TITLE: B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4, Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation, July 29, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4
DATE: July 29, 2005
******************************************************************************************************
B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4, Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation, July 29, 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: Trajen, Inc.; Maytag Aircraft Corporation

   File: B-296334; B-296334.2; B-296334.3; B-296334.4

   Date: July 29, 2005

   Thomas O. Mason, Esq., Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Rachel L. Semanchik, Esq.,
   and Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Williams Mullen PC, for Trajen, Inc.;
   and J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., and Michael J. Noonan, Esq., Halloran &
   Sage LLP, for Maytag Aircraft Corporation, the protesters.

   Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Jennifer M. Miller, Esq., and Christine F.
   Mayhew, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, for LB&B Associates,
   Inc., an intervenor.

   Timothy A. Raezer, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Discussions were meaningful where agency led protesters into areas of
   their proposals requiring additional information or improvement, including
   staffing levels and maintenance plans.

   2. Agency's use of three adjectival ratings instead of five, as called for
   by solicitation, did not render evaluation unreasonable, since adjectival
   ratings are simply a guide for use by contracting officials, and numerical
   scores as well as supporting narratives provided means of differentiating
   among proposals that would have been provided by additional adjectival
   ratings.

   3. Technical evaluations of protesters' proposals under staffing and other
   subfactors were reasonable where they are consistent with content of
   proposals; for example, protesters' proposals offered fewer personnel than
   agency's estimated targets and personnel who lacked required
   qualifications, and failed to reasonably assure the government of access
   to preventive maintenance software.

   4. Technical evaluation of awardee's proposal was unobjectionable where
   agency reasonably found that proposed staffing levels were appropriate and
   that personnel were qualified for proposed positions.

   DECISION

   Trajen, Inc. and Maytag Aircraft Corporation protest the award of a
   contract to LB&B Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   SP0600-04-R-0032, for fuel receipt, storage, and issue services at the
   Government-Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) facilities at Defense Fuel
   Support Point (DFSP), Norfolk, Virginia, and aircraft refueling services
   for Naval Station (NS) Norfolk and Naval Amphibious Base (NAB), Little
   Creek, Virginia. Trajen and Maytag challenge the technical evaluations of
   their own and LB&B's proposals, the conduct of discussions, and the source
   selection.

   We deny the protests.

   The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract (with
   cost-reimbursable line items) for a period of 5 years, to provide
   necessary labor, management, and equipment to operate five fuel terminals.
   Three of the terminals--Craney Island, Yorktown, and Sewell's
   Point--comprised the DFSP, and two--NS Norfolk and NAB Little
   Creek--comprised the alongside aircraft refueling facilities. Craney
   Island, the largest single government fuel storage facility in the
   continental U.S., is located in Portsmouth, Virginia and is some 42
   road-miles southeast of Yorktown and 20 road-miles southwest of Sewell's
   Point, which is located on NS Norfolk. The DFSP complex is responsible for
   the receipt, storage and handling, quality surveillance, shipment, and
   accountability of various government-owned petroleum products in support
   of designated Department of Defense activities. The NS Norfolk-NAB
   facilities are responsible for fuel storage and services for various
   aircraft and naval vessels. In addition to petroleum-related services, the
   contractor is responsible for equipment and grounds maintenance at the
   facilities. The RFP contained two detailed performance work statements
   (PWS) outlining the requirements of each performance area.

   Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of four factors, listed in
   descending order of importance--operational capability, past performance,
   price, and socio-economic/subcontracting. The operational capability
   factor was divided into nine subfactors, also listed in descending order
   of importance and with the following stated weights--operation and
   staffing plan (5), contract compliance plan (4), maintenance plan (3),
   product quality surveillance plan (3), product inventory control and
   accountability plan (3), security plan (2), training plan (2), safety plan
   (2), and equipment/vehicles (2). The RFP provided that, after proposals
   were evaluated under each factor, a rating of exceptional, very good,
   satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory would be assigned. In evaluating
   the proposals, the technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated proposals
   under each factor and subfactor on the basis of three adjectival ratings
   (and corresponding points)--exceptional (3), average (2), and marginal
   (1). Technical factors were considered more important than price.

