TITLE: B-297791.2, Ideamatics, Inc., May 26, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297791.2
DATE: May 26, 2006
******************************************
B-297791.2, Ideamatics, Inc., May 26, 2006
Decision
Matter of: Ideamatics, Inc.
File: B-297791.2
Date: May 26, 2006
David L. Danner for the protester.
Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., and Sean P. Bamford,
Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, for Kadix Systems LLC, an intervenor.
David P. Ingold, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection decision
is denied where record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation, and protester's arguments amount to mere
disagreement with agency's conclusions.
DECISION
Ideamatics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kadix Systems LLC
under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-06-R-4904, issued by the
Marine Corps for technical support services, including system analysis and
functionality upgrades, for the maintenance and enhancement of its
manpower mobilization assignment system used to track active, reserve, and
retired personnel. The protester generally challenges the reasonableness
of the agency's evaluation of the proposals and the award to Kadix, which
submitted a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal.
We deny the protest.[1]
The RFP, issued on November 17, 2005, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract, for a base year plus four option periods. The RFP
listed the following three technical evaluation factors: understanding and
approach; personnel; and past performance (with the first factor having
slightly more weight than the two other equally-weighted factors). The RFP
provided that overall technical merit was of significantly greater
importance than price, but that price would increase in importance the
closer the proposals were in technical merit.
An earlier award to Kadix under the RFP had been challenged by Ideamatics;
after the agency took corrective action in that case, agreeing to hold
discussions, issue an amendment to the RFP, and make a new award decision,
Ideamatics withdrew its protest. During the subsequent discussions,
Ideamatics was advised of a list of weaknesses in its proposal, primarily
related to a lack of detail regarding the firm's proposed approach to
meeting many of the RFP's requirements (including, for example, system
analysis and quality assurance work), and regarding its proposed
personnel's roles and responsibilities.
Shortly after discussions were held, the agency issued an amendment
revising the RFP's evaluation terms. The initial RFP had called for
evaluation of an offeror's "experience with" certain required services;
the amended solicitation called for evaluation of the offeror's "approach
to" performing the services. RFP amend. 2. Upon receiving the amended
evaluation terms, Ideamatics asked for an extension of time to prepare a
revised proposal, stating as follows:
There is a significant difference between the terms "experience with"
and "approach to." That the RFP would be changed in this way was never
mentioned or even suggested in the Discussions. We had written our
proposal to address what was requested. The revisions now necessitate
that we not only must revise our proposal to address the weaknesses that
were identified at the Discussions, but that we significantly revise our
proposal in areas that had not been addressed in the Discussions.
Ideamatics Discussion Clarifications, at 1. The agency responded that
"this change was made to clarify what we are evaluating. We are evaluating
the technical approach, in which we are taking the `experience with' into
account." Final Proposal Revisions Questions and Answers, at 2. The agency
denied the protester's request for an extension to the closing time set
for revised proposals.[2]
Revised proposals were received and evaluated. The Ideamatics proposal, at
an evaluated price of $2,364,115.18, was found to have some significant
strengths as well as significant weaknesses; the proposal was rated
"acceptable" under both the understanding and approach, and personnel
factors, and was assigned a rating of low performance risk under the past
performance factor. The Kadix proposal, at an evaluated price of
$3,048,580.43, was found to have many significant strengths and no
significant weaknesses; the proposal was evaluated as "outstanding" under
both the understanding and approach, and personnel factors, and was
assigned a rating of low performance risk under the past performance
factor. Considering the strengths and weaknesses of the two proposals, and
the evaluated prices, the agency determined that, given the critical
nature of the system to be serviced, the technical superiority of the
Kadix proposal warranted the cost premium associated with it. The Kadix
proposal was determined to offer the best value, and an award was made to
the firm. This protest followed.
Ideamatics generally challenges the evaluation of its revised proposal,
contending that, since it is the incumbent contractor and creator of the
manpower mobilization system, its proposal should have been rated higher.
Ideamatics does not challenge the agency's assessment of the "outstanding"
ratings assigned to the Kadix proposal under both the understanding and
approach, and the personnel factors. The protester also does not protest
the "acceptable" rating its own proposal received under the personnel
factor. Ideamatics instead focuses on the "acceptable" rating its revised
proposal received for understanding and approach, and argues--without
challenging numerous weaknesses cited by the agency under that
factor--that the proposal should at least be rated excellent under this
factor, as its initial proposal had been rated, based on the firm's
experience with the RFP requirements.[3]
In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and
consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
regulations. United Def., LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
para. 75 at 10-11. Where the evaluators and the source selection decision
reasonably consider the underlying bases for the ratings consistent with
the terms of the solicitation, the protester's disagreement with the
rating assigned to the proposal provides no basis to question the
reasonableness of the judgments made in the source selection decision
based on the underlying comparative strengths and weaknesses of the
proposals. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12,
B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 10-11.
