TITLE: B-297804, LLH & Associates, LLC, March 6, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297804
DATE: March 6, 2006
**********************************************
B-297804, LLH & Associates, LLC, March 6, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: LLH & Associates, LLC

   File: B-297804

   Date: March 6, 2006

   James Ballentine, Esq., for the protester.

   Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter and David L. Bell, Esq., Department of the Air
   Force, for the agency.

   Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   In a negotiated procurement which provided for award on the basis of a
   price/past performance tradeoff assessment, protest challenging the
   selection of the awardee on the basis of that firm's lower proposed priced
   is denied, where the protester's and awardee's past performance reasonably
   received equal ratings.

   DECISION

   LLH & Associates, LLC protests the award of a contract to Alpha-Omega
   Change Engineering, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   FA4890-05-R-0173, issued by the Department of the Air Force for services
   supporting the agency's foreign military sales programs.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a
   fixed-price contract for a base year with 4 option years for services
   supporting the agency's Air Combat Command, Security Assistance Branch.
   The RFP's statement of work (SOW) required the contractor to provide the
   following personnel in performance of the contract: an international
   fighter program manager, an exercises program manager, and an aircraft
   ferry support program manager. RFP, amend. 2, SOW, at 3. Required
   technical skills and qualifications were identified for each of these
   three managers. Id. at 7-8. The SOW further provided:

   4.4.2 Contractor Employee Resume Requirements. Personnel provided under
   this SOW are critical to the mission of the Air Force program office. The
   contractor may not change the personnel performing under this order
   without prior notification and approval by the Government Contracting
   Officer. Any replacement personnel proposed must be at least as qualified
   as the individual they are replacing. A resume shall be submitted for
   initial cadre of personnel and any proposed replacement personnel at least
   10 working days prior to the time the personnel change is expected to
   occur. There is no limitation on the number of pages for resumes and these
   do not count against the technical proposal limitation of pages. The
   Government will review the resume to ensure compliance with this
   requirement.

   Id.  at 10.

   The RFP identified the following evaluation factors: technical proposal,
   past performance, and price. The RFP provided that offerors' technical
   proposals would be evaluated to determine whether the offeror was capable
   of fully providing the services identified in the SOW. In this regard,
   offerors were informed that the firms' technical proposals must "identify
   the management structure (to include quality program plan), technical
   capability, and appropriate manning and skill mix to fully meet all
   taskings under the resulting contract."[1] Offerors were also informed
   that technical proposals would be evaluated as either acceptable,
   reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, or unacceptable. Offers
   that were found technically acceptable would then be qualitatively
   assessed under the past performance factor. The RFP stated that the source
   selection authority (SSA) would weigh offerors' evaluated past performance
   and proposed prices in making the award decision, although it did not
   state the relative importance of past performance vis-`a-vis price.[2]

   Proposals were received from LLH (the incumbent contractor) and
   Alpha-Omega, and evaluated by the agency's source selection evaluation
   team (SSET) as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |             | Technical Proposal |    Past Performance     |   Price   |
   |-------------+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------|
   |Alpha-Omega  |     Acceptable     |Significant Confidence[3]|$2,101,416 |
   |-------------+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------|
   |LLH          |     Acceptable     | Significant Confidence  |$2,190,978 |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Performance Analysis Report, at 10. The SSET
   found that each firm's technical proposal demonstrated an acceptable
   management structure and technical capability, and were therefore
   technically acceptable. Id. at 5-6, 10.

   The firms' past performance information was assessed by the agency's
   performance confidence assessment group (PCAG). The PCAG found that
   Alpha-Omega's identified past performance was relevant and that all four
   references identified by Alpha-Omega reported "high confidence" in the
   awardee. Id. at 8-9. The PCAG also found that LLH's identified past
   performance was relevant and that LLH's reference also reported "high
   confidence" in the protester.[4] The PCAG determined that "[e]ven though
   ratings for both offerors were considered `high,' it was the SSET's
   decision to assess a more conservative assessment of `significant.'" Id.
   at 10. Accordingly, both firms received an equal "significant confidence"
   rating for their past performance.

   Given the firms' equal past performance ratings, the SSA concluded that
   award should be made to Alpha-Omega on the basis of that firm's lower
   proposed price. AR, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision, at 2. Award was
   made to Alpha-Omega, and this protest followed.

   LLH first complains that the Air Force did not evaluate resumes as
   required by the RFP.[5] In this regard, LLH argues that it submitted
   resumes and that Alpha-Omega did not, and that Alpha-Omega's proposal
   should have been rejected because the firm failed to conform to the
   solicitation's requirements.

   The Air Force acknowledges that it did not evaluate resumes for proposed
   personnel. Nevertheless, the record establishes that LLH was not
   prejudiced, even if the RFP required the evaluation of resumes.[6]
   Alpha-Omega proposed incumbent personnel for the three management
   positions specifically required by the SOW and another individual for an
   overall program management position. Although Alpha-Omega did not provide
   a separate resume for these individuals, the firm described each
   individual's relevant experience, which appears to satisfy the experience
   requirements stated in the SOW. See AR, Tab 10, Alpha-Omega Technical
   Proposal, at 3-6. Moreover, apart of the information provided by
   Alpha-Omega in its technical proposal for these individuals, the record
   also shows that Alpha-Omega and LLH proposed the same individuals for the
   international fighter program manager, exercises program manager, and
   aircraft ferry support program manager positions. Given that LLH provided
   resumes for these same individuals, the agency had close at hand the
   information necessary to evaluate the qualifications of these individuals.
   Both LLH's and Alpha-Omega's technical proposals were found by the agency
   to be acceptable under the technical proposal factor, under which the
   resumes would presumably be evaluated. Under these circumstances, where
   both firms proposed the same personnel for the required management
   positions, we fail to see any reasonable possibility of prejudice to LLH
   from the agency's failure to evaluate resumes.[7] See Consolidated Eng'g
   Servs., Inc., B-279565.2, B-279565.3, June 26, 1998, 99-1 CPD para. 75 at
   6 (protester and awardee should have received same experience score for a
   proposed subcontractor where both proposed the same subcontractor).

   LLH also complains that Alpha-Omega has "engaged in illegal or otherwise
   tortious collusive activities" by seeking to employ LLH's employees, where
   those employees allegedly have employment terms with LLH that would
   prohibit employment by Alpha-Omega. Protest at 3-4. LLH also suggests that
   two of its former employees provided LLH proprietary information to
   Alpha-Omega, which the Air Force has failed to investigate. Protester's
   Comments at 1-3.

   LLH's unsupported allegations provide us with no basis to object to the
   agency's selection of Alpha-Omega's proposal for award. To the extent that
   LLH is complaining that its former employees violated terms of an
   employment contract between LLH and the employees, this concerns a dispute
   between private parties, which is not for our review; likewise, LLH's
   unsupported supposition that Alpha-Omega may have received LLH proprietary
   data from LLH's former employees also concerns a private dispute between
   the parties, where there is no credible allegation of government
   involvement. See Applied Comms. Research, Inc., B-270519, Mar. 11, 1996,
   96-1 CPD para. 145 at 2-3; Olin Corp.--Recon., B-252154.2, June 3, 1993,
   93-1 CPD para. 428 at 2-3.

   LLH also challenges the agency's evaluation of the firms' past
   performance, arguing the PCAG improperly reduced LLH's "high confidence"
   rating to "significant confidence." As noted above, both LLH and
   Alpha-Omega received only "high confidence" ratings from its references.
   Although the agency reduced the firms' "high confidence" ratings to
   "significant confidence," LLH was not prejudiced thereby because
   Alpha-Omega's rating was reduced for the same reasons. From our review of
   the record, we find no basis to conclude that the firms' past performance
   ratings should not be considered essentially equal. That is, the record
   supports equal ratings for the firms and does not indicate any
   discriminators in the firms' respective past performance.

   In sum, the record supports the agency's selection of Alpha-Omega's
   proposal on the basis of that firm's lower proposed price, where
   Alpha-Omega's and LLH's acceptable proposals received equal past
   performance ratings.[8]

   We deny the protest.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Technical proposals were limited to "no more than 25 pages." RFP,
   amend. 1, at 24.

   [2] Where a solicitation fails to explicitly state the relative weight of
   cost in the evaluation scheme, it is presumed that cost and technical
   considerations will be accorded equal weight and importance in the
   evaluation. Meridian Corp., B-246330.3, July 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 29
   at 5.

   [3] Past performance was assessed as either (in descending order of
   quality) high confidence, significant confidence, satisfactory confidence,
   unknown confidence, little confidence, or no confidence. RFP, amend. 1, at
   26.

   [4] LLH's identified past performance concerning three Federal Supply
   Schedule task orders; a single reference responded to the agency's past
   performance questionnaire with respect to all three task orders.

   [5] LLH also complained that the agency may not have evaluated a complete
   copy of LLH's proposal because the agency initially argued in its agency
   report on the protest that LLH had not submitted resumes. The Air Force
   later admitted that it had received resumes from LLH and that the agency
   had erred when it stated in the agency report that the firm had not
   submitted resumes.

   [6] It is not clear that the RFP provided for the evaluation of resumes.
   Although the solicitation indicated that resumes could be submitted with
   technical proposals, see RFP, amend. 2, SOW, at 10, neither the proposal
   instructions nor the evaluation criteria refers to the evaluation of
   resumes or the qualifications or experience of proposed personnel. We do
   not resolve this matter, given our determination that LLH was not
   prejudiced by the agency's failure to evaluate resumes.

   [7] For the same reasons, we reject LLH argument the agency's source
   selection decision was unreasonable because the agency did not weigh the
   quality of the incumbent employees that LLH offered against Alpha-Omega's
   lower proposed price.

   [8] LLH also complains that the Air Force did not fairly consider the
   protester's agency-level protest. Our bid protest jurisdiction is limited
   to review of whether an agency's procurement actions complied with
   procurement statutes and regulations, 31 U.S.C. sections 3551-3552 (2000);
   the procedural fairness of an agency's review of an agency-level protest
   is not a matter within the scope of our bid protest jurisdiction.