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.