TITLE: B-297060, Symplicity Corporation, November 8, 2005
BNUMBER: B-297060
DATE: November 8, 2005
**************************************************
B-297060, Symplicity Corporation, November 8, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: Symplicity Corporation

   File: B-297060

   Date: November 8, 2005

   Ariel M. Friedler, Esq., for the protester.

   R. Alan Miller, Esq., James S. Green, Esq., Kathie Ann Whipple, Esq., and
   Mark A. Robbins, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, for the agency.

   Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Agency's selection of technically superior, higher priced proposal is
   reasonable, where record supports the agency's assessment of weaknesses in
   protester's proposal and determination that the lower risk associated with
   the technically superior proposal was worth the additional price.

   2. Discussions were meaningful and not "too vague," where agency raised
   weaknesses with the protester in sufficient detail to lead the firm into
   the areas of its proposal that required improvement or further
   clarification.

   DECISION

   Symplicity Corporation protests the award of a contract to TMP Worldwide,
   Inc. (d/b/a Monster Government Solutions) issued by the Office of
   Personnel Management (OPM) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   OPM-RFP-04-00032MLJ to operate USAJOBS, an on-line federal employment
   information system. Symplicity challenges the evaluation of its proposal
   and the source selection decision.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   USAJOBS is an on-line employment information system that provides federal
   job seekers with searchable access to federal job vacancy listings and job
   announcements, on-line resume development, and links to information about
   the federal employment process. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), sect. 1.3.
   It is the core of the "Recruitment One-Stop" project, an important
   e-government initiative of the President's management agenda, for which
   OPM is the "managing partner." The original USAJOBS system was a federal
   government product that was developed, operated, and maintained by OPM
   employees. In January of 2003, OPM conducted a competition among private
   sector vendors and selected TMP for award of a contract to develop,
   operate, and maintain an enhanced USAJOBS system.[2] This procurement is
   for the follow-on contract to the prior award.

   The RFP sought a contractor to provide a USAJOBS system with the following
   capabilities:

   (1) Searchable access to Federal job vacancy listing and job announcements
   within the USAJOBS website, StudentJobs website, through USAJOBS by Phone,
   and on individual agency recruiting sites and pages; (2) E-mail notice of
   job matching; (3) On-line resume development, storage, and submission
   integrated with the full range of automated staffing and hiring systems
   operating across the Federal Government; (4) On-line application status
   tracking integrated with agency side automated staffing and hiring tools;
   (5) Employer services for job posting, job announcement creation, and
   resume database mining accessible via the USAJOBS user interface or
   through integration; and (6) Content and links to information about the
   Federal employment process and other Government websites.

   Id. sect. 1.4.

   The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for a base
   year with four 1-year options. The evaluation was to be conducted using
   Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 for commercial items. Award
   was to be made on a best-value basis, considering the following factors:
   (1) overall technical capability (including past performance), (2)
   pricing, and (3) small business subcontracting plan. Technical capability
   was said to be "the paramount factor," but the other factors were "also
   important to the overall contract award decision." The technical
   capability factor included four subfactors, listed in descending order of
   importance: (1) soundness of proposed technical approach and methodology
   for accomplishing the defined tasks and meeting the performance standards,
   (2) management plan and capabilities, (3) past performance, and (4) value
   of enhancements proposed for USAJOBS. RFP, Art. A.25. The RFP incorporated
   by reference FAR sect. 52.219-9 with Alternate II (Oct. 2001) for the
   evaluation of the small business subcontracting plan. RFP, Art. A.19.

   Symplicity (a small business concern) and TMP (a large business) submitted
   proposals in response to the RFP that were found to be in the competitive
   range.[3] During the evaluation, technical proposals were evaluated
   against a total of 406 elements of the SOW that were categorized under
   each of the four technical capability subfactors. Price was evaluated for
   realism and reasonableness. Based on the initial evaluation, the agency
   issued written discussion questions in the form of "Interrogatory Letters"
   to both offerors concerning technical and pricing weaknesses and
   deficiencies in their proposals, and both offerors were invited to submit
   proposal revisions.