   Trajen, Maytag, LB&B, and another offeror submitted proposals. All were
   evaluated by the TET and included in the competitive range. The TET issued
   written discussion letters, conducted oral negotiations, and obtained
   final proposal revisions (FPR) from each of the offerors. The results of
   the final consensus evaluation were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                             |   Maytag   |   Trajen   |      LB&B      |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Op. Capability (78 avail.    |Average (44)|Average (42)|Exceptional (66)|
   |points)[1]                   |            |            |                |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Op & Staff Plan (15)         |  Marginal  |  Average   |  Exceptional   |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Compl. Plan (12)             |  Average   |  Marginal  |  Exceptional   |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Maint. Plan (9)              |  Marginal  |  Marginal  |  Exceptional   |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Prod. Qual. Surv. (9)        |  Average   |  Average   |    Average     |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Prod. Inv. Ctrl/Acct (9)     |  Average   |  Marginal  |    Average     |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Security (6)                 |  Average   |  Average   |    Average     |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Training (6)                 |  Average   |  Average   |    Average     |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Safety (6)                   |  Average   |  Average   |    Average     |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Equip/Veh. (6)               |  Average   |  Average   |  Exceptional   |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Past Performance             | Very Good  | Very Good  |  Exceptional   |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |Price                        |$30,511,080 |$29,985,000 |  $33,309,107   |
   |-----------------------------+------------+------------+----------------|
   |SocioEcon/Subcontracting     |Exceptional |Exceptional |  Exceptional   |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   The contracting officer, as the source selection authority (SSA), reviewed
   the TET's consensus evaluations of each proposal and performed a
   price-technical tradeoff. The SSA concluded that LB&B's superior technical
   proposal, as evidenced by its higher proposed manning levels, better
   contract compliance and maintenance plans, and proposal of [deleted]
   equipment and vehicles, more than offset the other offerors' lower prices.
   After receiving debriefings, Trajen and Maytag filed these protests.[2]

   MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS

   Trajen and Maytag assert that the agency improperly downgraded their
   proposals in certain areas without bringing the evaluated weaknesses in
   those areas to the protesters' attention during discussions. When an
   agency engages in discussions with an offeror, the discussions must be
   meaningful, that is, they must lead the offeror into the areas of its
   proposal that require correction or amplification. Hanford Envtl. Health
   Found., B-292858.2, B-292858.5, Apr. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 164 at 8.
   However, this does not mean that an agency must "spoon-feed" an offeror as
   to each and every item that must be revised or addressed to improve the
   submission. Arctic Slope World Servs., Inc., B-284481, B-284481.2, Apr.
   27, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 75 at 9.

   Trajen Discussions

   Trajen asserts that the agency improperly failed to provide it with
   meaningful discussions regarding weaknesses identified under the
   operations and staffing subfactor. While conceding that the agency raised
   questions about its staffing in discussions, Trajen maintains that the
   agency failed to make clear its actual concerns and that it failed to
   consider the protester's responses in its FPR.[3]

   The discussions with Trajen were meaningful. The agency was concerned with
   Trajen's staffing levels and told the firm during discussions to take
   another look at its staffing considering the three diverse and separate
   areas of the DFSP, hot pit staffing, and the distance to the site at NS
   Norfolk. Trajen Agency Report (TAR) at 14; Tab I, at 11. The agency also
   identified the need to provide a chart or table showing typical
   hours/days/weeks worked to assist it in calculating the number of full
   time equivalents (FTE), and asked for a typical 7-day week, hourly
   breakdown by job classification, to include management and supervisory
   personnel. Id. In response, Trajen proposed [deleted], but did not provide
   breakdowns for all sites. TAR at 14. In its final consensus evaluation,
   the TET found that Trajen's FPR responses were unacceptable and questioned
   the adequacy of the firm's overall staffing levels given the projected
   workloads and Trajen's current staffing at Craney Island. Among other
   concerns, the TET found Trajen's personnel changes to be insufficient; it
   thus found no basis for changing Trajen's original rating of average under
   this subfactor.

   Trajen asserts that in oral discussions, the agency specifically advised
   the firm that it only needed to submit breakdown charts for the NS Norfolk
   and NAB Little Creek sites. Trajen Declaration (Decl.) at para. 13.
   However, the agency claims that Trajen is mistaken, and we find no
   evidence in the record supporting Trajen's claim. To the contrary, the
   written discussions clearly pointed to staffing issues at all DFSP sites,
   and there was nothing in the written discussions to suggest that the
   request for breakdown charts extended only to two sites. This being the
   case, and given that the RFP already required offerors to submit staffing
   matrices identifying how many and what types of employees would
   participate in each operation, RFP sect. L.201.100.B(1), there appears to
   have been no reason for the agency to restrict the scope of the requested
   charts. Further, based on past performance surveys criticizing Trajen's
   staffing levels at Craney Island, it appears that the protester was well
   aware of the agency's concerns in this area. Trajen Protest, exh. 1. While
   Trajen disagrees with the TET's evaluation, it is clear that the agency's
   discussions led the firm into the areas of the TET's concerns with
   staffing levels. (In any case, in the absence of complete charts, the
   agency evaluated Trajen's staffing at the remaining sites based on the
   firm's initial proposal, and Trajen has not established that the agency
   misinterpreted the firm's staffing levels at these sites.)[4]

   Maytag Discussions

   Maytag asserts that the agency failed to provide the firm with meaningful
   discussions by failing to apprise the firm of its actual concerns
   regarding staffing levels, personnel qualifications, and various aspects
   of its proposed maintenance plan.

