TITLE: B-296946, CACI Technologies, Inc., October 27, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296946
DATE: October 27, 2005
***************************************************
B-296946, CACI Technologies, Inc., October 27, 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: CACI Technologies, Inc.

   File: B-296946

   Date: October 27, 2005

   Richard J. Webber, Esq., Craig S. King, Esq., and Lisa K. Miller, Esq.,
   Arent Fox PLLC, for the protester.

   Lt. Col. Sharon K. Sughru, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as failing to comply with
   mandatory solicitation requirements regarding engineering services and, on
   that basis, properly determined that protester's proposal was ineligible
   for award on the basis of initial offers.

   DECISION

   CACI Technologies, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's
   decision not to award a contract to CACI pursuant to request for proposals
   (RFP) No. FA8222-04-R-1000 under which the agency sought engineering and
   technical support services. CACI challenges the agency's determination
   that CACI's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirements.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The Air Force issued RFP No. FA8222-04-R-1000 in October 2004, seeking
   proposals to "provide design and engineering/technical support services
   for the Department of Defense weapon systems, components, and support
   equipment."[1] Agency Report, Tab 8, Performance Work Specification (PWS),
   at 7. The solicitation contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery
   indefinite-quantity contracts[2] with 5-year ordering periods and 7-year
   performance periods and an aggregate ceiling value of $1.9 billion.

   The solicitation identified a minimum of 43 specific capabilities for
   which offerors were required to discuss acceptable technical
   approaches.[3] In this regard, the RFP provided that offerors "must
   indicate capabilities in at least one sub-element for each
   systems/applications grouping (A through I) for each functional category
   (1 through 5)."[4] Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 81 (bold in original).
   The solicitation directed each offeror to "[d]escribe your team's
   engineering, technical capability and expertise for each functional
   category and system/application grouping listed" and provided that, in
   doing so, the proposal must reference "the alpha and numeric indicator"
   associated with the particular capability being addressed. Id.

   With regard to evaluation of proposals, the RFP establishing the following
   evaluation factors: mission capability,[5] past performance, proposal
   risk, and cost/price.[6] Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 93-94. Under the
   mission capability factor, the solicitation provided:

   The offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which
   the technical approach demonstrates their ability to meet the full range
   of DESP II requirements. Their proposal will be evaluated to assure that
   it clearly demonstrates the offeror's ability to provide the skills,
   experience, competencies, and capabilities required.

   Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 94-95.

   Finally, under the heading "Basis for Contract Award," the solicitation
   stated: "In order for a proposal to result in an awardable contract, it
   must at least meet all minimum technical requirements." Id. at 92-93.

   On or before the November 8 closing date, proposals were submitted by 29
   offerors, including CACI. The proposals were subsequently evaluated with
   regard to, among other things, the extent each proposal adequately
   described the offeror's capabilities to perform the 43 mandatory
   requirements.[7]

   In evaluating CACI's compliance with the requirements associated with
   functional category 5, environmental, health, and safety, the agency
   concluded that CACI's proposal failed to address the engineering
   capabilities sought and, instead, only discussed construction-type
   capabilities. In this regard, the PWS expressly cautioned offerors as
   follows: "Construction cannot be the main purpose of the task order, but
   rather incidental work required for successful completion of the task
   order." Agency Report, Tab 8, PWS, at 6. Further, with regard to
   functional category 5, environmental, health, and safety, the solicitation
   stated that offerors must be able to:

   provide engineering and other professional services to provide for
   pollution prevention, environmental compliance, and actively pursue the
   health and well being of military and civilian personnel as a vital
   component of the weapon system and/or its critical processes. . . . All
   engineering solutions submitted to the Air Force shall require
   consideration of the impact to the environment and to the worker's health
   and safety.

   Agency Report, Tab 8, PWS, at 21.

   In the section of CACI's proposal in which CACI attempted to address the
   solicitation requirements for environmental, health, and safety with
   regard to "multiple applications" (the requirement identified as "E.5" in
   the matrix),[8] CACI's proposal stated:

   For the reconstruction efforts at Andersen AFB, Guam, [CACI's
   subcontractor] is currently installing 30 backup generators with fuel
   tanks at 30 buildings. The project also includes replacing blast doors on
   114 munitions storage buildings and burial of overhead electrical
   distribution lines. Based on [CACI's subcontractor's] performance to date,
   AFCEE [Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence] has selected [CACI's
   subcontractor] for eight additional projects.

   Agency Report, Tab 7, CACI Proposal, at III-53.

   In evaluating CACI's proposal with regard to the "E.5" requirement, the
   agency concluded that CACI's proposal discussed only construction-type
   activities, not the engineering work contemplated by the solicitation.
   Specifically, the agency's source selection decision concluded:

   [CACI's] proposal narrative failed to identify the engineering-type work
   required as defined in the Performance Work Specification for this
   Functional Category. CACI's proposal discussed the installation of blast
   doors and generators, which is civil engineering-type work, not applicable
   to the scope of DESP II.