   In the final evaluation, TMP's offer was found to be technically superior
   to Symplicity's under the most important factor--technical capability. In
   this regard, TMP's proposal was rated acceptable under two of the four
   subfactors (soundness of proposed technical approach, and management plan
   and capabilities), and exceptional under the other two subfactors (past
   performance and value of enhancements) based on identified strengths in
   its technical approach.

   Symplicity's proposal, on the other hand, was found to be only acceptable
   under all four subfactors. Although the agency noted a few "exceptional"
   elements of Symplicity's proposal (such as its proposed "tools for
   managing job search results and applications, robust resume builder and
   their web-based dialogue functionality"), the agency also identified a
   number of "ongoing significant weaknesses in several key areas." These
   weaknesses included a "lack of pre-formatted reporting at the job level
   for the OPM Program Office and recruiters; approach for providing start-up
   and ongoing training; the approach and timeline to system transition at
   the end of the contract term; and lack of delivery of jobs data to
   America's Job Bank." Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Source Selection
   Decision, at 6.

   Under the price factor, TMP's proposed price of $27,150,257 was found to
   be reasonable and realistic for the work proposed, and was consistent with
   the agency's current contract costs. In contrast, Symplicity's proposed
   price of $13,678,812 was determined to be "unrealistically low in the
   sense that adequate resources have not been allotted to assure that
   implementation of this large and complex project will fully meet [OPM's]
   requirements." The agency identified several "under-priced" items,
   including deliverables relating to pre-formatted reporting, delivery of
   jobs data to America's Job Bank, system transition, training, and other
   direct costs. The agency concluded that Symplicity's pricing "increases
   both performance and cost risk" and demonstrated to the agency that
   Symplicity "does not fully understand all of the technical requirements of
   USAJOBS." Id. at 8, 13. Accordingly, the agency found that Symplicity's
   proposal presented a "moderate risk" to the government. Id. at 13.

   In sum, the agency determined that Symplicity's lower price was not worth
   the additional risk to the government. As the source selection authority
   stated in the source selection decision:

   Moderate risk for this type of requirement is unacceptable to the
   Government. Since USAJOBS is the United States Government's official job
   site and the vehicle by which all Executive Branch agencies in the Federal
   Government provide statutory mandated public notice of employment
   opportunities, failure is not an option since hiring activities for the
   Government would grind to a halt.

   Id. Based on TMP's superior technical proposal, reasonable price, and
   acceptable small business subcontracting plan (which was "approved" by
   OPM's Small Business Technical Advocate and contracting officer), OPM
   selected TMP for award. This protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   Symplicity raises numerous challenges to the evaluation of its proposal
   and the award decision. It contends that its proposal was misevaluated
   under the evaluation factors, that the cost/technical tradeoff was flawed,
   and that discussions were inadequate.[4]

   Our Office reviews challenges to an agency's evaluation of proposals only
   to determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the
   solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
   regulations. Manassas Travel, Inc., B-294867.3, May 3, 2005, 2005 CPD
   para. 113 at 2-3. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
   judgment is not sufficient to establish that an agency acted unreasonably.
   Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 70 at 3.

   Symplicity first argues that OPM misevaluated the small business
   subcontracting plan factor. It complains that it was not given "maximum
   credit" and that TMP was not reasonably evaluated. However, FAR sect.
   52.219-9, which was incorporated into this solicitation and provides the
   framework for the evaluation under this factor, specifically states that
   "[t]his clause does not apply to small business concerns."[5] The clause
   requires only that a large business include in its proposal a
   subcontracting plan and that the plan be negotiated with the contracting
   officer and made part of the resulting contract. The record here shows
   that OPM "approved" TMP's proposed plan, which was signed by the
   contracting officer, thus demonstrating that the agency considered TMP's
   plan and complied with the requirements of the RFP.