   In discussions, the agency informed Maytag that its [deleted] proposed
   full- and part-time employees equated to approximately [deleted] FTEs,
   with [deleted] at the DFSP and [deleted] at the NS Norfolk/NAB. Maytag AR
   (MAR), Tab X, at 7. Written discussions informed Maytag that the agency
   intended to discuss staffing based on the three diverse and separate areas
   of the DFSP, hot pit staffing, and the distance to the NS Norfolk site,
   along with the firm's reliance on part-time personnel. Id. Then, during
   oral discussions, the agency specifically referenced Craney Island and
   Yorktown and asked the firm to reassess its staffing based on the workload
   factors to be provided. Maytag Discussion Notes, Nov. 18, 2004. When
   Maytag explained that it had proposed at least [deleted] more FTEs than
   the agency had calculated, the agency advised it to look again, even with
   those additional persons counted. Id. Maytag asked for additional feedback
   on where it was light in staffing, and by e-mail of December 3, the agency
   advised that it was concerned that the level of manning was low given the
   multitude of tasks at Craney Island, with particular concern about the
   firm's ability to staff the simultaneous operations. MAR, Tab U. In its
   FPR, Maytag added some [deleted] FTEs to Craney Island. The agency's
   target staffing for Craney Island was [deleted] FTEs, however, and
   Maytag's revision raised its staffing only to [deleted] FTEs. MAR, Tab P.
   In its final consensus evaluation, the TET found that Maytag's increased
   staffing was inadequate. MAR, Tab K.

   Maytag asserts that the agency should have provided it with more
   information, including an explanation of the multitude of tasks and
   simultaneous operations that the agency believed required greater
   staffing. However, we believe the discussions provided were sufficient to
   lead Maytag into the areas where its proposal was lacking. Maytag had the
   benefit of the agency's workload levels, the PWS for Craney Island, and
   the agency's view that an increase of only a few personnel was likely
   inadequate. The agency was not required to essentially "spoon-feed" the
   protester by providing additional information. Arctic Slope World Servs.,
   Inc., supra.

   With regard to personnel qualifications, the agency asked Maytag in
   written discussions to clarify its proposed terminal superintendent's
   deepwater terminal experience as an operator or supervisor, since his
   experience appeared to be "around" terminal functions, not within
   terminals or as an operator. MAR, Tab X, at 7. In oral discussions, the
   agency advised that it did not have a "good feeling" about the proposed
   employee; from his resume, it appeared to the agency that he was around
   the periphery of terminals and had most of his experience in the quality
   assurance area, while the agency needed deepwater experience. Maytag
   Discussion Notes, Nov. 18, 2004. In response, Maytag provided narrative
   information in its FPR highlighting the employee's supposed deepwater
   terminal experience. In reviewing the FPR, the TET found that Maytag had
   not changed the employee's resume to expressly indicate deepwater terminal
   experience, apart from quality surveillance specialist (QAS) experience.
   MAR, Tab K.

   Maytag asserts that the agency should have stated that it considered the
   employee unqualified instead of simply seeking "clarification" of his
   experience. However, we believe the agency's discussions were more than
   adequate to lead Maytag into the area of this concern. The protester was
   aware that the agency had specific problems with the proposed employee and
   it was up to the firm to provide adequate support in establishing his
   qualifications. The agency reasonably downgraded the proposal based on
   Maytag's failure to do so.

   ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

   Trajen and Maytag assert that the evaluation was flawed because the agency
   did not follow the evaluation scheme outlined in the RFP. Specifically,
   they note that, while the RFP provided for an evaluation using five
   adjectives--exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and
   unsatisfactory--the TET applied only three--exceptional, average, and
   marginal.

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
   confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
   regulations. United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 75 at 10-11. When considering the ratings assigned by an agency to
   an offeror's proposal, we have consistently taken the position that
   evaluation ratings, be they adjectival, numerical or color, are merely
   guides for intelligent decision-making in the procurement process. KBM
   Group, Inc., B-281919, B-281919.2, May 3, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 118 at 11.

   The agency's use of three adjectives instead of the five stated in the RFP
   had no prejudicial impact on the evaluation. In this regard, all proposals
   were evaluated under the same scheme and the evaluation was not based
   solely on the adjectives; each of the nine subfactors had an individual
   weight that was multiplied by the numerical score assigned by the
   individual and consensus evaluations as well as supporting narratives. The
   maximum possible score for the operational capability factor was 78 points
   and the three adjectives represented various point ranges--exceptional
   (78-57), average (56-29), and marginal (less than 29). TAR, Tab H; MAR,
   Tab K. To the extent that a greater number of adjectives would operate to
   provide more precise differentiation among proposals, the numerical
   scoring of the proposals provided that differentiation. With a score of 66
   points, LB&B's proposal was considered to be mid-exceptional, and the
   protesters' scores placed them in the mid-average range. TAR at 11; MAR at
   9. Regardless of the adjectives applied, the relative standing of the
   offerors' proposals would remain the same, with LB&B's proposal rated
   significantly higher than either of the protester's. We note, moreover,
   that the source selection was not merely based on the adjectival or
   numerical ratings; the SSA specifically considered the narrative comments
   in the consensus evaluations and weighed the advantages of various aspects
   of LB&B's proposal over the others. We conclude that the agency's failure
   to use all five of the adjectives identified in the RFP was
   unobjectionable.

   TRAJEN'S TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   Trajen asserts that the agency improperly downgraded its proposal for
   failing to offer adequate staffing, based on an undisclosed, mechanically
   applied staffing level.

