TITLE: B-297061, ADC, Ltd., October 14, 2005
BNUMBER: B-297061
DATE: October 14, 2005
*************************************
B-297061, ADC, Ltd., October 14, 2005
Decision
Matter of: ADC, Ltd.
File: B-297061
Date: October 14, 2005
Arthur D. Cordova, Jr., for the protester.
Maj. Peter H. Tran, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the
protester's proposal failed to adequately describe how solicitation's
statement of objectives would be met.
DECISION
ADC, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to MPRI, Inc. under request for
proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-05-Q-0134, issued by the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) for civilian employee applicant processing. The protester
argues that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal and
applied undisclosed evaluation criteria.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP sought proposals to provide services to conduct civilian
application human resource and security processing prior to entry on duty
with the agency. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price contract and
the procurement was conducted under the streamlined acquisition procedures
of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12.6. The base performance period
for the contract is 6 months, with four 1-year option periods. Award was
restricted to offerors who possessed General Services Administration
schedule contracts "pertaining to Human Resources and Professional,
Administrative, and Management support services under the Federal Service
Code R408." RFP amend. 2, Question and Answer (Q&A) 2.
The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of
price and three non-price factors: technical, past performance, and
management. The non-price factors, when combined, were more important than
price; the technical and past performance factors were equal to each other
in weight and were each more important than the management factor. The
performance requirements were set forth in a statement of objectives (SOO)
that listed 18 requirements for meeting the agency's needs. The
solicitation did not list specific standards of performance or any
particular approach to fulfilling the agency's needs; rather, the
solicitation instructed offerors to propose a statement of work (SOW) that
explained the intended approach to meeting the SOO.[1]
The agency received proposals from ADC and MPRI. The agency evaluated the
offerors' proposals as follows:
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | ADC | MPRI |
|---------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Technical | Unacceptable | Excellent |
|---------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Past Performance | Marginal | Excellent |
|---------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Management | Unacceptable | Excellent |
|---------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Proposed Price | $4,397,248 | $9,418,552 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Price Negotiation Memorandum/Source Selection
Decision (SSD), at 3.
The agency concluded that ADC's proposal was overall technically
unacceptable. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The agency then
determined that MPRI's technically superior, higher-priced proposal
merited award. AR, Tab 12, SSD, at 4-5.
DISCUSSION
ADC primarily argues that the agency improperly determined that its
proposal failed to adequately demonstrate that ADC could meet the human
resource requirements identified in the SOO. The agency concluded that
ADC's proposal was unacceptable under the technical and management
evaluation factors because: (1) ADC's proposal did not adequately address
all human resource pre-employment requirements as outlined in the SOO; (2)
ADC's proposal did not specifically indicate how human resource objectives
would be met; (3) ADC's proposal lacked substantive support for the
agency's civilian employment human resource applications; and (4) ADC
failed to submit resumes on candidates with human resource skills required
by the solicitation.[2] AR, Tab 10, ADC Technical Evaluation at 2, 4; AR,
Tab 12, SSD, at 4; AR, Tab 14, ADC Debriefing, at 3. In reviewing a
procuring agency's evaluation of an offeror's technical proposal, our
Office's role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes
and regulations. Urban-Meridian Joint Venture, B-287168, B-287168.2, May
7, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 91 at 2. Our Office will not question an agency's
evaluation judgments absent evidence that those judgments were
unreasonable or contrary to the stated evaluation criteria. Kay & Assocs.,
Inc., B-291269, Dec. 11, 2002, 2003 CPD para. 12 at 4.
ADC first disputes the relative degree of importance of the human resource
requirements in the SOO, arguing that the agency placed too much emphasis
on those requirements in its evaluation of ADC's proposal. The record
shows that of the 18 objectives listed in the SOO, the majority are
clearly related to human resource requirements, with many having
descriptions such as "HR [human resource] administrative support" and
"prepar[ing] of HR employment and security nomination form and
questionnaires." See RFP para. 3, Requirements. Moreover, the solicitation
stated that its objective was to obtain "contractor services to conduct
and complete civilian applicant HR and security processing prior to entry
on duty" for the agency. RFP para. 1, Objectives. Thus, to the extent that
ADC argues that the solicitation did not communicate the importance of
human resource requirements in the evaluation of proposals, we find ADC's
position unpersuasive, in light of the RFP language quoted above.
