TITLE:  AHNTECH Inc., B-291044, October 10, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-291044
DATE:  October 10, 2002
**********************************************************************
AHNTECH Inc., B-291044, October 10, 2002

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   AHNTECH Inc.
    
File:            B-291044
    
Date:              October 10, 2002
    
Sam Ahn for the protester.
M. Lee Kristeller Johnson, Esq., and Barbara Amster, Esq., Department of
the Navy, 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
    
Protest that agency improperly found proposal unacceptable and therefore
excluded it from competitive range is denied where protester based
staffing on table in solicitation showing that a minimum of 19
on‑site personnel were required for certain tasks; table did not
purport to cover all tasks included in solicitation's  scope of work and
solicitation required offerors to propose sufficient personnel, both
on‑site and off-site, to perform multitude of tasks. 
DECISION
    
AHNTECH, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive
range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-02-R-0001, issued by
the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Department of the Navy, for
logistics and support services at various sites worldwide.  AHNTECH
asserts that the agency's technical evaluation was flawed.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFP sought offers for logistics and support services for the Fleet
Technical Support Center, Pacific, under Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A‑76.  The work encompassed by the performance work
statement (PWS) included operation and management of functions comprising
integrated logistics support (ILS), and other support services, including
financial, travel, payroll, automated information system (AIS),
administrative, secretarial, maintenance documentation, and management
analysis functions.  The geographical and functional scope of the effort
was to include seven bases in California, Hawaii, Washington, Japan, and
Singapore.  The RFP contemplated selection of one private sector proposal,
considered the *best value,* for a later cost comparison with an in-house
plan. 
    
Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors:  technical
performance plan; past performance; and price.  The technical factor was
significantly more important than past performance, and both factors
combined were approximately equal to price.  The RFP provided that an
unacceptable rating under either the technical or past performance factor
could result in the entire proposal being determined unacceptable.
    
Several proposals, including AHNTECH's, were received, and were evaluated
by the technical evaluation board (TEB).[1]  As to AHNTECH's proposal, the
TEB found:
    
AHNTECH's proposal is rated as unacceptable.  The proposed staffing level
of 19 personnel detrimentally affects all areas of the evaluation
including all five subfactors: organizational structure, staffing,
operating procedures, transition plan, and [quality assurance/quality
control] plan.  By proposing only 19 personnel to meet all the
requirements of the PWS, it is the consensus of the TEB that AHNTECH lacks
a reasonable or comprehensive understanding of the performance obligations
under this contract. . . . There are no technically acceptable scenarios
which can be performed using only 19 personnel.
Technical Evaluation Report at 1.  The contracting officer agreed with the
TEB's evaluation, and eliminated AHNTECH's proposal from the competitive
range on the basis that its technical approach and failure to comprehend
the *big picture* of the requirement rendered the entire proposal
unacceptable.  In this regard, some 131 employees will be affected by this
procurement as reported in the Navy's Federal Activities Inventory Reform
Act notice.  Agency Report (AR) at 10, Tab 11.  After receiving notice of
its proposal's exclusion, and a debriefing, AHNTECH filed this protest
challenging the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range.[2]
    
The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is
principally a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. 
Dismas Charities, Inc., B‑284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 84 at
3.  Our Office will review an agency's evaluation of proposals and
determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive range for
reasonableness and consistency with the criteria and language of the
solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.  Novavax, Inc.,
B‑286167, B‑286167.2, Dec. 4, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 202 at 13. 
Here, we conclude that the evaluation of AHNTECH's proposal and its
exclusion from the competitive range were reasonable and consistent with
the solicitation. 
    
AHNTECH's protest is based on its understanding of a table included in the
PWS under the heading *personnel,* which was identified as representing
*the minimum on-site staffing requirements by site,* and listed a total of
19 personnel. 
PWS S: C.1.3.4.  AHNTECH maintains that, since the table represents the
minimum personnel requirements, it was improper for the agency to
eliminate its proposal from the competitive range based on its staffing of
19 personnel.
    
This argument is without merit.  The RFP required offerors to propose to
*provide qualified personnel to accomplish all contract requirements.* 
PWS S: C.1.3.4.  While the table on which AHNTECH relies was included as
part of this same PWS section, it clearly established only the minimum
*on-site* staffing requirements.  Id.; AR, Tab 12, at 1.  The PWS also
contemplated the use of off-site personnel (S: C.1.3.6), and anticipated
that personnel *frequently* would have to perform various ILS tasks on
board Navy ships and submarines (S: C.5.1).  That the table was not
intended to encompass all PWS requirements is plain from its face; of more
than 30 different tasks detailed in the PWS, the table included only 10
tasks, and identified no tasks or personnel for 3 of the sites.  PWS
S: C.1.3.4.
    
