TITLE: B-297910.2; B-297910.3, Foresight Science & Technology, Inc., November 30, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297910.2; B-297910.3
DATE: November 30, 2006
*******************************************************************************
B-297910.2; B-297910.3, Foresight Science & Technology, Inc., November 30, 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: Foresight Science & Technology, Inc.

   File: B-297910.2; B-297910.3

   Date: November 30, 2006

   William W. Goodrich, Jr., Esq. and Zachary J. Stewart, Esq., Arent Fox
   PLLC, for the protester.

   David P. Metzger, Esq. and Michele Mintz Brown, Esq., Holland & Knight
   LLP, for Dawnbreaker, an intervenor.

   Sandra M. Wozniak, Esq., National Science Foundation, 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 shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent
   with the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Foresight Science & Technology, Inc. protests the selection of Dawnbreaker
   and Development Capital Networks LLC (DCN) as the successful vendors under
   request for quotations (RFQ) No. DCCA-06-0006, issued by the National
   Science Foundation (NSF) for technical assistance in commercialization
   planning for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
   Technology Transfer (STTR) phase I awardees.[1] Foresight, an incumbent
   contractor for these services, challenges the reasonableness of the
   evaluation of quotations and the agency's source selection decision.[2]

   The RFQ contemplated the issuance of one or more fixed-price delivery
   orders for a 1-year base period and two 1-year option periods, to the
   firm(s) submitting the quotation(s) providing the best value to the
   government considering technical, past performance, and price factors. RFQ
   amend. 2, at 9. The technical factor was the most important, and the
   technical and past performance factors combined were significantly more
   important than price. Id. The technical factor was composed of two
   subfactors, understanding of the statement of work/technical approach
   (worth 85 points) and personnel (worth 15 points). The understanding of
   the statement of work/technical approach subfactor was further divided
   into the following six criteria: (1) training small companies in
   commercialization planning; (2) understanding of technology transfer and
   successful commercialization in small businesses; (3) documented
   assistance process meeting phase II proposal submission deadlines; (4)
   quality and availability of mentors (with a breadth of technological
   expertise, expertise to assist with required financial analysis and
   identifying financing opportunities, market research expertise, and
   experience in developing intellectual property strategies in small
   businesses); (5) capability to staff requirements by labor category within
   the maximum $4,000 per grantee fee, with an understanding of the needs and
   assessment of phase I grantees; and (6) documented performance in
   obtaining third-party funding for small businesses. Id. at 7-8. Vendors
   were advised that, while a phase I awardee's commercialization plan would
   be critical to its phase II funding application, since most applicants do
   not receive phase II awards due to budget limitations, "[i]t is essential
   that training in the commercialization planning process be provided as
   part of the technical assistance in order for unsuccessful companies [to]
   have a planning platform for future endeavors." RFQ attach.1, at 1.[3]

   Past performance was to be evaluated for relevance to the current
   requirements. Id. at 8. For the evaluation of price, vendors were to
   provide labor rates, direct costs such as travel, applicable general and
   administrative rates, and any discounts. Id. Since maximum compensation
   was capped at $4,000 per phase I awardee, quotations were to show the
   firms' cost buildup within that budget. Id. at 9. The RFQ provided that
   pricing for the fixed-price effort would not be weighted or point scored,
   but that "resource realism and consistency to the proposed technical
   approach will be considered." Id.

   Four quotations were received and evaluated. All four vendors' quotations
   were rated excellent for past performance; each of the vendors proposed to
   perform the work at the $4,000 per client maximum. Dawnbreaker's and DCN's
   technical quotations were rated "very good" overall; the protester's and
   the other remaining vendor's quotations were rated "good." While
   Foresight's technical quotation was cited as having strengths, it was
   credited with fewer strengths than the Dawnbreaker and DCN quotations;
   additionally, while Dawnbreaker's and DCN's quotations had no significant
   weakness cited under the most important technical factor, understanding
   the statement of work/technical approach, Foresight's quotation was cited
   as having three significant weaknesses under the factor. Specifically,
   significant weaknesses were cited for the protester's failure to document
   its performance in obtaining third-party funding for small businesses, for
   not demonstrating adequate knowledge of investment resources that could
   help aspiring awardees, and for focusing its assistance program on
   securing phase II awards rather than developing a strong commercialization
   plan that will assist in securing investors for the phase I awardees.
   Additional minor strengths and weaknesses were cited for each quotation
   under the technical approach and personnel subfactors.

   The evaluators recommended Dawnbreaker and DCN for selection based on
   their technically superior quotations. The SSA, after pursuing
   clarification from the evaluators on their findings, concurred with the
   technical evaluation board's comparative analysis of the proposals and its
   selection recommendations. The SSA selected Dawnbreaker and DCN as the two
   firms providing the quotations deemed to present the best value to the
   government. This protest followed.

   Foresight challenges the evaluation of the quotations, primarily on the
   basis that the evaluators assessed weaknesses inconsistently among the
   vendors under the technical approach criterion for documented performance
   in obtaining third-party funding.[4] Foresight also challenges the
   propriety of the price evaluation. While Foresight acknowledges that all
   vendors offered the same price for the work, Foresight contends that the
   agency failed to evaluate the prices in terms of the value offered by each
   vendor's particular approach. In this regard, Foresight argues that it
   should be credited for offering additional value by providing [deleted]
   and that the DCN quotation should have been regarded as offering lesser
   value due to [deleted].

   In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source
   selections, our Office examines the record to determine whether the
   agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation
   criteria and applicable procurement laws. See Abt Assocs., Inc.,
   B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 223 at 4. It is a vendor's
   responsibility to submit an adequately written quotation that establishes
   the merits of its technical approach, see Verizon Fed., Inc., B-293527,
   Mar. 26, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 186 at 4, and a protester's mere
   disagreement with the evaluation provides no basis to question the
   reasonableness of the evaluators' judgments. See 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 a detailed record of its
   evaluation and source selection decision. Based on our review of this
   record, supported by detailed declarations from each of the evaluators and
   the SSA, and Foresight's failure to persuasively refute the justifications
   provided by the agency for the challenged evaluation findings, we see no
   basis to question the reasonableness of the evaluation or the propriety of
   the source selection.[5]

   Foresight contends that weaknesses were assessed inconsistently among the
   vendors' quotations.[6] In its comments in response to the agency's
   supplemental report, Foresight narrows this challenge to one area, the
   requirement for documented performance in obtaining third-party funding
   for small businesses. In this regard, Foresight alleges that its quotation
   was unfairly assessed a significant weakness [deleted] while Dawnbreaker's
   quotation, which the protester believes [deleted] was only assessed a
   minor weakness under the same criterion.

   Our review of the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's
   evaluation of both firms' quotations in this area. For example, we
   recognize that the protester's quotation states that [deleted]. As the
   agency points out, however, that statement does not indicate that the
   claimed commercial success specifically relates to obtaining funding from
   other sources. Additionally, while Foresight contends that the Dawnbreaker
   quotation fails to provide any documented performance in obtaining
   third-party funding for small businesses, the agency reports, and our
   review of the quotation confirms, that the quotation in fact includes some
   relevant documentation regarding, for example, [deleted]; the information
   is included in the firm's past performance quotation, while similar
   [deleted] are referenced in the firm's key personnel resumes. Since the
   agency has reasonably explained the basis for assessing a significant
   weakness for Foresight's quotation [deleted] and a minor weakness for
   Dawnbreaker [deleted], the record provides no basis to conclude that these
   challenged evaluation ratings were inconsistent or otherwise
   unreasonable.[7]

   Foresight next argues that the agency failed to perform an adequate price
   evaluation of the quotations. The protester contends that although all
   four vendors quoted the same price for the work (at the maximum of $4,000
   per phase I awardee), the agency should have considered the value of the
   services it would receive from each firm's different approach.
   Specifically, Foresight contends that it should be credited for providing
   additional value by offering [deleted]; similarly, the protester questions
   the value of DCN's quotation due to that firm's [deleted].

   The agency points out that the RFQ here did not contemplate a more
   detailed price realism analysis than was conducted for this fixed-price
   procurement. Rather, as stated above, the RFQ required that quotations be
   reviewed for compliance with the $4,000 budget cap announced in the RFQ,
   as well as for "resource realism and consistency to the proposed technical
   approach . . . ." RFP at 9. The agency reports that the prices were
   reviewed for completeness and accuracy for labor rates, as well as for the
   proposed level of effort, and that each firm's price buildup was
   considered realistic in that each included appropriate labor rates and
   skill mix, and reflected the vendor's technical approach, as well as some
   vendor discounts.

   Our review of the RFQ's price evaluation terms, the vendors' quotations,
   and the price evaluation summary provides no basis to conclude that the
   evaluation was flawed. The agency reviewed each vendor's price build-up
   using the price realism factors contained in the RFQ, and confirmed
   consistency with the vendors' proposed approaches, as called for by the
   RFQ. While Foresight suggests that the evaluation was flawed because it
   failed to consider the underlying value offered by the equally-priced
   quotations, the record does not support this position. On the contrary,
   the record shows that, as part of the technical evaluation, the agency
   considered Foresight's [deleted] and identified it as a weakness--not as
   added value--in the firm's approach. Similarly, with respect to DCN, the
   agency recognized that DCN's highly-rated technical approach involved
   [deleted], the cost of which was reflected in [deleted].[8]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The SBIR and STTR programs provide research and development funding
   awards to small businesses to undertake science/engineering research.
   Phase I awardees receive limited funding to test the scientific, technical
   and commercial merit and feasibility of a certain concept; while phase I
   awardees may apply for phase II funding to further develop the concept,
   pursuit of outside funding is also anticipated. The current RFQ provides
   technical assistance and training in commercialization planning for phase
   I awardees.

   [2] Foresight earlier protested an initial evaluation of quotations
   conducted by the agency; in response to that protest, the agency took
   corrective action by revising the solicitation and requesting revised
   proposals, and Foresight withdrew its protest. This protest concerns the
   evaluation of the revised quotations.

   [3] As an example of commercialization planning areas to be covered with
   the phase I awardees, the RFQ's statement of work incorporated an outline
   of a phase II commercialization plan for the firm's identification of
   market opportunity (including target market, growth trends, and how the
   firm planned to move beyond the agency's investment), company team
   (including capitalization and expertise), product/technology and
   competition (including customer needs and intellectual property issues),
   and a finance and revenue model (including a financial plan and plans to
   access required investment funds through other funding contacts, leads,
   relationships, and agreements).

   [4] In its protest, Foresight initially challenged the propriety of the
   weaknesses cited in its quotation at its agency debriefing, and alleged
   that agency personnel threatened the firm to dissuade it from protesting.
   In its comments, however, the protester did not respond to the merits of
   the agency's response to these challenges and instead raised new arguments
   regarding an alleged inconsistency in the evaluation of weaknesses
   assessed by the agency among the vendors' quotations. Since the protester
   failed to respond to the agency's report on the initial allegations, we
   consider them abandoned. See The Big Picture Co., Inc., B-220859.2, Mar.
   4, 1986, 86-1 CPD para. 218 at 5. The protester also failed to comment on
   the agency's response to its supplemental protest ground alleging use of
   an unstated evaluation criterion [deleted]; the allegation is similarly
   deemed abandoned. Id.

   [5]In its supplemental comments, Foresight suggests that, despite a
   detailed consensus evaluation report in the record identifying the
   quotations' strengths and weaknesses, the evaluation should be considered
   deficient since, although some evaluation worksheets show point score
   changes reflecting evaluation changes, it remains unclear whether the
   firms' overall point scores were changed after the consensus review to
   reflect any adjustments to an individual evaluator's evaluation
   worksheets. We see no reason to question the source selection on this
   basis, however, since point scores are merely guides to agency
   decisionmaking and do not mandate automatic selection of a particular
   proposal. Rather, the propriety of a comparative evaluation and source
   selection turns on the reasonableness of the evaluation findings regarding
   the differences in technical merit and what the differences mean in terms
   of performance of the required work, despite point scores and adjectival
   ratings assigned. See Calspan Corp., B-255268, Feb. 22, 1994, 94-1 CPD
   para. 136 at 10.

   [6] In its supplemental protest, for instance, Foresight generally
   contends that the DCN quotation should be assessed a significant weakness
   to reflect one evaluator's initial concern about the firm's understanding
   of the work. In the supplemental agency report, however, the evaluator
   explained that after the consensus evaluation, she no longer questioned
   DCN's understanding of the work, since it became clear to her that
   [deleted]. The protester provides no further support to question the
   reasonableness of the evaluator's determination. On this record we have no
   basis to question the evaluation.

   [7] For the first time in its supplemental comments, the protester also
   alleges that it was unreasonable to credit DCN with [deleted]. As an
   initial matter, we note that the protest allegation is untimely, as the
   protester was provided the DCN quotation and full evaluation record more
   than 10 days before it lodged this additional allegation. See Bid Protest
   Regulations, 4 C.F.R sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2006). In any event, the record
   supports the reasonableness of the favorable evaluation [deleted].

   [8] Foresight also challenges the sufficiency of the SSA's source
   selection decision, arguing that the SSA's concurrence with the technical
   evaluation board's recommendation for award is insufficient to show an
   independent assessment of the merits of the quotations. Given the detail
   of the technical evaluation board's comparative assessment of the
   quotations, presented to and reviewed by the SSA along with the price
   evaluation summary, as well as the SSA's requests for and consideration of
   clarifications from the board, we cannot agree with the protester that the
   fact that the SSA adopted the board's findings indicates that he failed to
   exercise his independent judgment in the source selection. The SSA simply
   exercised his judgment based on his review of the technical evaluation
   board's findings. See e.g., Puglia Eng'g of California, Inc., B-297413 et
   al., Jan. 20, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 33.