TITLE:  Planning Systems, Inc., B-292312, July 29, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292312
DATE:  July 29, 2003
**********************************************************************
Planning Systems, Inc., B-292312, July 29, 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:   Planning Systems, Inc.
    
File:            B-292312
    
Date:              July 29, 2003
    
John R. Tolle, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon &
Tolle, for the protester.
Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., and J. Chris Haile, Esq., Crowell & Moring, and
Todd Hutchen, Esq., International Business Machines Corporation, for the
intervenor.
David H. Turner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Agency reasonably selected awardee*s proposal as representing the best
value to the government where awardee*s technical proposal was properly
evaluated as being superior to protester*s proposal on the basis of
evaluated strengths related to awardee*s technical approach, corporate
experience, and past performance, and awardee*s proposed cost/price was
lower than protester*s proposed cost/price. 
DECISION
    

   Planning Systems, Inc. (PSI) protests the Department of the Navy*s award
of a contract to International Business Machines Business Consulting
Services (IBM) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No.
N00140-03-R-L803 to perform various information technology support
services at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. PSI
protests that the agency improperly rated IBM*s proposal as technically
superior to PSI*s proposal, and that the agency failed to perform a proper
cost realism analysis.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
BACKGROUND
    
The RFP was published on November 22, 2002, seeking proposals to provide
system maintenance and resources to design, develop and implement
improvements to an enterprise information system at the U.S. Navy
Submarine Maintenance Engineering Planning and Procurement Activity,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.[1]  Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 14.  The RFP
contemplated award of a cost plus fixed fee contract for a 1-year base
period and four 1-year option periods, required offerors to submit
separate technical and cost/price proposals, and established the following
technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: 
technical approach, personnel resources, management plan approach,
corporate experience, past performance,[2] and participation of small
businesses and small disadvantaged business entities.[3]   Offerors were
advised that the combined technical evaluation factors were more important
than cost/price.  Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 59.  With regard to
cost/price proposals, offerors were required to propose, for each contract
period, a *complete and detailed price/cost breakdown,* including *labor
rates and hours, burden rates, material lists and costs, travel charges,
and *other direct costs.**  Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP at 58.
    
Four proposals, including those of PSI and IBM, were submitted by the
January 31, 2003 closing date.  The agency evaluated each proposal and
established a competitive range consisting of three proposals, including
those of PSI and IBM; thereafter, discussions were conducted with the
competitive range offerors and those offerors were invited to submit final
revised proposals (FRP). 
    
Each competitive range offeror timely submitted its FPR, and these
submissions were subsequently evaluated. [4]   The final technical
evaluation results with regard to PSI*s and IBM*s proposals were as
follows: [5]
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                               |IBM                |PSI                 |
|-------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------|
|Technical                      |                   |                    |
|Approach                       |[deleted]          |[deleted]           |
|-------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------|
|Personnel                      |                   |                    |
|Resources                      |[deleted           |[deleted]           |
|-------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------|
|Management                     |                   |                    |
|Plan Approach                  |[deleted]          |[deleted]           |
|-------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------|
|Corporate                      |                   |                    |
|Experience                     |[deleted]          |[deleted]           |
|-------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------|
|Past                           |                   |                    |
|Performance                    |[deleted]          |[deleted]           |
|-------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------|
|Small/Disadvantaged            |                   |                    |
|Business Participation         |[deleted]          |[deleted]           |
|-------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------|
|Overall                        |                   |                    |
|Rating                         |[deleted]          |[deleted]           |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
Agency Report, Contracting Officers Statement, at 13.
    
With regard to the technical approach evaluation factor, the RFP provided:
    *The offeror shall submit a technical approach in detail, which
demonstrates how the offeror will successfully perform the statement of
work (SOW). . . .  Unique methods for technically resolving problems
identified under the SOW are encouraged . . . .*  Agency Report, Tab 1,
RFP, at 55.  In evaluating IBM*s proposed technical approach as [deleted]
the agency identified various strengths including:  use of rapid
application development/joint application development (RAD/JAD)
techniques;[6] implementation of the Navy Web Portal; and a proposed
staffing plan that relied on readily available existing corporate
resources.  Agency Report, Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 14-17.  In
contrast, PSI*s proposal was rated as [deleted] with regard to technical
approach on the basis that [deleted].  Agency Report, Contracting
Officer*s Statement, at 17.
    
With regard to the next evaluation factor, personnel resources, the RFP
required offerors to provide one resume for each of five specified labor
categories,[7] and stated:  *Each labor category is equal to a subfactor
and . . . are of equal importance.*  Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 56. 
Both IBM*s and PSI*s proposals were evaluated as [deleted] with regard to
personnel resources on the basis of the agency*s assessment that each
proposal offered [deleted] resumes in [deleted] of the labor categories
and [deleted] resumes in the remaining [deleted] categories.  Agency
Report, Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 17-21.
    
