TITLE: B-297178.2, TECHi2, LLC, November 28, 2005
BNUMBER: B-297178.2
DATE: November 28, 2005
******************************************
B-297178.2, TECHi2, LLC, November 28, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: TECHi2, LLC

   File: B-297178.2

   Date: November 28, 2005

   Geoffrey Malafsky for the protester.

   John R. Tolle, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon,
   Hildebrant & Tolle, LLP, for Anteon Corporation, an intervenor.

   Judith A. Bonner, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest objecting to agency's evaluation of offerors' past performance is
   denied where record shows evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
   solicitation's evaluation scheme.

   DECISION

   TECHi2, LLC protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of
   a task order to Anteon Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   G-030500132, issued to acquire command and control strategy support
   services for the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Command and Control
   (C2) Integration Division, Expeditionary Force Development Center (EFDC).
   TECHi2 maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals in making its
   award decision.

   We deny the protest.

   GSA, on behalf of the USMC, solicited proposals from FSS contractors to
   perform, on a time and materials basis, a task order to provide support
   for the development of a command and control (C2) strategy campaign plan
   that will serve as the basis for developing USMC C2 systems and training
   and operational procedures, as well as the performance of an alternate
   options analysis. The support services to be provided include engineering,
   the analysis of models, technologies and best practices, and the briefing
   of various USMC commands. Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, at 1-2. The
   solicitation provided for a "best value" evaluation based on price and
   three non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance: past
   performance, task technical understanding, and qualifications/experience
   of personnel. Technical proposals were more important than price.

   Regarding past performance, the RFP required offerors to provide
   information describing two contracts (either ongoing, or performed within
   the last 3 years) that were similar to the current requirement in terms of
   size, complexity and technical scope, and emphasized that greater
   evaluation value would be assigned to contracts most directly related to
   the current requirement. AR, exh. 3, at 2.

   Anteon and TECHi2 submitted proposals. The agency evaluated the proposals,
   engaged in discussions with both firms, and obtained and evaluated final
   proposal revisions (FPR). GSA assigned highly acceptable ratings to both
   firms' proposals under the past performance and qualifications/experience
   of personnel factors, and acceptable ratings to both under the task
   technical understanding factor; overall, both proposals were rated highly
   acceptable. AR, exh. 12, at 2-4. On the basis of these evaluation results,
   the agency concluded that the two proposals were technically equal, and
   thus made award to Anteon based on its lower total evaluated
   price--$1,471,933, versus TECHi2's evaluated price of $1,709,604.

   TECHi2 asserts that the agency misevaluated the firms' past performance.
   According to the protester, because it performed the predecessor contract
   for the current requirement, it should have received a higher past
   performance rating than Anteon.

   Where a protester challenges the evaluation of past performance, we will
   examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and
   consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, and with relevant
   procurement statutes and regulations. Hanley Indus., Inc., B-295318, Feb.
   2, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 20 at 4.

   The evaluation here was unobjectionable. TECHi2's performance of the
   predecessor contract was deemed by the agency to be directly relevant to
   the current requirement, and its second contract--for the development of a
   pre-acquisition portal for an enterprise shared data environment for the
   USMC--was deemed somewhat related, based on a finding that it required
   preparation of an alternate options analysis, and also demonstrated an
   understanding of the USMC warfighting and business processes. AR, exh. 7,
   at 3.

   Anteon's contracts were found to be similarly relevant. Anteon's first
   contract--to provide services to the USMC EFDC, the same activity where
   the current requirement will be performed--was deemed directly relevant by
   the evaluators. Specifically, the evaluators found:

   This task includes providing support to the EFDC in translating future
   warfighting concepts into detailed C2 requirements. This contract has
   direct relevance to the current requirement and benefits to the government
   are derived from the task being focused both internally on USMC processes
   as well as externally on participation in Joint Forums. This contract also
   provides relevant on-site technical and analytical support for USMC, Navy
   and Joint C2 policy and operational requirements issues.

   AR, exh. 7, at 2. Anteon's second contract--for services focusing on
   aviation, air command and control transformation for the USMC's aviation
   C2 requirements--was deemed somewhat relevant because it required daily
   interface with the customer, support of numerous internal process teams
   and working groups, and the development of a unified plan and vision for
   the USMC.

   TECHi2's has not demonstrated that the agency's evaluation conclusions are
   unreasonable. Both firms' past performance was found to include directly
   relevant and somewhat relevant contracts, and the fact that TECHi2
   performed the predecessor contract does not detract from the relevance of
   Anteon's past performance. The RFP did not provide that only performance
   of the predecessor contract would be deemed directly relevant past
   performance, or that performance of the predecessor contract automatically
   would receive greater evaluation credit than other offerors' directly
   relevant experience. We conclude that there is no basis to object to the
   agency's conclusion that the firms' proposals were essentially technically
   equal in the area of past performance.

   TECHi2 also asserts that the fact that the award decision turned on price,
   a factor assigned less evaluation weight than the non-price factors, shows
   that the agency improperly failed to adhere to the relative weighting of
   factors under the evaluation scheme. This argument is without merit. As
   noted, the agency found the proposals technically equal under the
   non-price evaluation factors. Under these circumstances, price properly
   became the basis for distinguishing between the proposals for purposes of
   determining which represented the best value to the government,
   notwithstanding its lesser weight.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel