BNUMBER: B-281836
DATE: April 12, 1999
TITLE: Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., B-281836, April
12, 1999
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.
File: B-281836
Date:April 12, 1999
Richard J. Webber, Esq., Alison J. Micheli, Esq., and Evan Stolove,
Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for the protester.
Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., and Adria Benner,
Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for Professional
Services Industry, Inc., an intervenor.
Steven M. Rochlis, Esq., Federal Highway Administration, for the
agency.
Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that agency improperly credited awardee for proposing the
incumbent's key employees is denied where (1) the solicitation
permitted offerors to propose personnel from whom the offeror had no
commitment, provided the offeror included a compensation package and
detailed transition plan found sufficient to enable the offeror to
meet the staffing requirements before contract performance; (2) the
awardee included such a package and stated in its proposal that it
would attempt to hire the incumbent personnel; (3) the awardee's plan
to provide salaries at or above the level provided by the incumbent
reasonably was evaluated as sufficient to make it likely that the
awardee would be able to hire the incumbent employees if it prevailed
in the competition.
2. Challenge to the agency's conclusion that three of the awardee's
proposed key employees met the experience requirements set forth in
the solicitation is denied where the record shows that the agency
reasonably concluded that at least two of the three minimally complied
with the experience requirements, and with respect to the third, any
shortcoming in experience is de minimis and was reasonably reflected
in the awardee's point score in the key personnel area.
3. Protester's assertion that the agency improperly selected the
lower-rated, lower-priced proposal, rather than the protester's
higher-rated, higher-priced one, is denied where the record shows that
the cost/technical tradeoff was based on an accurate understanding of
the strengths and weaknesses of the two proposals.
DECISION
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. (CTL) protests the award of
a contract to Professional Services Industry, Inc. (PSI) pursuant to
request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFH61-98-R-00087, issued by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for engineering and technical
services to support research activities at FHWA's Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. CTL, the incumbent here,
argues that the agency improperly evaluated PSI's proposal by
crediting PSI with the strengths of the incumbent personnel, rather
than evaluating PSI's proposal solely on the strengths of the
personnel offered. CTL also argues that there were additional errors
in the technical evaluation, that the agency performed an improper
cost realism analysis, and that the cost/technical tradeoff was
unreasonable.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center performs analytical
studies, laboratory testing, and field testing of highway structures,
as well as modeling and materials sampling. The Center also produces
research reports and academic papers. The RFP was issued on August
27, 1998, to provide engineering and technical services in support of
the Center's Structures Laboratory. The RFP anticipated award of an
indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 2-year base
period followed by three 1-year option periods, to the offeror whose
proposal presented the overall best value to the government. RFP sec. M,
at 62.
The RFP identified four evaluation factors, in descending order of
importance: technical, cost, past performance, and small
business/minority business/minority institution participation. Id. at
65. The RFP further explained that the three non-cost factors were
significantly more important than cost. Id. Under the most important
evaluation factor, technical, the RFP identified six subfactors, in
descending order of importance. These subfactors, paraphrased,
include: (1) key personnel qualifications and experience; (2) program
manager's experience; (3) experience managing large-scale highway
structural research and laboratory service efforts; (4) knowledge and
experience in four areas related to highway bridge structures; (5)
expert consultant pool; and (6) resources. Id. at 62-64.
The RFP, at section L, set forth specific educational and experience
requirements for the program manager, and for the other key personnel,
which included a research engineer, two research assistants, two
expert technicians, and two research technicians. Id. at 50-53. As
set forth below, although the RFP called for offerors to submit a
letter of commitment from each individual proposed for a key position,
it also permitted an alternate approach:
Staffing proposals shall clearly identify each of the individuals
proposed for all Key Personnel positions identified below. For
each Key Personnel position, the offeror's proposal must contain
a letter of commitment from the individual proposed demonstrating
that this individual is capable of meeting the full-time, on-site
requirement for that position. In lieu of a commitment letter,
offerors must provide a detailed discussion of the proposed
compensation package and a detailed transition plan for meeting
the Key Personnel staffing requirements on or before the
effective date of the contract. In all cases, resume's [sic] and
biographical summaries must be provided for the individual
proposed for each Key Personnel position demonstrating that the
individual proposed meets the qualifications and requirements
described herein. The Staffing proposal must clearly demonstrate
that all individuals proposed meet the following minimum
qualifications and requirements . . . .