   Agency Report, Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, at 10.

   Based on the determination that CACI's proposal did not address the
   capabilities sought regarding this requirement and, more specifically,
   addressed construction activities that the solicitation stated could be
   only incidental to contract performance, CACI's proposal was rated
   "Unacceptable (Red)" under the technical capabilities subfactor.

   Upon completion of the agency's evaluation of all proposals, the agency
   determined that it would not engage in discussions with the offerors.[9]
   In selecting proposals for award, only proposals without technical
   deficiencies were considered; specifically, any proposal rated
   "Unacceptable (Red)" with regard to its proposed technical capabilities
   was considered ineligible for award. Accordingly, due to CACI's evaluated
   deficiency with regard to the "E.5" requirement, the proposal was not
   further considered for award.[10] CACI was notified of its non-selection
   on June 29. This protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   CACI first challenges the substance of the agency's determination that
   CACI's proposal failed to comply with the "E.5" solicitation requirement
   as "arbitrary and unreasonable," complaining that the agency should have
   understood that CACI's engineering capabilities were "implicit" in this
   portion of its proposal. Protest at 7, 8.

   It is an offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with
   adequately detailed information, which clearly demonstrates compliance
   with the solicitation requirements and allows a meaningful review by the
   procuring agency. Ace Info. Solutions, Inc., B-295450.2, Mar. 7, 2005,
   2005 CPD para. 75 at 8; Communications Data Sys. Assocs., B-223988, Oct.
   29, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 491. Procuring agencies have considerable
   discretion in evaluating technical proposals and, in reviewing protests
   challenging an agency's evaluation of technical requirements, our Office
   will not reevaluate offerors' proposals; rather, our review is limited to
   considering whether the agency's evaluation of competing proposals was
   reasonable, consistent, and in accord with law, regulation and the terms
   of the solicitation. L-3 Communications Westwood Corp., B-295126, Jan. 19,
   2005, 2005 CPD para. 30 at 5. A protester's mere disagreement with an
   agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted
   unreasonably. Purification Indus., Inc., B-261984, Sept. 20, 1995, 95-2
   CPD para. 143 at 5.

   Here, the portion of CACI's proposal responding to the "E.5" requirement
   only addressed "reconstruction" efforts on a particular contract performed
   at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. In pursuing this protest, CACI expressly
   recognizes that the "reconstruction" efforts described in its proposal
   necessitated the engineering and professional service that the
   solicitation sought, acknowledging that "an engineering firm had to design
   this work and make sure that it was environmentally safe, that necessary
   permits were obtained, and that health risks were minimized." Protester's
   Comments, Sept. 6, 2005, at 15. Rather than discussing the capabilities
   the solicitation sought, CACI's proposal merely referred to construction
   activities (installation of generators, replacement of blast doors, and
   burial of electrical lines)--work the PWS expressly provided could only be
   "incidental" to contract performance. On this record, we find no basis to
   question the reasonableness of the agency's determination that CACI's
   proposal failed to meet the solicitation requirements.[11]

   CACI next protests that the agency failed to adequately document its
   determination regarding CACI's failure to meet the "E.5" requirements.
   Specifically, CACI asserts that "not a single one of the eight evaluators
   found CACI's discussion of E.5 to be deficient." Protester's Comments,
   Sept. 6, 2005, at 1. Accordingly, CACI asserts that the agency's
   determination that CACI's proposal failed to comply with the E.5
   requirement was not adequately documented. We disagree.

   Source selection officials in negotiated procurement have broad discretion
   in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of the
   technical and cost evaluation results. Colonial Storage Co.; Paxton Van
   Lines, Inc., B-253501 et al., Oct. 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 234. In
   exercising this discretion, selection decisions are subject only to the
   tests of rationality and consistency with the RFP evaluation criteria.
   Nonetheless, implicit in the foregoing is that selection decisions must be
   documented in sufficient detail to show that they are not arbitrary. Id;
   Hydraudyne Sys. and Eng'g B.V., B-241326; B-241326.2, Jan. 30, 1991, 91-1
   CPD para. 88.

   Here, the contemporaneous evaluation worksheets indicate that two
   evaluators specifically documented their concerns that CACI's proposal
   failed to comply with the "E.5" requirements. One of these evaluator's
   stated, "for environmental E.5 [CACI's] description sounded more like
   construction type work." Similarly, a second evaluator stated, "E5, what
   does [CACI's subcontractor] do[] to address Environ, Health & Safety."
   Agency Report, Tab 11, Technical Capability Subfactor Summary Document, at
   2. Thereafter, as noted above, the agency's source selection document
   stated: "[CACI's] proposal narrative failed to identify the
   engineering-type work required as defined in the Performance Work
   specification for this Functional Category. CACI's proposal discussed the
   installation of blast doors and generators, which is civil
   engineering-type work, not applicable to the scope of DESP II." Agency
   Report, Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, at 10. We view the final agency
   decision here, that CACI's proposal was deficient with regard to the "E.5"
   requirements, to be consistent with the initial concerns that were
   expressed--and documented--by the evaluators. Accordingly, we find no
   merit in CACI's assertion that the agency's decision was inadequately
   documented.

