TITLE: Si-Nor, Inc., B-290150.4; B-290150.5, February 4, 2003
BNUMBER: B-290150.4; B-290150.5
DATE: February 4, 2003
**********************************************************************
Si-Nor, Inc., B-290150.4; B-290150.5, February 4, 2003
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: Si-Nor, Inc.
File: B-290150.4; B-290150.5
Date: February 4, 2003
Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.
Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for Red River
Service Corporation, the intervenor.
Capt. Gregory A. Moritz, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal where protester did not
provide information required by solicitation or sufficient to demonstrate
its understanding of the requirements.
DECISION
Si-Nor, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Red River Service
Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT59-01-R-0011, issued
by the Department of the Army for waste recycling and disposal services.
Si-Nor challenges the reasonableness of the Army's evaluation of its
technical proposal and the award selection analysis.
We deny the protests.
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year
with four 1‑year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose
proposal represented the *best overall value* to the government, based on
an *integrated assessment* of the evaluation factors. The evaluation
factors were: (1) technical, (2) experience/past performance, (3) small
business participation, and (4) price. The first three evaluation factors
were equal to one another in importance and combined were *significantly
more important* than price. For the technical factor, the RFP identified
six subfactors listed in descending order of importance:
(a) understanding the requirements; (b) recycling plan; (c) experience in
providing required documentation; (d) key personnel; (e) quality control
plan; and (f) list of trucks, containers, and equipment. RFP at 36. The
RFP incorporated a 10-percent price evaluation preference for Historically
Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns. RFP
amend. 1; see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 52.219-4.
The RFP specified that:
[t]he [offeror's] proposal should be specific, complete, and demonstrate
an understanding of the required services and the potential for completing
the services satisfactorily as outlined in the [performance work statement
(PWS)] and meet the requirements of this solicitation.
RFP at 37. As part of their proposals, offerors were required to submit a
recycling plan, resumes of key personnel (including the *Site Project
Manager, Lead Man, and Recycling Manager*), and a list of equipment to be
utilized on the contract. Id.
Five offerors, including Si-Nor, submitted proposals in response to the
RFP. All proposals were included in the competitive range.
In a letter dated November 14, 2001, the Army opened discussions with
Si-Nor, identifying several *deficiencies* and *weaknesses* that it
requested Si-Nor address.[1] Among other deficiencies and weaknesses
noted, the letter stated that Si-Nor's proposal was *very general in
fashion* and that it *basically repeats what the requirements are in the
solicitation with little or no detail.* Also, the letter stated that the
proposal did not contain the RFP-required resumes or *identify the
experience or qualifications for the Project Manager and Quality Control
Inspector*; the letter requested that Si-Nor provide the resumes of all
on-site key personnel. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13B, Si-Nor Discussions
Letter. By letter dated November 23, Si-Nor responded and addressed some,
but not all, of the Army's concerns. For example, although the letter
purported to attach resumes, no resumes were attached. AR, Tab 12B,
Si-Nor's Response to Discussions.
The Army received final proposal revisions (FPR) from all five offerors by
February 25, 2002. Based on the evaluation of the FPRs, the Army selected
Red River for award. Upon receiving notice of the award, Si-Nor and
another offeror filed protests, in response to which the Army took
corrective action by convening a new evaluation panel. Based on this
panel's evaluation, the final evaluation results for Red River's and
Si-Nor's proposals were:
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |Red River |Si-Nor |
|-----------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
|Technical |Blue[2] |Yellow |
|-----------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
| |Understanding the requirements |Blue |Yellow |
| |--------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
| |Recycling plan |Green |Red |
| |--------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
| |Experience with documentation |Blue |Green |
| |--------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
| |Key personnel |Blue |Red |
| |--------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
| |Quality control plan |Blue |Green |
| |--------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
| |List of trucks, containers, equipment |Blue |Green |
|-----------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
|Past performance |Green |Green |
|-----------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
|Small business participation |Green |Green |
|-----------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
|Cost (actual) |$4.627 million |$4.520 million|
|-----------------------------------------+---------------+--------------|
|Cost (HUBZone adjustment of 10%)[3] |$5.090 million |$4.520 million|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
AR at 3-4.
The evaluators noted a number of deficiencies and weaknesses in Si-Nor's
FPR, including, for example:
[T]he proposal regurgitates the RFP without really demonstrating
understanding of requirements. Staffing and management are vague; the
recycling plan does not include required elements including number and
location of containers, pickup schedule, building recyclables collection,
etc. Key personnel did not include details on qualifications or
experience.
