TITLE: B-296493.5, Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., September 26, 2006
BNUMBER: B-296493.5
DATE: September 26, 2006
*****************************************************************
B-296493.5, Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., September 26, 2006
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: Advanced Technology Systems, Inc.
File: B-296493.5
Date: September 26, 2006
William A. Roberts III, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe Jr., Esq., and Michael
S. Caldwell, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for the protester.
Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., John S. Pachter, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq.,
and Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Pyramid
Systems Inc., an intervenor.
R. Rene Dupuy, Esq., and Joseph L. Brinkley, Esq., Department of Housing
and Urban Development, for the agency.
Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest challenging the evaluation of technical proposals is denied
where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with the evaluation criteria.
2. Protest challenging the evaluation of vendors' past performance is
denied where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.
3. An agency's unreasonable conclusions regarding the awardee's proposed
staffing levels did not prejudice the protester since these conclusions
were not a material element in the agency's determination that the
awardee's higher technically rated, higher-priced quotation represented
the best value to the government.
DECISION
Advanced Technology Systems, Inc. (ATS) protests the award of a blanket
purchase agreement (BPA) by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to Pyramid Systems Inc. (PSI) under that firm's General
Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract,
pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. R-OPC-22661 for operational
support and corrective maintenance services in support of the HUD Tenant
Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS).[1] ATS argues that the
agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations was unreasonable and the
subsequent source selection decision improper.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
TRACS is a computer system developed to help improve HUD's financial
controls over agency-administered multifamily housing assistance programs,
by automating manual procedures and incorporating automated controls.
TRACS represents HUD's official source of data on multifamily housing
subsidy contracts, tenant rental assistance information, and voucher
payments. TRACS is designed to collect tenant data, certify tenant
eligibility for financial assistance under various project-based
assistance programs, authorize payment, and then process requests for
payment (vouchers) to project owners, management agents, and other
third-party contract administrators. In fiscal year 2003, TRACS processed
approximately 221,000 financial transactions worth approximately $4.7
billion. As currently configured, TRACS consists of three primary business
systems and seven significant subsystems that together provide HUD with an
integrated tenant/voucher/contract data database and corresponding
financial management system. Agency Report (AR), July 20, 2006, at 3-4;
Tab 2, HUD Request for Contract Services, at 8.
The RFQ, issued on August 20, 2004, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price BPA for a base year with four 1-year options to provide
various supporting maintenance, development, and project management
services in furtherance of TRACS.[2] The solicitation included a
performance work statement (PWS), instructions to vendors on the
submission of quotations, and evaluation factors for award. The RFQ
identified five evaluation factors, all of equal importance: technical
capability; project management; past performance; staffing and resources;
and price. Award was to be made to the vendor whose written quotation and
oral presentation were determined to be the "best value" to the
government, all factors considered. RFQ amend. 1, Revised Evaluation
Factors, at 2.
Six vendors, including ATS and PSI, submitted quotations consisting of
technical and price proposals by the September 16 closing date. HUD then
held individual oral presentations with vendors on October 12 and 13. An
agency technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated vendors' technical
proposals using an adjectival rating scheme: excellent, very good, good,
fair, and poor. On April 15, 2005, the TET provided the source selection
authority (SSA) with its final evaluation ratings of vendors' quotations,
including those of ATS and PSI, which were as follows:
+----------------------------------------------+
| Factor | ATS | PSI |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Technical Capability | Excellent | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Project Management | Good | Very Good |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Past Performance | Very Good | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Staffing and Resources| Excellent | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Overall | Very Good | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Price[3] |$12,791,682|$13,008,602|
+----------------------------------------------+
AR, Tab 12, TET Report, at 2, 121.
Based on consideration of vendors' technical ratings, prices, and total
labor hours proposed, the TET recommended to the SSA that PSI's proposal
represented the best value to the agency. Id. at 121. On April 28, after
having reviewed the TET's report and findings, the SSA determined that
PSI's higher-priced, higher technically rated quotation represented the
best value to the government. Id., Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, Apr.
28, 2005, at 1-2.
On May 23, 2005, ATS filed a protest with our Office asserting that the
agency's evaluation of offerors' quotations was unreasonable and the
subsequent source selection decision improper. On July 29, our Office
conducted a hearing in order to further develop certain of the protest
issues. On August 1, HUD provided notice that it was taking corrective
action in response to ATS's protest by reevaluating vendors' quotations
and making a new source selection decision. Letter from HUD to GAO, Aug.
1, 2005. Based on the agency's announced corrective action, we dismissed
ATS's May 23 protest without rendering a decision on the merits. Advanced
Tech. Sys., Inc., B-296493, B-296493.2, Aug. 3, 2005.
On May 25, 2006, approximately a year later, HUD completed its
reevaluation of vendors' technical and price proposals, with the final
revised ratings for ATS and PSI as follows:
+----------------------------------------------+
| Factor | ATS | PSI |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Technical Capability | Excellent | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Project Management | Very Good | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Past Performance | Very Good | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Staffing and Resources| Excellent | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Overall | Very Good | Excellent |
|----------------------+-----------+-----------|
|Price |$12,791,682|$13,008,602|
+----------------------------------------------+
AR, Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 104-11. After consideration of
technical merit and price, the TET again recommended to the SSA that PSI's
quotation represented the best value to the agency. Id. at 115. After
reviewing the TET's findings and recommendations, the SSA again determined
that PSI's higher-priced, higher technically rated quotation represented
the best value to the government. Id., Tab 26, Source Selection Decision,
May 25, 2006, at 1, 4.
On June 1, HUD provided ATS with notice of its new award decision; ATS
requested a debriefing the same day. HUD agreed to provide ATS with a
brief explanation of the basis of its award decision, but without
specifying when this would occur.[4] ATS then filed a second protest with
our Office, challenging the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and
award determination. Protest, June 9, 2006. On June 13, in a conference
call conducted by our Office with the parties, the agency agreed to
provide ATS with a brief explanation of its award decision and suspend
performance of the awarded BPA, and ATS agreed to withdraw its protest.
ATS subsequently withdrew its June 9 protest. GAO Confirmation of
Withdrawal, June 15, 2006. On June 15, HUD furnished ATS with a brief
explanation of its new award decision. On June 19, ATS filed its current
protest.
DISCUSSION
ATS's protest raises numerous challenges to the agency's evaluation of
vendors' quotations under several technical evaluation factors. ATS also
contends that the agency reached irrational conclusions regarding PSI's
proposed level of effort, which were then relied upon in the award
determination. The protester contends that these alleged errors in the
evaluation of vendors' quotations resulted in an improper source selection
decision. Although we do not here specifically address all of ATS's
arguments about the evaluation of quotations and the resulting source
selection decision, we have fully considered all of them and find that
they afford no basis to question the agency's selection decision here.
Project Management Evaluation
ATS challenges the agency's evaluation of vendors' technical proposals
under the project management factor. Specifically, the protester contends
that PSI's technical proposal failed to include various submissions
required by the solicitation (e.g., various project plan details, project
schedule). ATS also alleges that the agency erred in its determination
that ATS's technical proposal did not propose specific management tools
for the TRACS project, thereby making HUD's determination that this was a
discriminator between PSI's and ATS's technical proposals unreasonable.
