TITLE:  Joint Management & Technology Services, B-294229; B-294229.2, September 22, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294229; B-294229.2
DATE:  September 22, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Joint Management & Technology Services

   File:            B-294229; B-294229.2

   Date:              September 22, 2004

   David P. Metzger, Esq., Michele M. Brown, Esq., and Anand V. Ramana, Esq.,
Holland & Knight, for the protester.

   G. Lindsay Simmons, Esq., and James Eric Whytsell, Esq., Jackson Kelly,
for Prologic, Inc., an intervenor.

   Thomas J. Russial, Esq., Nancy Toppetta, Esq., Patricia D. Graham, Esq.,
and Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  Protest alleging that, because agency destroyed individual evaluator
sheets, record does not include adequate documentation supporting the
agency's evaluation and source selection decision, is denied where
consensus evaluation materials and source selection decision contain a
detailed explanation of the agency's evaluation conclusions and source
selection decision.  

   2.  Protest allegations challenging agency's evaluation of protester's
proposal are denied where either the allegations are without merit, or the
alleged evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to
protester.

   3.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge evaluation of
awardee's proposal where record shows that another firm, not the
protester, would be in line for award if protester's challenge were
sustained, and protester does not challenge evaluation of the other firm's
proposal. 

   DECISION

   Joint Management & Technology Services (JMTS), a Small Business
Administration-approved mentor-protege joint venture, protests the award
of a contract to Prologic,A Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DE-RP26-03NT41820, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) to acquire
information technology and engineering support services for its National
Energy Technology Laboratory.  JMTS asserts that the agency misevaluated
proposals and, as a result, made an unreasonable source selection
decision.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the
award of a cost-plus-award-fee task order contract for a base period of 3
years, with two 1-year options.  Firms were advised that the agency
intended to make award to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer
the "best value" to the government considering cost and the following five
non-cost criteria (weighted):  technical approach (35 percent);
key/critical personnel (25 percent); management approach (20 percent);
experience (10 percent); and past performance (10 percent).  RFP
atA 162.[2] 

   The agency received 11 proposals, including the protester's and the
awardee's.  After evaluating the proposals and arriving at consensus
scores, the agency determined that, of the 11 proposals submitted, 6 were
weak, 4 (including the protester's) were satisfactory, and 1 (the
awardee's) was outstanding.  The agency arrived at these conclusions using
a scoring system outlined in the agency's source selection plan; proposals
were scored under each of the evaluation criteria with numeric ratings of
either 0 (unacceptable), 2 (weak), 5 (satisfactory), 8 (very good) or 10
(outstanding).  AR, exh. E-1, at 7.  The numeric scores were assigned
based on the number and quality of strengths and weaknesses found (and
described by the evaluators in narrative form) for each proposal under
each criterion.  These numeric ratings were then multiplied by the
relative weight for each evaluation criterion, resulting in a maximum
possible score of 1,000 points.  The scores assigned to the satisfactory
and outstanding proposals were as follows:

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|        |                  |       Key/       |                  |                  |                  |     |
|        |  Tech. Approach  |                  |  Mgmt. Approach  |    Experience    |    Past Perf.    |     |
|Offeror |      (35%)       |Critical Personnel|                  |                  |                  |Total|
|        |                  |                  |      (20%)       |      (10%)       |      (10%)       |     |
|        |                  |      (25%)       |                  |                  |                  |     |
|--------+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----|
|Prologic|Strengths:    |31 |Strengths:    |11 |Strengths:    |20 |Strengths:    |15 |Strengths:    |5  | 930 |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Weaknesses:   |2  |Weaknesses:   |1  |Weaknesses:   |1  |Weaknesses:   |0  |Weaknesses:   |2  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Score:        |10 |Score:        |8  |Score:        |10 |Score:        |10 |Score:        |8  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Points:       |350|Points:       |200|Points:       |200|Points:       |100|Points:       |   |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |80 |     |
|--------+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+-----|
|Firm A  |Strengths:    |14 |Strengths:    |4  |Strengths:    |17 |Strengths:    |16 |Strengths:    |1  | 695 |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Weaknesses:   |4  |Weaknesses:   |3  |Weaknesses:   |3  |Weaknesses:   |2  |Weaknesses:   |2  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Score:        |8  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |8  |Score:        |8  |Score:        |5  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Points:       |280|Points:       |125|Points:       |160|Points:       |   |Points:       |   |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |80 |              |50 |     |
|--------+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+-----|
|Firm B  |Strengths:    |31 |Strengths:    |9  |Strengths:    |6  |Strengths:    |12 |Strengths:    |3  | 605 |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Weaknesses:   |1  |Weaknesses:   |5  |Weaknesses:   |7  |Weaknesses:   |0  |Weaknesses:   |0  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Score:        |8  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |2  |Score:        |8  |Score:        |8  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Points:       |280|Points:       |125|Points:       |   |Points:       |   |Points:       |   |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |40 |              |80 |              |80 |     |
|--------+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+-----|
|Firm C  |Strengths:    |9  |Strengths:    |6  |Strengths:    |10 |Strengths:    |13 |Strengths:    |6  | 550 |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Weaknesses:   |13 |Weaknesses:   |3  |Weaknesses:   |9  |Weaknesses:   |2  |Weaknesses:   |   |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |0  |     |
|        |Score:        |5  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |   |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |10 |     |
|        |Points:       |175|Points:       |125|Points:       |100|Points:       |   |Points:       |   |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |50 |              |100|     |
|--------+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+--------------+---+-----|
|JMTS    |Strengths:    |5  |Strengths:    |3  |Strengths:    |11 |Strengths:    |3  |Strengths:    |1  | 500 |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Weaknesses:   |10 |Weaknesses:   |2  |Weaknesses:   |9  |Weaknesses:   |2  |Weaknesses:   |2  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Score:        |5  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |5  |Score:        |5  |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |   |     |
|        |Points:       |175|Points:       |125|Points:       |100|Points:       |   |Points:       |   |     |
|        |              |   |              |   |              |   |              |50 |              |50 |     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, exh. E-2.  The evaluated costs for the five firms were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Offeror                          |Evaluated Cost                        |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|Prologic                         |$23,492553                            |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|Firm A                           |$21,078,297                           |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|Firm B                           |$23,020,302                           |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|Firm C                           |$31,159,894                           |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|JMTS                             |$22,396,255                           |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, exh. E-3, at 2.

   On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency made award to
Prologic, finding that its significantly superior technical proposal
warranted paying the associated cost premium.  In this regard, the record
shows that the source selection official (SSO) focused his deliberations
on the relative merits of the Prologic proposal as compared to the
next-highest ranked proposals, submitted by Firms A and B; the source
selection statement makes no mention of JMTS's proposal beyond a listing
of the firm's technical score and evaluated cost, apparently reflecting
the fact that it was not in line for award given the number of technically
superior proposals ranked above it.  AR, exh. E-5.

   ADEQUACY OF THE EVALUATION RECORD

   JMTS asserts that the agency's evaluation record is inadequate to document
its selection decision.  The focus of JMTS's assertion is the lack of
individual evaluator sheets in the record which, the agency advises, were
destroyed after the evaluators prepared their consensus evaluation
materials.  JMTS maintains that the consensus evaluation materials are
lacking in the detail necessary to support the agency's evaluation
conclusions.

   A consensus rating need not be the same as the rating initially assigned
by the individual evaluators; rather, the final evaluation rating may be
arrived at after discussions among the evaluators.  I.S. Grupe, Inc.,
B-278839, Mar. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD P 86 at 5-6.  Where, as here, the agency
has destroyed individual evaluation materials, its actions are
unobjectionable provided that the consensus evaluation materials relied on
by the agency support the agency's judgments regarding the relative merits
of the proposals.  Global Eng'g and Constr., LLC, B-290288.3, B-290288.4,
Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD P 180 at 3 n.3.  

   We find no merit to this aspect of JMTS's protest.  As noted, the record
includes the agency's consensus evaluation materials which, contrary to
JMTS's assertion, provide a significant level of detail about the
evaluators' findings regarding the strengths and weaknesses identified in
the proposals.  While JMTS devotes a significant portion of its protest to
asserting that the evaluators' conclusions are erroneous primarily as they
relate to JMTS's proposal, the protester's disagreement with the
evaluation conclusions does not demonstrate that they are lacking in
detail. 

