TITLE:  DUCOM, Inc., B-285485, August 23, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285485
DATE:  August 23, 2000
**********************************************************************
DUCOM, Inc., B-285485, August 23, 2000

Decision

Matter of: DUCOM, Inc.

File: B-285485

Date: August 23, 2000

Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester.

Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., for Z Systems Corporation, an intervenor.

Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Wendy S. Saigh, Esq., Department of the Army,
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

Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's technical
proposal based on unstated evaluation factors and failed to evaluate offers
on a common basis or otherwise unreasonably evaluated proposals is denied
where record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
solicitation's evaluation factors.

DECISION

DUCOM, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Z Systems Corporation under
request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE07-00-R-M010, issued by the Department
of the Army's Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) to acquire Total
Package Fielding (TPF) support services. DUCOM primarily argues that the
agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal based on unstated
evaluation factors and failed to evaluate offers on a common basis.

We deny the protest.

New weapons systems are accompanied by logistics support, such as auxiliary
vehicles, spare parts, test and support equipment, vehicles, and technical
manuals. The range and quantity of this logistics support increases the
difficulty of getting that support to the user unit at the same time as the
weapons systems. RFP sect. C-2-1. The TPF process minimizes the workload of the
unit receiving the new weapons system by gathering the end item and all
required support into a single package. This process is governed by Army
Regulation AR-700-142, "Materiel Release, Fielding and Transfer" (AR
700-142) and Department of the Army Pamphlet 700-142, "Instructions for
Materiel Release, Fielding and Transfer" (DA PAM 700-142).

The solicitation, issued January 5, 2000 as a small business set-aside,
contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to be performed
over 5 years. RFP sect.sect. A-1, F-5. The weapons systems that will be served under
this solicitation are the M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System and
derivative vehicles, the M113 family of vehicles, and the M88A2 Hercules.
RFP sect. C-2-1. Z Systems, the awardee here, is a major subcontractor to the
incumbent contractor providing these services, and has proposed the
incumbent contractor as its subcontractor here.

The solicitation set forth technical, cost, and past performance evaluation
areas. RFP sect. M-4. The technical area was significantly more important than
cost and past performance combined; cost was more important than past
performance; and the technical and past performance areas combined were
significantly more important than cost. Id. The technical area was comprised
of four elements: sample problem, technical understanding, experience, and
management. The first three elements were of equal importance, and the last
element was significantly less important than the other three elements
individually. RFP sect. M-4-1a. The Army planned to conduct a comprehensive
evaluation to determine the proposal considered the best value to satisfy
the government's requirements and objectives at a reasonable, realistic, and
affordable cost. RFP sect. M-1.

The Army received two offers by the February 10 closing date. The source
selection evaluation board (SSEB) performed an initial evaluation of the
offers in each area and included both in the competitive range. Discussions
were conducted and final proposal revisions were submitted. The final
evaluation results were as follows:

                          Z-Systems             DUCOM

 Technical                Excellent/Very Low    Good/Low Risk
                          Risk

 Sample Problem           Excellent/Very Low    Adequate/Moderate
                          Risk                  Risk

 Technical                Good/Low Risk         Good/Low Risk
 Understanding

 Experience               Excellent/Very Low    Good/Low Risk
                          Risk

 Management               Excellent/Very Low    Good/Low Risk
                          Risk

 Evaluated Cost           $11,962,409           $10,070,760

 Past Performance/        Excellent/Very Low    Excellent/Very Low
                          Risk                  Risk
 Small Business
 Participation

 Past Performance Risk    Excellent/Very Low    Excellent/Very Low
                          Risk                  Risk

 Small Business           Excellent/Very Low    Excellent/Very Low
 Participation            Risk                  Risk

The source selection authority (SSA) was briefed on the evaluation results
and determined that the technical merits of Z Systems' proposal,
specifically in the sample problem, experience, and management elements,
were significant enough to warrant the firm's slightly higher estimated
costs. The SSA believed that Z Systems' proposal offered advantages that
would significantly reduce the Army's burden and risk, thereby increasing
its ability to successfully field critical vehicle systems, while the risk
associated with DUCOM's proposal could require increased Army oversight and
increased time associated with fielding delays, thereby increasing costs.
Source Selection Decision at 6.

In its protest, DUCOM challenged each of the numerous disadvantages that the
SSEB identified in its proposal with respect to each technical area element.
DUCOM argued that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal using unstated
evaluation criteria and improperly failed to evaluate proposals on a common
basis, and that the Army otherwise unreasonably evaluated its proposal.

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our
role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to
determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with
the RFP's stated evaluation criteria. ESCO, Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987,
87-1 CPD para. 450 at 7. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Id.