Lastly, ATS argues that the agency's evaluation of PSI's technical
proposal was improper because the awardee failed to provide a sufficiently
detailed transition-in plan.[5]
Where, as here, an agency conducts a formal competition under the FSS
program for the award of a BPA or task order contract, we will review the
agency's actions to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and
regulations. Worldwide Language Res., Inc., B-297210 et al., Nov. 28,
2005, 2005 CPD para. 211 at 3; COMARK Fed. Sys., B-278343, B-278343.2,
Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 34 at 4-5. In reviewing an agency's
evaluation, we will not reevaluate vendors' quotations, see Urban-Meridian
Joint Venture, B-287168, B-287168.2, May 7, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 91 at 2,
and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is not
sufficient to render the evaluation reasonable. Ben-Mar Enters., Inc.,
B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 68 at 7; Birdwell Bros. Painting &
Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 129 at 5.
ATS first contends that PSI's project management plan failed to include
various submissions required by the solicitation. Specifically, the
protester contends that much of the information required to be in each
vendor's draft project plans and quality control plan (e.g., project
schedule, program metrics) was completely absent from PSI's technical
proposal, or so inadequate as to be noncompliant. ATS also alleges that
PSI's project plan failed to identify which labor categories (i.e., skill
levels) would perform each PWS task as required by the RFQ. The protester
argues that PSI's failure to provide this information, which was material
to the agency's evaluation, rendered PSI's quotation ineligible for award
or, at the very least, rendered the agency's evaluation unreasonable.
With regard to the project management factor, the RFQ stated that
technical proposals were to demonstrate an understanding of work
requirements, quality control methods, and effective methodologies for
transition-in and transition-out activities. RFQ amend. 1, Revised
Evaluation Factors, at 1; Revised Proposal Instructions, at 2. Vendors
were also required to submit draft project plans for both the base period
and a sample task order defining, among other things, the resource
requirements (i.e., skill levels, facilities, computer resources), the
schedule, the program metrics to be employed throughout the contract
period, and a Gantt chart[6] reduced to its lowest level, with tasks
defined in greater narrative detail in the corresponding section of the
Project Plan.[7] RFQ amend. 1, Revised Proposal Instructions, at 2. The
RFQ also required the submission of a quality control plan describing the
methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects in the quality
of deliverables supplied to the government. Vendors were instructed that
the quality control plan should include, among other things, the metrics
and performance measures to be applied to ensure quality service,
products, and outcomes for maintenance, operational, and development tasks
specified in the TRACS PWS. Id.
PSI's technical proposal included draft project plans for both the base
period and the sample task order, each of which contained a draft project
schedule/Gantt chart; the technical proposal also contained a specific
section which addressed the vendor's quality assurance and quality control
processes (including metrics). AR, Tab 10, PSI's Quotation, Vol. I,
Technical Proposal. PSI's technical proposal did not set forth the labor
categories the vendor would employ for each task defined in the PWS and/or
sample task order (detail required by the RFQ), but did set forth the
proposed labor categories (and proposed hours by labor category) for the
contract effort as a whole. The TET rated PSI's technical proposal as
excellent with regard to project management. Specifically, the evaluators
found that PSI's draft project plans and quality control plan demonstrated
the vendor's understanding of the PWS work requirements and quality
control methods. AR, Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 57-59.
In its report, the agency contends that the TET reasonably determined that
PSI submitted acceptable project plans and quality control plan. HUD
argues that both PSI's technical proposal and oral presentation addressed
the metrics that the vendor plans to employ throughout the contract period
to track progress and ensure the project achieves expected outcomes. The
fact that ATS submitted a much more detailed schedule and Gantt chart, the
agency argues, did not make PSI's submissions inadequate since PSI's
submissions met all the requirements of the RFQ. AR, July 20, 2006, at
10-12.
In it comments on the agency report, the protester argues that even
assuming PSI's abbreviated schedule and Gantt chart were sufficient to
satisfy the RFQ's requirements, ATS's extensive and highly detailed
schedule and Gantt chart were advantages of ATS's technical proposal and
reflected a deeper understanding of the TRACS effort. Similarly, the
protester asserts that the agency ignored the fact that PSI's generic
listing of typical metrics was not comparable to ATS's detailed and
TRACS-specific metrics. Comments, July 31, 2006, at 7-8.
We find that the TET reasonably determined that PSI submitted an
acceptable draft project plan, project schedule/Gantt chart, and quality
control plan; the fact that ATS's proposal contained a more detailed
schedule and Gantt chart does not show that PSI's submissions were
inadequate. Further, while ATS contends that PSI's technical proposal
failed to comply with various RFQ submission requirements, the protester
has failed to show that any particular aspects of HUD's subsequent
evaluation were unreasonable based on the information that was contained
in PSI's technical proposal. For example, ATS argues that PSI's technical
proposal lacked an adequate schedule and Gantt chart, yet ATS offers no
basis to conclude that PSI's schedule and Gantt chart demonstrated that
the awardee did not understand the TRACS work requirements.
Lastly, the protester argues that its more detailed submissions should
have been recognized as a strength by the agency because they were
appreciably different than PSI's submissions and demonstrated a much
greater understanding of the TRACS effort. In our view, this amounts to
mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation, which does not render it
unreasonable. Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, supra.
ATS also asserts that the agency's evaluation of its project management
plan was improper because HUD failed to recognize that ATS's technical
proposal, like PSI's, included a specific management tool for the TRACS
project. Specifically, the TET found that one of the strengths in PSI's
technical proposal was its use of a risk management tool, Rational
ClearQuest, and, conversely, that ATS's technical proposal did not present
specific management tools for the TRACS project.[8] ATS contends that it
did in fact propose a specific management tool for the project--it was
simply a different management tool than that proposed by PSI but one that
performed the same functions and had comparable features.
Within its project management plan, PSI proposed the use of Rational
ClearQuest as part of its risk management process. AR, Tab 10, PSI's
Quotation, Vol. I, Technical Proposal, at 2-11. The TET considered
Rational ClearQuest to be a "feature-rich" project management tool, and
found this aspect of PSI's proposal to be a strength under the project
management factor.[9] Id., Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 59, 107. ATS's
technical proposal also addressed automated project management tools.
Specifically, ATS's Quality Control Plan stated that it used a tool called
PVCS Tracker to manage configuration and change control issues through the
project life cycle. Id., Tab 8, ATS's Quotation, Vol. I, Technical
Proposal, App. D, Quality Control Plan, at 25, 28. However, under a
separate section entitled "project management," ATS also stated that it
would "use Microsoft Project as its main project planning and management
tool." Id. at 28. In its oral presentation, ATS then stated that it
planned to use PVCS Tracker, but had not made a final determination
regarding its planned project management tool. Id., Tab 27, Declaration of
TET Chairperson, July 20, 2005, at 5. The TET determined that ATS's
project management plan met all stated requirements, but did not propose a
specific management tool for the TRACS project. Id., Tab 25, Revised TET
Report, at 13-14, 112.
Subsequent to the filing of ATS's first protest in 2005, the agency
submitted a statement from the TET chairperson comparing the features of
Rational ClearQuest to PVCS Tracker and Microsoft Project. The lead agency
evaluator stated that Rational ClearQuest was considered to be an
innovative piece of software in the project management area, as it was
interactive with the client and contractor and provided the ability to
determine real-time project status (akin to a car's fuel gauge providing
real-time status). Further, if there were a system issue, Rational
ClearQuest (in conjunction with PSI's proposed web portal) would
immediately send out a warning message. By contrast, PVCS Tracker is not
as robust or innovative as Rational ClearQuest, and Microsoft Project is
not an interactive, automated project management tool, but rather a static
tool that does not provide real-time warnings or system status. Id., Tab
27, Declaration of TET Chairperson, July 20, 2005, at 4-5, 8.
ATS disputes the agency's determination that Rational ClearQuest is more
robust than PVCS Tracker. Further, the protester contends that it clearly
proposed to use PVCS Tracker and the fact that the agency may have had a
preference for one management tool over another is not sufficient to
support the agency's evaluation. Comments, July 31, 2006, at 8-9.
We need not decide whether PVCS Tracker is comparable to Rational
ClearQuest, as the record reflects that it was anything but clear what
management tool or tools the protester was proposing to employ for the
TRACS project. ATS's Quality Control Plan stated in one section that PVCS
Tracker would be used to manage configuration and change control issues.
AR, Tab 8, ATS's Quotation, Vol. I, Technical Proposal, App. D, Quality
Control Plan, at 25. However, in a different section entitled project
management, ATS stated that it would "use Microsoft Project as its main
project planning and management tool." Id. at 28. ATS's subsequent oral
presentation then added to the ambiguity here when the vendor stated that
it planned to use PVCS Tracker, but also had not made a final
determination regarding its planned project management tool. We find that,
faced with such uncertainty, the TET reasonably determined that ATS's
technical proposal did not present a specific management tool for the
TRACS project.
ATS also argues that HUD's preference for PSI-proposed Rational ClearQuest
as the TRACS management tool is not a discriminator that justified the
agency paying a higher price. Comments, July 31, 2006, at 9. The protester
essentially contends that HUD's decision to view this aspect of PSI's
technical proposal to be of value to the agency, as well as the weight
given to it, were unreasonable. In our view, ATS has offered little more
than mere disagreement with the agency's judgment about the value of PSI's
proposed use of Rational ClearQuest; ATS has not established that this
judgment was unreasonable. The OMO Group, Inc., B-294328, Oct. 19, 2004,
2004 CPD para. 212 at 5, 8 (a protester's disagreement with an agency's
evaluation does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable).
ATS also protests that the agency's evaluation of PSI's technical proposal
under the project management factor was improper because PSI failed to
provide a sufficiently detailed transition-in plan. The protester points
to the fact that, in its original evaluation, the TET considered PSI's
transition-in plan to be a weakness, thereby resulting in PSI receiving an
evaluation rating of very good. However, while vendors' technical
proposals remained unchanged, the TET's revised evaluation, without
explanation, failed to identify a similar weakness in PSI's transition-in
plan, thereby resulting in PSI receiving a revised project management
rating of excellent, rather than very good. ATS argues that the agency's
evaluation of PSI's technical proposal here was unreasonable, and to the
extent that HUD lowered the standard for PSI here, it should have done the
same for ATS, which was rated as very good instead of excellent under the
project management factor.
As set forth above, the RFQ required vendors' project management plans to
demonstrate, among other things, an understanding of effective
methodologies for transition-in and -out activities. RFQ amend. 1, Revised
Evaluation Factors, at 1. The solicitation also instructed vendors to
identify the tasks associated with the installation and setup of all
necessary facilities, software, and firmware, and training tasks to meet
the needs of new project resources. Additionally, the PWS established that
instead of HUD's office facilities in Washington, DC, the contractor would
provide the office space requirements necessary to perform the TRACS
contract at a location within a 25-mile radius from HUD headquarters. PWS
at 30.
Incumbent contractor ATS submitted a transition plan as part of its
technical proposal. With regard to transition-in, ATS's plan consisted of
one paragraph and a brief, durational-type schedule; the plan did not
address the physical relocation of the place of performance. AR, Tab 8,
ATS's Quotation, Vol., I, Technical Proposal, App. C, Transition Plan. The
TET in both its initial and revised evaluations found that ATS's
transition-in plan consisted of generalized statements and lacked
sufficient supporting details, and constituted a weakness. Id., Tab 12,
TET Report, at 13; Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 13. The TET's
determination that ATS's transition-in plan lacked sufficient detail
resulted in ATS receiving a very good (and not excellent) rating for
project management.
PSI also provided a transition plan as part of its technical proposal.
Id., Tab 10, PSI's Quotation, Vol. I, Technical Proposal, App. C,
Transition Plan. In its initial evaluation, the TET found that PSI's
transition-in plan identified all tasks associated with the installation
and setup of all necessary facilities and software, and that the sole
deficiency was that the proposed 10-day transition-in period was
considered an insufficient and unrealistic timeframe in which to perform
successfully. Id., Tab 12, TET Report, at 61. The TET's revised evaluation
did not find a similar weakness in PSI's transition-in plan. See id., Tab
25, Revised TET Report, at 59-60. The agency explains that the reason that
PSI's proposed 10-day transition-in period was not considered a weakness
during the reevaluation of vendors' technical proposals was that the TET
was aware that PSI actually did successfully transition-in (within
10 days) in May 2005 after the initial award determination. AR, July 20,
2006, at 14.
ATS argues in response that while PSI may have performed some, or even
most, of the transition-in tasks in May 2005, PSI did not completely
transition and assume operational control of TRACS until June 2006.
Moreover, the protester argues that the TET's evaluation of vendors'
transition plans was still disparate because the agency did not also take
into account ATS's prior successful physical relocations of TRACS when
evaluating its transition plan. Comments, July 31, 2006, at 9-10.
While agency evaluators may consider and rely upon information of which
they are personally aware in the course of evaluating a vendor's
quotation, see Del-Jen Int'l Corp., B-297960, May 5, 2006, 2006 CPD para.
81 at 7, evaluators must treat all vendors equally. See Infrared Tech.
Corp.--Recon., B-255709.2, Sept. 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 132 at 4-5. We
need not decide whether the TET's evaluation of vendors' transition plans
was disparate, however, because the record demonstrates that any error
here was not prejudicial to ATS.
As a preliminary matter, we note that had the TET not considered PSI's
transition-in performance in May 2005 (or, alternatively, if the TET had
considered ATS's prior physical relocations of TRACS), it is clear from
the record that the protester would have received at best a rating equal
to that of PSI. More importantly, in its recommendations to the SSA,
including a head-to-head comparison of PSI's and ATS's quotations, the TET
did not focus on the vendors' adjectival ratings, but properly looked
behind the ratings and considered the underlying qualitative merits that
distinguished the vendors' technical proposals. With regard to project
management, the TET did not find ATS's (or PSI's) transition plan to be a
reason for recommending selection of PSI. Rather, the TET considered the
key difference between the vendors' project management plans to be PSI's
use of automated tools (i.e., Rational ClearQuest and a web portal) that
ATS's technical proposal did not include. AR, Tab 25, Revised TET Report,
at 112. The SSA also did not find vendors' transition plans to be a
discriminating feature, determining instead that PSI's proposed automated
tools were the difference between technical proposals that both
demonstrated effective project management. Id., Tab 26, Source Selection
Decision, May 25, 2006, at 2. As vendors' transition plans were not
considered in the agency's award determination, any disparate evaluation
here simply did not prejudice the protester.
