a cross-reference list if the labor 
categories in their proposals did not directly match those set forth 
in the RFP.

The RFP listed the following six key personnel positions:  project 
manager; superintendent/site manager; computer programmer; electronic 
technician; electrician; and controls technician.  The solicitation 
specified the information that key personnel resumes were to include: 
the time period of applicable experience, the firm at which the 
experience was gained, a description of duties performed, and the 
level of responsibility that was held; it also specified required 
minimum qualifications for each key personnel position.  In addition, 
offerors were required to submit past performance information for all 
ongoing contracts and all contracts completed within the last 3 years 
for electrical SCADA systems.

The agency received seven proposals, including HSQ's, by the closing 
date.  A technical evaluation board (TEB) reviewed the initial 
proposals and determined that four of them, including HSQ's, were 
unacceptable as submitted but susceptible of being made acceptable, 
and therefore should be included in the competitive range.  

HSQ's proposal received a rating of "unacceptable but capable" for the 
technical evaluation factor, and "poor" for the past performance 
factor, resulting in an overall rating of "unacceptable but capable of 
being made acceptable."  Under the technical subfactor of corporate 
management and key personnel, the TEB was unable to determine whether 
HSQ's proposal satisfied the key personnel requirements, noting that 
HSQ had provided only starting dates for the proposed key personnel's 
association with the firm; most of the resumes did not include 
electrical SCADA projects, and those that did, failed to distinguish 
between electrical SCADA (for which the RFP specified a minimum 
requirement) and general SCADA experience.  Regarding past 
performance, the TEB noted that HSQ had supplied only references that 
would provide good comments; however, evaluators contacted references 
connected with two other current HSQ government contracts of which 
they had knowledge, and received negative responses.

The Navy sent written discussion questions to the competitive range 
offerors.  The five-page list of questions for HSQ included cost, past 
performance, and technical issues.  Regarding the experience of 
proposed key personnel, the protester was requested to "[d]emonstrate 
that key personnel meet required experience in general and electrical 
SCADA."  Eight questions addressed the issue of HSQ's past performance 
record, naming the two projects that the firm had not mentioned in its 
proposal, asking why they had not been included, and requested that 
HSQ provide information demonstrating the results of any corrective 
action that had been taken in connection with deficiencies that 
references had identified in HSQ's performance.

HSQ submitted written responses for the discussion questions and 
revised its initial proposal by replacing certain sections entirely.  
In response to the key personnel questions, HSQ provided "additional 
highlights for each [proposed key personnel], which may not be 
apparent from [their] resumes."  For computer programmers, HSQ noted 
first "TBD," apparently indicating that these personnel were yet to be 
determined, but included a list of six potential employees who were 
"most likely to be required and available for this work," also listing 
their experience.  Regarding past performance, HSQ noted that the 
omission of the first of the two projects that the Navy raised was an 
oversight that resulted from the project's not having been completed 
at the time the proposal was prepared, and that the second project was 
not considered relevant, since it involved a heating/ventillation 
environmental controls project with no applicability to electrical 
SCADA systems.  Regarding each of the past performance deficiencies, 
HSQ noted that it was unable to address statements by others regarding 
past performance issues that had not been communicated to the firm, 
but provided comments regarding each of the general points raised.

The TEB reviewed the offerors' responses to the discussion questions 
and concluded that the revised proposals of three offerors, including 
HSQ, were still unacceptable but susceptible of being made acceptable.  
The remaining proposal was eliminated from the competitive range.  The 
TEB decided that the competitive range proposals all required 
additional clarification, but it was expected that every one of them 
could be made technically acceptable without a major rewrite.

The contracting officer advised HSQ by letter that its proposal 
remained within the competitive range, but that discussions were still 
in progress, and requested clarification or additional information 
regarding certain issues.  HSQ was again permitted to revise its 
proposal.  All but two of the technical factor issues were considered 
to meet the specifications.  The two noted deficiencies involved 
compliance with a data module specification, and the experience of 
HSQ's proposed key personnel.  For the latter, the request for 
additional clarification was as follows:

     The information provided does not adequately demonstrate that key 
     personnel meet the required general and electrical SCADA 
     requirements.  Please provide resumes which clearly demonstrate 
     the time periods for the applicable experience and names and 
     locations of the companies where the experience was gained.