In response to the protest, the agency provided the detailed record of its
evaluation and source selection decision; our review confirms that the
agency evaluated the relative merits of the proposals and assessed ratings
in a reasonable manner, consistent with the RFP's evaluation terms and the
rating definitions. Our review of the source selection decision also
confirms that the agency considered all of the information available
relevant to the evaluation. The source selection authority's decision here
is set out in a well-reasoned document highlighting important
discriminators between the proposals and the value of the technical
superiority of the Kadix proposal despite its higher evaluated price.
While the protester disagrees with the "acceptable" adjectival rating its
proposal received under the understanding and approach factor, the record
clearly supports the reasonableness of the source selection authority's
comparative consideration of the substantial strengths in the awardee's
comprehensive proposal, and the weaknesses and risks presented by the
protester's proposal.
The agency points out that the greatest strength in Ideamatics' proposal
under the understanding and approach factor was the firm's experience as
the incumbent contractor and creator of the system. The record shows that
the firm was fully credited with that experience and other significant
strengths. Numerous significant weaknesses, however, were cited under the
understanding and approach factor for the Ideamatics proposal; most relate
to the firm's failure to provide sufficient detail to explain how it
intends to meet the RFP's requirements.[4] In comparison, the Kadix
proposal was found to have more significant strengths under the
understanding and approach and personnel factors, and no significant
weaknesses. The record squarely supports the reasonableness of the
evaluators' conclusions that the awardee's detailed approach and
comprehensive business practices provided a greater level of confidence to
the agency in terms of the firm's demonstrated ability to maintain and
improve the system to be serviced under the RFP. Moreover, there is no
basis in the record to question the reasonableness of the agency's
determination that, given the substantial strengths of the Kadix proposal,
the cost premium associated with award to the firm was warranted.[5]
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] The protester proceeded with its protest pro se and therefore did not
have an attorney who could obtain access to nonpublic information pursuant
to the terms of a protective order. Accordingly, our discussion of the
evaluation and source selection is necessarily general in nature to avoid
reference to nonpublic information. Our conclusions, however, are based on
our review of the entire record, including nonpublic information.
[2] In this regard, the protester contends that the agency deliberately
misled it to believe that the amendments to the evaluation terms were
insignificant and merely "clarified" the initial evaluation terms, thus
requiring only limited revision to its proposal. We find the protester's
position unreasonable. As the firm itself recognized upon receipt of the
amendment, evaluation of a firm's experience is strikingly different from
evaluation of a proposed approach to meet specified contract performance
requirements. Further, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that
the agency acted in any way in bad faith. Moreover, contrary to its
suggestion otherwise, the protester should have realized, especially in
light of being told in discussions of the agency's concerns about the lack
of detail in its proposed approach in its initial proposal, that more
detail was required in its revised proposal to achieve a higher evaluation
rating.
[3] The amended RFP defined the adjectival ratings for the offerors.
"Outstanding" was for exceeding requirements with many significant
strengths and no significant weaknesses or risks. "Excellent" was defined
as exceeding requirements with few significant strengths and no
significant weaknesses (or also many significant strengths and few
significant weaknesses or risks). A rating of acceptable was to be
assigned to proposals found to meet the specified requirements with few
significant strengths and few significant weaknesses or risks, or no
significant strengths and no significant weaknesses or risks. A rating of
marginal was to be assigned to proposals with many significant strengths
and many significant weaknesses. RFP amend. 2, at 3.
[4] The protester argues that the agency unreasonably cited a weakness in
its proposal that, according to the protester, actually arose from the
agency's incorrect assumption that the firm's project manager would
perform most of the system analysis work. Our review of the record
supports the reasonableness of the agency's conclusion, since, as the
agency points out, the proposed approach to the system analysis work was
vague in the protester's proposal, and the project manager was proposed at
the highest percentage of time for work that included system analysis; in
short, the challenged assumption was reasonably based, since the proposal
failed to otherwise explain in any detail specifically who would be doing
what aspects of the system analysis work and how they would be doing it.
[5] While the protester also generally contends that the agency failed to
conduct meaningful discussions with the firm, neither the protester, nor
our review of the record, provides support for this contention. As the
discussions record shows, the firm was generally advised of numerous areas
of its proposal needing amplification. The record also shows that many of
those same areas remained relevant weaknesses under the revised evaluation
terms, and the proposal reasonably was downgraded for lack of detail in
these areas. See Uniband, Inc., B-289305, Feb. 8, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 51
at 11. The protester also generally contends that two weaknesses reported
at its debriefing were not mentioned during discussions; as the agency
reports, however, the weaknesses were first introduced in the firm's
revised proposal and thus would not have been a matter for the earlier
discussions. See Intertec Aviation, B-239672.4, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 348
at 6.