TITLE: B-297508; B-297508.2, The MIL Corporation, January 26, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297508; B-297508.2
DATE: January 26, 2006
***********************************************************
B-297508; B-297508.2, The MIL Corporation, January 26, 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: The MIL Corporation

   File: B-297508; B-297508.2

   Date: January 26, 2006

   Louis D. Victorino, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq.,
   Aleksander Lamvol, Esq., and Marko W. Kipa, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin,
   Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester.

   Richard J. Huber, Esq., and Robin Coll, Esq., Department of the Navy, for
   the agency.

   Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest issue raised subsequent to a post-award debriefing provided to
   a vendor in a Federal Supply Schedule procurement is untimely where it was
   filed more than 10 days after the basis of protest was known; since the
   procurement was not conducted on the basis of competitive proposals, the
   timeliness rules based on protests which challenge a procurement conducted
   on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is
   requested and required are not applicable.

   2. Protest challenging the evaluation of vendors' quotations is denied
   where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable
   and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria.

   3. Protest alleging that, in its evaluation of the protester's quotation,
   the agency unreasonably ignored information that was "simply too close at
   hand" (but not contained in the protester's quotation) is denied where the
   protester fails to demonstrate that the information in question was known
   to the individuals involved in the evaluation of the quotation.

   4. Protest that agency improperly changed the stated basis for award from
   "best value" to low priced/technically acceptable is denied where the
   record reflects that the agency found the quotations of the awardee and
   protester to be, at best, technically equal and made award to the
   lower-priced vendor; the fact that no price/technical tradeoff was
   required does not negate the fact that the agency properly adhered to the
   best-value award basis.

   DECISION

   The MIL Corporation (MIL) protests the issuance of a task order to the
   Anteon Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   N00421-05-T-0229, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division
   (NAWCAD), Naval Air Systems Command, Department of the Navy, for
   information technology (IT) help-desk support services. MIL argues that
   Anteon had impermissible organizational conflicts of interest, that the
   agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations was unreasonable, and that the
   resulting award decision was improper.

   We deny the protests.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFQ, issued on September 8, 2005, to 12 vendors holding General
   Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for
   IT services, contemplated the award of a time-and-materials task order for
   a 1-year period of performance. The solicitation included a statement of
   work (SOW), a summary of the anticipated labor hours and labor categories
   required, instructions to vendors regarding the submission of quotations,
   and the evaluation factors for award. The RFQ established four evaluation
   factors of approximately equal importance: management plan/staffing; past
   performance; technical approach; and price.[1] RFQ, Evaluation Criteria,
   at 1. Award was to be made to the vendor whose quotation was determined to
   be the "best value" to the government based upon an integrated assessment
   of all evaluation factors. RFQ, Cover Letter, at 1.

   Five vendors, including Anteon and MIL, the incumbent, submitted
   quotations by the September 19 due date. A technical evaluation panel
   (TEP) consisting of two agency employees evaluated vendors' quotations
   under the nonprice evaluation factors using an adjectival rating system:
   outstanding; highly satisfactory; satisfactory; marginal; and
   unsatisfactory. The TEP did not develop consensus evaluation ratings for
   each vendor's quotation; rather, each evaluator separately submitted
   his/her own evaluation ratings, including worksheets and narrative
   comments, to the contracting officer. The evaluation ratings (from each
   evaluator) and prices of Anteon, MIL, and Vendor C were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |      |                             Factor                              |
   |------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
   |      |Management Plan|    Past    | Technical  |  Overall   |  Price   |
   |      |               |Performance |  Approach  |            |          |
   |------+---------------+------------+------------+------------+----------|
   |Anteon|  Outstanding  |   Highly   |Outstanding |Outstanding |$2,428,841|
   |      |               |Satisfactory|            |            |          |
   |------+---------------+------------+------------+------------+----------|
   |      |    Highly     |Outstanding |Outstanding |Outstanding |          |
   |      | Satisfactory  |            |            |            |          |
   |------+---------------+------------+------------+------------+----------|
   |MIL   |  Outstanding  |   Highly   |Outstanding |Outstanding |$2,517,353|
   |      |               |Satisfactory|            |            |          |
   |------+---------------+------------+------------+------------+----------|
   |      |    Highly     |   Highly   |Outstanding |   Highly   |          |
   |      | Satisfactory  |Satisfactory|            |Satisfactory|          |
   |------+---------------+------------+------------+------------+----------|
   |Vendor|  Outstanding  |   Highly   |   Highly   |   Highly   |$2,315,432|
   |C     |               |Satisfactory|Satisfactory|Satisfactory|          |
   |------+---------------+------------+------------+------------+----------|
   |      |    Highly     |   Highly   |Satisfactory|   Highly   |          |
   |      | Satisfactory  |Satisfactory|            |Satisfactory|          |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab R, Technical Evaluation of MIL, at 3, 13; Tab S,
   Technical Evaluation of Anteon, at 3, 13; Tab T, Technical Evaluation of
   Vendor C, at 3, 13; Tab W, Source Selection Decision at 1.[2]

