TITLE: B-297452, SERAPH Inc., January 12, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297452
DATE: January 12, 2006
***************************************
B-297452, SERAPH Inc., January 12, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: SERAPH Inc.

   File: B-297452

   Date: January 12, 2006

   Dale Yeager for the protester.

   Daniel J. Donohue, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, PC,
   for CACI Premiere Technology, Inc., an intervenor.

   Audrey Roh, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast
   Guard, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Alleged misevaluation of two proposed personnel under "relevant past
   experience/proposed personnel" factor as lacking relevant experience did
   not competitively prejudice protester, and thus does not provide basis for
   sustaining protest, where contemporaneous evaluation record shows that
   protester's proposal was not downgraded based on evaluation of the two
   personnel, and that proposal ultimately was eliminated from consideration
   for award based on evaluated deficiencies under different factor, which
   protester does not question.

   DECISION

   SERAPH Inc. protests the award of a contract to CACI Premiere Technology,
   Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23095-R-DOT097, issued by
   the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for
   support services assisting the Coast Guard in developing and implementing
   capabilities to detect, identify, interdict and detain terrorist threats
   in the maritime domain. SERAPH primarily argues that the Coast Guard
   improperly evaluated the experience of two of its proposed key personnel.

   We deny the protest.

   On July 18, 2005 the Coast Guard issued a combined synopsis/solicitation
   for tactical operations education and training services to respond to
   terrorist threats in the maritime domain. The RFP contemplated the award
   of an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for a period of 1
   year, with a 1-year option period. The solicitation provided for a "best
   value" award based on four evaluation factors: relevant past
   experience/proposed personnel, understanding of the work, relevant past
   performance, and price. Relevant past experience/proposed personnel was
   the most important factor, while the two other technical factors were of
   equal importance; the three technical factors combined were significantly
   more important than price. The RFP required prices (on fixed-price or
   time-and-materials (T&M) bases) for 10 separate contract line item numbers
   (CLIN) covering various training courses and training teams.

   The Coast Guard received 15 proposals. In evaluating SERAPH's proposal
   under the first factor, relevant past experience/proposed personnel, the
   technical evaluation team (TET) assigned SERAPH an overall rating of
   green, which represented low risk.[1] The report explained that SERAPH's
   proposed staff appears to meet or exceed the experience needed to conduct
   the training, but also stated that SERAPH's chemical, biological,
   radiological, nuclear and explosives (CBRNE) specialist did not appear to
   have much experience in the CBRNE field, Agency Report (AR), Technical
   Evaluation Report, Tab 8, at 7, and that the boat specialist SERAPH
   proposed "has more of a boarding/close quarters combat background than
   that of a boat specialist." Id. For the understanding of work factor, the
   TET assigned SERAPH's proposal an overall rating of yellow, representing
   moderate risk. In this regard, the TET found that SERAPH's proposal was
   not adequate to allow the team to determine whether the company fully
   understood the RFP. For the third factor, past performance, SERAPH
   received the highest rating, blue. SERAPH's evaluated price was $2,809,800
   (the fourth lowest) for the fixed price CLINs, as compared to CACI's price
   of $3,007,305 (the fifth lowest). (These figures exclude the T&M CLINs,
   for which all proposals were evaluated at $7,180,000.)

   The agency made an initial determination that 11 of the
   proposals--including SERAPH's--had no chance of being selected for award
   based on their technical ratings and prices. The proposals that remained
   in consideration, unlike SERAPH's, received green or higher ratings under
   each of the technical evaluation factors. The Coast Guard then made a
   final price/technical tradeoff among the remaining four proposals,
   selecting CACI's proposal on the basis that it was the highest rated of
   all proposals received, and the lowest priced among the remaining
   proposals.

   SERAPH principally argues that the agency's determination that two of its
   proposed personnel had limited relevant experience was unreasonable. [2]

   Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a
   reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions,
   that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's
   actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award.
   McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see
   Statistica, Inc., v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   We find that SERAPH was not prejudiced by the alleged improper evaluation
   of its two key personnel since, even if we agreed with SERAPH, it would
   not be in line for award. More specifically, the contemporaneous
   evaluation record shows that SERAPH's proposal was not selected for award
   due to the agency's evaluation conclusion that the proposal represented a
   moderate risk under the understanding of work evaluation factor, and not
   because the agency determined that SERAPH's proposed personnel had
   inadequate experience. In this regard, the agency specifically stated in
   the competitive award memorandum that SERAPH's proposed staff has the
   experience and training necessary to perform the contract. AR, Tab 9, at
   15. While the memorandum includes the comments (stated above) concerning
   the two proposed personnel, the agency nevertheless concluded that "the
   noted risks are not significant to warrant an overall elevated risk
   rating." Id. In other words, SERAPH's green/low risk rating under the
   relevant past experience/proposed personnel factor was unaffected by the
   agency's observations regarding the two personnel.

   The record shows that it was SERAPH's inadequately written plan to perform
   the work that led to the elimination of its proposal from the competition.
   The agency found that the discussion of the required work in SERAPH's
   proposal was not sufficiently defined to allow the agency to determine
   whether SERAPH fully understood the requirement. The competitive award
   memorandum specifically concluded that this deficiency--represented by a
   moderate risk rating under the understanding of the work factor--resulted
   in SERAPH's proposal no longer being considered for award. AR, Tab 9, at
   25. The protester has not challenged the agency's finding of this
   deficiency. Given that SERAPH's proposal was eliminated from the
   competition on this basis, and not due to the agency's view of the
   adequacy of SERAPH's proposed personnel's experience, it is clear that the
   alleged misevaluation of the firm's proposed personnel had no effect on
   the award decision. Accordingly, SERAPH was not prejudiced by the alleged
   improper evaluation. See generally Northport Handling, Inc., B-274615,
   Dec. 18, 1996, 97-1 CPD para. 3.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] Possible ratings under the technical factors were blue, green, yellow,
   and red, in descending order of technical ability. Separate risk ratings
   of low, moderate, or high also were assigned under each technical factor.

   [2] SERAPH also argues that CACI had an impermissible organizational
   conflict of interest (OCI) arising from its alleged participation in the
   preparation of the solicitation. However, the agency responds that CACI
   had no role in the preparation of the solicitation, and SERAPH has
   provided no evidence establishing that the agency's representations are
   incorrect; unsupported statements do not provide a basis for sustaining a
   protest. SERAPH further asserts that the award was improper because the
   award amount exceeded the stated ceiling price of $7,180,800. SERAPH
   misunderstands the solicitation. In fact, the $7,180,800 amount was the
   ceiling price only for the T&M CLINs; there was no ceiling price for the
   fixed-price CLINs.