TITLE:  Wahkontah Services, Inc., B-292768, November 18, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292768
DATE:  November 18, 2003
**********************************************************************
Wahkontah Services, Inc., B-292768, November 18, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Wahkontah Services, Inc.
    
File:            B-292768
    
Date:              November 18, 2003
    
John W. Starnes, Esq., for the protester.
Capt. Tami L. Dillahunt and Mary M. Townsend, Esq., Army Materiel Command,
for the agency.
Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest challenging contracting agency*s evaluation of protester*s
proposal and exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where
agency*s evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable
and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria.
DECISION
    
Wahkontah Services, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
competitive range, and the subsequent award of a contract to Griffon
Aerospace, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH01-02-R-0158,
issued by the Army Aviation and Missile Command, Department of the Army,
for the acquisition of an aerial remotely piloted vehicle target (RPVT)
system and services. Wahkontah contends that the evaluation of its
proposal and the determination to exclude its proposal from the
competitive range on the basis of technical noncompliance were
unreasonable.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
Background
    
RPVTs, essentially radio-controlled, sub-scale aerial targets, are a means
by which the Army and other United States military services provide
training to short range air defense units in countering airborne threats
at a reasonable cost; specifically, RPVTs permit live fire engagements by
forces equipped with various missile and gun weapons systems.  Statement
of Work (SOW) S: 1.1.  While the Army has procured sub-scale aerial
targets for many years, the requirements here were significantly expanded
beyond those of previous procurements, including newly defined performance
parameters that necessitated the redesign of the RPVT target aircraft. 
Contracting Officer*s Statement at 2.  In addition to RPVT design,
production and testing, the statement of work here also required the
successful offeror to provide various operational support services (e.g.,
flight operations, maintenance services, and equipment security) for the
RPVT system.
    
The RFP, issued on October 31, 2002, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract (with some cost reimbursement items) for a base year
with four 1-year options.  The solicitation identified the following
evaluation factors and subfactors:
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|1.  Technical                                                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |A.  Design Approach                                     |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |B.  Production Approach                                 |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |C.  Engineering Services                                |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |D.  Resources, Personnel Skills and Staffing            |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|2.  Operational                                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |A.  Operational Approach                                |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |B.  Equipment Resourcing                                |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |C.  Surge (Premium Hour) Operations                     |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |D.  Resources, Personnel Skills and Staffing            |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|3.  Management                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |A.  Organization                                        |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |B.  Resources                                           |
|               |--------------------------------------------------------|
|               |C.  Personnel                                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|4.  Past Performance                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|5.  Price                                                               |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
The RFP established that the technical, operational, past performance, and
price factors were of equal importance, and that the management factor was
significantly less important than the other factors.[1]  The solicitation
also specified that, *[i]nherent in the government*s evaluation will be a
consideration of potential risks, i.e., the risk of delivering technically
acceptable equipment, meeting operation requirements, and satisfying other
contractual requirements given the proposed approach. . . .  Each [factor]
shall incorporate consideration of risk in the evaluation.*  RFP S: M-2.b.
    
The RFP informed offerors that *[p]roposals must address how the required
effort will be performed and provide sufficient detail in each section to
substantiate compliance with the requirements of the RFP and its
attachments*; additionally, *[o]fferors are cautioned that parroting of
the technical, operational, and management requirements with a statement
of intent to perform or statement of compliance only (i.e., will comply)
does not reveal an understanding of the requirements and will not be
acceptable.*  RFP S: L.2.1.
    
Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was
determined to be most advantageous, or *best value,* to the government,
all factors considered.  RFP S: M-2.a.
    
Four offerors, including Wahkontah, submitted proposals by the March 5,
2003 closing date.  An Army technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated
offerors* proposals under the technical, operational and management
factors using an adjectival rating system:  outstanding/very low risk,
highly satisfactory/low risk, satisfactory/acceptable risk,
marginal/acceptable with some risk, and unacceptable/ unacceptable
risk.[2]  After the initial review of proposals, the Army conducted
written discussions with all offerors by advising them of *errors,
omissions, and clarifications* (EOC) that the agency had identified in
their proposals.  The Army provided Wahkontah with 42 EOCs, 41 of which
related to the technical and operational aspects of the offeror*s
proposal, identifying various information shortcomings that Wahkontah was
asked to address.
    
