TITLE:  Sigma One Corporation, B-294719, December 2, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294719
DATE:  December 2, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Sigma One Corporation

   File:            B-294719

   Date:              December 2, 2004

   Jennifer L. Bowman, Esq., James W. Norment, Esq., and Hugh R. Overholt,
Esq., Ward and Smith, for the protester.

   James J. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson for Associates in Rural Development, Inc.; and
John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Erin R. Karsman, Esq.,
and Jennifer D. Cisnersos, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen for
International Resources Group, intervenors.

   Diane A. Perone, Esq., United States Agency for International Development,
for the agency.

   Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest is denied where, notwithstanding general direction in solicitation
that detailed information should be presented in proposals only when
required by specific solicitation instructions, agency reasonably
downgraded protester's proposal for failing to include sufficient
specificity in response to factors where solicitation did call for
specific information, and therefore agency's elimination of protester's
low-priced proposal from the competitive range was reasonable and
consistent with the request for proposals.

   DECISION

   Sigma One Corporation, a small business, protests the exclusion of its
proposal from the competitive range by the United States Agency for
International Development under request for proposals (RFP) No.
M/OP-03-001 for technical assistance services for the "Rural and
Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment" program (RAISE
Plus).  The protester argues that its proposal was eliminated from the
competitive range on the basis of an evaluation scheme that was not
disclosed in the RFP.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award of up to five indefinite-quantity
contracts.  One limited-scope contract was set aside for small businesses;
the remainder were unrestricted.  RFP at 94.  The unrestricted competition
(referred to as the "full scope of work" competition), at issue here,[1]
sought proposals to perform services to assist small-to-medium-scale
producers, small-to-medium-scale enterprises, and community-based resource
managers to operate profitably in domestic and world markets.  RFP at 10. 

   Under the full scope of work competition, the RFP identified six technical
criteria, in descending order of importance (with the final three criteria
equal to each other in importance): technical approach, technical
capability management, knowledge management, corporate capability, key
personnel, and past performance.  RFP atA 111-12.  The RFP also provided
for a trade-off between technical and price factors, with technical
evaluation factors, when combined, significantly more important than
evaluated cost, but noted that as technical rankings became closer, cost
considerations would increase in importance.  RFP amend. 3, at 16.  

   With regard to the level of detail required in proposals, the RFP provided
as follows:

   L.8  INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

   (a)  The Technical Proposal in response to this solicitation should
address how the offeror intends to carry out the Statement of
WorkA .A .A .  It should also contain a clear understanding of the work to
be undertaken and the responsibilities of the parties involved. 

                 *          *          *          *          *

   (c)  Detailed information should be presented only when required by
specific RFP instructions.  Proposals are limited to 40 pages . . .

                 *          *          *          *          *

   (e)  Full Scope of Work--proposals

   The technical proposal should, at a minimum, include the following:

   With reference to . . . Statement of Work, and incorporating relevant
additional analysis and understanding, concisely and clearly describe how
technical assistance provided under RAISE PLUS will increase rural
prosperity in an environmentally sustainable way.  Describe how trade and
investment; policy and regulations; infrastructure . . . agribusiness and
natural resource based industry competitiveness; natural resources (soils,
forests, water); and producer organization and rural family capacity can
be enhanced so that they contribute to significant host country economic
growth over the next 5 years. 

   RFP amend. 3, at 3-4.  For each of the next three factors (technical
capability management, knowledge management, and corporate capability),
the RFP similarly requested the offeror to "clearly and concisely describe
how" (or "clearly and concisely demonstrate how") it proposed to perform. 
Id. 

   The technical evaluators ranked Sigma One's proposal as seventh out of the
nine proposals.  In three of the six technical criteria, including the two
most important ones, the evaluators found Sigma One's proposal to be
marginal, and it was rated acceptable under the three remaining criteria. 
In the competitive range determination document, the contracting officer
discussed the weakness of Sigma One's proposal and noted examples of the
"overly general" treatment of the issues under the criteria where Sigma
One had been rated marginal.  AR, Tab 7, Competitive Range Determination,
at 6.  The competitive range decision also discussed Sigma One's low
evaluated cost, and two weaknesses in its cost proposal.  Ultimately, the
contracting officer concluded that the degree to which Sigma One's
proposal was inferior rendered the cost advantage less important, and
ultimately determined to eliminate Sigma One's proposal from the
competitive range.  Id. atA 13a**15.

   Sigma One was notified of the exclusion of its proposal from the
competitive range, and received a pre-award debriefing.  In its protest,
Sigma One objects that the chief criticism of the proposal was that it did
not "adequately describe its plan to accomplish the goals of RAISE Plus,"
and generally exhibited a "lack of specificity."  Protest at 3.  Sigma One
argues that the RFP did not require thorough treatment of these aspects in
its proposal, and therefore it responded with a "probable course of action
that relies more on academic skills than on a mechanical presentation of
past experiences or reactions to situations."  Protester's Comments at 7. 

