TITLE:  Preferred Systems Solutions, B-291750, February 24, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291750
DATE:  February 24, 2003
**********************************************************************
Preferred Systems Solutions, B-291750, February 24, 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:    Preferred Systems Solutions
    
File:             B-291750
    
Date:              February 24, 2003
    
J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., and Benjamin A. Winter, Esq., Venable, Baetjer
& Howard,  for the protester.
Kenneth J. Ingram, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, for Access Systems,
Inc., an intervenor.
Diane L. Celotto, Esq., Naval Supply Systems Command, 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 applied unstated evaluation criteria in
evaluating awardee's management proposal as superior to protester's on the
basis of its transition plan and resumes of incumbent personnel, is
denied, since these matters were reasonably and logically encompassed by
the management plan factor stated in the solicitation.
DECISION
    
Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. (PSS) protests the award of a contract
to Access Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N00140-02-R-1284, issued by the Department of the Navy for services in
support of the U.S. Joint Forces Command.  PSS challenges the technical
evaluation and the price/technical tradeoff.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFP, a section 8(a) set-aside, sought proposals for technical,
administrative, and clerical services in and around Norfolk, Virginia in
the following labor categories: program manager, senior management
analyst, management analyst II, management analyst I, administrative
assistant, word processor 2, word processor 1, facilities clerk, food
services coordinator, foodservice clerk, and librarian.  The RFP
contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
(ID/IQ), time and materials contract for a base year, with 4 option years.
    
Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors:  past
performance, management plan, and cost/price.  The technical factors were
evaluated on an adjectival basis--highly acceptable (meets and exceeds
requirements), acceptable (meets all requirements), unacceptable (a)
(meets most requirements), and unacceptable (b) (fails to meet
requirements).  The past performance and management plan factors were of
equal importance and the technical proposal was more important than the
price proposal.  Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal
represented the *best value* to the government.
    
Fifteen offerors, including PSS and Access, submitted proposals.  After an
initial evaluation, six offerors' proposals were included in the
competitive range, and the agency requested final proposal revisions (FPR)
from these firms.  PSS and Access submitted FPRs that changed their
proposed prices, but not their technical proposals.  The final evaluation
results were as follows:
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|           |Past Performance     |Management Plan       |Price          |
|-----------+---------------------+----------------------+---------------|
|PSS        |Acceptable           |Acceptable            |$18,574,220    |
|-----------+---------------------+----------------------+---------------|
|Access     |Acceptable           |Highly Acceptable     |$19,081,480    |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
The contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), noted that
PSS's price proposal was lower than Access's, but determined that the
benefits associated with Access's superior management plan more than
justified its slightly higher price.  He concluded that this made Access's
proposal the best value, and made award to the firm.  After receiving a
debriefing, PSS filed this protest.
    
UNSTATED EVALUATION CRITERIA
    
PSS asserts that the agency improperly awarded Access's proposal credit
for submitting a transition plan and resumes of incumbent personnel.  In
the protester's view, because neither of these items was required by the
RFP, the agency's reliance on them constituted the application of
significant unstated evaluation criteria. 
    
In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, we will
consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.  CWIS,
LLC, B‑287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 119 at 2.  In evaluating a
proposal, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not
expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related
to the stated evaluation criteria.  North Am. Military Hous., LLC,
B-289604, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 69 at 5; TESCO, B-271756, June 24,
1996, 96-1 CPD P: 284 at 2.
    
Under the management plan factor, offerors were required to demonstrate,
in sufficient detail, a management approach that would successfully
accomplish the statement of work (SOW).  Offerors were also to *address
the risk associated with implementation of the offeror's management plan
as well as the steps to mitigate this risk* and *any other information the
offeror considers relevant to the SOW.*  RFP at 28.  Access's management
plan included the names, resumes/qualifications, and (for most) letters of
commitment of some 80 personnel, including incumbent employees, current
qualified employees of Access and its subcontractor, and *pre-qualified*
potential personnel.  In addition, Access included a 2-page transition
plan identifying the steps it planned to take to minimize the risk in
assuming responsibility for contract performance from the incumbent. 
    
In finding that Access's proposal exceeded the RFP requirements, the
evaluators noted that the proposal *demonstrated a superior understanding*
of the RFP requirements and represented a *substantially* lower
performance risk than expected.  Technical Evaluation Report (TER) at 4. 
Specifically, the evaluators praised Access's recognition of the value of
the incumbent employees and its *significant effort* in obtaining their
resumes and letters of intent.  Id.  The evaluators concluded that
Access's *significant steps . . . to ensure that qualified individuals
will be readily available to perform . . . provided added assurance of the
successful performance of the solicitation's requirements and minimize[d]
the risk of any problems during transition.*  Final TER at 5. 
    
These aspects of Access's detailed management plan and their impact on
minimizing transition risk were matters clearly encompassed by the
management plan factor.  This is a contract for personnel to provide
various support services on an ID/IQ basis, and the degree to which an
offeror demonstrated the availability of qualified personnel was directly
related to its ability to quickly provide qualified, cleared personnel, as
needed, and, correspondingly, to the risk attending implementation of its
management plan.  The agency therefore reasonably considered Access's
transition plan and resumes in evaluating its proposal. 
    
PSS also asserts that it was improper to consider Access's transition plan
because the RFP stated that *[s]ince this is an ID/IQ contract, a
transition period is not allowed.*  RFP, amend. 0002.  This argument is
without merit.  The fact that no transition period would be provided the
successful contractor did not preclude the agency from considering the
manner in which transition to a new contractor would be accomplished; in
fact, addressing this transition could be considered more important where
there is to be no transition period.  Moreover, again, the RFP requirement
that offerors *address the risk associated with implementation of the
offeror's management plan as well as the steps to mitigate this risk* put
offerors on notice that the agency would consider this transition in the
evaluation.
    
