BNUMBER: B-280921
DATE: December 7, 1998
TITLE: Pacifica Services, Inc., B-280921, December 7, 1998
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Pacifica Services, Inc.
File: B-280921
Date:December 7, 1998
Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., and Alan Dickson, Esq., Epstein Becker &
Green, for the protester.
Jance R. Hawkins, Esq., and Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo,
for TrendTec, Inc., an intervenor.
Capt. Larna Ross, Capt. Jesse Arnstein, and John E. Lariccia, Esq.,
Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Contracting agency's rejection of protester's proposal as technically
unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's
evaluation criteria where the record shows the agency reasonably
determined that the proposal failed to comply with the solicitation's
requirement to demonstrate that its proposed staffing represented an
adequate number and appropriate allocation of qualified employees and
job categories for each task. Since offerors were on notice the
agency might award the contract without conducting discussions, the
agency's decision to do so under the circumstances here is
unobjectionable.
DECISION
Pacifica Services, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as
technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F06493-98-R-0031, issued by the Department of the Air Force to obtain
civil engineering services at the Los Angeles Air Force Base and its
military family housing annexes. Pacifica contends that the Air Force
improperly evaluated its technical proposal and improperly failed to
conduct discussions with the firm prior to awarding the contract to
TrendTec, the only offeror whose proposal was evaluated as technically
acceptable.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation sought the services of a firm to perform a broad
range of maintenance, repair, and minor construction work on real
property at the
Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, California; the Lawndale
Annex in Hawthorne, California; and the Fort MacArthur Military Family
Housing Annexes in San Pedro, California. RFP sec. L-II-1.0.a. In
addition to performing maintenance, repair, and minor construction
work, the successful contractor was responsible for such disparate
base civil engineering functions as management information systems,
real property management, engineer services, contract planning and
programming,
drafting and record drawing maintenance, design and construction
management, and management of the base's simplified acquisition of
base engineering requirements (SABER) contract. Performance Work
Statement (PWS), RFP sec. C-5, para. 5.5-5.11.
The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, award fee
contract to a firm to perform these services for 1 base year, with up
to 4 option years available. RFP Cover Letter at 1; RFP sec. F(1).
Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced,
technically acceptable proposal. RFP sec. M.1. Pass/fail ratings were
to be assigned under the solicitation's non-price evaluation factors.
RFP sec. M.2.b. Since the government reserved the right to award without
discussions, offerors were cautioned that their initial offers should
include their best price and terms. RFP sec. M.2.
Section L-II-2.3. of the RFP cautioned offerors that their proposals
shall be:
clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective
evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims.
The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the
Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing
rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these
requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no
prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base
its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's
proposal.
The sole proposal volume at issue here is the leadership/technical
volume.[1] With respect to this volume, offerors were required to
"provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology" they
would use for accomplishing the PWS. RFP sec. L-II-4.1. They were also
required to demonstrate their ability to "plan, organize, and manage
resources in a coordinated and timely manner such that the performance
requirements will be achieved, costs will be controlled, and schedules
will be met. The offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of
the processes and efforts required to satisfy the requirements.
Leadership/technical proposals must provide a complete and acceptable
response to [the instructions in section L-II of the RFP]."[2] RFP sec.
M.3.
All of the non-price evaluation factors were drawn from the
leadership/technical volume: leadership/technical, sample
problems/scenario, quality control, and past performance. RFP sec.
L-II-4.2. The sole factor at issue here is leadership/technical.
Section M.4 of the RFP set forth five leadership/technical subfactors:
management approach, organizational structure, staffing, key personnel
qualifications, and
start-up plan.
The Air Force received and reviewed proposals from four offerors,
including Pacifica (the incumbent contractor's principal
subcontractor) and TrendTec. The technical evaluation team (TET)
concluded that Pacifica's proposal passed all of the non-price
evaluation factors save leadership/technical. According to the TET,
Pacifica's proposal did not contain a sufficient number or proper
allocation of qualified employees to accomplish all PWS requirements;
did not demonstrate a detailed and integrated approach or rationale
for management of all activities; and did not provide an approach to
subcontract management. Technical Proposal Evaluation of Pacifica at
1. Since Pacifica's proposal failed the leadership/technical factor,
it was deemed to have failed the entire technical evaluation and
considered to be technically unacceptable. The source selection
authority (SSA) concurred, and Pacifica's proposal was rejected, as
were two other proposals deemed technically unacceptable. SSA
Decision at 1. The Air Force subsequently awarded the contract to
TrendTec, the only technically acceptable offeror, at a price of
$34.671 million, approximately $2 million higher than Pacifica's
proposed price.
