TITLE:  Redcon, Inc., B-285828; B-285828.2, October 11, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285828; B-285828.2
DATE:  October 11, 2000
**********************************************************************
Redcon, Inc., B-285828; B-285828.2, October 11, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Redcon, Inc.

File: B-285828; B-285828.2

Date: October 11, 2000

Clark B. Fetzer, Esq., and Bryan H. Booth, Esq., Kirton & McConkie, for the
protester.

Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., John C. Dulske, Esq., and Valinda J. Astoria, Esq.,
Thurman
& Phillips, for SciTech Services, Inc., an intervenor.

Steven W. Feldman, Esq., and Craig R. Schmauder, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, for the agency.

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

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals is
denied where the protest evidences the protester's mere disagreement with
the results of the evaluation and there is no basis on which to find that
the evaluation was unreasonable.

2. Protest of the best value analysis is denied where the protest is
predicated on the assumption that the underlying technical and price
evaluations were erroneous, but the record shows that the evaluation results
were reasonable.

DECISION

Redcon, Inc. protests the award of a contract, on the basis of initial
proposals, to SciTech Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DACA87-00-R-0008, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering
and Support Center, as a total small business set-aside to maintain a data
acquisition system and to provide technical support for the Chemical Agent
Munitions Disposal System (CAMDS). Redcon, the incumbent contractor,
contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals and its award decision
were unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

CAMDS was created to facilitate the testing of prototype chemical
demilitarization and disposal equipment and methods, and to facilitate the
destruction of stockpile and non-stockpile material. The two principal areas
of the CAMDS mission are the compilation of technical data and compliance
with the regulatory and Army requirements for an environmentally safe
operation. To this end, the RFP called for an array of services, including
data collection, computer input, data reduction, data retrieval,
environmental regulatory compliance, statistical analyses, hardware and
software maintenance, plant calibration support, contractor escorting, and
safety engineering. RFP at 18-21.

As amended, the RFP contemplated the award of an
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials contract for a
base year with four 1-year options. The RFP stated that the agency intended
to award a contract without discussions to the offeror whose proposal
represented the best value, after evaluation of technical factors and price.
In making the best value determination, the RFP stated that technical
evaluation criteria and price considerations were approximately equal.
Id. at 62. The technical factors and subfactors were listed as:

 1. Past Performance

      1. Satisfied specifications

      2. Adhered to schedule

      3. Hired and retained appropriate personnel

      4. Managed and monitored subcontractors and material
      suppliers

      5. Committed to customer satisfaction

 2. Experience

      1. Data Acquisition, storage, retrieval, analysis, and
      reporting

      2. Environmental program management

      3. Computer/ADP program management

      4. Technical writing and documentation management

      5. Safety engineering, plant calibration, and material
      expediting

 3. Technical Approach

      1. Ability to meet the required work schedule

      2. Quality Control/Quality Assurance

      3. Familiarity with data acquisition, environmental
      program management, computer/ADP program management,
      technical writing and document management, safety
      engineering, plant calibration, and materials
      expediting

 4. Management and Personnel

      1. Key personnel experience

      2. Transition plan

      3. Organization and Management plan

 5. Price

RFP at 63-64. The RFP stated that past performance was more important than
experience, and that experience was more important than technical approach
which was more important than management and personnel. The RFP further
stated that the subfactors were of equal importance within each factor.
Proposals were to be evaluated under an adjectival rating scale of
exceptional (E), good (G), acceptable (A), marginal (M) and unacceptable
(U). [1] Price proposals were to be evaluated to determine reasonableness
and affordability. Id.

For the past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to submit past
performance information, including a maximum of four references, for similar
or related contracts performed within the past 3 years. RFP at 56-57.
Offerors also were required to describe and provide documentation of
previous management experience with similar contracts. In addition, offerors
were to address their ability to change the size and skill mix of personnel
according to fluctuations in contract services; to fulfill job requests for
special tasks on short notice; and to perform tasks outside normal working
hours. Offerors were to describe their capacity to track and to assure
timely completion of contract services and their experience in managing and
in monitoring subcontractors and material suppliers. Id. The RFP further
stated that the contract references, as well as the offeror's documentation,
would be used for the evaluation of past performance. Id. at 63.

