TITLE: B-296972, Standard Communications, Inc., November 1, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296972
DATE: November 1, 2005
*********************************************************
B-296972, Standard Communications, Inc., November 1, 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: Standard Communications, Inc.

   File: B-296972

   Date: November 1, 2005

   David M. Nadler, Esq., and Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Dickstein Shapiro Morin
   & Oshinsky LLP, for the protester.

   James J. Regan, Esq., and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP,
   for dNovus RDI, an intervenor.

   Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter, and David L. Bell, Esq., Department of the Air
   Force, for the agency.

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

   DIGEST

   1. Agency reasonably did not evaluate protester's past performance as
   justifying high confidence rating, despite generally positive feedback
   from references, where protester's past contracts were reasonably found to
   be only partially relevant in size and scope to work to be performed in
   statement of work.

   2. Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal's technical risk as
   high where its proposed labor rates and overall price were significantly
   below agency's independent estimate and reasonably were found to threaten
   its ability to hire and retain incumbent personnel.

   3. Where protester's neutral past performance rating was not considered a
   significant weakness, and nature and ultimate relevance of protester's
   past performance submissions were clear, agency was not required to
   conduct discussions on past performance.

   4. Price-technical tradeoff was reasonable where source selection official
   identified technical distinctions between competing proposals and
   specifically determined that higher technically rated proposal represented
   best value despite higher cost.

   DECISION

   Standard Communications, Inc. (SCI) protests the award of a contract to
   dNovus RDI under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-05-R-0156, issued
   by the Department of the Air Force as a total small business set-aside for
   Air Combat Command (ACC) Information Technology (IT) Enterprise Operations
   at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. SCI challenges the technical and
   price evaluations of its proposal and the adequacy of discussions.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price labor-hours contract under
   the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule for a
   6-month base period, with 4 option years, in support of the 83d
   Communications Squadron. The Squadron is responsible for the operation,
   security, management, administration, and user help desk support for the
   ACC IT Enterprise, which includes 15 main operating bases, Air Force
   Special Operations command base support, several geographically separated
   units, and subordinate headquarters such as the Air Intelligence Agency.
   The current client base support was estimated at more than 100,000
   personnel and 67,000 workstations, and was expected to grow to include
   other tenants and organizations. Major efforts supported by the contract
   include engineering and technical support, network operations crew
   positions, ACC circuit management office support, and special maintenance
   support. The RFP included a 28-page statement of work (SOW) that set forth
   a detailed listing of tasks, minimum qualifications of personnel, and
   deliverables. The RFP also identified the estimated number of hours for
   each task, for which offerors were to propose fixed, burdened labor rates.

   Proposals were to be evaluated on a "best value" basis considering four
   factors--mission capability, which was equal in importance to past
   performance, risk (less important), and price (least important). Mission
   capability was divided into two subfactors--program management and
   staffing plan (less important). These subfactors were to be rated on a
   color/adjectival basis, and past performance on a confidence level
   basis.[1] Risk associated with the two mission capability subfactors was
   to be rated as high, moderate, or low. Price was to be evaluated on the
   basis of whether it was unreasonably high or low in relation to the
   government's estimate, the offeror's technical approach, and other
   offerors' proposed prices.

   Eight offerors, including SCI and dNovus, submitted proposals, which were
   evaluated by the source selection evaluation team (SSET). After
   discussions, the offerors submitted final proposal revisions (FPR). The
   final consensus evaluation for the protester and awardee was as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                   |       SCI        |   dNovus RDI    |
   |-----------------------------------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Mission Capability                 |                  |                 |
   |-----------------------------------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Program Management (Risk)          |   Green (high)   |   Blue (low)    |
   |-----------------------------------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Staffing Plan (Risk)               |   Green (low)    |   Green (low)   |
   |-----------------------------------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Past Performance                   |     Unknown      |   Significant   |
   |-----------------------------------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Price                              |   $24,708,167    |   $29,174,715   |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   The contracting officer, as the source selection authority (SSA), reviewed
   the SSET's evaluations and performed a price-technical tradeoff. The SSA
   concluded that dNovus's superior technical proposal, with its lower risk
   rating, offset the lower prices of the other proposals, including SCI's.
   After a debriefing, SCI filed this protest.

   SCI challenges the evaluation and award decision on numerous bases. We
   have considered all of SCI's arguments and find that they have no merit
   or, alternatively, that any impropriety did not prejudice the protester.
   We address SCI's most significant arguments below.