   In summary, where the agency properly made its award decisions on the
   basis of initial proposals, the agency reasonably concluded that CACI's
   proposal failed to comply with the solicitation's mandatory requirements
   and, therefore, that the proposal was ineligible for award.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] This procurement is the second conducted under the Air Force's Design
   and Engineering Support Program (DESP); the procurement is frequently
   referred to as "DESP II."

   [2] The solicitation stated the agency's intent to award "approximately
   fourteen contracts." Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 93.

   [3] The PWS contained a matrix of required capabilities with five numbered
   functional categories listed on the horizontal axis and nine lettered
   systems/applications (along with sub-elements), to which the functional
   categories were required to be applied, on the vertical axis. Agency
   Report, Tab 8, PWS attach. 5.

   [4] The 45 intersections between the five functional capabilities and the
   nine systems/applications all represented mandatory capabilities, with the
   exception of two (identified as "D.3" and "I.4") which the solicitation
   provided were not mandatory. Agency Report, Tab 8, PWS attach. 5. The
   horizontal axis of the matrix listed the following numbered functional
   categories: (1) technical documentation/courseware development; (2)
   systems design engineering, development; (3) software/firmware; (4)
   maintenance repair, operational support; and (5) environmental, health &
   safety. The vertical axis of the matrix listed the following lettered
   systems/applications: (A) aircraft/air vehicle systems; (B) ground
   equipment/ground transportation; (C) munitions/missiles; (D) gas
   generating, dispensing & handling systems; (E) applicable to multiple
   applications; (F) industrial engineering & infrastructure; (G) ground
   systems; (H) environmental research; and (I) space systems. Agency Report,
   Tab 8, PWS attachs. 4, 5.

   [5] Under mission capability, the solicitation identified four subfactors,
   listed in descending order of importance: technical capability, program
   management, organization, staff and subcontractor management, and
   participation of small/disadvantaged/minority businesses. Agency Report,
   Tab 8, RFP, at 93.

   [6] The solicitation stated that mission capability and past performance
   were equally weighted and the most important factors; that proposal risk
   was next in importance; and that cost/price was of least importance.
   Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 93.

   [7] Compliance with the mandatory requirements was evaluated under the
   technical capabilities subfactor of the mission capability factor, under
   which the agency assigned adjectival/color ratings of "Exceptional
   (Blue)," "Acceptable (Green)," "Marginal (Yellow)," and "Unacceptable
   (Red)." Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 94; Contracting Officer's Statement
   at 4.

   [8] With regard to the "E.5" requirement, offerors were directed to
   discuss their capabilities in the context of one of the following
   applications: power transmission equipment; electric motors, generators,
   etc; automatic test equipment; test facilities; or system safety. Agency
   Report, Tab 8, PWS, at 23.

   [9] The RFP specifically advised offerors that "the Government reserves
   the right to award without discussion." Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 77.

   [10] The agency also states that CACI's proposal contained an "inadequacy"
   with regard to another requirement, identified as "I.5" (environmental,
   health & safety related to space systems). Contracting Officer's Statement
   at 17. In light of our conclusion that the agency reasonably evaluated
   CACI's proposal as deficient with regard to the E.5 requirement, and
   properly excluded CACI's proposal from consideration on that basis, we
   need not address additional bases for CACI's exclusion from consideration.

   [11] CACI also asserts that its proposal should have been evaluated as
   complying with the "E.5" requirements based on the narrative discussion in
   CACI's proposal that responded to (and referenced only) the "C.5"
   requirements (related to munitions/missiles). Protester's Comments, Sept.
   6, 2005, at 17-18. As discussed above, the solicitation clearly required
   that an offeror reference "the alpha and numeric indicator" associated
   with the particular requirement being addressed. Further, as noted above,
   an offeror is responsible for clearly demonstrating compliance with the
   solicitation requirements. Here, it is not readily apparent that CACI's
   discussion responding to the "C.5" requirement could reasonably be
   construed as meeting the "E.5" requirement; CACI acknowledges that, at the
   time it wrote its proposal it had no expectation that the agency would
   consider this portion of its proposal in evaluating the "E.5"
   requirements. Id. Accordingly, on the record here, CACI's assertion that
   the agency should have relied on CACI's discussion responding to the "C.5"
   requirements as a basis to find its proposal compliant with the "E.5"
   requirements provides no basis for sustaining its protest.