TITLE:  Ecompex, Inc., B-292865.4; B-292865.5; B-292865.6, June 18, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-292865.4; B-292865.5; B-292865.6
DATE:  June 18, 2004
**********************************************************************
   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

   A 

   Matter of:   Ecompex, Inc.

   A 

   File:            B-292865.4; B-292865.5; B-292865.6

   A 

   Date:              June 18, 2004

   A 

   J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon,
Hildebrant & Tolle, for the protester.

   Seth Binstock, Esq., and Catherine G. Powers, Esq., Social Security
Administration, for the agency.

   Peter Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   A 

   1.  Allegation that agency unreasonably determined that protester lacked
experience sufficiently similar to the work under the solicitation to
qualify for award is denied where contract sought file maintenance
services for a facility containing more than 4A million folders, and
largest facility protester had maintained contained 125,000 folders; fact
that proposed subcontractors possessed additional experience did not
render agency*s determination unreasonable, since solicitation required
that offeror have sufficient experience of its own.

   A 

   2.  Agency reasonably attributed experience of affiliated companies to
awardee where proposal demonstrated a significant nexus to the affiliates,
including the proposed use of affiliates* experienced employees as key
personnel, and statement that parent company would fully support the
contract and that its financial resources would be available to awardee.

   A 

   3.  Allegation that agency improperly concluded that awardee would comply
with solicitation*s limitation on subcontracting is denied where awardee*s
proposal did not take express exception to the limitation, and firm
assured agency that it understood and would comply with requirement.

   DECISION

   A 

   Ecompex, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ahtna Enterprises
Corporation (AEC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-03-0523,
issued as a sectionA 8(a) set-aside by the Social Security Administration
(SSA) for clerical support services at a file storage facility in
Baltimore, Maryland. Ecompex challenges the evaluation of the proposals.

   A 

   We deny the protest.

   A 

   The solicitation, issued on May 22, 2003, provided for award of a
requirements contract for a 1-year base period, with 4 option years, for
all tasks necessary to operate the agency*s 4.7-million folder *Megasite*
storage facility.  Services to be performed under the contract included
folder retrieval, refiling, validation, sequencing, and various other
clerical and file management services.  Award was to be made to the
offeror whose proposal was determined to be the *best value* based on an
evaluation under four factors:  technical, experience, past performance,
and price. 

   A 

   Under the experience factor, relevant here, offerors were to submit a
narrative description of at least two prior contracts that demonstrated
experience in performing work of similar complexity and size.  Similar
work was defined as including such things as management and operation of a
centralized record storage facility for a major federal, state or
commercial organization housing 3-5 million folders; management and
operation of a major file storage facility requiring a staff of at least
150 people; and management and operation of a file storage area that
requires a high volume of folder transfers offsite.  RFP at 50.[1] 
Similarity would be rated as extremely similar, similar, or not similar. 
RFP at 51.  The solicitation stated that experience of both the prime and
any subcontractors would be considered, id., but also required that the
offeror have *sufficient experience and resources of its own and is not
relying solely on the subcontractor to provide the expertise and/or
resources.*  RFP at 47.  The technical factor was equal in importance to
experience, while past performance and price were of lesser, but equal,
weight.

   A 

   Thirteen proposals were received by the July 1, 2003 closing date, and the
technical evaluation committee determined that four of the proposals,
including the protester*s and AEC*s, were technically acceptable, subject
to further clarification.[2]  Thereafter, one of the four remaining
offerors was determined not to be a qualified 8(a) firm, and two others,
including Ecompex, were determined (after the agency sought further
information) to have insufficient experience to qualify for award.  Since
the agency concluded that only one firm, AEC, had the required experience,
it made award to that firm.  Upon learning that its proposal had been
rejected for lack of sufficient experience, Ecompex filed this protest in
our Office. 

   A 

   EVALUATION OF ECOMPEX*S EXPERIENCE

   A 

   Ecompex principally argues that the agency unreasonably determined that it
did not have sufficient experience of its own to qualify for award. 

   A 

   In reviewing a protest of an agency*s proposal evaluation, it is not our
role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, we will consider only whether the
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the
solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.  Career Quest, Inc.,
supra, at 2; Atlantic Research Mktg. Sys., Inc., Ba**292743, Dec. 1, 2003,
2003 CPD P 218 at 4-5.

   A 

   The evaluation of Ecompex*s experience was unobjectionable.  In its
initial proposal, Ecompex submitted information about two Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracts--one for management of all
Ginnie Mae vital records and one for management of 45,000 folders of
documents from the Office of Lender Activities--to demonstrate its similar
experience (it also submitted information on three contracts performed by
its proposed subcontractor).  The agency determined that this experience
appeared somewhat similar to the experience required for the Megasite
facility and, consequently, included Ecompex in the competitive range. 
Thereafter, by letter dated September 10, the agency sought further
information, including *additional explanation of how the described work
is comparable* to the work sought in the RFP.  The letter also asked for
the number of folders and staffing levels for the two HUD contracts. 
Agency Report, Tab 11, at 2.  Ecompex responded on September 16 with more
detailed information about its HUD contracts and its subcontractor*s
contracts, and also provided information about a new contract Ecompex
began performing on July 9, for file management services at the Department
of Interior.  The more detailed information explained that, under its
HUD/Ginnie Mae contract, Ecompex had managed 2,500 boxes containing
125,000A folders with a staff that increased from [DELETED] to [DELETED]
people in the first year; under its HUD/Office of Lender Activities
contract, Ecompex had managed 40,000A folders and had a staff that varied
from [DELETED] to [DELETED] people; and under its newly awarded Interior
contract Ecompex was required to manage 60,000 boxes containing 2.5
million folders, with a staff of [DELETED] that was expected to grow to
more than [DELETED].  Agency Report, Tab 13, atA 3a**5.

   A 

   The agency reasonably determined that Ecompex*s experience was not
sufficient because its HUD contracts were not similar in size, scope, or
complexity to the current requirement.  These contracts required file
management services for only 125,000 and 40,000 folders, compared to the
3-5 million folders under the contract here, and required staffs of only
[DELETED] people, compared to the 150 employees called for here.  The
dramatically greater number of folders to be managed under the contract to
be awarded, as well as the substantially greater number of employees
needed to perform the contract, are sufficient, we think, to support the
agency*s finding that the HUD contracts were not simlar to the one here,
and thus did not constitute sufficient experience.[3]

   A 

   Ecompex asserts that the agency should have considered its newly awarded
Interior contract in determining the sufficiency of its experience.  We
find that the agency reasonably excluded this contract from the
evaluation.  First, performance of the contract began after the July 1
closing date, and was referenced by Ecompex for the first time in its
response to the agency*s clarification request concerning the HUD
contracts; the new information could arguably be viewed as a proposal
revision that is not permitted in response to a clarification request. 
See AHNTECH, Inc., Ba**293582, Apr. 13, 2004, 2004 CPD P __ atA 3; All
Diesel Power, Inc., B-224453, Oct. 2, 1986, 86a**2A CPD PA 386 at 2-3.  In
any case, given that the Interior contract still fell significantly short
of the numerical measures of similar experience in the RFP--2.5 versus 3-5
million folders and [DELETED] versus 150A employees--the agency reasonably
could accord this contract little or no weight in the evaluation,
particularly given that the protester had been performing the contract for
only a short time. 

   A 

   Ecompex maintains that, in assessing the firm*s experience, the agency
failed to accord due weight to the experience of its proposed
subcontractors.  The protester points out in this regard that RFP S I
stated that *when evaluating contractor experience under this
solicitation, the Government will consider the experience of both the
prime and any proposed subcontractors.*  RFP at 51 (emphasis in
original).  However, notwithstanding this provision, as discussed, the
agency determined that Ecompex failed to meet the separate requirement
that it have sufficient experience of its own; the experience of Ecompex*s
proposed subcontractors was irrelevant to this determination.

   A 

   EVALUATION OF AEC*S EXPERIENCE

   A 

   Ecompex asserts that AEC has no experience in file management, and that
the agency improperly attributed the experience of affiliated companies to
AEC. 

   A 

   An agency properly may attribute the experience or past performance of a
parent or affiliated company to an offeror where the firm*s proposal
demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect the
performance of the offeror.  Perini/Jones, Joint Venture, B-285906, Nov.
1, 2000, 2002 CPD P 68 at 4.  The relevant consideration is whether the
resources of the parent or affiliated company--its workforce, management,
facilities or other resources--will be provided or relied upon for
contract performance, such that the parent or affiliate will have
meaningful involvement in contract performance.  Id. atA 5.

   A 

   The evaluation of AEC*s experience was unobjectionable.  AEC*s proposal
showed that AEC is one of six subsidiaries that make up Ahtna, Inc.  AEC
Proposal, Vol. I, SA 12.  AEC proposed as key personnel experienced
employees, familiar with large file management contracts, from two Ahtna,
Inc. subsidiaries, Ahtna Development Corporation (ADC) and Ahtna
Government Services Corporation (AGSC), both of which have managed large
file storage facilities.  AEC*s proposal also included a letter from
Ahtna, Inc. stating that it *fully backs* AEC*s efforts to obtain the
Megasite Clerical Support contract, id. at Vol. II, SA 9.0, and also
specifically stated that the financial resources of Ahtna, Inc., including
lines of credit, operating capital, and performance bonding, would be used
to complete the contract.  Id. atA Vol. I, SA 2.1.  Based on the
affiliation of AEC with Ahtna, Inc. and its other subsidiaries, the
subsidiaries* commitment of experienced personnel to perform this
contract, and Ahtna, Inc.*s commitment of financial resources, the agency
had a reasonable basis for attributing the experience of the affiliated
companies to AEC in evaluating AEC*s experience. 

   A 

   LIMITATION ON SUBCONTRACTING

   A 

   Ecompex notes that an SSA auditor questioned whether AEC would comply with
the Limitation on Subcontracting provision in the RFP (requiring that the
prime contractor perform at least 51A percent of the work), RFP at 29, and
asserts that it was unreasonable for the agency to rely on the awardee*s
assurance that it would comply with the limitation. 

   A 

   As a general matter, an agency*s judgment as to whether a small business
offeror will comply with the subcontracting limitation is a matter of
responsibility, and the contractor*s actual compliance with the provision
is a matter of contract

   administration.  Coffman Specialties, Inc., B-284546, B-284546.2, May 10,
2000, 2000A CPD P 77 at 5.  However, where a proposal, on its face, should
lead an agency to the conclusion that an offeror could not and would not
comply with the subcontracting limitation, we have considered this to be a
matter of the proposal*s technical acceptability; a proposal that fails to
conform to a material term and condition of the solicitation such as the
subcontracting limitation, is unacceptable and may not form the basis for
an award.  Id. 

   A 

   There is nothing on the face of AEC*s proposal indicating that the firm
cannot and will not perform at least 51 percent of the work.  After the
SSA auditor expressed his concern that AEC could be performing less than
50 percent of the work, Agency Report, Auditor*s Report, Tab 26, at 5, AEC
assured the agency that it was aware of the subcontracting provision, that
it intended to comply with the requirements, and that it would provide
copies of its monitoring and tracking reports demonstrating that it will
perform more than 51 percent of the work under the contract.  Agency
Report, Response to SSA Auditor*s Questions, Tab 25, at 2.  While the
auditor advised the contracting officer that she could not confirm that
AEC would perform at least 51 percent of the work, Agency Report, Auditor
Report, Tab 30, at 2, the agency ultimately found these responses
sufficient to establish that AEC understood the requirement and intended
to comply with it.  Given the absence from AEC*s proposal of any express
exception to the subcontracting limitation and the absence of any
affirmative finding that AEC could or would not meet the requirement, we
find no basis to question the agency*s reliance on AEC*s assurances in
concluding that AEC agreed to perform as required.

   A 

   The protest is denied.

   A 

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   A 

   A 

   A 

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

   [1] The parties use the terms *file* and *folder* interchangeably in their
submissions.  For consistency, we use the term folder in this decision.

   [2] One of the firms found to be technically unacceptable protested its
technical evaluation to our Office.  We denied the protest.  Career Quest,
Inc., B-292865, Ba**292865.2, Dec. 10, 2003, 2004 CPD P 4.

   [3] Ecompex argues that the agency improperly eliminated it from the
competition based on a lack of *similar* experience, while the
solicitation only required that the prime contractor have *sufficient*
experience of its own.  Ecompex contends that these are two different
standards.  We disagree.  As discussed, the RFP*s evaluation section
provided for evaluating offerors* experience based on the degree of
similarity to the current requirement.  The RFP set forth no different
standard for determining whether the prime contractor*s own experience is
sufficient, and there is no basis for assuming that the agency intended to
focus on something other than similarity in making this determination. 

   A