TITLE:  Evolving Resources, Inc., B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3, April 27, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3
DATE:  April 27, 2001
**********************************************************************
Evolving Resources, Inc., B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3, April 27, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Evolving Resources, Inc.

File: B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3

Date: April 27, 2001

Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, for the protester.

Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, for Synectic
Solutions, an intervenor.

Glenn Heisler, Esq., and Russell Spindler, Esq., Department of the Navy, for
the agency.

Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of the evaluation of management proposals is denied where the
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

Evolving Resources, Inc. (ERI) protests the award of a contract to Synectic
Solutions under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-00-R-0328, issued by
the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), for
maintenance planning and design interface logistics support services. ERI
challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' management proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on February 2, 2000, contemplated the award of a
cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base period and nine 1-year option
periods for each of five lots, each lot serving different regional
locations. This protest involves the award of lot II, set aside for Section
8(a) business concerns, [1] covering the regional location at the Naval Air
Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake and Point Mugu, California.

The RFP stated that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal
offered the greatest value to the government, cost and other evaluation
factors considered. The RFP listed the following non-cost evaluation factors
in descending order of importance: (1) technical and associated risk; (2)
management and associated risk; and (3) past performance risk. Under the
RFP, offerors' technical and management proposals would be evaluated using
the adjectival ratings of outstanding, highly satisfactory, satisfactory,
marginal, or unsatisfactory; offerors' technical and management risk would
be evaluated as either high, medium, or low; and offerors' past performance
risk would be evaluated as either very low, low, moderate, high, very high,
or unknown. The RFP provided that the non-cost evaluation factors, when
combined, would be considered significantly more important than cost.

As relevant here, the management evaluation factor had two
subfactors--(1) management approach (overall management approach; usage of
teaming, personnel, and subcontractors; recruitment/retention; quality
management; cost savings; and electronic capabilities) and (2) key
personnel. The RFP advised that a poorly defined management approach would
result in the assessment of increased proposal risk and/or a reduced
qualitative rating. The RFP also advised that the evaluation of key
personnel would be based on the extent to which personnel resumes submitted
by the offeror met or exceeded the education and experience required by the
labor category descriptions.

Of the three firms submitting initial proposals, only the proposals of ERI
and Synectic were included in the competitive range. Following written
discussions, ERI and Synectic submitted final proposal revisions, which were
evaluated as follows:

                    ERI                    Synectic

                    Rating/Risk            Rating/Risk

 Technical          highly                 satisfactory/medium
                    satisfactory/low

 Management         unsatisfactory/high    satisfactory/medium

 Past Performance   low                    low [2]

ERI's evaluated cost was approximately 17 percent higher (i.e., over $4
million) than Synectic's evaluated cost. The agency determined to award a
contract to Synectic, the firm submitting the technically superior, lower
evaluated cost proposal.

EVALUATION OF ERI'S MANAGEMENT APPROACH PROPOSAL

ERI principally argues that the agency "used a higher, more rigorous
standard" to evaluate its management proposal as opposed to Synectic's
management proposal. Protester's Second Supplemental Protest, Mar. 9, 2001,
at 2. ERI attempts to show this alleged disparity by making a side-by-side
comparison of various sections of the management approach proposals
submitted by it and Synectic.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will question
the agency's evaluation only where it violates a procurement statute or
regulation, 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, 2000 CPD para. 4 at 6. An offeror has the burden of submitting an
adequately written proposal, and the offeror's mere disagreement with the
agency's judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient
to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Caldwell Consulting
Assocs., B-242767, B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 530 at 6. Here,
while ERI essentially argues that the agency did not evaluate the ERI and
Synectic management proposals in accordance with the terms of the RFP, based
on our review of the record, we conclude that ERI's position is without
merit. More specifically, a reasonable comparison of the management approach
proposals of the two firms shows that Synectic provided more relevant and
substantive details in response to the RFP requirements than did ERI. It was
this lack of proposal detail that resulted in the agency's assignment of an
unsatisfactory/high risk rating to ERI's management proposal, consistent
with the terms of the RFP, which provided that a poorly defined management
approach would result in the assessment of increased proposal risk and/or a
reduced qualitative rating. The following two management approach examples
are illustrative.

