TITLE:  Information Systems Technology Corporation, B-289313, February 5, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-289313
DATE:  February 5, 2002
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: Information Systems Technology Corporation

File: B-289313

Date: February 5, 2002

Paul J. Chun for the protester.

Gilbert J. Ginsburg, Esq., for Aspen Systems Corporation, an intervenor.

Wilsie Y. Minor, Esq., Corporation for National and Community Services, for
the agency.

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

DIGEST

1. Protest that evaluation and source selection decision was flawed is
denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the evaluation factors.

2. Protest alleging that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions
with protester by failing to advise protester of perceived weaknesses during
the site visit is denied where record shows that written discussions prior
to the site visit reasonably apprised protester of the areas of its proposal
that were considered deficient, exchanges conducted during the site visit
centered on the facilities, and agency subsequently requested and evaluated
final proposal revisions which incorporated discussion responses.

DECISION

Information Systems Technology Corporation (ISTC) protests the award of a
contract to Aspen Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP)
No. HQMCS0101, issued by the Corporation for National and Community Service
(CNCS) for services at several CNCS offices to support efforts to provide
awareness and access to the CNCS programs and departments. These support
services include recruitment support consisting of providing "1-800" numbers
and planning and conducting mailings; operators to take calls and provide
information concerning the organization; promotional display management; and
management and warehousing of recruitment, display and other agency
materials. ISTC contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful
discussions, erred in evaluating ISTC's technical proposal and failed to
perform a proper cost realism analysis.

We deny the protest.

As amended, the RFP provided for award of a time-and-materials contract for
a base year with four 1-year options. The RFP provided for award on a "best
value" basis. The RFP also provided for the evaluation of cost
reasonableness and a past performance evaluation. The technical factors
consisted of understanding of requirement and technical approach, technical
experience and similar work, personnel qualifications and corporate
capability and facilities, all of which were of equal value.

The agency received seven proposals by the May 7, 2001 closing date. After
the initial evaluation, three proposals, including those of ISTC and Aspen,
were included in the competitive range. Written discussion questions were
sent to each competitive range offeror and after a review of the responses
submitted, site visits were scheduled. During the site visits there were
oral discussions with offerors concerning the facilities, but no further
discussions concerning specific weaknesses in the proposals. After the site
visits, final proposal revisions were received and evaluated. With respect
to the protester and the awardee, the final evaluations were as follows:

 Offeror   Technical Score   Cost/Price     Past Performance

 ISTC      77.4              $9,698,398     Very Good

 Aspen     96.4              $8,998,347     Excellent

Agency Report (AR) encl. 19, at 2.

ISTC, the incumbent, has successfully performed the requirement for several
years, and the evaluators determined that its proposal contained several
strengths. However, the evaluators also noted several weaknesses, including
ISTC's failure
to provide an online catalog as required by the RFP, failure to recommend
improvements /adjustments to the existing operations, and failure to provide
a thorough overview of its communication systems with the contracting
officer's technical representative (COTR) and other CNCS staff. Aspen
received the highest overall technical score. The evaluators found numerous
strengths in Aspen's proposal, although the evaluators did note several
weaknesses not at issue here. Aspen's high technical rating was based on 12
evaluated strengths, which included Aspen's recommendations for improving
procedures, its high level of understanding of the requirements, its
in-house capabilities, its extensive display management experience, and its
outstanding phase-in and training proposal. AR encl. 18, Technical
Evaluation Memorandum, at 1-3.

The agency performed a cost realism analysis. As a baseline for projecting
potential cost, the agency used historical data for the period June 1, 2000
through May 31, 2001. AR encl. 19, Source Selection Decision, at 5. The
results of this analysis showed Aspen's cost would be higher than ISTC's
proposed costs if Aspen actually incurred the hours used in the historical
data. The contracting officer reviewed the cost realism analysis and
examined Aspen's processes for achieving several of the requirements, which
included efficiencies based on the technical "sophistication of their
operations," and concluded that the lower number of hours proposed by Aspen
was consistent with its methodologies for accomplishing the statement of
work. Moreover, the contracting officer determined that even if Aspen
incurred labor-hours during the life of the contract equal to those used in
the cost realism analysis, thus resulting in additional costs, Aspen's
technical strengths and overall superiority justified the additional cost.
Consequently, the contracting officer determined that Aspen offered the best
value to the government. ISTC was notified of the award to Aspen on October
18, 2001. Following a debriefing, ISTC filed this protest with our Office.

