TITLE:  Rome Research Corporation, B-291162, November 20, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-291162
DATE:  November 20, 2002
**********************************************************************
Rome Research Corporation, B-291162, November 20, 2002

   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:    Rome Research Corporation
    
File:             B-291162
    
Date:              November 20, 2002
    
Louis D. Victorino, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., and A. Cristina Burbach,
Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester.
Marc F. Efron, Esq., Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Amy E. Laderberg, Esq., and
J. Catherine Kunz, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for BAE Systems, the
intervenor.
Theresa A. Chesnut, Esq., and Barbara J. Amster, Esq., Department of the
Navy, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the record
shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation's evaluation scheme.
DECISION
    
Rome Research Corporation protests the award of a contract to BAE Systems
under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-02-R-0028, issued by the
Department of the Navy for operation and maintenance (O&M) services for
the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station Pacific. 
Rome challenges as unreasonable the agency's evaluation of its technical
proposal under each of the solicitation's stated evaluation factors and
the evaluation of the awardee's proposal under the past performance
factor.[1]
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFP, issued on April 16, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price
contract for a base year and three option periods.  The RFP's scope of
work includes O&M services for the station's Naval Radio Transmitting
Facility (NRTF) Very Low Frequency (VLF) and High Frequency (HF) sites,
Satellite Communication (SATCOM) facility, and Tactical Support
Communication (TSCOMM) facility.[2]  Section M of the RFP set forth the
following four evaluation factors for award, listed in descending order of
importance:  management, key personnel/staffing, past performance, and
price.  The RFP stated that the technical factors combined were
significantly more important than price (price, however, was to become
more important as proposals approached technical equality); key
personnel/staffing and past performance combined were approximately equal
in importance to the most important technical factor, management.
    
Each offeror's technical proposal was to be adjectivally rated under each
evaluation factor; the adjectival ratings were outstanding, highly
satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal, or unacceptable.  The RFP's
definitions for the adjectival ratings applicable to management and key
personnel/staffing included the following:
    
Outstanding -- The proposal earns the score of Outstanding since it meets
and exceeds the solicitation requirements and the excess is beneficial to
the Navy. . . . The proposal contains several enhancements of value
(exceptional features, approaches, and/or innovations) that are worthwhile
. . . .

   Highly Satisfactory -- Fully meets all solicitation requirements and
exceeds many of the solicitation requirements.  Response exceeds a
*Satisfactory* rating. . . . The proposal contains a few enhancements of
value. . . .

   Satisfactory -- Meets all solicitation requirements.  Complete,
comprehensive, and exemplifies an understanding of the scope and depth of
the task requirements as well as the offeror's understanding of the
Government's requirements. . . . The proposal demonstrates no enhancements
of value . . . .
    
RFP at 34 (emphasis added). 
    
For evaluation of past performance, each offeror was to submit information
describing its performance on directly related or similar contracts and
subcontracts held within the last 5 years and all contracts and
subcontracts currently in progress which are of scope, magnitude and
complexity similar to the RFP's requirements.  RFP at 28.  The RFP stated
that a rating of *outstanding* for the past performance factor was
appropriate where an offeror's *performance of previously awarded
contracts met contractual requirements and was accomplished with very few
or very minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the [o]fferor
were, or are, highly effective* and where the firm's performance of
completed contracts *was consistently of the highest quality.*  RFP at 34
(emphasis added).  The rating of *highly satisfactory* was to be given
where a firm's past performance met contract requirements with some minor
problems for which corrective action was taken or was expected to be
effective, and where performance of completed contracts *either was
consistently of high quality or exhibited a trend of becoming so.*[3]  Id.
(emphasis added).  Award under the RFP was to be made to the firm that the
agency determined submitted the proposal deemed most advantageous to the
agency, considering all of the RFP's stated technical factors and price.
    
Four proposals were received by the scheduled closing time on June 10; two
proposals were included in the competitive range, Rome's and BAE's. 
Discussions were held with the two firms and final proposal revisions were
submitted by the scheduled closing time on July 24.  The evaluators
determined that the firms' revised proposals adequately addressed the
items raised during discussions, but that the responses did not warrant a
change in the evaluation ratings assigned to the initial proposals.  BAE's
proposal was rated higher than the Rome proposal under each evaluation
factor, and (at $26.3 million) was lower in price than Rome's proposal
(at $26.9 million).
    
