TITLE: B-297425, Prudent Technologies, Inc., January 5, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297425
DATE: January 5, 2006
*****************************************************
B-297425, Prudent Technologies, Inc., January 5, 2006
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: Prudent Technologies, Inc.
File: B-297425
Date: January 5, 2006
J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker,
McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, for the protester.
Jud E. McNatt, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the
agency.
Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protester's contention that the agency unreasonably found its proposal
technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the
proposal did not provide information requested by the solicitation, and
that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's
stated evaluation scheme.
DECISION
Prudent Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tidewater,
Inc. by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to
request for proposals (RFP) No. R-ATL-01810, issued to procure lead
evaluation services for single-family properties owned by HUD and located
within specified geographic regions; the award at issue here is for lead
evaluation services within HUD's Denver region. Prudent argues that HUD
unreasonably concluded that Prudent's proposal was technically
unacceptable.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP was issued on July 27, 2005, and anticipated the award of up to
four contracts for lead evaluation services, one for each of the four
areas comprising the jurisdictions of HUD's Homeownership Centers in
Atlanta, Denver, Philadelphia, and Santa Ana. The competition was limited
to firms participating in the Small Business Administration's 8(a)
program.
The RFP anticipated that four awards would be made--one for each
geographic area--to the offerors submitting the lowest-priced, technically
acceptable proposals for each area. RFP at M-2.[1] Offerors could propose
to perform in one, or any combination, of the four areas. The RFP
identified three evaluation factors: (1) certification; (2) experience and
past performance; and (3) management plan. RFP at M-2; RFP amend. 2, at
M-4. The evaluation scheme advised potential offerors that proposals must
be rated acceptable under all three evaluation factors to be eligible for
award. RFP at M-2.
Of relevance in this protest is the RFP's evaluation scheme under the
experience and past performance factor. Under this factor, the RFP
identified several requirements and requested that offerors provide
specific information. For example, the RFP required that either the
offeror, its proposed key personnel, or its proposed subcontractors "must
have performed the same or similar services as required by the
solicitation over approximately the last three years." RFP at M-2. If an
offeror wanted to meet this experience requirement with individuals not
currently employed, or with other corporate entities with which it would
subcontract, the RFP required the submission of commitment letters with
the proposal. The RFP also required that offerors "identify all contracts,
either ongoing or completed within the last three years, which demonstrate
performance relevant to the solicitation requirements." Id. Offerors with
more than five relevant contracts were required to identify only the five
most recent contracts where they performed these services. For each of
these contracts, the RFP advised that
the Offeror must describe the type and quantity of service provided, the
value of those services, the contract award date, the contract completion
date, and the name and title, address, telephone number, fax number, and
email address (if available) of a person familiar with the offeror's
performance.
RFP at M-3.
Each of the three evaluation factors also identified a question, or
questions, which the solicitation indicated had "to be answered in the
affirmative, during proposal evaluation phase, in order for the offeror to
be deemed acceptable for this factor." See RFP at M-2 (for the question
under the certification factor); RFP at M-3 (for the three questions under
the experience and past performance factor); and RFP amend. 2, at M-4 (for
the question under the management plan factor). Under the past performance
and experience factor at issue here, the three questions identified were:
Has the offeror and/or its proposed key personnel and/or its proposed
subcontractors (if applicable) provided the same or similar services
required by the solicitation over approximately the last three years?
If the experience requirement is met by the experience of individuals or
corporate entities not currently employed by or a part of the offeror, has
the offeror submitted commitment letters for these individuals and/or
corporate entities?
Did the reference checks clearly indicate that the offeror and/or its
proposed key personnel and/or its proposed subcontractors (if applicable)
have a successful record of providing quality customer service and timely
performance?
RFP at M-3.
By the August 26 closing date, HUD received 29 proposals. A technical
evaluation panel (TEP) reviewed and rated each of the proposals, and
determined that 17 of the proposals, including the proposal submitted by
Prudent, were technically unacceptable. The remaining 12 acceptable
proposals were ranked by price in the area, or areas, for which the firm
that submitted the proposal was seeking award. After the offerors
submitting the lowest-priced acceptable proposal within each area were
determined to be responsible, awards were made without clarifications or
discussions. The firm receiving the award for the area covered by the
Denver Homeownership Center was Tidewater, with a total evaluated price of
$17.4 million. Prudent's price for these services was $10.6 million.
On October 5, HUD notified Prudent that its proposal had been found
technically unacceptable, and that the agency intended to make award to
Tidewater. On October 7, Prudent requested a debriefing, and on October
12, the agency provided the requested debriefing. This protest followed,
on October 14.
DISCUSSION
Prudent argues that the agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of its
proposal, and improperly determined that the proposal was unacceptable.
Among other things, Prudent contends that the evaluation team failed to
recognize that Prudent met the requirements identified under the
experience and past performance evaluation factor, despite the fact that
its proposal did not present the information in the format required by the
RFP.
HUD answers that Prudent's proposal was rated unacceptable under the
experience and past performance factor because the evaluators concluded
that neither the proposal narrative, nor the resumes of Prudent's key
personnel, established that the company met the experience requirement of
the RFP. Since neither the proposal nor the key personnel resumes
established the requisite experience, the evaluators did not contact the
references identified in the proposal to determine how well Prudent
performed on those contracts. HUD also concluded that the proposal did not
show an understanding of the timeline, as required by the third evaluation
factor, management plan. As a result of these deficiencies, the agency
concluded that Prudent's proposal was unacceptable. We agree.