Managing Task Orders

The RFP required offerors to "describe their processes for managing task
orders from start to finish." RFP amend. 1, supp. B, sect. L1.I.E(a)(i), at 11.
ERI points to seven pages in its management proposal as providing a
description of its task order management process, and specifically one page
which summarizes, in bullet format, this process from beginning to end,
starting with the preparation of a "Task Management Plan . . . for each
[task order]"; the preparation of a "Task Work Breakdown Structure"; the
identification of "additional resource requirements to respond to early
problem reporting"; and, referencing a software development schedule
graphic, [3] "at project completion[,] the [formal delivery of the] final
product[, . . .] adjusted as necessary after coordination with the
appropriate [agency] technical personnel." ERI Final Proposal Revision at
3-18; Protester's Second Supplemental Protest at 3; Protester's Final
Comments, Mar. 28, 2001, at 8. The agency concluded that ERI's description
of its task order management process was weak because ERI failed to
adequately describe a complete process. AR, Tab I, SSAC Final Proposal
Revision Analysis Report for ERI, at 12.

For instance, while ERI points to the software development schedule graphic
as the description of its task order completion process, the agency
concluded that this graphic bore no relationship to the RFP's maintenance
planning and design interface tasks and the graphic did not describe task
order completion. In this respect, the agency states, and ERI does not
dispute, that out of 138 tasks described in the RFP, none identifies any
requirement for software development. Although ERI maintains that the
graphic shows how a final product, in a generic sense, will be formally
delivered and adjusted after coordination with appropriate agency personnel,
the agency concluded, and we have no basis to disagree, that neither this
graphic nor ERI's proposal narrative adequately describes final product
delivery, how adjustments will be made, or who will coordinate with agency
technical personnel. Supplemental AR, Mar. 22, 2001, at 1-3, 6.

In contrast, we agree with the agency that Synectic provided a detailed
narrative description of its task order management process from start to
finish, including [deleted]. The narrative and [deleted] describe and show a
plan of action, cost estimation, progressive monitoring, corrective feedback
loops to resolve problems, and delivery of a final product. Synectic Final
Proposal Revision at III-11-18.

Cost Savings

The RFP required offerors to "detail their plans for reducing the cost of
developing, producing, and updating logistics products." RFP amend. 1, supp.
B, sect. L1.I.E(a)(v), at 12. Under the "Cost Savings for Logistics Products"
section of its proposal, ERI listed its electronic capabilities and
referenced in two sentences one example of "demonstrated cost savings on a
NAVAIR logistics program . . . where improved automated efficiencies created
documented savings. The NAVAIR estimate of the savings for the past five
years exceeds $81M dollars." ERI Final Proposal Revision at 3-28;
Protester's Second Supplemental Protest at 5; Protester's Final Comments
at 11-12. The agency concluded that this aspect of ERI's proposal was weak
because the firm failed to provide a "detailed plan." AR, Tab I, SSAC Final
Proposal Revision Analysis Report for ERI, at 13. We agree with the agency's
evaluation in this respect because, while referencing one example of cost
savings on a Navy project, ERI did not discuss any "plans" for reducing
costs, as required by the RFP.

On the other hand, Synectic stated under the "Cost Savings" section of its
proposal that it would achieve cost savings in four ways--[deleted].
Synectic Final Proposal Revision at III-27. We believe the agency reasonably
concluded that Synectic addressed the requirement for a "plan" to achieve
cost savings.