Id. at 50-51. In addition to proposing personnel, offerors were to
address the technical requirements of the solicitation through a
technical "dissertation." Id. at 50.
The agency received two proposals in response to the RFP, CTL's and
PSI's. As the incumbent, CTL offered to provide the experienced key
personnel currently performing the contract. PSI proposed to retain
in-place each of the incumbent's key personnel, but also provided a
slate of alternate key personnel in case the incumbent key personnel
declined employment with PSI. PSI Initial Proposal, Vol. I at 1-2,
6-8.
After an initial evaluation, which noted that PSI's program manager
and several of its alternate key personnel did not appear to meet
experience requirements, the agency held discussions with both
offerors. During discussions, the agency expressly advised PSI of
each of its identified concerns about the qualifications of PSI's
proposed alternate personnel, and PSI's final revised proposal
addressed each of these questions. With respect to each of its key
personnel, however, PSI reminded the agency that its preference was to
retain the services of the incumbent individual if possible. PSI
Addendum to Technical Proposal, Response to Questions 1-3, at 1-4.
Upon conclusion of the final technical evaluation and a cost realism
review, the agency's overall technical rating and the total estimated
cost for these two proposals was:
Technical Score Total Est. Cost
CTL 86 [deleted]
PSI 72 $13,484,682
Price Negotiation Memorandum and Source Selection Statement, Dec. 17,
1998, at 1.
Within the overall technical score, the agency viewed the two offerors
as essentially equal under the most important technical subfactor, key
personnel, "both having proposed identical staffing from the incumbent
contract." Id. at 15. Under the second and third most important
technical subfactors, program manager and experience managing
large-scale highway structural research contracts, CTL's proposal was
rated more highly than PSI's proposal. After a detailed consideration
of each proposal's relative strengths and weaknesses, the Source
Selection Official accepted the evaluation panel's recommendation that
PSI's lower proposed costs and sound proposal represented the best
value to the government. Id. at 17; Final Report of Technical
Proposal Evaluation Committee and Recommendation for Award
(hereinafter, the Final Evaluation Report), Dec. 16, 1998, at 7. This
protest followed.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of Key Personnel
CTL argues that the agency improperly credited PSI with the experience
of the incumbent key employees even though the incumbent employees
were not the employees identified by PSI in its proposal. In
addition, CTL argues that the agency's evaluation of the employees
named in PSI's proposal was unreasonable.
The record in this case shows that PSI contacted each of the
incumbent's five key personnel, received commitment letters from two
of them, and appropriately refrained from identifying the others in
its proposal.[1] On the other hand, PSI repeatedly states in its
proposal that it will attempt to hire all of the incumbent's key
personnel, and provides evidence (including its plan to meet or exceed
the employee's current compensation) of how it will accomplish this
goal. As stated above, the agency evaluation of PSI's proposal
considered both its offer to hire the incumbent key personnel, and its
alternate personnel, in concluding that the proposals were essentially
equal in this area.
In CTL's view, the agency could not properly allow PSI to propose
employees with whom it had no relationship, and could not properly
evaluate PSI based on employees whose resumes or biographical
summaries were not identified in PSI's proposal. For the reasons set
forth below, we disagree.
The RFP, as quoted above, was clear and unambiguous in allowing an
offeror to propose personnel from whom the offeror had no commitment.
In lieu of a commitment, the RFP required only that the offeror
explain how it intended to meet the key personnel requirements by the
beginning of contract performance. To the extent that CTL argues that
agencies should not accept proposals to provide key personnel without
a commitment from those personnel, CTL is raising an issue that was
apparent on the face of the solicitation, and had to be raised prior
to the initial closing date set for receipt of proposals. 4 C.F.R. sec.
21.2(a)(1) (1998).
To the extent CTL is arguing that PSI did not, in fact, propose the
incumbent key personnel, we again disagree. Throughout its initial
and final revised proposals, PSI reiterates its intent to provide as
many of the incumbent key personnel as it is able to hire. In
addition, PSI's stated intent to provide the incumbent key personnel
was not an idle claim, but was buttressed by a compensation plan
designed to meet or exceed the compensation currently received by the
incumbent key employees. In our view, the agency reasonably concluded
from this proposal that it would receive either the incumbent
employees or the proposed alternates. See Intermetrics, Inc.,
B-259254.2, Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 215 at 14-15.