Pacifica argues that the Air Force improperly evaluated Pacifica's
proposal with respect to its staffing, management approach, and
subcontracting approach. Pacifica contends that the agency utilized
an unstated minimum staffing level and unstated personnel requirements
in evaluating Pacifica's staffing; utilized an unstated requirement
for detailed management practices in evaluating Pacifica's management
approach; and conducted an irrational evaluation of the firm's
subcontracting approach.
The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the
procuring agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and deciding on the best methods of accommodating them. We will
question the agency's technical evaluation only where the record shows
that the evaluation does not have a reasonable basis or is
inconsistent with the RFP. Quarles Janitorial Servs., Inc.,
B-251095, B-251095.2, Mar. 3, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 197 at 3. The fact
that the protester disagrees with the agency does not itself render
the evaluation unreasonable. Id. Further, since an agency's
evaluation is dependent upon the information furnished in a proposal,
it is the offeror's burden to submit an adequately written proposal
for the agency to evaluate, and a protester's failure to fulfill its
obligation in this regard does not render the agency's evaluation
unreasonable. See Robotic Sys. Tech.,
B-278195.2, Jan. 7, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 20 at 9. Our review of the
record, including testimony obtained at a hearing, leads us to
conclude that the agency's evaluation of Pacifica's proposal as
technically unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with the terms
of the solicitation.
It is useful to briefly reiterate the solicitation's explicit
instructions regarding the detail required of proposals. Offerors
were required to "include sufficient detail for effective evaluation
and for substantiating the validity of stated claims"; "provide
convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet [the
government's] requirements"; "provide as specifically as possible the
actual methodology" they would use to accomplish the PWS; and "provide
a complete and acceptable response to [the instructions in section
L-II of the RFP]." RFP sec. L-II-2.3, L-II-4.1; M.3.
With these instructions as a backdrop, offerors were required to
propose a staffing approach that was to be evaluated in accordance
with the following relevant portions of RFP sec. M.4.a.(3), the staffing
subfactor:
The offeror's proposed staffing demonstrates that personnel are
capable of performing tasks in the PWS at the start and
throughout contract performance. The offeror's proposed staffing
represents an adequate quantity and appropriate allocation of
qualified employees and job categories (including subcontractors)
for each critical and noncritical task which will ensure
accomplishment of the PWS requirements. The proposed staffing
presents an effective mix of multidisciplined skills, education,
training, certifications/licenses, and work experience (including
subcontractors) to accomplish the requirements of the PWS.
Pacifica's proposal cites its experience as the principal
subcontractor to the incumbent contractor, asserts that the firm is
fully knowledgeable of the staffing requirements to execute the PWS
requirements, and claims that its proposed staffing will provide
personnel with the requisite skill mix to perform the PWS tasks.
Proposal at 29. However, Pacifica's principal response to the
staffing subfactor is found in Table IIe-3.2 of its proposal.
The 30 fold-out pages that comprise this table list each proposed
labor category across the top and each PWS paragraph down the
left-hand column. At the intersection of each row and column,
Pacifica lists the amount of time each labor category is to spend on
each PWS paragraph, in full-time equivalent (FTE) hours. In many
instances, the intersection of row and PWS paragraph does not list a
figure but, rather, an asterisk denoting "less than .05" FTEs.
According to its contemporaneous evaluation document, the TET believed
that Pacifica's proposed staffing did not demonstrate personnel
capable of performing tasks in the PWS at the start and throughout
contract performance, and that its proposal did not contain a
sufficient number or a proper allocation of qualified employees to
accomplish all of the PWS requirements. As examples of these
failings, the TET stated that Pacifica's proposal did not include "key
technical coverage" in electrical and civil/structural engineering and
did not propose a sufficient number of personnel for in-service work
planning, SABER project development and management, and construction
inspection. Technical Proposal Evaluation of Pacifica at 1.
