TITLE:   Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-280967.8; B-280967.9, June 14, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-280967.8; B-280967.9
DATE:  June 14, 1999
**********************************************************************
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-280967.8; B-280967.9, June 14, 1999

Matter of: Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.

File: B-280967.8; B-280967.9

Date: June 14, 1999

Timothy B. Mills, Esq., and Lynn T. Burleson, Esq., Patton Boggs, for the
protester.

Carolyn Callaway, Esq., for ATM Service Company, an intervenor.

Matilde L. Espinoza, Esq., Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Charles S. Przbylek, Esq.,
and Wilfred E. Maez, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency.

Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest of agency's evaluation of credentials of key management and
technical personnel is denied where evaluation was consistent with
solicitation's stated evaluation scheme and statement of work, discussion
questions addressed this issue, and evaluation is supported by the record.

2. Contention that agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and improperly
concluded that the awardee's higher-rated, higher-cost proposal offered the
best value to the government is denied, where the record shows that
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation scheme;
the request for proposals stated that technical/management and past
performance evaluation areas were more important than price; and source
selection official reasonably determined that the greater technical merit of
the awardee's proposal was worth the additional cost.

DECISION

Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. (ADC) protests the award of a contract to ATM
Service Company (ATM) by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to request
for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP04-98AL78902. Basically, ADC alleges that the
evaluation of proposals and award decision were fatally flawed.

We deny the protest.

Issued on June 5, 1998, as a total small business set-aside, the RFP
solicited proposals for providing support services to the Safeguards and
Security Division of the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/AL). RFP
Cover Letter at 1. DOE is the responsible steward for the nation's nuclear
weapons. The Safeguards and Security Division is responsible for management,
implementation, and oversight of safeguards and security programs at DOE/AL.
RFP sect. J, attach. A, at 1. The programs are designed to protect the nuclear
weapon complex, consisting of DOE nuclear laboratories and production
plants. Among other things, the programs ensure the safe and secure staging
of nuclear components and materials awaiting permanent disposition and
dismantlement of nuclear weapons. Agency Report at 1. The contractor will
provide a variety of technical support services to support the Safeguards
and Security Division in accomplishing that mission. [1] The RFP envisioned
award of a fixed-price time and materials contract for a base period of 1
year with options for 4 additional years; work will be performed upon the
issuance of task orders issued by the agency. RFP sect. B.

The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the responsible offeror
whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be the best
value, after consideration of technical, cost/price and other factors. RFP
sect. M.01(a). The RFP listed the areas on which proposals would be evaluated,
in descending order of importance, as (1) technical/management, (2) past
performance, and (3) cost/price. RFP sect. M.01(c). The RFP stated that the
technical/management and past performance areas were of greater importance
than cost/price. RFP sect. M.02(a). Within the technical/management evaluation
area, the subfactors were (1) understanding the statement of work (SOW) and
tasks, (2) key management and technical personnel, (3) management control,
and (4) management organization. RFP sect. M.02(b).

Five firms submitted initial proposals, which were evaluated. On
September 2, 1998, without conducting discussions, DOE awarded the contract
to ATM. Two firms, ADC and GEM Technology, filed protests in our Office.
After DOE notified us that it would take corrective action in response to
the protests (including reopening the procurement, conducting discussions,
receiving and evaluating best and final offers (BAFOs), and making a new
award decision), we dismissed both protests as academic.