* * * * *
WEAKNESS OF THE PROPOSAL: Si-Nor failed to demonstrate even a basic
understanding [of] the requirement. Recycle plan--source separation will
be required of customers. . . . [T]he organizational chart shows the
project manager not in overall control. The Quality control plan lacks
specificity particularly in describing corrective action after
deficiencies are found. . . . No details are supplied for containers or
equipment other than the vehicles and dumpsters.
No strengths were identified in the proposal. AR, Tab 5, Tradeoff
Analysis, at 4-5.
In contrast, the evaluators found numerous strengths in Red River's
proposal, which the evaluators summarized as follows:
Contractor understands the requirement as shown through a thorough
discussion of the various work elements and adequate staffing and
materials. The recycle plan addresses required elements and includes
analysis of recyclable waste streams. Thorough description of required
reports including a matrix of forms with frequency and distribution
requirements shows experience in documentation. Key person[n]el are shown
with qualifications and detailed resumes. A[n] organizational chart
showing the preferred quality control relationship is provided. The
equipment list identifies vendors and acquisition processes.
Id. at 3.
Based on the foregoing evaluation, the contracting officer determined
that:
the significantly higher performance capability represented by Red River
Services proposal, significantly outweighs the cost savings associated
with the lower priced proposal and the technical, past performance, and
[small business participation] ratings of the lower priced proposals do
not provide significant additional benefit to the Government. The best
value selection is, therefore, Red River Services.
AR, Tab 7, Cost & Price Analysis, at 3.
After Si-Nor was notified that the Army had selected Red River for award,
Si‑Nor filed this protest. Upon receipt of the agency report,
Si-Nor filed a supplemental protest. In its protests, Si-Nor primarily
challenges the Army's assessment of weaknesses and deficiencies in its
technical proposal, contending its proposal was deserving of a higher
rating under the technical evaluation factor and subfactors.
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 criteria and procurement statutes and regulations. Abt
Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD P: 223 at 4. Mere
disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render those
conclusions unreasonable. See UNICCO Gov't Servs., Inc., B-277658, Nov.
7, 1997, 97‑2 CPD P: 134 at 7. Here, we find that the Army's
analysis was reasonable, supported by the record, and consistent with the
evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP.
With respect to the first technical subfactor--understanding the
requirements--Si‑Nor's proposal was given a yellow rating because,
among other things, it merely *regurgitate[d]* the requirements of the RFP
and lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate an understanding of those
requirements. See AR, Tab 9, Technical Evaluation, at 3. We find this to
be a fair assessment of Si-Nor's proposal. It is an offeror's obligation
to submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate,
which, as explained below, Si-Nor failed to do. See United Def. LP,
B‑286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 75 at 19.
Si-Nor's proposal contained numerous statements, such as *[a]ll containers
shall be placed in locations in accordance with Technical Exhibit 5* and
*[Si-Nor] is well versed and experienced in writing reports, forms and
other correspondence as required by paragraph C.1.8 of the PWS,*
Si‑Nor Technical Proposal S:S: II.a.iv, II.c, which only parroted
back to the Army the corresponding provisions of the PWS. See PWS
P: C.5.2.3 (*Container locations shall be in accordance with Technical
Exhibit 5*); PWS P: C.1.8 (*The contractor shall provide all reports,
forms, and other correspondence at [the] time, frequency, and in the
number of copies indicated in Technical Exhibit 2*). In the Army's view,
and we agree, Si-Nor's proposal did *nothing more than to promise to meet
the minimum solicitation requirements already identified in the RFP*; that
is, Si-Nor only *indicate[d] that they are going to do the task[,] not how
they are going to accomplish the task.* Contracting Officer's Statement
(Nov. 22, 2002) at 4. In sum, Si-Nor's proposal did not demonstrate to
the Army that Si‑Nor actually understood the requirements.[4]
Therefore, the Army's assessment of a yellow rating for this subfactor was
reasonable.
Another area of agency concern was Si-Nor's recycling plan. There, the
Army gave Si‑Nor's proposal a red rating. It found no strengths
under this subfactor, but assessed a deficiency because the plan *does not
include any of the elements required by RFP [PWS P:] C.5.3.2, including
number and location of containers, pickup schedule, how building
recyclables will be collected, or what is required of [the] government.*
The Army also assessed Si-Nor's recycling plan a weakness because
*[s]ource separation will be required of customers.* AR, Tab 9, Technical
Evaluation, at 4.
The RFP required offerors to submit a recycling plan *as specified in
paragraph C.5.3.2 of the [PWS].* RFP at 37. That paragraph required,
among other things, the *number, locations and types of recycling
containers, pick-up schedule, building containers, and pick up stations
for family housing and post.* RFP PWS P: C.5.3.2. The recycling plan
subfactor also informed offerors that their proposals would be evaluated
for the *[l]ocations and types of recycling containers, pick-up schedule
for office buildings, housing areas and yard waste.* RFP at 36.