   After having reviewed the evaluation ratings and findings, the contracting
   officer determined that Anteon's quotation represented the best value to
   the government. Id., Tab W, Source Selection Decision, at 2; Tab X, Source
   Selection Decision Addendum.

   The agency provided MIL with notice that Anteon had been selected for
   award on September 29, and MIL submitted a written request for a
   debriefing on October 3. The Navy provided MIL with a debriefing on
   October 20, explaining MIL's evaluation ratings and the rationale for the
   agency's award decision.

   MIL filed its initial protest with our Office on October 24 after its
   debriefing, and supplemented its protest after receiving the agency report
   on the protest. MIL raises five bases of protest. First, the protester
   argues that Anteon had significant organizational conflicts of interest
   which the Navy failed to recognize and/or take into account in its
   evaluation of quotations. Second, MIL argues that the Navy's evaluation of
   vendors' quotations was unreasonable insofar as the agency ignored the
   higher quality of the staff which MIL proposed. Third, MIL argues that the
   agency's evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable. Fourth, MIL
   argues that the agency improperly failed to take risk into account in its
   evaluation of vendors' quotations. Lastly, MIL contends that the agency's
   source selection decision was inconsistent with the solicitation and
   insufficiently documented.[3]

   DISCUSSION

   When an agency conducts a formal competition under the FSS program for
   award of a task order contract, we will review the agency's actions to
   ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of
   the solicitation. WorldWide Language Res., Inc., B-297210 et al., Nov. 28,
   2005, 2005 CPD para. 211 at 3; COMARK Fed. Sys., B-278343, B-278343.2,
   Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 34 at 4-5. Based on our review of the record
   here, we find no basis to question the agency's award decision.

   Organizational Conflicts of Interest

   MIL first protests that Anteon had significant, material organizational
   conflicts of interest which the vendor failed to disclose and which the
   Navy failed to identify or take into account in its evaluation of
   quotations. Specifically, MIL contends that Anteon is presently performing
   a separate program management services contract for NAWCAD. MIL alleges
   that as the program management services contractor, Anteon received
   non-public information concerning MIL's technical performance and costs
   under the incumbent IT help-desk services contract. MIL also asserts that
   it is likely that Anteon was in possession of additional material,
   non-public source selection information to which no other vendor,
   including MIL, had access. Lastly, MIL alleges that Anteon, as the program
   management services contractor, will now be in the position of reviewing
   its own submissions under the IT help-desk services contract. MIL argues
   that because the Navy failed to identify, consider, and evaluate these
   organizational conflicts of interest, the award to Anteon was improper.

   The agency argues that MIL's protest regarding Anteon's alleged
   organizational conflicts of interest is untimely, as the protester knew of
   this basis for protest as of the September 29 award notification date. In
   support of its position, the agency contends that MIL, as the incumbent IT
   help-desk services contractor, was fully aware of Anteon's duties and
   responsibilities under the program management services contract, which
   provided MIL with the underlying factual basis for the organizational
   conflict of interest allegations it now raises. Further, the agency
   asserts that the organizational conflict of interest issues were not
   raised or even mentioned at MIL's debriefing. The Navy contends that
   because MIL knew of its basis for protest on September 29 but did not file
   its protest with our Office until October 24, the issue is untimely.

   Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission
   of protests. These timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of
   giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving
   protests expeditiously without disrupting or delaying the procurement
   process. Peacock, Myers & Adams, B-279327, Mar. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD para.
   94 at 3-4; Professional Rehab. Consultants, Inc., B-275871, Feb. 28, 1997,
   97-1 CPD para. 94 at 2. Under these rules, a protest such as MIL's, based
   on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation, must be filed not
   later than 10 days after the protester knew or should have known of the
   basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2005).
   An exception to this general rule is a protest that challenges "a
   procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a
   debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required." Id. In such
   cases, with respect to any protest basis which is known or should have
   been known either before or as a result of the debriefing, the protest
   must be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the
   debriefing is held. Id.

   Our determination of the timeliness of MIL's organizational conflict of
   interest issues therefore involves a twofold analysis: (1) determining
   when MIL knew, or should have known, its basis for protest here; and (2)
   determining whether MIL's protest involves a procurement conducted on the
   basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing was required.

   We find that MIL knew or should have known this basis for protest as of
   the date it received notice of the award to Anteon, September 29. As the
   incumbent IT help-desk services contractor, MIL was fully aware of
   Anteon's duties and responsibilities as the program management services
   contractor with the Navy; it was this familiarity that provided MIL with
   the underlying factual basis for its assertions that Anteon both had
   superior access to information during the solicitation process, and would
   suffer from impaired objectivity during contract performance. Further, the
   agency asserts--and MIL does not deny--that the organizational conflict of
   interest issues here were not raised or even mentioned at the debriefing
   provided to MIL. While the protester now argues that "it was at the
   debriefing that MIL learned that the Navy made its award to an offeror
   with an apparent [organizational conflict of interest] without evaluating
   the [organizational conflict of interest] and without imposing any
   appropriate mitigation," MIL Response to Agency Dismissal Request, Nov. 7,
   2005, at 5, we fail to see how MIL could first have become aware of this
   as a result of the debriefing when it asked no questions and did not even
   raise the issue. Rather, we find that the facts which provided MIL with
   its basis of protest here were known to it as of the September 29 award
   notification date. Accordingly, since MIL's protest was not filed until
   October 24, we find that MIL did not protest the organizational conflict
   of interest issue within 10 days of when the protester knew or should have
   known of the basis of protest.

   We also find that the exception to our timeliness rules allowing protests
   to be filed within 10 days of a debriefing does not apply here. As noted
   above, the exception extends to protests involving procurements where a
   debriefing is required by law. Specifically, under 10 U.S.C. sect.
   2305(b)(5)(A) (2000), an agency is required to debrief an unsuccessful
   offeror who timely requests a debriefing in cases where "a contract is
   awarded . . . on the basis of competitive proposals." Here, we conclude
   that the procurement which is the subject of the protests was not one
   conducted on the basis of competitive proposals.

   The term "competitive proposals" is not defined by our Bid Protest
   Regulations, nor is it defined by statute or regulation.[4] However, we
   have previously determined that the use of negotiated procedures in
   accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and as
   evidenced by the issuance of a request for proposals, constitutes a
   procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals. See Peacock,
   Myers & Adams, supra, at 1; Minotaur Eng'g, B-276843, May 22, 1997, 97-1
   CPD para. 194 at 2-3 (equating a negotiated procurement with a procurement
   conducted on the basis of competitive proposals); Professional Rehab.
   Consultants, Inc., supra, at 2 (finding the procurement was conducted on
   the basis of competitive proposals when agency employed a request for
   proposals and used FAR Part 15 procedures); Automated Med. Prods. Corp.,
   B-275835, Feb. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 52; Comfort Inn South, B-270819.2,
   May 14, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 225 (equating the term "competitive
   proposals" as set forth in 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(a)(2)(B) with negotiated
   procedures).

