TITLE: B-296305, SPAAN Tech, Inc., July 14, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296305
DATE: July 14, 2005
*****************************************
B-296305, SPAAN Tech, Inc., July 14, 2005

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: SPAAN Tech, Inc.

   File: B-296305

   Date: July 14, 2005

   Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., Winston & Strawn
   LLP, for the protester.

   Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., and Nancy Toppetta, Esq.,
   Department of Energy, for the agency.

   Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency's determination that protester's proposal was essentially equal to
   awardee's lower cost proposal has not been shown to be unreasonable.

   DECISION

   SPAAN Tech, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Performance Results
   Corporation (PRC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP26-03NT41819,
   issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for administrative support
   services. SPAAN Tech contends that the evaluation of its proposal and the
   source selection decision were improper.

   We deny the protest.

   DOE issued the RFP as a competitive 8(a) set-aside to acquire
   administrative program support services for DOE's National Energy
   Technology Library (NETL) at the Morgantown, West Virginia and Pittsburgh,
   Pennsylvania facilities. The services to be provided under this contract
   include management systems support services, records management support
   services, and library support services. The solicitation anticipated the
   award of a cost-plus-award-fee, task-order contract for a base period of 3
   years with two 1-year options.

   The RFP stated the "[s]election of the best value to the Government will
   be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses
   of each Offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria
   stated in the solicitation." RFP sect. M.2. The RFP contemplated the
   evaluation of a business and management (written) electronic proposal and
   an oral presentation, and stated that "[t]he sum of on the written
   evaluation criteria are of equal importance to the sum of the oral
   evaluation criteria." The evaluation criteria for the electronic (written)
   proposals were: (1) management approach (40%), (2) key personnel (30%),
   (3) organizational approach (10%), (4) experience (10%), and (5) past
   performance (10%). The evaluation criteria for the oral presentation were:
   (1) understanding of requirements and corporate ability (40%), (2)
   qualified staffing personnel (30%), and (3) management of tasks (30%). The
   solicitation provided that the combined weight of the business and
   management proposal and the oral presentation were of significantly
   greater importance than the cost proposal. RFP amend. 6. The RFP also
   stated that the government is more concerned with obtaining a superior
   technical proposal than making an award at the lowest evaluated cost, but
   that the government would not make an award at a price premium it
   considered disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated
   superiority of one technical proposal over another. The RFP also provided
   that to the extent that the technical proposals were evaluated as close or
   similar in merit, then the evaluated cost would be more likely to be the
   determining factor. RFP sect. M.2. Finally, the RFP provided that the
   agency intended to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions,
   and, therefore, cautioned offerors that their proposals should contain the
   offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. RFP sect. L.17.

   The agency received five proposals by the April 1, 2004 due date,
   including those from SPAAN Tech and PRC. The evaluation rating committee
   (ERC) evaluated the written proposals against the solicitation's criteria
   for the written proposals, established strengths and weaknesses, and
   arrived at a consensus score for each written proposal by June 14. Oral
   presentations were conducted from June 21 through June 24. The ERC
   evaluated the oral presentations against the RFP's criteria for oral
   presentations, identified strengths and weaknesses, and established a
   consensus score for the oral presentations.

   SPAAN Tech received a total score of 1,440 points (940 points oral/500
   points electronic) with an evaluated most probable cost of $26,159,046,
   and PRC had a total score of 1,375 points (710 oral/665 electronic) with a
   most probable cost of $18,067,443.[1] SPAAN Tech score of only 500 points
   for its written proposal was the result of the agency's conclusion that
   the proposal was superficial in many respects.[2] In this regard, 30
   specific weaknesses were identified and specified by the agency in SPAAN
   Tech's written proposal, of which 6 were considered significant. In
   contrast, SPAAN Tech's oral presentation received a relatively high score
   of 940 points. The source selection authority (SSA) determined that PRC's
   proposal represented the best value to the government, finding that SPAAN
   Tech's slightly higher rated proposal did offer value to the government
   that was worth the associated $8,091,443 cost premium.

   On October 13, SPAAN Tech filed an agency-level protest contesting the
   proposed award to PRC on the the grounds that there was an improper cost
   realism analysis, technical analysis, and best value analysis. The agency
   took corrective action in response to this protest, and reevaluated the
   cost proposals and prepared a new source selection document. The technical
   proposals were not rescored, but SPAAN Tech's evaluated most probable cost
   was now calculated at $22,232,624 and PRC's at $16,657,506. After a
   detailed discussion of the similarities and the significant differences
   between the proposals, the SSA concluded in the revised source selection
   document that the proposals of SPAAN Tech and PRC were "technically
   equivalent," given the "nature of the strengths and weaknesses for both
   offerors," the 65-point difference in technical scores, and that "both
   offerors demonstrated a high probability of successful performance." Given
   the evaluated technical equivalency of the two proposals and PRC's
   substantially lower cost, the SSA determined that PRC's proposal
   represented the best value to the government. The SSA also noted that his
   award decision would remain the same even if SPAAN Tech's slightly higher
   overall technical score represented an appreciable difference between the
   proposals of SPAAN Tech and PRC because the SSA determined that the
   technical differences between the two proposals were not worth the
   $5,575,118 cost premium. This protest followed.