Under the management and personnel factor, section L.2.4.1 of the RFP
instructed offerors to submit detailed resumes for all key personnel
proposed. [2] In addition, the RFP instructed that "[t]he resumes should be
for people identified for the base year of the contract. Changes to the
proposed personnel must be approved by the [contracting officer's
representative]." RFP at 59-60. The RFP did not require letters of
commitment.

Six small business concerns, including Redcon and SciTech, submitted
proposals by the April 26, 2000 extended closing date. After evaluating the
proposals, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) concluded that only
three proposals were acceptable as submitted. The consensus ratings and
evaluated prices for the three technically acceptable proposals were as
follows:

                             Redcon     SciTech          Offeror A

 Overall Past Performance    [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]

 1. Satisfied                [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Specifications

 2. Adhered to Schedule      [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]

 3. Hired/retained           [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 appropriate personnel

 4. Managed                  [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 subcontractors/suppliers

 5. Committed to customer    [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 satisfaction

 Overall Experience          [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]

 1. Data Acquisition         [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]

 2. Environmental Program    [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Mgmt.

 3. Computer/ADP Program     [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Mgmt.

 4. Technical Writing        [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]

 5. Safety, Calibration      [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 and Material Expediting

 Overall Technical           [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Approach

 1. Ability to meet          [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 required schedule

 2. Quality                  [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Control/Quality Assurance

 3. Familiarity with         [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Requirements

 Overall Management &        [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Personnel

 1. Key Personnel            [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Experience

 2. Transition Plan          [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]

 3. Organization and         [DELETED]  [DELETED]        [DELETED]
 Management Plan

 Total Price                 [DELETED]  $11,224,956.50   [DELETED]

Agency Report (AR) exh. 9, SSEB Report, at 5-6. As relevant here, SciTech's
past performance evaluation was based on past performance information
contained in its proposal, as well as survey responses from three references
who completed past performance questionnaires. These references were for
[DELETED]. Redcon's past performance evaluation was also based on
information in its past performance proposal and responses received from
three references. These references were for its CAMDS contract; [DELETED].

After reviewing the strengths and weaknesses with respect to the proposals
of the three technically acceptable offerors, the SSEB concluded that
Offeror A's proposal posed significantly more risk to the government than
either of the two higher-rated

offerors. The SSEB then considered the proposals of Redcon and SciTech and
found that:

Although Redcon offers an advantage to the Government as the incumbent, the
Board did not feel that the advantage justified the higher cost. SciTech has
[DELETED] in every area addressed in the evaluation. SciTech demonstrated a
strong understanding and comprehensive technical approach to successfully
accomplish the scope of work in each area. It was the Board's consensus that
SciTech should be able to step right into the contract with minimal
disruptions to on-going CAMDS operations.

Id. at 3. The SSEB prepared and submitted a report to the contracting
officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA), summarizing the
overall evaluation results. This report included the findings of the
evaluators, the SSEB's recommendation for award to SciTech, and its
rationale for that recommendation. The SSA reviewed the SSEB report and
concurred with the SSEB's finding that SciTech's proposal represented the
best value to the government. In specifically comparing SciTech's proposal
to Redcon's, the SSA stated:

The technical differences between SciTech and Redcon were relatively small,
although SciTech's technical proposal was rated slightly higher than the
proposal from Redcon. Therefore, as according to the solicitation,
differences in price between the two offerors became more important. It is
determined that the additional [DELETED] increase in price to award to
Redcon over the life of the contract would not be of any additional value to
the Government.

AR exh. 2, Source Selection Decision Document, at 4-5.

Accordingly, the agency awarded the contract to SciTech. After receiving the
notice of the award and a debriefing, Redcon filed this protest with our
Office. The agency has stayed performance of the contract pending our
resolution of the protest.