The TET completed its initial evaluation of technical proposals after
receipt and review of each offeror*s EOC responses.  With regard to
Wahkontah, the TET rated the offeror*s proposal as
unacceptable/unacceptable risk under the technical and operational
factors, and satisfactory/acceptable risk under the management factor.[3] 
Agency Report (AR), Tab K-1, Technical Evaluation Report for Wahkontah, at
1-12.  The evaluators noted numerous *deficiencies* and *weaknesses* in
Wahkontah*s proposal as to the technical and operational factors and
subfactors, primarily the result of the offeror*s extensive parroting of
the RFP requirements, and concluded that Wahkontah*s proposal failed to
demonstrate a clear understanding of those requirements.  Id. at 1, 7.
    
The contracting officer then established a competitive range, representing
the lowest-priced, highest-rated proposals.  The Army eliminated
Wahkontah*s proposal from the competitive range because it was determined
unacceptable as to both the technical and operational factors, and had no
reasonable chance of receiving contract award.  AR, Tab N, Competitive
Range Findings and Determination,
at 5-7, 17.
    
Wahkontah filed an agency-level protest when it learned of the Army*s
decision, and filed the instant protest with our Office after receiving
the agency*s response and notice of the award to Griffon.  Wahkontah
maintains that the Army*s evaluation of its proposal with regard to the
technical and operational factors was unreasonable, and, as a result, the
agency had no reasonable basis for eliminating its proposal from the
competitive range.
    
In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of proposals and
exclusion of proposals from a competitive range, we do not conduct a new
evaluation or substitute our judgment for that of the agency, but examine
the record to determine whether the agency*s judgment was reasonable and
in accord with the solicitation evaluation criteria.  Information Sys.
Tech. Corp., B-291747, Mar. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 72 at 2; Northwest
Procurement Inst. Inc., B-286345, Nov. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 192 at 5. 
Where a protest concerns an agency*s evaluation and exclusion of a
proposal from a competitive range, we first review the propriety of the
agency*s evaluation of the proposal, and then turn to the agency*s
competitive range determination, and in this regard, a protester*s mere
disagreement with an agency*s evaluation does not establish that the
evaluation was unreasonable.  Americom Gov*t Servs., Inc.,
B-292242, Aug. 1, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 163 at 4.
    
Contracting agencies are not required to retain a proposal in a
competitive range where the proposal is not among the most highly rated or
where the agency otherwise reasonably concludes that the proposal has no
realistic prospect of award.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
S: 15.306(c)(1); Americom Gov*t Servs., Inc., supra; SDS Petroleum Prods.,
Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 59 at 5-6.  Where a proposal is
technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to
become acceptable, exclusion from the competitive range is generally
permissible.  CMC & Maint., Inc., B-290152, June 24, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 107
at 2.  Proposals with significant informational deficiencies may be
excluded, whether the deficiencies are attributable to omitted or merely
inadequate information addressing fundamental factors.  American Med.
Depot, B-285060 et al., July 12, 2000, 2002 CPD P: 7 at 6-7.
    
Based upon our review of the record, the Army*s evaluation of Wahkontah*s
proposal and the subsequent exclusion of Wahkontah*s proposal from the
competitive range were reasonable.  The record reflects that Wahkontah*s
proposal was downgraded in large part because the information provided
either parroted back in whole or part the RFP*s requirements, with a
statement of Wahkontah*s intent to perform the requirements, or simply
lacked sufficient information and detail for the Army to determine that
Wahkontah understood the RFP*s requirements.  Although we do not here
specifically address all of protester*s complaints about the evaluation of
its proposal, we have fully considered all of them and find that they
afford no basis to question the agency*s competitive range decision.
For example, offerors were required to describe in their proposals their
RPVT design approach, including trade-offs and down-selection
considerations to the basic RPVT airframe, and to provide calculations to
verify that their airframe would meet the aerodynamic, stability and
control, and handling qualities requirements of the RFP.[4]  In its
proposal, Wahkontah stated that its RPVT would exactly meet all
performance requirements (e.g., compare *[t]he aircraft shall be capable
of operating in flight for 60 minutes at varied speeds without landing or
refueling,* SOW S: 3.6.1.1.3, with *[Wahkontah*s] RPVT is capable of
operating in flight for 60 minutes at varied speeds without landing or
refueling. . . .,*  AR, Tab G-1, Wahkontah*s Technical Proposal,
at 18), but did not provide any airframe calculations or other data to
support those statements.  While Wahkontah*s EOC response to this
identified deficiency asserted various performance parameters for its
RPVT, Wahkontah again did not provide any data or calculations in support
for those assertions.
    