Furthermore, as noted, the RFP required proposals to be *specific,
complete, and demonstrate an understanding of the required services.* RFP
at 37. Notwithstanding these instructions, Si-Nor's proposal contained
only eight sentences of general text concerning Si-Nor's recycling plan in
which it vaguely offered to provide a *source separation collection
system,* a *public outreach plan,* and *goals of recycling,* but failed to
describe what these items entailed. Si-Nor's Technical Proposal S: II.b.
The proposal also omitted information concerning recycling containers,
pick-up schedule, and other items required by paragraph C.5.3.2. In light
of the RFP's requirements, Si-Nor's scant proposal submission in this area
supports the Army's finding of a deficiency.
Si-Nor alleges that in evaluating its recycling plan the Army
misinterpreted its offer of a *source separation collection system.*
However, as noted by the Army, Si‑Nor failed to further describe
this system in its proposal. The Army construed the word *source* to mean
the originator or generator of the refuse (i.e., the military family
customer) and, therefore, concluded that the burden of recycling was
placed on the customer. Contracting Officer's Statement (Nov. 22, 2002)
at 3. Si-Nor now explains that *[c]ustomers are not required to separate
any recyclable materials* and that it *intended to provide a system where
our workers will do a curbside separation of the recyclable material.*
Protest at 2. However, neither Si‑Nor's proposal nor its response
to the Army's discussion issues informed the agency of this intention.[5]
In light of the RFP requirements to submit a *specific* and *complete*
proposal, we think the burden of providing sufficient information
concerning its *source separation collection system* rested with Si-Nor.
See United Def. LP, supra. Therefore, under the circumstances, we cannot
say that the agency's assessment of a weakness in this area of Si-Nor's
proposal was unreasonable.[6]
Si-Nor also complains that the Army unreasonably assessed a red rating for
its key personnel, for failing to meet the minimum requirements of the
RFP. Here, too, the Army's findings were reasonable in light of Si-Nor's
failure to provide required or detailed information. For example,
Si‑Nor's proposal failed to include the *experience, qualifications,
and certifications* of certain key personnel, as required by the RFP
(at 36) and requested by the Army's discussions letter. Si-Nor also did
not provide resumes of its key personnel, as required by the RFP (at 37)
and again requested by the Army in its discussions letter.[7]
Furthermore, as noted in the evaluation, a reasonable reading of Si-Nor's
proposal reveals that the project manager does not appear to have overall
control of the project, which was required by the PWS (at P: C.1.2.2).[8]
Thus, the agency reasonably determined that Si‑Nor's proposal
warranted a red rating with regard to key personnel.
Similarly, Si-Nor contests its green rating for its quality control plan;
however, the record shows that this plan was completely lacking in detail,
particularly with respect to describing corrective action taken after
deficiencies were found, even though this information was required by the
RFP (at 36). Likewise, Si-Nor contests its green rating for the equipment
list subfactor, but, again, Si‑Nor failed to provide details for its
containers and equipment, which was another requirement of the RFP (at
36). Given Si‑Nor's failure to respond to specific RFP
requirements, we find the Army did not underrate Si-Nor's proposal under
these technical subfactors.
Si-Nor next contends that its green small business participation rating
was too low, because Si-Nor is a small business, while Red River's green
rating was too high. We disagree. Si-Nor's proposal failed to submit a
subcontracting plan or identify any subcontracting opportunities to meet
the subcontracting goals set forth in the RFP (at 38). Nevertheless, it
was given credit for achieving two of the three goals because it is a
small business concern. Since the agency had no way of knowing
Si‑Nor's subcontracting plans, we think that the agency had a
reasonable basis for giving Si‑Nor only a green and not a blue
rating under this factor. Red River (a large business) did submit a
subcontracting plan, which exceeded only two of the three subcontracting
goals. Therefore, it was also properly assessed a green rating under this
factor.[9] Contracting Officer's Statement (Dec. 16, 2002) at 3.
Si-Nor also contends that the Army should have rated Red River and
Si-Nor's proposals as technically equal, which would have resulted in
price being award determinative. We disagree. As discussed above, the
Army reasonably found clear advantages in Red River's proposal, which
justified a higher technical score. See, e.g., AR, Tab 9, Technical
Evaluation; AR, Tab 7, Cost & Price Analysis; AR, Tab 5, Tradeoff
Analysis. Most significantly, Red River provided a comprehensive,
detailed proposal that met or exceeded the requirements of the RFP on
almost every level.