Since we conclude that the agency reasonably assumed it would receive
either the incumbent employees or the alternates, we turn to whether
it was reasonable for the agency to credit PSI with the strengths of
the incumbent key personnel, rather than the proposed alternates. Our
review of prior challenges to evaluations of key personnel suggests
that the more common approach to assessing a proposal which offers to
hire as many incumbents as possible is to evaluate the strengths of
the personnel whose resumes are provided by the offeror, rather than
the strengths of the incumbent personnel pool. See, e.g., Ebon
Research Sys., B-261403.2, Sept. 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 152 at 5;
Engineering Design Group, Inc., B-253066.3, Nov. 8, 1993, 93-2 CPD para.
307 at 6-7. The difference here, in our view, is the solicitation
language that permits an offeror to propose key employees from whom it
has no commitment, provided the offeror makes a showing that it will
be able to hire those individuals. Once the agency concluded that PSI
had made a sufficient showing that it was likely to succeed in hiring
these individuals, we know of no reason why the agency could not
proceed with considering them in the evaluation.
Finally, we note that CTL correctly complains that PSI did not provide
the resumes or biographical summaries of the incumbent personnel upon
which it was evaluated, and which were required by the RFP's staffing
language. We will not conclude, however, that the agency acted
unreasonably by considering these personnel under the evaluation
scheme, given that the agency was well aware of the identity and
qualifications of the incumbent key personnel. See Wackenhut Servs.,
Inc., B-187299, Mar. 22, 1977, 77-1 CPD para. 198 at 3-4.
Our conclusion that it was reasonable for the agency to consider PSI's
offer to hire the incumbent key personnel in evaluating PSI does not
fully resolve CTL's challenge to the evaluation of PSI in this area.
CTL correctly points out that there are new key personnel positions
included in this solicitation for which there are no incumbents, and
also argues that PSI's proposed alternate key personnel do not
independently meet the experience requirements of the RFP.
As stated above, the personnel to be evaluated under the key personnel
subfactor included a research engineer, two research assistants, two
expert technicians, and two research technicians. RFP sec. L, at 50-53.
The first two categories of personnel, research engineer and research
assistant, present no further issue for our review. For the single
research engineer position, PSI stated its intent to hire the
incumbent research engineer, and identified a backup individual.
Since we conclude that PSI could reasonably propose the incumbent
research engineer, and since there is no dispute that the incumbent
individual meets the RFP's experience requirements, we need not reach
the issue of whether the alternate research engineer met those
requirements. For the two research assistant positions, PSI provided
letters of commitment for both of the incumbent research assistants,
thus leaving no issue of unmet requirements.
For the two remaining categories, expert technicians and research
technicians, a more detailed review is needed. For the expert
technician positions, the record shows that PSI contacted the
incumbent expert technician (there was only one under CTL's existing
contract), but was asked not to include his name in PSI's proposal.
Affidavit of Dr. Mohammad S. Khan, Mar. 8, 1999, at 3. PSI honored
the request, left the name out of its proposal, identified alternative
expert technicians, and reiterated its intent to attempt to hire the
incumbent individual should PSI receive the contract award.
Consistent with the approach outlined above, we find reasonable the
agency's conclusion that PSI may rely upon the experience of the
current incumbent expert technician to meet the requirements for one
of the two positions.
For the second expert technician position, the initial evaluation
concluded that neither of PSI's alternate proposed technicians met the
RFP's requirement for 5 years experience in structural testing.
Initial Report of Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee, Oct. 30,
1998, at 3. After discussions, PSI explained that one of the proposed
alternate technicians, Mr. Clifton Troy, would be its preferred
partner for the incumbent technician, and provided a detailed
explanation of his structural testing experience since 1994. PSI
Final Revised Proposal at 1-2. On the strength of this explanation
the agency concluded that "Mr. Troy's experience [is] not ideal, but
it meets the minimum requirements of the RFP." Final Evaluation
Report, supra, at 3. CTL argues that this conclusion was unreasonable
because the response does not establish that Mr. Troy has amassed 5
years of experience in structural testing, as opposed to occasional
experiences over the last 5 years.
We find reasonable the agency's ultimate conclusion that Mr. Troy
meets the experience requirement for structural testing. As stated
above, Mr. Troy has been employed by PSI since 1994, and the company
claims that he had gained extensive experience in laboratory and field
testing during that 5-year period. In responding to the agency's
questions, PSI provided detailed examples of the kind of structural
testing Mr. Troy has performed. While we recognize that PSI's
proposal does not establish that Mr. Troy has done nothing but
structural testing during the last 5 years, we think the protester's
argument in this regard overstates the RFP's requirement. We think
the record here is sufficient for the agency to reasonably conclude
that Mr. Troy's experience is sufficient to meet the RFP requirements.
