TITLE:  HpkWebDac, B-291538.2, January 22, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291538.2
DATE:  January 22, 2003
**********************************************************************
HpkWebDac, B-291538.2, January 22, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   HpkWebDac
    
File:            B-291538.2
    
Date:              January 22, 2003
    
Hari P. Kunamneni for the protester.
Mike Colvin, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency.
Peter D. Verchinski and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest of agency's evaluation of protester's quotation is denied where
the record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
solicitation evaluation criteria.
DECISION
    
HpkWebDac protests the issuance of a purchase order to Apex Logic, Inc.
under request for quotations (RFQ) CC263-02-Q-LL-0582, issued by the
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services,
for a web-based database to collect and manage evaluations.  HpkWebDac
alleges the debriefing letter it received was inadequate and that the
agency did not properly evaluate its quotation.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFQ set forth two technical evaluation factors:  understanding the
requirement and proposed technical approach and past performance (worth 40
percent of the evaluation weight) and industry knowledge (20 percent). 
The RFQ stated, with regard to the first technical evaluation factor, that
*the offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of the Government's
requirements through a detailed description of its proposed approach
(including timelines and relevant milestones).*  Price represented 40
percent of the evaluation weight.  RFQ, Evaluation Criteria:  Best Value
Award. 
    
The agency received ten quotations, including Apex Logic's quotation of
$61,000 and HpkWebDac's of $41,600.  A purchase order was issued to Apex
Logic.[1]  HpkWebDac requested a debriefing.  The agency initially claimed
that, because the RFQ was conducted under simplified acquisition
procedures, it was not required to give a debriefing.  HpkWebDac protested
this failure to receive a debriefing to our Office.  Thereupon, the agency
decided to give HpkWebDac a debriefing and we dismissed the protest. 
Shortly after receiving the debriefing, HpkWebDac again protested,
primarily alleging that the debriefing failed to include the minimal
amount of information required by applicable regulations.
    
A protester's contention that the debriefing it received was incomplete is
not an allegation our office will generally review.  OMV Med. Inc.;
Saratoga Med. Ctr., Inc., B-281388 et al., Feb. 3, 1999, 99-1 CPD P: 53 at
9 n.3.  The adequacy of a debriefing is a procedural matter concerning
agency actions after award which are unrelated to the validity of the
award itself.  C-Cubed Corp., B‑272525, Oct. 21, 1996, 96-2 CPD P:
150 at 4 n.3.  Consequently, this protest ground is dismissed and will not
be considered further.[2]
    
HpkWebDac also challenges the agency's technical evaluation of its
quotation.  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.  A protester's disagreement with the
agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted
unreasonably.  Applied Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., B-291191, Nov. 15, 2002,
2002 CPD P: 202 at 2.  Here, the record provides no basis to conclude the
evaluation of HpkWebDac's quotation was unreasonable or otherwise
improper. 
    
As indicated, the RFQ specifically stated that quotations should provide
such detail so as to demonstrate that the company understands the scope of
the government's requirements.  The evaluators noted that, in contrast to
the other vendors' submissions, the protester's approach under the first
technical evaluation factor contained *[zero] detailed summary,* was
*incoherent,* *consisted largely of poorly formatted material extracted
directly* from the statement of work or *cut & pasted requirements,* and
contained *no specifications . . . for development methodology, software
tools, database design, etc.*  Agency Report, Tab 2, Statement of Agency
Project Officer; Tab 8, Quote Evaluation Documentation, at 1, 2, 5. 
    
With regard to the agency's technical evaluation, HpkWebDac contends that
in fact it provided specifications in its quotation by stating that its
proposed system *will be implemented using tailored DOD-STD-2167 guide
lines.*  Agency Report, Tab 6, HpkWebDac Quote, at 15.  The quotation did
not further elaborate on this reference.  When a solicitation requires the
submission of information bearing on technical adequacy, the protester
must demonstrate technical sufficiency in its proposal; there is no
requirement that the government ferret out information with respect to
informationally deficient proposals.  AEG Aktiengesellschaft, B-221079,
Mar. 18, 1986, 86-1 CPD P: 267 at 4.   Here, while HpkWebDac provided
schematics illustrating DOD-STD-2167 in its protest, these were not
included in its quotation; nor has HpkWebDac explained why the mere
mention of Department of Defense guidelines established that the firm
understood the government's requirements.
    
Moreover, as illustrated by the *sentence* in HpkWebDac's quotation after
its identification of the DOD‑STD-2167 guidelines, *Using these
guide lines, a software design document tracing to above identified
requirements, a test plan tracing requirements and software design
document to test cases,* we concur with the agency's evaluators that
HpkWebDac's quotation is unclear in this and other respects.  Agency
Report, Tab 6, HpkWebDac Quote at 15.  Since HpkWebDac's response to the
RFQ offered only conclusory and incomplete statements about how the system
was going to be implemented, the agency could reasonably find the
quotation was insufficient to demonstrate that HpkWebDac understood the
requirements, which rendered it technically unacceptable and not eligible
for award.[3] 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] In response to HpkWebDac's question, the agency has documented that
the agency official who made the selection was a contracting officer
authorized to do so.
[2] HpkWebDac's assertion that the individual representing the agency in
preparing the agency report on this protest is not a lawyer provides no
basis to challenge the award.  There is no requirement that a lawyer
represent the agency in a protest.
[3] Because of this, we need not consider HpkWebDac's allegations
concerning its price evaluation.