Past Performance Evaluation
ATS protests that HUD's evaluation of vendors' past performance, under
which PSI received an "excellent" and ATS a "very good" rating, was
improper. ATS first argues that the agency's evaluation of ATS's past
performance was unreasonable because HUD improperly determined that one of
the vendor's three contract references did not involve same or similar
work in the area of comparable IT architecture and software toolsets,
thereby resulting in the assessment of a weakness. Further, ATS contends
that the agency's evaluation of vendors' past performance was disparate,
insofar as none of PSI's references met all criteria for same or similar
work in the area of comparable IT architecture and software toolsets. The
protester argues that had the agency properly evaluated vendors' past
performance, then ATS and PSI would have been rated equally under this
evaluation factor.
Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of vendors' past performance,
we will only examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was both
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria,
since determining the relative merits of vendors' past performance
information is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's
discretion. See Metro Mach. Corp., B-295744, B-295744.2, Apr. 21, 2005,
2005 CPD para. 112 at 21; Hanley Indus., Inc., B-295318, Feb. 2, 2005,
2005 CPD para. 20 at 4.
Here, the RFQ required vendors to submit three references for work
performed in the past 3 years that was "same or similar" to the effort
identified in the PWS. RFQ amend. 1, Revised Proposal Instructions, at 4.
For each contract reference provided, the solicitation required vendors to
identify, among other things, the specific technical environment (e.g.,
database type, reporting tools, software development language, Section 508
tools, configuration management tools, and application service
software/tool). Id. In turn, the PWS informed vendors of the existing
TRACS infrastructure (e.g., IBM OS390 as the mainframe operating system;
Advantage Gen as the application development tool, connectivity tool, and
enterprise server platform development tool; Endevor as the applications
configuration management software).[10] PWS, App. D, at 42.
ATS's technical proposal contained three contract references: (1) ATS's
incumbent TRACS contract; (2) ATS's Single Family Premiums Collection
Subsystem (SFPCS) contract with HUD; and (3) the subcontract of proposed
subcontractor Zen Technology, Inc. with HUD for the Program Accounting
System and Line of Credit Control Systems (PAS/LOCCS). For each contract
reference, ATS provided a narrative description of the work performed and
purported relevance to the TRACS PWS, as well as the reference's technical
operating environment. AR, Tab 8, ATS's Quotation, Vol. I, Technical
Proposal. With regard to the Zen contract reference, ATS's technical
proposal represented that the PAC/LOCCS technical environment utilized a
Unisys 2200 mainframe operating system, and that the toolsets employed
included ColdFusion, HTML, and JavaScript. Id. at 3-9.
The TET found that ATS's TRACS and SFPCS references involved work that was
the same as or similar to the work requirements here; the TET also
determined that the demonstrated experience, relevance, and quality of
ATS's performance on these two references warranted the assessment of
three strengths. Id., Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 16-17. However, with
regard to ATS's third contract reference--proposed subcontractor Zen's
work on PAS/LOCCS--the TET found that while the referenced work was the
same as or similar to TRACS with regard to demonstrated experience with
systems with multiple collections and feeder systems processes, it was not
the same or similar with regard to comparable IT architecture and software
toolsets.[11] Id. at 16. The TET considered the inability of ATS's Zen
contract reference to demonstrate experience in TRACS toolsets and
architecture to be a weakness. Id.
ATS does not dispute that its Zen contract reference did not identify the
specific mainframe operating system and/or software toolsets set forth in
the PWS. Rather, ATS argues that PAS/LOCCS involved work that was the same
as or similar to TRACS because they both operate in the same computing
architecture, namely, the HUD Information Technology System (HITS)
environment, and share a common web hosting environment, web security
module, and common network storage system. Protest, June 19, 2006, at 30.
We disagree. The agency reasonably determined that the PAC/LOCCS technical
environment, as evidenced by its mainframe operating system and toolsets,
was not the same as or similar to the TRACS technical environment. The
fact that TRACS and PAS/LOCCS may share a common web hosting environment
and network storage system, as the protester contends, simply does not
mean that the two projects have a comparable IT architecture and software
toolsets as defined by the solicitation here.
ATS also argues that the agency evaluated vendors' past performance on a
disparate basis with respect to whether the vendors' prior contracts
involved use of TRACS software toolsets.
It is fundamental that the contracting agency must provide a common basis
for the preparation and the submission of quotations and not disparately
evaluate vendors with respect to the same requirements. See Lockheed
Martin Info. Sys., B-292836 et al., Dec. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 230 at
11-12; Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., B-286201 et al., Dec. 14, 2000, 2001
CPD para. 65 at 5. Here, PSI's technical proposal contained three past
performance references, including that of proposed subcontractor SPS under
a contract with the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) for the Revenue
and Accounting Management System (RAM) project. AR, Tab 10, PSI's
Quotation, Vol. I, Technical Proposal, at 3-11. PSI's technical proposal
also included a description of the RAM project's type of work and
technical environment, stating that SPS migrated USPTO's legacy system
from a COBOL/ DMSII application to a distributed client/service Advantage
Gen application, and SPS developed the RAM system using the information
engineering methodology and Advantage Gen integrated tool suite. Id. at
3-13 to 3-15. In its evaluation of PSI's past performance, the TET found
that all three of PSI's references, including the SPS RAM reference,
demonstrated comparable IT architecture and software toolsets to those
identified in the solicitation. Id., Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 61-62.
The record reflects, as the protester contends, that PSI's SPS reference
did not identify many of the specific toolsets for which ATS's Zen
reference was faulted. However, it is clear that in evaluating vendors'
past performance, including their use of products similar to the TRACS
architecture and software toolsets, the agency's primary focus was on
whether the references demonstrated use of Advantage Gen. As set forth
above, the PWS identified Advantage Gen as a core toolset of TRACS--it was
the application development tool, connectivity tool, and enterprise server
platform development tool. The technical capability and staffing and
resources evaluation factors also both emphasized the importance of
Advantage Gen experience. Quite simply, the agency's decision to emphasize
Advantage Gen use in its evaluation of vendors' past performance was not
unreasonable or inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.
The record clearly shows that all of PSI's references, including that of
SPS, demonstrated use of Advantage Gen. By contrast, ATS's Zen reference
did not demonstrate Advantage Gen use; the Zen reference also did not
identify use of a mainframe operating system comparable to TRACS. In sum,
rather than an improperly disparate evaluation of two vendors with a
common set of underlying facts, the record shows an evaluation based on
different underlying facts that reasonably resulted in different
evaluation ratings.