For the last category of key personnel, the research technicians, our
review is similar to our review of the expert technicians. As above,
PSI contacted the incumbent research technician, was asked not to use
his name, and did not do so, even though it stated its intent to hire
the incumbent research technician if possible. As above, we conclude
that the agency reasonably credited PSI with having met the
requirement for one of the two positions with the incumbent. With
respect to whether either of PSI's two alternate research
technicians[2] met the RFP's experience requirements, the agency
initially concluded that neither had the required experience working
in a structural testing laboratory. After discussions, PSI provided
additional information, and the agency concluded that the reply was
sufficient to show that the alternate research technicians were not
ideal, but were minimally qualified. As above, CTL argues that this
conclusion was unreasonable.
Given that the agency reasonably credited PSI with proposing the
incumbent for one of the two research technicial positions, our review
of the record here need focus only on whether one of PSI's alternate
research technicians could reasonably be found to meet the experience
requirement for this position. In this regard, we note that while the
position of research technician is the lowest level of the required
key personnel--as evidenced by the fact that the proposed individuals
needed only a minimum of a 2-year technical degree and no specified
period of experience--the RFP identified several specific requirements
for the technicians. In addition to the educational requirement, the
RFP called for:
Experience . . . in instrumentation used for structural testing .
. . demonstrated experience performing structural testing in a
laboratory environment, including erection of steel, casting
concrete, installing strain gauges and instrumentation, and
operation of data acquisition equipment. IBM PC compatible
computer skills are also required for this position, including
spreadsheet, data analysis, CAD, and maintaining data base
software. Experience in welding, concrete laboratory testing
practice, mechanical property tests of metallic materials,
non-destructive evaluation, and surveying are required for at
least one of the RT position.
RFP sec. L, at 52 (emphasis added).
One of the alternates proposed by PSI for the research technician
position is Mr. Sinara Ly. In its response to the discussion question
regarding the extent of his experience working in a structural testing
laboratory, PSI explained that Mr. Ly's background is related to
civil, construction, and structural materials testing. PSI Final
Revised Proposal at 4. Also, despite the 2-year degree requirement,
Mr. Ly has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, and a master's
degree in structural engineering. In addition to his experience in
construction inspection, Mr. Ly is certified as a concrete tester by
the Washington Area Council of Engineering Laboratories.
The protester is correct in its assertion that none of the information
provided by PSI definitively answers the question regarding Mr. Ly's
experience performing structural testing in a laboratory environment.
Even if Mr. Ly lacks experience performing structural testing in a
laboratory environment, however, we fail to see how this lapse is
anything more than de minimis, arising as it does in one of several
technical areas applicable to only one of the seven key personnel
positions, and given that Mr. Ly meets the numerous other requirements
in the RFP for this position. Further, as the record shows, PSI
received a lower point score (24.25 points of 30 available points) for
the category of key personnel than did CTL (25.75 points of 30
available points). While the 30 total points available under the key
personnel subfactor are not separately allocated among personnel
categories, it is reasonable to assume that the difference in scores
here reflects, in part, the relatively minor shortcoming of one of
PSI's seven proposed key personnel.
Evaluation of Program Manager
CTL also argues that the agency improperly concluded that PSI's
proposed program manager met the experience requirements of the RFP.
Specifically, CTL contends that PSI's program manager did not have "5
years demonstrated successful experience managing structural testing
facilities," as required by the solicitation. RFP sec. L, at 51.
The initial evaluation of PSI's proposal noted that its program
manager appeared to lack experience managing structural testing
facilities. In response to the discussion question pointing out this
perceived weakness, PSI's Final Revised Proposal (at pages 4-5)
explained that the program manager has as much as 16 years of
structural experience, with a significant background in structural
testing, and many years of management experience. Based on this
response, the agency concluded the program manager meets the RFP's
experience requirement. Final Evaluation Report, supra. In the
protester's view, however, the response does not clearly demonstrate
that the program manager has at least 5 years experience managing
structural testing facilities.