   Here, the procurement was not conducted pursuant to the negotiated
   procedures of FAR Part 15, nor did it involve the issuance of a request
   for proposals. Rather, the procurement here was conducted under the FSS
   program, pursuant to the procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 8.4 and using
   a request for quotations. In this regard, in a recent case involving
   similar facts, Systems Plus, Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 206,
   209-210 (2005), the Court of Federal Claims concluded that a procurement
   under the FSS program pursuant to FAR Subpart 8.4 was not conducted on the
   basis of competitive proposals. The Court found that although FSS program
   procurements may involve the use of enhanced competitive procedures (i.e.,
   the comparison of technical approaches and technical qualifications of
   vendors, the consideration of factors other than price), the term
   "competitive proposals" was a term of art which did not extend to FSS
   procurements. Id. at 210. We agree. Because here the procurement was
   conducted pursuant to FAR Subpart 8.4, rather than FAR Part 15, the
   procurement was not one conducted on the basis of competitive
   proposals.[5]

   In light of the fact that MIL did not raise the organizational conflict of
   interest issues within 10 days of when it knew or should have known of its
   basis for protest, and as the exception to our general rule allowing
   filing after a debriefing does not apply here, we find MIL's protest of
   these issues to be untimely.

   Evaluation of Proposed Staffing

   MIL also challenges the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations as to
   the quality of staffing proposed. Specifically, the protester argues that
   it proposed extremely experienced key personnel, but that the Navy failed
   to properly take their qualifications into account in the evaluation of
   quotations. MIL also argues that the agency's failure to properly
   recognize the high quality of the staffing it proposed was prejudicial
   notwithstanding the fact that MIL received an overall technical rating of
   outstanding: according to MIL, the qualifications of its proposed
   personnel should have been expressly recognized as a strength (and thereby
   expressly taken into account in the contracting officer's best-value
   determination). Lastly, MIL argues that the Navy's rating of Anteon as to
   staffing was unreasonably high, because it was simply not possible that
   Anteon's proposed staff could be equal to that proposed by incumbent MIL.

   In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate offerors'
   submissions; instead, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure
   that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated
   evaluation criteria and procurement statutes and regulations.
   Urban-Meridian Joint Venture, B-287168, B-287168.2, May 7, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 91 at 2. An offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation
   is not sufficient to render the evaluation unreasonable. Ben-Mar Enters.,
   Inc., B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 68 at 7.

   As set forth above, the solicitation set forth three technical evaluation
   factors-- management plan/staffing, past performance, and technical
   approach. Both the management plan/staffing factor and the technical
   approach factor contained subfactors which related to a vendor's proposed
   staffing. Under the management plan/staffing factor, the third subfactor
   stated, "The management plan clearly reflects ability to staff potential
   efforts with appropriate personnel and ability to recruit successfully
   when necessary."[6] RFQ, Evaluation Criteria, at 1. Additionally, under
   the technical approach factor, the first subfactor stated, "The offeror's
   minimum personnel qualifications for applicable labor categories are
   adequate for performance of tasks under the subject contract."[7] Id.
   Importantly, neither the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria nor the
   SOW required the identification of any key personnel.

   In the management plan/staffing section of its quotation, MIL stated that
   it would accomplish the IT help-desk services requirement by using its
   current, full-time employees.[8] AR, Tab K, MIL Quotation, at 3. MIL also
   stated that it was committing 35 personnel to the effort, and designated
   all its personnel as key staff. Id. at 1. MIL's quotation also included a
   table setting forth each of its proposed personnel, the relevant labor
   category, the certifications and years of experience for the staff
   proposed, and each individual's experience relative to the various SOW
   tasks. MIL's technical proposal did not specifically address the vendor's
   minimum personnel qualifications.[9]

   The TEP evaluators both rated MIL's quotation as outstanding under the
   staffing ability subfactor; both evaluators also rated MIL's quotation as
   outstanding under the minimum qualifications subfactor. AR, Tab R,
   Technical Evaluation of MIL at 1, 11. Further, in the comments which
   accompanied the TEP chairman's rating of MIL's quotation as outstanding
   under the management plan/staffing factor, the lead evaluator stated,
   "Impressive management plan that thoroughly addresses all criteria.
   Appropriate staff certifications."[10] Id. at 4.

