TITLE:  Clapp & Mayne, a Division of Renaissance Information Systems, Inc., B-292904, December 29, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292904
DATE:  December 29, 2003
**********************************************************************
Clapp & Mayne, a Division of Renaissance Information Systems, Inc., B-292904,
December 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:   Clapp & Mayne, a Division of Renaissance Information Systems,
Inc.
    
File:            B-292904
    
Date:              December 29, 2003
    
Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker,
McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, for the protester.
Diane A. Perone, Esq., Agency for International Development, 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
    
Protester*s proposals were properly excluded from the competitive range
where agency reasonably identified multiple deficiencies and/or weaknesses
in protester*s proposed technical approach to performing the solicitation
requirements for each performance sector, and concluded that, without
major revisions, neither proposal had a reasonable chance of being
selected for award.
DECISION
    
Clapp & Mayne, a Division of Renaissance Information Systems, Inc. (C&M),
protests the U.S. Agency for International Development*s (USAID) exclusion
of C&M*s proposals from the competitive range under request for proposals
(RFP) No. M/OP‑02-026 to provide technical assistance and support in
furtherance of USAID objectives to stabilize world population and protect
human health. C&M protests that the agency improperly determined that
C&M*s technical proposals contained multiple weaknesses and/or
deficiencies.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
BACKGROUND
    
The solicitation was issued on January 17, 2003, seeking proposals to
provide technical assistance and support to USAID in the following three
performance  *sectors*:  (1) child health, maternal health and nutrition,
population, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and infectious diseases (collectively referred to as
the *global health* sector); (2) tuberculosis; and (3) media relations,
public opinion, polling and advocacy (collectively referred to as the
*media* sector).  Agency Report, Tab 5, RFP, at 9-10.  The solicitation
stated that separate competitions would be conducted for each of the
performance sectors and offerors were invited to submit separate proposals
for any or all of the competitions.  The agency stated that it intended to
make multiple awards of indefinite-quantity contracts for each sector. 
    
With regard to source selection, offerors were advised that contract
awards would be made on a *best value* basis and that proposals would be
evaluated with regard to cost/price and the following technical factors,
listed in descending order of importance:  personnel, technical approach,
past performance, and management plan.[1]  Agency Report, Tab 5, RFP, at
78.  The solicitation provided that the technical factors would be
*significantly more important* than cost/price.  Agency Report, Tab 5,
RFP, at 76. 
    
With regard to the evaluation factor for assessing proposed technical
approach, offerors were required to respond in two parts.  First, offerors
were directed to address various sample tasks contained within the
solicitation.[2]  Second, offerors were required to discuss their
understanding and general approach to performing the contract requirements
of each performance sector.[3] 
    
On or before the March 24 closing date, the agency received 5 proposals,
including C&M*s, responding to the tuberculosis requirements, and 12
proposals, including C&M*s, responding to the global health sector
requirements.[4]  Thereafter, separate technical evaluation panels (TEP)
evaluated the proposals for the respective sectors.[5] 
    
In evaluating C&M*s proposal to perform the tuberculosis requirements, the
TEP identified multiple weaknesses and/or deficiencies under each of the
technical evaluation factors;[6] C&M*s technical proposal was ranked 4th
of the 5 proposals submitted.  More specifically, in evaluating C&M*s
tuberculosis proposal under the single evaluation factor for assessing
technical approach, the TEP identified [deleted] deficiencies and
[deleted] *significant* weaknesses,[7] and assigned C&M*s proposal an
adjectival rating of [deleted] under that evaluation factor.  Agency
Report, Tab 12, at 4-6. 
    
Similarly, in evaluating C&M*s proposal to perform the global health
requirements, the TEP identified [deleted] significant weaknesses under
the various technical evaluation factors;[8] C&M*s technical proposal to
perform the global health requirements was ranked 11th of the 12 proposals
submitted.  More specifically, in evaluating C&M*s global health proposal
under the single evaluation factor for assessing technical approach, the
TEP identified [deleted] *significant* weaknesses and concluded that C&M*s
overall understanding and technical approach was *very superficial.* 
Agency Report, Tab 20, at 35-37.     
    
