TITLE:  Ridoc Enterprise, Inc., B-292962.4, July 6, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-292962.4
DATE:  July 6, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Ridoc Enterprise, Inc.

   File:            B-292962.4

   Date:              July 6, 2004

   Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., and Nolan Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for
the protester.

   David J. Taylor, Esq., Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, for C.R.B.
Associates of Virginia, Inc., an intervenor.

   Audrey Roh, Esq., Department of Homeland Security-U.S. Coast Guard, 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.  Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester*s quotation is
denied where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent
with stated evaluation criteria, and protester*s contentions amount to
disagreement with the evaluation.

   2.  Protester is not interested party for purposes of challenging
awardee*s entitlement to award where record shows that, even if protester
were correct, intervening vendor, not protester, would be next in line for
award. 

   DECISION

   Ridoc Enterprise, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to C.R.B.
Associates of Virginia, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
DTCG84-03-Q-AA5063, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Coast Guard, for armed security guard and fire communications operator
services at the Coast Guard Service Center, Elizabeth City, North
Carolina.  Ridoc principally challenges the agency*s evaluation of its and
C.R.B.*s quotations.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFQ, issued August 13, 2003 as a section 8(a) set-aside, contemplated
the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order for a base year, with four
1-year options.  The RFQ included a detailed performance work statement
(PWS) outlining the contractor*s responsibilities, including, for example,
training, key control, emergency procedures, standard operating
procedures, duties of the main gate, back gate, and roving security
guards, duties of the watch commander, and the watch routine.  The PWS
also outlined the duties of the fire communications operator, provided a
list of *deliverables* to be submitted by the contractor with required due
dates, and listed personnel and quality control requirements. 

   The RFQ provided for a *best value* award based on price and the following
equallya**weighted evaluation factors:  corporate experience/management
capability, technical plan, quality control plan (QCP), training plan,
personnel qualifications, and past performance.  These factors combined
were significantly more important than price.  The RFQ reserved the
agency*s right to make award on the basis of initial quotations. 

   The agency received 10 quotations, including those of Ridoc (with
subcontractor Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc.) and C.R.B.
(with subcontractors Top Guard Security and End to End Technical
Services), by the September 2, 2003 closing date.  The agency evaluated
C.R.B.*s quotation as the best value and notified vendors of its decision
to issue a purchase order to C.R.B.  Ridoc challenged the award in a
series of protests (B-292962, B-292962.2, and B-292962.3).  Following an
*outcome prediction* alternative dispute resolution session conducted by
our Office, the agency determined to take corrective action by
reevaluating quotations. 

   On reevaluation, Ridoc*s quotation received an overall technical rating of
unsatisfactory, with marginal ratings under the technical plan and
corporate experience/management capability factors, an unsatisfactory
rating under the QCP factor, a satisfactory rating under the training
factor, a good rating under the personnel qualifications factor, and a
satisfactory rating for past performance.[1]  C.R.B.*s quotation received
an overall rating of good, with excellent ratings under the QCP and
training factors; good ratings under the corporate experience/management
capability, technical plan and personnel qualifications factors; and a
very good rating for past performance.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Memo
for Award, at 9-10.  Based on their unsatisfactory rating, Ridoc*s and
seven other vendors* quotations were eliminated from award consideration
as technically unacceptable.  Id. at 10.  Of the two remaining quotations,
C.R.B.*s was determined to be the best value.  Id.    

   Ridoc challenges virtually all of the agency*s reasons for rejecting its
quotation.  In reviewing a protest of an agency*s evaluation, it is not
our role to reevaluate quotations; rather, we will consider only whether
the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the
solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.
    QuickHire, LLC, B-293098, Jan. 30, 2004, 2004 CPD P 33 at 2.  We have
reviewed all of the allegations and find no basis to question the agency*s
award determination.  We address the more significant allegations below.

