TITLE:  Tessada & Associates, Inc., B-293942, July 15, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293942
DATE:  July 15, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Tessada & Associates, Inc.

   File:            B-293942

   Date:              July 15, 2004

   Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Jennifer M. Morrison,
Esq., and Jennafer M. Smoker, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, for the
protester.

   William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Timothy W. Staley,
Esq., and William J. Grimaldi, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for
BearingPoint, Inc., an intervenor.

   Michael B. Majeski, Esq., John F. Ruoff, Esq., and John Thompson, Esq.,
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest of proposal evaluation and source selection is denied where record
shows evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with
solicitation's evaluation terms and applicable procurement rules.

   DECISION

   Tessada & Associates, Inc. protests the agency's evaluation of its
proposal and the award of a contract to BearingPoint, Inc. under request
for proposals (RFP) No.A HQ0423-04-R-0002, issued by the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) for accounting reconciliation services. 
Tessada contends that its technical proposal should have been evaluated
more favorably and that the firm's offer should have been considered the
most advantageous to the agency in light of its lower price.  The
protester contends that the award to BearingPoint on the basis of that
firm's technically superior, higher-priced proposal was unreasonable.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on December 17, 2003, contemplated the award of an
indefinite-quantity contract for a base and 4 option years.[1]  The
services called
for by the RFP, which are required to resolve out-of-balance conditions
between accounting records and systems to facilitate contract closeout
processes, include both full and limited scope reconciliations.[2]  All
reconciliation requests were to originate as limited scope reconciliations
requiring performance within a total of
35 hours and payment at a fixed price; full reconciliations, providing
additional time for completion (as requested by the contractor and
approved by the agency), were to be charged at an hourly rate for all work
done (including the initial 35 hours of work prior to conversion of the
effort to a full reconciliation).  RFP at 18.

   The RFP contemplated a *best value* source selection and provided that
award would be made to the offeror providing *the greatest confidence that
it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably.*  Id. at 87. 
Offerors were specifically advised that

   [t]his may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror,
where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the
Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical
superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past
performance of a higher price[d] offeror outweighs the cost difference.

   Id.

   The RFP provided the following three evaluation factors for award:  past
performance, technical, and price.  Past performance was the most
important factor; the past performance and technical factors combined were
significantly more important than price.  The technical factor consisted
of the following three subfactors:  technical approach (requiring
responses to two sample tasks); key personnel (requiring program manager
and alternate program manager resumes demonstrating for each individual a
minimum of 6 years of general experience in task management related to
contract finance, contract reconciliation, accounting, business, and
financial management services of similar size and complexity to the work
described in the RFP); and management plan.  Id. at  22, 73-78, and 88. 
Offerors were instructed that price was the least important evaluation
factor for award and would be evaluated for realism and consistency with
the technical proposal; the RFP cautioned that unbalanced prices could
result in a negative risk assessment.  Id. atA 89.

   BearingPoint and Tessada, both incumbent contractors for these services,
submitted the proposals ranked first and second, respectively, in line for
award.  Tessada's proposal offered a lower price than BearingPoint's;
BearingPoint's proposal, however, was rated technically superior to
Tessada's.[3]  The BearingPoint proposal received the highest rating of
*excellent* under every past performance and technical factor and
subfactor; Tessada's proposal received ratings of *very good* for both the
past performance factor and the technical factor (with subfactor ratings
of *very good* for technical approach, *good* for key personnel, and
*excellent* for management plan).  While BearingPoint's proposed price was
higher than Tessada's, the agency deemed it reasonable in relation to the
government estimate and assessed it as *low risk.*  Tessada's proposed
price, however, was assessed as *medium risk* in light of the agency's
concern that a substantial difference in price between Tessada's
lower-priced limited scope reconciliation work and higher-priced full
reconciliation rates rendered the protester's pricing structure
unbalanced; as explained further below, the evaluators were concerned that
Tessada's pricing approach provided an incentive to seek additional full
reconciliation work during contract performance.  Determining that the
overall technical superiority of the BearingPoint proposal outweighed the
additional cost associated with it, the agency awarded a contract to that
firm.  After a debriefing, Tessada filed this protest. 

   Tessada protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the factors
for past performance, technical (including the technical approach and key
personnel subfactors), and price.  The protester also generally challenges
the agency's *best value* analysis and award to BearingPoint on the basis
of its higher-rated, higher-priced proposal.