   SCI'S TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   Mission Capability Factor

   SCI asserts that the agency arbitrarily rated its proposal as
   green/acceptable under both mission capability subfactors--program
   management and staffing plan--based on matters that either were not RFP
   requirements or were otherwise all satisfactorily addressed in its
   proposal and responses to discussions. SCI believes that its proposal
   should have been rated as blue/exceptional under both subfactors.

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
   confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
   regulations. United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 75 at 10-11. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
   judgment does not render the agency's evaluation unreasonable. See Command
   Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B-292893.2, June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 168 at 3.
   The evaluation under the mission capability subfactors was
   unobjectionable.

   Program Management Subfactor

   In evaluating SCI's proposal as green/acceptable under the program
   management subfactor, the SSET found that the proposal met the basic
   intent of the SOW's staffing aspects, but was unoriginal in its proposed
   effort. AR, Tab 23, at 3. For example, the proposal described SCI's
   capabilities to accomplish system design, test plans, system
   specifications, and the final technical report, but did not relate these
   capabilities to current ACC IT Enterprise activities. AR, Tab 17a, at 3.
   SCI asserts that the RFP did not require relation of work to current ACC
   IT Enterprise activities. However, since the RFP encompasses
   responsibility for the operation, management, and other activities in
   support of the ACC IT Enterprise, we think the SSET reasonably could
   consider this to be a matter that warranted rating SCI's proposal below
   the blue/exceptional level.

   We also find the risk rating to be reasonable. The risk aspect of this
   subfactor was to be evaluated based on the offeror's approach and included
   consideration of the potential for disruption of schedule and degradation
   of performance. RFP at 40. Following discussions, the SSET found that
   SCI's mitigation of risk was "basically acceptable" in defining key areas
   of risk, but concluded that the firm had given "little thought" to
   mitigating the risk associated with its proposal to hire the incumbent
   employees, and thus evaluated the proposal as posing a moderate risk. AR,
   Tab 17a, at 2-3. The SSET's post-FPR evaluation noted that SCI had reduced
   its price by some [deleted] percent, resulting in a price significantly
   below the agency's estimate. AR, Tab 23, at 5. The SSET found that this
   reduced price severely threatened the firm's proposed capability to hire
   and retain a workforce with the expertise necessary to fit the agency's
   requirements, and thus also increased proposal risk. Id. Although SCI's
   proposal addressed risk mitigation in this area and included reasons for
   its price reductions, the SSET found that the proposal was not
   sufficiently comprehensive. Contracting Officer's Statement at 8. The SSET
   noted in this regard that the proposal only contained two paragraphs on
   the subject, which simply provided that the firm would attempt to hire the
   incumbent employees "subject to successful compensation negotiations," and
   listed various recruitment strategies for filling other positions. SCI
   Proposal, paras. 3.4.1, 3.4.2. In addition, while SCI's proposal included
   a brief paragraph and table regarding risk identification, mitigation, and
   management, its proposed mitigation of the high contract start-up risk
   (based on the need to hire the incumbent employees) consisted simply of
   the statement "incumbent candidates," id., para. 3.5, and did not address
   the risk that salary negotiations with incumbents would be unsuccessful.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 8. Under these circumstances the SSET's
   evaluation of high risk was unobjectionable.

   Staffing Plan Subfactor

   SCI asserts that its proposal also should have been evaluated as
   blue/exceptional under the staffing plan subfactor, since some of the
   personnel qualifications listed in appendix A of its proposal exceeded the
   RFP requirements, and it addressed the only identified subfactor
   weaknesses in response to discussions. This argument is without merit. The
   RFP provided for a blue/exceptional rating where a proposal exceeded
   minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the
   government, with one or more strengths and no deficiencies. RFP at 39. The
   agency explains that, based on the way the SOW was written and the
   elements assessed in the proposals, this was a difficult area for any
   originality or ability to substantially exceed the SOW requirements; in
   fact, all proposals were rated as satisfactory under this subfactor. While
   SCI did exceed some of the SOW requirements in its listing of the
   experience/qualifications for various generic position descriptions, staff
   qualifications was only one of five evaluation elements under this
   subfactor. This being the case, the agency could reasonably conclude that
   a blue/exceptional rating was not warranted.

   Past Performance Factor

   SCI asserts that the agency improperly rated its past performance.
   Specifically, SCI maintains that the agency erred in failing to consider
   two of its past performance references and in determining that all of its
   references were only partially relevant.^ [2] In the protester's view, a
   proper evaluation would have resulted in a rating of high or significant
   confidence.

