TITLE:  Applied Management Solutions, Inc., B-291191, November 15, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-291191
DATE:  November 15, 2002
**********************************************************************
Applied Management Solutions, Inc., B-291191, November 15, 2002

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Applied Management Solutions, Inc.
    
File:            B-291191
    
Date:              November 15, 2002
    
Maurice E. Wilber for the protester.
Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, 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 protester's quotation as technically
unacceptable is denied where record shows that evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with solicitation evaluation criteria.
DECISION
    
Applied Management Solutions, Inc. protests the rejection of its quotation
as technically unacceptable under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
233-02-0064, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for the
provision of support services to disaster medical response teams.  Applied
contends that the agency unreasonably determined that its quotation failed
to demonstrate the firm's understanding of the RFQ's required scope of
work and related level of effort.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFQ, issued on June 19, 2002, contemplated the issuance of a delivery
order under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule
for Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services, for the
provision of certain support services to 66 National Disaster Medical
System (NDMS) response teams.  The NDMS, which manages the largely
volunteer-based disaster response program, administers response team
agreements, develops program goals, and provides team funding.  The
response teams themselves have their own administrative responsibilities
concerning, for instance, using team funds, providing technical support
for team development, procuring approved equipment, training of team
members, and reporting team expenditures.
    
The RFQ set out the administrative support services to be provided by the
successful vendor.  For instance, assistance was to be provided for the
distribution of program information to team leaders, technical support was
to be provided to team proposal review panels, contact information was to
be made available to team members for technical assistance in developing
or implementating team proposals, and a team payment mechanism was to be
developed and implemented.  The vendor also was to provide support
services related to the procurement of services and supplies (such as
medical equipment or leased warehouse space), the payment or reimbursement
of costs for team training, travel and vaccinations, the payment of team
member salaries for attending NDMS training and managing the team,
equipment inventory, recordkeeping, and the preparation of financial and
other activity reports.  The vendor would not necessarily be expected to
provide these services to all of the 66 teams since, as the RFQ
recognized, some of the NDMS response teams already have their own
administrative support in the areas of procurement and payment.
    
The RFQ set forth two technical evaluation factors, technical approach
(worth 60 points) and staffing qualifications and experience (worth 40
points); the two technical factors combined were approximately equal in
weight to price.  The RFQ specifically advised that each vendor's
quotation must *clearly and concisely demonstrate . . . an understanding
of the details and complexity of the requirements* and *include a
comprehensive statement which demonstrates a complete understanding of the
scope of this effort . . . .*  RFQ attach. B, at 5-6.
    
Applied and VW International, Inc. submitted quotations by the scheduled
closing time.  VW's quotation was highly rated under the technical
evaluation factors and offered a significantly lower price than Applied's
quotation.  The evaluators determined that Applied's quotation, which
offered a price more than seven times higher than VW's price, envisioned
an effort that greatly exceeded the RFQ's intended level of effort and
that, accordingly, the quotation failed to demonstrate an adequate
understanding of the RFQ's scope of work, as required under the stated
evaluation factors.  Consequently, Applied's quotation was rejected as
technically unacceptable.  A delivery order under the RFQ was issued to VW
on August 15.  The protester was given a debriefing as to the evaluators'
findings.  Following the agency's denial of its agency-level protest of
the evaluation of its quotation, Applied filed the current protest with
our Office again challenging the evaluation.
    
In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation of vendor submissions under
an RFQ, we will not reevaluate the quotations; we will only consider
whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the
evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and all applicable
procurement statutes and regulations.  Envirodyne Sys. Inc., B-279551,
B-279551.2, June 29, 1998, 98-1 CPD P: 174 at 4.  A protester's
disagreement with the agency's judgment or its belief that its quotation
deserved a higher technical rating alone is not sufficient to establish
that the agency acted unreasonably.  Id.  Our review of the record here,
consisting of the protest submissions and the agency's report, including
the solicitation requirements, the quotations submitted, and the
evaluation record, provides no basis whatsoever to question the
reasonableness of either the agency's determination that the quotation
failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the scope of the
required effort, or the subsequent rejection of the quotation as
technically unacceptable.
    
While the evaluators noted that Applied's quotation was detailed, they
found that some areas of the quotation were, in fact, overly detailed and
*excessive of what was envisioned.*  Technical Evaluation Report at 1. 
The evaluators concluded that the quotation *would require [a] rewrite of
approach and complete revision* to become acceptable.  Id.  The quotation
was rejected because it did not adequately demonstrate the vendor's
understanding of the level of effort necessary for the required scope of
work.  Id.
    
