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.