TITLE:  Leach Management Consulting Corporation, B-292493.2, October 3, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292493.2
DATE:  October 3, 2003
**********************************************************************
Leach Management Consulting Corporation, B-292493.2, October 3, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Leach Management Consulting Corporation
    
File:            B-292493.2
    
Date:              October 3, 2003
    
Jeffery L. Leach for the protester.
E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq., and Richard N. Finnegan, Esq., Defense
Contract Management Agency, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Where evaluation report stated both that protester*s lack of federal
government experience was a weakness (erroneously) and that government
experience was a strength (correctly), but record shows that source
selection authority did not downgrade proposal based on the erroneous
statement, there is no basis for questioning the award.
    
2.  Protest challenging evaluation of protester*s proposal is denied where
record shows that agency evaluated proposal in accordance with the
solicitation criteria, and that its conclusions were reasonable. 
DECISION
    
Leach Management Consulting Corporation protests the issuance of a
purchase order to Booz Allen Hamilton under request for quotations (RFQ)
No. DCMA01-03-Q-0003, issued by the Defense Contract Management Agency
(DCMA), for customer relations management (CRM) services. Leach contends
that the agency misled it regarding price and improperly evaluated its
proposal.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
On March 27, 2003, DCMA posted a combined synopsis/solicitation (the RFQ)
on the Federal Business Opportunities website, calling for the review and
evaluation of DCMA*s existing customer outreach and satisfaction
measurement activities and processes; the comparison of DCMA*s practices
and procedures with those of the private sector; and, the development of
an integrated customer relations process for DCMA.  Under the original
timeline, vendors were to complete all work within 60 days of award. 
Under amendment No. 2, the agency extended the performance timeframe:  the
review/evaluation of DCMA*s existing activities and processes and the
comparison of those processes and activities to the private sector were to
be provided within 45 days of award, and the development of the integrated
customer relations process was to be completed within 90 days of award. 
In response to a 2‑part question asking for the government estimate
and *what budget has been in place in the past for these services,* the
agency responded in amendment No. 3 that *there has been no specific
budget for the services.  The original estimate was well under $100,000. 
As a result of revising the requirement to add an additional performance
period of 30 days the estimate is still under $100,000.*  RFQ, amend.
No. 3, at 1.  The record shows that the original estimate for the 60-day
performance period was $65,000, and the revised estimate for the extended
90-day performance period was $90-$95,000.  Agency Report (AR), Tab A,
Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 4.
    
The solicitation stated that simplified acquisition procedures applied to
the procurement, see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13, that
vendors should provide price and technical proposals, and that a
fixed-price award would be made on a *best value* basis, and identified
the following evaluation factors, in addition to price:  (1) technical,
including, a description of the approach for preparing and conducting an
organizational assessment of DCMA customer satisfaction and CRM, a plan of
action and milestone plan for developing an integrated customer relations
process, a proposed process for analyzing current methods of data
gathering, analysis and reporting, and an overall analysis of how methods
can be improved; (2) proposed personnel, including key personnel resumes
showing knowledge and experience of customer satisfaction and CRM methods
used with private organizations, federal agencies and Department of
Defense (DOD) agencies, experience performing organizational assessments,
and knowledge and experience with organizational modeling and
benchmarking; and, (3) corporate past experience, including three
references showing similar customer satisfaction and CRM assessment and
analysis, prior organizational studies, presentations, and benchmarking. 
RFQ at 3.
    
A color-coded evaluation scheme was to be used.  As relevant here, a green
rating on technical capabilities and personnel indicated excellence in all
respects, with a good probability of success and an overall low degree of
risk.  A pink rating on these factors indicated that overall quality could
not be determined because of errors, omissions or deficiencies which were
not capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the
proposal; this rating reflected a very high degree of performance risk.  A
color rating scheme was also used for past performance.  As relevant here,
white denoted a neutral rating, to be assigned where information was not
available or the past performance questionnaires were not returned by a
vendor*s references.  AR, Tab A, Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 5, 7.
    
The agency received 23 quotations by the amended May 2, 2003 closing
date.  The proposal included with Leach*s quotation, priced at $42,500,
was rated pink under all nonprice technical factors and white under past
performance.  The technical evaluation team (TET) found several weaknesses
in Leach*s proposal, noting, for example, that it lacked specificity,
restated the statement of work (SOW) with no in‑depth review, failed
to address benchmarking and marketing, and cited no DOD, DCMA, or federal
government experience (however, the TET at the same time rated Leach*s
government experience a strength, a discrepancy discussed further below). 
AR, Tab K, Technical Evaluation Summary, at 5.  Regarding personnel
qualifications, the TET identified the lack of DCMA experience, and CRM,
benchmarking and marketing experience as weaknesses.  The TET also noted
that Leach*s survey experience was primarily with internal customers and
that the proposal included only one resume. Id.  As for past performance,
the TET noted that only one of Leach*s three required references
responded, and that this reference declined to provide a detailed response
because Leach*s contract with that entity was in the process of being
terminated for convenience.  Id.; AR, Tab A, Contracting Officer*s
Statement, at 7.  
    