The Army provided a detailed response to each evaluation challenge raised in
DUCOM's protest. DUCOM's comments on the agency report specifically
addressed just 2 issues, which involved only 6 of 20 disadvantages noted by
the SSEB. Five of these disadvantages concerned the sample problem element,
and one concerned the experience element. The protester asked our Office to
decide the remaining issues on the basis of the existing record in
accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.3(i) (2000). With
respect to the issues to be decided on the record, we have reviewed the
record and the Army's detailed explanations of its actions and conclude that
there is no basis to find the evaluation unreasonable. Our discussion below
addresses the issues specifically discussed by DUCOM in its comments as well
as some examples of the issues decided on the record.

The sample problem listed a detailed scenario and requirements for the
fielding of the M1109 improved bulldozer. RFP sect. L-14-3-1a. Given this
scenario, and the solicitation's Mission Support Plan, the offeror was to
provide a comprehensive approach to the preparation of four exhibits that
showed its approach to: (1) preparing a Materiel Requirements List (MRL);
(2) preparing a 60-day pre-fielding status report; (3) shipping the
authorized stockage list package to the handoff location; and (4) preparing
an after-action report. RFP sect. L-14-3-1b. The Army planned to evaluate the
proposal risk that each offeror's proposed approach to satisfying the sample
problem represented a complete, detailed and comprehensive proposed approach
to the sample problem, as well as the probability that the proposed approach
would satisfy the solicitation's requirements. RFP sect. M-4-1a(1).

DUCOM's proposal was rated adequate under this element. While the SSEB
identified [DELETED] advantages in the proposal, it also identified
[DELETED] disadvantages, most of which concerned DUCOM's failure to provide
an array of information or its provision of inaccurate or conflicting
information in the sample problem exhibits. In contrast, the SSEB identified
15 advantages and 3 disadvantages in Z Systems' proposal, which was rated
excellent.

The basis for DUCOM's challenges to five of these disadvantages--one
concerning the MRL exhibit and four concerning the after-action report
exhibit--was the firm's assertion that the RFP required the use of certain
Army forms for these exhibits. DUCOM argued that the Army improperly
downgraded the firm for failing to provide information not required by these
forms, and improperly credited Z Systems for providing the information on
customized forms. In its report, the Army disputed DUCOM's contention that
the RFP required use of specific Army forms and argued that offerors were
free to tailor the generalized forms in order to demonstrate a complete,
detailed and comprehensive proposed approach to the specific details of the
sample problem. In its comments on the agency report, DUCOM reiterated its
initial allegation and provided supporting arguments.

This Office asked the Army to respond to the arguments set forth in DUCOM's
comments. The Army provided detailed arguments as to the requirements for
both the MRL exhibit and the after-action report exhibit. In its
supplemental comments, DUCOM addressed the Army's arguments regarding the
MRL exhibit, but was silent as to the Army's arguments regarding the other
exhibit. Under the circumstances, we find that DUCOM has abandoned its
position with respect to the after-action report exhibit and will not
consider it. [1] Bridgeport Machines, Inc., B-265616, Dec. 6, 1995, 95-2 CPD
para. 249 at 4 n.1. As a result, the question whether the RFP required offerors
to use a specific Army form pertains to one disadvantage identified
regarding DUCOM's MRL exhibit.

The MRL is a comprehensive list identifying all materiel and publications
needed to support the fielding of a materiel system. AR-700-142 para. 4-8a.
DUCOM's proposal was downgraded because its MRL exhibit did not address
package markings and delivery date requirements. DUCOM contends that AR
700-142 and DA PAM 700-142, included as attachments to the RFP, require the
use of Department of the Army (DA) Form 5682-R for the MRL, and since that
form does not require information regarding package markings and delivery
date requirements, its proposal should not have been downgraded for omitting
this information. The Army's position is that the RFP did not require use of
specific Army forms, and that DUCOM's proposal was properly downgraded for
failing to provide the information in question.

Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of a solicitation requirement, we
resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner
that gives effect to all provisions of the solicitation. See Lithos
Restoration, Ltd., B-247003.2, Apr. 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 379 at 4. To be
reasonable, an interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation when
read as a whole and in a reasonable manner. Id. Here, DUCOM's interpretation
of the Army regulation and pamphlet is unreasonable.

Technical proposals were required to "describe how the Offeror proposes to
meet all [the] requirements set forth in Section C" of the RFP. RFP sect.
L-14-3. Section C-2-3 of the RFP stated that "the Contractor shall develop
and maintain [an MRL] in accordance with AR 700-142 and DA PAM 700-142."
Hence, the solicitation required that the MRL exhibit be prepared in
accordance with the regulation and pamphlet, which were included as
attachments to the solicitation.