We agree with the protester that there is some ambiguity remaining
about whether PSI's program manager has demonstrated that he has the
required experience in this category. On the other hand, we think
this is an area where the agency could reasonably conclude that the
requirement has been minimally met. In this regard, PSI's response
provides significant evidence of experience in precisely the areas
covered by the RFP, even though it does not definitively answer
whether the necessary time period managing such effort--as opposed to
participating in it--was met. In addition, the source selection
document notes that the individual proposed has significant experience
managing laboratory facilities; he is currently serving as the manager
of PSI's Investigative Structural Testing and Evaluation Division,
where he is responsible for managing the testing of all types of
structural elements, systems, and materials, and has managed a number
of laboratory facilities, including the agency's own Non-Destructive
Evaluation Testing Laboratory, also located at the Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center. Source Selection Statement, supra, at 9, 16.
Based on this information, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for
the agency to conclude that the program manager "marginally meet[s]
the RFP with respect to experience managing a structural testing
facility," Final Evaluation Report, supra, at 3 (emphasis added). In
addition, as we noted above regarding the evaluation of Mr. Ly, the
agency recognized that PSI's program manager is less experienced than
CTL's program manager and reflected the relative difference in merit
in the point scores allotted to the two offerors under the program
manager subfactor under the technical evaluation factor.[3] Id.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the evaluation was
reasonable.
Cost Realism Evaluation
CTL argues that the agency's cost realism review was inadequate
because there is no evidence in the record that the agency understood
the reasons for the difference in the two offerors' respective fringe
benefits and overhead costs. As a result, CTL contends that the
agency failed to understand that CTL's higher overhead translated to
greater benefits for its employees, and that those greater benefits
may not have been offset by the higher salaries PSI was offering CTL's
incumbent employees.
Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 15.305(a)(1) requires:
When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall
include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government
should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the
offeror's understanding of the work, and the offeror's ability to
perform the contract.
The cost realism analysis included in the record here shows that the
agency considered in detail each of the cost elements of the CTL and
PSI proposals. Cost Evaluation Materials, Agency Report, Tab F. In
each case, the analysis compared the proposed cost elements to costs
applicable to other contracts between the agency and these two
offerors. In addition, since CTL's indirect rates had not been
audited by the agency since 1992, the agency requested a indirect rate
review by an outside accounting firm, and used the review to further
analyze CTL's proposed rates. In short, our review of the cost
realism analysis reveals nothing about the review that could be termed
improper or unreasonable.
In our view, CTL's complaint is not with the review of cost realism,
but with the evaluation assessment that PSI's proposed higher salaries
for CTL's incumbent key employees would be sufficient to permit PSI to
hire those employees. According to CTL, PSI is hiring its incumbent
employees at approximately 20 percent more in direct salary than those
employees would have been paid if CTL had won the contract. CTL's
Comments on the Agency Report, Mar. 1, 1999, at 28. While CTL
apparently believes that the difference between its and PSI's overhead
rates shows that these employees must be receiving fewer fringe
benefits, this fact, even if true, does not invalidate either the cost
realism review or the evaluation assessment that PSI would be able to
retain the incumbent employees. We find that the agency reasonably
concluded that PSI's higher salaries would allow it to retain the
incumbent personnel, and PSI's ability to do so since contract award
supports this conclusion.
Cost/Technical Tradeoff
CTL argues that the cost/technical tradeoff by which the agency
selected PSI's lower-rated, lower-cost proposal, over the
higher-rated, higher-cost proposal of CTL, was improper.
Specifically, CTL claims that the tradeoff decision was based on
wrongly assuming that the proposals were equal under the key personnel
subfactor; minimizing the difference between the offerors' proposed
project managers; and ignoring CTL's superiority under the fourth most
important technical subfactor.
Our review of cost/technical tradeoff decisions is limited to a
determination of whether the tradeoff is reasonable and consistent
with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Loral Aeronutronic,
B-259857.2, B-259858.2, July 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 213 at 16. For the
reasons set forth below, we conclude that the tradeoff decision was
proper.
As stated above, although CTL received an overall score of 86,
compared to PSI's score of 72, the source selection official concluded
that the two offerors were essentially equal under the key personnel
subfactor, the most important of the technical subfactors, because
both "proposed identical staffing from the incumbent contract."
Source Selection Statement, supra, at 15. CTL argues that this
conclusion is erroneous given the difference between the two offers
under the key personnel subfactor.