Booz Allen*s proposal was rated green under both the overall technical
factor and past performance, and its price was $122,958.92.  The TET
recommended award to Booz Allen and the source selection authority,
following the TET*s recommendation, issued a purchase order to that firm
on June 20.  AR, Tab Q, Source Selection Decision Document, at 12.  After
a June 30 debriefing, Leach filed this protest.[1]
    
Leach protests that the agency*s estimate as set forth in amendment No. 3
was inaccurate and misled the firm into believing that the estimate was
well under $100,000; Leach states in this regard that it *interpreted
[b]est [v]alue [as] being under $100,000 . . . .*  Protest at 2.  Leach
further states that, in its experience, the government estimate *implies
the budget for this effort.*  Id. at 4.    
    
This argument is without merit.  First, nothing in the amendment
suggested, as Leach asserts, that the estimate was significantly less than
$100,000.  Indeed, we think the language of the amendment reasonably
indicated otherwise by stating that the estimate *is still under,* instead
of *well under* $100,000, as the RFQ originally had stated.  Further,
notwithstanding the protester*s prior experience, since the amendment
nowhere purported to set forth the agency*s budget for the requirement,
there simply was no basis for Leach to read the amendment as establishing
some sort of ceiling on the contract price.  Similarly, there was no
reasonable basis for Leach to conclude that the amendment established that
only a proposal with a quoted price below $100,000 could be found to
represent the best value.  A best value determination is based, not on
price alone, but on the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation,
with the source selection official often required to make a
price/technical tradeoff to determine if one proposal*s technical
superiority is worth the higher cost that may be associated with that
proposal.  Rotair Indus., Inc., B‑276435.2, July 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD
P: 17 at 3.  Here, as noted above, Booz Allen*s technical ratings were
significantly higher than Leach*s, and the agency determined that this
technical superiority was worth the price differential.  This
determination was in no way inconsistent with the terms of the RFQ.
    
Leach also challenges the agency*s evaluation of its proposal, asserting
that its technical proposal was improperly downgraded for demonstrating
*[n]o DOD or federal government experience,* and no DCMA experience. 
Protester*s Comments at 2-5.  Leach maintains that it listed significant
DOD and federal government experience in its proposal, including work for
the Department of the Navy, Defense Contracting Command, Army Corps of
Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and Naval Air Warfare Center. 
Leach claims it was improper for the agency to downgrade its proposal for
lack of DCMA contracting experience, because the RFQ did not require DCMA
experience.  Id. at 3.
    
In reviewing protests against an allegedly improper simplified acquisition
and selection decision, we examine the record to determine whether the
competition was fair and consistent with the solicitation, and whether the
agency exercised its discretion reasonably.  American Office Servs., Inc.,
B-290511, July 5, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 122 at 3; Southeast Tech. Servs.,
B-289065, Dec. 20, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 206 at 3. 
    
The evaluation of Leach*s experience was unobjectionable.  Leach is
correct that its price proposal lists several DOD and federal government
contracts, and that the TET incorrectly indicated that Leach*s lack of DOD
or federal government experience was a weakness.  AR, Tab G, Leach Price
Proposal, at 15-17; AR, Tab K, Technical Evaluation Summary, at 5.  At the
same time, however, in its evaluation, the TET listed *[g]overnment
experience* as a strength.  AR, Tab K, Technical Evaluation Summary, at
5.  The cause of this discrepancy is not clear from the record.  However,
it had no apparent impact on the award decision, as evidenced by the fact
that the Source Selection Decision Document does not make any reference to
DOD or federal government experience.  Rather, the weaknesses identified
in that document were the lack of specificity in Leach*s proposal and its
key personnel*s lack of CRM, benchmarking and marketing experience.  AR,
Tab Q, Source Selection Decision Document, at 10.
    
