BNUMBER: B-281606
DATE: March 10, 1999
TITLE: Borders Consulting, Inc., B-281606, March 10, 1999
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Borders Consulting, Inc.
File:B-281606
Date:March 10, 1999
James Thompson, Esq., Dauer & Thompson, for the protester.
Sherry K. Kaswell, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that evaluation criteria are designed to "steer" award to
particular firm is denied where criteria directly relate to statement
of work.
DECISION
Borders Consulting, Inc. protests the terms of request for quotations
(RFQ) No. 99-SQ-20-10047, issued by the Department of the Interior
(DOI) for evaluation and upgrade of the agency's Mid-Pacific Internet
web sites. Borders principally argues that the solicitation's
evaluation criteria are improper and that certain of the agency's
technical evaluators should be excluded from participation in the
acquisition.
We deny the protest.
The RFQ contemplates the award of an indefinite-quantity contract to
evaluate the agency's mid-Pacific Internet web sites and to implement
and maintain a more effective and efficient Internet presence. This
RFQ is the second solicitation issued by the agency for this
requirement; Borders protested the award under an earlier solicitation
(B-281308, dismissed as academic, Nov. 9, 1998), and the agency issued
this RFQ as part of its corrective action in response to that protest.
Borders takes specific issue with two criteria--experience and
knowledge of secure electronic commerce development, and experience
and knowledge of web-based security--asserting that they do not
reflect the statement of work. Borders also asserts more generally
that the evaluation criteria were designed to favor the prior awardee,
that is, to enable the agency to ratify its earlier source selection
decision.
Agencies enjoy broad discretion in selecting evaluation criteria and
we will not object to a solicitation's evaluation scheme so long as it
reasonably relates to the agency's needs. Madison Servs., Inc.,
B-278962, Apr. 17, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 113 at 3. The fact that a
solicitation's technical requirements or evaluation criteria may favor
one offeror over another is unobjectionable, so long as they reflect
the agency's actual needs, and the advantage enjoyed by a particular
firm is not the result of improper government action. Id.
Borders's assertions relating to the two specific evaluation criteria
are without merit. The first criterion specifies that proposals will
be assessed to determine a firm's experience in and knowledge of
developing secure electronic commerce. RFQ, Evaluation of Technical
Proposal and Price Quotation, at 2. This criterion clearly relates to
the statement of work, which provides that one of DOI's objectives is
to:
[a]llow employees and customers to conduct various on-line
business activities through Internet/Intranet interfacing of
programs such as time and attendance, services and supplies,
requisitions, training registration, contracting and bidding
opportunities, as well as computer modeling and operation and
maintenance activities.
RFQ, Statement of Work, at 1. Since experience and knowledge in the
area of developing electronic commerce capabilities will be relevant
to an offeror's ability to accomplish this aspect of the requirement,
there is nothing unreasonable in the agency's adoption of a criterion
to assess proposals in this area.
The statement of work also encompasses requirements that relate
specifically to the evaluation criterion relating to experience and
knowledge in web-based security. The RFQ states that another of the
agency's objectives is to "[p]rovide the Region with a secured,
cohesive, and integrated approach to developing shared information in
a highly-vulnerable and rapidly changing technology-based
environment." Id. Additionally, the RFQ requires that all work
performed under the contract be in accordance with the requirements of
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, which contains
detailed procedures and requirements relating to maintaining security
for all federal automated information resources. OMB Circular A-130,
Appendix III. In light of these requirements and the central purpose
of the RFQ--evaluating and upgrading the agency's Internet/Intranet
system--the evaluation criterion for this area clearly relates to the
agency's needs, and thus is proper.[1]
Borders's more general objection that the evaluation criteria are
designed to favor the awardee under the earlier solicitation also is
without merit. Borders does not assert, except as discussed above,
that the evaluation scheme fails to reflect the agency's actual
requirements, and we have found that the criteria Borders does
challenge are unobjectionable. Consequently, even if the current RFQ
favors the awardee under the prior RFQ, this fact is immaterial, since
the current RFQ embodies the agency's actual requirements. Madison
Servs., Inc., supra.
Borders asserts that the agency improperly has permitted evaluators
who participated in the prior source selection to develop the
evaluation criteria for the current solicitation, and will permit
these same individuals to evaluate the quotations submitted under this
RFQ. The protester maintains that the participation of these
individuals will taint the award process because they are biased in
favor of the prior awardee.
This argument is without merit because the premise on which it is
based is incorrect. As discussed above, the RFQ's evaluation
criteria, on their face, are related to DOI's requirements, and thus
are unobjectionable. Borders has submitted no evidence to support its
bald assertion that the drafters of the criteria designed them to
competitively harm the protester rather than simply to evaluate
proposals against the agency's requirements. Thus, there is no basis
to find that the solicitation drafters acted improperly and,
accordingly, there is no basis to exclude them from the evaluation
process. As for the possibility that the evaluators will act in a
manner harmful to Borders in evaluating its proposal, Borders's
protest is speculative and anticipates improper agency action that has
not occurred. Its protest in this respect therefore is premature.
VSE Corp.--Recon. and Entitlement to Costs, B-258204.3, B-258204.4,
Dec. 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 260 at 2.
Borders raises numerous other protest grounds that relate to the
propriety of the agency's actions and the terms of the RFQ that
involve primarily the procedural adequacy of the acquisition. We have
reviewed all of Borders's assertions and find them to be without
merit. For example, Borders asserts that the agency failed to
synopsize the current RFQ in the Commerce Business Daily. However,
since Borders is well aware of the solicitation and apparently intends
to submit a quote, we fail to understand how this is harmful to
Borders. Absent prejudice, there is no basis to sustain the protest.
Geonex Corp., B-274390.2, June 13, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 225 at 4-5.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. In a related assertion, Borders maintains that the RFQ improperly
fails to disclose how technical scores will be assigned. This
assertion is without merit; agencies are required to disclose the
evaluation criteria and their relative importance, but need not state
in the solicitation the rating method to be employed in evaluating
proposals. Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 15.304(d). The RFQ
states the relative weights of the evaluation factors, as required.