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).