TITLE:  Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc., B-290789.4, B-290789.5, January 22, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-290789.4, B-290789.5
DATE:  January 22, 2003
**********************************************************************
Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc., B-290789.4, B-290789.5,
January 22, 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:    Synoptic Systems Corporation; Contract Services, Inc.
    
File:             B-290789.4, B-290789.5
    
Date:              January 22, 2003
    
Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq. and Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., Epstein Becker &
Green, for Synoptic Systems Corporation, and Darcy V. Hennessey, Esq.,
Moore Hennessy & Freeman, for Contract Services, Inc., the protesters.
Capt. Charles K. Bucknor, Jr. and Raymond Saunders, Esq., Department of
the Army, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., GAO participated in
the preparation of this decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Protester's assertion that solicitation was *devoid* of any
requirements regarding proposal content is without merit where request for
proposals (RFP) S: M listed multiple evaluation factors and subfactors,
RFP S: L contained separate instruction paragraphs for each evaluation
factor and subfactor describing information offerors were expected to
provide, and the solicitation advised offerors that *proposals may be
considered technically unacceptable due to lack of minimum content or
failure to address all evaluated areas.*
    
2.  Agency reasonably evaluated protesters' proposals as unacceptable
where evaluation record supports source selection authority's conclusion
that both protesters' proposals failed to comply with multiple
solicitation requirements. 
DECISION
    
Synoptic Systems Corporation (SSC) and Contract Services, Inc. (CSI)
protest the Department of the Army's evaluation of proposals under request
for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF19-02-R-0002 to provide installation logistics
support services at Fort Riley, Kansas.  SSC and CSI each protest that the
agency improperly evaluated their respective proposals as technically
unacceptable, and that the agency improperly evaluated the proposal
submitted by Logistics & Environmental Support Services Corporation
(LESCO) as technically acceptable. 
    
We deny the protests.
    
BACKGROUND
    
On April 25, 2002, the Army published the solicitation at issue, seeking
proposals to provide various base support services[1] for a 1-year base
period and six 6-month option periods,[2] and advised offerors that *award
will be made using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
process.*  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 106.  The RFP required offerors
to submit *quality* proposals in the form of oral presentations,[3] and
directed that the oral presentations address the following non-price
evaluation factors:  quality control plan; management plan;[4] work
execution;[5] experience;[6] and past performance.  Agency Report, Tab 8,
RFP at 106-07.  RFP S: L contained proposal instructions and identified
specific information that offerors were expected to provide under each
evaluation factor.  RFP S: M warned offerors that *proposals may be
considered technically unacceptable due to lack of minimum content or
failure to address all evaluated areas.* Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at
106.  Finally, the solicitation advised offerors *there will be no
negotiations or discussions,* and stated that price proposals *will be
requested only from those offerors whose Quality Proposal[s are]
determined to meet all evaluation factors and criteria in section L.* 
Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 106.
    
Proposal slides and required certifications[7] were submitted by four
offerors prior to the specified May 31 closing date; thereafter, oral
presentations were made by each offeror.  Following the oral
presentations, the agency reviewed and evaluated the proposals.  Although
the solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be rated only as to
acceptability/unacceptability,[8] the agency initially evaluated proposals
using a relative ranking system.[9]  Based on that evaluation, the agency
found two proposals (including SSC's) acceptable, and two proposals
(including CSI's) unacceptable. 
    
On June 26, CSI filed a protest with this Office challenging various
aspects of the agency's evaluation.[10]  Following our development and
review of the record in that matter, this Office conducted a telephone
hearing during which testimony was provided by various Army personnel
involved in that initial evaluation.  On September 27, this Office
conducted a conference call with the parties' counsel, during which
various perceived evaluation flaws were discussed.  By letter submitted
later that day, the Army advised this Office that it intended to take
corrective action, including reevaluation of proposals and new
determinations of acceptability/unacceptability.  On the basis of that
pending corrective action, we dismissed CSI's protest as academic. 
Contract Servs., Inc., B-290789, B-290789.2, Sept. 30, 2002. 
    
Thereafter, the agency's source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the
videotape record of each offeror's oral presentation,[11] reevaluated each
proposal to determine whether or not each met the solicitation
requirements,[12] and concluded that SSC's and CSI's proposals were
unacceptable.  Specifically, the SSA found that SSC's proposal failed to
meet the solicitation requirements under the evaluation factors for
management plan and experience; and that CSI's proposal failed to meet the
solicitation requirements under the evaluation factors for quality control
plan, management plan, work execution, and experience.  By letters dated
October 4, SSC and CSI were notified of the SSA's determinations.  These
protests followed.
    
DISCUSSION
    
SSC and CSI each challenge the agency's evaluation of their respective
proposals.  Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to
question the agency's rejection of both proposals.    
    
Evaluation of SSC's Proposal
    
SSC protests that the SSA erred in finding that SSC's proposal failed to
meet the solicitation requirements, first arguing that the solicitation
contained no requirements.  Specifically, SSC asserts, *the Army issued a
solicitation that was devoid of any specific requirements,* and argues
that, rather than requirements, the solicitation contained only *amorphous
suggestions.*  SSC Comments on Agency Report, Nov. 25, 2002, at 2.  The
record is to the contrary.
    
RFP S: L contained instructions to offerors regarding proposal content. 
Among other things, section L directed that offerors' proposals/oral
presentations *should . . . cover all areas specified in Section M,
Paragraph B, Evaluation Factors.*[13]  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 100. 
Paragraph B of RFP S: L mirrored paragraph B of RFP S: M, covered two
complete solicitation pages, and contained separate instruction paragraphs
for each evaluation factor and subfactor.  For example, with regard to the
evaluation factor for quality control plan, RFP S: L stated:
    
Provide a general overview of your proposed Quality Control Plan to
include your process to ensure the effectiveness of your short and long
term corrective actions, a brief explanation of how you intend to
integrate any subcontractors you plan to use, and any planned interaction
between your quality control personnel and the Government's quality
assurance personnel.  Outline your quality control staffing structure to
include experience, training and education requirements.  If you intend to
internally train your Quality Control personnel, describe that process as
well.  Address quality control staff responsibilities, authority, and
outline the quality control reporting and documentation procedures, to
include both those internal to the contractor and from the contractor to
the Government.  Provide a brief overview of a safety plan. 
Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 100.
    
In arguing that the solicitation contained only *suggestions* for proposal
content,  SSC refers to a provision in RFP S: L, immediately preceding the
detailed instructions quoted above, that stated:  *The following
suggestions are offered to assist you in developing your presentation.* 
Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 100.  Relying on this provision, SSC argues
that *[s]ection L of the solicitation contained only suggestions as to
what should be discussed at the presentation,* maintaining that *the
so-called evaluation factors did not contain actual requirements.*  SSC
Protest, Oct. 15, 2002, at 5; SSC Comments on Agency Report, Nov. 25,
2002, at 7.  We disagree.
    
Here, the solicitation clearly disclosed the multiple evaluation factors
and subfactors against which offerors' proposals would be evaluated. 
Further, RFP S: L contained separate instruction paragraphs for each
factor and subfactor, describing the specific information the agency
expected offerors to provide.[14]  Finally, RFP S: M warned offerors that
*proposals may be considered technically unacceptable due to lack of
minimum content or failure to address all evaluated areas.*  Agency
Report, Tab 8, RFP at 106.  It is difficult to imagine how this
solicitation could have more explicitly placed offerors on notice
regarding the bases for the agency's pending acceptability/unacceptability
determinations.  SSC's assertion that the solicitation contained only
*suggestions* is simply without merit. 
    
SSC next challenges the reasonableness of the agency's determination that
SSC's proposal failed to meet the solicitation requirements under various
evaluation factors and subfactors.  Based on our review of the record, we
find nothing that would render the agency's rejection of SSC's proposal
unreasonable. 
    