Discussions were held with all five offerors, and BAFOs were received in
January 1999. After evaluation by the source evaluation team (SET), ADC's
BAFO received a total score of [deleted] points (out of 1,250 possible
points) at an evaluated cost of $[deleted] while ATM's BAFO received a total
score of [deleted] points at an evaluated cost of $14,461,400. Agency
Report, Tab 5.b, Final SET Report, at 5-6. On February 10, representatives
of the SET met with and reported to the source selection official (SSO) on
the SET's evaluation of proposals. Agency Report, Tab 6, Decision Briefing
to the SSO; Agency Report, Tab 7, Source Selection Statement, at 1. The SSO
reviewed the final SET report and concurred in its giving ATM's BAFO the
highest rating. Agency Report, Tab 7, Source Selection Statement, at 1. Even
though ATM's evaluated cost was the second-highest of all proposals, the SSO
determined that ATM's proposal represented the best value to the government
based upon the technical superiority of the proposal. Id. at 2. Accordingly,
the SSO selected ATM's proposal for award and the contracting officer
notified all offerors of the selection. [2] ADC filed its protest before the
contract was awarded to ATM, and award has been held in abeyance pending our
resolution of the protest. [3]

The protester contends that its proposal improperly was downgraded on the
"understanding the SOW and tasks" and the "key management and technical
personnel" subfactors, because [deleted] employees proposed for [deleted]
were not qualified when, in fact, those employees exceeded the RFP's minimum
qualifications and had performed in the [deleted] under ADC's prior physical
and technical security services contract with DOE/AL. Supplemental Protest
at 4-18. ADC also contends that DOE's evaluation of key management and
technical personnel was unfair and unequal, to the prejudice of ADC. Second
Supplemental Protest at 3-9. Moreover, ADC asserts that ATM incorrectly
received the highest rating in the technical/ management area even though,
ADC alleges, ATM's proposed project manager had no previous experience in
DOE safeguards and security programs. Initial Protest at 3. The protester
also contends that DOE gave ATM an unreasonably high rating in the past
performance evaluation, even though DOE's evaluators knew that ATM had
experienced staffing and performance problems under its prior DOE personnel
security services contract. Second Supplemental Protest at 2, 9-10. Based
upon the alleged flaws in the technical evaluation, the protester asserts
that the SSO had no rational basis for his selection of ATM's proposal for
award. Initial Protest at 4.

Our Office will question an agency's evaluation of proposals only if it
lacks a reasonable basis or is inconsistent with the RFP's stated evaluation
criteria. DAE Corp., Ltd., B-257185, Sept. 6, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 95 at 4.
After reviewing ADC's and ATM's proposals, the evaluation documents, and the
agency reports in light of ADC's allegations, we find that DOE's evaluation
was reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.

The record shows that DOE downgraded ADC's proposal in the technical/
management area, finding that [deleted] of ADC's proposed [deleted] did not
meet the technical security qualifications. Agency Report, Tab 5.b, Final
SET Report, at 11-12. ADC contends that DOE improperly used unstated
evaluation criteria when it determined that the proposed employees lacked
experience in [deleted]. [4] ADC contends that experience in these three
programs was not an RFP requirement. [5] Supplemental Protest at 12-13.

While the agency is required to identify the significant evaluation factors
and subfactors, it is not required to identify the various aspects of each
factor which might be taken into account, provided that such aspects are
reasonably related to or encompassed by the RFP's stated criteria. Global
Plus, B-257431.9, Dec. 14, 1994, 95-1 CPD para. 77 at 4. We think that the RFP
adequately informed offerors how proposals would be evaluated and that the
evaluation was consistent with the stated evaluation scheme.

The RFP stated:

The proposed key management and technical personnel will be evaluated based
on their experience, education, professional credentials, and demonstrated
performance as it relates to their ability to accomplish the task as set
forth in the SOW. The ability of the offeror's proposed personnel, of the
key management and technical positions, set forth in Section J, Attachment D
[Minimum Personnel Qualifications Requirements] will also be evaluated.

RFP sect. M.03(a)(2).

