TITLE:  Consolidated Services Worldwide, Inc., B-290751.7, October 21, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-290751.7
DATE:  October 21, 2002
**********************************************************************
Consolidated Services Worldwide, Inc., B-290751.7, October 21, 2002

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Consolidated Services Worldwide, Inc.
    
File:            B-290751.7
    
Date:              October 21, 2002
    
David J. Taylor, Esq., Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, for the protester.
Adele Ross Vine, Esq., General Services Administration, 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 challenging the rejection of proposal is denied where the
protester did not unambiguously commit in its proposal to satisfy the
solicitation's key personnel provision.
DECISION
    
Consolidated Services Worldwide, Inc. (CSWI) protests the rejection of its
proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 6TA-02-MTV-0057, issued by
the General Services Administration (GSA) for information technology
services.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFP was issued as a set-aside for Historically Underutilized Business
Zone (HUBZone) firms or for qualified HUBZone joint ventures for a 2-year
base period and three 1-year option periods.[1]  The RFP includes seven
functional areas (FA) corresponding to various required services.  For
each FA, multiple awards will be made to the responsible offerors whose
proposals represent the best values to the government; awardees will
compete for subsequent task orders.  The RFP advised that the agency
intends to make the awards on the basis of initial proposals without
conducting discussions.  RFP S: L.1, at L-1.  The RFP also warned that a
proposal would be considered unacceptable and would be ineligible for
award if, among other things, it took exception to any terms and
conditions in the RFP or imposed additional conditions.  RFP S: M.1, at
M-1. 
    
As relevant here, section B of the RFP included a price schedule for each
of the seven FAs for each period of contract performance.  Each price
schedule included contract line item numbers (CLIN) corresponding to
specified labor categories and estimated hours for each labor category. 
Offerors were to insert an *hourly ceiling labor rate* for each labor
category and to multiply this rate by the number of estimated hours to
arrive at a total price for each labor category.  Each price schedule also
contained CLINs for supplies, travel, and other direct costs (ODC) and
estimated costs for these items.
    
In addition, as relevant here, section G of the RFP, captioned *contract
administration data,* stated that the contractor *shall provide all
management, administrative, marketing, quotation, clerical and supervisory
functions and actions required for effective and efficient Contract
administration without direct cost to the Government.*  RFP at G-1.  For
each contract awarded, the RFP required the contractor to designate a
contract manager--the key personnel position for the contract--who would
be responsible for the overall coordination of the contract with the
government.  The RFP listed the following requirements for the contract
manager:
    
Organizes, directs, and coordinates planning and production of all
Contract support activities[;] Has excellent oral and written
communication skills, with a demonstrated capability for dealing with, and
may meet with, all levels of internal personnel and external
representatives[;] Formulates and reviews strategic plans, marketing
plans, subcontracting, and deliverable items, determines Contract costs,
and ensures conformity with Contract terms and conditions[;] Explains
policies, purposes, and goals of the Contractor's organization, and GSA's
policies and procedures applicable to this Contract, to Contractor
personnel[;] Takes appropriate action as required to avoid personal
services Orders[; and] Must be authorized to negotiate on behalf of and
bind the Contractor to Orders[.]
RFP at G-10.
    
In accordance with the terms of the RFP, as stated above, contract
management services were to be provided at no direct cost to the
government.
    
CSWI timely submitted its proposal, in which it priced all CLINs for each
of the seven FAs for each period of contract performance.  However, after
the section B price schedules, CSWI inserted the following page into its
proposal:
    
FA 1 through FA 7 - - Price Schedule for All FA's -- Subset Schedule *ODC*
    

                                    (A)           (B)                         
CLIN     Category                Estimated     Hourly Ceiling    Total     
                                    Hours         Labor Rate[2]     A*B       
100      Corporate Executive     NA            $ [omitted]                 
200      Program/Project Manager NA            $ [omitted]                 

    
The forgoing labor categories are provided in order to establish a unit
hourly price for senior management personnel.  They serve as the
Contractor's Contract Managers and are otherwise identified herein as Key
Contract Personnel.
    
Labor Category Description:  KEY CONTRACT PERSONNEL
    
Corporate Executive -- Experience conferring with executive management to
define the Client's strategic business goals and advice in reengineering
of business processes to meet these goals.  Experienced in managing a
diverse group of functional activities, subordinate groups of technical
and administrative personnel.  He or she is a senior professional who only
has responsibility for managing projects, but also possesses strong
technical skills.  Minimum 10 years of progressive experience in managing,
directing, and implementing projects and a Master's degree or ten-plus
years of work experience in a specialized area of responsibility.
    
Program/Project Manager -- organizes, directs, and coordinates planning
and production of all Contract support activities.  He or she has
excellent oral and written communication skills, with a demonstrated
capability for dealing with, and may meet with all levels of internal
personnel and external representatives.  Formulates and reviews strategic
plans, marketing plans, subcontracting, and deliverable items, determines
Contract costs, and ensures conformity with Contract terms and
conditions.  Explains Policies, purposes, and goals of the Contract's
organization, and GSA's policies and procedures application to this
Contract, to Contractor Personal.  Takes appropriate action as required to
avoid personal services Orders; Is authorized to negotiate on behalf of
and bind the Contractor to Orders.
    