   The evaluation of past performance, including the agency's determination
   of the relevance and scope of an offeror's performance history to be
   considered, is a matter of agency discretion that we will not find
   improper unless unreasonable, or inconsistent with the solicitation
   criteria or procurement statute or regulation. See Family Entm't Servs.,
   Inc., d/b/a/ IMC, B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 128 at 5.

   The agency's evaluation of SCI's past performance was unobjectionable. SCI
   submitted four past performance references--one each for itself and its
   three subcontractors. Because SCI did not submit CPARs for any of its past
   performance references, the SSET evaluated SCI's past performance on the
   basis of its contacts with listed references, and on its analysis of the
   relevance of SCI's submitted contracts. Based on this review, the SSET
   concluded that, despite favorable responses from the references, SCI's
   past performance submissions were only partially relevant when compared to
   the SOW.[3]

   For example, a reference for one of SCI's subcontractors concerned help
   desk services and support for a very specific IT system comprised of
   multiple mission-specific applications related to the Air Force's planning
   and execution of an air war. While this is a technically complex system,
   and the SSET noted the subcontractor's good reputation for help desk
   support, the agency noted that it is only one of hundreds of systems that
   will be covered by the services provided under the awarded contract. SSET
   Chief Memorandum (SSET Memo), Oct. 7, 2005, at 2; AR, Tab 17a, at 2. The
   agency determined that, while this and some of the other skill sets
   performed by the subcontractor are relevant to the SOW, the range of
   services in the awarded contract--operation, security, management,
   administration, and user help desk for an enterprise--is much broader. In
   this regard, the SOW encompasses administration of e-mail servers and
   Microsoft Active Directory for over 100,000 users. SSET Memo at 2. The
   SSET also found the subcontractor's "scalability" (i.e., ability to
   support the size of the Air Force's IT enterprise) was unknown. It was
   these considerations that led the SSET to conclude that SCI's past
   performance was only partially relevant, and we find nothing unreasonable
   in the agency's discounting SCI's past performance in the evaluation based
   on these considerations. Accordingly, we conclude that the agency
   reasonably did not assign SCI the past performance rating of high or
   significant confidence to which it asserts it was entitled.[4]

   SCI challenges the SSET's assessment, noting that its subcontractor's past
   performance indicated administration of e-mail and that the reference
   specifically opined that the subcontractor "could scale well to an
   enterprise level." AR, Tab 17a, at 2. SCI's position is unpersuasive. For
   example, while the past performance submission listed e-mail services, it
   did not indicate that these services covered the significant scope
   encompassed by the SOW. The record shows that the SSET considered the
   input of the references (AR at 10), and reached its conclusion of partial
   relevance based on an analysis of the smaller scale work covered and the
   corresponding apparently lower number of personnel involved under that
   contract than would be needed for the contract to be awarded. SSET Memo at
   3. In light of these considerations, we think that the agency reasonably
   concluded that this past performance was only partially relevant and, as
   such, did not support a rating of high confidence.[5]

   SCI also asserts that the agency improperly failed to consider SCI's own
   past performance of a support services contract for the Navy's Bureau of
   Medicine and Surgery. This assertion is without merit. SCI's proposal
   indicated that it had been performing the referenced contract for less
   than 1 year (July 2004 to June 2005) when proposals were submitted.[6]
   Because the RFP specifically provided that contracts with total
   performance of less than 1 year would not be considered (RFP at 46), the
   evaluators reasonably did not consider it. Where, as here, offerors are on
   notice that contract duration will form a part of the past performance
   evaluation, an agency reasonably may give contracts of shorter duration no
   weight and not consider them relevant to the evaluation of past
   performance. See Chenega Tech. Prods., LLC, B-295451.5, June 22, 2005,
   2005 CPD para. 123 at 6. In any event, as with the other past performance
   submissions, the SSET found that SCI's contract was only partially
   relevant, and thus would have been entitled to little weight in the
   evaluation. In this regard, the SSET found that, although SCI's
   performance of the contract covered some elements of the SOW, it did not
   involve the detailed design, implementation, and operations of IT systems
   encompassed by the SOW. SSET Memo at 2.

   LACK OF DISCUSSIONS

   SCI asserts that the agency improperly failed to provide it with
   discussions in the area of past performance. Had it done so, SCI
   maintains, it easily could have dispelled the agency's concerns.