In response to the protest, the TET's chief evaluator provided a
declaration in which she elaborated upon the contemporaneous
evaluation. She also testified on this subject at a hearing convened
to resolve the protest.[3] The chief evaluator stated that Pacifica's
table was difficult to understand and failed to demonstrate that its
proposed staffing represented an "adequate quantity and appropriate
allocation of qualified employees and job categories" for each task
that will ensure accomplishment of the PWS requirements, as required
by the RFP. First, there was no narrative to demonstrate why the
number and mix of personnel proposed to perform given PWS tasks would
ensure accomplishment of those tasks. As the chief evaluator
testified at the hearing, merely putting a number in a category does
not substantiate the ability to perform the work because that "in no
way tells us how that number is accurate to reflect the amount of work
required to perform that one area of work." Hearing Transcript (Tr.)
at 77; see also Tr. at 86-88, 161-62. Second, Pacifica's use of the
asterisk made it difficult for the Air Force to ascertain how much
time was to be devoted to various tasks because there was no way to
know exactly how much less than .05 FTEs Pacifica was proposing for a
given task and labor category. Tr. at 180-81; see also Tr. 77-78.
Despite determining that Pacifica's overall staffing was insufficient
for the reasons above, the TET attempted to identify the number of
proposed personnel for critical staffing only, in the event that these
were the only services the Air Force's funding would allow.[4] The
Air Force encountered the same difficulties here and, in addition,
concluded that some positions were assigned more tasks than the agency
thought they could accomplish. Chief Evaluator's Declaration at para.
35-38; Tr. at 77-78, 81, 118-22, 180-81.
Our review of Pacifica's table leads us to conclude that the Air Force
reasonably determined that Pacifica failed to substantiate its
proposed staffing, despite being on notice that it was required to do
so. We agree that its charts, which are indeed difficult to
understand, do not serve as a substitute for an explanation of why the
firm's proposed staffing was sufficient to perform the PWS
requirements. See Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A., B-278358,
Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 26
at 8. We also think that Pacifica incorrectly contends that the
agency's concern with how it could perform the tasks with the total
number of staff it proposed means that the agency evaluated its
proposal using an unstated minimum staffing level. The record shows
that the Air Force was not evaluating Pacifica's proposal with a
particular staffing level in mind, but was concerned by the firm's
failure to substantiate its own proposed staffing given its own
approach to performing the work. Chief Evaluator's Declaration at para.
40; Tr. at 76-77, 81-83, 160-62, 183-84. Both the concern and the
resulting evaluation are reasonable.
As specific examples in support of its evaluation, the TET stated,
among other things, that Pacifica's proposal did not include "key
technical coverage in electrical and civil/structural engineering."
Technical Proposal Evaluation of Pacifica at 1.
As an initial matter, Pacifica has mischaracterized the Air Force's
position by arguing that it improperly required offerors to propose,
as key personnel, an electrical engineer and a civil/structural
engineer. As the evaluation document plainly states, the agency's
concern was with Pacifica's failure to provide "key technical
coverage" in these areas, not its failure to propose actual engineers
as key personnel. See also Tr. at 138-39, 146-47.
The chief evaluator refers to the requirement that the contractor
repair and maintain all integral components of facilities, found at
PWS para. 5.31.2. The requirement states, "[i]n addition to normal
structural loading such as dead/wind/snow, the contractor shall
consider seismic [factors] to assure structural integrity of
facilities by using [an Air Force manual on seismic design for
buildings]." Id. The chief evaluator states that this would require
the contractor to look at as-built drawings and the existing structure
to see if a proposed renovation would comply with current seismic
standards, or if retrofitting was required, and to draft a statement
of work. Chief Evaluator's Declaration at para. 15. She points out,
correctly, that there is no evidence in Pacifica's proposal that any
of the personnel proposed to perform this task have the ability to
"consider seismic [factors] to assure structural integrity of
facilities." Proposal Table IIe-3.2 at 7, 17; Proposal at 62-69;
Proposal at Attachment 1; see also Tr. at 78-80, 145, 189-90.
Pacifica's insistence that it allocated to this PWS paragraph
personnel that were competent to do what is required is all very well,
but there is no evidence to support this claim in its proposal. There
is no dispute that Pacifica was free to cross-utilize the architects
it proposed elsewhere to do this work[5] or to subcontract for this
skill, as it points out it could have done, but the firm's proposal
failed to state that it would do either of these things. As a result,
we cannot conclude that the Air Force unreasonably determined that
Pacifica's proposal failed to include key technical coverage in this
area.
The chief evaluator also refers to PWS para. 5.30.8, 5.31.5, and 5.31.11,
which require the contractor to repair and maintain overhead
distribution systems, substations, switching stations, electrical
vaults, exterior lights, meters, low voltage electrical wiring,
devices, electrical equipment/appliances, grounding, wiring,
rectifiers, associated hardware, and to install cathodic protection.