HSQ responded by submitting additional information and diagrams for 
the data module issue, and six resumes which had been "revised to 
include the relevant experience and qualification information" in 
response to the key personnel experience issue.  The six resumes that 
HSQ submitted were for the positions of project manager, computer 
programmer, superintendent/site manager, electrician, controls 
technician, and electronic technician.  Of these six, only the project 
manager was the same person who had been proposed in HSQ's previous 
proposal revision.  The person proposed as site manager had been 
proposed in the initial proposal as electrician; the person now 
proposed as computer programmer had also been proposed for this 
position in the initial proposal, but had been replaced by four other 
employees in the first proposal revision.  The persons now being 
proposed for the four remaining key positions were new.  When the TEB 
reviewed this submission, it found that HSQ had failed to demonstrate 
that any of its key personnel met the RFP's specific experience 
requirements.  In addition, the TEB considered that HSQ's initial poor 
past performance rating had not changed during the previous round of 
discussions, and that both of the other remaining competitive range 
proposals were more highly rated because they offered technically 
superior approaches.  The TEB concluded that HSQ's proposal should 
therefore be excluded from the competitive range.  

The contracting officer advised HSQ by letter of the rejection of its 
proposal.  HSQ requested a debriefing, which was conducted in writing.  
In the debriefing letter, the Navy identified for HSQ the specific 
deficiencies it had found in the experience of each of the proposed 
key personnel, and answered questions that HSQ had raised.  In 
summary, the contracting officer wrote:

     As stated in the solicitation Technical and Past Performance were 
     weighted equally.  Your Past Performance evaluation was initially 
     rated as poor and remained unchanged subsequent to your response 
     to the Past Performance discussion issues. . . .

     Based upon the foregoing information your proposal was determined 
     not to be among the most highly rated offers being considered for 
     award and was eliminated from the competitive range . . . .

This protest followed.  

HSQ protests that its proposal's exclusion from the competitive range 
was improper, contending that the qualifications of its personnel as 
set forth on the submitted resumes meet both the requirements of the 
Navy and the requirements set forth in the RFP.  More specifically, 
HSQ contends that in its evaluation of key personnel, the Navy did not 
evaluate the submitted resumes correctly in relation to the positions 
for which they were intended.  In this regard, HSQ contends that, 
except for two positions, the Navy failed to evaluate the submitted 
resumes under the experience requirements for the positions for which 
the resumes were designated in HSQ's proposal.  With regard to the 
materials HSQ submitted in response to the second round of discussion 
questions, HSQ argues, in effect, that it expected the Navy to 
continue to recognize the personnel proposed in its initial proposal 
for each of the key personnel positions, and states that the names and 
resumes subsequently submitted were "provided in order to demonstrate 
HSQ's depth of personnel, not to substitute them for [the initially 
named persons]."

We find this argument without merit.

We will review an agency's technical evaluation of proposals to 
determine whether it was fair, reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation criteria.  Sandaire, B-242301, Apr. 12, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  370 at 3.  The technical evaluation of a proposal is based on 
information submitted in it, and an offeror runs the risk of having 
its proposal downgraded and rejected if the proposal submitted is 
inadequately written.  Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., 
B-242836.4, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  387 at 5.  Accordingly, to the 
extent that the protester is arguing that the evaluators did not 
understand the resumes and that the Navy could have resolved any 
questions in additional discussions, HSQ, like all offerors, was 
required to demonstrate the merits of its proposal within the four 
corners of the proposal and ran the risk of rejection if it failed to 
do so.  Hornet Joint Venture, B-258430.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  55 
at 7.

Here, the resumes provided in HSQ's second proposal revisions did not 
convey the information that HSQ asserts was intended.  The additional 
resumes were clearly labeled with the exact positions for which the 
Navy evaluated them.  Under the circumstances, there is nothing 
unreasonable in this aspect of the Navy's evaluation.