In our view, the agency's conclusion that the proposals were
essentially equal under the key personnel subfactor is supported by
the point scores awarded to the two offerors, and the reliance by both
on the same pool of incumbent key personnel. First, as noted above,
at the conclusion of the final evaluation CTL was awarded a point
score of 25.75 points (out of 30 available), while PSI was awarded
24.25 points. These point scores reflected the considered judgment of
the agency evaluators with respect to the pool of seven key personnel
proposed by CTL and PSI. Given that our review of each of the
evaluation conclusions led us to uphold the individual assessments
underlying these scores, we conclude that the overall assessment that
these two offerors are essentially equal is also reasonable.
In addition, the conclusion that the two proposals were essentially
equal in this area was not based solely on point scores; instead, the
record shows that for five of the seven key employees, the agency
reasonably concluded that the two offerors were offering the same pool
of incumbent personnel. For the remaining two positions that did not
exist under the previous contract, neither CTL's proposal nor PSI's
was found without blemish. As discussed in detail above, PSI's
non-incumbent expert technician and research technician were both
considered to only marginally meet the RFP's experience requirement.
Although CTL's non-incumbent expert technician and research technician
were considered to fully meet the RFP's requirements, the evaluators
noted that both were temporary placements, and lowered CTL's score in
this area to reflect the fact that the qualifications of the permanent
staff remained unknown. Final Evaluation Report, supra, at 2. Under
these circumstances, we see nothing unreasonable about the source
selection conclusion that CTL and PSI are essentially equal under the
most important key personnel subfactor.
Under the second most important technical evaluation subfactor,
program manager, the agency concluded that CTL's program manager was
superior to the program manager proposed by PSI. Id. at 3-4; Source
Selection Statement, supra, at 16. Despite this evaluated
superiority, the source selection official noted that the program
manager is only expected to spend a maximum of 17 percent of his time
at the research center, and concluded that the program manager's
greater experience, together with CTL's greater experience in the
field of structural engineering, was not worth the $[deleted] premium
associated with award to CTL. Source Selection Statement, supra, at
16. In our view, given that the source selection official
appropriately considered the superiority of CTL's program manager
before concluding that the manager was not worth the additional
premium associated with award to CTL, this is a matter committed to
the discretion of source selection officials that we will not disturb,
absent a showing that the decision was irrational or inconsistent with
the evaluation criteria. There has been no such showing here.
Finally, CTL argues that the source selection decision overlooked
CTL's technical superiority under the fourth most important technical
evaluation subfactor, knowledge and experience in four areas related
to highway bridge structures. In the agency's final evaluation of the
proposals under this subfactor, it noted that CTL had "a higher degree
of experience and knowledge of highway bridge structures than PSI" but
also explained that both "have significant experience and knowledge in
this area and meet the requirements of the RFP." Final Evaluation
Report, supra, at 4-5. In addressing this subfactor in its comparison
of the two proposals, the source selection statement states that "both
offerors were considered acceptable in their demonstrated knowledge
and experience in the four areas related to highway bridge research."
Id. at 16. According to CTL, this statement improperly overlooks the
fact that CTL received 12.5 out of 15 available points for this
subfactor, while PSI received only 9 points, and thus shows that the
tradeoff decision was improper.
In our view, while the source selection statement's description of
both offerors as "acceptable" under this subfactor does not repeat the
evaluators' observation that CTL had a "higher degree of experience
and knowledge" in this area, it nevertheless reasonably reflects the
evaluators' conclusion--that both offerors have "significant
experience and knowledge" in the area and both meet the RFP
requirements. Since we cannot say that the source selection statement
was wrong or erroneous in its description of this portion of the
evaluation, we will not overturn the tradeoff decision on this basis.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The RFP's roster of seven key personnel (not counting the program
manager), expanded by two the number of personnel designated as key
under CTL's existing contract. For purposes of this discussion, key
personnel does not include the program manager. Although the program
manager position was identified as a key employee, the position was
evaluated separately under a subfactor which was less important than
the key personnel subfactor. RFP sec. M at 62.
2. PSI also proposed a third individual as a back-up research
technician, but we need not reach the question of this individual's
experience, or the propriety of identifying three research technicians
for two positions, since we conclude that the incumbent technician and
one of PSI's alternate technicians met the RFP's requirements.
3. Under the program manager subfactor, worth a total of 25 points,
CTL received a score of 20.75 based on the strength of its incumbent
program manager tempered by evaluator concerns that the individual
appeared to lack experience managing complex teams including
consultants. PSI received a score of 17.5 based on the assessment
that its program manager only marginally met the RFP's experience
requirements. The narrative attached to these scores shows that the
evaluators viewed CTL as the clearly superior offeror under this
subfactor. Id. at 3-4.