   To ensure that its need for adequate staffing will be met, it is proper
   for an agency to evaluate technical or price proposals against an
   undisclosed, reasonable estimate of the appropriate staffing needed to
   perform the solicitation requirements where, as here, the RFP notifies
   offerors that staffing is an area of evaluation. Gemini Indus., Inc.,
   B-281323, Jan. 25, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 22 at 3. However, it is
   inappropriate to determine the acceptability of proposals simply by the
   mechanical application of an undisclosed estimate. KCA Corp., B-255115,
   Feb. 9, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 94 at 6-7.

   There is no evidence of a mechanical application of the agency's
   estimates. As explained by the agency, its primary concern with this
   performance-based procurement was to ensure that the offerors could meet
   the performance requirements. TAR, Tab S, Decl., at para. 9. To this end,
   one of the TET members prepared a staffing estimate based on the workload
   and current staffing levels, and had it verified for accuracy by the DFSP
   Norfolk, Deputy Director. Id. In the evaluation, the staffing estimate was
   not used as a minimum level for acceptability, but was used as a common
   tool to help analyze all offerors' proposed staffing plans; each offeror's
   proposed staffing for each site was compared to the agency's estimate for
   that site. TAR, Tab J. In addition to this comparison, the TET considered
   the positions, skill levels, experience, approaches, and any efficiency to
   proposed staffing that would ensure performance. TAR, Tab S, Decl.
   at para. 9.

   Trajen notes that it proposed to use innovative approaches, including
   [deleted]. Trajen Decl. at paras. 7-9. Trajen maintains that its staffing
   should have been evaluated more favorably in light of these
   considerations.

   This argument is without merit. The agency observes that Trajen's FPR did
   not refer to a [deleted], and explains that the TET considered the other
   efficiencies proposed, but concluded that the protester's overall
   staffing--specifically, at Craney Island and Yorktown, where Trajen was
   the incumbent contractor--was suboptimal and might not support the
   operations and maintenance requirements. Agency Response to Trajen's
   Supplemental Comments at 6; TAR, Tab H. A comparison of Trajen's staffing
   levels with the agency's estimate shows that the protester consistently
   proposed fewer personnel at all but one of the sites. In addition,
   Trajen's performance under its incumbent contract included criticism for
   inadequate manning, insufficient staff to meet daily operational
   requirements, and long delays in making many repairs due to insufficient
   manpower. Trajen Protest, exh. 1. Offerors are responsible for submitting
   an adequately written proposal, and run the risk that their proposal will
   be evaluated unfavorably where they fail to do so. Carlson Wagonlit
   Travel, B-287016, Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 49 at 3. Here, Trajen has
   failed to establish that its proposed staffing level, in light of its
   innovative performance techniques, warranted more than an average rating;
   there thus is no basis to find the agency's evaluation unreasonable.

   Trajen asserts that the agency improperly rated its proposal as only
   marginal for its contract compliance, maintenance, and product inventory
   control and accountability plans. Noting that its proposal was rated
   average in each of these areas in the initial evaluation, Trajen maintains
   that the agency had no basis to reduce these ratings.

   The evaluation of these aspects of Trajen's proposal was unobjectionable.
   Although each of these plans was initially evaluated as average, the
   agency explains that the TET had concerns about each, and it notes that
   those concerns were raised in discussions. Trajen's FPR was found not to
   have adequately addressed those concerns and was downgraded. For example,
   the RFP required that maintenance plans address the requirements of PWS
   sect. CG-2.4, which called for inclusion of an automated electronic
   preventive maintenance (PM) program, Maximo or equivalent. RFP
   sect. L.201.100.B.3. In discussions, the agency noted that the firm had
   proposed to use a proprietary PM program, and asked it to explain how the
   program compared to Maximo--whether it was web-based and would provide the
   government with access to information relevant to PM and, if not, whether
   Trajen would make a workstation available for government use. TAR, Tab I,
   at 12. According to the agency, access to PM information is important
   given the government's need to monitor some $500 million in
   government-furnished equipment. TAR at 9. In reviewing Trajen's response,
   the TET found that the firm did not provide any comparative information
   relating its proposed proprietary PM program to Maximo but, rather, simply
   indicated that it was a capable program. In addition, Trajen failed to
   indicate that the government would be provided access to the program; the
   agency found Trajen's FPR statement that it "could" provide access to be
   unacceptable, noting that, under Trajen's incumbent contract, the firm had
   denied the agency access when the agency had sought to verify maintenance
   data. TAR, Tab S, at para. 10. We conclude that the agency reasonably
   downgraded Trajen's proposal for failing to adequately address these
   concerns.