We also find nothing objectionable in the agency*s consideration of DCMA
experience.  Where detailed technical proposals are sought and technical
evaluation criteria are used to enable the agency to make comparative
judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals, vendors are on
notice that qualitative distinctions among competing proposals will be
made under the various evaluation factors.  See National Health Labs.,
Inc., B-261706, Oct. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD P: 182 at 2.  In making such
distinctions, 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.  Id.  Experience with the
agency for which the solicited work is to be performed clearly is a
relevant subset of a vendor*s overall experience.  See IBP, Inc.,
B-289296, Feb. 7, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 39 at 3; Infrared Techs. Corp.,
B-282912, 99-2 CPD P: 41 at 5.  Accordingly, the agency reasonably
considered Leach*s lack of DCMA experience.
    
Leach also challenges the downgrading of its proposal for lack of CRM,
modeling and benchmarking experience.  Leach notes that its key employee*s
resume states that he *has performed organization assessments and [CRM]
assessments for the City of Philadelphia, Defense Contracting Command,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, AFRL, Kirtland Air Force Base, [t]he Naval
Air Warfare Center, Lakehurst, U.S. Coast Guard, [t]he Air Force Material
Command and the U.S. Navy.*  Protester*s Comments at 6; AR, Tab G, Leach
Price Proposal, at 22.  Leach notes further that at least
10 organization assessment projects and CRM experiences are listed in its
price proposal.  As for benchmarking, Leach states that *[b]enchmarking is
one of the business analyses and research tools that [it] obviously [has]
used as documented in our expertise* in its price proposal.  Protester*s
Comments at 7.  Leach states further that *[e]ven a layman could look at
the description of our experience . . . and factually see every project
listed has required us to alter or change the organization in question. 
What is this if not organization modeling?*  Protester*s Comments at 5.
    
The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  While Leach*s key personnel
resume states that the individual has CRM experience and identifies
several contracts allegedly involving CRM, we find nothing in the resume
or in the proposal‑-and Leach points to nothing--specifically
identifying CRM as part of the other contracts.  Similarly, benchmarking
is referred to only once in Leach*s proposal--in conjunction with a
contract that is being terminated for convenience by the cognizant
agency--and organization modeling is never mentioned.  Given the absence
of information detailing Leach*s experience in these areas, the agency
reasonably downgraded the proposal.  The protester maintains that its
experience in organization modeling and benchmarking should have been
apparent, since these are related to other activities identified in its
proposal, such as organization assessments and reengineering.  However, it
is a vendor*s responsibility to submit a proposal with adequately detailed
information to establish the relevance of its experience and to allow for
meaningful review by the agency; evaluators are not required to infer a
vendor*s meaning or intent from an inadequately detailed proposal. 
Interstate Gen. Gov*t Contractors, Inc., B-290137.2, June 21, 2002, 2002
CPD P: 105 at 5.
    
Finally, Leach argues that the agency improperly downgraded its technical
proposal based on a concern that the protester could not interview all of
the individuals listed in the proposal during the short performance
timeframe.  Leach asserts that in every project *there are always
adjustments and changes made,* and that it *presented that list to be
thorough and as an illustration of our target pool of individuals.* 
Protest at 4.  Further, Leach asserts that the proposal clearly stated
that more than one person would conduct these interviews, and that various
methods would be used, including telephone, on‑site meetings,
in-office or on-site assessments and case review meetings.  Protester*s
Comments at 7.
    
This aspect of the evaluation was reasonable.  Leach*s technical proposal
included a preliminary list of individuals that it intended to interview
as part of its data gathering process, which included 18 groups of
participants with, apparently, several interviews per group.  Leach
Technical Proposal, Tab F, at 5.  On page 6 of its technical proposal,
Leach again referred to its proposed travel, stating that *[o]ur analysis
will require traveling and talking with key/target locations at the HQ
[Headquarters], District and CMO [Contract Management Office] levels.* 
Below this reference, Leach listed more than 40 CMOs.  Notwithstanding
that Leach planned to use various interviewing approaches and an
additional interviewer, based on these proposal references the agency
reasonably could conclude that Leach*s approach was dependent upon a
significant amount of travel.  The agency*s concern regarding Leach*s
ability to complete these extensive travel and interview plans therefore
was reasonable.[2]  
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    
    

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

   [1] Leach*s initial protest, filed with our Office on June 26, and
docketed as B-292493, was dismissed as premature.
[2] Leach seems to suggest that it should have been clear from the four
destinations listed in its price proposal--*Headquarters (VA), District
East (Boston), District West (Carson), and District International (VA),*
Leach Price Proposal, Tab G, at 19--that its approach was not based on
extensive travel.  However, these destinations were listed in the price
proposal as part of Leach*s *initial plan for travel,* and given the
travel references in its technical proposal, the agency*s conclusion that
extensive travel was planned was reasonable.