   Sigma One explains that its proposal, admittedly, was "not a presentation
of specific past examples or lessons learned."  Protest at 5 (emphasis in
original).  In light of the RFP language, Sigma One objects that "[i]t is
unreasonable to expect offerors to be able to predict or read into the RFP
the need for specific details, narratives, examples of past performance
and lessons learned tables when the RFP specifically directs the offerors
not to include detail unless specifically required by the RFP." 
Protester's Comments at 6 (emphasis in original).[2] 

   In response, the agency essentially agrees that Sigma One's marginal
ratings under three factors were caused by a lack of sufficient
information about how Sigma One would perform.  Contracting Officer's (CO)
Statement at 7.  Notwithstanding the language that detailed information
should be presented only when required by specific RFP instructions, the
agency emphasizes that in numerous places the RFP requested explanations
of "how" an offeror would perform, for evaluation purposes.  The agency
maintains that Sigma One's proposal was properly downgraded under those
factors, and ultimately excluded from the competitive range, because Sigma
One failed to provide adequate explanations, as required by the RFP. 
COA Statement atA 7-9. 

   The record demonstrates that the agency's evaluation was consistent with
the RFP.  As described above, while the RFP stated that detailed
information should be presented only when required by specific RFP
instructions, the RFP clearly requested that an offeror, under the first
four evaluation factors, describe or demonstrate how it proposed to
perform the required work.  In fact, the agency's evaluation of Sigma
One's proposal tracks the evaluation criteria closely, and identifies the
evaluators' conclusions with respect to the quality of the proposal with
respect to each criterion.  Thus, we conclude that the agency's evaluation
was consistent with the evaluation criteria. 

   Furthermore, we think the agency's evaluation of the merits of Sigma One's
proposal was reasonable.  For example, within the technical approach
factor, under the heading "natural resources (soil, forests, water)," the
evaluators identified no

   strengths but described the weakness (and quoted from the Sigma One
proposal) thus:

   This criteri[on] was not addressed in a specific way.  Sigma One's
proposal does not describe "how" things will be accomplished although they
state that "[Deleted]."  There are no examples of how farmers might
implement "sustainable production schemes," no details on sustainable
productions schemes, no description of what NRM [natural resource
management] technical assistance might entail.  They mentioned use of
[Deleted], but not how they would be applied.  They called for more
[Deleted], but did not explain how such change would be encouraged.

   Sigma One discusses [Deleted] (p. 9).  They cite the need for [Deleted]. 
Unfortunately, they don't explain how they would foster these new regimes.

   Sigma One states "[Deleted]"  This broad statement is followed by several
more general comments, "[Deleted]."  While these general statements
provide a good opportunity for addressing this criterion, the proposal
fails to follow-up by clearly describing Sigma One's strategy to pursue
these opportunities.

   AR, Tab 6, Technical Evaluation Report, at 152. 

   The protester identifies a 2-page chart in its proposal that it believes
explains its approach under the technical approach factor.  Protest exh.
C.  The agency's evaluators found that the chart was "an even less
effective way of describing *how' than . . . prose. . . .  The chart is an
amalgamation of buzz words, jargon, acronyms, and incomplete phrases." 
AR, Tab 3, Declaration of Technical Evaluation Chair, at 7.  We have no
basis to question the agency's evaluation in this regard; as illustrated
by the example above, the agency also explains why the narrative "prose"
portions of the protester's proposal were downgraded.  The protester has
not rebutted the merits of the agency evaluation. 

   The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) authorizes the contracting
officer to exclude proposals from the competitive range that are not among
the "most highly rated."  FAR SA 15.306(c)(1); Fiserv NCSI, Inc.,
Ba**293005, Jan. 15, 2004, 2004A CPD PA 59 at 12.  As discussed above, the
agency's criticisms of Sigma One's proposal all reasonably relate to the
stated evaluation criteria, and therefore were reasonably employed by the
agency, and the evaluation itself is reasonable and supported by the
record.  Further, the record shows that all offerors' proposals that were
included in the competitive range had significantly superior non-price
evaluations, when compared to Sigma One.  CO Statement atA 8; AR,A Tab 7,
Competitive Range Determination, at 4-6.  Based on this record, where the
RFP provided that non-price factors were significantly more important than
price, we think that Sigma One's low-rated proposal was reasonably
excluded from the competitive range as not among the most highly rated
proposals, notwithstanding its low evaluated price.

   The protest is denied.[3]

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

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

   [1] Although the proposal submitted by Sigma One indicated that the firm
was a small disadvantaged business, Sigma One explicitly labeled its
submission as a proposal for the unrestricted "full scope of work"
competition, not as a proposal for the work set aside for small
businesses.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Sigma One Proposal, at 4. 

   [2] In its protest, Sigma One also disputed the agency's conclusion that
its agricultural economist did not meet a requirement for the position. 
Protest at 6.  The technical evaluation committee report set forth the
evaluation of the protester's key personnel, finding them acceptable but
noting weaknesses.  Memorandum of Law at 22; AR,A TabA 6, Technical
Evaluation Report, at 164-65.  Although, in its supplemental comments, the
protester asserts that its comments expanded on its objections to "the
evaluation of Key Personnel or any other sections of the proposal,"
Protester's Supplemental Comments at 2 n.1, we find nothing in either set
of comments further addressing its challenge to the evaluation of key
personnel.  Since Sigma One did not respond to the agency's explanation in
its comments on the report, we consider this argument to be abandoned. 
TN-KY Contractors, B-291997.2, May 5, 2003, 2003A CPD PA 91 at 3 n.2. 

   [3] Although Sigma One raised a number of other arguments concerning the
evaluation, we find it unnecessary to address them individually, given our
conclusion above.