The protester first asserts that, since the RFQ failed to define limits on
the effort sought, it could not prepare its quotation with any degree of
certainty.  Applied argues that the RFQ's generalities--such as simply
requiring a *mechanism* for payment of funds--allowed a wide degree of
interpretation as to the actual requirements.  To the extent Applied is
now challenging the terms of the solicitation, however, its challenge is
clearly untimely.  See 4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(1) (2002) (protests based upon
alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to the
time set for receipt of offers must be filed before that time); SWR, Inc.,
B-276878, July 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD P: 34 at 4. 
    
Applied next argues that, since the RFQ allowed firms to make assumptions
about performing the RFQ's requirements, and since Applied based its
quotation on what it assumed were the *most likely requirements,* the
agency should interpret the quotation as presenting a scaled approach to
the required effort, allowing for a lesser level of effort if the
protester's assumptions as to the effort required were found to be
inaccurate.  We do not believe much discussion of this argument is
warranted.  It is clear that the RFQ directed the evaluators to assess the
vendor's understanding of the requirements as expressed in the level of
effort offered by the vendor based upon the RFQ's stated tasks and the
parameters of the NDMS program.  The agency therefore reasonably concluded
that a vendor's assumption as to what were the *most likely requirements*
was in fact a direct demonstration of the firm's understanding of the
RFQ's requirements, including the required scope of work and level of
effort. 
    
Moreover, although the protester's quotation acknowledged that the RFQ
level of effort was not certain, our review of the quotation does not
support the protester's after-the-fact assertion that it offered the
option of *scaling back* the approach in its quotation to the dramatically
lower levels (i.e., approximately one-seventh of that quoted) that it now
concedes may be sufficient to meet the RFQ's requirements.  Since the
protester has not demonstrated that any *scaling back* option was, in
fact, set forth in its quotation, there was no basis for the agency to
interpret the quotation as providing for the significant adjustment to
effort levels that would be necessary to render the quotation acceptable
or competitive.
    
We have reviewed each of the protester's arguments concerning every
evaluation deficiency cited by the agency and conclude that the record
simply does not support Applied's contentions.  We provide below a
discussion of some of the deficiencies found in the quotation to
illustrate the reasonableness of the rejection of the firm's quotation. 
For instance, under the RFQ, the vendor was required to provide support
services to the teams, such as by assisting in the preparation of team
proposals and by summarizing training efforts in a post-training activity
report.  Applied's quotation includes a recommendation that its staff
spend months researching and developing appropriate drills and simulations
for the teams.  As the agency reports, however, such an elaborate vendor
research or training effort was not envisioned by the RFQ and, we believe,
reasonably was determined to be excessive of stated requirements and,
accordingly, indicative of the firm's failure to understand the level of
effort contemplated under the RFQ.
    
The evaluators also had concerns about the number of labor hours quoted by
Applied for high-level management personnel; the agency regarded the
number of hours proposed as excessive, given the type of basic
administrative support services contemplated under the RFQ.  In response,
Applied states that it believes it quoted a larger percentage of
lower-level staff hours compared to management staff hours than was
included in the VW quotation.  This response provides no explanation for
the substantial number of high-level personnel hours it quoted, a number
which far exceeds the number quoted by VW.  Accordingly, the record
provides no basis to challenge the evaluators' concerns as to the number
of these labor hours in the protester's quotation.
    
An additional illustrative example of the reasonableness of the agency's
determination that Applied failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding
of the agency's requirements concerns the RFQ's requirements to provide a
mechanism for the reimbursement or direct payment of approved team
expenses, including the payment of team member salaries for certain
tasks.  Applied apparently understood the payroll requirement to be a
complex effort that it concluded would be better handled by a national
payroll company, as its subcontractor, because another approach would
leave the agency to have to *reconcile the processing of 8,000 checks per
month.*  Protest at 11.  The protester, however, provides no support for
this statement, or for the asserted need for the elaborate payroll system
it describes in its quotation.  Clearly, the protester has demonstrated
that it understands the payment system required under the RFQ to be
complex and entailing thousands of checks payable to team members each
month.  The agency evaluators found this to be a serious misunderstanding
of the RFQ's requirements, and we have no reason to question the
reasonableness of that determination.  In fact, the record is quite clear
that, contrary to Applied's understanding, the RFQ's payment requirements
are relatively limited in scope.  Payment services were to be provided
only for teams that did not already have a payment system in place.  Even
where payment services were to be provided, the vendor was to arrange
payment for only limited expenses--such as occasional travel, training
(estimated at twice yearly), and salaries for team administration and
management tasks.  Since Applied's assumption as to the magnitude of the
effort is simply not supported by the RFQ's terms, we again have no reason
to question the reasonableness of the evaluation and the subsequent
rejection of the firm's quotation, consistent with the evaluation terms of
the RFQ, for failure to demonstrate the requisite understanding of the
agency's requirements.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel