TITLE: Career Quest, Inc., B-292865; B-292865.2, December 10, 2003
BNUMBER: B-292865; B-292865.2
DATE: December 10, 2003
**********************************************************************
Career Quest, Inc., B-292865; B-292865.2, December 10, 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: Career Quest, Inc.
File: B-292865; B-292865.2
Date: December 10, 2003
Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., and Leslie Anne Bailey, Esq., Moore Hennessy &
Freeman, for the protester.
Catherine G. Powers, Esq., Social Security Administration, 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
1. In evaluation under experience factor, where offerors were to
establish similarity of prior contract to solicited requirement and
sufficient experience of their own, agency reasonably found protester*s
proposal unacceptable on basis that its experience as a prime contractor
was limited to work not comparable to the requirement and otherwise
indicated that the protester*s relevant experience was essentially limited
to its subcontractor*s experience.
2. In evaluation of offerors* proposals, where agency found that one
offeror*s experience as a prime contractor met requirements for similarity
in size, scope, complexity and relevance to the solicited requirements,
but concluded that protester*s experience as a prime was not sufficiently
comparable to solicitation requirements, agency did not engage in unequal
treatment of offerors, since record supports finding that the different
conclusions were reasonable.
DECISION
Career Quest, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from the
competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-03-0523, issued
by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for clerical support services.
Career Quest challenges the agency*s evaluation of the technical
proposals.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, a section 8(a) set-aside, sought proposals to provide clerical
services in support of SSA*s Megasite Folder Storage Facility in
Baltimore, Maryland. The Megasite master files area is designed to house
approximately 4.7 million folders, and the successful offeror will be
responsible for providing all services necessary to the operation of the
Megasite, including refiling, dropfiling, folder retrieval, preparation of
temporary folders, validation, sequencing, and folder inactivation
services. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements
contract for a base year, with 4 option years.
Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of four factors--technical
acceptability, experience, past performance, and price. The technical
acceptability evaluation was to include a review of each offeror*s
management plan and staffing proposal to determine whether the offeror had
the resources, equipment, personnel and expertise to perform the required
services. Experience was to be evaluated on the basis of how an offeror*s
experience at a federal or state agency, or commercial corporation
compared in size, scope, complexity and relevance to the current
requirements--management and operation of a major files storage facility
housing 3 to 5 million files, with a staff of at least 150, and requiring
a high volume of file transfers at multiple external sites on a daily
basis. To demonstrate experience, offerors were to submit a narrative
description of at least two prior contracts that demonstrated experience
performing work of complexity and size similar to that in the statement of
work (SOW). The information had to be sufficient to convince the agency
that the prior work met the similarity requirement, and the RFP warned
that it was not enough to merely state that the work was sufficiently
similar. Technical acceptability and experience were considered equal in
importance and were the most important factors. The past performance and
price factors were of equal importance, and less important than the first
two factors. Only proposals found acceptable under both the technical
acceptability and experience factors were to be evaluated under the
remaining factors.
Thirteen offerors, including Career Quest, [deleted], submitted proposals,
which were evaluated by the technical evaluation committee (TEC). The TEC
evaluated [deleted], and a third offeror*s proposal as *acceptable with
clarifications,* but evaluated Career Quest*s proposal as unacceptable for
lack of corporate experience performing contracts comparable in size,
scope, and complexity to the current procurement. The contracting officer
eliminated Career Quest*s proposal from the competitive range.
EVALUATION OF CAREER QUEST*S PROPOSAL
Career Quest asserts that the agency*s evaluation of its proposal was
flawed, specifically, that it had experience as a prime contractor that
was sufficient to warrant an acceptable rating.
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. CWIS, LLC,
B‑287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 119 at 2.
The evaluation here was unobjectionable. While Career Quest submitted the
required information on two contracts, the agency found that the
information provided did not establish that its experience was
sufficiently similar. In this regard, for the first contract, Career
Quest stated that it had performed project management as a subcontractor
to [deleted] on an [deleted] contract that required coding, indexing, and
scanning millions of separate documents, each with a separate barcode,
*much like the folders stored at the Megasite.* Experience/Past
Performance Proposal at 2. It stated further that the work involved some
packaging and marking similar to the inactivation task at the Megasite,
id., and likened this work to that at the Megasite. However, the agency
concluded that this contract did not constitute similar experience,
reasoning that merely processing millions of separate documents was not
sufficiently similar to managing and operating a major file facility
housing more than 4 million files (each of which, the agency indicates,
would contain a number of separate documents), which will involve
different management and file management tasks. Agency Report (AR) at 7.
We find no basis for questioning the agency*s conclusion; the efforts
appear to involve different tasks and responsibilities, and Career Quest
has not established otherwise.[1]
The agency also found that Career Quest*s proposal failed to provide
specific information describing the staffing levels or workload volumes to
establish its experience performing work requiring a staff of at least 150
people. AR at 7; AR, Tab 12, at 6. In this regard, Career Quest*s second
listed contract involved training hundreds of support staff to work at
[deleted], many of whom were promoted to supervisory positions, and who
created, filed, retrieved and/or disposed of millions of reservation files
working for [deleted]. Experience/Past Performance Proposal at 3. Again,
we find no basis to question the agency*s conclusion; we think the agency
reasonably could determine that training hundreds of personnel to handle
reservations for another employer is materially different from the
requirement to manage more than 100 personnel in performing the file
management work called for in the RFP. Again, the protester has not
established otherwise.
Career Quest asserts that the agency improperly failed to consider the
experience of its proposed subcontractor, noting that the RFP specifically
provided that the agency *will consider the experience of both the prime
and any proposed subcontractors.* RFP, Addendum I, at I‑2(b). In
this regard, it notes that its subcontractor, [deleted], is the incumbent
firm for this requirement.
Again, there is nothing objectionable in the evaluation. The record shows
that the agency in fact considered all of Career Quest*s and [deleted]*s
experience in the evaluation, and that it assigned strengths to Career
Quest based on its association with its subcontractor, and that firm*s
experience with a similar operation and continuity of service. AR, Tab
12, at 6. However, as discussed above, Career Quest was downgraded due to
the lack of its own similar experience. In this regard, the RFP
specifically warned joint arrangement offerors (such as Career Quest) that
their proposals must clearly demonstrate that the section 8(a) prime
contractor had sufficient experience and resources of its own, and was not
relying solely on the subcontractor to provide the expertise and/or
resources. RFP Addendum H at H‑1(b)(12)(b). Since Career Quest,
the proposed prime contractor, failed to provide information establishing
that it possessed similar experience, as discussed above, we have no basis
for questioning the agency*s determination that Career Quest was
unacceptable under the experience factor, and its decision to eliminate
Career Quest*s proposal from the competitive range.
Career Quest notes that the former [deleted] management team, all of whom
had submitted letters of commitment, as well as some of [deleted]*s
clerks, would be working for Career Quest, and asserts that the agency
improperly failed to credit their experience to the firm. This argument
is without merit. The agency did consider the proposed personnel*s
experience, but discounted it as a substitute for prime contractor
experience, observing that all of the proposed management personnel were
currently employed by [deleted]; none was a current Career Quest
employee. Contracting Officer*s Statement at 3. In the TEC*s view, in
proposing to *roll over* [deleted]*s supervisory personnel to Career Quest
*on paper,* Career Quest was leaving [deleted] *primarily in charge of
getting the work done.* AR, Tab 12, at 6. We find nothing unreasonable
in this conclusion. Career Quest further asserts that the agency should
have considered the experience of its proposed Project Coordinator, a
current Career Quest employee who was the former project manager for SSA*s
National Records Center. However, the agency did not give this
individual*s experience any weight in the evaluation because he was not
included on the organizational chart in Career Quest*s proposal, and was
found not to have a clearly defined role in performance of the contract.
AR at 7 n.3. In this regard, Career Quest*s proposal stated only that
that the Coordinator would travel to Baltimore *on a regular basis to meet
with . . . project personnel and the SSA Project Officer* (Proposal at
11), and that its corporate offices would serve as a check and balance to
the on-site project management team (Proposal at 9). Given the absence
from the proposal of any information establishing that the project
coordinator would be involved in the day-to-day management of the
contract, it was reasonable for the agency not to credit the firm with his
experience.
EVALUATION OF OTHER PROPOSALS
Career Quest asserts that the agency evaluated its proposal unfairly in
comparison to three other proposals. Specifically, it maintains that
[deleted], one of the offerors retained in the competitive range, had
experience and teaming arrangements similar to its own.
This argument has no merit. In evaluating [deleted]*s proposal, the
agency identified weaknesses regarding the proposed project manager*s and
assistant project manager*s lack of experience and the fact that they
currently were not on the firm*s team; its lack of clarity as to the
comparability to the requirement of its prior document management
experience; its failure to clearly state the roles of its proposed
subcontractors; and its identification of some experience, which included
subcontractors who were not proposed to work on this requirement. AR, Tab
12, at 3. While Career Quest asserts that these criticisms are similar to
those raised against its proposal, we agree with the agency that they are
clearly distinguishable. The driving criticism in the evaluation of
Career Quest*s proposal was the lack of its own relevant experience and
the firm*s reliance solely on its subcontractor*s and its proposed
management team*s experience to meet the requirement. In contrast,
although the TEC needed to clarify the scope of [deleted]*s experience,
the firm was found to have prime contractor experience that was *somewhat
similar* to that sought by the RFP under three contracts, two of which
involved work with records at the National Archives and Records
Administration and the National Library of Medicine. AR, Tab 12, at 3.
In addition, while the only strengths identified for Career Quest*s
proposal related to its proposed subcontractor, the TEC evaluation found
several strengths associated with [deleted]*s proposal--a clear
understanding of the SOW requirements; good quality control and transition
plans; and identification of staffing breakdowns for workloads and by
year. Id. Thus, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency*s
determination to seek clarifications from [deleted], while at the same
time eliminating Career Quest*s proposal from the competitive range as
unacceptable.
As to a second offeror, [deleted], Career Quest asserts that the agency*s
evaluation of its proposal here was inconsistent with its evaluation under
a similar procurement conducted 2 years ago for the SSA*s National Records
Center (NRC), where both firms* proposals were found acceptable. [2] This
argument is without merit. How offerors* proposals were evaluated in the
NRC procurement is not relevant to this procurement and does not establish
unequal treatment. Each federal procurement stands on its own; the
agency*s determination of technical acceptability under a prior
procurement does not require it to find a proposal acceptable under a
separate procurement. Sabreliner Corp., B-275163 et al., Dec. 31, 1996,
96-2 CPD P: 244 at 2 n.2.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] Career Quest also challenges the agency*s reference to an alleged
inconsistency in its proposal regarding its ability to *do more with
less,* while at the same time apparently proposing more staff than is
currently used on the incumbent contract. Protest at 7. While the TEC
mentioned this apparent inconsistency, as well as one concerning the
protester*s quality control record, it is clear from the evaluation record
that the TEC*s sole reason for finding the proposal unacceptable was
Career Quest*s lack of any relevant corporate experience. Agency Report,
Tab 12, at 6. Since the alleged inconsistencies had no apparent impact on
the agency*s competitive range decision, this decision will not address
the merits of these matters.
[2] Career Quest also challenged the evaluation of its experience as
compared to that of a third offeror. However, that offeror*s proposal was
subsequently eliminated from the competitive range. Accordingly, we do
not address the evaluation of that proposal.