   CORPORATE EXPERIENCE/MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

   The RFQ stated that the corporate experience/management capability
evaluation would be based on the vendor*s capability statement,
certificate of insurance or letter from its insurance company, and
references.  RFQ at 46.  As noted, Ridoc*s quotation was evaluated as
marginal under this factor.  In its evaluation, the agency listed several
weaknesses, noting, for example, that Ridoc stated in its quotation that
*it is primarily a manufacturing firm of satin pillows and apparel,*
failed to explain how it would manage its subcontractor, and did not show
management of services experience or provide sufficient managerial
information.  AR, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation Memo, at 3.

   Security Experience

   Ridoc argues that the agency ignored its security experience, noting that
it specifically stated in its quotation that *Ridoc . . . has been
performing security services for commercial entities during the past
year.*  Protester*s Comments at 5.  The protester also points to a
security guard services contract listed in its quotation to support this
position.   

   The evaluation in this area was unobjectionable.  The record shows that
Ridoc*s  capability statement consisted of the following four sentences:

   In 1990 Ridoc Enterprises, Inc. began by manufacturing and selling

   satin pillowcases under it*s own label.  Today they manufacture a

   complete line of apparel under the Ridoc label.  Ridoc is a manufacturer

   and distributor of protective textile apparel, in addition to providing

   general and specialized services to customers requiring assistance

   in cleaning, uniforms, and purchase of greige goods (fabrics).

   Ridoc is 8a certified and diversifying from manufacturing into

   services since the manufacturing climate for textiles has

   deteriorated.

   Ridoc Quotation at 75.  Thus, while Ridoc stated that it is diversifying,
its capability statement clearly indicates that it continues to
manufacture apparel; the agency*s reference to Ridoc*s status as primarily
an apparel manufacturer was consistent with this information.  Further,
contrary to Ridoc*s position that the Coast Guard ignored its recent
performance of security services, the agency in fact specifically noted as
a strength that Ridoc *stated it has supported commercial security
customers.*  AR, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation Memo, at 3. 

   Management of Subcontractor

   Noting that the RFQ did not require a management plan, Ridoc asserts that
the agency improperly applied an unstated evaluation criterion by
downgrading its quotation for not specifying how Ridoc would manage its
subcontractor.  However, while procuring agencies are required to identify
significant evaluation factors and subfactors in a solicitation, they are
not required to identify every aspect of each factor that might be taken
into account, provided that they are reasonably related to or encompassed
by the evaluation criteria.  Network Eng*g, Inc., B-292996, Jan. 7, 2004,
2004, CPD P 23 at 3.  Here, the RFQ identified management capability as an
evaluation factor.  It is plain, we think, that a vendor*s ability to
manage its subcontractor logically relates to the adequacy of its overall
management capability; we thus see nothing objectionable in the agency*s
downgrading Ridoc*s quotation for failing to include information in this
regard. 

   Ridoc argues in the alternative that its quotation included adequate
information addressing the management of its proposed subcontractor,
noting that its organizational charts reflect that its subcontractor *is
managed by Ridoc*s proposed Project Manager . . . [who] is managed by
Ridoc*s vice president . . . .*  Protester*s Comments at 5.  We agree with
the agency, however, that Ridoc*s organizational charts were not a
substitute for an explanation as to Ridoc*s responsibilities and
procedures for managing its subcontractor to ensure that the required
services would be satisfactorily performed.  Moreover, Ridoc*s assertions
as to its organizational charts notwithstanding, one of the charts in its
quotation actually shows that all personnel under the contract except the
quality control supervisor and Ridoc*s vice president would report to the
watch/site supervisor, an employee of the proposed subcontractor,
Myers.[2]  Ridoc Quotation at 3.  Thus, we find nothing unreasonable in
the agency*s concerns regarding management of Ridoc*s proposed
subcontractor were reasonable. 

   Management Experience

   Ridoc complains that its quotation was improperly downgraded for failure
to show experience managing services and for lack of managerial
information.  To support its position, the protester cites the experience
of its management team, including its vice president and its quality
control supervisor and training coordinator, and Myers*s president,
general manager, and operations manager. 

   Ridoc maintains that the solicitation did not require that quotations
include all managerial information, and that it has provided sufficient
information concerning its management capability.