In this regard, other sections of the PWS made clear that successful
performance required far in excess of 19 personnel.  For example, the PWS
described five categories of specific tasks:  ILS; financial, travel,
payroll support; AIS support; administrative, secretarial, and maintenance
documentation support; and management analysis services.  PWS
S:S: C.5.1-C.5.5.  The description of the more than 30 tasks within these
categories filled 27 pages of the PWS.  PWS at 15-44.  In addition, the
PWS advised offerors of the annual expected workload for each task, the
magnitude of which clearly exceeded the capability of 19 persons.  PWS
app. 9.  For example, at seven worldwide performance sites, and apart from
significant surge requirements, the contractor was expected annually to
complete more than 2,100 ILS related certifications, analyses, reviews,
validations, and inventories; accomplish more than 2,800 occurrences of
design, redesign, and training for new and existing applications in AIS
support; make more than 12,000 estimated stops in transportation services
of personnel and equipment; daily handle 470 pieces of incoming and
outgoing pieces of mail, messages, faxes, e-mails, and express mailings;
and print, stock, assemble, and distribute more than 6 million
pages/22,990 CDs of documents.  Id.  In view of the extensive scope of
tasks and associated need for staffing to perform them, the agency
reasonably concluded that the protester's proposal of only 19 persons was
technically unacceptable.[3]
    
The protester asserts that the agency misled it.  Specifically, prior to
submitting its proposal, AHNTECH asked the agency about the number of
civilians and military personnel at each location.  In response, the
agency merely referred AHNTECH to the RFP; AHNTECH claims it was misled by
the agency's failure to provide more specific information on the number of
personnel required. 
    
This assertion is without merit.  Because the agency viewed AHNTECH's
question as seeking business sensitive information related to the Navy's
in-house plan in this
A-76 procurement, the agency referred the protester to the RFP.  There was
nothing improper in the agency's response.  Where, as here, staffing is an
evaluation factor in an A-76 procurement, an agency properly may evaluate
proposals on the basis of an undisclosed estimate of adequate staffing. 
Gemini Indus., Inc., B‑281323, Jan. 25, 1999, 99-1 CPD P:22 at 3. 
Since the PWS clearly outlined the scope of work to be performed and
contained historical data on the extent of the required tasks, we believe
the RFP provided sufficient information on which AHNTECH could base its
proposal.  To the extent AHNTECH believed the agency had not provided
sufficient information regarding necessary staffing to meet the PWS
requirements, the agency's refusal to provide more specific information in
response to AHNTECH's question provided AHNTECH with grounds to protest at
that time, prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals.  AHNTECH's
attempt to raise the issue now is untimely.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4
C.F.R. S: 21.1(a)(1) (2002). 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] Because the evaluation of proposals is ongoing, the number of offers
received is not disclosed in this decision.
[2] AHNTECH initially challenged the TEB's negative evaluation of its past
performance under a prior contract; it claimed that the TEB should have
considered a more current, and positive, record of its past performance. 
Protest at 4.  As indicated in the letter notifying AHNTECH of its
proposal's rejection, and as further explained by the contracting officer
in the agency's report, AHNTECH's proposal was eliminated based solely on
the technical factor evaluation.  AR, Tab 4; Contracting Officer's
Statement P: 13.  AHNTECH has not challenged this explanation;
accordingly, we consider this allegation abandoned.  Analex Space Sys.
Inc.; PAI Corp., B-259024, B-259024.2, Feb. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD P: 106
at 9. 
[3] To the extent AHNTECH argues that the PWS was ambiguous, the protest
also is without merit.  An ambiguity only exists if specifications are
subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.  Vitro Servs. Corp.,
B-233040, Feb. 9, 1989, 89-1 CPD P: 136 at 4.  To be reasonable, an
interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation, read as a whole
and in a reasonable manner.  Captain Hook Trading Co., B-224013, Nov. 17,
1986, 86-2 CPD P: 566 at 3.  Any assertion that the table in question was
intended to set forth the entire personnel requirement is unreasonable. 
As discussed above, the table was intended for the limited purpose of
outlining the on‑site minimum personnel requirement, and was clearly
denoted as such.  The RFP otherwise clearly outlined an extensive scope of
work far exceeding that encompassed by the table.