   With regard to the compliance plan subfactor, offerors' plans were to
   include a description of how contract compliance would be ensured,
   including internal inspection/control systems and reporting procedures, as
   well as identification of personnel responsible for monitoring/updating
   the plan. RFP sect. L.201.100.B.2. In discussions, the agency pointed out
   that Trajen's plan was general and confusing as to what personnel would
   monitor compliance and what reports would be provided to the contracting
   officer's representative, and lacked a chain of command regarding
   submission of findings and resolutions. TAR, Tab I, at 11. In reviewing
   Trajen's response, the TET found the initial and follow-on plans to be
   general and confusing, and found that the firm had failed to clarify the
   inclusion of [deleted] in the proposal. Trajen provides nothing to support
   its position that the TET's findings were unreasonable. Instead, it
   asserts that the evaluation report failed to explain the downgrade of its
   proposal in these areas. An agency may reasonably downgrade a proposal
   after discussions where, as here, there is an absence of documented
   advantages to support the higher initial score. See Dragon Servs. Inc.,
   B-255354, Feb. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 151 at 11. In our view, the agency
   reasonably determined that the protester failed to adequately respond to
   or resolve the agency's concerns; the TET thus reasonably evaluated
   Trajen's proposal as marginal under these subfactors.

   MAYTAG'S TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   Maytag asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as
   marginal under the maintenance and operations and staffing subfactors.
   Specifically, it maintains that the TET misevaluated its maintenance plan,
   its staffing levels, and its proposed terminal superintendent. In the
   protester's view, a proper evaluation would have resulted in its proposal
   being rated at least average under both subfactors, which would have
   affected the source selection. Maytag's Initial Comments at 16-18. While
   we find that the evaluation was flawed in some respects, we also find that
   those flaws did not competitively prejudice Maytag.

   Maintenance Subfactor

   The TET found in its evaluation that Maytag's proposal failed to indicate
   that Maytag would provide web access to its PM software; relied on a
   [deleted] approach for all sites, which was inadequate; and failed either
   to provide for the use of Maximo PM software or to establish the
   equivalence of its proposed PM software at all sites. MAR, Tab K. The TET
   downgraded the proposal to a marginal level.

   Maytag asserts that it was improper to penalize it for lack of web access
   to its PM program, since it proposed to provide the access called for by
   PWS CG-2.4.2.4, which requires contractors to make PM records available to
   the government upon request. In written discussions, the TET requested
   Maytag to "clarify if [its PM software] will be web based and that they
   will provide the Government access to information relevant to [PM]. If
   not, then they will need to provide access to a workstation for use by the
   Government." MAR, Tab X, at 8. In response, Maytag's FPR simply promised
   to provide the government with [deleted] "whenever requested." The TET
   found this to be an unacceptable response. We think this determination was
   reasonable. The context of this discussion question called for the firm to
   make clear that its PM software would be web-accessible to the government
   or, alternatively, available to it on a dedicated workstation. Maytag's
   failure to propose such access provided support for the TET's negative
   evaluation comment.

   However, we agree with Maytag that the evaluation of its proposal under
   the maintenance plan subfactor was otherwise flawed. With regard to PM
   software, the TET erred in downgrading Maytag's plan for failing to
   establish the equivalence of its proposed software to Maximo. Contrary to
   the TET's position that Maximo was required at all sites, the RFP only
   required its use at the three DFSP sites. PWS, CG-2.4.3.1.1, CR-2.12.1.
   Since, as acknowledged by the TET, Maytag's FPR proposed to use Maximo at
   the three DFSP sites (MAR, Tab K), as required, and proposed to use
   Maytag's PM program at the sites where Maximo was not called for, there
   was nothing in the RFP that reasonably supported downgrading the firm's
   proposal for failing to establish how its PM program was equivalent to
   Maximo.[5]

   Likewise, we find that the TET erred in finding that Maytag had proposed
   "[deleted] to maintain all five widely dispersed areas," which, the TET
   concluded, "is not adequate to maintain the five terminals." MAR, Tab K.
   Contrary to the TET's understanding, Maytag's proposal did not call for
   maintenance at all sites to be handled by [deleted]. In this regard, the
   initial proposal and FPR identified maintenance tasks to be performed by
   personnel at each of the five sites, and for the three DFSP sites, it
   added a notation that the [deleted]. FPR, Appendix CG-O&SP-1. In context,
   we think the reference to "all sites" plainly was intended to apply only
   to all DFSP sites. The TET's evaluation on this point therefore was
   unreasonable.

   The agency asserts that it discussed this matter with Maytag, but this is
   not supported by the record. In this regard, the agency's only
   contemporaneous record is a handwritten notation on a copy of its written
   discussion questions--"[deleted] Miles of travel versus [deleted] people
   doing PM." MAR, Tab X at 7. This notation does not indicate that the
   agency raised the matter with Maytag. We find more persuasive Maytag's own
   detailed memorandum, entitled "Norfolk Talks." Maytag Discussion Notes,
   Nov. 18, 2004. This memo, in near transcript form, includes every other
   aspect of the agency's negotiations, with no mention of any question about
   [deleted]. According to the protester's detailed memo, in the context of
   the distances between sites, the parties only discussed Maytag's proposed
   use of [deleted]. Id.