   EVALUATION OF JMTS PROPOSAL

   JMTS takes issue with most of the weaknesses found in its proposal.  We
note at the outset that, in reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we
will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to
ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation's evaluation scheme, as well as relevant procurement statutes
and regulations.  Interstate Gen. Gov't Contractors, Inc., B-290137.2,
June 21, 2002, 2002 CPD P 105 at 3. 

   Experience

   JMTS maintains that the agency erroneously assigned it a rating of 5
(satisfactory) under the experience criterion.  According to the
protester, since the several entities comprising the JMTS team (including
the mentor firm, D.N. American, the protege firm, IMTS, and subcontractors
EG&G and SAIC) were the incumbent contractors for this requirement, it was
irrational for the agency to assign it a rating of only 5. 

   This argument is without merit.  The record shows that the agency assigned
weaknesses to the JMTS proposal in the area of experience because the
evaluators were unable to determine the experience of the individual JMTS
team members.  In this regard, the evaluators specifically noted that JMTS
was a newly-formed joint venture with no experience of its own, and that
the proposal's failure to clearly delineate the experience of the
individual team members made it difficult to assess the team members'
experience.  AR, exh. E-2, at 43.  The agency also notes that the managing
joint venturer, IMTS, has almost no experience in information technology
support.  AR, July 30, 2004, at 25 n.9.[3]  JMTS does not rebut the
agency's assertions, and we have examined the JMTS proposal and find the
agency's conclusions reasonable; the team members' experience is not
clearly delineated.  AR, exhs.A Ba**5,A B-7.  We note in this connection
that offerors have an affirmative obligation to submit an adequately
written proposal.  United Def., LP, B-286925.3 etA al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001
CPD P 75 at 19.  Where, as here, there is no reasonable way to discern the
experience of each of the team members in a newly-created entity, such as
JMTS, that has no experience of its own, we see nothing unreasonable in
the agency's downgrading the proposal under the experience criterion. 

   Past Performance

   JMTS argues that the agency improperly assigned it a rating of 5 under the
past performance criterion.  According to the protester, this was improper
because three of the four JMTS team members (D.N. American, EG&G and SAIC)
received high ratings on their past performance surveys (in the
exceptional or outstanding rating categories), and IMTS did not have any
significant experience and therefore should have received a neutral
rating.  JMTS concludes that an averaging of three high ratings with one
neutral rating should have resulted in a score higher than merely
satisfactory, and that the agency, by assigning only a satisfactory
rating, essentially penalized the firm for IMTS's lack of past
performance, and improperly ignored the past performance ratings of the
other entities comprising the JMTS team. 

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  The record shows that the
agency assigned the satisfactory rating due to concerns that IMTS, the
managing concern for performance of the contract, did not have any
meaningful past performance, AR, exh. E-2, at 44, and that JMTS itself did
not have any past performance, having been created solely for purposes of
submitting a proposal for this requirement.  Id.  The agency's assigning
of a rating of 5--effectively the midpoint on the evaluation scoring
scale, which did not include a neutral category--amounted to a neutral
(i.e.,A neither favorable nor unfavorable) evaluation of the firm's past
performance, consistent with regulations applicable where an offeror has
no past performance.  Federal Acquisition Regulation S 15.305(a)(2)(iv);
Braswell Servs. Group, Inc.,

   B-278921.2, June 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD P 10 at 7-8.  We find nothing improper
in the agency's focusing, in particular, on the joint venture's lack of
past performance, even though the JMTS team includes D.N. American, a
mentor firm with a record of past performance, as well as the two
subcontractors, also with records of past performance.  In this regard,
agencies are permitted, but not required, to consider the individual
experience and past performance of other entities such as individual
members of a mentor-protege joint venture or other subcontractors
comprising a team being offered to perform a requirement.  MW-All Star
Joint Venture, supra,

   at 4-5.  Thus, there was nothing unreasonable in the agency's not
according some greater weight to the positive past performance surveys of
those team members having past performance.

