TITLE: B-296501, Computers Universal, Inc., August 18, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296501
DATE: August 18, 2005
****************************************************
B-296501, Computers Universal, Inc., August 18, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: Computers Universal, Inc.

   File: B-296501

   Date: August 18, 2005

   Peter L. Cannon for the protester.

   Michael R. Rizzo, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for abcISP, Inc., an
   intervenor.

   Dennis Foley, Esq., Philip Kauffman, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq.,
   Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging solicitation's personnel experience requirements as
   unduly restrictive of competition is denied where record shows
   requirements are reasonably related to agency's needs for higher level
   expertise.

   DECISION

   Computers Universal, Inc. protests the terms of request for quotations
   (RFQ) No. 600-134-05, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
   for information technology services for the Naval Medical Center in San
   Diego, California.[1] The vendor selected under the RFQ will provide
   continuous day-to-day operational, technical, software design and
   development, and programming support for the medical center and its many
   programs and clinics. Computers Universal, a vendor that previously was
   issued a task order for performance of the services from April 2003 to
   September 2004, contends that the current RFQ's personnel experience
   requirements are excessive and unduly restrictive of competition.
   Specifically, the protester alleges that the experience requirements,
   which exceed those it was required to meet under its predecessor task
   order, were developed solely to favor another firm, abcISP, Inc., the firm
   that performed the services under the protester's prior task order as a
   subcontractor to Computers Universal.

   We deny the protest.

   As noted above, Computers Universal was issued a task order for these
   services in 2003, and subcontracted with abcISP for performance of the
   services. In 2004, shortly after the protester received a follow-on task
   order for the services, abcISP protested the selection of Computers
   Universal; the agency suspended the procurement in light of abcISP's
   assertion that the protester had improperly submitted the qualifications
   of abcISP personnel for evaluation. The agency granted Computers Universal
   an opportunity to submit substitute personnel; having determined that the
   protester's substitute personnel failed to meet the RFQ's experience
   requirements, however, VA ultimately terminated the protester's task order
   in February 2005.[2] On March 4, after the agency issued a new
   solicitation for the requirement, Computers Universal protested its terms;
   that protest was dismissed as academic, however, after the agency
   discovered errors in the solicitation and cancelled the procurement. The
   current solicitation, issued on May 2, seeks quotations for a task order
   for a base period through September 30, 2005, plus 4 option years. Vendors
   were advised that in evaluating quotations for selection, the three
   non-price factors, as a group, would be of equal weight to price. The
   non-price factors were listed in descending order of importance, as
   follows: evaluation of personnel resumes for compliance with stated
   qualifications and experience requirements; consideration of the firm's
   service-disabled veteran-owned status; and past performance. RFQ at 4.

   The protester primarily contends that the RFQ's personnel experience
   requirements exceed the agency's needs and thus are unduly restrictive of
   competition. [3] Specifically, the firm challenges the requirement that
   the personnel proposed have more than 5 years experience in specific
   software and systems environments; Computers Universal essentially argues
   that more than 5 years of experience is unnecessary, and speculates that
   the requirements for more experience were included in the RFQ merely to
   favor abcISP. According to the protester, abcISP has employees with the
   breadth and diversity of experience to meet the requirements, unlike
   previous vendors which were not required to meet such standards under
   prior task orders.

   While the determination of an agency's actual needs and the best method of
   accommodating them is primarily within the agency's discretion, a
   contracting agency must specify its needs and solicit offers or quotations
   in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition; restrictive
   provisions or conditions may be included only to the extent necessary to
   satisfy those needs. Quality Lawn Maint.,

   B-270690.3, June 27, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 289 at 2 When, as here, a
   protester alleges that a requirement is unduly restrictive of competition,
   we will review the record to determine whether the requirement has been
   justified as necessary to satisfy the agency's actual needs. See Sunbelt
   Indus., Inc., B-246850, Mar. 31, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 325 at 3. Our Office
   has recognized that where solicitation requirements relate to health and
   safety concerns, an agency has the discretion to set its minimum needs so
   as to achieve not just reasonable results but the highest possible
   reliability and effectiveness. See Atlantic  Coast Contracting, Inc.,
   B-270491, B-270590, Mar. 13, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 147 at 3. Here, the
   record shows that the RFQ's personnel experience requirements are
   reasonably related to the agency's needs.

   The agency explains that the information technology services sought under
   the RFQ are critical to the operation of the medical center's complex
   network of health care facilities, services, and programs, and thus are
   vital to the protection of the health and safety of the many patients
   served by medical personnel and programs relying on the vendor's
   development, operation and maintenance support of the network system.
   Moreover, the agency explains that it needs the RFQ's additional
   experience requirements to ensure a higher level of technical expertise
   than is currently available from agency personnel associated with the
   network's information technology systems and services. The agency reports
   that the medical center already has a staff of junior level programmers
   with 3-5 years experience. The agency explains that it needs the more
   experienced information technology personnel solicited (some with as much
   as 8-10 years of specialized information technology experience) because of
   their understanding and knowledge of the wide scope of software, systems
   and technical support to be provided under the RFQ, as well as their
   maturity and ability to work independently and think strategically, while
   also dealing effectively with the non-technical medical personnel to be
   serviced under the task order. The agency further reports that in
   surveying the market for appropriate experience levels for the technical
   expertise and services it requires, it found that industry employment data
   showed that advertised job descriptions and responsibilities typically
   included experience requirements of 8-10 years of relevant experience for
   software engineering manager, project manager-engineer, and database
   analyst positions similar to the requirements included in the RFQ.

   Since the protester has not responded to the agency's reasonable and
   detailed support for the challenged personnel experience requirements, we
   have no basis to question the requirements. Further, the protester has not
   provided, nor does our review of the record provide, any support for the
   contention that the higher level of experience required under the RFQ is
   only intended to favor abcISP, or to disfavor Computers Universal, for
   selection under the RFQ. Rather, as set forth above, since the agency has
   adequately demonstrated that the experience requirements are directly
   related to its needs, the record supports the reasonableness of the
   challenged requirements. A protester's mere disagreement with an agency's
   assessment of its needs or solicitation requirements related to those
   demonstrated needs does not show they are unreasonable. See Purification
   Indus., Inc., B-261984, Sept. 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 143 at 5.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency explains that it is conducting the procurement on behalf of
   the Navy under a VA/Department of Defense agreement providing for
   contracting services to the Medical Center, a major medical training and
   treatment facility with an extensive framework of research, educational,
   and clinical programs.

   [2] To the extent the protester challenges the evaluation of its
   substitute personnel, and the termination of its 2004 task order, actions
   that occurred months before the firm filed its current protest, the
   challenges are untimely. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.2(a)(2) (2005) (protests based upon other than apparent improprieties
   in a solicitation must be filed within 10 days of when the protester knew
   or should have known the basis of protest).

   [3] While the protester also alleges that the agency improperly included
   an evaluation factor in the RFQ for consideration of the vendors'
   service-disabled veteran-owned status, that abcISP may have participated
   in the development of the RFQ's technical requirements, and that the
   agency has acted in bad faith by favoring abcISP for selection under the
   RFQ, the protester has neither rebutted the agency's detailed responses in
   each of these areas, nor provided any evidence to support its continued
   speculation of improper action in these areas. Accordingly, since a
   protester's mere inference and speculation is insufficient to establish a
   valid basis of protest, we will not give further consideration to these
   unsupported allegations of impropriety. See LSS Leasing Corp., B-259551,
   Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 170 at 5, n.6.