   The scope and extent of discussions are largely matters of the contracting
   officer's judgment. An agency is not required to afford offerors
   all-encompassing discussions, or to discuss every aspect of a proposal
   that receives less than the maximum score, and is not required to advise
   an offeror of a minor weakness that is not considered significant, even
   where the weakness subsequently becomes a determinative factor in choosing
   between two closely ranked proposals. We review the discussions provided
   only to determine whether the agency pointed out weaknesses that, unless
   corrected, would prevent an offeror from having a reasonable chance for
   award. Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc., B-290080 et al., June 10, 2002,
   2002 CPD para. 136 at 6.

   The agency's decision not to discuss SCI's past performance record is
   unobjectionable. As discussed above, the agency reasonably found that
   SCI's past performance submissions, on their face, were only partially
   relevant, and thus would not support a rating of high confidence. An
   agency must discuss significant weaknesses and adverse past performance
   information to which an offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond.
   Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.306(d)(3). However, the agency had
   no questions about the relevance of SCI's past performance and considered
   the unknown confidence rating to be essentially neutral and not adverse in
   the sense that it reflected a finding of a history of performance
   problems. Contracting Officer's Statement at 6; AR at 12. Where the nature
   and ultimate relevance of past performance information is clear to the
   agency, and the offeror received a neutral rating, the agency need not
   conduct discussions or otherwise communicate with the offeror regarding
   the information. See CMC & Maint., Inc., B-292081, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 107 at 3; Caltech Serv. Corp, B-261044.4, Dec. 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD
   para. 285 at 7 n.9. Moreover, while SCI asserts that it could have
   improved its rating through discussions, it has not provided any
   persuasive explanation of how its and its subcontractors' past performance
   was more relevant than as evaluated by the SSET.

   PRICE EVALUATION

   SCI asserts that the agency unreasonably determined that its price posed a
   risk because it was substantially below the IGE. [7]

   SCI's assertion is without merit. While SCI offered an explanation for its
   price reductions--e.g., [deleted]--this explanation was not sufficient to
   persuade the agency that there was no risk as a result of the price
   reduction. In this regard, the RFP specifically provided that proposed
   prices would be evaluated to determine if they were unreasonably high or
   low in relation to the IGE, the offeror's technical approach, and other
   offerors' proposed prices. RFP at 41. In evaluating SCI's first price
   reduction (approximately [deleted] percent), the agency concluded that
   SCI's price was "of concern," since team experience had shown that prices
   as low as those proposed by SCI were risky. AR, Tab 17a, at 5. As
   discussed above regarding program management risk, when the SSET evaluated
   SCI's FPR (an additional [deleted]  reduction), it was concerned that this
   lowered price indicated a lack of understanding, since in many instances
   SCI's proposed labor rates were significantly lower than government
   estimates and current contract rates. AR, Tab 23, at 5-6. The SSET
   anticipated that low labor rates posed a risk to the execution of the SOW
   and increased the risk associated with the offeror's ability to execute
   its proposed approach. AR, Tab 25, at 4. While the SSET believed that
   short-term success was possible, it concluded that there was significant
   risk associated with mid- to long-term personnel retention. Id. Since
   SCI's proposed price was significantly lower than the IGE (by
   approximately $6.5 million) and all of the other offerors' prices, the
   agency reasonably concluded that SCI's low price posed a risk,
   notwithstanding the firm's explanation.

   SCI also asserts that it was misled by the agency's disclosure of the IGE
   and budget in the RFP. SCI Comments at 18. Specifically, SCI claims, it
   was misled into believing that the IGE was higher than the agency's
   revised budget. However, since SCI's price was significantly lower than
   the disclosed figure, we fail to see--and SCI does not adequately
   explain--how its belief that the IGE was higher than the budget amount
   could have affected its pricing. Moreover, even assuming that SCI was
   misled as it claims, the record shows that all offerors' prices, including
   SCI's, were evaluated against the $31.3 million budget amount that was
   disclosed to SCI for use in proposing its revised and FPR prices. We
   conclude that this argument is without merit.

   PRICE-TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

   SCI asserts that the agency's price-technical tradeoff decision is not
   supported by the record. In the protester's view, it is unreasonable to
   pay a price premium for dNovus's proposal.

   Where, as here, the RFP allows for a price-technical tradeoff, the agency
   has discretion to select a higher-priced, technically higher-rated
   submission, if doing so is in the government's best interest and is
   consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation and source selection
   scheme. University of Kansas Med. Ctr., B-278400, Jan. 26, 1998, 98-1 CPD
   para. 120 at 6. The agency's judgments are governed only by the tests of
   rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria. Chemical
   Demilitarization Assocs., B-277700, Nov. 13, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 171 at
   6.