To the extent that HSQ asserts that the Navy should have evaluated its 
proposed staffing of those positions based upon the names that were 
initially submitted, the Navy had done so under its initial evaluation 
and had concluded that the corresponding resumes did not demonstrate 
that these personnel satisfied the RFP's experience requirements.  The 
submission of additional names "to demonstrate HSQ's depth of 
personnel" could not reasonably be viewed as providing a basis for the 
TEB to revise this conclusion.  Neither the initially submitted nor 
the subsequently submitted resumes directly responded to the 
requirement in the RFP and in discussion questions that specific types 
of experience be shown for the key positions for specified minimum 
periods of time.  For example, the RFP included the following specific 
requirements for the position of project manager:

     -10 years experience managing projects related to utility systems
     -5 years project management experience for electrical SCADA 
     systems
     -successful management of at least one (1) project comparable in 
     size and complexity to the PWC San Diego PPM/UCS Project.

In its initial proposal, the resume that HSQ submitted for its 
proposed project manager included a list of major projects in which 
the proposed employee had been involved, previous employment 
experience, and education.  The only dates included in the resume were 
for educational degrees and the notation that the employee has been 
"associated with HSQ since 1989."  In its response to the first round 
of written discussion questions, HSQ submitted a paragraph about its 
proposed project manager, stating that he had "over thirty (30) years 
experience in business and contracts management in Government and 
private industry"; that he has "applied his training and experience to 
SCADA projects for Government customers" since joining HSQ in 1989; 
that he has completed three Corps of Engineers electric power 
generation SCADA projects successfully "[i]n the past several years," 
and additional narrative generally describing his abilities and 
experience.  

In its response to the second round of discussion questions, HSQ 
provided an expanded resume for its proposed project manager but again 
failed to include information showing that his experience met the RFP 
requirements.  The resume again states that the employee has "over 
thirty years experience in business and contracts management," but 
does not indicate whether he has the requisite 10 years experience 
managing projects related to utility systems, nor does it distinguish 
his experience in electrical SCADA systems to show whether his 
experience meets the requirement for 5 years of project management in 
this area.  For each of the projects that are listed, the resume 
indicates the date of completion, but does not indicate the duration 
of the project, nor does it specifically identify the employee's role 
in the project.  Each of the other key personnel resumes were 
similarly lacking in information.  In these circumstances, where the 
RFP provided explicit instructions regarding the information that was 
required and the offeror failed to provide the requisite information 
in its initial proposal and failed to provide it after two rounds of 
discussions repeating the need for this information, the Navy 
reasonably concluded that the protester failed to demonstrate that its 
proposed key personnel met the RFP experience requirements.  In short, 
the Navy's evaluation of HSQ's proposal under this factor was 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP terms.

In addition, we note that the Navy's determination to exclude HSQ's 
proposal from the competitive range was also based on the poor rating 
assigned to HSQ's past performance--an evaluation factor that was 
equal in weight to the technical evaluation factor that included key 
personnel as a subfactor under the RFP's evaluation scheme.  HSQ did 
not protest this aspect of its evaluation.[1]  

The stated basis for the exclusion of HSQ's proposal was the agency's 
determination that, overall, it was not among the most highly rated 
offers being considered for award.  An agency may properly determine 
whether to include a proposal within the competitive range by 
comparing the proposal evaluation scores and the proposal's relative 
standing.  A proposal that is technically acceptable need not be 
included in the competitive range when, relative to other acceptable 
offers, it is determined to have no reasonable chance of being 
selected for award.  Coe-Truman Techs., Inc., B-257480, Sept. 12, 
1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  136 at 3.  We will not disturb a determination to 
exclude a proposal from the competitive range unless the record 
indicates the determination was unreasonable.  Intown Properties, 
Inc., B-250392, Jan. 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  73 at 3.  Here, the agency's 
determination was reasonably based on repeated deficiencies in the 
stated qualifications of HSQ's proposed key personnel, coupled with 
HSQ's poor past performance assessment.  As a result, HSQ's proposal 
was downgraded to an extent that it did not have a reasonable chance 
of being selected for award because there were two other competitive 
range proposals that had received those higher ratings on the basis of 
proposing superior technical approaches.  In these circumstances, the 
exclusion of HSQ's proposal is unobjectionable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although HSQ requested a hearing for the purpose of "refuting 
certain aspects of the Administrative Record dealing with HSQ's prior 
performance on other projects," it did not do so until May 29, more 
than 3 weeks after it received the agency report.  Even if we assume 
that HSQ's knowledge of this basis of protest arose from its review of 
the agency report (rather than from its debriefing), it had to be 
raised within 10 days of receipt of that report in order to be timely 
under our Bid Protest Regulations.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1998).