Technical Capability Evaluation
ATS protests that HUD's evaluation of vendors' technical proposals under
the technical capability factor was unreasonable. Specifically, the
protester alleges that, notwithstanding the fact that ATS and PSI both
received excellent ratings, the agency's consideration of "new
technologies and toolsets" in its evaluation of PSI's technical proposal
constituted an unstated evaluation criterion. Alternatively, ATS contends
that the TET-identified "new technologies and toolsets" technical
enhancement was not a distinguishing feature of PSI's technical proposal
because ATS's technical proposal offered the same feature. Finally, ATS
argues that HUD placed too much weight upon this discriminator in its
source selection decision.
The PWS established that one of the primary objectives of the procurement
was enhancing the TRACS system to meet multifamily housing program
objectives. PWS at 1. Specifically, in addition to providing operational
support and corrective maintenance services on the current system, the PWS
required the contractor to perform both perfective maintenance (i.e., the
restructure of system components to expedite processes and functions
and/or adapt and certify the system software to upgraded/ changing system
architectural standards) and future development (addressing new functional
modules, new interfaces, and new data-gathering requirements and
processing techniques) tasks as identified.[12] Id. at 1, 19-23. The RFQ
in turn stated, with regard to the technical capability factor, that
vendors' technical proposals were to demonstrate the technical capability
to provide expertise in information technology life-cycle support services
as specified in the PWS for the stated maintenance, operations, and future
development requirements. RFQ amend. 1, Revised Evaluation Criteria, at
1-2.
In its evaluation of ATS's technical proposal under the technical
capability factor, the TET found that ATS fully met all stated
requirements; the evaluators also identified three specific strengths and
no weaknesses, and rated ATS's technical proposal as excellent. AR, Tab
25, Revised TET Report, at 5-9.
In the evaluation of PSI's technical proposal under this factor, the TET
found that PSI also fully met all stated requirements. Again the TET
identified three specific strengths and no weaknesses, and rated PSI's
technical proposal as excellent. Id. at 54. One of the strengths that the
TET found in PSI's technical proposal was the vendor's "demonstrated
expertise with the migration of older, less efficient architectures
(mainframe and client-server) and toolsets to emerging, more efficient
(e.g., web-based, J2EE) technologies that are currently recommended as
standards in . . . HUD's target architecture." Id. at 110, 55, 107. The
protester does not challenge the TET's determination that PSI's technical
proposal demonstrated expertise in new technologies and toolsets and in
emerging technology migrations. The evaluators also found PSI's expertise
in new technologies and toolsets to be a discriminator between PSI's and
ATS's technical proposals. Specifically, the TET stated that "[t]he [PSI]
team offered expertise in and availability of emerging technologies and
toolsets that were not offered by ATS. The technologies and toolsets are
those earmarked for the HUD Enterprise Architecture -- i.e., Java/JHSP,
J2EE, and Oracle 9i." Id. at 112. The SSA subsequently found this
technical distinction (i.e., that PSI offered expertise in new
technologies and toolsets and emerging technology migrations that were not
offered by ATS) to be one of the stated reasons for his determination that
PSI's higher technically rated, higher-priced quotation represented the
best value to the government. Id., Tab 26, Source Selection Decision, May
25, 2006, at 2.
We find HUD's consideration of expertise with new technologies and
toolsets as part of the evaluation of vendors' technical capability here
was consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. As set forth above,
the PWS required the contractor to support the transition of the TRACS
system to the new HITS infrastructure. Similarly, the RFQ established
that, as part of the technical capability evaluation factor, vendors'
technical proposals were to demonstrate the technical capability to
provide expertise in information technology life-cycle support services
for, among other things, the PWS's future development requirements. RFQ
amend. 1, Revised Evaluation Factors, at 1-2. In light thereof, the agency
did not employ an unstated evaluation criterion when finding as a strength
that PSI's technical proposal demonstrated expertise with new technologies
and toolsets and emerging technology migrations. See Ridoc Enter., Inc.,
B-292962.4, July 6, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 169 at 4; Network Eng'g, Inc.,
B-292996, Jan. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 23 at 3.
ATS also contends that the use of new technologies and toolsets was not in
fact a discriminator between the technical proposals of PSI and ATS,
because ATS also offered the same features.
ATS's technical proposal, in both its technical capability and staffing
and resources sections, stated, "We are very familiar with HUD's
Enterprise Architecture (EA) strategies and desired technical environment.
The ATS teaming partners have extensive experience in JAVA, J2EE, Oracle
database, SUN Web Server, and SUN Java Server technologies." AR, Tab 8,
ATS's Quotation, Vol. I, Technical Proposal, at 1-9, 4-14. While stating
that it possessed extensive experience in various emerging technologies
and toolsets, ATS's assertion was not supported by other aspects of its
technical proposal. Specifically, none of the resumes of ATS's proposed
key personnel demonstrated strong technical skills in emerging
technologies and toolsets.[13] Similarly, none of the resumes of ATS's
proposed key personnel (or any other aspect of the vendor's technical
proposal) demonstrated expertise with the migration of older architectures
to the specific emerging technologies that HUD contemplated here.[14] As a
result, we find the TET's determination that only PSI's technical proposal
demonstrated expertise with new technologies and toolsets to be
reasonable.
ATS argues that the emphasis placed by HUD on PSI's proposed use of new
technologies and toolsets in the agency's price/technical tradeoff
determination was unreasonable. The protester argues that, generally,
PSI's technical proposal did not describe how it would apply these new
technologies and toolsets to its efforts on the TRACS system.
Additionally, ATS contends that HUD's reliance on this aspect of PSI's
technical proposal is unreasonable given that any migration of TRACS to
emerging technologies would be performed under a separately-negotiated
future task order (i.e., that PSI did not propose to employ these new
technologies and toolsets as part of its work effort under the fixed-price
task order here). We find these allegations without merit.
As discussed above, the record establishes that the TET reasonably
determined that PSI's technical proposal demonstrated expertise with new
technologies and toolsets, and provided detail about how such experience
would support HUD's future enhancement and development efforts. AR, Tab
25, Revised TET Report, at 110, 112. Further, while the TRACS future
development enhancements were to be separately negotiated, and were not
part of the fixed-price task order for operational support and corrective
maintenance services, the RFQ established that the agency would consider
vendors' ability to support future development efforts in its award
decision here. Quite simply, the fact that PSI's expertise with emerging
technologies and toolsets would generally not be part of the awardee's
efforts under the fixed-price task order did not render the agency's
evaluation inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria. ATS
essentially argues that HUD placed too much weight on this aspect of PSI's
technical proposal. Again, in our view, ATS has offered little more than
mere disagreement with the agency's judgment about the proper amount of
weight or emphasis to be placed on the enhancements in PSI's technical
proposal, which does not render the agency's evaluation unreasonable. The
OMO Group, Inc., supra, at 8.
Staffing and Resources Evaluation
ATS argues that the agency's evaluation of vendors' technical proposals
with regard to the staffing and resources factor was unreasonable.
Specifically, ATS contends that HUD erroneously determined that PSI's
technical proposal was superior to that of ATS with regard to Advantage
Gen expertise when the facts in the record actually indicated the opposite
to be true. The protester argues that because HUD chose to elevate the
importance of vendors' Advantage Gen experience in its source selection
decision, and was factually mistaken about which vendor here actually had
greater Advantage Gen expertise, the agency's determination that PSI's
quotation represented the best value to the government was improper.
The RFQ required vendors to provide information about their proposed
staffing and resources regarding skill levels, expertise, and years of
experience. RFQ amend. 1, Revised Proposal Instructions, at 4-5. The
solicitation also identified five key positions (project manager, business
requirements analyst, information technology team lead, database
administrator, and senior software engineer) for which vendors were to
submit resumes, demonstrating, among other things, knowledge of
information engineering/information engineering facility (IE/IEF) CASE
Tools such as Advantage Gen for analysis. Id. at 5-6. The RFQ also stated,
as part of the staffing and resources evaluation factor, that vendors'
technical proposals were to demonstrate that the skill levels, expertise,
and experience of proposed key personnel were adequate to perform the work
required by the PWS. Id., Revised Evaluation Factors, at 2.
ATS's technical proposal included resumes for its five proposed key
personnel. Each resume included a chart that stated, "Demonstrated
knowledge of IE/IEF CASE Tools such as Advantage Gen for analysis," and
had a corresponding number of years experience. For example, the resume of
ATS's project manager represented that the "Demonstrated knowledge of
IE/IEF CASE Tools such as Advantage Gen for analysis" was 11 years'
experience.[15] AR, Tab 8, ATS's Quotation, Vol. 1, Technical Proposal, at
4-15.
The TET rated both ATS's and PSI's quotations as excellent under the
staffing and resources evaluation factor; each vendor was found to have
five strengths and no weaknesses. In its recommendation to the SSA, the
TET also stated, "With regard to Staffing and Resources, [PSI] proposed
key staffs . . . have stronger credentials than ATS's proposed key staff,
even though both received an rating of Excellent. [PSI]'s proposed key
staff have significant expertise and experience in Advantage:Gen which is
one of the core toolsets supporting the mainframe architecture for TRACS."
Id., Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 112. The SSA agreed with the TET that
while ATS and PSI both offered excellent support personnel, the resumes
for PSI's proposed key staff were stronger in the area of Advantage Gen
expertise. Id., Tab 26, Source Selection Decision, May 25, 2006, at 2.
ATS contends that, as reflected in the resumes of its key personnel, ATS
has an average of 11 years of Advantage Gen expertise, while the resumes
of PSI's key personnel evidenced only an average of 7.67 years of
Advantage Gen expertise.[16] The agency does not challenge ATS's
calculations. Rather, the agency argues that Advantage Gen is a commonly
used software technology, that Advantage Gen expertise thus is not limited
to incumbent ATS employees who have worked on TRACS, and that, based upon
the expertise as demonstrated in the vendor's resumes, the TET's
determination that PSI's proposed key personnel were highly experienced
with Advantage Gen was reasonable. AR, July 20, 2006, at 17.
While the resumes of ATS's proposed key personnel set forth each
individual's knowledge of IE/IEF CASE Tools--such as Advantage
Gen--generally, another section of ATS's technical proposal set forth the
vendor's experience with Advantage Gen specifically, and indicated an
average of 6 years' experience. Within its technical capability plan, ATS
set forth the total combined experience with TRACS and related interface
systems of its five proposed key personnel. AR, Tab 8, ATS's Quotation,
Vol. I, Technical Proposal, at 1-7. Additionally, ATS provided a chart
setting forth its combined experience with various individual TRACS
technologies. Here ATS indicated that its team possessed 30 years'
combined experience with Advantage Gen, or an average of 6 years'
experience for each of its five proposed key personnel.[17] Id. By
contrast, as set forth above, ATS argues that PSI's proposed key personnel
possessed an average of 7.67 years of Advantage Gen experience. Therefore,
even assuming that ATS's calculations of PSI's expertise are valid, the
protester has failed to demonstrate that it possessed greater Advantage
Gen experience here or that the agency's conclusions regarding vendors'
relative experience were unreasonable.
PSI Staffing Level Evaluation
Finally, ATS argues that HUD's award determination was based on mistaken
conclusions regarding PSI's proposed level of effort. The protester
contends that while each quotation contained information regarding the
vendor's proposed labor categories and labor hours, the information was
not sufficient to provide the agency with the basis for any meaningful
conclusions regarding the vendor's understanding of the PWS work
requirements. Nevertheless, ATS argues, the agency concluded that PSI's
proposed labor hours indicated the vendor's significant understanding of
the TRACS requirements, and relied on this irrational determination when
concluding that PSI's higher-priced, higher technically rated quotation
represented the best value to the government.
As set forth above, the RFQ included a PWS which contained a narrative
description of all operational support and corrective maintenance service
requirements for the TRACS project. Additionally, the PWS provided vendors
with HUD's historic, level-of-effort information about each task.[18] For
example, with regard to Database Administration, the PWS stated that the
task occurred 250 times per year at an average of 4 hours per
occurrence.[19] PWS at 5-6. Nonetheless, the RFQ contemplated the award of
a fixed-price BPA, and the agency acknowledged that what it was procuring
here was not a specified level of effort but a vendor's contractual
commitment to successfully perform all TRACS PWS requirements (regardless
of the actual effort required) for a fixed price. Hearing Transcript at
16-17.
The RFQ contained several instructions regarding the staffing/level of
effort information that vendors were to submit. Specifically, the
solicitation stated that vendors' price proposals were to identify their
proposed FSS-contract labor categories, corresponding labor rates
(including any discounts), and total number of hours proposed by labor
category for each of the two contract line items (i.e., all operational
support tasks, all corrective maintenance tasks).[20] RFQ amend. 1,
Revised Proposal Instructions, at 9. Also, the staffing and resources
evaluation factor required vendors to identify those labor categories that
would be assigned to perform each of the tasks defined in the PWS and
sample task order. RFQ amend. 1, Revised Evaluation Factors, at 2-3.
Vendors' draft project plans (under the project management factor) were
also to include, among other things, the resources (i.e., skill levels,
facilities, computer resources) the vendors planned to employ. Id.,
Revised Proposal Instructions, at 2.
PSI's price proposal identified its proposed labor categories, labor
rates, and total labor hours for each contract line item, AR, Tab 10,
PSI's Quotation, Vol. II, Price Proposal, at 6-15; the vendor's technical
proposal did not identify labor categories by PWS task as the RFQ
required. See id., Vol. 1, Technical Proposal, at 4-1. However, neither
PSI's nor ATS's quotation identified the vendor's total number of hours by
PWS task, the number of hours by labor category by PWS task, or the price
by PWS task, as such information was not required by the solicitation.
After evaluating quotations under the stated evaluation factors, the TET
prepared its conclusions regarding vendors' relative technical merit. The
agency evaluators found that PSI was the highest technically rated vendor,
based on the determination that PSI had excellent past performance and
that all of PSI's proposed key staff brought strengths--ranging from
in-depth technical expertise with TRACS software and toolsets, to
demonstrated expertise with the migration of older, less efficient
architectures to emerging, more efficient technologies--that would improve
TRACS' reliability and performance. The TET also noted that PSI's
technical proposal had clearly and concisely explained the vendor's
strategy and approach for the phased migration of TRACS to the
architectures proposed by the HUD enterprise architecture office. Further,
PSI had proposed many "value-added" features, such as the automated
project management tool Rational ClearQuest and a web portal, that were
currently not available to the TRACS project. The TET also found that
PSI's draft project plan for the sample task order was comprehensive and
reasonable, and provided evidence of a strong development methodology.