With regard to the next evaluation factor, corporate experience, the RFP
provided that proposals *shall describe similar or directly related work
experience within the past five years of similar scope, magnitude or
complexity to that detailed in the SOW.*  Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at
57.  In evaluating IBM*s corporate experience as [deleted], the agency
noted that the projects identified in IBM*s proposal were *directly
related to the requirements of the statement of work, [and] in fact are
many of the applications that we must interface with.*  Agency Report, Tab
20, at 29.  For example, the agency specifically referred to IBM*s
corporate experience with the Navy Enterprise Maintenance Automated
Information System, the Navy/Marine Corps Internet, and the Navy
Enterprise Portal, concluding *[t]his experience will allow for faster,
better solutions based on their extensive knowledge of the major Navy
initiatives.*  Id.  Although PSI*s proposal was evaluated [deleted], its
[deleted] was not considered [deleted]; more specifically, the agency
found that PSI*s [deleted] regarding [deleted] prevented it from attaining
a [deleted] rating for corporate experience.  Agency Report, Contracting
Officer*s Statement, at 25-26. 
    
With regard to past performance, the RFP directed offerors to provide
points of contact concerning similar or directly related contracts on
which the offeror has performed during the last 5 years.  In rating IBM*s
past performance as [deleted], the agency noted that IBM*s proposal
identified *six projects of directly related scope, magnitude and
complexity as required under the SOW and three larger, more complex
projects,* that IBM*s past performance was rated as [deleted], and that
IBM had demonstrated a [deleted].  Agency Report, Contracting Officer*s
Statement, at 26.  In contrast, PSI*s past performance was rated as
[deleted], based on, among other things, [deleted].  Agency Report,
Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 26-27.    
    
Overall, the agency rated IBM*s technical proposal as [deleted] based on
having received [deleted] ratings in four of the six evaluation factors;
in contrast, PSI*s technical proposal received an overall rating of
[deleted] based on having received [deleted] ratings in [deleted] of the
six evaluation factors.
    
With regard to cost/price, IBM*s final proposed cost/price ($24,994,674)
was approximately [deleted] lower than PSI*s ([deleted]).  In evaluating
cost/price, the agency requested and received rate information from the
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).  Based on DCAA*s verification of
IBM*s proposed rates, the agency found IBM*s proposed cost/price to be
reasonable and realistic.  Agency Report, Tab 24, at 9.  In contrast,
DCAA*s review of PSI*s rates revealed that [deleted].  Agency Report, Tab
24, at 10.  Additionally, PSI*s final proposed cost/price reflected
[deleted], yet PSI*s FPR provided nothing [deleted] indicating that
[deleted].[8]  Accordingly, in evaluating PSI*s FPR for cost realism, the
agency increased its proposed cost/price from [deleted] to [deleted].
    
Based on IBM*s superior technical proposal and lower evaluated cost/price,
the agency selected IBM*s proposal for award.  Agency Report, Tab 24.  In
reaching this decision, the source selection official noted that, even if
PSI*s proposed cost/price had not been increased for cost realism
purposes, its proposed cost/price was still higher than IBM*s.  Agency
Report, Tab 24, at 7.  Thereafter, PSI was notified of the agency*s source
selection decision; this protest followed.
    
DISCUSSION
    
PSI*s first protests that it was unreasonable for the agency to evaluate
IBM*s technical proposal as being superior to PSI*s, asserting that *PSI
is the incumbent contractor,* and *based upon [PSI*s] knowledge of the
work . . . PSI*s proposal should have been rated higher.*  Protest at 3,
4. 
    
The agency disagrees with PSI*s characterization of its status as the
*incumbent contractor.*  Specifically, in responding to PSI*s protest, the
agency provided a table with a detailed breakdown of the solicitation
requirements showing that PSI has not previously been involved in
performing [deleted] percent of the solicitation requirements.  Agency
Report, Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 25.  PSI has not disputed this
information in any way.  In any event, the agency states that it performed
a detailed and documented evaluation of both offerors* proposals and, as
discussed above, determined that IBM*s proposal was superior to PSI*s with
regard to [deleted]. 
    
In its comments responding to the agency report, PSI continues to assert
that its proposal should have been rated technically superior to IBM*s;
however, PSI offers virtually no support for this assertion.[9]  For
example, in its comments, PSI asserts that its proposal contained the same
types of features and innovations that warranted evaluated strengths in
IBM*s proposal, yet PSI fails to identify a single example supporting this
assertion.  PSI Comments on Agency Report, June 23, 2003, at 2. 
Similarly, PSI*s comments assert that *PSI*s proposal should have been
rated higher than IBM*s because the five personnel that it proposed had
superior qualifications to those that IBM proposed.*  Id.  Again, PSI
offers absolutely nothing to explain or support this conclusory
assertion. 
    