   In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations and awards,
it is not our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines
the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable, and
in accord with the RFP's terms and applicable procurement statutes and
regulations.  Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD P 223
at 4.  The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does
not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.  UNICCO Gov't Servs.,
Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD P 134 at 7.  Our review of the
record here provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the
agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal or the award to
BearingPoint.

   Tessada first challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of
its proposal under the past performance evaluation factor, which, as
stated above, was the most important evaluation factor for award.  In this
regard, Tessada only generally argues that its proposal should have been
rated excellent for past performance, as BearingPoint's was, since Tessada
received some *excellent* customer satisfaction ratings from past
performance references.  The agency reports, however, and our review
confirms, that while BearingPoint's past performance references mostly
gave the firm the highest ratings available, and also submitted highly
favorable comments that squarely support the *excellent* rating the firm's
proposal received under the past performance factor, Tessada received
approximately equal numbers of *excellent* and *very good* past
performance ratings, as well as a few lower ratings of *satisfactory.* 
Given the mix of ratings received from the firm's past performance
references, and the protester's failure to refute in any way the agency's
detailed support for the firm's *very good* past performance rating, there
is no basis for us to question the propriety of the past performance
evaluation, or the lower past performance rating assigned to the Tessada
proposal.

   The protester next challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the
technical approach subfactor.  As stated above, for the evaluation of
technical approach, offerors were to submit solutions to two sample
reconciliation services tasks.  In this regard, the RFP advised offerors
to *provide a comprehensive response documenting additional information
deemed necessary to resolve the problem, all assumptions, processes, and
any proposed action, while identifying inherent quality control
measures.*  RFP at 73.  The responses were to be *evaluated on the
methodology and processes used rather than on a perceived *right' answer*
to determine whether *the offeror clearly understands all the tasks
involved in the sample problems and knows how to approach them.*  Id. at
73 and 88.   Tessada received full credit for its response to the first
sample task, but received less than full credit for its solution to the
second sample task because its proposed approach was considered
inefficient, in that the firm reviewed additional, and, in the agency's
view, extraneous documents where the agency had contemplated only a
limited scope reconciliation.

   Tessada argues that it should have received full credit for its response
because it was detailed, as required by the RFP, and was estimated by the
firm to take less than the 35 hours allowed under the RFP for limited
scope reconciliations.  In this regard, Tessada contends that even if its
full audit approach was more extensive than the agency considered
necessary, the agency would still be charged for the effort at the fixed
price for limited scope reconciliations (since the work was to be
completed within the 35-hour limit).

   Our review of the record confirms the reasonableness of the agency's
evaluation of the protester's sample task response.  The RFP expressly
notified offerors that their solutions' methodologies and processes would
be evaluated in order to determine whether *the offeror clearly
understands all the tasks involved  .  .  .  and knows how to approach
them.*  RFP at 88.  The agency explains that, while a limited scope
reconciliation was contemplated under the sample task, the protester's
response indicated a full scope audit was performed, including review of
numerous documents considered irrelevant to, and unnecessary for, the
required reconciliation work.  Tessada does not argue that the additional
work it performed is necessary for resolution of the specific problem
identified in the task, but, rather, suggests that since the RFP sought
comprehensive explanations from the offerors, it should receive additional
credit because it detailed each of the processes it proposed.  We do not
agree.

   The record shows that the protester's sample task response received most
(5 of 7) of the points available, primarily due to its comprehensive
discussion of reconciliation matters.  Consistent with the terms of the
RFP for assessment of how the offeror chose to approach the task, we
believe the agency was reasonable in concluding the additional,
unnecessary work performed by the firm was a legitimate basis for
withholding full credit.  Further, as the agency points out, performance
of unnecessary work, and the labor hours associated with it (even if
performed within the amount of time allowed under the contract's
fixed-price component), reasonably relates to contractor productivity
under the overall contract requirements, since unnecessary work, and the
additional labor hours spent performing that work, may inhibit timely
completion of the balance of work required under the contract. 
Accordingly, our review of the record does not support the protester's
contention that the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the
technical approach factor, namely, the agency's decision not to assign
full evaluation credit to the sample task response in question, was
unreasonable.