   Ridoc*s argument that the experience of its individual managers
demonstrates its ability to manage this contract is based on its belief
that the agency must impute to Ridoc, as an organization, the experience
of its proposed managers.  We have held, however, that while an agency may
properly consider the experience of key personnel in evaluating an
entity*s corporate experience, Rice Servs., Ltd., Ba**284997.5, Mar. 12,
2002, 2002 CPD P 59 at 5, absent a solicitation provision mandating such
consideration, there is no legal requirement that it do so.  Id.  In any
event, we note that the information submitted regarding the experience of
the various managers was general in nature, lacking specificity and
detail.  For example, Ridoc*s vice president was described as having *a
background in management of both manufacturing and service businesses.  He
oversees a commercial security contract and is familiar with the
requirements and has participated fully in the preparation of this
proposal.  [He] has 27 years management experience in local government and
commercial activities.*  Ridoc Quotation at 7.  The agency could
reasonably view such general summaries as lacking the detail required to
assess the firm*s management capability.  Accordingly, we conclude that
the corporate experience/management capability evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with the RFQ.

   TECHNICAL PLAN

   The RFQ required vendors to submit a technical plan addressing the methods
to be used to support the required services, including the method to be
used to recruit, retain, and employ personnel, and the method for
directing resources and equipment to remote sites (including the type of
equipment, storage of equipment, and the dedication of corporate personnel
and resources).  RFQ at 46.

   Ridoc*s quotation was evaluated as marginal under this factor based
primarily on the agency*s assessment that Ridoc, the prime contractor, *is
managed by the sub[contractor] . . .[creating] a substantial risk to
project performance.*  AR, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation Memo, at 7.  In
support of this determination, the agency noted several weaknesses in
Ridoc*s quotation, including, for example, that the project manager would
be appointed by both the prime contractor and the subcontractor; the prime
contractor would grant the project manager, an employee of the
subcontractor, full authority on the project; and the site supervisor, a
subcontractor employee, would be charged with hiring all personnel.[3] 
Id.  The agency also determined that Ridoc*s quotation demonstrated
*unfamiliarity* with the solicitation and the work required, finding, for
example, that the protester referred to a collective bargaining agreement
that does not apply to this contract.  Id.

   Ridoc asserts that it, not its subcontractor, would manage the work,
noting that its quotation stated in the corporate experience/management
capability section that its proposed site supervisor, who is currently a
Myers employee, would become a Ridoc employee upon award and would report
directly to Ridoc.  Ridoc Quotation at 75-76; Protester*s Comments at 14. 
Ridoc asserts further that, because the guards would work for the site
supervisor, it *has found that accountability and ownership of hires is
enhanced by having the site supervisor . . . perform the personnel
selection and hiring.*  Protester*s Comments at 13.  Ridoc contends that
the agency applied an unstated evaluation factor in considering
performance risk and, finally, asserts that its reference to a collective
bargaining agreement *is information . . . from one of Ridoc*s previous
proposals* and could have been easily corrected in discussions.  Id. at
16. 

   Based on our reading of the quotation, we find the agency*s assessment
reasonable.  The quotation states unequivocally that *Ridoc and Myers will
appoint a Watch Supervisor (Project Manager) with full authority to manage
the project at the local level,* and that Ridoc *grants the Program
Manager the full authority to take any action required by the Government .
. . .*  Ridoc Quotation at 2.  Ridoc*s proposed watch supervisor/program
manager was a Myers employee and, contrary to the protester*s assertion,
we find no statement in the quotation or in Ridoc*s prime/subcontractor
agreement with Myers (and Ridoc does not point to any statement in either
document) to the effect that the proposed program manager was to become a
Ridoc employee upon contract award. [4]  Moreover, as noted above, Ridoc*s
organizational chart indicates that all employees except Ridoc*s vice
president and its QC supervisor report to the program manager, a Myers
employee.  Ridoc*s view that accountability and ownership of hires are
enhanced by having the site supervisor perform personnel selection does
not address the agency*s concern regarding the vesting of management
responsibility in the subcontractor rather than in the prime. [5] 

   Ridoc*s argument that performance risk is an unstated evaluation factor is
without merit.  As noted above, agencies may evaluate various aspects of
an evaluation factor, provided they are reasonably related to or
encompassed by the RFQ evaluation criteria.  Network Eng*g, Inc., supra,
at 3.  Even when performance risk is not specifically listed in the
solicitation as an evaluation criterion, an agency may always consider
risk intrinsic to the stated evaluation factors, that is, risk that
arises, for example, from the vendor*s approach or demonstrated lack of
understanding.  Davies Rail &A Mech. Works, Inc., B-278260.2, Feb. 25,
1998, 98-1 CPD P 134 at 10.  Here, the agency reasonably concluded that
Ridoc*s relationship with its subcontractor represented a performance risk
inherent in its approach.      

   Ridoc*s argument that it could have corrected certain factual problems or
inconsistencies had the agency raised them during discussions is without
merit.  There is no obligation that a contracting agency conduct
discussions where, as here, the RFQ specifically instructs vendors of the
agency*s intent to issue a purchase order on the basis of initial
quotations.  See Techseco, Inc., B-284949, June 19, 2000, 2000 CPD P 105
at 4.  Ridoc therefore could not reasonably presume that it would have a
later opportunity to augment or correct its quotation.

   QCP

   The RFQ required vendors to submit a QCP and stated that the plan would be
evaluated for *[c]ompleteness (to include effectiveness and timeliness)
and compliance with the . . . [PWS]; to include but not limited to: 
Staffing, Sanitation Practices, Budget and Accounting Practices and
Hurricane Plan.*  RFQ at 46.  The PWS specified that the QCP shall
include, but not be limited to, 19 topics, including, for example, the
objectives for the system, supervision of services, budget and accounting
practices, labor practices (hiring, retention, and rewards and
substitutions), waste management (including recycling), key control
procedures, and employee training.  Id. atA 32a**33.  In its evaluation,
the agency noted strengths and weaknesses of each vendor*s QCP and
specifically noted whether the plan addressed each of the 19 topics
specified in the PWS.  Ridoc*s quotation was evaluated as unsatisfactory
under the QCP factor, primarily based on the agency*s determination that
it addressed only 4 of the 19 topics.  AR, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation
Document, at 13; Tab 10, Memo for Award, at 10. 

   Ridoc asserts that its quotation addressed all topics and contends that
its QCP is *tailored specifically to the items that are required to be
performed pursuant to the PWS . . . .*  Protester*s Comments at 24.  For
example, Ridoc argues that it included 15 objectives of its QCP at pages
36-37 of its quotation, Id. at 21, and lists specific sections on pages 52
through 74 of its quotation that it argues address 9 other topics.  For
example, the protester states that section 5.2.8 of its quotation
addresses the QCP topic supervision of services, section 5.1.3 addresses
employee training, and section 5.1.5 addresses key control procedures. 
Id. at 24; Ridoc Quotation atA 55,A 56,A 61.  Ridoc also asserts that key
control procedures were only *a contract deliverable, i.e. post-award
requirement,* and therefore *not a factor* for the evaluation of
quotations.  Protester*s Comments at 21.  

   The evaluation in this area was unobjectionable; the agency reasonably
concluded that Ridoc*s quotation failed to address most of the 19 listed
topics.  For example, we have reviewed the 15 quality control objectives
that Ridoc asserts were outlined in its quotation, and we concur with the
agency that the objectives in the quotation appear to relate to
performance of the work required under the RFQ rather than to quality
control matters.  The objectives state, for example, that Ridoc will deter
and report unauthorized personnel, safeguard personnel and deter the
commission of crimes, deter and report violations of base regulations and
enforce parking regulations, and provide fixed guards and roving patrols. 
Ridoc Quotation at 36-37.  The agency reasonably concluded that these
*objectives* did not satisfy the RFQ requirement.  

