TITLE:  JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc., B-293235.6, April 29, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293235.6
DATE:  April 29, 2004
**********************************************************************
JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc., B-293235.6, April 29, 2004

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc.
    
File:            B-293235.6
    
Date:              April 29, 2004
    
John W. Long for the protester.
Mark Langstein, Esq., Terry Hart Lee, Esq., and Lauren Kalish, Esq.,
Department of Commerce, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, 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
    

   JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. protests the exclusion of its
proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No.
CM1301-03-RP-0019, issued as a total small business set-aside by the
Department of Commerce for information technology (IT) services. JAVIS
asserts that the evaluation of its proposal was inconsistent with the
evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP and was otherwise unreasonable.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
This protest concerns the Phase I competition for Tier I offerors in the
Commerce Information Technology Solutions Next Generation (COMMITS NexGen)
procurement.[1]  Issued on August 18, 2003, and amended several times, the
RFP contemplates the award of multiple indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity task order contracts with a 5-year ordering period. 
RFP amend. 6, S: B.3, at 2.  The RFP provided for a three-tier
classification system for the submission and evaluation of offerors*
proposals as well as for task order competition among the ultimate
contract awardees.[2]  The RFP provided that the COMMITS NexGen
procurement may encompass several competitive range determinations in
accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 15.306(c)(2), RFP
amend. 6, Cover Letter, at 1, and advised offerors that the contracting
officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the
greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.  RFP S:
L.2(f)(4), at 59.
    
Under Phase I, offerors were to respond to a series of technical questions
(referred to in the solicitation as the *down-select questions*); the
number of questions to which each offeror was required to respond was
determined by its size.  Tier I firms were required to respond to any four
of ten technical questions.  RFP amend. 6,
S: L.11.2.1, at 65.  Offerors also were required to complete a pricing
matrix and provide labor rates on both an hourly and annual basis for the
specified labor categories.  RFP attach. J-6, Pricing Matrix; RFP amend.
6, S: L.11.2.1.2, at 65a.  The RFP advised that the purpose of the pricing
matrix was to allow the agency to compare pricing among all offerors and
further advised that all proposed labor rates must have been negotiated on
a prior government procurement within a year of the response to this
solicitation.  RFP amend. 6, S: L.11.2.1.2, at 65a.
    
The Phase I down-select responses were to be evaluated on the basis of the
following factors: quality (denominated as past performance);[3]
experience/technical
    
    
    
    
    
    
capability (denominated as overall experience);[4] and price.[5]  The RFP
further provided that the quality and experience/technical capability
factors were of equal importance and that each was more important than
price.  RFP amend. 6, S: M.4,
at 74.  With regard to the price evaluation, section M stated that price
proposals would be evaluated for realism and reasonableness and would be
examined to determine if they deviated above or below what was expected. 
The solicitation further stated that a designated sample of proposed rates
would be compared against those of other offerors to determine if they
were reasonable.  RFP amend. 6, S: M.4.3, at 74.
    
The agency received numerous Tier I proposals, including JAVIS*s, by the
solicitation*s extended closing date.  Under the quality factor, the
agency evaluators assigned JAVIS*s proposal the highest possible rating of
blue.  Under the experience/technical capability factor, the evaluators
assigned JAVIS*s proposal the second highest possible overall rating of
green based on the firm*s four responses to the down-select questions. 
Specifically, the evaluators rated the protester*s response to down-select
question No. 1 only as green because the protester did not, as required by
this down-select question, adequately highlight its experience in the
production to operations and maintenance phases in moving software design
projects through the entire system life cycle.  JAVIS*s response to
down-select question No. 3 was rated yellow because the protester did not
describe or otherwise provide detailed information regarding its
experience with the X-windows operating system or with the Linux operating
system.  As to down-select question No. 6, JAVIS received a rating of only
green for its response because the protester did not furnish adequate
information concerning its IT security certifications.  For its response
to down-select question No. 8, which received a rating of green, the
evaluators noted that JAVIS did not provide sufficient information
concerning its experience in the identification of IT security
inconsistencies between lower-level policy documents and regulatory
requirements.  Agency Report (AR) exh. 18, JAVIS Debriefing Materials, at
8-15.
    