Our Office will not independently evaluate proposals; rather, where there
is a challenge to an agency's evaluation, we will examine the evaluation
record, considering, as appropriate, testimony from the parties involved,
and assess whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. 
Advanced Tech. and Research Corp., B‑257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2
CPD P: 230 at 3; Information Sys. & Networks Corp., B‑237687, Feb.
22, 1990, 90-1 CPD P: 203 at 3.  An offeror's mere disagreement with the
judgment of the evaluators does not render the evaluation unreasonable. 
Medland Controls, Inc., B-255204, B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD P:
260 at 3. 
    
The record shows that SSC's proposal was evaluated as unacceptable with
regard to the evaluation factor for management plan, and, more
specifically with regard to the subfactor for on-site personnel.  In this
regard, RFP S: L stated: 
    
The Management Plan shall contain no listing of actual personnel but
rather list proposed management staff backgrounds and educational
requirements and their respective positions with regard to this contract
management plan for on-site staff to include key managers.
.     .     .     .     .
(b)  Outline the on-site staff positions to include the minimum
qualifications (experience, education, work discipline) required for each
position and the respective authority and responsibilities.  Outline the
minimum on-site staffing levels, and describe how and when the on-site
staffing levels will be adjusted.
Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 100-01.
    
In concluding that SSC's proposal failed to meet these requirements, the
SSA stated: 
    
[SSC's proposal provided] [n]o indication of the staffing levels that were
projected.  The experience that was presented for the key on-site
personnel was individual specific rather than position specific. . . . 
[t]here was nothing presented that provided minimum levels of education,
experience, and work discipline for those positions. 
Agency Report, Tab 20, at 5.
    
SSC acknowledges that it did not provide position-specific qualifications,
explaining:  *[SSC] recognized that[,] after award[,] [SSC] would be
called upon to submit a management plan that contained minimum educational
qualifications for on-site staff positions.*  Protest at 13.  Nonetheless,
SSC argues that its proposal should have been found to meet the
solicitation requirements on the basis that it discussed the
qualifications of various individuals SSC proposed to fill key
positions.  
    
At the GAO hearing, the SSA further discussed the solicitation
requirements regarding on-site staff and his evaluation of SSC's proposal,
testifying: 
    
[The requirement for position-specific qualifications] was an attempt to
obtain a level of professional capability at our installation with some
assurance that that level of professionalism will continue [throughout
contract performance]. . . .  If [an offeror] put[s] together a proposal
and propose[s] the resumes of individuals . . . and then something
changes, and that individual goes [away], [the agency] ha[s]no way of
knowing what the qualifications of the follow-on individual is going to
be. . . .  When we [asked for] the minimum qualifications for a position,
those qualifications would stay regardless of who sat in that position.
VT at 9:33-9:36.
    
As shown above, the solicitation specifically directed each offeror to
identify the minimum qualifications the offeror associated with various
on-site positions.  SSC acknowledges that it did not provide the requested
information.  Further, it is clear that SSC's failure to provide the
required qualifications effectively precluded the agency from assessing
the qualifications that SSC would provide, throughout the contract period,
for various on-site positions.  On this record, we find no basis to
question the agency's determination that SSC's proposal failed to meet the
solicitation requirements.
    
The SSA also rated SSC's proposal unacceptable with regard to the
management plan subfactor for corporate structure.  With regard to this
subfactor, RFP S: L stated:
    
(a)  Outline the proposed Corporate staff and their responsibilities and
authorities in regard to this contract.  Outline their backgrounds for
their respective positions . . . .
Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 101.
    
In evaluating SSC's proposal as failing to meet this requirement, the SSA
stated, *[SSC's proposal] failed to identify key positions within the
corporate staff, to include a corporate staff structure and the
backgrounds for the positions.*  Agency Report, Tab 20, at 2.
    