Id., Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at 110. Also as part of its conclusion
here the TET stated, "Although the PSI Team's proposed price is not the
lowest bid, they offered the highest number of hours of all bidders. This
indicates a significant understanding of the amount of time and effort
that is required to successfully support the TRACS project." Id.
The TET then prepared an overall best value analysis of vendors'
quotations, concluding that PSI's quotation offered the best value to HUD.
The TET based this determination on the overall quality of PSI's
quotation, especially under the technical, project management, and key
personnel factors ("They provide HUD a complete range of technical skills
and number of key personnel with several years experience designing,
implementing, enhancing, and managing systems similar to the TRACS
system"). Id. at 111. The TET also stated, "Although [PSI's] price
proposal is the second highest, the proposal is comprehensive in terms of
providing a more than adequate [level of effort] and plan for operations,
maintenance, and modernization for the TRACS project." Id. The TET then
conducted a head-to-head comparison of the quotations of PSI and ATS, in
which PSI's technical advantages in technical capability, project
management, and key staff were discussed.[21] Id. at 112.
In the subsequent source selection decision, the SSA concluded that PSI's
proposal represented the best technical solution and demonstrated numerous
strengths. Specifically, the SSA found that PSI had distinguished itself
in its ability to operate, maintain, develop, and manage the TRACS
application as well as its strong past performance, particularly in
projects similar to the TRACS project. The SSA also stated:
While PSI's projected costs were higher than . . . [those] of the other
vendors, it is clearly worth it to the Government to pay such additional
costs in order to obtain the technical enhancements that it offers. PSI's
strengths in terms of new technologies and toolsets and advanced project
management tools are benefits to HUD that offset the additional cost.
Id., Tab 26, Source Selection Decision, May 25, 2006, at 1. The SSA then
conducted a head-to-head comparison of PSI's and ATS's quotations. Here
the SSA identified the various strengths in technical capability, project
management, past performance, and staffing and resources that the SSA
believed justified the $216,920 price premium associated with PSI's
quotation. Id. at 2. In a concluding paragraph the SSA then stated:
[PSI] clearly prepared the best technical approach, and was . . . rated
"Excellent" overall. The company proposed a staffing mix of time and
resources and technical expertise in emerging technology toolsets that
will best benefit the Government. The PSI Team was able to demonstrate a
low risk of failure with a high probability for success over the next five
years. Therefore, it is my determination that [PSI], based on technical
merit and price, represents the best value to the Government and should be
awarded the contract.
Id. at 4.
In our view, the staffing information contained in vendors' quotations was
simply not sufficient from which to formulate meaningful conclusions here.
As set forth above, the RFQ required vendors to identify labor categories,
labor rates, and total number of hours proposed by labor category for each
of the two contract line items, as well as labor categories by PWS task.
However, the solicitation did not require, and vendors did not provide,
information about the total number of hours by PWS task, the number of
hours by labor category by PWS task, or the price by PWS task.[22] Thus,
HUD's ability to analyze a vendor's planned staffing mix (i.e., the
quality and quantity of the labor proposed) could only be done at the
overall contract line item, and not the specific PWS task, level.
Notwithstanding the lack of information about vendors' staffing plans, the
TET reached various conclusions about PSI's proposed staffing levels. For
example, the TET concluded that the quantity of PSI's proposed staffing
("they offered the highest number of hours of all the bidders") indicated
a significant understanding of the effort required to successfully perform
the TRACS work requirements, without also taking into account the quality
of the staffing that the vendor had proposed. The fact that a vendor
proposes a high number of hours does not indicate that the vendor
understands the work, since the vendor may have also proposed
under-qualified, or unqualified, labor categories for the work
requirements. Similarly, a vendor who proposes a lower number of hours,
but of higher quality labor, may have an equal or better understanding of
a solicitation's work requirements.[23] Additionally, while the TET knew
what labor categories PSI believed appropriate for each contract line
item, PSI's quotation did not identify labor categories or estimated hours
by PWS task. The TET's conclusions that PSI's level of effort and/or
staffing mix indicated significant understanding of the TRACS requirements
thus were unsupported by the information the agency had before it.
While the record reflects that the TET's conclusions regarding PSI's
staffing levels were unsupported, such conclusions were not material to
the agency's source selection determination. See ESCO, Inc., B-225565,
Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD para. 450 at 6; see also Allied Tech. Group, Inc.,
B-271302, B-271302.2, July 4, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 4 at 4 n.3. As set
forth above, the TET's conclusions that PSI's quotation was both the
highest technically rated and overall best value were based on the
technical enhancements and advantages that the vendor was found to offer.
Specifically, the TET repeatedly found it was PSI's strengths in the
technical, project management, and key personnel factors (i.e., "they
provide HUD a complete range of technical skills and number of key
personnel with several years experience designing, implementing,
enhancing, and managing systems similar to the TRACS system") that offset
PSI's higher price. The TET's head-to-head comparison of PSI's and ATS's
quotations also focused on PSI's advantages in technical capability,
project management, and key staff.
More importantly, the SSA's determinations that PSI's quotation
represented the best technical solution and overall best value to the
agency were based solely on the vendor's technical enhancements (e.g.,
expertise with new technologies and toolsets, advanced project management
tools) and not staffing levels. In this regard, when conducting a
head-to-head comparison of ATS's and PSI's quotations, the SSA considered
only PSI's advantages under the technical capability, project management,
past performance, and staffing and resources factors as the rationale for
what justified PSI's price premium; there is no mention of vendors'
staffing levels in the SSA's analysis here.[24] Id. at 2. It is quite
clear that the SSA's best value tradeoff focused only on PSI's technical
advantages as compared to ATS's lower price, and that PSI's staffing was
not a material aspect of the agency's decision here. In sum, in our view
the record reflects that the conclusions reached by the agency regarding
PSI's proposed level of effort were simply not material to the agency's
source selection decision and thus do not provide a basis to question the
agency's decision that PSI's quotation represented the best value to the
government.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] While our decision refers to the "award" of a BPA, which is the
terminology used by the parties here, the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) in fact refers to the "establishment" of a BPA against an FSS
contract. FAR sections 8.403(a)(2), 8.404(b).
[2] The solicitation informed vendors that the awarded BPA could also
result in the issuance of fixed-price, level-of-effort task orders for
various analysis requirements in support of future enhancement and
development efforts. RFQ at 5, Questions and Responses, at 5. A
fixed-price, level-of-effort contract is suitable for the investigation or
study in a specific research and development area, and payment is based on
the effort expended rather than on the results achieved. FAR sect.
16.207-2.
[3] The evaluated price consisted of vendors' proposed prices for the base
year and option year task orders, as well as prices for a sample task
order. AR, Tab 12, TET Report, at 112.
[4] When an unsuccessful vendor requests information on the award of an
order or BPA under the FSS program that was based on factors other than
price alone, the ordering activity is to provide a brief explanation of
the basis for its award decision. FAR sect. 8.405.2(d).