   Symplicity next challenges specific weaknesses identified in its
   proposal.[6] It asserts that the agency unreasonably assessed weaknesses
   for its proposed training, lack of pre-formatted reports, America's Job
   Bank, and job announcement printing.[7] All of these issues were raised
   with Symplicity during discussions. See AR, Tab 8A, Symplicity
   Interrogatory Letter, Technical Question Nos. 7, 9, 10 and Pricing
   Question No. 10. Symplicity asserts that it fully addressed the
   weaknesses, in its proposal and responses to the agency's interrogatories,
   and that OPM failed to credit its responses. However, the record supports
   the reasonableness of the agency's conclusion that Symplicity had not
   adequately addressed the agency's concerns, so that the weaknesses were
   properly found to remain.

   For example, with regard to Simplicity's approach to training, the agency
   found the proposal "inadequate." The proposal included only 2 days of
   training in Washington, D.C., which OPM found "unacceptable" because the
   federal users (of which there are over 2,000) are geographically dispersed
   around the world and many agencies would not be able to send participants
   to Washington for training. OPM found that Symplicity's alternative of
   providing on-line manuals and tutorials, while useful, was not "wholly
   satisfactory in meeting the needs of this group," which the agency
   believed required more interactive support. Symplicity also failed to
   adequately explain its plan for providing ongoing training sessions, or
   for updating its videotape content to accommodate new system features
   (which are implemented on a regular basis) or new users (who are added on
   a daily basis). AR at 8-9; Tab 11, Final Technical Evaluation Report, at
   17. Although the agency asked Symplicity to further describe its training
   approach during discussions, Symplicity did not explain its approach
   sufficiently to alleviate the agency's concerns. Based on this record, we
   find the agency's evaluation of Symplicity's proposed training to be
   reasonable.[8]

   Another weakness found in Symplicity's technical proposal was a lack of
   pre-formatted reports as required by SOW sect. 3.1.3.3, which provided
   that "[t]he system must allow properly identified and authenticated users
   to access a variety of established reports and ad hoc reports regarding
   system usage statistics, including statistics for individual job records."
   When asked during discussions what reports it would provide in response to
   SOW sect. 3.1.3.3, Symplicity responded with a list of web usage statistic
   reports that provided such information as the number of hits, most viewed
   pages, and host lists; but for statistics regarding individual job
   records, the firm stated only that "Symplicity will provide application
   specific reporting tools for authorized users to perform ad hoc reports
   against any data managed within the system." AR, Tab 10A, Symplicity
   Interrogatory Responses, Technical Question No. 7. From this, the agency
   concluded that, for job record reports, Symplicity proposed only to
   provide agency users with a reporting engine to allow OPM to build
   reports, thus requiring the users themselves to build the reports.[9] The
   agency explains that it "does not have the staff resources required to
   support ongoing ad hoc queries of this nature" and, therefore, needs
   "canned" reports to obtain regular access to job database information,
   such as the "most posted job series or agency with the largest number of
   job listings." AR, Tab 11, Final Technical Evaluation Report, at 17. We
   find, from this record, that the agency reasonably assigned a weakness to
   Symplicity's proposal in this area.

   Next, Symplicity complains that the agency incorrectly assessed a weakness
   for failing to integrate America's Job Bank into its proposed system. In
   the regard, SOW sect. 3.1.4.5 required that the offeror "must also provide
   the Federal Jobs Database to America's Job Bank." Symplicity was asked
   during discussions, "How does Symplicity plan to specifically address the
   requirements in SOW [sect.] 3.1.4 related to . . . providing the USAJOBS
   database to America's Job Bank?," and Symplicity's response did not
   address this item at all. See AR, Tab 8.A., Symplicity Interrogatory
   Responses, Technical Question No. 10. Although Symplicity asserts that its
   proposal adequately explains its integration approach, we have reviewed
   Symplicity's proposal and the pages cited by the protester do not address
   the integration of America's Job Bank. Accordingly, we find no error in
   the agency's evaluation of this aspect of Symplicity's proposal.

