TITLE: JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc.
BNUMBER: B-290556.2
DATE: August 9, 2002
**********************************************************************
JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc., B-290556.2, August 9, 2002
Decision
Matter of: JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc.
File: B-290556.2
Date: August 9, 2002
Thomas A. Cregger, Esq., Barry & Randolph, for the protester.
William Mayers, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Technical evaluation identifying various weaknesses in protester's
technical/management proposal attributable to lack of detail was
unobjectionable where agency followed solicitation's evaluation criteria and
record establishes that evaluated weaknesses have a reasonable basis.
DECISION
JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. protests the award of contracts to four
offerors under request for proposals (RFP) No. DCA200-01-R-5032 issued by
the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Information Technology
Contracting Organization (DITCO) for support of program management
offices.[1] JAVIS challenges the agency's evaluation of its and the
awardees' technical/management proposals.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, a 100-percent small business set-aside, sought proposals for
DITCO's Global Enterprise Management Support (GEMS) requirement. GEMS
contractors support agency program management offices worldwide in various
program and technical areas including research, analysis, recommendation,
and documentation of program issues and approaches; technical and data
benchmarking efforts; and development of related tools. GEMS's four primary
task areas are: task order management; information technology management
support; verification and validation of engineering solutions; and
information technology services.
The RFP anticipated the award of multiple
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts over a maximum life cycle
of 6 years, and reserved the agency's right to set aside at least one award
for a qualified 8(a) offeror and at least one for a qualified HUBZone
offeror. Successful contractors would compete for future task orders to be
awarded on time-and-materials, fixed-price, or cost-reimbursement bases.
Offerors were to submit written briefing slides and make a 90-minute oral
presentation, the technical/management portion of which was to be based upon
a representative scenario (RS) in the RFP. Overall, proposals were to be
evaluated on the basis of three factors--past performance,
technical/management approach, and cost/price--and were scored on the basis
of risk and a color code system.[2] Non-price factors were considered
comparatively equal to one another and were significantly more important
then price. Awards were to be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s) were
the highest rated and represented the "best value."
Forty-two offerors submitted proposals, 35 of which, including Bloodworth,
Pragmatics, TOE, Keylogic, and JAVIS, made oral presentations. After
evaluating the oral presentations and proposed prices, the technical
management evaluation team (TMET) reached a consensus evaluation for each
proposal that included identification of various strengths and weaknesses.
No discussions were held with any of the offerors. The final evaluation
under all factors, and as analyzed by the source selection advisory council
(SSAC), for the protester's and the ultimate awardees' proposals was as
follows:
Past Technical/ Cost/Price
Performance Management DLCC[3]
Bloodworth Blue Low Blue Low $30.4 million
Pragmatics Blue Low Blue Low $27.47 million
Keylogic (HUBZone) Blue Low Blue Low $34.56 million
TOE (8(a)) Blue Low Green Low $22.37 million
JAVIS Blue Low Yellow Low $33.15 million
Based upon the SSAC's comparative analysis and his own integrated assessment
of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of the proposals, the source
selection authority determined to award four contracts to Bloodworth,
Pragmatics, Keylogic, and TOE. JAVIS's proposal was not among the top 17
technically ranked proposals overall and its DLCC price was ranked 21st.
After receiving notice of the awards and a debriefing, JAVIS filed this
protest.
JAVIS challenges several aspects of the evaluation of its proposal. Under
the technical/management approach factor, the RFP provided for an assessment
of each offeror's capability to perform task orders under the GEMS contracts
based on the offeror's technical and management solutions in response to the
RS and its structure, personnel, quality focus, and business operations.
RFP � M.4.2(a)(2)(i), (ii). With regard to JAVIS's technical/management
proposal, the SSAC report concluded:
The proposal is minimally adequate; JAVIS is most likely able to meet
performance requirements. Few strengths exist that are of benefit to the
Government; the strengths do not offset the weaknesses. Substantial
weaknesses exist that may impact the program; they are correctable with some
Government oversight and direction. . . . Weaknesses include, JAVIS failed
to discuss specific details regarding quality factors, such as performance
standards and quality levels in sufficient detail. JAVIS demonstrated
limited technical management tools as the[y] applied to the representative
scenario. They failed to provide proof of their capability to conduct
business with the government electronically. JAVIS did not discuss their
management of subcontractors.