Protester's Proposal at B-69.
                          
The agency rejected CSWI's proposal because the firm did not clearly and
unambiguously agree in its proposal to provide the services of a contract
manager at no direct cost to the government in accordance with the terms
of the RFP.  In this regard, while pricing all CLINs for each of the seven
FAs for each period of contract performance, CSWI also added two
unsolicited labor categories that were applicable to each of the FAs
according to the captioning on page B-69 of the proposal, as shown above. 
For these two labor categories, CSWI specified hourly ceiling labor rates
for purposes of *establish[ing] a unit hourly price for senior management
personnel* and CSWI described these two labor categories as *serv[ing] as
the Contractor's Contract Managers and are otherwise identified herein as
Key Contract Personnel.*  CSWI also duplicated the RFP's contract manager
description for its proposed program/project manager.  On this record, it
was not clear to the agency that CSWI intended to provide a contract
manager at no direct cost to the government in accordance with the terms
of the RFP.[3]         
    
CSWI argues that its proposal was unreasonably rejected.  More
specifically, CSWI contends that it was clear from the face of its
proposal that all of the required labor categories for each of the FAs
could be purchased at the prices contained in the section B price
schedules and that these labor categories would be supervised by executive
level employees at no additional cost to the government in accordance with
the terms of the RFP.  CSWI states that the prices on page B-69 of its
proposal would come into play only if additional managerial services
beyond those contemplated by the RFP were desired (for example, defining
strategic business goals and reengineering businesses processes to meet
those goals).  Protester's Comments, Sept. 30, 2002, at 7.
    
In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, we will
consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.  Galen
Med. Assocs., Inc., B‑288661.4, B-288661.5, Feb. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD
P: 44 at 2.  Since the agency's evaluation must rely upon the information
in the proposal, the offeror has the obligation to submit an adequately
written proposal, and its failure to fulfill that obligation does not
render the evaluation unreasonable.  OMNIPLEX World Servs. Corp.,
B-282630.2, Sept. 22, 1999, 99-2 CPD P: 64 at 4-5.
    
We conclude that the agency reasonably rejected CSWI's proposal.  As
quoted above, in describing its proposed program/project manager, CSWI
duplicated the narrative from the RFP for the contract manager position
and inserted a per-hour ceiling labor rate.  It is this duplication of
contract manager requirements, plus the insertion of an hourly rate, that
caused CSWI's proposal to be considered, at best, ambiguous with respect
to whether the firm intends to provide contract management services at no
direct cost to the government in accordance with the terms of the RFP or
whether the firm intends to charge an hourly rate as contained on page
B-69 of its proposal for the required management services.  On this
record, where CSWI's intentions are not clear and unambiguous from the
face of its proposal in terms of providing contract management services at
no direct cost to the government, we have no basis to question the
reasonableness of the agency's rejection of the firm's proposal.[4]
    
Finally, CSWI argues that the agency could have conducted discussions with
the firm in order to resolve the issue of whether it intended to
separately charge for contract management services.  This is true, but
does not provide a basis to challenge GSA's decision not to conduct
discussions.  Since the RFP provided that the agency intended to make
awards on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions,
GSA retained discretion to do that.  Moreover, it would have been
inappropriate for the agency to conduct discussions with CSWI to remedy
that part of its proposal addressing a material RFP requirement without
conducting discussions with the other offerors.    
    
The protest is denied.[5]
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel               
             
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] The RFP is intended to result in a government-wide acquisition
contract (GWAC) with a maximum GWAC ceiling amount of $2.5 billion.
[2] Because this decision is being issued as an unprotected document, we
have omitted the actual hourly ceiling labor rates proposed by CSWI.
[3] The agency acknowledges that CSWI's description for its proposed
corporate executive did not duplicate the duties required by the RFP for
the contract manager position.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 4.
[4] In arguing that the RFP invited the submission of other labor
categories and corresponding labor rates, CSWI relies on the RFP language
that *additional labor categories not anticipated/covered in the pricing
schedules may be quoted under the ODC line items subject to standard of
review cited above.*  RFP at G-5.  The quoted language is applicable to
the competition for the issuance of task orders, not to the award of the
umbrella contracts.
[5] In its protest, CSWI argued that the agency was using CSWI's
unacceptability as a pretext to *justify not awarding one or more HUBZone
Set-Aside contracts in one or more [FAs].*  Protest at 8.  The agency
responded to this argument in its administrative report.  In its comments
on the agency report, CSWI did not rebut the agency's position on this
issue.  Accordingly, we deem this issue to be abandoned.  See Heimann Sys.
Co., B-238882, June 1, 1990, 90-1 CPD P: 520 at 4 n.2.
We also note that CSWI raised other collateral arguments, each of which we
have considered and find without merit.