   Contrary to MIL's arguments, we find that the agency did not ignore the
   quality of the staffing that MIL had proposed when evaluating the firm's
   quotation. Rather, the record reflects that the agency properly considered
   MIL's proposed staffing under both staffing-related subfactors, and
   reasonably rated MIL's quotation as outstanding under both subfactors.[11]

   MIL nonetheless argues that its decision to propose its extremely
   experienced incumbent workforce, and the decision to identify key
   personnel for all staffing positions, should have been given special
   consideration or additional evaluation credit. As a corollary to its
   position in this regard, MIL argues that the Navy's rating of Anteon as
   equal to MIL under the staffing criteria was unreasonably high because
   Anteon could not possibly propose a staff that was equal to that of
   incumbent MIL.

   Here, the solicitation stated that the contracting agency would evaluate
   vendors on their ability to staff the requirement with appropriate,
   qualified personnel over the life of the contract, RFQ, Evaluation
   Criteria, at 2, and as set forth above, the agency reasonably considered
   the high quality of MIL's proposed staffing when it rated the firm's
   quotation as outstanding under both staffing-related subfactors. The RFQ
   did not specify that a vendor had to identify any key personnel, nor did
   the solicitation provide that designating individuals as key personnel or
   proposing the incumbent workforce would be given special recognition or
   consideration.[12] Accordingly, we find nothing unreasonable about the
   agency's decision not to afford MIL an evaluation preference or additional
   credit with regard to the evaluation of MIL's proposed staffing here.[13]
   See Weber Cafeteria Servs., Inc., B-290085.2, June 17, 2002, 2002 CPD
   para. 99 at 4-5.

   Evaluation of MIL's Past Performance

   MIL also protests that the agency's evaluation of its past performance was
   unreasonable. Specifically, MIL argues that the Navy improperly identified
   as past performance weaknesses that the firm needed to be more specific in
   addressing the issues of flexibility and timeliness. MIL argues that its
   quotation did address flexibility and timely performance, even if it did
   not repeatedly use those exact words in the description of the prior
   contracts performed.

   Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of offerors' past
   performance, we will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that it
   was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria,
   since determining the relative merits of offerors' past performance
   information is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's
   discretion. Hanley Indus., Inc., B-295318, Feb. 2, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 20
   at 4. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment is not
   sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Birdwell Bros.
   Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 129 at 5.
   Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the agency's evaluation
   of the vendors' past performance here was both reasonable and consistent
   with the RFP's evaluation terms.

   The RFQ set forth three subfactors within the past performance evaluation
   factor. Relevant to the protest here, the second and third subfactors
   stated:

   The offeror's corporate history (subcontractors and partners included)
   clearly demonstrates a customer oriented approach including examples of
   flexibility and responsiveness to customers, and

   The offeror's corporate history (subcontractors and partners included)
   reflects a consistency of on-time completion of tasks. For any tasks not
   completed as originally projected or committed to, adequate explanation
   was provided.

   RFQ, Evaluation Criteria, at 1.

   In its quotation, MIL addressed past performance by first stating that it
   had extensive experience providing the services required here, and a
   corporate history that, among other things, "clearly demonstrates a
   customer oriented approach including numerous examples of flexibility and
   responsiveness to customers," and "reflects a consistency of on-time
   completion of tasks." AR, Tab K, MIL Quotation, at 11. The vendor's
   quotation then set forth two specific past performance references in
   narrative format--its incumbent contract with NAWCAD for the required IT
   help-desk services, as well as its current central travel agency contract
   with the same agency. MIL's quotation did not provide any specific
   examples of flexibility and responsiveness to customers for either
   reference, nor did MIL address on-time completion of tasks for either
   reference.

   MIL was rated as satisfactory under both the flexibility and timeliness
   subfactors by the TEP chairman, while the second agency evaluator rated
   MIL as highly satisfactory under the flexibility subfactor and as
   satisfactory under the timeliness subfactor. In his evaluation summary of
   MIL's past performance, the TEP chairman also stated, "Past performance
   receives a rating of highly satisfactory [overall]. Had past performance
   information been more specific in addressing flexibility and timeliness,
   this area may have been rated at a higher-level." Id., Tab R, Technical
   Evaluation of MIL, at 3.