For the senior technical security specialist position, the minimum personnel
qualifications included, among other things, knowledge of DOE safeguards and
security policy and programs. For the technical security specialist
position, the minimum personnel qualifications included, among other things,
experience in COMSEC and emanations security and knowledge of technical
surveillance countermeasures (TSCM). [6] RFP sect. J, attach. D, at 2, 3. The
SOW indicated that the contractor would have to provide specialized
technical expertise in support of the following DOE technical security
programs, among others: computer security, TSCM, TEMPEST, PTS, and COMSEC.
RFP sect. J, attach. A, at sect.sect. 5.1.8, 5.1.9; Agency Report at 12. Thus, DOE's
evaluation of proposed technical security specialist personnel for
experience and familiarity with the PTS, TEMPEST, and COMSEC disciplines was
reasonably related to the key management and technical personnel evaluation
factor. Furthermore, the record shows that ADC's technical approach relied
heavily upon [deleted], and its proposal included a [deleted]. Agency
Report, Tab 5.b, Final SET Report, at 11; Agency Report, Tab 4.a, ADC
Initial Proposal, vol. II, at 29; Agency Report, Tab 4.b, ADC BAFO, vol. II,
at 12-20. Therefore, the SET reasonably considered the qualifications of
ADC's technical support personnel in evaluating the "understanding the SOW
and tasks" subfactor as well. [7]

ADC states that the [deleted] personnel that were downgraded as not having
[deleted]. Supplemental Protest at 5-15. The protester points out that the
members of the SET were officials of the Safeguards and Security Division
and therefore should have been familiar with ADC's work under the prior
contract and known that the proposed technical personnel had previously
performed work in a satisfactory manner in the same or higher level labor
categories. Id. at 5-6; Second Supplemental Protest at 10. ADC also points
out that the proposed technical personnel were listed in the same positions
in organizational charts included in monthly reports and in billing
statements it provided to DOE under its prior contract. ADC contends that
the evaluators' personal knowledge of ADC's employees' qualifications should
have been considered in their deliberations when evaluating ADC's proposal,
but improperly was not. Second Supplemental Protest at 10-11.

The agency responds that, even though the proposed employees may have been
"invoiced" by ADC in the same labor categories, the SET members had personal
knowledge that the employees had not performed the duties and
responsibilities for which they were proposed. Agency Supplemental Report
at 9-10. The agency reports that a review of electronic correspondence
generated by the proposed employees (conducted in response to the protest)
confirmed that the proposed employees did not perform duties in support of
the technical security programs of the Safeguards and Security Division. Id.
at 10; Agency Report, Tab 13, Former Contractors' Duties, at 19.

Based upon our review of the record, we have no basis for finding
unreasonable the evaluation of ADC's technical security specialists.

ADC's initial proposal included a matrix showing the credentials of
employees working on the incumbent contract with DOE/AL; the proposal also
briefly described the qualifications of representative employees for the
labor categories of the present requirement. Agency Report, Tab 4.a, ADC
Initial Proposal, vol. II, at  28-31. The [deleted]. Id. at 29. The SET
downgraded the proposal because, among other things, it lacked [deleted].
However, the SET gave the proposal a [deleted] rating ([deleted] percent of
the available points) for the "key management and technical personnel"
subfactor, because the SET also believed that the education and experience
of ADC's project manager were a strength of the proposal. Agency Report,
Tab 5.e, SET Report Aug. 12, 1998, at 10, 12.

During discussions, the agency asked ADC to explain how its personnel met
the RFP requirements. ADC's BAFO named four employees for the senior
technical security specialist positions and one for the technical security
specialist position, and included a brief description of their
qualifications, which was to supplement the matrix and description contained
in the initial proposal. Agency Report, Tab 4.b, ADC BAFO, vol. II, at 8,
12-20. This supplemental information showed that [deleted] of the [deleted]
employees proposed as technical security specialists had experience or
training relating to [deleted]. Id. at 14; Agency Report at 12. However, the
brief descriptions included for the other technical security specialists
[deleted]. As a result, the SET determined that [deleted] were, in fact,
qualified, while [deleted] were not; and the SET considered this a weakness
of the proposal. Nonetheless, the SET still rated ADC's BAFO as good for the
"key management and technical personnel" subfactor and increased ADC's
rating slightly (to [deleted] percent of the available points). Agency
Report, Tab 5.b, Final SET Report, at 12. Moreover, because ADC's BAFO
proposed specific employees to accomplish the tasks in the SOW and
[deleted], the SET also reasonably considered the lack of [deleted] to be a
weakness in the "understanding the SOW and tasks" subfactor. Id. at 11.
ADC's [deleted] for which support services would be required. The SET
members also had personal knowledge that those particular ADC employees had
not performed the duties and responsibilities for which they were proposed.
Accordingly, we cannot find that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable.