With respect to price, JAVIS*s proposed prices were determined to be
reasonable and realistic and the evaluators assigned a rating of green to
JAVIS*s proposal because, under a pricing model developed by the agency,
the firm*s annual labor rate was within 10 percent of the average annual
rate.  Id. at 17-18.  On this basis, JAVIS*s proposal was evaluated as
green overall.  Contracting Officer*s Statement at 3-6;
AR exh. 14, Redacted Phase I Ratings for Tier I Offerors, at 5.
    
Based on the results of the initial evaluation, the contracting officer
recommended to the source selection authority (SSA) that only those
offerors whose proposals received an overall rating of blue should proceed
to Phase II of the competition because offerors with an overall blue
rating were substantially stronger in areas necessary to meet Commerce*s
requirements.  Contracting Officer*s Statement at 6.  The contracting
officer determined that limiting the competitive range only to those
offerors with an overall blue rating left an adequate amount of
competition within each tier and that limiting the competitive range would
allow the agency to make fair, timely, and efficient evaluations of the
remaining offerors* submissions.  Of relevance here, the record shows that
only those proposals that received a blue rating for both the quality and
the experience/technical capability factors were determined to be the
*most highly rated* and were included in the competitive range.[6]  AR
exh. 15, Redacted Phase I Ratings for Tier I Competitive Range Offerors. 
Since JAVIS*s proposal was rated green overall, it was excluded from the
competitive range.  The SSA concurred with the contracting officer*s
recommendation.
    
By e-mail dated October 31, the contracting officer notified the protester
that its proposal had not been included in the competitive range because
it was not among the highest rated.  The e-mail noted that only those
firms whose proposals were the highest rated were included in the
competitive range and invited to participate in Phase II of the
competition.  AR exh. 16, Contracting Officer*s E-mail to the Protester
(Oct. 31, 2003).  After requesting and receiving a preaward debriefing on
December 11, JAVIS filed an agency-level protest on December 16, alleging
various improprieties in the agency*s evaluation.  AR exh. 19, Letter from
Protester to Contracting Officer (Dec. 16, 2003).  The contracting officer
denied JAVIS*s protest by letter dated January 14, 2004, and JAVIS
subsequently filed this protest in our Office on January 22.
    
JAVIS objects to the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range,
arguing that the agency failed to evaluate the protester*s proposal in
accordance with the stated solicitation factors.[7]  We disagree.
    
After evaluating all proposals, agencies may establish a competitive range
if discussions are to be conducted.  Based on the ratings of each proposal
against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer is to establish a
competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, unless the
competitive range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant
to FAR S:15.306(c)(2).  That provision permits the contracting officer to
limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest
number that will permit an efficient competition provided that the
solicitation notifies offerors that this may be done.  FAR S:15.306
(c)(2); RFP
S: L.2(f)(4), at 59.  In reviewing an agency*s evaluation and its
competitive range determination, our Office will not reevaluate the
proposals; instead, we will examine the record to ensure that the
evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation*s
evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  Computer &
Hi-Tech Mgmt., Inc., B-293235.4, Mar. 2, 2004, 2004 CPD P: __ at 6.  The
protester*s mere disagreement with the agency*s judgment does not
establish that it was unreasonable.  Id.  We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the evaluation of JAVIS*s proposal was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation, and that it was reasonably excluded from
the competitive range.[8] 
    
In its protest as well as its comments on the agency*s report, JAVIS does
not dispute the ratings assigned to its responses to the down-select
questions which resulted in an overall rating of green under the
experience/technical capability factor.  Rather, JAVIS maintains that,
since its proposal received one blue rating (for quality) and one green
rating (for experience/technical capability), and the quality and
experience/ technical capability factors were of equal value, its proposal
should have been assigned an overall rating of blue under these non-price
factors.  In addition, JAVIS believes that it was entitled to a blue
rating under the price evaluation factor because its prices were
determined reasonable and realistic.  Protest at 4-8, Protester*s Comments
at 6.  JAVIS thus asserts that its proposal should have been rated blue
overall and included in the competitive range.
    