Based on the totality of the evaluated weaknesses and/or deficiencies in
each of C&M*s proposals, the TEPs for each of the two performance sectors
separately concluded that, without major revisions, neither of C&M*s
proposals had a reasonable chance of being selected for award; accordingly
both proposals were excluded from further consideration.  Thereafter, C&M
was notified that its proposals had been excluded from the competitive
range for both performance sectors; this protest followed.
    
DISCUSSION
    
C&M challenges the reasonableness of the agency*s assessment of multiple
weaknesses/deficiencies in its technical proposals and argues that, even
if C&M*s proposals were properly evaluated as containing multiple flaws,
the agency should have given C&M an opportunity to correct those flaws. 
We disagree.
    
In reviewing a protest challenging an agency*s evaluation of technical
proposals, our Office will not reevaluate proposals but, rather, will
examine the record to determine whether the agency*s judgments were
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
applicable statutes and regulations.  A protester*s mere disagreement with
the agency*s judgments does not establish that the evaluation was
unreasonable.  SDS Int*l, Inc., B-291183.4, B-291183.5, Apr. 28, 2003,
2003 CPD P: 127 at 5-6.
    
With regard to competitive range determinations, contracting agencies are
not required to include proposals that have no realistic chance of being
selected for award.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 15.306(c)(1);
SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B‑280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 59
at 5-6.  Where a proposal would require major revisions to become eligible
for award, exclusion from the competitive range is generally permissible. 
CMC & Maint., Inc., B- 290152, June 24, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 107 at 2. 
Similarly, proposals that reflect material informational omissions
regarding fundamental performance requirements may be properly excluded
from further consideration.  American Med. Depot, B-285060 et al., July
12, 2000, 2002 CPD P: 7 at 6-7.
    
Tuberculosis Sector
    
Here, as discussed above, C&M*s proposed technical approach to performing
the solicitation requirements for the tuberculosis sector was evaluated as
being deficient in various aspects.  In describing these deficiencies, the
TEP stated, among other things: 
    
D[eficiency] -- There is a clear mismatch between [deleted] and [deleted]
of [C&M*s] technical proposal in terms of applying knowledge about
[deleted] to [deleted].  Indeed the proposal reflects . . . an inability
of the offeror to apply even the most basic technical concepts to
[deleted].  For example, [the] section [of C&M*s proposal] on [deleted]
mentions nothing about [deleted] or [deleted]; section on [deleted] does
not describe [deleted]; description of [deleted] mentions nothing about
[deleted], and how [deleted] is being implemented [deleted]; description
of [deleted] is incoherent; and description of [deleted] provides no
information about [deleted].  This suggests that the offeror[*s]
conceptual knowledge has not been [deleted], as well as an inability to
[deleted].
D[eficiency] -- [deleted].
D[eficiency] --  Proposal fails to make any connection with the [deleted].
D[eficiency] -- The summary of [deleted] is incomplete.  At a minimum, it
should include information on [deleted].
D[eficiency] -- Offeror incorrectly implies that [deleted].  [This]
suggests that the offeror does not possess a sound technical basis for
[deleted].
Agency Report, Tab 12, at 6.
    
In its comments responding to the agency report, C&M fails to
address--much less, rebut--all but one of the proposal deficiencies
identified above.[9]  Instead of substantively responding to the
overwhelming majority of the agency*s criticisms, C&M uses a significant
portion of its comments to tout the qualifications of C&M*s proposal
authors and, conversely, to disparage the qualifications of the agency
evaluators.[10]  C&M Comments, Nov. 17, 2003, at 13-15.  That is, rather
than providing objective evidence or substantive arguments that the
identified deficiencies were inaccurate or otherwise erroneous, C&M
essentially maintains that C&M*s perceptions regarding the qualifications
of its own personnel, as compared to C&M*s perceptions of the agency
evaluators* qualifications, constitute ample support to overturn the
evaluation.  C&M summarizes its position as follows:    
    
The relative expertise of the evaluators compared to the authors of
[C&M*s] proposal suggest . . . that on questions of subjective technical
judgment, the proposal authors would be in a far better position to
exercise better informed judgment.
Id.
    