   Symplicity also challenges the agency's conclusion that the costs
   associated with job announcement printing and distribution were not
   apparent from Symplicity's proposal. Symplicity asserts that it included
   these costs in a general line item for "supplies," which it listed in
   response to an interrogatory on this issue. See AR, Tab 10A, Symplcity
   Interrogatory Responses, Price Question No. 10. However, Symplicity's
   interrogatory response did not make clear that printing and distribution
   were included in this general line item for "supplies," and, therefore,
   based on our review of the record, the agency could reasonably question
   whether these costs were included in Symplicity's proposal.[10]

   Symplicity also asserts that the agency failed to apply the price
   evaluation adjustment for small disadvantaged business, in accordance with
   FAR sect. 19.11, when performing the cost evaluation. However, the
   statutory authority for this preference expired in 2004 for civilian
   agencies and properly was not applied to this evaluation. AR, Tab 16,
   Memorandum for Civilian Agencies from Civilian Agency Acquisition Council
   (Dec. 27, 2004), at 1.

   Symplicity challenges OPM's evaluation of its "proposed business model,"
   complaining that it did not receive credit in the technical and price
   evaluation for the software license that it offered to provide to OPM,
   which was a "perpetual license to use the source code and related
   documentation" created by Symplicity. Protest at 10. Symplicity asserts
   that this was more advantageous than what is currently being provided by
   TMP under its contract in that TMP has retained proprietary rights in the
   software for the current system. However, the licensing terms under which
   TMP provided software under its prior contract are irrelevant to what the
   offerors proposed here. In this regard, the RFP required that OPM receive
   unlimited rights to data unless the firm asserts limited or restricted
   rights in accordance with FAR sect. 52.227.14, Rights in Data--General
   (June 1987), see RFP, Art. A.19, and neither proposal takes exception to
   this clause. The agency also found that Symplicity's "perpetual license"
   merely satisfied the requirements of the RFP and did not provide a desired
   benefit to the government. Although Symplicity disagrees with this
   assessment, it has not shown it to be unreasonable.

   Symplicity also complains that discussions were not meaningful and were
   "too vague." Contracting agencies have wide discretion in determining the
   nature and scope of discussions, which our Office will not question unless
   it is clearly shown to be without a rational basis. PRB Assocs., Inc.,
   B-277994, B-277994.2, Dec. 18, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 13 at 6. Although
   discussions must be "meaningful," that is, sufficiently detailed so as to
   lead an offeror into areas of its proposal requiring amplification or
   revision, an agency is not required to "spoon feed" an offeror as to each
   and every item that must be revised to improve their proposal or to
   achieve the maximum score, Uniband, Inc., B-289305, Feb. 8, 2002, 2002 CPD
   para. 51 at 11, or hold successive rounds of discussions until all
   proposal defects have been corrected. Metro Mach. Corp., B-295744,
   B-295744.2, Apr. 21, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 112 at 19.

   Here, Symplicity identifies 16 areas where it contends discussions were
   inadequate. The record shows, however, that OPM held discussions in 14 of
   the areas (in some cases raising the issue in multiple discussion
   questions), and that the questions were sufficiently detailed to lead
   Symplicity into the areas of its proposal that required improvement or
   further clarification. One other area where Symplicity asserts discussions
   were required, past performance, was not found by the agency to be a
   significant weakness or deficiency, and Symplicity does not identify any
   adverse past performance for which it was not provided an opportunity to
   respond; as such, discussions were not required with regard to
   Symplicity's past performance. See FAR sect. 15.306(d)(3). Symplicity also
   asserts that discussions should have been held with regard to its moderate
   risk rating, but although risk was not specifically raised during
   discussions, most, if not all, of the areas of weakness that led to the
   moderate risk rating were raised in interrogatories directed to
   Symplicity. Based on our review of the record, we find that discussions
   were meaningful.

   Finally, Symplicity challenges OPM's cost/technical tradeoff and complains
   that the agency "does not have adequate documentation to support its
   selection decision." Protest at 10. However, as discussed above, the
   evaluation record is well documented and shows that the agency made a
   reasonable determination, in accordance with the evaluation criteria, that
   TMP's higher technically rated proposal was worth the additional cost to
   the government.[11] Specifically noting the weaknesses in Symplicity's
   technical and price proposal, the source selection authority determined
   that the additional risk presented by Symplicity's proposal was
   "unacceptable" and could potentially "grind to a halt" the government's
   federal hiring activities if the USAJOBS website failed. AR, Tab 12,
   Source Selection Decision, at 13. Given the importance of USAJOBS as a
   federal hiring vehicle, we find that OPM's selection of the lower risk,
   technically superior offeror at a price premium was reasonable.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The protester was not represented by counsel that could be admitted to
   a protective order and, therefore, did not have access to source selection
   sensitive and proprietary information. Accordingly, our discussion in this
   decision is necessarily general in order to avoid disclosure of this
   information. Our conclusions, however, are based on our review of the
   entire record.