Redcon challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation under
virtually all of the evaluation factors and subfactors. The protester also
complains that in a number of instances the agency's evaluation was
inconsistent with the announced evaluation criteria.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and the best method of accommodating them. Matrix Int'l Logistics,
Inc., B-277208, B-277208.2, Sept. 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 94 at 4. In reviewing
an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will not reevaluate technical
proposals, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that
it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
applicable statutes and regulations. Id. An offeror's mere disagreement with
the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Global Assocs.,
Ltd., B-275534, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 129 at 3. Based on our review of
the record, and as discussed below, we find that the agency's evaluation of
the proposals of Redcon and SciTech was reasonable, consistent with the
RFP's stated evaluation criteria, and legally unobjectionable. We discuss
below what we view as the most significant issues. [3]

PAST PERFORMANCE

Redcon argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to award SciTech's
proposal [DELETED] under past performance. [4] To support its argument, the
protester focuses on SciTech's contract [DELETED]; the protester alleges
that the agency unreasonably equated SciTech's past performance [DELETED]
"with performance on an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract
for data acquisition and technical support." Protester's Supplemental
Submission, Aug. 28, 2000, at 10.

The record shows that [DELETED]. AR exh. 8, SciTech's Proposal, at 19. It is
undisputed that the [DELETED] contract is relevant to the work to be
performed under the CAMDS contract awarded here to SciTech. The record
further indicates that the work under [DELETED].

Although Redcon argues that the work performed [DELETED] bears no relevance
to the CAMDS contract, the protester has not established that the agency was
unreasonable in concluding that this [DELETED] under a contract similar to,
and broader in scope than, the protested one was not representative of
SciTech's performance on that contract. In any event, as stated above, the
RFP simply provided that the agency would assess each offeror's past
performance under "similar or related work," and [DELETED], although
admittedly not calling for work that was the same as the services solicited
here, could reasonably be considered "related work," since the services were
ordered under the clearly relevant [DELETED] contract. To the extent Redcon
questions the relevancy of this [DELETED] we note that [DELETED] do not
reflect the same scope of work covered under this CAMDS contract. AR exh.
12, Redcon's Proposal, at 3. In our view, the agency was consistent in its
evaluation of the past performance of both firms.

Further, as the agency points out, the awardee's [DELETED] was based on all
of the past performance information contained in SciTech's proposal and the
three completed past performance questionnaires, including two other
relevant contracts. The information received by the agency reasonably
demonstrated that SciTech was [DELETED] contractor under the other two
contracts. Agency Supplemental Report, Sept. 13, 2000, at 10-11. In our
view, SciTech and Redcon were evaluated fairly under the past performance
factor, and the record reasonably supports the [DELETED] received by
SciTech. [5]

EXPERIENCE

Redcon argues that while it should have received [DELETED] because of the
firm's extensive experience with CAMDS, SciTech should not have received the
same rating since SciTech's proposal did not reflect equivalent experience
and failed to adequately address the requirements of each experience
subfactor. Protester's Supplemental Submission, Aug. 21, 2000, at 2-5;
Protester's Comments on Supplemental Agency Report, Sept. 18, 2000, at 2-3.

Redcon alleges that the agency was "overly generous" and unreasonably
equated its proposal to SciTech's under the data acquisition, storage,
retrieval, analysis, and reporting subfactor. Protester's Supplemental
Submission, Aug. 21, 2000, at 3. The protester states that SciTech did not
provide a detailed response to the requirements of this subfactor since its
proposal "[was] confined [DELETED]," while Redcon fully addressed the
subfactor requirements [DELETED]. Id.; Protester's Comments on Supplemental
Agency Report, Sept. 18, 2000, at 3.