   Key/Critical Personnel

   JMTS objects to the rating of 5 assigned its proposal in the area of
key/critical personnel.  The basis for this rating was the agency's
finding of a lack of management experience on the part of two of JMTS's
proposed key/critical personnel--its proposed project manager and helpdesk
manager.  The evaluators found that the project manager had limited
experience in managing a portfolio of information technology projects
(only approximately 1A year of experience as an interim project manager),
and that the helpdesk manager had very limited management experience (only
approximately 3a**4A months of experience in her position).  AR, exh. E-2,
at 41.

   JMTS objects to the agency's conclusions.  It asserts that the proposed
project manager's resume shows that, in addition to being the interim
project manager for approximately 1 year, she also served as the alternate
program manager for approximately 2 years.  As for the helpdesk manager,
JMTS argues that, although she has only been performing this job for
approximately 4 months, nonetheless, the agency approved her appointment
to that position under the predecessor contract, and therefore must look
favorably upon her ability to perform the job.  Finally, JMTS asserts that
its rating of only 5 in this area shows that the agency also failed to
give adequate weight to three identified strengths.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  The record shows--and JMTS
does not dispute--that the proposed project manager has been performing as
an interim project manager for only approximately 1 year.  While she is
identified as having performed the role of alternate program manager for a
period of slightly more than 2 years, JMTS's proposal describes her as
performing that function only "in the absence of the program manager," AR,
exh. B-8, at 6, who was a full-time employee under the predecessor
contract.  Under the circumstances, there was nothing unreasonable in the
agency's concluding that she had only limited management experience; the
protester's assertion to the contrary amounts to no more than disagreement
with the evaluation.  Similarly, we find nothing unreasonable in the
agency's viewing the helpdesk manager's 3-4 months of experience as
limited, and the fact that the agency may have approved her appointment to
that position under the predecessor contract in no way undermines this
conclusion.

   We also find nothing unreasonable in the weight the agency accorded to the
strengths identified in JMTS's proposal in this area.  The evaluators
identified three strengths:  that a full staff of key and critical
personnel is defined in the proposal; that these personnel are 100 percent
dedicated to the requirement; and that the personnel have backgrounds
"adequate" to perform the requirement.  AR, exh. E-2,

   at 41.  It is not apparent to us why the agency considered these three
features to be particular strengths, but in any case, the protester has
not shown that, under the scoring scheme used by the agency, these
identified strengths were sufficiently significant to warrant an increase
in its proposal rating in this area. 

   Technical and Management Approaches

   JMTS takes issue with the agency's evaluation in the areas of technical
approach and management approach, asserting that 8 of the 10 weaknesses
identified in its proposed technical approach were baseless, and that all
9 of the weaknesses found in its management approach were baseless.  JMTS
also asserts that the agency improperly failed to credit its proposal with
some five strengths in the technical approach area.  We need not consider
these assertions in detail, since it is clear from the record that, even
if we were to agree with the protester as to all of these allegations, and
its score were increased accordingly, there is no possibility that JMTS's
proposal would have moved into line for award.  Prejudice is an essential
element of every viable protest, and where none is shown or otherwise
apparent, we will not sustain a protest, even if the agency's actions may
arguably have been improper.  Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543
et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD

   P 104 at 7.

   As noted, the agency assigned numeric scores on the basis of the number
and quality of strengths and weaknesses found in each area for each
proposal.  The assignment of scores was based on the following definitions
in the agency's source selection plan:

   A proposal that convincingly demonstrates the offeror's ability to meet
the Government's mission objectives, demonstrates few, if any, significant
strengths, and shows few, if any significant weaknesses shall be deemed
satisfactory [and therefore be assigned a score of 5].

   A proposal that convincingly demonstrates the offeror's ability to meet
and exceed the government's mission objectives, demonstrates several
significant strengths, and shows only minor weaknesses shall be deemed
very good [and therefore be assigned a score of 8].

   A proposal that convincingly demonstrates the offeror's ability to meet
and significantly exceed the Government's mission objectives, clearly
demonstrates many significant strengths, and shows none or only minor
weaknesses shall be deemed outstanding [and therefore be assigned a score
of 10].

   AR, exh. E-1, at 7. 