   [2] We sustained Symplicity's protest of the 2003 award to TMP. See
   Symplicity Corp., B-291902, Apr. 29, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 89.

   [3] One other offeror submitted a proposal, but was excluded from the
   competitive range.

   [4] Symplicity also complains about the adequacy of its debriefing. Our
   Office will not review a protester's contention that the debriefing it
   received was inadequate because the adequacy of a debriefing is a
   procedural matter concerning an agency's actions after award, which are
   unrelated to the validity of the award itself. OMV Med., Inc.; Saratoga
   Med. Ctr., Inc., B-281388 et al., Feb. 3, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 53 at 9
   n.3.

   [5] Although Symplicity contends that the agency should have evaluated
   "small disadvantaged" business participation, FAR sect. 52.219-9,
   Alternate II (which did require that the required small business plan
   address small disadvantaged business participation), was not applicable to
   the evaluation of Symplicity's proposal because the firm was a small
   business concern.

   [6] Symplicity challenged a weakness assessed for its transition plan, but
   failed to respond in its comments to the agency's arguments in the agency
   report, so that we view this protest ground as abandoned. Sayres & Assocs.
   Corp., B-295946, B-295946.2, Apr. 25, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 90 at 4 n.4.

   [7] Symplicity also asserts that the agency found "dozens of perceived
   weaknesses" from the firm's "screen shots," and complains that the
   evaluation of these screen shots was unreasonable. Protest at 11. However,
   we find no evidence of improper evaluation of the screen shots in the
   record.

   [8] Symplicity also asserts that its proposed training is "extremely
   similar" to TMP's approach. Comments at 2. However, our review of the
   record confirms that TMP's approach to training is more comprehensive than
   Symplicity's and includes features not offered by Symplicity that the
   agency reasonably found to be advantageous.

   [9] Symplicity points to an interrogatory response to a price question
   that identifies prepared reports, and asserts that these reports are also
   responsive to SOW requirement sect. 3.1.3.3 and the technical question
   that raised this issue. Protest at 8-9; see AR, Tab 10A, Symplicity
   Interrogatory Responses, Price Question No. 9. However, Symplicity did not
   make clear in its interrogatory responses that its response to a price
   question either pertained to SOW sect. 3.1.3.3 or should be considered in
   response to a technical question specifically asking about this
   requirement. Moreover, the technical and price evaluations were performed
   by separate teams within the agency. An offeror bears the burden of
   submitting an adequately written proposal, and contracting agencies
   evaluating one section of a proposal are not obligated to go in search of
   needed information which the offeror has omitted or failed adequately to
   represent. Sam Facility Mgmt., Inc., B-292237, July 22, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 147 at 5.

   [10] To the extent the Symplicity also complains that the agency "used
   Symplicity's low price as an indication that the proposal was lacking in
   technical merit or had a lack of understanding of the requirements,"
   Protest at 10, we find that the record supports the agency's conclusions.
   In this regard, the source selection decision identifies a number of
   deliverables, including job announcement printing discussed above, that
   the agency believed were under-priced, and the agency reasonably
   determined that these, and other aspects of Symplicity's price proposal,
   "indicate a potential failure to understand the requirement in its
   totality." AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Decision, at 8. The RFP noted that
   the agency would consider "how well the proposal shows an understanding of
   these tasks" as part of its evaluation of the technical capability factor.
   RFP, Art. A.25.

   [11] Contrary to Symplicity's argument, the agency's selection of the
   higher priced offer did not render price irrelevant in the evaluation. As
   the record confirms, OPM took price into account in accordance with its
   relative importance in the evaluation scheme.