The agency generally reports that both firms submitted strong technical
submissions at competitive prices, but that BAE's proposal offered a few
enhancements of value to the agency.  In light of these enhancements, the
BAE proposal was rated highly satisfactory under the RFP's most important
evaluation factor, management.  On the other hand, the evaluators found
that Rome's final revised proposal failed to offer any enhancement of
value to the agency; Rome's proposal therefore received a rating of
satisfactory for the management factor.  For the key personnel/staffing
factor, BAE's proposal was rated as highly satisfactory and Rome's was
rated as satisfactory (although the Rome proposal received a highly
satisfactory rating for the key personnel component of the factor, it
received only a satisfactory rating for the staffing subfactor).  BAE's
past performance, found to be consistently of the highest quality, was
rated outstanding; Rome's past performance, found to be consistently of
high quality, due to one past performance reference's lower than
outstanding ratings, was rated highly satisfactory.
    
On August 7, the agency awarded a contract under the RFP to BAE, having
determined the firm's higher-rated, lower-priced proposal offered the best
value to the agency.  Rome received a debriefing on August 19.  This
protest followed.
    
Rome challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals.  The protester
contends that its proposal should have received higher ratings than it did
under each of the technical evaluation factors (management, key
personnel/staffing, and past performance).  Rome also contests the high
rating assigned to the BAE proposal under the past performance factor in
light of performance problems Rome asserts BAE experienced under its
current VLF O&M services contract at the same facility.
    
An agency's method for evaluating the relative merits of competing
proposals is a matter within the agency's discretion, since the agency is
responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating
them.  NLX Corp., B-288785, B‑288785.2, Dec. 7, 2001, 2001 CPD P:
198 at 4.  Where an evaluation is challenged, our Office will not
reevaluate proposals but instead will examine the record to determine
whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the
stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
regulations.  Lear Siegler Servs., Inc., B-280834, B-280834.2, Nov. 25,
1998, 98-2 CPD P: 136 at 7.  The fact that the protester disagrees with
the agency and generally believes its proposal should have been rated
higher than it was does not render the evaluation unreasonable.  ESCO,
Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD P: 450 at 7.  We have reviewed all
of Rome's evaluation challenges and find each to be without merit.  As
discussed below, the protest provides no basis to question the agency's
evaluation of proposals or the award determination.
    
The management factor was the most important factor for award under the
RFP's evaluation scheme, and our review of the record confirms that the
evaluation of proposals under the management factor became the
determinative factor in the current source selection.  As stated above,
the RFP specifically identified the importance of *enhancements of value*
to the agency, such as exceptional features, approaches or innovations. 
The evaluators found five enhancements in the BAE proposal that were
determined to offer value to the agency; Rome's proposal was found to
offer no enhancements of value.  Rome does not challenge the highly
satisfactory management rating assigned to the BAE proposal for the five
enhancements of value identified by the agency or the agency's
determination of the value of these enhancements.[4]  The protester
therefore has provided no reason for us to question the rating assigned to
the BAE proposal under the management factor.
    
Rome contends that its proposal should have been rated at least as highly
as the BAE proposal under the management factor (i.e., as highly
satisfactory rather than satisfactory), because Rome believes it proposed
efforts that exceed the stated requirements and that these additional
efforts are beneficial to the agency.  As an example of these enhancements
of value, Rome cites [deleted]; Rome also contends that the proposal's
[deleted] should be viewed as valuable to the agency.  As the agency
points out, however, these two elements were offered in the BAE proposal
as well, and were not considered to be enhancements of value for BAE.  The
record therefore shows that these items, even if considered enhancements,
would not improve Rome's proposal's evaluation rating relative to BAE's
proposal.
    
Rome also suggests that two other enhancements of value were included in
its proposal:  [deleted].  Our review of the record, however, confirms the
reasonableness of the agency's decision not to regard these elements as
enhancements of value.  As to the [deleted], the agency points out that
the contractor is already required under the RFP to [deleted] if requested
to do so by the contracting officer.  The agency also explains that the
proposed [deleted] fail to provide additional value, since agency
personnel administering the contract themselves frequently provide such
[deleted] to the contracting officer.  As to the proposal's mention of the
[deleted], the agency points out that, since a resume was not provided for
the individual, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the role of
the individual or his value to the agency, if any.  Accordingly, our
review of the record provides no basis to question the reasonableness of
the agency's determination that these elements of the Rome proposal,
contrary to Rome's suggestion, did not offer enhancements of value to the
agency.  Since the evaluation record supports the reasonableness of the
agency's actions, and the satisfactory rating assigned to the Rome
proposal under the management factor is consistent with the RFP's
definition of the rating, we conclude the record provides no reason to
question the noted technical disparity between the proposals in this
area.[5]
    