Summary

In sum, a comparison of the ERI and Synectic proposals in the areas of task
order management and cost savings confirms that the agency reasonably
evaluated the management proposals of these firms in accordance with the
terms of the RFP. Our review of the record reveals no evidence of disparate
treatment, but rather, supports the agency's concern with ERI's failure to
submit an adequately detailed management approach proposal responding to the
RFP requirements. ERI's allegation of disparate treatment reflects its mere
disagreement with the agency's judgment and fails to establish that the
evaluation was unreasonable. [4]

EVALUATION OF KEY PERSONNEL

ERI maintains that three of the six key personnel proposed by Synectic and
evaluated as acceptable should have been determined unacceptable based on
the information, or the lack of information, in their respective resumes.
[5]

For example, ERI questions whether the individual (Mr. X.) proposed by
Synectic as a Senior Operations Logistics Manager satisfies the RFP
requirements to have "[a] minimum of four years experience [within the last
fifteen years] supervising and directing at least three operational
technicians in the performance of comprehensive analysis across the full
spectrum of design interface and maintenance planning." RFP amend. 1, at 6.

According to his resume summary sheet and resume, Mr. X. had "1.75" years
experience with a corporation from "1998-Present" in which he "supervises
and directs 4 operational technicians and provides operational logistics
support to 16 . . . Full Scale Aerial Target aircraft and associated
systems," and he had "1.50" years experience with another corporation from
"1996-1998" in which he, as an aviation manager, "provided operational
logistics support for Navy aircraft . . . [and] supervised and directed the
activities of 3 operational technicians." (ERI does not challenge any of
this experience--3.25 years--as reported by Mr. X.) The resume summary sheet
further shows that Mr. X. had "4.50" years experience with a third
corporation from "1991-1996" in which he, as the "Technical Director for
Engineering, Logistics, and Software Support Groups . . . provided
operational logistics management . . . [and] supervised operational
personnel performing data development and processing." The resume of Mr. X.
shows that he "supervised [t]eam members working in contingency planning,
Logistic Support Analysis . . . and inventory requirements analysis for the
Maritime Prepositioned Squadrons." Synectic Final Proposal Revision, Resume
Package for Mr. X.

ERI complains that the agency improperly credited Mr. X. with his work at
the third corporation, contending that it is not clear from his resume
package how much of the "4.50" years he spent supervising at least three
operational technicians. In response, the agency explains that where an
individual was identified by either ERI or Synectic as holding a position
which included a specifically required type of experience, the individual
was credited with having had that experience for the duration of that period
of employment. [6] AR, Apr. 4, 2001, at 2. In light of the equal treatment
of the two offerors, and in conjunction with Mr. X.'s 3.25 years of
experience with the other two listed corporations, we think that Mr. X. was
reasonably credited with having satisfied the RFP's minimum 4-year
experience requirement.

ERI also questions the agency's conclusion that Mr. X.'s use of the term
"team," in describing the number of people he supervised at the third
corporation, meant that he satisfied the RFP requirement to supervise "at
least three operational technicians." The agency explains that the
evaluators viewed any reference to the supervision of a "team" in an ERI or
Synectic resume from an "Integrated Product Team" (IPT) perspective, which
is how NAVAIR is structured. AR, Apr. 4, 2001, at 1-2. The agency states
that IPT teams are typically staffed with anywhere from 5 to 100 members,
and where a resume indicated that an individual supervised a "team," the
evaluators interpreted this to mean that the individual supervised five or
more people. Id. at 1. From this perspective, the agency concluded that Mr.
X.'s supervision of "team" members in the areas of contingency planning,
logistics support analysis, and inventory requirements analysis satisfied
the referenced RFP requirement as it would take at least three operational
technicians to perform these tasks. We believe the agency's judgment in this
regard was reasonable. [7]

CONCLUSION

On this record, we conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated each
offeror's management proposal and reasonably awarded the contract to
Synectic, the firm which submitted an overall technically superior,
substantially lower cost proposal. The agency's selection of Synectic's
proposal as representing the greatest value is not objectionable.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sect.637(a) (1994),
authorizes the Small Business Administration to enter into contracts with
government agencies and to arrange for the performance of such contracts by
letting subcontracts to socially and economically disadvantaged small
business concerns.