   As noted, JMTS asserts that 8 of the 10 weaknesses found in its technical
approach were erroneous, and that an additional 5 strengths also should
have been assigned.  If JMTS's view prevailed, its technical approach
would have been assigned 10A strengths and 2 weaknesses.  Based on the
definitions quoted above, and considering the manner in which the agency
applied those definitions in scoring the proposals based on their assigned
strengths and weaknesses (which appears to be highly consistent among all
proposals), we find that, with 10 strengths and 2A weaknesses, the
protester's proposal, at best, may have merited a score of 8 points (or
the addition of 105 points to its total weighted score), rather than the 5
points assigned.  In this connection, we note, for example, that Firm A's
proposal received a rating of 8 with 14 strengths and 4A weaknesses in the
area of technical approach, as did Firm B's with 31 strengths and 1
weakness.  (We note as well that the protester does not assert, and the
record does not otherwise support the suggestion that the strengths
(either found or alleged) were significant strengths that *significantly
exceed the government's mission objectives,' as required for the
assignment of a score of 10.) 

   Similarly, in the management approach area, if we agreed with JMTS that
the agency improperly identified 9 weaknesses in its proposal, it would
have had 11 strengths and 0 weaknesses.  Again, applying the definitions
in the RFP, and considering the scoring of the other proposals in this
area, it is clear that, with 11 strengths and 0 weaknesses, JMTS's
proposal may have merited, at best, a score of 8 (increasing its total
score by 60A points), rather than the score of 5 that was assigned.  A
comparison to the agency's scoring of the other proposals in this area
shows, for example, that Firm A's proposal was assigned a score of 8 in
this area for 17 strengths and 3A weaknesses, and assigned a score of 10
to Prologic's proposal for including 20A strengths and only 1 weakness. 
(As in the technical approach area, JMTS does not allege that any of the
identified strengths significantly exceed the RFP's requirements.)

   Based on our analysis, even if we agreed with the protester as to all of
its strengths and weaknesses and adjusted its scoring accordingly, its
proposal would receive, at best, a total score of 665 points, rather than
the 500 points actually assigned.  In comparison, Firm A's
seconda**highest ranked proposal received a score of 695 points and had an
evaluated cost approximately $1.3 million lower than the protester's. 
Since the protester's proposal would be lower-rated and higher-cost than
Firm A's, there is no reasonable possibility that any of the alleged
evaluation errors, if corrected, would move the protester into line for
award ahead of Firm A or otherwise change the outcome of the competition. 
The protester therefore was not prejudiced by the alleged errors.

   EVALUATION OF THE PROLOGIC PROPOSAL

   JMTS alleges that the agency misevaluated Prologic's proposal.  However,
as explained above, JMTS's proposal would have been ranked behind Firm
A's, even if we assume that JMTS's proposal should have received higher
ratings than it did.  Thus, since Firm A would be in line for award ahead
of JMTS, and JMTS does not challenge the evaluation of Firm A's proposal,
JMTS is not an interested party, within the meaning of our Bid Protest
Regulations, 4 C.F.R. SA 21.0(a) (2004), to challenge the award to
Prologic.  Four Winds Servs, Inc.,

   B-280714, Aug. 28, 1998, 98-2 CPD P 57 at 2.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] See 13 C.F.R. S 124.520 (2004).

   [2] The RFP expressed the relative importance of the evaluation criteria
in a narrative form which, when read in its entirety, reflects the
percentage weights noted above; the percentage values also appear in the
agency's source selection plan.  Agency Report (AR), exh. E-1, at 4.

   [3] While the evaluators did not specifically note this as a weakness
under the experience criterion in the consensus evaluation report, the
record nonetheless supports the agency's conclusion.  Under the past
performance evaluation criterion, the evaluators noted IMTS's lack of
prior contracts performing services similar in breadth to the requirement
here.  AR, exh E-2, at 44.  Moreover, an examination of the JMTS proposal
in both the experience and past performance sections reflects this lack of
prior contracts on the part of IMTS; only four contracts are identified
with IMTS in any way, and of those, three appear to have been awarded to
the mentor firm, D.N. American.  The fourth listing was a $3 million
contract to perform more limited services relating solely to software
development, and D.N. American is identified as IMTS's subcontractor.  In
this regard, where, as here, a mentor firm has experience, but its protege
firm has almost none, an agency properly may downgrade the proposal on
this basis.  MW-All Star Joint Venture, B-291170.4, Aug. 4, 2003,
2004A CPD P 98 at 5.