PSS asserts that, had it known the agency was going to give credit for
these items, it would have provided them.  However, while the RFP did not
require the submission of resumes or a transition plan, it did not
prohibit their inclusion and, as discussed, they were directly related to
the management plan evaluation factor.   Where, as here, award is to be
made on a best value basis, it is proper for the agency to consider
information that exceeds what was specifically required by the RFP. 
See F2M-WSCI, B-278281, Jan. 14, 1998, 98-1 CPD P: 16 at 7-8.  In any
case, we note that PSS itself recognized the importance of resumes and a
smooth transition, as evidenced by the number of references to transition
in its proposal.  For example, PSS referred to its [deleted].  In the same
proposal section, PSS noted that it had [deleted].  The difference in the
two offerors' proposals was that Access's provided detail and evidence of
a commitment to use incumbent and other qualified personnel, while PSS's
simply promised [deleted].  We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's
conclusion that Access's more detailed approach warranted a superior
rating.[1] 
    
SOURCE SELECTION
    
PSS asserts that the agency improperly performed its price/technical
tradeoff.  While recognizing that the two technical factors were equally
weighted, and combined were more important than price, PSS speculates that
the price factor was more heavily-weighted than the management plan factor
alone.  Thus, PSS concludes that its lower price should have been given
greater weight than Access's superior management plan in the
price/technical tradeoff.  (In fact, the RFP is silent as to the relative
weight between price and either of the technical factors.)  Regardless of
the individual weights, however, PSS's assertions have no merit. 
    
Source selection officials have broad discretion in determining the manner
and extent to which they will make use of the technical and price
evaluation results, and their judgments are governed only by the tests of
rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria.  Chemical
Demilitarization Assocs., B-277700, Nov. 13, 1997, 98-1 CPD P: 171 at 6. 
Where, as here, the RFP allows for a price/technical tradeoff, the
selection official retains discretion to select a higher-priced but
technically higher-rated submission, if doing so is in the government's
best interest and is consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
and source selection scheme.  4-D Neuroimaging, B-286155.2, B-286155.3,
Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 183 at 10.  Even under a solicitation which
states that proposed price is more important than technical evaluation
factors, the contracting agency is not required to make award to the firm
offering the lowest price; the agency retains the discretion to select a
higher-priced, technically higher-rated proposal, if doing so is in the
government's best interest and is consistent with the solicitation's
stated evaluation and source selection scheme.  Day & Zimmermann/IMR
L.L.C., B-280568, B-280569, Oct. 19 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 111 at 7.
    
Here, the RFP stated that the technical proposal, as a whole, was more
important than the price proposal, and the SSA based his tradeoff
determination on these overall relative values.  Ultimately, the SSA
determined that Access's evaluated technical advantage was worth what he
found to be a *slightly higher price.*  In this regard, the SSA's tradeoff
memorandum specifically details his rationale:
    
Access has submitted a superior management plan to that submitted by PSS. 
Access' management plan recognized the importance of the institutional
knowledge of the incumbent employees as a valuable asset and evidenced
that recognition by the significant effort that they invested in obtaining
resumes and letters of intent from the incumbent employees. . . . The
significant steps taken by Access to ensure that qualified individuals
will be readily available to perform has provided added assurance of the
successful performance of the solicitation's requirements and minimizes
the risk of any problems during transition.  Access' management plan
provides further added assurance that it will have qualified personnel
available to meet the emergent requirements.  The level of performance
risk associated with Access' proposal is substantially less than the level
expected from a competent offeror.  The [agency]'s mission requirements
could be severely impacted if a contractor cannot provide qualified
personnel in [a] timely manner either during contract transition or to
meet emergent requirements.  Based on the foregoing, it is determined that
the benefits associated with Access' management plan more than justify the
slightly higher price associated with their proposal.  Therefore, in
accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, it is determined
that Access has submitted a more advantageous offer to the Government than
PSS.
Source Selection Decision Memorandum at P: 5.  Based on Access's more
detailed proposal and the readily apparent advantages associated with it,
we find no basis to object to the SSA's price/technical tradeoff.  PSS's
mere disagreement does not render the SSA's decision unreasonable. 
Sawtooth Enters., Inc., B-281218, Dec. 7, 1998,98‑2 CPD P: 139 at 4.
    
OTHER ISSUES
    
PSS raises a number of other issues, all of which we have reviewed and
found to lack merit.  For example, PSS asserts that Access's signed
letters of commitment were of *illusory* value because they merely stated
the prospective employees were *willing* to accept employment instead of
stating they *will* accept employment.  We see no substantive difference
in the wording, at least not for the limited purposes of the agency's
evaluation of Access's efforts to ensure a smooth transition.  PSS also
erroneously relies on our decision in SKJ & Assocs., Inc., B‑291533,
Jan. 13, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 3, a case clearly distinguishable from this
protest.  In SKJ, we sustained the protest because the agency lacked a
reasonable basis to reject the protester's quotation under a request for
quotations (RFQ) for training services where the RFQ required submission
of a technical proposal, but gave no guidance as to its content or how it
would be evaluated.  Here, the RFP identified and described the evaluation
criteria under which PSS's proposal was properly evaluated and found
acceptable.    
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

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

   [1] PSS notes that proposals were limited to 100 pages and that Access
exceeded that limitation.  However, while the agency acknowledges that
Access's proposal included pages beyond the limitation, it explains,
without dispute from PSS, that the excess pages were additional letters of
commitment and were not evaluated.  This argument therefore does not
warrant disturbing the award.