ADC next argues that the agency improperly determined that ADC's proposal
failed to address all human resource requirements and further did not
adequately address how human resource requirements would be performed. See
AR, Tab 10, ADC Technical Evaluation, at 2, 4; AR, Tab 12, SSD, at 4. ADC
argues that the solicitation lacked specific performance requirements or
criteria, and ADC contends that the solicitation's incorporation of an
SOO, instead of a specific set of performance standards or requirements,
meant that offerors were not required to provide detailed explanations of
their technical approach. In this regard, ADC states that it "interpreted
this [SOO-based approach] to mean that a detailed listing of how all
[human resource] functions would be met was not required." Comments at 4.
Consequently, ADC contends that any evaluation that ADC failed to provide
adequate details on how it would meet the solicitation's requirements was
based on unstated evaluation criteria.
Contrary to ADC's argument, however, the solicitation required offerors to
propose their own SOW that addressed how they would perform the
generally-stated objectives in the SOO:
The technical proposal with Statement of Work (SOW) will be used to
evaluate [each] firm's capability to perform the requirement set forth in
the Statement of Objectives. Therefore, your proposal must present
sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the work
requirements and a detailed plan for achieving the objectives. The
technical proposal shall include a description of the techniques and
procedures to be employed in achieving the proposed end results in
compliance with the requirements of the Government's statement of
objectives.
RFP Addend. to FAR sect. 52.212-1, para. 9.iii.
The technical evaluation factor further explained as follows:
The proposed technical solution and approach will be evaluated for its
quality and evidence of the extent to which the contractor's solution will
achieve DIA objectives. Evidence of the quality of the technical solution
and approach includes (i) Subfactor (1) A comprehensive performance work
statement and contract work breakdown structure that identifies the
services to be delivered to meet program and mission requirements set
forth in the SOO. (ii) Subfactor (2) A sound technical proposal that
clearly demonstrates how implementation of proposal solutions will provide
the various pre-employment functions necessary to ensure the agency can
expeditiously and accurately process high-qualified personnel to meet
hiring needs.
RFP, Criteria for Contract Award, para. (d).
We believe that the solicitation was clear as to an offeror's obligation
to submit a detailed proposal that specifically addressed the offeror's
approach to meeting the SOO requirements, and thus conclude that the
agency's evaluation of ADC's proposal was consistent with the
solicitation's stated evaluation scheme.[3]
ADC next argues that its proposal does in fact demonstrate the ability to
meet the human resource requirements of the SOO, citing its proposal's
description of the company's current experience performing security
clearance and background investigation work. Protest at 8-11. As described
above, the RFP advised offerors that their proposals must include an SOW
that demonstrates how they would perform the SOO. Furthermore, offerors
were advised that a lack of specificity or a general offer to perform the
SOO would result in an unacceptable proposal: "A proposal which merely
offers to conduct a program in accordance with the requirements of the
Government's scope of objectives will not be eligible for award." RFP
Addend. to FAR sect. 52.212-1, para. 9.iv.
Offerors bear the responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal
with sufficiently detailed information to establish that their proposals
will meet the solicitation requirements. G&M Indus., B-290354, July 17,
2002, 2002 CPD para. 125 at 4. An offeror is responsible for affirmatively
demonstrating the merits of its proposal and risks the rejection of its
proposal if it fails to do so. Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc., B-294986.3,
B-294986.4, Mar. 18, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 63 at 3. Based on our review of
ADC's proposal, we conclude that the agency reasonably determined that ADC
did not specifically address how it would meet the required human resource
requirements in the SOO. ADC's proposal does not explain in detail its
approach to performing the SOO requirements; at most, ADC's proposal
affirms that it has the capability to meet the agency's needs, citing as
evidence its experience in performing background clearance work, which ADC
now contends should have been considered analogous to, or encompassed
within, the scope of human resource requirements in the SOO. See AR, Tab
16, ADC Proposal, at 7-9; Protest at 8-9. Accordingly, we believe that the
agency reasonably determined that ADC's proposal was technically
unacceptable.