   While the evaluation in these two areas was flawed, as discussed below,
   even if Maytag's score under this subfactor were raised to average, the
   magnitude of the error simply was not great enough to affect the award
   decision.[6]

   Operations and Staffing Subfactor

   Maytag challenges the evaluation of its proposal as marginal under the
   operations and staffing subfactor. For example, while the TET concluded
   that the firm had proposed suboptimal staffing overall and, specifically,
   at Craney Island, Maytag asserts that the TET failed to consider its
   actual staffing level and the fact that its [deleted] staffing plan
   included [deleted].

   The evaluation of Maytag's staffing level was reasonable. The RFP required
   the contractor to provide sufficient staffing to accomplish various
   simultaneous tasks identified in the RFP. PWSs, CG-1.8 and CR-1.8.1. In
   evaluating Maytag's proposal, the TET noted that the proposed staffing at
   Craney Island and Yorktown combined, was actually below the suboptimal
   staffing under the current contract. MAR, Tab K. While the agency had a
   target of some [deleted] FTEs ([deleted] for Craney and [deleted] for
   Yorktown), Maytag proposed [deleted] FTEs for Craney and [deleted] FTEs
   for Yorktown, for a total staffing of [deleted] FTEs at those sites. MAR,
   Tab P. The agency also determined that Maytag's slight staffing increase
   in its FPR, along with the [deleted] grounds maintenance personnel it
   proposed, did not bring its staffing up to the necessary level. MAR, Tab
   K. In this regard, the TET noted that, while Maytag consistently expressed
   its staffing in terms of [deleted] personnel, this was equivalent to fewer
   than [deleted] FTEs when part-time personnel were accounted for.[7] Id. In
   contrast, the agency estimated a total strength of [deleted] FTEs for all
   sites. MAR, Tab P.

   With regard to Maytag's [deleted] staffing, the agency observes that this
   is not a unique or innovative plan that would affect the necessary
   staffing level. In the agency's view, any prudent manager would employ
   [deleted] to cover for personnel absences, and would [deleted]. We have no
   reason to question this conclusion. The TET considered all proposed
   staffing by a breakdown of identified positions, shifts, and hours. Since
   the agency was seeking performance results and not manning levels, it
   focused on ensuring that appropriate positions were included and that
   sufficient labor of various categories and skills were available to
   perform. Supplemental AR, June 22, 2005, at 6. Maytag's [deleted] staffing
   approach, including [deleted], did not answer the agency's ultimate
   concern that sufficient FTEs were not proposed to ensure successful
   performance, especially in light of the agency's issues with the current
   contractor's provision of suboptimal manning at Craney Island.

   Given Maytag's proposal of a significantly lower staffing level than the
   agency's target, the agency reasonably concluded that the firm's staffing
   level warranted a marginal rating under this subfactor. In this regard, we
   note that, as discussed above, the agency specifically advised Maytag to
   reconsider its Craney Island staffing in discussions.

   Our conclusion is not changed by Maytag's assertion that the TET did not
   evaluate LB&B's proposed staffing using the same standards. In this
   regard, Maytag notes that LB&B proposed fewer personnel ([deleted] FTEs)
   than the agency's target of [deleted] FTEs at Craney Island and
   significantly more personnel ([deleted] FTEs) than the [deleted] FTEs
   target for Yorktown, and yet the agency failed to specifically address
   this in its evaluation. The agency explains that it recognized that LB&B,
   like Maytag, had proposed fewer personnel than the target for Craney
   Island, but concluded that, since LB&B had proposed a larger staffing
   level at Yorktown, it, unlike Maytag, would be in a position to
   permanently shift personnel to Craney Island to compensate for any
   understaffing there. Supplemental AR, June 22, 2005, at 6. We find nothing
   unreasonable in the agency's conclusion that it ran a greater risk of
   nonperformance from Maytag's overall understaffing than from LB&B's
   partially overstaffed proposal. Id. at 7.

   Terminal Superintendent

   Maytag challenges the TET's conclusion that the firm's proposed terminal
   superintendent was not qualified. The RFP required that this employee have
   a minimum of 6 years specialized experience in bulk fuel terminal
   operations, to include the receipt, storage and internal handling, and
   shipment of petroleum products via various modes of transport. PWS,
   CG-1.12.2.1. The RFP defined this specialized experience as the knowledge,
   skills, and abilities obtained as a result of direct participation in the
   aforementioned bulk fuel terminal operations. Id. Of the 6 years, 3 years
   were to be upper-level management experience at a deepwater bulk fuel
   terminal, with direct oversight and management responsibilities for the
   entire terminal. Id.

   Maytag relied on its proposed employee's 3 years of experience as the
   deputy commander and quality manager at the Defense Energy Support Center
   (DESC), Mediterranean Region. His resume stated that he provided
   [deleted]. Maytag's FPR added that at the DESC Mediterranean, the
   individual was responsible for the [deleted]. Maytag FPR at 1.