The Army properly found that Wahkontah*s proposal did not meet the RFP*s
design approach requirement, and was unacceptable, because it failed to
include the required RPVT aerodynamic calculations that would support the
offeror*s claimed capabilities.  Without that supporting information,
Wahkontah*s statements amounted to no more than a blanket offer of
compliance.  Such blanket offers are not adequate substitutes for the
detailed and complete information necessary to show that what the offeror
proposes will meet the agency*s needs.  Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc.,
B-289309, Feb. 4, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 35 at 4; Ervin & Assocs., Inc.,
B-280993, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 151 at 6.
    
As another example, the solicitation required that each offeror*s proposed
RPVT include an infrared (IR) enhancing device, for use in both the
tracking and live fire of heat-seeking weapon systems, such as the Stinger
missile system.  The RFP required that the IR payload device be mounted on
the RPVT such that it was surrounded by at least 8 inches of solid
material to ensure missile strike and subsequent detonation.  SOW S:
3.8.5.  In its proposal, Wahkontah stated that its IR payload would be
incorporated into the engine muffler, thereby providing the entire mass of
the engine block, crankshaft, flywheel, cylinder head and all engine parts
as a detonation source for missiles.  Wahkontah*s proposal also
represented that its RPVT engine had demonstrated many times in the past
that it had sufficient mass to detonate a Stinger missile.  Absent from
Wahkontah*s proposal was any information that its IR payload would in fact
be surrounded by at least 8 inches of solid material.  While Wahkontah*s
EOC response stated that its IR enhancement device would be surrounded by
8 inches of solid material, it provided no support for this assertion. 
Again, the Army reasonably found Wahkontah*s proposal deficient and
unacceptable in this regard because it simply parroted the RFP requirement
and failed to substantiate compliance.  Quite simply, the agency was not
required to accept Wahkontah*s knowledge and experience with missile
detonation as a substitute that compliance with the RFP requirements be
established in the offeror*s proposal.  See Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc.,
supra.
    
Wahkontah argues that its proposal fully meets and/or exceeds the RFP*s
technical and operational requirements, and does not reflect an
unacceptable risk to the agency.  Wahkontah acknowledges, however, that
its proposed design is presently a concept of its knowledgeable and
experienced designer and reflects a concept of the components required to
assemble a workable end item, the final selection of which Wahkontah would
make after contract award.  Protester*s Comments, Encl. 1, at 2-3, 6,
13-14.  Wahkontah also argues that it did not need to provide any
analytical and test data to support its proposed RPVT design approach
because, as the RFP required a new design and Wahkontah was not yet under
contract, none was available.  Id. at 2, 13-14.  Finally, Wahkontah
asserts that the *only true way* that its contention of compliance with
the solicitation*s requirements can be disputed by the agency is by a
failure to meet the post-award hardware performance compliance
demonstration test.  Id. at 2.  We disagree.
    
The protester*s argument that the Army must essentially disprove
Wahkontah*s assertions of compliance fundamentally misunderstands what was
required by the solicitation.  It is not the obligation of the agency to
disprove an offeror*s blanket contentions of compliance; instead, it is
the obligation of the offeror to include sufficient information in its
proposal for the agency to determine whether the proposal will meets its
needs.  Robotic Sys. Tech., B-278195.2, Jan. 7, 1998, 98-1 CPD P: 20 at
9.  The fact that an offeror may have to incur costs in order to provide
sufficient information with its proposal to substantiate compliance with
the solicitation*s requirements does not alter this responsibility.
    