While Si-Nor also alleges that the Army failed to document its
price/technical tradeoff, the Army, as indicated above, provided a
well‑reasoned analysis of the competing proposals that sufficiently
justified the Army's selection of Red River's higher-rated, higher-priced
proposal for award. Contrary to Si-Nor's contention, this analysis did
not give too much weight to the technical factor to the detriment of the
past performance, small business participation, and price factors. Red
River's proposal was reasonably found to have a clear advantage in the
technical factor that offset any price advantage of the lower-rated,
lower-priced proposals, including Si‑Nor's.[10] The past
performance and small business participation factors were given
appropriate consideration, but, as indicated by the equal ratings given
Si‑Nor's and Red River's proposals under these factors, these
factors were not award discriminators.
In sum, we find nothing objectionable in the Army's technical evaluation
or award selection analysis.
The protests are denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] Similar letters were sent to other offerors in the competitive range.
[2] The color coded ratings used by the evaluators were defined as
follows: blue--*[e]xceed[s] specified evaluation standards in a
beneficial way to the agency and has no significant weaknesses*;
green--*[m]eets evaluation standards and any weaknesses are readily
correctable*; yellow--*[f]ails to meet the evaluation standards[,]
however, any significant deficiencies are correctable; and red--*[f]ails
to met a minimum requirement of the RFP and the deficiency is
uncorrectable without major revision of the proposal.* AR, Tab 5,
Tradeoff Analysis, at 2.
[3] Red River's evaluated price was adjusted upward 10 percent because
Si-Nor was eligible for a HUBZone preference and Red River was not.
[4] Si-Nor argues that its general references to the RFP and PWS
requirements are more than sufficient to demonstrate its understanding of
the requirements. We disagree. As indicated, the RFP required proposals
to be *specific, complete, and demonstrate an understanding of the
required services.* RFP at 37. Furthermore, the Army informed Si-Nor
during discussions that its proposal was assessed a deficiency because it
was *very general in fashion* and *basically repeats what the requirements
are in the solicitation with little or no detail.* Despite the Army's
request to provide additional details, Si-Nor failed to adequately address
the Army's concerns.
[5] In its comments, Si-Nor contends that discussions were inadequate
concerning the Army's interpretation of Si-Nor's source separation
selection plan. However, the Army's interpretation was made known to
Si-Nor at its debriefing, which was more than 10 days before Si-Nor first
raised this protest allegation. Si-Nor's protest of the adequacy of
discussions is therefore untimely. See 4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(2) (2002)
(protests must be filed within 10 days after the basis of protest is known
or should have been known, whichever is earlier).
[6] Si-Nor complains of disparate treatment in the evaluation of the
recycling plan subfactor. It notes that Red River's recycling plan was
similarly assessed a weakness because of *some confusion* over whether
*family housing [would] be required to do some source separation,* AR, Tab
9, Technical Evaluation, at 8, and complains that, despite this weakness,
Red River's proposal received a green rating for the recycling plan
subfactor, whereas Si-Nor's proposal received a red rating. However, we
think the record reasonably supports the Army's determinations. Unlike
Si-Nor's plan, Red River's plan was *comprehensive and address[ed] all
required RFP elements,* and contained a number of proposal strengths.
Id. We find no evidence of disparate treatment in the record for this, or
any other, evaluation factor.
[7] Si-Nor's proposal included the resumes of its President, Corporate
Vice President, and Vice President of Sale and Marketing, but did not
include the resumes of the *Project Manager, Lead Man and Recycling
Coordinator,* as required by the RFP (at 36). Although Si-Nor's response
to the Army's discussions letter, as well as its protest here, purported
to attach additional resumes, none were provided in either instance.
[8] Although Si-Nor's proposal stated that the project manager had *full
authority to act for the contractor and shall be responsible for the
overall management and coordination of the contract,* the organizational
chart provided by Si-Nor indicated otherwise. This chart indicated that
the project manager has control over only the drivers. Si-Nor's Technical
Proposal S: II.d.
[9] While Si-Nor also generally contests its green past performance
ratings, arguing that it deserved a blue rating, the record shows that the
majority of past performance ratings from Si-Nor references supported a
green, not a blue, rating.
[10] Si-Nor also contends that the recycling plan was given too much
importance as a technical evaluation subfactor because it was only a small
portion of the overall contract. This allegation concerns the relative
importance of evaluation criteria identified in the RFP, and thus an
alleged defect in the solicitation. Accordingly, Si‑Nor should have
raised this protest ground before the due date for initial proposals, but
did not. Its allegation is therefore untimely. See 4 C.F.R. S:
21.2(a)(1) (protests based upon improprieties in solicitation must be
filed prior to time set for receipt of initial proposals).