Paragraph 4.8a of the regulation states:

The MRL is compiled on DA Form 5682-R . . . This form may be locally
reproduced or automated, provided that the necessary information is
included. The [fielding command] may adjust spacing on the form to meet the
requirements of each fielding, but should insure all DA Form 5682-R data
elements are included. The MRL will be included as part of the materiel
requirements coordination package.

Paragraph 3-12 of the pamphlet states:

Coordination packages will be developed using DA Form 5682-R . . . Another
automated form containing this information may be used if it is acceptable
to the [command receiving the weapons system].

In our view, when the language of the regulation and pamphlet are read
together, it is unreasonable for DUCOM to assert that an MRL must be
prepared on DA Form 5682-R. Such an interpretation would render meaningless
the clear instruction that another automated form could be acceptable,
provided that all of the data elements on DA Form 5682-R are included in the
new form. The language in the pamphlet cannot, as DUCOM suggests, be
ignored. The pamphlet is specifically intended to explain the procedures set
forth in the regulation, DA PAM 700-142, at i, and the RFP requires that the
MRL be prepared in accordance with both the regulation and the pamphlet. RFP
sect. C-2-3. The only reasonable interpretation of the solicitation was that
DUCOM was free to use the form--as it did--or to create a tailored form if
it felt it necessary to demonstrate its complete, detailed, and
comprehensive proposed approach to the sample problem--as Z Systems did.

As to whether it was reasonable for the Army to downgrade DUCOM's proposal
for failing to providing the information at issue, the Army reports that
package markings and required delivery dates are key data that identify
where to ship items and when those items need to be there. While DUCOM
included this information on the call forward letter that it prepared for
the sample problem's exhibit three, [2] the Army states that this
information should also be on the MRL because it identifies how packages
will be marked when shipped and when the user can anticipate delivery.
Without this information, the parts can be lost or misplaced at the
receiving station. In the absence of any argument from DUCOM to the
contrary, we have no basis to find the Army's evaluation unreasonable.

DUCOM's remaining challenges concerning the sample problem exhibits are
unrelated to the issue of forms and amount to assertions that the evaluation
was unreasonable. As noted above, most of the disadvantages identified by
the SSEB stemmed from DUCOM's failure to provide information or its
provision of incorrect information. We have reviewed each challenge along
with the Army's response and the record and conclude that there is no basis
to find any aspect of the evaluation unreasonable.

Several of the disadvantages resulted from DUCOM's failure to provide
information to demonstrate a complete, detailed, and comprehensive approach
to the sample problem. For example, the SSEB downgraded DUCOM's proposal
because it failed to properly identify the [DELETED] in its MRL exhibit.
[DELETED] is one of the necessary data elements for the MRL, and DUCOM's
entry in that data field for technical manuals simply stated [DELETED]. See,
e.g., DUCOM Proposal Figure 2-1, at 4. The Army states that this method of
identification fails to specify whether the manual is an operator's,
maintenance, parts, or other type of manual. Since one function of the MRL
is to identify the quality and type of technical manuals issued to a unit, a
general list such as this would not be sufficient. The SSEB also downgraded
DUCOM's proposal because it failed to [DELETED] letter included in its
exhibit three for the sample problem. The Army explains that [DELETED] are
very important on such a letter because ample time must be allotted to the
depot for perform various actions. Based on the [DELETED] set forth in the
Mission Support Plan, DUCOM should have [DELETED] its letter to correspond
to the appropriate timeframe. Since its letter was [DELETED], the Army was
unable to determine when DUCOM prepared the letter and whether the firm knew
the correct timeframe to meet the handoff date requirement. DUCOM has
provided us no basis to conclude that the Army's evaluation was
unreasonable.

In the context of these and several other disadvantages, DUCOM complains
that the information at issue was not required by the solicitation. However,
given the performance-based nature of this contract, the solicitation did
not specify particular procedures to be used but left it to each offeror to
propose its own approach to the statement of work and the sample problem.
The RFP specifically advised that proposals had to demonstrate a complete,
detailed, and comprehensive approach to the sample problem so the Army could
ascertain the proposal risk of each offeror's approach. RFP sect. M-4-1a(1). The
Army evaluated the responses and assigned a higher score to solutions that
reflected superior expertise and understanding. We would find it
unreasonable to presume, as DUCOM apparently does, that a minimally detailed
solution would reflect the same level of expertise and understanding as a
more detailed solution or that it would receive the same score. NDI Eng'g
Co.,

B-245796, Jan. 27, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 113 at 7. The Army therefore had a
reasonable basis for downgrading DUCOM's proposal in these areas. [3] Simms
Indus., Inc.,

B-252827.2, Oct. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 206 at 5.