   In finding this employee's experience to be unacceptable, the TET relied
   on its own familiarity with the deputy commander/quality manager position
   at DESC Mediterranean. In this regard, the agency states that the
   employee's position did not involve the necessary hands-on management
   responsibilities required by the RFP; it involved quality assurance
   monitoring and supervision of only four or five other QA specialists. The
   position also did not involve direct participation in day-to-day
   operations of the Mediterranean terminals, because all but one were run by
   host nation contractors or the U.S. Navy. The agency found nothing in the
   resume to indicate that the employee had any direct operational or
   management responsibilities at these facilities apart from product quality
   assurance. MAR, Tabs V para. 6, AA para. 11; Agency Response to Maytag's
   Supplemental AR Comments at 6-7. In support of its proposed employee,
   Maytag points only to the resume and FPR narrative, which we find the
   agency has effectively rebutted through its personal knowledge. An agency
   is not bound by the "four corners" of an offeror's proposal in the
   evaluation of proposals and may use other information of which it is
   aware. Park Tower Mgmt. Ltd, B-295589, B-295589.2, Mar. 22, 2005, 2005 CPD
   para. 77 at 6. We conclude that the agency reasonably concluded that
   Maytag's proposed terminal superintendent lacked the required experience
   to qualify for the position.[8]

   In a related argument, Maytag asserts that the agency misevaluated LB&B's
   proposed terminal superintendent because he was less qualified than
   Maytag's proposed employee. Specifically, Maytag maintains that LB&B's
   proposed employee lacked the requisite 3 years of deepwater terminal
   experience and qualifications as an FSC/OSC. While the TET initially
   questioned the proposed employee's qualifications, after reviewing LB&B's
   FPR, the TET concluded that he was properly qualified. In this regard, the
   employee's revised resume added that his [deleted]. The agency equated
   this position with that of a site manager/fuel superintendent. MAR, Tab AA
   para. 10. The TET also considered the individual to be qualified as an
   FSC/OSC based on his long-time site manager experience at Diego Garcia,
   references to his competence in a specific [deleted] system, and his
   responsibility for [deleted] in his 12 years of experience as an Air Force
   superintendent of liquid fuels distribution. Id., para. 11. We find that
   the agency reasonably determined that the proposed individual possessed
   the required experience based on the information presented. Maytag's mere
   disagreement with the agency's judgment does not render the agency's
   evaluation unreasonable. See Command Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B-292893.2, June
   30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 168 at 3.

   The consensus evaluation also criticized Maytag's [deleted] approach to
   maintenance which, as discussed above, represented a misinterpretation,
   and misevaluation, of Maytag's proposal. In view of the other weaknesses
   addressed by the TET under this subfactor, it is not clear how much this
   misinterpretation contributed to Maytag's marginal rating. However, even
   if Maytag's score were raised to average for this subfactor, it would only
   increase its score by 5 points which, as we discuss below, would not have
   changed the outcome of the source selection.

   Prejudice

   Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a
   reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions,
   that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's
   actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award.
   McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see
   Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   Maytag was not prejudiced by the evaluation errors identified above. The
   RFP made technical factors more important than price and potential changes
   to Maytag's technical score are insufficient to affect the source
   selection. In this regard, even if, as suggested by Maytag, its ratings
   for the maintenance plan and operation and staffing plan subfactors were
   raised to average, its overall capability score would only increase by 8
   points (3 points for maintenance and 5 points for staffing). These
   adjustments would only raise Maytag's overall capability score to 52
   points. Given LB&B's much higher capability score, coupled with its higher
   past performance rating--exceptional compared to Maytag's very
   good--LB&B's technical superiority remains significant.[9] In this regard,
   in finding LB&B's proposal to be the best value, the SSA stated that the
   tangible and intangible differences between LB&B's and Maytag's technical
   proposals and past performance more than offset the differences in price.
   Price Negotiation Memorandum at 15. Under these circumstances, there is no
   basis to conclude that the evaluation errors would have affected the
   source selection.

   LB&B'S TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   Maytag asserts that LB&B's proposed corporate executive officer (CEO) was
   not qualified for the position and that LB&B's proposal should have been
   downgraded accordingly. In this regard, one of the CEO's qualifications
   was to possess "working experience in the operation and maintenance of
   bulk fuel storage facilities equivalent to that managed under this
   contract." PWS, CG-1.12.1. Maytag asserts that LB&B's CEO lacked the
   required actual work experience operating a terminal comparable to the
   facilities under this procurement. Maytag Supplemental Comments at 6.

   The PWS defines this position as one to "assure continuity between the
   Terminal Superintendent and the Contractor's home office," and called for
   the CEO to have the authority to make decisions concerning the contract,
   have a complete understanding of the contract, and to have relevant
   working experience. PWS, CG-1.12.1. As observed by the agency, unlike the
   requirement that the terminal superintendent have direct experience, the
   PWS did not require the CEO's experience to be obtained on-site or
   directly. Compare PWS, CG-1.12.1 with PWS, CG-1.12.2; Agency Response to
   Maytag Supplemental Comments at 3. In finding LB&B's CEO qualified, the
   agency relied in part on his experience as [deleted]. LB&B proposal at
   1-26. The TET was aware that one of the Defense contracts for which the
   CEO was responsible was the DESC contract to operate and maintain the
   deepwater bulk fuel terminal at [deleted], and that the proposed CEO held
   the same position there. MAR, Tab AA, para. 9; Maytag Supplemental at 5.
   In the TET's view, since [deleted] was a deepwater bulk fuel terminal
   comparable to the DFSP in this procurement, the proposed CEO clearly met
   the "working experience" qualification. We find that this determination
   was reasonable.