The protester's primary challenge to its proposal evaluation is based on its
contention that the weaknesses identified during the debriefing were
fabricated by the evaluators and unsupported. For example, the protester
contends that the agency erroneously concluded that its proposal placed a
great deal of quality control burdens on agency personnel, that its proposal
did not address training and development of telephone operators, and did not
give sufficient attention to the monitoring of the quality of services. The
protester also contends that it was penalized as the incumbent for not
proposing operation improvements. [1]

The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility of the
contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs
and the best method of accommodating them, and it must bear the burden of
any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation. Federal Envtl.
Servs., Inc., B-260289,
B-260490, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 261 at 3. In reviewing protests
challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will not substitute our
judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of proposals; rather we
will examine the agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable
and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, and with
procurement statutes and regulations. Honolulu Marine, Inc., B-245329, Dec.
27, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 586 at 3. A protester's mere disagreement with the
agency's evaluation does not render it unreasonable. CORVAC, Inc., B-244766,
Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 454 at 5.

Our review of the record shows that the protester's proposal was reasonably
evaluated in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria. Contrary
to the protester's characterization that the agency fabricated bases for
downgrading its proposal, the record shows that ISTC submitted an acceptable
proposal that simply was not rated as high as the awardee's with respect to
understanding of the work, technical approach, and facilities. Each
evaluator produced a detailed narrative assessment of each proposal under
each evaluation factor. For example, the evaluators noted ISTC's strengths
as "training program is well defined," "quality assurance plan is effective
and responsive to fluctuations," "addressed need to be flexible and however
responsive" and "thoughtful and well-organized staffing plan." AR encl. 18,
Technical Evaluation Memorandum, at 2. However, the evaluators noted several
weaknesses in ISTC's proposal that involved ISTC's failure to provide
details concerning its training program, quality assurance plan and proposed
warehouse enhancements. Although the protester disagrees with these
weaknesses, the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's
evaluation. The agency simply found ISTC's proposal to be lacking in detail
and not as innovative as the awardee's. More specifically, the evaluators
found Aspen's proposal to be technically superior because it contained a
large number of significant advantages. Id. at 1.

We also note that, prior to ISTC filing its protest, the evaluators, in
response to an ISTC letter questioning the weaknesses identified at the
debriefing and agreed to review ISTC's concerns regarding the evaluation.
The evaluators concluded that their original evaluation was correct. For
example, the evaluators confirmed that while ISTC's training program was
well defined, it was "extremely flat," lacking detail on execution and
implementation. The evaluators also reiterated that ISTC's quality assurance
plan was based solely on internal monitoring and did not address the
tracking of the quality of the output over time. Moreover, the evaluators
confirmed that the quality assurance plan placed a great deal of
responsibility for quality control on the CNCS personnel. Further, the
evaluators explained that while ISTC provided for enhancements to its
warehouse, it did not provide enough details concerning the specific
improvements. AR encl. 24, Evaluator Review of ISTC Concerns. The evaluators
believed that ISTC was in a position to recommend more effective and
efficient practices to better manage workload, but had not done so. The
evaluators again concluded that, in comparison to ISTC's proposal, the Aspen
proposal was more complete and presented new and innovative approaches to
managing the workload with excellent technological recommendations. In our
view, the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's position that,
although ISTC submitted an acceptable proposal, Aspen's proposal contained
more significant strengths and was more innovative.

ISTC also argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions
because the areas of perceived weakness in its proposal were not brought to
its attention during the site visit, when there was an opportunity for oral
discussions, or in the final proposal revision request.

Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all offerors
whose proposals are within the competitive range, but they are not required
to conduct all encompassing discussions, or discuss every element of a
proposal receiving less than the maximum rating. Volmar Constr., Inc.,
B-270364, B-270364.2, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 139 at 4; DAE Corp.,
B-259866, B-259866.2, May 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 12 at 4-5. Agencies are
obligated only to lead offerors generally into those areas of their proposal
needing amplification within the context of the particular procurement.
Creative Mgmt. Tech., Inc., B-266299, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 61 at 4.
As discussed below, we find that discussions here satisfied that standard.

The record shows that the protester was advised of the concerns the
evaluators had through written technical questions on June 25, with
responses due by July 11.
AR encl. 10, Discussion Questions. Specifically, ISTC was requested to
address the solicitation's requirement for a display catalog; to provide an
online catalog as required; to describe how ISTC would automate the Display
Management/Ordering via the CNCS website; to define a thorough overview of
communication systems for each task with the COTR and other CNCS staff; to
address the solicitation's requirement for a project manager; to define
ISTC's plan for training and development of operators; and to explain how
quality of services will be monitored/controlled. It is clear that the
agency reasonably identified its concerns to the protester during
discussions.

The protester contends discussions were inadequate because the agency failed
to reiterate its concerns during the site visit. However, the CNCS was not
obligated to raise its concerns at this point; the agency did not reevaluate
proposals based on the discussion questions until it received revised final
proposals. The agency reports that the primary purpose of the site visit was
to allow the evaluators the opportunity to see the actual facilities where
most of the work would be performed. As explained above, the record shows
that the protester was apprised of the agency's concerns, and the protester
had an opportunity to respond to those concerns. Ultimately, the evaluators
found that the protester's final revised proposal, while acceptable, was not
as detailed and innovative as the awardee's, and that the awardee's proposal
was technically superior to the protester's. We think the agency's actions
here were unobjectionable. See Rockwell Int'l Corp.,
B-261953.2, B-261953.6, Nov. 22, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 34 at 15.

ISTC further argues that the agency's cost realism analysis demonstrated
that Aspen's estimated labor and other direct costs were higher than ISTC's.
As described above, the agency performed a cost realism analysis primarily
using historical labor hours as the baseline for cost realism. Based on the
cost realism adjustments using historical labor hours, the agency estimated
that ISTC's proposed cost was realistic and was the lowest overall proposed
cost. Based on the historical data, Aspen's cost was adjusted upward to
$11,434,898. However, after reviewing the cost analysis and examining
Aspen's processes for achieving several of the objectives of this
requirement, the contracting officer determined that the hours proposed by
Aspen were consistent with Aspen's methodologies for accomplishing the
requirement. The contracting officer specifically identified several
advantages in connection with Aspen's equipment and facilities that it
believed "would produce . . . efficiencies that would lead to reduced labor
hours." AR encl. 9, Source Selection Decision, at 5. The contracting officer
further concluded that even if Aspen incurred labor-hours during the life of
the contract equal to those used in the cost realism analysis, Aspen's
technical superiority justified the additional cost.

Agencies enjoy a relatively broad discretion in making best value tradeoffs;
such tradeoffs are governed only by the test of rationality and consistency
with the stated evaluation factors. GTE Hawaiian Tel. Co., Inc., B-276487.2,
June 30, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 21 at 16-17. In our view, the source selection was
reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. As explained
above, the record shows that the contracting officer reasonably concluded
that Aspen's proposal was the best value based on its technical strengths,
even if Aspen's cost were adjusted upward based on the historical labor
hours.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. ISTC also objects to the specific point scores given by the evaluators to
both offerors for each evaluation factor. Point scores are only guides to
intelligent decision making by source selection officials. Beyond the mere
point scores, the real issue is whether the competing proposals offer
differing levels of technical merit, a question that is essentially a matter
for the judgment of the agency evaluators. Deborah Bass Assocs., B-257958,
Nov. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 180 at 4.