Our Office examines an agency's evaluation of experience and past
performance to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations;
however, the necessary determinations regarding the relative merits of
offerors' past performance records are primarily matters within the
contracting agency's discretion. Kay & Assocs., Inc., B-291269, Dec. 11,
2002, 2003 CPD para. 12 at 4. In this regard, our Office will not question
an agency's determinations absent evidence that those determinations are
unreasonable or contrary to the stated evaluation criteria. Id.
The record here shows that Prudent failed to follow the detailed
instructions set forth in section M of the RFP requesting experience
information and explaining how that information would be reviewed. As set
forth above, the RFP required offerors to provide sufficient information
to establish that the offeror (or its key personnel, or its
subcontractors) had relevant ("same or similar") experience within the
past 3 years; to make this showing, offerors were asked to identify up to
five contracts for review by the agency. For these five contracts,
offerors were to describe "the type and quantity of service provided, the
value of those services, the contract award date, the contract completion
date, and the name and title, address, telephone number, fax number, and
email address (if available) of a person familiar with the offeror's
performance." RFP at M-3.
Although Prudent's proposal broadly claims to meet the RFP's experience
requirements in a brief two-paragraph discussion titled "Experience and
Past Performance," Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, at 15, there is no place in
its proposal where it provides the information requested by the RFP so
that HUD evaluators could verify for themselves whether the company meets
the experience requirement. Specifically, there is also no place in the
proposal where Prudent identifies five contracts for review by the agency;
there is no description of any kind about the work performed; and there is
no indication of when the relevant work might have occurred. At best, the
proposal identifies seven entities as references--two for Prudent, and
five others, one for each of five subcontractors--and provides for each a
point of contact, mailing address, and telephone number. AR, Tab 7, at
18-19. In our view, given the detailed instructions in section M of the
solicitation about the information the agency needed to make its
assessment, these omissions alone provide a reasonable basis for the
agency to conclude that the proposal was unacceptable. See, e.g.,
Interstate Gen. Gov't Contractors, Inc., B-290137.2, June 21, 2002, 2002
CPD para. 105 at 5 (it is the responsibility of the offeror to provide
sufficient information about the projects in its proposal to ensure they
will be assessed as relevant).
In its comments, Prudent argues, in essence, that the agency should have
looked beyond the omission of information in its proposal narrative to
other information located in numerous employee resumes to find that the
company met the experience requirement. In this regard, Prudent complains
that the agency unreasonably limited its review to the two individuals
identified in the proposal as key personnel, rather than all of the
personnel it proposed to use in performing this effort. (In fact, Prudent
even contends that there was no requirement to identify key personnel in
this procurement. See Protester's Comments at 9.) Ultimately, Prudent
points to information spread across 15 different resumes that, in its
view, establish its experience performing services similar to those being
procured here. Protester's Comments at 9-11.
Prudent's arguments ignore--and in some instances misstate--the plain
language of the RFP. As discussed above, the RFP allowed offerors to meet
the experience requirement with their own experience, or with the
experience of key personnel or subcontractors. RFP at M-2. After finding
nothing in the proposal narrative to establish Prudent's experience, the
evaluators assessed the experience of Prudent's key personnel, but did not
review the experience of other Prudent personnel. Given the RFP's clear
indication of how offerors would be permitted to meet the experience
requirement here, we see nothing unreasonable about the agency's review of
only the resumes of Prudent's key personnel, but not the other employees.
Our review also finds nothing unreasonable about the evaluators'
determination that the resumes of Prudent's key personnel did not
establish that the company met the requirement that offerors demonstrate
experience providing the same or similar services over the past 3
years.[2] In short, given the information not provided in Prudent's
proposal--as well as the information that was provided, but did not
establish that the company met the RFP's experience requirement--there is
nothing in this record that suggests that the three questions identified
in the solicitation for determining acceptability under the experience and
past performance factor could properly have been answered in the
affirmative for Prudent.
Finally, since we conclude that the agency reasonably found Prudent's
proposal deficient under the experience and past performance evaluation
factor, and since the RFP here advised that proposals must be rated
acceptable under all three evaluation factors to be eligible for award,
RFP at M-2, we need not consider Prudent's challenges to HUD's conclusion
that the proposal was also deficient under the management plan factor.
James J. Flanagan Shipping Corp., B-286129, Nov. 27, 2000, 2001 CPD para.
156 at 4 n.2.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] The RFP here numbers pages serially within each section, and starts
each section with page 1 (e.g., L-1, L-2...M-1, M-2); it also numbers
paragraphs within each section (M.1, M.2...). The RFP citations in this
decision are to the page numbers.
[2] For the record, we find inexplicable Prudent's argument in its
comments that there was no requirement in this RFP to identify key
personnel. In fact: (1) the RFP required identification of key personnel
at section I.8, on page I-5; (2) Prudent's proposal identified two key
individuals, see AR, Tab 7, Part Two (Business Proposal) at I-5; and (3)
the RFP permitted offerors to meet the experience requirement in section M
with the experienced of committed key personnel. RFP at M-2.