   We find the agency's evaluation of MIL with regard to past performance was
   reasonable. It is the responsibility of a firm competing for a government
   contract to provide an adequately written submission, and an agency may
   downgrade a submission for the lack of requested information. Incident
   Catering Servs., LLC, B-296435.2 et al., Sept. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 193
   at 7; Formal Mgmt. Sys., Inc., B-259824, May 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 227
   at 3. Here, MIL's quotation failed to provide any specific examples of
   flexibility or timely task completion, as required by the RFQ. In fact,
   the only parts of its quotation to which the protester points as
   evidencing flexibility and timeliness are statements which merely repeat
   the past performance evaluation subfactors. Protest, Dec. 5, 2005, at 10.
   In light of the fact that MIL's quotation does no more than "parrot back"
   the stated evaluation criteria, we find the agency's evaluation here to be
   both reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. See Wahkontah
   Servs., Inc., B-292768, Nov. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 214 at 7.

   MIL also argues that the agency was aware of its performance under the
   incumbent contract, even if it failed to demonstrate flexibility and
   timeliness in its quotation. MIL argues that this information was "too
   close at hand" for the agency to ignore in its evaluation of the
   quotation.

   Our Office has recognized that in certain limited circumstances an agency
   evaluating an offeror's proposal has an obligation (as opposed to the
   discretion) to consider "outside information" bearing on the offeror's
   proposal. International Bus. Sys., Inc., B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD
   para. 114 at 5; G. Marine Diesel; Phillyship, B-232619, B-232619.2, Jan.
   27, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 90 at 4-5. Where we have charged an agency with
   responsibility for considering such outside information, the record has
   demonstrated that the information in question was "simply too close at
   hand to require offerors to shoulder the inequities that spring from an
   agency's failure to obtain, and consider this information." International
   Bus. Sys., Inc., supra; see GTS Duratek, Inc., B-280511.2, B-280511.3,
   Oct. 19, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 130 at 14.

   In those narrow instances where we have applied the "simply too close at
   hand" principle, we have required the protester to demonstrate that the
   outside information bearing on the offeror's proposal was not just known
   by the agency generally, but rather, that the information was known to the
   specific agency employees involved in the source selection process. For
   example, in International Bus. Sys., Inc., the protester demonstrated that
   the contracting officer had first-hand knowledge of the protester's past
   performance of the required work; in GTS Duratek, the protester
   demonstrated that the agency failed to consider the offeror's performance
   of a prior contract where the contracting officer's technical
   representative for the incumbent contract had personal knowledge of the
   offeror's prior performance and was a member of the technical evaluation
   team for the subject solicitation.

   With respect to MIL's contention that the agency improperly failed to
   consider information about its incumbent performance, we think that MIL
   has failed to make a sufficient showing for our application of the "simply
   too close at hand" principle; it has not demonstrated, or even alleged,
   that the information regarding flexibility or timeliness under the
   predecessor contract was known to the specific agency personnel involved
   in the procurement here. Where, as here, a firm first fails in its
   responsibility to submit a quotation or proposal sufficient for
   evaluation, and then fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the
   information in question was known to the individual agency employees
   involved in the evaluation, we will not extend the "simply too close at
   hand" exception on the protester's behalf.

   Source Selection Decision

   Lastly, MIL challenges the agency's source selection decision.
   Specifically, MIL alleges that the Navy improperly converted the basis for
   the award determination from best value, as set forth in the solicitation,
   to a low priced/technically acceptable evaluation. The protester argues
   that had the contracting officer properly performed a best-value
   determination, she would have realized that the technical advantages of
   MIL's quotation warranted its higher price. MIL also argues that the
   agency failed to adequately document the best-value determination.

   An agency may not announce in the solicitation that it will use one
   evaluation plan and then follow another; once offerors are informed of the
   criteria against which their proposals will be evaluated and the source
   selection decision made, the agency must adhere to those criteria or
   inform all offerors of significant changes. American Guard Servs., Inc.,
   B-294359, Nov. 1, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 225 at 6; DynCorp, B-245289,
   B-245289.2, Dec. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 575 at 5. Where a solicitation
   provides for award on a "best value" or "most advantageous to the
   government" basis, it is the function of the source selection authority to
   perform price/technical tradeoffs, that is, to determine whether one
   proposal's technical superiority is worth the higher price, and the extent
   to which one is sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of
   rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria. See
   Chenega Technical Prods., LLC, B-295451.5, June 22, 2005, 2005 CPD para.
   123 at 8; Leach Mgmt. Consulting Corp., B-292493.2, Oct. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 175 at 3-4. Where a price/ technical tradeoff is made, the source
   selection decision must be documented, and the documentation must include
   the rationale for any tradeoffs made, including the benefits associated
   with additional costs.[14] FAR sections 15.101-1(c), 15.308; All
   Star-Cabaco Enter., Joint Venture, B-290133, B-290133.2, June 25, 2002,
   2002 CPD para. 127 at 8-9.