Contrary to the protester's arguments, the record shows that SciTech did
address these requirements in some detail and the agency had a reasonable
basis to determine that SciTech's proposal met and exceeded the requirements
of the data acquisition, storage, retrieval, analysis, and reporting
subfactor. For example, the evaluators favorably considered SciTech's
experience under an [DELETED]. Based on the information provided in
SciTech's proposal, they judged the tasks SciTech was currently performing
under this contract as similar to the solicited CAMDS requirements. These
included [DELETED]. While Redcon argues that SciTech's response to the
requirements of this subfactor was inadequate as compared to its proposal,
which provided more technical information, the record supports the agency's
evaluation ratings.

Redcon argues next that the [DELETED] assigned to SciTech's proposal under
the environmental program management subfactor was unjustified because
SciTech's experience in this area is not as comprehensive as Redcon's and
Redcon's proposal again "exceeds SciTech's in length and detail."
Protester's Supplemental Submission, Aug. 21, 2000, at 4. The protester also
contends that SciTech's evaluation was impermissibly based on the [DELETED].
Id. at 4; Protester's Comments on Supplemental Agency Report, Sept. 18,
2000, at 2.

Redcon's argument that its proposal provided relatively more technical
information than SciTech's does not provide any basis to conclude that the
agency's evaluation of SciTech's proposal was unreasonable. The agency
explains that SciTech merited [DELETED] for this subfactor because its
proposal described the firm's [DELETED]. The evaluators also credited
SciTech for [DELETED]. The record further indicates that SciTech reasonably
received evaluation credit for the experience [DELETED]. Id. at 28-30.
Contrary to Redcon's contentions, the agency reasonably determined that
SciTech was experienced and knowledgeable with respect to the work to be
performed under this subfactor. In any case, Redcon has not shown that the
agency's similar ratings of both proposals under the experience factor were
unreasonable.

MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL

Key Personnel Experience

The protester argues that SciTech's proposal did not meet the key personnel
requirements set forth in the RFP, and that the agency improperly concluded
that the firm's proposal warranted a rating of [DELETED]. Specifically,
Redcon claims that SciTech's proposal indicated that [DELETED]. Id.

There is no basis in the record to conclude that SciTech's key personnel
approach failed to meet the requirements of this subfactor. The record
indicates that SciTech submitted [DELETED]. AR exh. 8, SciTech's Proposal,
at 73. On the other hand, in its transition plan, SciTech expressed
[DELETED]. [6] Id. at 75. Redcon does not allege, and there is no suggestion
in this record, that SciTech misrepresented the availability or commitment
of its key personnel in its proposal. Nor is there any allegation that
SciTech's proposed key personnel were not qualified to perform the CAMDS
requirements [DELETED]. Under these circumstances, Redcon has no credible
basis to argue that SciTech's proposal did not deserve [DELETED] rating for
its key personnel. Redcon simply has not shown that the agency's judgment
was unreasonable in this regard.

PRICE EVALUATION

Redcon alleges that the Corps improperly evaluated the reasonableness of
proposed prices because the agency limited its evaluation to a comparison of
the offerors' prices to each other. Protest at 7. The Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) provides a number of price analysis techniques that may be
used to determine whether prices are reasonable and realistic, including a
comparison with other prices received in response to the solicitation. FAR sect.
15.404-1(b)(2)(i). The depth of an agency's price analysis is a matter
within the sound exercise of the agency's discretion, and we will not
disturb such an analysis unless it lacks a reasonable basis. Ameriko-OMSERV,
B-252879.5, Dec. 5, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 219 at 4; Ogden Gov't Servs.,
B-253794.2, Dec. 27, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 339 at 7.

Here, the RFP simply stated that price proposals would be evaluated for
reasonableness and affordability, without specifying the manner or degree of
analysis to which proposed prices would be evaluated. The record in this
case shows that the price analyst compared SciTech's price with the other
offerors' prices, a technique which is explicitly recommended by the FAR.
This comparison constituted a legally sufficient price analysis under this
RFP. [7] In sum, the agency's determination that SciTech's proposed price
was reasonable, based on a comparison of the price proposals, is
unobjectionable.