Rome next generally challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal
under the key personnel/staffing factor--Rome contends its proposal should
have been rated higher under both subfactors of this factor.[6]  For
instance, the protester questions the fact that its [deleted] received an
overall rating of highly satisfactory, even though two of the three
evaluators rated him outstanding.  This allegation, pertaining to only one
of Rome's key personnel, provides no basis to conclude that the overall
key personnel subfactor rating should be raised to outstanding.  Even if
the individual's rating were outstanding overall, the record simply does
not suggest that it would change the proposal's overall consensus rating
under the key personnel subfactor from the highly satisfactory rating
received to a rating of outstanding.  The proposal's overall key personnel
rating reflects a consensus of all the evaluators' assessments of not only
that individual, but of all the key personnel proposed, and Rome has not
demonstrated that a rating of outstanding is otherwise warranted for its
staff of key personnel.  Rather, as the agency points out, the record
shows that the key personnel proposed by the two firms were comparable;
[deleted].
    
The record instead indicates that the disparity in overall ratings between
the proposals under the key personnel/staffing factor was due to the
difference in evaluation ratings assigned to the two proposals under the
equally weighted staffing subfactor.  The record shows that, although the
two firms' staffing proposals also were relatively comparable, the BAE
proposal received a slightly higher rating based on a few elements
regarded as strengths, such as BAE's [deleted].[7]  In short, Rome has not
persuasively supported its general contentions that its proposal should
have received a higher rating under the key personnel/staffing factor,
that the evaluation of its proposal under this factor was unreasonable, or
that the evaluation of proposals under this factor otherwise provides any
basis to challenge the award determination.
    
The protester's challenge to the past performance evaluations also
provides no reason to question the award to BAE.  Rome alleges that BAE
suffered performance problems at the start of its incumbent contract in
that it was unable to recruit some of the government personnel who had
been stationed at the VLF site when it converted to BAE's operation.  Rome
also asserts that the BAE proposal was improperly rated higher than Rome's
despite Rome's performance of allegedly more relevant and more numerous
contracts for similar services than those performed by BAE.  BAE received
a rating of outstanding for past performance; Rome received a rating of
highly satisfactory.  As discussed below, our review of the record
supports the reasonableness of the agency's past performance evaluations.
    
First, the agency reports that no performance problems arose under the
challenged BAE contract, and that BAE promptly staffed the project with
qualified personnel from its other sites.[8]
    
Second, despite Rome's general disagreement, our review of the record
supports the reasonableness of the evaluators' determination of the
relevance of both firms' past contracts.  In accordance with the RFP, the
similarity in work requirements and the magnitude of the past performance
projects considered by the agency evaluators served as appropriate bases
to determine the most relevant projects for review; the protester does not
persuasively challenge the agency's determination of the relevance of the
past contracts considered in the evaluation.  As to Rome's challenge that
the two firms' incumbent contracts were not considered, the record is
clear that the contracting officer for both those incumbent contracts was
an evaluator under the current RFP, and he states that he considered that
both firms' contract performance under the firms' incumbent contracts was
excellent.
    
Our review of the evaluation record reveals that the difference in the
ratings assigned to the proposals under the past performance factor did
not result from an unequal evaluation, but rather, is wholly consistent
with the terms of the evaluation criteria themselves.  As stated above,
the RFP contemplated a rating of outstanding where the offeror's
references reported performance of past contracts *consistently of the
highest quality*; a rating of highly satisfactory was appropriate where
the reports that showed performance was *consistently of high quality.* 
RFP at 34.  The evaluators determined that BAE's references, and other
past performance information they had before them, demonstrated that BAE's
past contracts reflected performance consistently of the highest
quality--all of the firm's references evaluated the firm's performance as
excellent.  Rome's past performance on a directly relevant contract,
however, received several ratings of satisfactory from the reference for
that contract.  The agency thus reasonably determined, consistent with the
evaluation scheme set out in the RFP, that although Rome's other
references considered its work to have been excellent, Rome's past
performance should not be evaluated as outstanding under the terms of this
RFP because the performance was not reported to have been consistently of
the highest quality; the proposal instead was rated as highly satisfactory
for performance reported to the agency as having been consistently of high
quality overall.  Rome has not shown, and we see no basis to conclude,
that the agency's past performance evaluation was unreasonable or
inconsistent with the evaluation criteria.
    