The protester also contends that the agency's evaluation of key management
and technical personnel was unequal and unfair. Essentially, the protester
contends that, because it committed specific employees for each labor
category and submitted an extensive matrix with detailed descriptions of
those employees qualifications, while ATM did not, the SET's giving ATM's
proposal a higher rating on the "key management and technical personnel"
subfactor was unreasonable. Second Supplemental Protest at 3-9. We cannot
agree. ATM's BAFO included a resource/ qualifications table that showed the
experience and educational credentials for a large number of its employees,
but stated that the table was intended as a representative sample of the
resources available to perform the work. Agency Report, Tab 3.b, ATM BAFO,
vol. II, at 21-23. Admittedly, the resource/qualifications table in ATM's
BAFO was not as detailed as ADC's employee qualifications matrix and
supplemental statement (see Agency Report, Tab 4.a, ADC Initial Proposal,
vol. II, at 29; Tab 4.b, ADC BAFO, vol. II, at 12-20). However, as discussed
above, ADC's [deleted], while ATM's resource/qualifications table revealed
no such lack of qualifications. The record shows that the SET considered
ATM's failure to address security technical qualifications to be a major
weakness when evaluating the "key management and technical personnel"
subfactor and its technical security disciplines' descriptions to be a minor
weakness when evaluating the "understanding the SOW and tasks" subfactor.
Agency Report, Tab 5.b, SET Final Report, at 23, 24. Here, the SET
reasonably found, based in part upon the SET members' personal knowledge of
ADC's employees' work on the predecessor contract, that ADC committed itself
to [deleted]. The SET determined that ADC had a major weakness under each
subfactor, and that ADC's proposal contained [deleted] minor weaknesses
related to understanding the SOW and tasks. Therefore, we cannot find that
the SET's giving ATM's proposal slightly higher ratings than ADC's proposal
on both subfactors, based on the weaknesses identified, was unreasonable or
that its treatment of the offerors was disparate. Id. at 11, 12.

Concerning the evaluation of ATM's proposed project manager, the minimum
qualifications for the project manager included: (1) a bachelor's degree or
equivalent in business administration/management; (2)  3 years' experience
in managing a safeguards and security program; (3) experience in directing
an organization with a diverse mix of management, technical and
administrative functions; and (4) experience working with senior government
officials. RFP sect. J, attach. D, Minimum Personnel Qualifications
Requirements, at 1-2.

There is ample information in ATM's proposed project manager's resume to
show that he had the requisite education, experience, and credentials. The
resume showed, among other things, that he had a master's degree in business
administration and bachelor of science degrees in both industrial management
and

computer information systems. Agency Report, Tab 3.a, ATM Initial Proposal,
vol. II, at 27-28. Thus, the agency reasonably determined that the proposed
project manager surpassed the minimum educational requirement. Agency Report
at 7-8. The resume also showed that the project manager had more than 4
years' experience as project manager on the DOE/AL personnel security
services contract (as noted above, the requirements of that contract have
been combined with the requirements of three other contracts to make up the
present requirement). Id.; Agency Report at 2, 7. Thus, the agency
reasonably determined that, as the incumbent project manager from the DOE/AL
personnel security contract, the proposed project manager exceeded the
3-year experience requirement. Agency Report at 7. In addition, the resume
revealed that ATM's project manager had held key management positions in
other government programs--including (1) Chief, Johnson Atoll Support
Division, Field Command, Defense Nuclear Agency; and (2) Chief,
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Program Development, Joint Strategic
Target Planning Staff (Joint Chiefs of Staff)--and that both of those
positions involved a mix of management, technical and administrative
functions, including security functions. Agency Report, Tab 3.a, ATM Initial
Proposal, vol. II, at 27-28; Agency Report at 7. Based upon the above and
other information, the SET opined that "[t]he proposed [project manager] has
a good mix of education, along with experience in Personnel Security," and
DOE reasonably determined that ATM proposed a "strong" project manager who
represented one of the strengths of ATM's proposal. [8] Agency Report,
Tab 5.b, Final SET Report at 24. We think the record reasonably shows that
the difference in the evaluation of the competing proposals was simply the
result of different approaches taken by the firms proposing, rather than the
result of unfair or improper treatment by the agency evaluators.