   Ridoc*s more general assertion that its QCP is *tailored specifically* to
meet the requirements of the PWS is simply unsupported by the record.  Our
review of Ridoc*s quotation shows that Ridoc copied the PWS from the
solicitation and inserted these pages verbatim into its quotation at pages
52 through 74.  Thus, while Ridoc asserts that its QPC addresses
supervision of services at section 5.2.8 (on page 61) of its quotation,
this section merely repeats verbatim section 5.2.8 of the PWS, which
outlines the role and responsibilities of the watch supervisor. 
Similarly, while Ridoc claims it addressed employee training at section
5.1.3 of its quotation and key control procedures at section 5.1.5, these
sections merely repeat the language from the correspondingly numbered PWS
section.  We find no language in Ridoc*s quotation, and the protester
points to none, that goes beyond reciting the PWS sections and actually
explains how Ridoc intends to satisfy the quality control requirements.  
As to the protester*s argument that key control procedures were a
post-award requirement that should not have been evaluated, we note that
the RFQ*s evaluation criteria specified that the agency would evaluate
compliance with the PWS, which included key control procedures as they
relate to quality control. 

   In sum, the agency*s evaluation of Ridoc*s quotation was reasonable and
consistent with the RFQ.   It follows that there is no basis to question
Ridoc*s quotation*s overall unsatisfactory rating, or the agency*s
determination that Ridoc*s quotation therefore was technically
unacceptable.

   C.R.B.*S EVALUATION AND OTHER PROTEST BASES

   Ridoc challenges the evaluation of C.R.B.*s quotation, and also alleges
that C.R.B. engaged in an improper *bait and switch* regarding its site
supervisor.  However, since we have concluded that the agency properly
rejected Ridoc*s unsatisfactory quotation, and there is an intervening
vendor whose quotation was evaluated as technically acceptable, Ridoc is
not an interested party for purposes of raising these allegations.  See
Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S 21.0(a) (2004).  In this regard,
where, as here, there is an intervening vendor who would be in line for
the award if the protester*s challenge to the award were sustained, the
intervening vendor has a greater interest in the procurement than the
protester, and we generally consider the protester*s interest to be too
remote to qualify it as an interested party.  See Four Seas and Seven
Winds Travel, Inc., Ba**244916, Nov.A 15, 1991, 91-2 CPD P 463 at
4.       

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel 

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

   [1] The adjectival ratings were as follows:  excellent, very good, good,
marginal, and unsatisfactory.

   [2] The position of the site supervisor/program manager as a Ridoc or a
Myers employee, and the roles of Ridoc and Myers as prime contractor and
subcontractor are discussed in greater detail below.

   [3] Ridoc proposed one individual to serve as watch/site supervisor, Ridoc
Quotation atA 3, 80, and stated in its quotation that its site supervisor
would also *act as our Project Manager.*  Id. at 10.

   [4] Ridoc*s prime/subcontractor agreement includes, among other things, a
statement that Ridoc will pay Myers a certain sum per hour for
consultation and management assistance.  AR, Tab 16, Subcontract
Agreement, at 3.  Ridoc seems to rely on this information and some
attached pricing worksheets in arguing that Ridoc *does NOT pay Myers for
any performance expended by [the proposed site supervisor] under the
contract.*  Protester*s Comments at 6 (emphasis in original).  Even if
this is correct, as noted above, we see no indication in the quotation
that the proposed site supervisor would become a Ridoc employee.  Absent
such an affirmative representation, there was nothing unreasonable in the
agency*s not inferring that this would be the case.

   [5] A review of the prime/subcontractor agreement further substantiates
the agency*s conclusions.  Indeed, the agreement specifically states that,
among other things, the subcontractor will negotiate with the government,
provide the program manager/watch supervisor, provide the required
vehicles, and provide financial resources for successful start-up and
contract operations.  AR, Tab 16, Subcontract Agreement, at 1-2. 
Additionally, the agreement states that Myers *shall be free to choose the
means of performing this Agreement, and there shall be no relationship of
subordination between the Subcontractor and the Contractor . . . .*  Id.
at 3.