SSC asserts that its proposal met the corporate staff requirements because
SSC's oral presentation incorporated a slide (captioned *communications*)
depicting a diagram with lines drawn between boxes labeled *Synoptic
Systems Corporation Management,* *program manager,* *senior
[subcontractor] management* *contract officer,* and *Commander Fort
Riley.*  Agency Report, Tab 13, at 15.  We disagree. 
    
The oral presentation slide on which SSC relies addresses lines of
communication between SSC's corporate management and various other parties
involved in contract performance; it provides no information regarding the
structure and background of SSC's corporate staff.[15]  Based on our
review, it is clear that nothing in SSC's proposal discussed SSC's
corporate staff structure or backgrounds for those corporate positions. 
Accordingly we find nothing unreasonable in the SSA's conclusion that
SSC's proposal failed to comply with this requirement. 
    
Based on these examples of SSC's failure to comply with the solicitation
requirements, we cannot question the agency's rejection of SSC's proposal
as unacceptable.[16]  As noted above, the solicitation directed offerors
to *cover all areas* specified in the evaluation factors, warned offerors
that *lack of minimum content or failure to address all evaluated areas*
could render a proposal unacceptable, stated that *there will be no
negotiations or discussions,* and advised offerors that *pricing proposals
will be requested only from those offerors whose Quality proposal[s] [are]
determined to meet all evaluation factors and criteria in Section L.* 
Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 100, 106.  Since the record supports the
agency's conclusion that SSC's proposal failed to address various
solicitation requirements, SSC's proposal was properly rejected as
unacceptable.    
    
Evaluation of CSI's Proposal
    
CSI similarly challenges the agency's determination that its proposal was
unacceptable.  Echoing SSC's assertions that the solicitation contained
only *suggestions,* CSI repeatedly asserts that the RFP sought only
*general* information, and maintains that the agency's multiple criticisms
of CSI's proposal reflected an unreasonable view that more than *general*
information was required.[17] 
    
As discussed above, RFP S: L clearly established multiple, specific types
of information that offerors were required to provide, and the
solicitation expressly warned offerors that *proposals may be considered
technically unacceptable due to lack of minimum content or failure to
address all evaluated areas.*  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 106.  To the
extent CSI's protest is based on its repeated assertions that the
solicitation did not require submission of specific information, the
protest is without merit. 
    
As noted above, the agency evaluated CSI's proposal as unacceptable under
each of the following evaluation factors and various associated
subfactors:  quality control plan; management plan, work execution, and
experience.  CSI asserts that the agency erred in each instance.  We have
reviewed the record in its entirety and conclude that the agency
reasonably rejected CSI's proposal based on various failures by CSI to
properly address the solicitation requirements.
    
For example, the agency evaluated CSI's proposal as unacceptable under the
evaluation factor for work execution.  In this regard, the solicitation
stated, in part:
    
Describe extent and rational for in-house/subcontract work distribution;
subcontracting support capability; criteria for subcontractor selection;
plan for coordinating, scheduling, and ensuring timeliness of work
execution and completion of multiple projects with multiple
subcontractors.  Such areas of consideration should be:
(a) Explain how the subcontracted effort will be integrated into the total
contract effort.  Provide a proposed list of subcontractors and show what
means of communication will there be between contractor and
subcontractors.  Explain how multiple projects affect plans.
Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 101. 
    
In evaluating CSI's proposal as unacceptable under this evaluation factor,
the SSA stated:
    
There was no clear process apparent for the integration of the
subcontracted effort.  The offeror stated several times that there were
two subcontractors but only named one of the two and didn't indicate what
portions of the work that named subcontractor would be responsible for. 
The other subcontractor remained unnamed, but it was indicated that it
would be responsible for food service.  Due to the lack of identification,
the Government could not even discern whether the unnamed [sub]contractor
was debarred or suspended from Government contracting.
Agency Report, Tab 19, at 2. 
    