2. We note that the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB), the
first level of review, recommended that a moderate past performance risk
rating be assigned to Synectic. However, the source selection advisory
council (SSAC), the intermediate level of review before the source selection
authority, changed this recommendation from moderate to low, as shown in the
chart, and concluded that in terms of performance risk, little doubt existed
that either ERI or Synectic would successfully perform the contract. While
ERI does not dispute that the SSAC was not bound by the recommendation of
the SSEB, ERI complains that the SSAC did not satisfactorily document the
basis for its recommendation. We disagree.

The SSAC's final proposal revision analysis report shows that the SSAC
reviewed the SSEB's final proposal revision evaluation report and briefing
charts. The SSAC report shows that the SSAC considered ERI and Synectic to
have similar past performance records, with both firms demonstrating
successful past performance on contracts of similar type, size, and
complexity, and with both firms receiving positive feedback with respect to
their ability to minimize costs, sustain successful business relationships,
maintain performance schedules, and provide open communications. (These
items were considered risk mitigation factors for each firm.) Agency Report
(AR), Tab I, SSAC Final Proposal Revision Analysis Report for ERI and
Synectic, at 2-3. The SSAC report also shows that the SSAC recognized that
Synectic and its team member had not referenced any [deleted], and that ERI
had submitted a quality award reference for its team member only and a
contractor performance assessment report for itself only. Id. We believe
that the SSAC adequately documented its decision to assign a low past
performance risk rating to both ERI and Synectic.

3. This graphic, captioned "SAMPLE MICROSOFT PROJECT OUTPUT," basically
listed along the vertical axis 3 phases--design, development, and task
end--for the development of software; each phase included subphases. (There
were a total of 19 phases/subphases shown.) The graphic also listed along
the horizontal axis 10 months from August 1999 through May 2000. The graphic
linked each phase/subphase to a particular period of time representing the
start and completion for each phase/subphase over the 10-month period. ERI
Final Proposal Revision at 3-17.

4. ERI also protests other aspects of the agency's evaluation of the
management approach proposals (e.g., participation in industry initiatives,
upgrading employee skills, and quality management). We have reviewed each of
ERI's additional allegations and conclude that they also constitute mere
disagreement with the agency's judgment and fail to establish that the
agency's evaluation was unreasonable.

5. In its initial protest, ERI challenged the agency's evaluation of three
of its proposed key personnel. In its administrative report, the agency
addressed its evaluation of these individuals. In its comments on the agency
report, ERI did not meaningfully rebut the agency's position on any of these
individuals. Protester's Comments, Mar. 9, 2000, at 1. Accordingly, we deem
this argument to be abandoned. NMS Management, Inc., B-286335, Nov. 24,
2000, 2000 CPD para. 197 at 4 n.3.

In addition, in its initial protest, ERI generally argued that the agency
failed to conduct meaningful discussions in the area of its management
proposal (management approach and key personnel). Again, the agency
addressed this argument in its administrative report and ERI offered no
rebuttal in its comments. Therefore, we deem ERI's lack of meaningful
discussions argument to be abandoned.

6. The agency states that ERI's proposed key personnel for the Senior
Operations Logistics Manager positions were credited in the same manner as
Synectic's Mr. X. with having had the required experience.

7. The agency pointed out that it credited ERI's proposed Senior Operations
Logistics Managers with "team" experience as referenced in their respective
resumes.

ERI also questioned the acceptability of two other individuals proposed by
Synectic as key personnel. We have reviewed their resume packages in light
of the RFP requirements for the positions for which they were proposed and
we agree with the agency that these individuals were acceptable.