ADC finally argues that the agency improperly determined that its proposal
was technically unacceptable because it did not contain resumes for
personnel qualified to perform human resource functions identified in the
SOO. The agency determined that ADC was technically unacceptable under the
technical and management evaluation factors because ADC's proposal lacked
such resumes. AR, Tab 10, ADC Evaluation, at 2. ADC acknowledges that its
proposed resumes did not specifically identify individuals with human
resource skills or experience. Comments at 2. ADC argues, however, that
the solicitation did not specifically identify positions that required
human resource credentials. ADC explains that "[n]o resumes of persons
specifically performing HR were included, because they were not asked for.
None of the job titles provided in the solicitation contained the terms
`Human Resources' or `Personnel,' and we were asked to provide resumes
only for those key personnel." Comments at 2. In this regard, ADC notes
that the price schedule required offerors to propose pricing for seven
positions: business specialist II, information engineer I, system analyst
II, logistics technician IV, program/project manager I, business analyst
II, and quality assurance specialist II. RFP Price Schedule.
We believe, however, that the protester's interpretation of the
solicitation as not requiring identification of personnel who possess
human resource capabilities is unreasonable. Although the solicitation
listed specific positions for which offerors were required to propose
prices, the descriptions of the positions in no way altered the offerors'
obligation to adequately detail how they would meet the SOO. Consistent
with this requirement, the solicitation explained that offerors were
required to propose an SOW that addressed in detail all requirements of
the SOO. The solicitation further instructed offerors to demonstrate their
proposed staffing would meet the SOO:
The technical proposal must include language on how the project is to be
organized, staffed, and managed. Information should be provided which will
demonstrate your understanding and management of the requirements in the
Statement of objectives.
* * * * *
The technical proposal must list the names and proposed duties of the
professional personnel, consultants, and key subcontract employees
proposed for assignment to the project. Resumes should be included and
should contain information on education, background, recent experience and
specific technical accomplishments.
RFP paras. 9.v, 9.vii.
Furthermore, the agency's response to a question specifically stated that
human resource skills were required for personnel:
Q. There is no mention of specific personnel requirements. What skills
must the individuals have besides Top Secret/SCI.
A. Management, Administrative, Human Resources, Security Skills.
RFP amend. 2, Q&A 18.
The solicitation, as supplemented by the Q&A response, clearly instructed
offerors to propose personnel and provide resumes to demonstrate the
ability to meet the SOO requirements for human resource functions. We
believe that the agency reasonably evaluated ADC's proposal as
unacceptable because, as ADC acknowledges, its proposed resumes did not
demonstrate the requisite human resource experience.[4]
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] The solicitation refers alternatively to a "statement of work" and a
"performance work statement" to describe the requirement that offerors
detail their approach to meeting the SOO requirements in their proposals.
[2] The four weaknesses the agency identified in ADC's proposal are
described slightly differently in the agency's technical evaluation, the
SSD, and ADC's debriefing; the weaknesses are, however, identical in
substance.
[3] To the extent that ADC objects to the solicitation's incorporation of
a performance-based SOO, as compared to a detailed SOW prepared by the
agency, this protest allegation is untimely. A protest based upon alleged
improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing
time for receipt of initial proposals must be filed before that time. Bid
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2005).
[4] ADC raises several other protest issues which we do not address above
as we find none to have merit. For example, ADC argues that the agency was
biased in favor of awarding the contract to MPRI, the incumbent, citing
the length of time between contract award and performance. ADC contends
that the short length of startup time was intended to favor MPRI. ADC,
however, did not file a timely protest of this solicitation term (i.e.,
the alleged short startup period), and is thus now untimely. 4 C.F.R.
sect. 21.2(a)(1). In any case, ADC states that it could have performed the
contract within this time frame, see Protest at 11, and thus cannot
establish that it was in any way prejudiced by the schedule in the
solicitation. See McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para.
54 at 3; Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir.
1996).