There is no factual dispute that CSI failed to identify one of its two
proposed subcontracters.  Specifically, CSI acknowledges this fact,
stating:  *Clearly, CSI did not identify [its proposed] food service
subcontractor.*[18]  CSI Comments on Agency Report, Nov. 29, 2002, at 3. 
As noted above, the solicitation specifically directed offerors to
*[p]rovide a proposed list of subcontractors.*  Thus, there can be no
dispute that CSI failed to comply with this solicitation requirement.   
    
As discussed above, the RFP directed offerors to *cover all areas*
specified in the evaluation factors, warned offerors that *lack of minimum
content or failure to address all evaluated areas* could render a proposal
unacceptable, and advised offerors that *there will be no negotiations or
discussions.*  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 99-102, 106.  Since the
record clearly establishes that the agency reasonably evaluated CSI's
proposal as failing to meet the solicitation requirements with regard to
the evaluation factor, work execution, CSI's proposal was properly
rejected as unacceptable.[19]   
    
Evaluation of LESCO's Proposal
    
Finally, both SSC and CSI assert that the agency improperly evaluated
LESCO's proposal as technically acceptable.  Both offerors discuss various
areas of LESCO's proposal that, they argue, should have been evaluated as
failing to meet the solicitation requirements and/or reflect unequal
treatment of the offerors' proposals. 
    
As noted above, our Office will not independently evaluate proposals;
rather, where there is a challenge to an agency's evaluation, we will
examine the evaluation record, considering, as appropriate, testimony from
the parties involved, and assess whether the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and
regulations.  A protester's mere disagreement with the judgment of the
evaluators does not render the evaluation unreasonable.  Here, we have
reviewed all of the protesters' arguments and find no merit in them.  In
short, after reviewing the videotape record of LESCO's oral presentation
and the accompanying slides, the agency's evaluation record, the SSA's
hearing testimony, and the solicitation requirements, we do not find
unreasonable the SSA's determination that LESCO's proposal acceptably
addressed the solicitation requirements.  Specifically, the slides LESCO
displayed during its oral presentation addressed the required information
that was identified in RFP S:S: L and M.  Although SSC and CSI argue that
LESCO's proposal failed to meet various requirements, our review of the
record leads us to conclude that the SSA's determination to the contrary
was reasonable.[20]   
    