Based on our review of the record, including the unrebutted identification
and description of the multiple proposal deficiencies reflected in C&M*s
technical approach, we find no basis to question the agency*s conclusion
that C&M*s proposal had no reasonable chance of being selected for award
under the tuberculosis sector.
    
Global Health Sector
    
Similarly, in evaluating C&M*s proposed technical approach to performing
the global health requirements, the TEP identified multiple *significant*
weaknesses in C&M*s proposal.  Specifically, the TEP concluded that each
of C&M*s responses to the five sample tasks regarding global health
reflected significant flaws.  For example, with regard to the sample task
for post-abortion care,[11] the TEP stated:
    
[Deleted] was not addressed; [deleted] was not included in the [deleted].
(S[ignificant weakness])  No [deleted].  (S[ignificant weakness]) 
[Deleted] is not addressed adequately.  (S[ignificant weakness]) 
[Deleted] are not mentioned . . . (S[ignifiant weakness]) 
[Deleted] is missing.  [Deleted] missing.  (S[ignificant weakness])  Does
not mention [deleted]; and doesn*t mention [deleted] as a major issue in
[deleted]. . . .  Inconsistencies between [deleted] and [deleted].[[12]] 
Agency Report, Tab 20, at 35-36. 
    
Other than asserting that its proposal does, in fact, contain a reference
to [deleted], and arguing that its [deleted] were not difficult to
understand,[13] C&M*s comments offer no substantive rebuttal to any of the
above-identified flaws in its proposal. 
    
Similarly, with regard to the C&M*s response to the solicitation*s sample
task regarding child health and nutrition in Ukraine,[14] the TEP stated: 
    
(S[ignificant weakness])  No [deleted] as requested.  Does not mention
that [deleted].  (S[ignificant weakness])  Presents an unwieldy and
over-ambitious [deleted], including inappropriate [deleted].  Does not
describe [deleted]. 
Agency Report, Tab 20, at 36. 
    
Again, C&M*s comments responding to the agency report offer nothing of
substance to challenge the agency*s assessments, arguing only that the
agency*s concern with regard to the required [deleted] was *trivial.* 
Protester*s Comments on Agency Report, Nov. 17, 2003, at 22.
    
Finally, with regard to the solicitation requirement that offerors discuss
their understanding and general technical approach with regard to policy
reform, community and individual behavior change, service delivery,
training and commodities, and operations/applied research, see Agency
Report, Tab 5, RFP, at 71, the TEP criticized C&M*s proposal, stating:
    
Overall Understanding/Approach:  [V]ery superficial.  Policy Reform:  Weak
comprehension of [deleted].  [Deleted] are not specific to [deleted]. 
Discussion does not mention [deleted].  [Community and Individual Behavior
Change:]  Very few details or examples--*based on theory* not sufficient. 
Proposal does not mention the [deleted] and [deleted].  Service Delivery: 
(S[ignificant weakness]).  The 4 sentences don*t indicate that they know
what is required for delivery services:  [deleted].  Proposal does not
mention [deleted].  Training:  No information about [deleted]. 
Commodities:  Information insufficient on [deleted].  Discussion does not
include [deleted].  Research:  Unclear that offeror understands [deleted]
to be different from [deleted].  There is no stated intent to [deleted]. 
Not much discussion on [deleted]. 
Agency Report, Tab 20, at 36-37. 
    
C&M*s comments responding to the agency report do not substantively
address these criticisms of C&M*s proposal in any way.   
    
Again, based on our review of the record, including the agency*s
identification of multiple flaws in C&M*s proposed technical approach to
performing the global health requirements and C&M*s failure to
substantively refute the bases for the agency*s criticisms, along with the
agency*s ranking of C&M*s technical proposal as 11th of the 12 proposals
submitted, we find no basis to question the agency*s conclusion that C&M*s
proposal stood no reasonable chance of being selected for award under the
global health sector.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

