TITLE:  The Project Management Group, Inc., B-284455, April 14, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284455
DATE:  April 14, 2000
**********************************************************************
The Project Management Group, Inc., B-284455, April 14, 2000

Decision

Matter of: The Project Management Group, Inc.

File: B-284455

Date: April 14, 2000

Louie A. Dicks for the protester.

Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., and Cameron V. Gore, Esq., Department of
Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Evaluation of offeror's corporate experience which gives firm only limited
credit for experience of its key personnel with other entities is
unobjectionable where evaluation was performed in accordance with stated
evaluation criteria and reflects a reasonable assessment of offeror's
experience.

DECISION

The Project Management Group, Inc. (PMG) protests the award of a contract to
RS Staffing, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 766-9-99, issued as
a total small business set-aside by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
for the provision of pharmacy technicians and mail/packaging support for a
VA outpatient pharmacy in Charleston, South Carolina. PMG contends that the
award was improper because the agency improperly downgraded PMG for its lack
of corporate experience.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on November 1, 1999 as a commercial acquisition under the
special procedures in Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
contemplated the award of a 1-year contract with two 1-year renewal options
to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer was most advantageous to
the government. RFP at 3, 17. The RFP listed the following four technical
evaluation factors, indicating that when combined, their weight would be
equal to that of price in the overall evaluation: corporate experience and
demonstrated capabilities; personnel qualifications; technical approach to
the statement of work; and past performance. RFP at 17. It also cautioned
that the offeror that submitted the lowest price would not necessarily be
awarded the contract. RFP at 18.

With respect to corporate experience and demonstrated capabilities, the RFP
stated as follows:

Proposals will be considered only from offerors who are regularly
established in the business called for and who are financially responsible
and have the necessary personnel to furnish services in the volume required
for items under this contract. Those offerors having at leas[t] two years
experience with similar type contracts (with references) will receive full
points. Those offerors with less than two years experience will receive a
lesser amount in proportion to their experience.

RFP at 17.

With respect to past performance, the RFP provided that the evaluation would
be performed on the basis of "[s]imilar contracts held by the contractor
with government and industry in the previous 12 months, to include
references." Id.

Eleven small business concerns, including PMG, submitted proposals by the
December 1 closing date. An evaluation panel reviewed and scored the
proposals, using a 100-point scale under which 49 points were allocated to
the technical evaluation and 51 points to price. The technical evaluation
factors were weighted as follows: corporate experience and demonstrated
capabilities, 17 points; personnel qualifications, 10 points; technical
approach, 17 points; and past performance, 5 points. Agency Report, Tab D,
Evaluation Documents, at 1-6.

PMG describes itself in its proposal as "a project management firm that
employs for the duration of a project," and states that it has one full-time
employee and three part-time employees. PMG Proposal at 11. It states that
"[a]n experienced team consisting of a health care administrator and a
registered pharmac[ist], each with over 20 years of experience in their
chosen fields will provide project oversight." Id. at 10. The proposal
provides that "the majority of the principals' experience occurred while
performing military duty, and the points-of-contact, though provided, are
not currently with the organization." Id. at 11. The proposal states that
PMG was formed in October 1997, id., app. C at 1, and does not specifically
identify any contracts that the firm has performed.

PMG's technical proposal was ranked 10th of the 11, and received a point
score of 23.66. Because PMG's price of $3,723,287.26 for the base year and
all options was the lowest offered, it received the highest possible point
score of 51 points. The two scores combined produced an overall score of
74.66, which placed it 5th among the 11 offers. RS Staffing had the highest
rated technical proposal with the second low price of $3,916,915.29 (which
received a score of 48.45), resulting in the highest overall score of 96.45
points, and was selected for award. Agency Report, Tab F, Abstract of
Offers, at 1. Upon notice of the award, PMG requested and received a
debriefing, and this protest followed.

PMG first protests that the solicitation limits competition and is
restrictive based on the past performance evaluation factor requirement for
similar contracts held by the contractor with the government and industry in
the previous 12 months. This allegation that the terms of the solicitation
itself are unduly restrictive of competition--e.g., because small emerging
businesses are unable to meet the requirement for experience within the
previous 12 months, Protest at 1--is untimely. [1] Under our Bid Protest
Regulations, protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation
which are apparent prior to the time set for receipt of initial proposals
must be filed prior to that time. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (1999); Envirodyne
Sys. Inc., B-279551, B-279551.2, June 29, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 174 at 3.

PMG next asserts that its proposal "represented over 20 years of medical
administration experience, over 20 years government pharmacy experience, and
over 6 years experience with government contracts," Protest at 2, and
complains that its corporate experience was improperly downgraded because
the VA should have given PMG's proposal credit for the experience of PMG's
key personnel.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will question
the evaluation only where it violates a procurement statute or regulation or
if it lacks a reasonable basis or is inconsistent with the stated evaluation
criteria for award. B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827, B-283828, Dec. 27,
1999, 99-2 CPD para. 4 at 6. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency
over its technical evaluation does not establish that the evaluation was
unreasonable. Id.; Cubic Applications, Inc., B-274768 et al., Jan. 2, 1997,
97-1 CPD para. 98 at 3. Here, we see no basis to question the agency's
evaluation.

There is no inconsistency between the evaluation factors as they were set
forth in the RFP and as they were applied during the evaluation. In
particular, under the corporate experience factor, the RFP provided that
offerors having at least 2 years experience with similar contracts would
receive full points, whereas offerors with less than this amount of
experience would receive a lesser number of points in proportion to their
experience. RFP at 17. PMG's proposal, which listed no experience with this
type of contract, received between 6 and 8 points (out of 17 possible
points) for this factor from each of the evaluators. Agency Report, Tab D,
Evaluation Documents, at 1-6. Essentially, PMG takes the position that it
was entitled to a higher score under this factor because the agency was
required to credit the firm's proposal for the experience listed for its key
personnel. Although an agency properly may consider the experience of
supervisory personnel in evaluating the experience of a new business,
Technical Resources, Inc., B-253506, Sept. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 176 at 5,
there is no legal requirement that an agency attribute employee experience
to the contractor as an entity. Hard Bodies, Inc., B-279543, June 23, 1998,
98-1 CPD para. 172 at 4. Here, PMG listed no corporate experience at all, yet
the evaluators gave its proposal 6-8 points (on a 17-point scale) under this
technical evaluation factor. The somewhat sparse evaluation record notes
"some healthcare reference," and refers to PMG's lack of experience with
this type of service. Agency Report, Tab D, Evaluation Documents, at 1. In
light of the fact that PMG in fact listed no specific experience as a
corporate entity in its proposal, it appears that the points actually
reflect some credit for the individual experience of personnel listed in the
proposal. In these circumstances, the agency acted within its discretion in
the evaluation of PMG's corporate experience since there is no requirement
that the proposal be given such credit for the described experience of PMG's
employees with other entities.

In sum, there is no basis to conclude that the agency's evaluation of PMG's
corporate experience was unsupported, inconsistent with the RFP, or
otherwise unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. To the extent that PMG's protest is directed against the application of
the past performance evaluation factor, the agency points out that even if
PMG's proposal had received the maximum number of points available for this
factor (5), its overall score would still have ranked a relatively distant
fourth. Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester
demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's
actions, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the
agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the
award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3.