BEST VALUE

Redcon argues that the agency's price/technical tradeoff decision was flawed
because the underlying evaluations on which it was based--specifically, the
evaluation of SciTech's technical and price proposals in the areas discussed
above and the evaluation of Redcon's proposal in the past performance
area--were flawed. As discussed above, we conclude that the evaluation of
SciTech's technical and price proposals was reasonable, and that the
evaluation of Redcon's technical proposal was unobjectionable. The record
shows that the SSA properly compared the strengths and weaknesses of
Redcon's and SciTech's proposals and reasonably concluded that Redcon's
proposal was not worth the payment of a price premium of approximately
[DELETED]. Given these conclusions, there is no basis to object to the
tradeoff on the grounds asserted by the protester.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. The adjectival ratings were defined as follows:

Exceptional Exceeds specified performance or capability; no weaknesses.

Good Exceeds specified performance or capability in some areas. Meets all
other requirements.

Acceptable Meets the basic requirements.

Marginal Numerous deficiencies. Does not meet several requirements.

Unacceptable Fails to meet standards; does not meet numerous requirements.

RFP at 64.

2. The RFP's roster of key personnel for whom resumes were required totaled
27 employees. RFP at 60.

3. During the course of the protest, Redcon raised a number of other related
contentions having to do with the propriety of the agency's evaluation of
proposals and selection of SciTech for award. Although not every one of
these contentions is specifically addressed in this decision, we have
reviewed them and, based on the protest record, we conclude that they are
without merit.

4. Redcon further challenges the past performance evaluation on the basis
that the past performance questionnaires used a numerical scale rather than
the adjectival rating scheme set forth in the RFP. Protester's Supplemental
Submission, Aug. 28, 2000, at 9. Redcon also contends that the past
performance questionnaires impermissibly included eight additional questions
beyond the areas addressed in the stated past performance subfactors. Id.
Neither of these contentions provides a valid basis to question the past
performance evaluation. First, as the agency points out, there is no legal
requirement that past performance questionnaires use the same rating method
as that set forth in a solicitation. We see nothing unreasonable in the
agency's use of questionnaires with numerical scores as a guide in
determining which adjectival rating would be assigned; the key question is
whether the past performance information is accurately conveyed. Nor are we
persuaded, as the protester suggests, that the eight additional questions in
the questionnaires were not within the scope of the past performance
evaluation factor. On the contrary, and as the record shows, these
additional questions were logically related to aspects of the stated
subfactors. For example, the questions concerning the extent to which the
contractor interfaces with customers and responds to technical direction are
reasonably encompassed by the commitment to customer satisfaction subfactor.

5. Redcon also generally asserts that the individual who completed the past
performance questionnaire for its CAMDS contract was "not competent to
render [the] evaluation because she does not hold a position that gives her
knowledge of all of REDCON's services." Protester's Supplemental Submission,
Aug. 28, 2000, at 11. However, Redcon does not explain the basis for this
conclusory assertion, and such a general statement is not sufficient to
constitute a basis of protest. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F. R. sect. 21.5(f)
(2000).

6. We note that although Redcon and SciTech received the [DELETED] rating
under the management and personnel factor, [DELETED] under the three
subfactors comprising this evaluation factor. The agency explains that the
RFP contemplates that a successor contractor would have to implement a
transition plan, which may include personnel substitutions. Consequently,
under the transition plan subfactor, Redcon received [DELETED].

7. For the record, we note that Redcon challenged the price analysis as
inadequate based on the agency's failure to evaluate whether offerors, other
than itself, had proposed wage rates compliant with the Service Contract Act
of 1965, as amended, 41 U.S.C.sect.sect. 351-58 (1994), as well as with the required
fringe benefits set forth in the applicable wage determination. We
previously dismissed that allegation because in this case the issue raised
concerns the agency's affirmative determination that SciTech is a
responsible firm, which we will not review absent certain circumstances,
which are not present here. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c).