   SPAAN Tech argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was
   improper because it was based on a "mechanical reliance" on the evaluation
   scores assigned to its written proposal and oral presentation. The
   protester essentially argues that its written proposal and oral
   presentation covered the same topics, and that the agency downgraded the
   written portion of its proposal for weaknesses that the evaluators did not
   find in its oral presentation. According to the protester, this meant that
   SPAAN Tech's proposal was "subject to a blatantly contradictory evaluation
   that did not reasonably assess its actual ability." Protester's Comments
   at 5.

   In reviewing protests concerning the evaluation of proposals, we will
   examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it had a reasonable basis
   and was consistent with the evaluation listed in the RFP. Ideal Elec. Sec.
   Co., B-279221, B-279221.2, May 19, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 14 at 4. A
   protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is not itself
   sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Correa
   Enters., Inc., B-241912, Mar. 5, 1991, CPD para. 249 at 3. Here, the
   record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
   the RFP.

   Notwithstanding SPAAN Tech's broad contention that there was significant
   overlap between the topics covered in the written proposal and oral
   presentation and that the weaknesses found in its written proposal were
   not consistent with the evaluation of its oral presentation, SPAAN Tech
   cites to only three of the weaknesses found in the written proposal to
   support this contention. SPAAN Tech does not specifically challenge the
   numerous other weaknesses that supported the low score awarded for its
   written proposal, for example, [deleted].[3] Thus, the protester has not
   shown that its written proposal score, much less the source selection
   decision, would have been materially affected, even if matters addressed
   in the oral presentation had been considered in the scoring of the written
   proposal.

   While there appears to be some overlap between the topics covered by the
   written proposal and the oral presentation, the written proposal and oral
   presentation, as indicated above, were to be separately evaluated under
   different evaluation criteria under the RFP evaluation scheme.[4] Thus,
   that SPAAN Tech's oral presentation received a much high score than its
   written proposal is not evidence of an irrational evaluation, as contended
   by the protester.

   Most importantly, contrary to the protester's argument, this source
   selection was not based on a "mechanical reliance" on the evaluation
   scores assigned to its written proposal and oral presentation. Instead,
   the source selection document discussed the similarities of the proposals
   and detailed the differences between the proposals, including many of
   their respective strengths and weaknesses, and based on this analysis
   concluded that the proposals were "essentially equal." The protester has
   not shown this judgment was unreasonable. In fact, it has not directly
   challenged the narrative analysis contained in the source selection
   document that explained why the proposals were considered technically
   equivalent. For example, SPAAN Tech has not argued that PRC's proposal did
   not have the relative strengths described in the source selection document
   or attack the validity of the source selection statement's observations
   about its proposal.

   In sum, we find the agency reasonably determined that the proposals were
   essentially equal and properly made award based on PRC's significantly
   lower cost proposal.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Each offeror's business and management proposal and oral presentation
   could receive 1,000 points maximum each for a maximum combined score of
   2,000 points.

   [2] As noted by the agency, the business and management approach section
   of SPAAN Tech's business and management approach proposal contained 39
   pages of text, while the RFP allowed up to 120 pages of text. In contrast,
   the business and management approach section of PRC's business and
   management proposal was 120 pages of text.

   [3] In its initial protest, SPAAN Tech protested a number of other
   weaknesses found in its oral presentation and written proposal that it
   claimed were nonexistent or easily clarified. In its report, the agency
   responded to these allegations and the protester filed no further comments
   on these issues. Thus, we consider the protester to have abandoned these
   protest bases and will not consider them further. See Delco Indus. Textile
   Corp., B-292324, Aug. 8, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 141 at 3 n.2.

   [4] To the extent that SPAAN Tech argues that the evaluation of the oral
   presentation as described in the RFP did not comply with the purposes of
   oral presentations, as stated in the DOE Acquisition Guide,
   http://professionals.pr.doe.gov/ma5/MA-5Web.nsf/Procurement/Acquisition+Guide?OpenDocument,
   we note that such a document is an internal agency guide that does not
   give the parties any rights; it is the evaluation scheme in the RFP to
   which an agency is required to adhere in evaluating proposals and making
   the award selection. See Islandwide Landscaping, Inc., B-293018, Dec. 24,
   2003, 2004 CPD para. 19 at 4.