[5] ATS's also argues that HUD's evaluation of vendors' technical
proposals under the project management factor was flawed because the
agency did not properly evaluate (i.e., "closely scrutinize") whether
vendors' proposed labor hours and categories demonstrated the ability to
perform the PWS tasks, but nevertheless reached conclusions regarding
PSI's proposed level of effort which were relied on in the award
determination. Protest, June 19, 2006, at 20-23. As this protest issue
spans multiple evaluation factors, our review is set forth separately
below.
[6] A Gantt chart is a horizontal bar chart developed as a production
control tool by Henry L. Gantt. Frequently used in project management, a
Gantt chart provides a graphical illustration of a schedule that helps
plan, coordinate, and track individual tasks and subtasks within a
project. AR, July 20, 2006, at 11 n.6.
[7] The staffing and resources evaluation factor also stated that vendors
were to identify those labor categories that would be assigned to perform
each of the tasks defined in the PWS and sample task order. RFQ amend. 1,
Revised Evaluation Factors, at 2-3.
[8] Rational ClearQuest is an IBM-created project management software
tool. It automates and tracks the tasks in the software development and
maintenance process; it also identifies risks, timelines, and project
status throughout the project life cycle. As a project management tool,
Rational ClearQuest assists the project manager in limiting risk. AR, Tab
27, Declaration of TET Chairperson, July 20, 2005, at 4.
[9] The TET stated, "The PSI Team uses a risk management tool `Rational
ClearQuest' for managing risk on its larger projects. Rational ClearQuest
is customized for each project. . . . Thus, the risk management process
can begin immediately upon project start-up. The PSI Team's baseline risk
management plan is reviewed by the project/ task manager and adapted to
the specific task at its inception." AR, Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at
59.
[10] The solicitation's instructions to vendors also set forth a complete
listing of TRACS toolsets and architecture. RFQ amend. 1, Revised Proposal
Instructions, at 1.
[11] The TET stated, "[w]hile significant experience is demonstrated with
mainframe and Internet tools at HUD, some of the primary toolsets used on
the TRACS project are not represented. Specifically, the IBM mainframe
operating system software (MVS/390), DB2, BMC, CICS and Endevor are not
mentioned, nor are Advantage:Gen or EASEL." Id. at 16.
[12] The PWS also detailed the specific future enhancement and development
efforts that were to be provided in support of TRACS, stating, "The
contractor shall support [the] transition to the new HUD Information
Technology Services (HITS) infrastructure. The contractor shall perform
analysis, testing, and make the necessary changes to TRACS to work
properly on the new HITS hardware/software/ teleprocessing
infrastructure." PWS at 2, 24.
[13] We note that the resume of ATS's proposed business requirements
analyst referenced Oracle among the many listed skills, but without
identifying what level of experience existed. AR, Tab 8, ATS's Quotation,
Vol. I, Technical Proposal, at 4-18. Likewise, the resumes of ATS's
proposed information technology team lead and senior software engineer
referenced Java among the listed skills, but again without identifying any
level of experience. Id. at 4-21, 4-27. The fact that ATS's GSA contract
mentions Oracle databases also does not demonstrate actual expertise. Id.,
Vol. III, Price Proposal, GSA Contract, at 7.
[14] ATS also alleges that the contracting officer here was fully aware of
ATS's experience with the migration of the HUD Real Estate Management
System (REMS) to the agency's enterprise architecture, and that such
information was simply "too close at hand" for the agency to ignore in the
evaluation of ATS's technical proposal here. Protest, June 19, 2006, at
37. In certain circumstances we have determined that evaluators are
prohibited from ignoring information of which they are personally aware,
even if that information is not within the offeror's proposal. See GTS
Duratek, Inc., B-280511.2, B-280511.3, Oct. 19, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 130
at 14; International Bus. Sys., Inc., B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD
para. 114 at 5. Even assuming it is appropriate to apply this principle
here, ATS has failed to establish that its work on REMS involved the same
new technologies and toolsets that HUD credited to PSI here.
[15] Similar charts existed as part of the resumes of ATS's other key
personnel, indicating experience of 7, 12, 12, and 13 years, respectively.
[16] In some instances the resumes of PSI's proposed key personnel did not
explicitly set forth years of Advantage Gen expertise and, thus, the
protester's figures are the result of attempting to "glean" this
information from the professional experience narratives included within
the resumes. Protest, June 19, 2006, at 39-40. In other instances ATS did
not accept the "bare assertions" contained within the resumes of PSI's
proposed key personnel, and instead substituted the average amount of
Advantage Gen experience, computed from those PSI proposed employees whose
degree of expertise ATS believed it could reliably estimate. Id. at 40.
[17] For purposes of the computation here we assume that ATS's use of the
term "ATS Team" refers to only its five proposed key personnel and not all
proposed TRACS team members (in which case the average Advantage Gen
expertise would be less). ATS's oral presentation also represented that
its team possessed a combined total of 30 years of Advantage Gen
experience. AR, Tab 9, ATS's Oral Presentation, at 37.
[18] The prior TRACS contract had been performed as a time-and-materials
effort.
[19] The PWS did not, however, set forth the number of hours by labor
category for each PWS task.
[20] The agency also informed vendors that their price proposals would be
"closely scrutinized" to evaluate the methods used for calculating costs
and the reasonableness with which those costs were assigned to PWS
requirements. RFQ, Questions and Responses, at 11.
[21] The TET also commented:
In light of reduced budgets for existing and new projects, the Government
must consider what results will be achieved based on the level of effort
required for future initiatives. Future task orders will be issued either
Firm Fixed-Price or Fixed-Price [level of effort] . . . . Assuming the
labor rates remain the same for both maintenance and development efforts,
the Government will receive a higher rate of return with [PSI] because of
the lower average hourly rate that will provide a higher probability of
successful completion of the required tasks.
Id. at 112.
[22] To the extent that ATS argues that HUD did not "closely scrutinize"
vendors' quotations because the solicitation failed to require vendors to
submit sufficient staffing information necessary to perform the requisite
close scrutiny, we find that ATS essentially argues that the solicitation
was defective, in which case its protest of such is untimely. See 4 C.F.R.
sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2006).
[23] Similarly, the TET's conclusion that PSI's lower average labor rate
will be of value to the agency for future, fixed-priced, level-of-effort
task orders is also based on mistaken assumptions. First, the TET's
determination of average hourly labor rates was based on vendors' total
prices and total proposed hours (as opposed to the average price for one
hour of each labor category proposed). AR, Tab 25, Revised TET Report, at
99. Since vendors proposed different numbers of hours for the various
labor categories, this method of comparison does not permit the agency to
validly ascertain whether PSI was actually less expensive than ATS for any
common labor category. The TET's analysis also implicitly assumes that for
future fixed-priced, level-of-effort task orders, vendors would utilize
common labor categories and staffing levels--only then would the lower
average hourly rate arguably be determinative of price. Further, the TET
offers no explanation for its assertion that a lower average hourly rate
will provide a higher probability of success.
[24] In fact, the SSA's analysis contains only one phrase that even
touches on the issue, a reference in the concluding paragraph to PSI's
"staffing mix of time and resources and technical expertise." AR, Tab 26,
Source Selection Decision, May 25, 2006, at 4. We see no basis to read
this oblique reference as incorporating the TET's conclusions regarding
PSI's staffing levels.