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

   [1] Under each technical factor, proposals were assigned adjectival
ratings of *outstanding,* *very good,* *good,* *marginal,* or
*unacceptable.*  Agency Report, Tab 5, RFP, at 78.
[2]  With regard to the tuberculosis sector, the solicitation contained a
sample task requiring offerors to address various aspects of implementing
*[d]irectly [o]bserved therapy [s]hort-course* (DOTS) (a strategy
recommended by the World Health Organization) in Tajikistan, with a
stipulated cost ceiling of $1 million.  Agency Report, Tab 5, RFP, at 71. 
With regard to the global health sector, the solicitation contained five
sample tasks:  one regarding post-abortion care in areas with low
population density; one regarding maternal health and nutrition in a
sub-Saharan African country; one involving child health and nutrition in
Ukraine; one involving counseling and testing services for HIV/AIDS in
sub-Saharan Africa; and one regarding current programs for infectious
disease for the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Agency Report, Tab 5, RFP,
at 70-71.  In addition to describing their proposed technical approaches
to performing the sample tasks, offerors were directed to provide work
plans and product outlines describing the deliverable(s) and/or result(s)
of each sample task.  Agency Report, Tab 5, RFP, at 70.   
[3]  With regard to the global health sector, the solicitation required
offerors to *provide a concise summary of [the offeror*s] understanding
and general approach to (1) policy reform; (2) community and individual
behavior change; (3) service delivery; (4) training and commodities; and
(5) operations and applied research.*  Agency Report, Tab 5, RFP, at 71. 
With regard to the tuberculosis sector, offerors were required to *provide
a concise summary of [the offeror*s] understanding and general approach to
Tuberculosis programs.*  Id.
[4] C&M did not compete to perform the media requirements; accordingly, we
do not further discuss that aspect of the procurement.
[5] The agency states that each of the evaluation panels was comprised of
*mutually exclusive panel participants.*  Agency Report at 3.
[6] In evaluating C&M*s proposal under all four technical evaluation
factors, the agency identified a total of 64 weaknesses or deficiencies. 
Agency Report, Tab 12, at 1.  
[7] Under the evaluation plan employed by the TEP, a deficiency was
defined as *a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government
requirement,* and a *significant* weakness was defined as a weakness that
*appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.* 
Agency Report, Tab 6, at 8. 
[8] In evaluating C&M*s proposal under all four technical evaluation
factors, the TEP identified a total of 14 *significant* weaknesses. 
Agency Report, Tab 20, at 34-40.
[9] The only deficiency that C&M even attempts to address in any
substantive manner is the agency*s statement that C&M *incorrectly implies
that [deleted].*  Agency Report, Tab 12, at 5.  In response to this
identified deficiency, C&M asserts that its proposal *neither stated nor
implied that [deleted].*  Protester*s Comments on Agency Report, Nov. 17,
2003, at 17.  The record is to the contrary.  C&M*s proposal states: 
*[deleted].*  Agency Report, Tab 8, at 19.  On this record, we find no
basis to question the agency*s assessment [deleted].   
[10] For example, C&M asserts that, *the conclusions of the evaluators
indicate a limited understanding of DOTS planning and implementation,
which is not surprising given their limited experience and background
implementing DOTS for TB in developing countries.*  C&M Comments on Agency
Report, Nov. 17, 2003, at 16. 
[11] The solicitation described this sample task as follows:  *A mission
requests technical assistance to the national family health program to
pilot postabortion care services at 5 community health clinics in a
district with very low population density.  Please describe the process
you would undertake to respond including whom you would assign to the task
and a draft workplan, and timeline.*  Agency Report, Tab 5, at 70.
[12] The agency separately identified the RFP-required [deleted] in C&M*s
proposal as a *significant* weakness.  In addition to the above-stated
criticism that there were *inconsistencies between [deleted] and
[deleted],* the TEP described C&M*s [deleted] as *so poorly presented that
they are hard to understand.*  Agency Report, Tab 20, at 35. 
[13] C&M does not dispute the agency*s criticism that C&M*s [deleted] were
inconsistent with its [deleted].
[14] Regarding this sample task, the solicitation stated:  *If the Task
Order requested providing a short-term team to assess policy constraints
to an integrated program in child health and nutrition programs in the
Ukraine, whom would you assign to the task?  What resources would you
access before the field assignment?  Present an outline of the assessment,
draft table of contents of the report, and timeline.*  Agency Report, Tab
5, at 70.