The protester contends that ATM should have received a lower rating in the
past performance evaluation because ATM performed poorly and experienced
workforce instability during its tenure as the incumbent contractor under
the DOE/AL personnel security contract. More specifically, ADC alleges that
ATM was cited for a security infraction when, under that prior contract, ATM
allowed access to classified work areas to a person who did not possess the
appropriate security clearance. The

protester also alleges that ATM's employee turnover rate at DOE/AL's Badge
and Visitor Control Office was unusually high resulting in replacement of
practically all of the ATM employees at that office within a short time
after ATM started performing. Second Supplemental Protest at 9-10.

The record fully supports the SET's giving ATM an excellent rating on past
performance. ATM's proposal listed and described four prior contracts that
it had performed, including the DOE/AL personnel security services contract
under which it was the incumbent; the proposal also listed and described two
prior contracts under which its subcontractor, DynCorp, had performed work
for DOE. Agency Report, Tab 3.a, ATM Initial Proposal, vol. II, at 42-49.
The SET reviewed five contractor performance reports (three for ATM and two
for DynCorp) in which customers evaluated ATM's and DynCorp's performances
on prior contracts. Those reports evaluated various areas of the firms'
performances, including (1) quality of product/service, (2) cost control,
(3) timeliness of performance, (4) business practices, and (5) customer
satisfaction. While ATM's ratings on the DOE/AL personnel security services
contract ranged from good to excellent (two good and three excellent), its
ratings on all areas of the other two contracts ranged from excellent to
outstanding; and DynCorp was rated as excellent on all areas of the two
prior DOE contracts under which it had performed. Agency Report, Tab 11.a,
Contractor Performance Reports (ATM). Based upon the contractor performance
reports, the SET reasonably determined that ATM warranted an excellent past
performance rating. Agency Supplemental Report at 9. We note that ADC also
received an excellent past performance rating and that ADC actually received
more points than ATM on this subfactor. Id.

The assertion that ATM was cited for a security infraction relates to ATM's
management of DOE/AL's Badge and Visitor Control Office under the prior
personnel security contract. The security infraction occurred in 1994 when
an ATM employee, who had the appropriate security clearance, was issued a
security badge without first obtaining authorized signatures. After
investigation, DOE determined that the incident was not a significant
concern. Agency Report, Tab 12.c, Security Infraction Report, at 1st and 5th
unnumbered pages. The allegedly high employee turnover rate also involved
employees working at the Badge and Visitor Control Office. DOE states that
the level of employee turnover was reasonable. Agency Supplemental Report
at 9. The record shows that, shortly after contract performance began, two
of the three ATM employees at that office resigned within 10 days of each
other in 1993. However, after that, employees worked in each of the three
positions for a minimum period of approximately 2 years, or until the
positions were terminated when federal employees began performing the work.
Agency Report, Tab 12.a, at 1. The record shows that these events took place
more than 5 years ago and were resolved expeditiously and to the
satisfaction of DOE. The SET relied upon more recent favorable contractor
performance reports from a variety of sources (including the contract under
which the security infraction and employee

resignations occurred) in determining that ATM merited an excellent rating.
In our view, the record provides no basis for questioning the SET's past
performance evaluation.

Finally, the protester asserts that the SSO had no rational basis for his
selection of ATM's higher-priced proposal for award. Initial Protest at 4.
However, this protest ground is based upon the allegation that the
technical/management and past performance evaluation was unreasonable or
inconsistent with the stated evaluation scheme, and, as discussed above, the
allegation is not supported by the record. Furthermore, ADC's offer received
an overall technical rating of [deleted] points at an evaluated cost of
$[deleted], while ATM's BAFO received a total score of [deleted] points at
an evaluated cost of $14,461,400. Agency Report, Tab 5.b, Final SET Report,
at 5-6. Thus, ATM's overall technical rating was approximately [deleted]
percent higher than ADC's and ATM's evaluated price was approximately
[deleted] percent higher than ADC's. The SSO determined that the extra
measure of technical merit represented by ATM's proposal justified the
additional cost, particularly because ATM's proposal received the highest
rating in the technical/management area, which was the most important
evaluation area. The SSO specifically determined that the strength of ATM's
project manager, its management control, and its organizational approach
were worth the difference in cost. Agency Report, Tab 7, Source Selection
Statement, at 2. In these circumstances, and given that the
technical/management and past performance evaluation areas were more
important than cost/price, we have no basis to object to the selection
decision. See Theisinger und Probst Bauunternehmung GmbH, B-275756, Mar. 25,
1997, 97-1 CPD para. 168, at 7-9.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General of the United States

Notes

1. The RFP combined four related requirements in support of the Safeguards
and Security Division that were previously acquired through four separate
contracts. ATM and ADC each were incumbent contractors; ATM's contract was
for personnel security services and ADC's contract was for physical and
technical security services. Agency Report at 2.

2. ADC filed its initial protest on February 23, 1999, after receiving
notification that ATM's proposal had again been selected. After a
debriefing, ADC filed a supplemental protest on March 5. After receiving
DOE's report on its initial and supplemental protests, ADC filed a second
supplemental protest on April 12.

3. The parties have raised a number of arguments, both procedural and on the
merits, in support of their respective positions. While we have carefully
considered every argument and examined the entire record in light of them,
we will address only the most significant issues here.

4. [Deleted]. Letter from DOE Counsel to General Accounting Office attach.
1, at 1, 2 (Apr. 27, 1999).

5. In its supplemental protest, ADC alleged that DOE improperly considered
personnel other than the proposed project manager in its evaluation of the
key management and technical personnel subfactor of the technical/management
evaluation area. Supplemental Protest at 3-4. The agency's report responded
to this allegation, but ADC did not reply to the agency's response. Agency
Report at 9-10. We consider the allegation abandoned. Trijicon, Inc.,
B-244546, Oct. 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 375 at 4 n.3.

6. TSCM is a program that provides protection against hidden microphones,
cameras, or other electronic surveillance devices that could be used for
eavesdropping. Letter from DOE Counsel to General Accounting Office
attach. 1, at 2 (Apr. 27, 1999).

7. In any event, during discussions, the agency advised ADC as follows:

[Deleted]

Agency Report, Tab 4.b, ADC BAFO, vol., II, at 8.

Thus, during discussions, the agency advised ADC that it was considering the
qualifications of its technical support personnel. In fact, in response to
this question, ADC stated, among other things, "All the proposed personnel
staffing this contract meet or exceed the Minimum Personnel Qualifications
Requirements (MPQRs) outlined for various labor categories in Section J,
Attachment D, of the RFP." Id. at 12.

8. ADC also asserts that the project manager's resume does not show
precisely how the prior projects on which he worked relate to, and that he
personally had experience performing, the multitude of specific and varied
tasks that may be required under the RFP's SOW. Protester's Comments,
April 14, 1999, at 10-11. However, there was no requirement in the RFP for
that degree of detail in the resumes of proposed personnel. All that was
required was a showing that key personnel had the education, experience, and
ability to accomplish the SOW tasks. Resumes are only a short account of a
person's career and qualifications and do not generally contain the detailed
explanations envisioned by ADC.