Several other disadvantages resulted from DUCOM's provision of incorrect
information in its exhibits. For example, DUCOM's proposal was downgraded
because its MRL exhibit listed an [DELETED]. In addition, the firm's call
forward letter, included as part of exhibit three, contained an incorrect
[DELETED]. In its protest, DUCOM essentially argued that these failures were
unimportant because they would be corrected during the actual TPF process
through government oversight.

We agree with the Army that this response indicates DUCOM's failure to
understand the importance of providing the government with high-quality,
error-free performance and that such errors committed during the actual TPF
process could have adverse consequences. An incorrect [DELETED] could result
in materiel being shipped to the wrong place, requisitions being rejected,
and confusion in the fielding process. As the Army points out, errors
anywhere in the process are easily perpetuated and not easily detected, so
it is essential that the data is loaded and documents are prepared
accurately from the very beginning. The Army refutes DUCOM's assertion that
an incorrect LIN is not important; the Army asserts that the LIN is the
basis for authorizing and having vehicles and key subsystems on hand in the
unit and can lead to the use of an incorrect national stock number and
receipt of an incorrect vehicle or assembly. As the Army states, if DUCOM
cannot provide accurate data in its proposal, there is no way to verify that
the firm can perform the contract requirements successfully after award.

Turning to the experience element, offerors were required to describe their
corporate experience, skill, background, and knowledge, and that of any
proposed team member or subcontractor relative to the performance of the
statement of work. RFP sect. L-14-3-3. The Army planned to evaluate this
information to assess the probability of successful performance of the TPF
requirements of this solicitation; "[t]he quality and quantity of specific
TPF experience directly applicable to this contract [was] especially
important." RFP sect. M-4-1a(3).

DUCOM's proposal was rated good under the experience element. The SSEB noted
that the offeror had many years of experience performing TPF for Army
systems. DUCOM, as the subcontractor to General Dynamics, was presently
providing TPF support for M1 Abrams tank fieldings, and General Dynamics was
proposed as DUCOM's subcontractor here. In addition, DUCOM had TPF
experience with two of the three vehicle systems at issue here in the
foreign military sales (FMS) arena, but FMS fieldings tend to be limited in
size and scope compared to U.S. Army fieldings. The SSEB concluded that
while the offeror had many years of varied TPF experience, its actual
experience was limited on the vehicles at issue here and the likelihood of
achieving successful performance was lowered. DUCOM's Final Evaluation
Worksheet. In contrast, Z Systems' proposal was rated exceptional under the
experience element. The SSEB noted that Z Systems' subcontractor was the
incumbent contractor providing TPF support for the vehicles at issue here,
and that Z Systems was that firm's major subcontractor. As a result, both
firms had direct and successful experience with these vehicles. Z Systems'
Final Evaluation Worksheet.

DUCOM incorrectly argues that the Army improperly failed to give it full
credit for its more than [DELETED] years of experience. The offeror was
credited for its "many years" of TPF experience, but the Army deemed that
the type of experience it had was less relevant than that of Z Systems.
DUCOM does not dispute the Army's assertion that the firm's FMS experience
was less relevant because the size and scope of FMS fieldings are much
smaller than that of U.S. Army fieldings. Moreover, the offeror's U.S. Army
experience was not with the vehicles at issue here, but with the M1 Abrams
tank. The Army asserts that, in contrast with the M1 Abrams, the fieldings
of each of the three vehicle systems at issue here are unique, requiring
different support packages and the maintenance of numerous databases to
support these varied fieldings. DUCOM's assertion that TPF is a process and
that the type and quantity of equipment that must be supported makes no
difference ignores the RFP's specific instruction that the "quality and
quantity of specific TPF experience directly applicable to this contract is
especially important" in the evaluation. RFP sect. M-4-1a(3). Under the
circumstances, DUCOM has provided no basis to conclude that the Army's
evaluation here was unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Robert P. Murphy

General Counsel

Notes

1. In any event, the record shows that DUCOM's problems with this exhibit
did not result from its use of the Army form. See Army Supplemental Report
at 3-5.

2. Exhibit three required the offeror to show its approach to shipping the
authorized stockage list package to the handoff location. RFP sect. L-14-3-1b.
The "call forward" letter is part of the documentation prepared for the
shipping directive. See DUCOM Discussion Item Technical 4, at 3.

3. The disadvantages identified by the SSEB with respect to the technical
understanding element also resulted from DUCOM's failure to provide complete
information regarding such things as the advantages of [DELETED]. DUCOM has
provided us with no basis to conclude that the Army's evaluation, supported
by detailed explanation in the agency report, was unreasonable.