   Maytag finally asserts that the proposed CEO misrepresented his experience
   during a 3-year period when he worked for Maytag, and has submitted
   declarations from Maytag personnel in support of this claim. Maytag
   Supplemental Comments, exhs. 1-2. However, LB&B's CEO submitted a detailed
   declaration in rebuttal, outlining his actual responsibilities at Maytag,
   which were consistent with his resume. LB&B Response to Maytag
   Supplemental Comments, exh. 1. Further, the agency notes that the TET also
   considered the proposed CEO's significant Air Force experience from before
   his Maytag employment, and states that the most relevant experience it
   considered was the proposed CEO's most recent work at [deleted]. Agency
   Response to Maytag Supplemental Comments at 4-5. Under these
   circumstances, and since there is nothing on the face of the resume that
   brings into question its accuracy, we find no basis for questioning the
   evaluation in this regard.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The weight of each subfactor was multiplied by the value of the
   exceptional rating (3) to determine the available points for each
   subfactor and the factor overall.

   [2] Both protesters have raised numerous issues concerning the conduct of
   this procurement. We have considered them all and find that they have no
   merit or did not prejudice the respective protester. This decision
   addresses the more significant of the protesters' issues.

   [3] In its initial protest, Trajen also asserted that the agency failed to
   provide it with meaningful discussions with regard to its contract
   compliance, maintenance, and product inventory control/accountability
   plans. Trajen Protest at 7. The agency provided a detailed response to
   these assertions, including its identification of specific discussion
   questions relating to each of these plans, in its report. While Trajen
   continued to assert in its comments on the agency report that its proposal
   was misevaluated under these subfactors, it did not respond to the
   agency's explanations. Where, as here, an agency submits a detailed
   response to protest arguments, and the protester makes no further mention
   of an issue, or merely references an issue but does not substantively
   reply to the agency's detailed position, we deem the issues abandoned.
   Citrus Coll.; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 104 at 8.

   [4] In its comments on the agency's report, Trajen also asserted that the
   agency improperly downgraded its proposal regarding its proposed deputy
   fuels director without providing discussions. Trajen's Initial Comments at
   11. Protest grounds such as this must be raised within 10 days after the
   basis for protest is known or should have been known. Bid Protest
   Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2005). Here, the agency provided
   the evaluation documents on which this argument is based on May 20, 2005,
   but Trajen raised it for the first time in its comments filed on June 6,
   more than 10 days later. Accordingly, this protest ground is untimely and
   will not be considered.

   [5] As discussed above, Trajen's proposal likewise was rated marginal
   under the maintenance plan subfactor, in part, for its failure to explain
   how its proposed software was equivalent to Maximo. Unlike Maytag,
   however, Trajen did not propose to use Maximo at the required DFSP sites;
   thus, the agency's evaluation of this aspect of Trajen's proposal was
   unobjectionable. In any case, even if Trajen's evaluation under this
   subfactor were raised to average, it would increase the firm's overall
   proposal score by only 3 points, which would not be sufficient to affect
   the award decision.

   [6] Given the other weaknesses in Maytag's proposal, it would not have
   received an exceptional rating for this subfactor in any case.

   [7] Maytag asserts that the agency made various mistakes in these
   calculations which, if corrected, would result in its manning strength
   being between [deleted] FTEs. Maytag Response to Agency Comments, June 20,
   2005, at 18. The agency acknowledges some calculation errors, but asserts
   that they did not affect the relative standing of the offerors.
   Supplemental AR, June 22, 2005, at 5. In any case, since the SSA evaluated
   Maytag's overall staffing as [deleted] FTEs in her source selection
   decision, we conclude that Maytag was not prejudiced by any staffing
   calculation errors.

   [8] The TET also found that the proposed terminal superintendent lacked
   the requisite qualification as a facility spill coordinator (FSC) and on
   scene coordinator (OSC). Maytag points out that this qualification could
   be obtained on or before the contract start date (PWS, as amended,
   CG-1.12.2.3) and, in any event, its employee's resume indicated he had
   [deleted]. Since the TET reasonably concluded that the proposed employee
   was not otherwise qualified for this position, whether he possessed or
   could obtain the requisite FSC/OSC qualifications is immaterial to the
   evaluation.

   [9] Maytag asserts that the agency improperly evaluated LB&B's proposal as
   exceptional under the equipment and vehicles subfactor, even though the
   firm provided no equipment availability date. While the RFP did not
   require the proposal of a specific availability date, the TET noted the
   absence of one. The agency states that LB&B's score was based on the
   proposal of [deleted]  equipment and vehicles and that a proposal could be
   less than perfect and still be rated exceptional. However, even if LB&B's
   proposal had been downgraded to average for this subfactor, its overall
   score for the capability factor would drop only by 2 points, to 64 points,
   which would not materially diminish the technical superiority of LB&B's
   proposal as compared to Maytag's.