   The tradeoff was reasonable. In making her source selection, the SSA
   prepared a detailed decision document comparing dNovus's proposal to the
   other evaluated proposals and specifically identified the advantages she
   found in dNovus's proposal. For example, she noted its superior past
   performance on two relevant contracts; its blue, low risk ratings under
   the program management subfactor; and the comprehensive nature of its
   staffing proposal and risk mitigation plan. The SSA acknowledged SCI's
   lower price, but agreed with the SSET that it carried risk. AR, Tab 25, at
   7. The SSA specifically found that dNovus's proposal's higher price was
   justified by the greater risk and decreased confidence level associated
   with the lower-priced proposals, including SCI's. Id. at 8-9. This
   conclusion was reasonable, particularly in light of the significantly
   greater importance accorded technical factors under the RFP. SCI's belief
   that the price premium is too great constitutes no more than disagreement
   with the agency's judgment, and is not sufficient to establish that the
   tradeoff was unreasonable. See General Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan.
   9, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 44 at 11 (tradeoff reasonable where agency
   determined that technical superiority of awardee's proposal was sufficient
   to offset 125-percent higher cost).

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The possible mission capability ratings were blue/exceptional,
   green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and red/unacceptable. The past
   performance ratings were high, significant, satisfactory, unknown, little,
   and no confidence.

   [2] In a related argument, SCI asserts that the agency should have
   considered the open ratings reference system--GSA's independent past
   performance rating system--which allegedly would have shown SCI's
   "universally excellent performance." SCI Comments at 13. However, while
   the agency could have availed itself of this system, it was not required
   to do so. Moreover, the RFP (at 44) required offerors to submit Contract
   Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR) or other comparable past performance
   evaluation information (such as the GSA ratings) with their proposals. SCI
   did not submit GSA rating information, and therefore is not now in a
   position to assert that the agency should have considered that
   information. Offerors are responsible for submitting an adequately written
   proposal, and run the risk that their proposal will be evaluated
   unfavorably where they fail to do so. Carlson Wagonlit Travel, B-287016,
   Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 49 at 3.

   [3] SCI asserts that it was improper for the SSET to use the SOW in
   evaluating relevance because the RFP did not expressly state that the
   agency would do so. However, relevance was defined as performance on
   contracts of a similar magnitude, including "operation, security,
   management, administration and user help desk support for an enterprise."
   RFP at 44. The SOW set forth the required tasks under these criteria and
   is clearly related to or encompassed by them. As such, the SOW was a
   reasonable reference point for determining relevance.

   [4] SCI does not raise, and we therefore do not address, whether it is
   proper to assign a rating of unknown based on a finding of only partially
   relevant past performance, where, as here, this rating was defined as "no
   performance record identifiable." SCI contends that it deserved one of the
   highest past performance ratings (high or significant confidence), a
   contention we reject for the reasons set forth in the text.

   [5] The SSET was unable to obtain information on one subcontractor's past
   performance because the listed contact was on emergency leave and the
   alternate contact did not respond to a voice mail message. AR, Tab 17a, at
   2. An agency is only required to make reasonable efforts to contact an
   offeror's references and need not consider all references submitted. OSI
   Collections Servs., Inc.; C.B. Accounts, Inc., B-286597.3 et al., June 12,
   2001 CPD para. 103 at 9. In any event, the SSET considered the contract
   only partially relevant, since the work was focused on the computer
   network defense mission set as opposed to the wider range of services
   covered by the SOW.

   [6] SCI's submissions to our Office state that it actually began work on
   this contract in late June 2004, which would satisfy the minimum 1 year
   performance requirement. Whether or not this is correct, it is irrelevant
   at this late date. It was SCI's responsibility to provide an adequately
   written proposal, Carlson Wagonlit Travel, supra, and because SCI failed
   to include the correct date in its proposal, SCI bears the responsibility
   for the agency's failure to consider it in the evaluation.

   [7] SCI asserts that the agency took various steps to favor dNovus,
   including adjusting its budget/IGE to match dNovus's original price.
   Government officials are presumed to act in good faith; we will not
   attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the
   basis of inference or supposition. Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856,
   Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 171 at 6. According to the evaluation
   record, the original IGE/budget was based on the cost of three prior
   contracts; the revised figure reflected consolidation of the separate
   contracts and the effect of competition. AR, Tab 23, at 6. SCI's
   unsubstantiated speculation is insufficient to establish bias.