As a final example, the RFP required offerors to describe in their
proposals their operational approach.  In the area of equipment
transportation, Wahkontah*s proposal contained numerous statements, such
as *Wahkontah will provide all equipment transportation to support
activity under this contract unless otherwise directed,* and *Wahkontah
will plan, coordinate, schedule and execute all modes of shipment to
transport all items from their point of origin to Wahkontah*s home
facility (Barstow, CA) for delivery to the government and stored as GFE,*
AR,
Tab G-1, Wahkontah*s Technical Proposal, at 61, which essentially recited
back to the Army the corresponding provisions of the solicitation.  See
SOW S: 3.4.12.2 (*The contractor shall provide all equipment
transportation to support activity under this contract unless directed
otherwise herein*); SOW S: 3.4.12.2.1 (*The contractor shall coordinate,
schedule, and execute all modes of shipment required to transport the
items acquired from their point of origin to the location specified in
this contract for delivery to the government*).
    
In the Army*s view, and we agree, Wahkontah*s proposal here simply
reiterated the RFP requirements, contained few details on the offeror*s
approach to meeting proposal claims, and failed to demonstrate that the
offeror actually understood the requirements.  AR, Tab K-1, Technical
Evaluation Report for Wahkontah, at 11.  In light of the explicit
solicitation requirement that each proposal address how the offeror would
perform the required efforts and provide sufficient detail to substantiate
compliance, the agency reasonably downgraded Wahkontah*s proposal under
the operational factor both for merely parroting back the RFP*s
performance parameters and for failing to provide any substantiating data
or detail.  See Source AV, Inc., B-234521, June 20, 1989, 89-1 CPD P: 578
at 4.
    
Under these and the other evaluation areas questioned by Wahkontah, the
record shows that the Army*s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
the solicitation criteria; Wahkontah*s objections essentially reflect its
view that based on the long and extensive experience of its personnel, its
proposal should have received a higher rating.  This self-assessment and
Wahkontah*s resulting disagreement with the agency*s assessments do not
provide a basis to call into question the agency*s evaluation here. 
Fishermen*s Boat Shop, Inc., B-287592, July 11, 2001, 2001 CPD P:123 at
4-5.  Having determined that the agency*s evaluation of Wahkontah*s
proposal was reasonable, we find no basis to question the subsequent
exclusion of Wahkontah from the competitive range.
    
Lastly, Wahkontah protests that the contract award to Griffon is
inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation because it does not
represent the *best value* to the agency.  Since we have concluded that
Wahkontah was properly excluded from the competitive range, however, and
there are other offerors in the competitive range, Wahkontah is not an
interested party to raise this issue.  4 C.F.R. S: 21.0(a) (2003);
McDonald Constr. Servs., Inc., B-285980, B-285980.2, Oct. 25, 2000, 2000
CPD P: 183 at 11; A Travel Passport, Inc.; Global Express Travel Servs.,
Inc.,
B-255383.2 et al., 94-1 CPD P: 171 at 7.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] The solicitation also set forth the relative importance of subfactors
within each evaluation factor.  Relevant to this protest, design approach
was more important than the remaining technical subfactors, and
operational approach was significantly more important than the other
operational subfactors.
[2] The agency also employed a performance risk assessment group (PRAG) to
separately evaluate offerors* past performance using ratings of high risk,
medium risk, low risk, and neutral.
[3] The PRAG rated Wahkontah, a new entity, as neutral under the past
performance factor.  AR, Tab M, Performance Risk Assessment Group Report,
at 13-14.
[4] Specifically, proposals were to include key performance parameters,
with and without worst-case payloads, such as cruise conditions, range,
endurance, rate of climb, time to climb, maximum and minimum airspeeds,
take-off (launch), landing (recovery), maneuvering and flight envelopes,
power-off glide angle, stability and control, and operator handling
qualities.  RFP S: L.2.2.1.1.