   Tessada next challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the
key personnel subfactor; specifically, Tessada contends that the agency
failed to properly evaluate the qualifications of its proposed alternate
program manager.  The protester contends that the agency improperly
concluded that the individual's resume failed to demonstrate a minimum of
6 years of general experience in task management related to contract
finance, contract reconciliation, accounting, business and financial
management services of similar size and complexity to the work described
in the solicitation.  In addition to the slightly more than 5 years of
general task management experience that was credited by the agency, the
protester suggests that it should have been credited for the individual's
work directing negotiations with banks for government loans and
coordinating a production team designing computer programs for accounting
and financial data.  Our review of the record confirms the reasonableness
of the agency's evaluation.  Offerors were instructed to explain how the
duties listed by key personnel on their resumes were relevant to work to
be undertaken under the RFP and to *tie [the individual's] experience to
the [RFP's] experience requirements.*  RFP at 75.  As the agency
reasonably concluded, the general description of the work in this
individual's resume for which the protester seeks credit does not explain
any relevant task management responsibilities of similar size and
complexity to the work required here.  Consequently, we conclude that the
agency was reasonable in determining that the minimum experience
requirement had not been met for this individual.[4]

   Tessada next protests the agency's assignment of *medium risk* to its
price proposal.  This risk assessment was primarily based upon the
agency's concern about the substantial increase in price between the
protester's fixed price for limited scope reconciliations (covering up to
35 hours of work) and its hourly rate for full scope reconciliations
(which rate would also apply to the initial 35 hours of work performed
prior to conversion of the job to full reconciliation performance/payment
terms as well as additional hours required for completion of the
reconciliation).  The agency reasoned that this pricing disparity would
encourage the firm to seek conversion of limited scope reconciliation work
to full reconciliation work to gain additional hours of work and an
associated higher price.[5]  The agency also reasoned that it would have
to spend additional time managing the contractor's work to ensure that
limited scope reconciliation work was timely performed and would not
require conversion to full reconciliation terms.  In this regard, the
agency considered that its own efforts to control costs through close
review of, and perhaps rejection of, the contractor's requests for
conversion to full reconciliation terms would also present a risk in terms
of performance, since insistence by the agency on completion of work
within the limited scope reconciliation time period (at its associated
fixed price) could increase the potential for contractor shortcuts and
resultant errors.

   In response to the agency's explanation of its medium risk assessment,
Tessada does not challenge the agency's report of the firm's [deleted],
but, rather, challenges the methodology the agency used to conclude that
there is a large disparity between the firm's prices for limited scope and
full reconciliation services.  We see no basis to question the agency's
approach.

   As explained above, the RFP called for offerors to propose a lump sum
price for each limited scope reconciliation to be performed, and an hourly
rate for full reconciliation work.  In order to compare an offeror's rates
for limited scope and full reconciliation work, the agency calculated an
hourly rate for the limited scope work; the agency did this by dividing an
offeror's proposed lump sum price by 29.75 hours, the length of time on
average it has taken to complete limited scope reconciliations.  Based on
this calculation, Tessada's hourly rate for full reconciliations was
28 percent higher than its hourly rate for limited scope reconciliations. 
Tessada argues that it would have been more reasonable to calculate
Tessada's hourly rate for limited scope reconciliations by using the
firm's average hours for completion of limited scope reconciliations
actually performed during fiscal year 2003 under its incumbent contract
for the services.  The protester argues that because its limited scope
reconciliations that year were completed in less time than the agency's
historical average for such work, such an evaluation would show that its
hourly rate for limited scope reconciliations in fact was higher than its
hourly rate for full reconciliations.

   The record does not support the protester's objection to the agency's
evaluation methodology or its contention that the agency was otherwise
unreasonable in assessing a medium risk to the firm's proposed pricing. 
The agency's historical hourly average for completion of limited scope
reconciliations was used across-the-board to evaluate all offers and,
unlike Tessada's 1-year performance data, the figure used by the agency
represented a longer term historical average.  The evaluation record
further shows that the agency recognized that Tessada and BearingPoint,
because of their experience performing the work under their incumbent
contracts, could be expected to complete the limited scope reconciliations
faster than a new contractor without such experience.  As a result, the
agency also calculated hourly rates for both Tessada and BearingPoint
using an average completion time
10 percent shorter than the 29.75 hour average.  This calculation still
revealed a sizeable (i.e., 15 percent) disparity between the protester's
limited scope and full reconciliation prices.  Proposal Analysis Report at
79-85.