In sum, we find that the record here demonstrates the reasonableness of
the agency's thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the firms' technical
proposals, consistent with the stated evaluation scheme for award.  We
therefore have no reason to question the propriety of the agency's
determination that BAE's higher-rated, lower-priced proposal offered the
best value to the agency.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

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

   [1] Rome initially protested the award on additional grounds, including
challenges to the agency's evaluation of the price proposals, an alleged
unfair competitive advantage on the part of the awardee, and the alleged
bias of an evaluator.  The contracting agency and intervenor responded to
these challenges.  In the protester's comments on the agency's report,
Rome withdrew or otherwise abandoned these contentions.  Accordingly, they
will not be considered further.  See The Big Picture Co., Inc.,
B-220859.2, Mar. 4, 1986, 86-1 CPD P: 218 at 5.
[2] Rome is currently providing O&M services at the HF and SATCOM
facilities; BAE is currently providing O&M services at the VLF facility;
and the TSCOMM facility will be converting to contractor operation.
[3]Past performance ratings of satisfactory, marginal, unacceptable and
neutral, which are not pertinent to this decision, were also defined in
the RFP.
[4]  The BAE enhancements of value identified by the agency, and not
challenged by the protester, include:  [deleted].  To the extent Rome's
protest raises a limited challenge to the technical merit of BAE's
proposed [deleted] (not considered by the evaluators to be an enhancement
of value), since our review of Rome's proposal shows that the protester
offered similar [deleted] terms, see Rome Proposal at 43; Protester's
Comments at 6, n.2, we find that Rome's challenge in this regard provides
no basis to question the evaluation or award. 
    
[5] We also note that Rome's contention that its management proposal,
compared to that of BAE, should be viewed as providing less risk and
additional value to the agency in terms of the firms' proposed *watch
bills* (documents showing staffing schedules) provides no basis for us to
question the evaluation or overall management ratings.  Rome's allegation
that BAE has proposed on-call, off-site personnel appears to be based on a
misinterpretation of the BAE proposal; the record confirms that the
challenged personnel are working scheduled shifts on-site.  The record
also confirms that the numbers of staff proposed by both firms were
reasonably determined to be comparable [deleted].  In addition, the
protester's allegation that the agency was obliged to discuss any concern
about Rome's [deleted] provides no basis to question the agency's
evaluation under the management factor.  The record shows that the
evaluation record notations about this matter indicate that the concern
was only minor and did not prevent the firm from having a reasonable
chance at receiving the award.  See Du & Assocs., Inc., B‑280283.3,
Dec. 22, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 156 at 7-8.  Again, as discussed above, the
lower rating assigned to Rome's proposal under the management factor was
the result of its failure to offer any enhancements of value.
[6] As noted above, Rome's proposal was rated highly satisfactory under
the key personnel subfactor, and satisfactory under the staffing
subfactor.  Rome's overall rating under the key personnel/staffing factor
was satisfactory.
[7] Rome also argues that, since some of the printed evaluation sheets for
its proposal show a rating mark (an *x*) between two adjectival ratings,
its proposal should receive the higher rating, listed to the left of the
*x.*  The agency reports that it has confirmed that a formatting flaw in
the printed rating information sheets appears to have caused a slight
shift of the challenged *x* markings to the left of the correct rating. 
Accordingly, there is no reason to agree with Rome's unsupported
suggestion that its proposal should be viewed under the higher rating
listed to the left of each challenged *x.*  The agency reports that the
intended adjectival rating is the rating that is slightly to the right of
the rating mark on the affected evaluation pages.
[8] We note that the RFP's definition of outstanding past performance
includes *highly effective* resolution of *very few* or *very minor*
performance problems.  Accordingly, even if there were merit in Rome's
contention that BAE's inability to hire some existing government personnel
to staff the site at the start of performance was a performance problem,
an outstanding rating for BAE could nonetheless be reasonable in light of
the timely and effective action taken by the firm, which promptly staffed
the project with its own personnel.