   In making the source selection decision here, the contracting officer
   premised her determination upon review and acceptance of the evaluation
   findings and ratings of the vendors' quotations under the stated
   evaluation factors as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |        |Management Plan| Past Performance |    Technical    |  Price   |
   |        |               |                  |    Approach     |          |
   |--------+---------------+------------------+-----------------+----------|
   | Anteon |  Outstanding  |      Highly      |   Outstanding   |$2,428,841|
   |        |               |   Satisfactory   |                 |          |
   |--------+---------------+------------------+-----------------+----------|
   |  MIL   |  Outstanding  |      Highly      |   Outstanding   |$2,517,353|
   |        |               |   Satisfactory   |                 |          |
   |--------+---------------+------------------+-----------------+----------|
   |Vendor C|  Outstanding  |      Highly      |     Highly      |$2,315,432|
   |        |               |   Satisfactory   |  Satisfactory   |          |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab W, Source Selection Decision, at 1.

   The contracting officer then determined that although Anteon's quotation
   was priced $113,408.53 (4.7 percent) higher than Vendor C's quotation,
   Anteon's quotation represented the best value to the government because of
   its superior technical approach. Id. at 2. After the filing of MIL's
   protest, the contracting officer amended her source selection decision to
   elaborate on the rationale for selection of Anteon over MIL as follows:

   On technical, Anteon was considered to have the highest rating having
   received an overall outstanding score from both evaluators. Next were
   [Vendor C] and The MIL Corp. with an outstanding and highly satisfactory
   from each evaluator. Anteon was selected over [Vendor C] because it
   received a higher technical rating and was below the government estimate.
   The proposal from The MIL Corp. was much higher than the proposal from
   [Vendor C] and higher than Anteon's. Because The MIL Corp.'s proposal was
   higher priced than Anteon's and received a lower average score, it was not
   considered further for award.

   AR, Tab X, Amended Source Selection Decision.[15]

   Here, contrary to the protester's assertions, we find that the Navy did
   not improperly change the award basis from best value to low
   priced/technically acceptable. As evidenced by the contemporaneous record,
   the agency evaluated vendors' quotations using an adjectival rating system
   that distinguished vendors' relative technical merits on other than an
   acceptable/unacceptable (pass/fail) basis. The contracting officer then
   performed a price/technical tradeoff and determined that Anteon's
   technical superiority vis-`a-vis Vendor C was worth the difference in
   price. As the contracting officer reasonably determined that the
   quotations of Anteon and MIL were, at best, technically equal, and
   Anteon's price was lower than MIL's (so that no price/ technical tradeoff
   analysis was needed), we see no basis to find unreasonable the contracting
   officer's selection of Anteon's quotation over that of MIL as representing
   the best value to the Navy. The fact that no tradeoff analysis was
   required between Anteon and MIL as part of the source selection decision
   does not negate the fact that the agency properly adhered to the RFQ's
   best-value selection basis. See SAMS El Segundo, LLC, B-291620,
   B-291620.2, Feb. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 44 at 19; Weber Cafeteria Servs.,
   Inc., supra, at 6. Moreover, in light of the agency's determination that
   the quotations of Anteon and MIL were no more than technically equal and
   that no tradeoff between these quotations was required, we see no basis to
   conclude that the agency failed to adequately document its source
   selection here.

   The protests are denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
   General Counsel

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

   [1] As detailed below, each of the nonprice evaluation factors consisted
   of multiple subfactors.

   [2] The quotations of the remaining two vendors were both higher-priced
   and lower technically rated than those of MIL, Anteon, and Vendor C. AR,
   Tab V, Summary of Evaluation Ratings.