JAVIS provides no meaningful support for its argument.  JAVIS*s proposal
was rated green under the experience/technical capability factor and JAVIS
does not contest the agency*s underlying ratings for this factor.  Based
on our review of the record, JAVIS*s proposal reasonably was evaluated as
green under the experience/technical capability factor, and the weighting
scheme in the RFP did not require the evaluators to assign an overall
rating of blue where a proposal was rated blue under one non-price factor
and green under the other simply because these non-price factors were of
equal value.  We therefore have no basis to question the overall green
rating assigned to JAVIS*s proposal.
    
The protester also argues that its price proposal should have received a
blue rating under the price evaluation factor because the agency
determined that its proposed prices were both realistic and reasonable. 
Protester*s Comments at 6.  As the agency points out, and as discussed
above, the solicitation also called for the agency to conduct a price
comparison among offerors and to evaluate the extent to which each
offeror*s proposed prices deviated above or below what was expected. 
Based on this price evaluation, JAVIS*s price proposal was rated green
because its annual labor rate was within 10 percent of the average annual
rates and not so much lower as to earn a blue rating.  JAVIS again
provides no basis for us to question the price evaluation, which was
conducted consistent with the RFP language, or the price factor rating of
green assigned to JAVIS. 
    
As noted above, the solicitation permitted the agency to limit the number
of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that would
permit an efficient competition.  Although JAVIS submitted an acceptable
proposal, its evaluation ratings were lower than those of the proposals
included in the competitive range; the agency reasonably determined that a
competitive range consisting of those higher-rated proposals was the
largest number that could be permitted and still allow an efficient
competition.  In sum, we conclude that the agency reasonably excluded
JAVIS*s proposal from the competitive range.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] Phase I is a down-select process in which the agency selects the
offerors that will proceed to the next phase of the competition by
establishing a competitive range.  RFP amend. 5, S: L.11.1, at 64-65.
[2] The tiers are defined by a firm*s annual level of revenue and the
associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code
under which they qualified.  RFP amend. 3, S: C.2, at 6.  As relevant
here, Tier I firms have an annual revenue between $6 million and $12.5
million, and these firms will be allowed to compete for IT task orders
with a life-cycle value not to exceed $5 million.  Id. at 5.
[3] As relevant here, for the quality factor, the adjectival ratings and
accompanying definitions were identified as:  (1) blue, reflecting
*essentially no doubt* that the offeror will successfully perform; (2)
green, reflecting *slight concerns* about the offeror*s ability to
successfully perform but where the overall risk level was good; and (3)
yellow, reflecting *reasonable doubt* that the offeror will successfully
perform.  Contracting Officer*s Statement at 4.
[4] Under the experience/technical capability factor a rating of blue
meant that the offeror has *comprehensive experience* and *exceptional*
technical capabilities to perform the work.  A green rating meant the
offeror has *overall good experience and capabilities* to perform. 
Contracting Officer*s Statement at 4.
[5] As to price, a blue rating meant prices were *realistic* and compared
*very favorably* with other offerors within a tier by being at least 11
percent below the average; a rating of green meant that prices were
*realistic* and compared *favorably* with others by being within 10
percent of the average annual rates.  Contracting Officer*s Statement at
3.
[6] The record shows that firms did not need a blue rating under the price
factor to have their proposals included in the competitive range.
[7] Throughout its protest, JAVIS incorrectly alleges that the agency
evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable.  Similarly, the
protester incorrectly maintains that the RFP required the agency to
conduct a cost-realism analysis.
[8] Notwithstanding JAVIS*s arguments to the contrary, because the
proposal was reasonably excluded from the competitive range, no
discussions with JAVIS were required.  FAR S: 15.306; SOS Interpreting,
Ltd., B-287505, June 12, 2001, 2001 CPD
P: 104 at 12.