SSAC Report, Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, at 35. JAVIS asserts that the
agency's evaluation of its technical/management proposal was flawed,
specifically, the identified weaknesses were not valid. JAVIS concludes
that its proposal should have been rated higher than yellow.
In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, our role is
limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.
National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD � 5 at
3. An offeror is responsible for submitting an adequate proposal and runs
the risk that its proposal will be evaluated unfavorably where it fails to
do so. Carlson Wagonlit Travel, B?287016, Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD � 49 at
3. Based on our review of the record, JAVIS's proposal failed to provide
sufficient detail to require a higher technical score; in short, the
evaluation was unobjectionable. We discuss several of JAVIS's arguments
below.
JAVIS challenges the agency's finding that its proposal failed to discuss in
sufficient detail quality factors such as performance standards and quality
levels. Element 3 of the technical solutions subfactor included an
evaluation of a required quality assurance (QA) surveillance plan to
determine the extent to which it supported the measurement of the
performance based solution to the RS. RFP � M.4.2(a)(2)(i). JAVIS asserts
that it discussed quality factors and performance standards throughout its
oral presentation and cites a number of references to the presentation and
its briefing slides. For example, JAVIS states that it included a "lengthy
presentation" of its QA work plan as part of its task order management
process; QA as part of its engineering model; a discussion of performance
measures, schedule and plan; QA performance metrics; and the role of the QA
manager and organizational commitment to QA process in the organization and
work breakdown structures. Protester's Comments at 2. JAVIS concludes that
its proposal should not have been downgraded in this area.
This argument is without merit. Under this element, the agency was looking
for offerors to identify such things as the primary method of surveillance,
appropriate performance standards, acceptable quality level, evaluation
methods, and incentives (positive, negative or both). Source Selection Plan
(SSP), AR, Tab 3, at 52-53. Notwithstanding the protester's own assessment
of the contents of its slides and presentation, the record supports the
agency's finding that the protester failed to discuss QA in any significant
detail. For example, JAVIS's slides and presentation addressed the
technical issues generally and in relation to prior contracts, but did not
address the technical requirements of element 3. Instead of discussing
quality factors such as performance standards and quality levels, or
describing a QA plan, JAVIS's oral presentation only generally discussed the
importance of risk and performance measurement. AR at 3-4. Likewise, while
some of JAVIS's slides outlined its technical approach/solution, including
QA, neither the slides nor the oral presentation discussed how the firm
would measure a performance-based approach or would monitor the process.
Based on the lack of detail included in JAVIS's slides and presentation, the
agency reasonably concluded that its proposal was weak under the technical
solutions subfactor.
JAVIS also challenges the agency's assessment that it demonstrated limited
technical management tools as they applied to the RS. Element 6 of the
technical solutions subfactor provided that the agency would evaluate the
extent to which the offeror demonstrated the availability and effectiveness
of technical and management tools and techniques. RFP � M.4.2.(a)(2)(i).
JAVIS argues that it meets this requirement as evidenced by several slides
and the accompanying oral presentation, which list more than six specific
tools and methods, along with its proposed engineering process. Protester's
Comments at 3. In JAVIS's view, the evaluators failed to take into account
its "significant presentation" of its ability to manage its listed tools for
the purpose of obtaining the stated objectives, and refers to a breakdown of
management activities it proposed, along with the tools it would use.
Protester's Supplemental Comments at 2.
The record shows that JAVIS's references to tools was not the "significant
presentation" that it claimed. To successfully meet this aspect of the
element, the agency expected offerors to provide evidence to justify claims
of tool availability and effectiveness as applied to the RS. SSP, AR, Tab
3, at 53. JAVIS did not do this in any amount of detail. For example,
while JAVIS listed various tools and identified the technical management
areas associated with them, it spent only 2 minutes discussing the tools and
how they would apply. AR at 6. In this regard, several slides contain an
outline of tasks and a listing of tools to be used for each task element,
but they provide no detail on the effectiveness of these tools.[4] In fact,
most of JAVIS's oral presentation concerned only one of its several tools,
and otherwise failed to explain how each would accomplish the tasks. Given
the limited explanation provided by JAVIS, the agency reasonably concluded
that its proposal demonstrated limited technical management tools as applied
to the RS.