In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not
our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines the record
to determine whether the agency*s judgment was reasonable and in accord
with the RFP criteria.  Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1
CPD P: 223 at 4.  The protester bears the burden of proving that an
evaluation was unreasonable, and mere disagreement with the agency does
not render the evaluation unreasonable.  Ogden Support Servs., Inc.,
B‑270354.2, Oct. 29, 1996, 97-1 CPD P: 135 at 3.
    
Based on the record here, as discussed above, and considering PSI*s
failure to identify any specific error in the agency*s evaluation of
technical proposals, we find no merit in PSI*s protest that the agency
unreasonably evaluated IBM*s technical proposal as being superior to
PSI*s.
    
PSI*s protest also challenged the agency*s determination that IBM*s
proposed cost/price was reasonable and realistic, complaining that IBM had
unrealistically proposed a higher cost/price for the first year of
contract performance than it proposed for succeeding years.  Protest at
4.  The agency report responded to this issue, explaining that IBM*s
proposed cost/price for the initial period of contract performance
included various start-up costs which would not be incurred during
subsequent contract periods.  Agency Report, Contracting Officer*s
Statement, at 35.   In PSI*s comments responding to the agency report, PSI
failed to discuss the agency*s evaluation of IBM*s cost/price in any way. 
Accordingly, we view PSI as having abandoned this issue, and we will not
further address the matter.  Datum Timing, Div. of Datum Inc., B-254493,
Dec. 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD P: 328 at 5.
    
Finally, PSI protested that it was improper for the agency to have
increased PSI*s proposed cost/price for cost realism purposes.  We need
not resolve this issue.  As discussed above, the agency reasonably
evaluated IBM*s proposal as being technically superior to PSI*s proposal. 
Further, as also noted above, PSI*s proposed cost/price was higher than
IBM*s.  Thus, even if the agency had accepted PSI*s proposed cost/price
for cost evaluation purposes, IBM*s proposal would have been properly
selected for award on the basis that it was the technically superior
proposal offering the lower cost/price.  On this record, PSI*s protest is
without merit.
    
The protest is denied. 
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] The services to be provided include relational database administration
support, object oriented analysis and design, maintenance of an
information system architecture and network, programming, business
analysis and system analysis, design, information assurance,
communications, programming and development services.  Agency Report, Tab
1, RFP, at 14.  The project will result in, among other things, *a single
Business process for assigning maintenance and execution information to
[a] ship*s configuration data supported by a single information system,*
and *[a] single database/data warehouse for material, job completion, and
cost feedback information.*  Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 15. 
[2] Corporate experience and past performance were of equal importance. 
Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP, at 59. 
[3] Specifically, the RFP provided for consideration of the extent to
which a proposal contemplated participation of small businesses, small
disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, historically black
colleges/universities and minority institutions.  Agency Report, Tab 1,
RFP, at 59. 
[4] The proposal of the third competitive range offeror is not relevant to
any of the protest issues and, accordingly, is not further discussed. 
[5] In evaluating technical proposals, the agency used an adjectival
rating system using the terms *highly acceptable,* *acceptable,*
*unacceptable [but capable of being made acceptable],* and *unacceptable
[not capable of  being made acceptable without extensive changes].* 
Agency Report, Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 10.  Only the *highly
acceptable* and *acceptable* ratings were used with regard to IBM*s and
PSI*s FPRs.  *Highly acceptable* was defined, in part, as *meets and
exceeds the desired performance and the excess is beneficial to the
Navy.*  Id.  *Acceptable* was defined, in part, as *meets all of the
requirements specified in the RFP.*  Id.     
[6] The agency explains that RAD/JAD techniques reflect a proven
methodology that accelerates application development and reduces risk by
compressing the analysis, design, build and test phases into a series of
short, iterative development cycles.  Agency Report, Tab 34, at 2.
[7] The specified labor categories were:  project manager; senior database
administrator/database specialist; senior systems architect/programmer
analyst III; senior programmer analyst/database programmer II; and network
specialist.  Agency Report, Tab 1, RFP at 56.
[8] In connection with PSI*s initial proposal, [deleted] had submitted a
[deleted] asking that [deleted].  Agency Report, Tab 24, at 10. 
[9] PSI*s entire comments on the agency report consist of a four-page
submission, much of which repeats background information and assertions
that PSI presented in its protest.