   [3] MIL also protested that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations
   was unreasonable insofar as the evaluation process was "chaotic" (e.g.,
   the evaluation team was organized at the last minute, and minimal
   training, if any, was provided to the evaluators). Allegations, like
   these, of procedural defects do not provide a valid basis of protest.
   Moreover, MIL has not demonstrated how it was prejudiced as a result of
   the alleged procedural defects. 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).

   [4] We note, however, that Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.
   6.401(b), "Competitive Proposals," begins with the reference, "See Part 15
   for procedures."

   [5] In support of its position that the debriefing here was required by
   law, MIL argues that it requested a "required debriefing," pursuant to FAR
   sect. 15.506, and that the agency did not disagree with MIL's use of that
   term. We find this argument wholly unpersuasive, since whether a
   debriefing is in fact a required one does not turn on a protester's
   characterization.

   [6] A narrative which accompanied the evaluation factors expanded upon the
   staffing ability subfactor, stating that a vendor's staffing plan "must
   describe the offeror's proposed recruiting/hiring program to assure that
   efforts will be staffed with qualified personnel over the life of the
   contract." RFQ, Evaluation Criteria, at 3.

   [7] Similarly, with regard to the minimum qualifications subfactor, the
   solicitation's evaluation narrative stated that "the offeror must
   identify, by technical functional area of the synopsis/SOW, labor
   categories under their GSA Schedules appropriate for tasks in that area,
   and the minimum personnel qualifications for each." RFQ, Evaluation
   Criteria, at 4.

   [8] MIL also described its plan to recruit from outside of its incumbent
   staff of employees if it became necessary or desirable to do so. AR, Tab
   K, MIL Quotation, at 4.

   [9] While MIL's technical proposal stated that "a summary of our minimum
   personnel qualifications was presented earlier, by task, under . . .
   Personnel Matrix and Summaries," AR, Tab K, MIL Quotation, at 14, a review
   of that portion of MIL's quotation indicates only the actual experience of
   the individuals proposed, and not what the minimum personnel
   qualifications identified by MIL were. Id. at 6.

   [10] Both TEP members also rated Anteon's quotation as outstanding under
   the staffing ability and minimum qualifications subfactors. AR, Tab S,
   Technical Evaluation of Anteon, at 1, 11. MIL's protest points to no
   specific aspects of Anteon's quotation in challenging the agency's
   evaluation here, other than asserting that MIL's staffing had to be of a
   higher quality.

   [11] If anything, the evaluation of MIL as outstanding under the minimum
   qualifications subfactor was arguably too high, as MIL's quotation did not
   specifically set forth what the vendor's minimum personnel qualification
   were for the various labor categories.

   [12] Similarly, with regard to MIL's protest that the Navy's evaluation
   was unreasonable because the agency never separately evaluated the risk
   inherent in each vendor's quotation, we find that, contrary to the
   protester's characterization of the RFQ, risk was not an explicit
   evaluation criterion that the agency had to take into account (the word
   "risk" does not appear in any evaluation factor), and the agency's
   decision not to separately evaluate risk was neither unreasonable nor
   inconsistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.

   [13] Moreover, to the extent that MIL is protesting that the RFQ should
   have provided for special consideration for identifying key personnel or
   proposing the incumbent workforce, its protest is untimely since it
   concerns an alleged impropriety apparent from the face of the solicitation
   and was not raised prior to the closing time for submission of quotations.
   4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1).

   [14] This explanation can be given by the source selection authority in
   the award decision, or it can be evidenced from the documents on which the
   source selection decision is based. TRW, Inc., B-260788.2, Aug. 2, 1995,
   96-1 CPD para. 11.

   [15] While we generally accord greater weight to contemporaneous evidence
   of an evaluation and source selection decision, we will consider
   post-protest explanations that provide a rationale for contemporaneous
   conclusions, where, as here, those explanations are credible and
   consistent with the contemporaneous record. Professional Landscape Mgmt.
   Servs., Inc., B-286612, Dec. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 212 at 4; ITT Fed.
   Servs. Int'l Corp., B-283307, B-283307.2, Nov. 3, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 76
   at 6.