The protests are denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

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

   [1] The solicitation sought services to support the following activities: 
general support and direct support maintenance; army oil analysis; central
vehicle wash facility; transportation motor pool; full food service dining
facility; hazardous material control center; central issue facility;
ammunition supply point; general storage and warehousing; and bulk
petroleum oil and lubricant operations.  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 37.
[2] The solicitation explains that the agency intends to award an interim
contract for various currently contracted-out activities that are part of
an ongoing commercial activities study being conducted pursuant to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76.  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP,
at 35.  
[3] The solicitation directed offerors to provide the agency with the
written slides intended for use during their presentations, further
advising offerors, *it is recommended that the number of slides be limited
to a maximum of 20.*  Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP at 99.
[4] Under the evaluation factor for management plan, the RFP listed the
following subfactors:  corporate structure and staff; on-site personnel
structure; plan for project management; interaction between
government/contractor staff; purchasing system; payroll and labor
relations; and capability and willingness to actively utilize automated
methods for accomplishment of contract administration. 
[5] Under the evaluation factor for work execution, the RFP listed the
following subfactors:  integration of subcontract work; subcontractor
control; and rationale for selection and utilization of subcontractors. 
[6] Under the evaluation factor for experience, the RFP listed the
following subfactors:  ability to simultaneously manage multiple services
operations; and scope of work in previous projects. 
[7] Offerors were required to submit various representations and
certifications in response to section K of the RFP.
[8] Consistent with the concept of selecting the lowest priced technically
acceptable proposal, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) mandates
that, when using the LPTA process, *[non-price] [p]roposals are evaluated
for acceptability but not ranked,* and also establishes that *[t]radeoffs
are not permitted.*  FAR S: 15.101-2.
[9] Proposals were rated under each evaluation factor and subfactor using
a color-coded rating system wherein a *dark blue* rating reflected a
proposal containing *significant advantages [that are] not offset by
disadvantages*; a *green* rating reflected a proposal containing *one or
more advantages [that are] not offset by disadvantages*; a *yellow* rating
reflected a proposal in which *any advantages are offset by
disadvantages*; and a *red* rating reflecting a proposal containing *major
errors, omissions, or deficiencies.*  Agency Report, Tab 37, at 10.
[10] On August 15, following receipt of the agency report responding to
its June 26 protest, CSI filed a supplemental protest.
[11] The SSA was not part of the agency's evaluation team in the initial
evaluation and was not present during the offerors' oral presentations.
[12]  In resolving these protests, GAO conducted a hearing on the record
in the GAO building during which testimony was provided by the SSA.  At
that hearing, the SSA testified that, in performing his reevaluation, he
did not apply the prior relative evaluation plan under which a proposal's
*advantages* offset its *disadvantages.*  Hearing Videotape (VT) at 10:08.
[13] Paragraph B of RFP S: M listed the five non-price evaluation factors,
along with their multiple subfactors.
[14] For example, under the evaluation factor for quality control, the
solicitation specifically directed offerors to discuss:  procedures for
short and long term corrective actions; integration of subcontractors;
interaction between contractor quality assurance personnel and government
personnel; quality control staffing structure, including educational,
training and experience requirements; responsibilities and authority of
quality control staff; and reporting and documentation procedures.
[15] Similarly, the transcript of SSC's oral presentation establishes that
SSC provided no additional substantive information regarding its corporate
staff structure during the oral presentation.  See Agency Report, Tab 15. 
[16] The SSA also concluded that SSC's proposal failed to meet
solicitation requirements under the management plan subfactor for
purchasing system, and the evaluation factor for experience. 
[17] In making this assertion, CSI relies on the agency's response to an
offeror's question, wherein the agency stated:  *The Government is looking
for a general and brief overview of the contractors' intended
operation[s].  The [oral] presentation should only present [material that
is] to the point and not contain any irrelevant material.*  Agency Report,
Tab 39, at 4.   
[18] In its protest, CSI similarly states:  *CSI admits it did not state
the name of this subcontractor, but for the reason that it had only
concluded discussions with this subcontractor.*  CSI Protest, Oct. 15,
2002, at 13.  It is not clear why, if discussions had been concluded with
the subcontractor, CSI was unable to disclose the subcontractor's identity
during its oral presentation. 
[19] As noted above, CSI's proposal was also evaluated as unacceptable
with regard to the evaluation factors for quality control plan, management
plan, and experience.  In challenging the agency's evaluations under these
multiple factors, CSI repeatedly relies on its assertion that the
solicitation required only *general* information and a *brief overview,*
arguing, for example, *CSI addressed each required factor and subfactor at
least in a 'brief and general overview' fashion.*  CSI's Post-Hearing
Comments, Dec. 23, 2002, at 18.  As discussed above, we reject CSI's
assertions that the solicitation did not contain specific informational
requirements.   
[20] SSC and CSI also assert that the agency conducted discussions with
LESCO in connection with its oral presentation.  We disagree.  Immediately
following each oral presentation, the agency evaluators posed various
questions for each offeror.  Based on our review of LESCO's oral
presentation, including the agency's questions and LESCO's responses, we
conclude that the agency sought information from LESCO only with regard to
evaluation factors under which LESCO's proposal was reasonably evaluated
as acceptable without reference to the additional information.  That is,
none of LESCO's responses to the agency's questions effectively changed
LESCO's proposal from being unacceptable to being acceptable. 
Accordingly, in the context of this procurement, the agency's questions
did not constitute discussions.