JAVIS asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as failing
to provide proof of its capability to conduct business with the government
electronically. Element 4 of the management solutions subfactor provides
for evaluation of the offerors' e-commerce and e-business capability, and
the degree to which e-commerce has been integrated into business
operations. RFP � M.4.2(a)(2)(ii). JAVIS asserts that its participation in
this electronic-based solicitation, coupled with its provision of detailed
information regarding its web and electronic technology, met this
requirement.
Again, the record shows that JAVIS's proposal slides and oral presentation
provided very limited information regarding its capability in the areas of
e-commerce and e?business. To successfully meet this aspect of the element,
offerors were expected to provide evidence of acceptable tools and processes
(e.g., electronic data interchange, e-mail, facsimile, electronic funds
transfer), including current software applications in use, that would enable
the offeror to conduct business electronically. SSP, AR, Tab 3, at 56.
While JAVIS's proposal identifies its web tools and processes and its
experience in various areas (e.g., web application conversion, web site
hosting, web site security accreditation, web site training, web page
development, e?commerce business staff support, and e-commerce configuration
management), most of that experience relates to web site work, and the
presentation failed to provide information concerning JAVIS's capability to
conduct business with government electronically. Although JAVIS's slides
identified two e-business projects and referenced a team of web designers
who develop government web pages and e-business solutions, it failed to
provide any detail as to actual capabilities. As noted by the agency,
neither JAVIS's slides, nor its presentation, discussed its
e?commerce/e?business capability in such areas as e-mail, computer bulletin
boards, and facsimile. We conclude that the agency reasonably found that
JAVIS's proposal was weak in this area.
JAVIS also asserts that the agency improperly evaluated the awardees'
proposals. Specifically, JAVIS notes that the awardees' proposals had the
same or similar weaknesses, or were noncompliant with the requirements of
the RFP, and thus should not have received higher technical/management
ratings than JAVIS.
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a party is not interested to maintain a
protest if it would not be in line for award if the protest were sustained.
4 C.F.R. � 21.0(a) (2002). Here, the record establishes that, apart from
the four awardees, there are at least two small businesses, three 8(a)
businesses, and one HUBZone business with higher combined technical ratings
and lower evaluated prices than JAVIS's, any or all of which would be
eligible for awards. In this regard, of the 35 proposals evaluated, as
noted above, JAVIS's price proposal was 21st overall and its technical
proposal ranking was not even among the top 17. Among 8(a) offerors, its
proposal was ranked 11th of 17. Since we have found that the agency's
evaluation of JAVIS's proposal was reasonable and it has not challenged
those intervening offerors' evaluations, JAVIS is not an interested party to
challenge the evaluation of the awardees' proposals; even if its protest
were sustained, the intervening offerors, not JAVIS, would be in line for
award. See, e.g., McDonald Construction Servs., Inc., B?285980, B-285980.2,
Oct. 25, 2000, 2000 CPD � 183 at 11; U.S. Constructors, Inc., B?282776, July
21, 1999, 99-2 CPD � 14 at 5.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
-------------------------
[1] The four awardees are Bloodworth Integrated Technologies, Pragmatics,
Inc., Taylor-Oden Enterprises, Inc. (TOE), and Keylogic Systems, Inc.
[2] The evaluation ratings were as follows: blue (exceeds requirements);
green (satisfactory); yellow (minimally adequate); orange (inadequate); and
red (highly inadequate). Proposal risk was rated high, medium, or low.
[3] Cost/price was evaluated on the basis of completeness, reasonableness,
and the discounted life-cycle cost (DLCC) for each proposal.
[4] For example, at slides 25-26, JAVIS lists activities and tools, but
describes them in generic terms such as "PM automated tools," "case tools,"
and "DII COE/COTS defined tools/toolkit."