   Further, as the agency reports, during performance of its incumbent
contract, [deleted].  Accordingly, Tessada's suggested use of its 2003
average completion time for limited scope reconciliations appears to be of
questionable reliability, as the figure apparently excludes that portion
of work that initially was anticipated to be completed within the shorter
performance period for limited scope reconciliations, but which was not
met by the protester and required conversion to full reconciliation
terms.  In sum, given the agency's reasonable application of a
historically-based average to all proposals, and the agency's reasonable
concern about potential risk associated with the protester's pricing
structure, we have no basis to question the agency's assignment of a
medium risk rating to the proposal.[6]

   Lastly, Tessada's protest of the reasonableness and sufficiency of the
source selection authority's (SSA) price/technical tradeoff analysis and
source selection decision also provides no basis to question the award to
BearingPoint.  Where a solicitation provides for a *best value*
procurement and, as here, emphasizes the significantly greater importance
of technical factors over price, an agency has considerable discretion to
award to an offeror with a higher technical rating and higher price.  WPI,
Ba**288998.4, B-288998.5, Mar. 22, 2002, 2002 CPD P 70 atA 10.  Source
selection officials, who are not bound by the recommendations or
methodologies of evaluators, have discretion, subject to the tests of
rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors, to
make price/technical tradeoffs in deciding between competing proposals. 
We will review the reasonableness of the SSA's judgment concerning the
significance of the proposal differences and whether the selection is
justified in light of the RFP evaluation scheme.[7]  See Digital Sys.
Group, Inc., B-286931, B-286931.2, Mar. 7, 2001, 2001 CPD
P 50 at 11-12; Environmental Chem. Corp., B-275819, Apr. 1, 1997, 97-1 CPD
P 154
at 5.

   Our review confirms the reasonableness of the SSA's tradeoff
determination.  The RFP's past performance and technical factors combined
were to be significantly more important than price in the source
selection.  As discussed above, BearingPoint's proposal was evaluated as
technically superior to the Tessada proposal under the past performance
and the technical factors.  Our review of the record shows that the
technical superiority of BearingPoint's proposal, in terms of its higher
past performance and technical ratings, as well as additional favorable
performance information known to the SSA regarding BearingPoint's
comparatively higher productivity and accuracy under the incumbents'
contracts, was reasonably found to outweigh the lower price (reasonably
determined to present some contract administration and performance risk to
the agency) of Tessada's technically inferior proposal.  Given the
reasonableness of the evaluators' and the SSA's evaluation of the firms'
proposals, we have no reason to question the propriety of the agency's
determination that BearingPoint's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal
offered the best value to the agency.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Forty percent of the work called for under the RFP was set aside for
small businesses; this protest involves the competition for the remaining
unrestricted portion of the work.

   [2] The RFP provided that a full reconciliation consists of a complete
review and alignment of all contractual records and will result in no
adverse financial conditions in the overall contract; limited scope
reconciliations involve review of less than all contractual documentation
to correct specifically identified adverse financial conditions without
creating or increasing other adverse or out-of-balance conditions.  RFP at
17.

   [3] BearingPoint's price for the unrestricted portion of the work was
$16,652,556; Tessada's price was $11,895,440.

   [4]  While the protester suggests that the favorable rating of *excellent*
received for its program manager's qualifications should raise its overall
key personnel rating to at least *very good* instead of the *good* rating
received under the key personnel subfactor, it provides no support for the
contention, especially, since, as discussed above, its alternate program
manager's resume failed to demonstrate compliance with the RFP's minimum
requirements.

   [5] The record shows that the agency's concern in this regard also stems
from [deleted].

   [6] Tessada also argues that the price evaluation (and overall evaluation)
is flawed because no price proposal point score or total evaluation point
score was calculated for the offers.  This challenge, however, provides no
basis to find the agency's otherwise detailed, reasoned evaluation of
proposals improper.  Point scores and adjectival ratings are mere guides
to decision-making and the failure to assign point scores for certain
aspects of the evaluation here is inconsequential where the evaluation
otherwise provides meaningful narrative regarding the technical merit of
competing proposals.  See Management Tech., Inc., B-257269.2, Nov. 8,
1994,
95-1 CPD P 248 at 6-7.  We also note that Tessada has not shown that it
has been prejudiced in any way by the agency's failure to assign point
scores in the manner sought by the protester.  See McDonald-Bradley,
B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD PA 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v.
Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

   [7] Contrary to the protester's contention, there is no requirement that a
selection official, in performing a cost/technical tradeoff, *dollarize*
by calculating a precise value for the technical advantages offered.  See
TeKONTROL, Inc., B-290270,
June 10, 2002, 2002 CPD P 97 at 5.