Chief Evaluator's Declaration at para. 17-19. While there are general
references to electrical experience for two of the personnel proposed
by Pacifica to perform these tasks, there is no indication that they
have electrical engineering experience. Pacifica Proposal Table
IIe-3.2. at 17; Proposal Attachment 1 at 15, 16. Pacifica asserts
that the individual it proposed as its installation restoration and
disaster preparedness section head has a degree in electrical
engineering, but he was not proposed to perform these tasks. Further,
we are not persuaded by Pacifica's argument that its reference to
subcontracting out for high voltage work should have assured the
agency that all of these electrical engineering possibilities would be
covered.
The requirement for key technical coverage in the area of electrical
engineering surfaces again when PWS para. 5.10.1.7. is considered. That
paragraph requires the contractor to provide engineer and technical
services as required to support site surveys and investigations,
requests for information, preparation of project packages for
contracting, cost estimates, technical translation, and support to the
contracting officer for evaluating bids, and to provide technical
assistance for planning in-house work orders. As the Air Force points
out, the two personnel proposed by Pacifica to perform this task--its
architect and mechanical engineer--have no electrical engineering
experience. Pacifica Proposal Table IIe-3.2. at 2; Proposal
Attachment 1 at 7, 9. As a result, to the extent this PWS task will
involve the provision of electrical engineering services, the task is
not fully covered by Pacifica's proposed staffing.[6]
In conclusion, the record affords us no basis to disagree with the Air
Force's conclusion that Pacifica's proposal was technically
unacceptable because it failed to demonstrate that its proposed
staffing represented an adequate quantity and appropriate allocation
of qualified employees and job categories for each PWS task, as the
solicitation's terms required it to do. Moreover, we have no basis to
disagree with the Air Force that this deficiency alone was sufficient
to render the proposal technically unacceptable.[7] See RFP sec. M.2b,
M.2c.
We also disagree with Pacifica's contention that the Air Force
improperly failed to conduct discussions prior to making award to
TrendTec. There is generally no obligation that a contracting agency
conduct discussions where, as here, the RFP specifically instructs
offerors of the agency's intent to award a contract on the basis of
initial proposals. Robotic Sys. Tech., supra, at 11. The contracting
officer has broad discretion to make award on the basis of initial
proposals, but that discretion is not unfettered; we will review the
exercise of such discretion to ensure that it was reasonably based on
the particular circumstances of the procurement, including
consideration of the proposals received and the basis for the
selection decision. Id.; Lloyd-Lamont Design, Inc., B-270090.3, Feb.
13, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 71 at 6. Under the circumstances here, recounted
above, we conclude that it was permissible for the agency to reject
Pacifica's proposal rather than provide the firm an opportunity to
correct the deficiencies. See Good Food Serv., Inc., B-277145, Sept.
2, 1997,
98-1 CPD para. 102 at 3.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Offerors were also required to submit executive summary,
cost/price, contract documentation, and relevant past and present
performance volumes. RFP sec. L.2.2.
2. The instructions in section L-II of the RFP are virtually identical
to the evaluation factors in section M, relevant portions of which are
quoted below.
3. We do not agree with Pacifica that the contents of this declaration
and of certain hearing testimony constitute a wholly new evaluation
which we should not consider. Post-protest explanations that provide
a detailed rationale for contemporaneous conclusions, as is the case
here, simply fill in unrecorded details, and will generally be
considered in our review of the rationality of an evaluation, so long
as those explanations are credible and consistent with the
contemporaneous record. See Jason Assocs. Corp., B-278689 et al.,
Mar. 2, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 67 at 6 n.4.
4. The RFP informed offerors that the agency would acquire only
critical services and environmental services if planned funding was
not provided. RFP Cover Letter at 1. Accordingly, each PWS paragraph
was identified as representing a critical or non-critical task.
5. Neither architect was proposed to perform this task but, in any
event, a review of their resumes does not disclose an ability to
"consider seismic [factors] to assure structural integrity of
facilities." Proposal Attachment 1 at 7, 8.
6. There is a similar lack of coverage--for both electrical and
structural/civil engineering--with respect to PWS para. 5.10.1.10., which
requires the contractor to perform constructability reviews of all
designs. Chief Evaluator's Declaration
at para. 20.
7. Based on this conclusion and the one below, we need not address
Pacifica's allegations concerning the evaluation of its proposal's
management approach, subcontracting approach, or price.