TITLE: B-297994, Client Network Services, Inc., April 28, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297994
DATE: April 28, 2006
*******************************************************
B-297994, Client Network Services, Inc., April 28, 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: Client Network Services, Inc.

   File: B-297994

   Date: April 28, 2006

   William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., and Peter A.
   Riesen, Esq., Venable, for the protester.

   Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., and Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., Computer
   Sciences Corporation, for the intervenor.

   Lee Wolanin, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.

   David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal under staffing factor
   evaluation where proposal did not meet solicitation's formatting
   requirements with respect to page limits and font size; offerors are
   required to prepare their proposals within format limitations established
   in solicitation, and assume risk that proposal pages beyond limits will
   not be evaluated or that proposal will otherwise be downgraded.

   DECISION

   Client Network Services, Inc. (CNSI) protests the Department of
   Transportation's award of a contract to Computer Sciences Corporation
   (CSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTRT57-05-R-20106, for on-site
   Transportation Information Project Support (TRIPS) services at the Volpe
   National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. CNSI
   challenges the evaluation of proposals and the cost/technical tradeoff.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated award of a predominantly cost-plus-award-fee,
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, with a transition period
   of up to 90 days and a 5-year base period, to furnish information systems
   (IS) and information technology (IT) professional services in support of a
   variety of Volpe Center transportation and logistics projects. The TRIPS
   contractor is expected to support approximately 75 to 100 projects (on
   behalf of approximately 20 sponsor organizations) with strategic and
   detailed technology assessments, requirements analysis, concept
   development, architecture design and alternatives analysis, software
   development, test and integration, system training, system maintenance,
   and system operational support for both transportation and logistics
   management IS. Determination to Continue Contract Performance at 2; RFP
   sect. C.4, at 16.

   The solicitation established detailed education and experience
   requirements for the types of personnel typically furnished in support of
   Volpe Center projects. In addition, the solicitation required offerors to
   propose and furnish resumes for several personnel--a transition manager, a
   program manager, contract management and administration personnel, and 22
   IS specialists in six labor categories--that "demonstrate the
   qualifications of the Offeror's proposed personnel in terms of its
   technical expertise, experience, education, capabilities, and
   accomplishments relevant to the functional area requirements of this
   contract." RFP sect. L.5.B, at 83.

   Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was
   determined to "provide the greatest overall value to the Government" based
   on consideration of cost (including probable cost, consistency between
   technical and cost proposals, compensation of professional employees, and
   proposed fees) and five technical evaluation factors: (1) technical
   excellence, including the offeror's understanding of the key IS issues and
   future directions, understanding of and approach to the portfolio of IS
   tasks currently performed at the Volpe Center, and understanding of the
   government's requirements as shown by the effectiveness of the offeror's
   response to four hypothetical tasks set forth in the solicitation; (2)
   management approach, including approach to managing staffing and staffing
   fluctuations; (3) transition approach; (4) staffing; and (5) past
   performance. RFP sect. M.1.A, at 111. Technical excellence and management
   approach were of equal weight; transition approach and staffing were of
   equal weight, but each was less important than either technical excellence
   or management approach; and past performance was least important. Overall,
   the technical evaluation factors when combined were significantly more
   important than cost. The technical proposals were to consist of a written
   proposal and an oral presentation. The solicitation established page
   limits for each portion of the written proposal, including the limitation
   that the "[r]esumes submitted . . . may not exceed an average of two pages
   per resume." RFP sect. L.5.A, at 72.

   Seven proposals were received, including those of CSC (the incumbent),
   CNSI, and QSS Group, Inc. Following its evaluation of the written
   proposals and oral presentations, the agency rated CSC's and QSS's
   proposals good, and CNSI's acceptable. (Of the remaining proposals, not
   relevant here, two were rated acceptable and two marginal.) The agency
   evaluated proposals as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                       |      CSC       |      QSS      |     CNSI      |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |TECHNICAL              |                |               |               |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |Technical Excellence   |  Exceptional   |     Good      |  Acceptable   |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |Management Approach    |      Good      |     Good      |  Acceptable   |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |Transition             |  Exceptional   |     Good      |     Good      |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |Staffing               |   Acceptable   |  Acceptable   |   Marginal    |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |Past Performance       |      Good      |     Good      |     Good      |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |OVERALL TECHNICAL      |      Good      |     Good      |  Acceptable   |
   |-----------------------+----------------+---------------+---------------|
   |EVALUATED COST         |   $[DELETED]   |  $[DELETED]   |  $[DELETED]   |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   The agency then performed a cost/technical tradeoff. It first compared
   CNSI's proposal, which had received the lowest technical risk rating (low)
   and had the lowest evaluated cost ($[DELETED]) among the three acceptable
   proposals, with that submitted by QSS, which was lower ranked than the
   other proposal (CSC's) rated good but which had an evaluated cost
   ($[DELETED]) which was lower than CSC's ($[DELETED]). Based on a detailed
   comparison of QSS's and CNSI's technical proposals, the evaluators
   recommended, and the source selection authority (SSA) determined, that
   QSS's proposal offered numerous technical strengths relative to CNSI's
   proposal, and that given that the solicitation indicated that the
   technical area was significantly more important than cost, these technical
   advantages warranted payment of the higher cost associated with QSS's
   proposal. The SSA then determined that the results of the tradeoff
   conducted between QSS's and CNSI's proposals "effectively eliminated all
   other offers apart from [CSC] and [QSS] . . . from further consideration
   for the purposes of determining the best value to the Government." Source
   Selection Decision (SSD) at 3; Cost/Technical Tradeoff Analysis, Dec. 16,
   2005, at 6-8.

   The agency then compared CSC's and QSS's proposals. In this regard, while
   both CSC's and QSS's technical proposals received overall good ratings,
   the agency determined that CSC's technical proposal was superior to QSS's.
   Based on a detailed comparison of CSC's and QSS's technical proposals, the
   SSA determined that CSC's proposal offered a number of technical strengths
   relative to QSS's proposal, and that these technical advantages warranted
   payment of the higher cost associated with CSC's proposal. The SSA
   thereupon determined that CSC's proposal "represents the best value to the
   Government." SSD at 3-4; Cost/Technical Tradeoff Analysis, Dec. 16, 2005,
   at 8-10. Upon learning of the resulting award to CSS, and after being
   debriefed, CNSI filed this protest with our Office.

   TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE

   The RFP required an offeror, in the technical excellence portion of its
   oral presentation, to "describe how it plans to meet the IS requirements
   of the contract and demonstrate that it has the necessary understanding,
   expertise, and experience to successfully accomplish the SOW [statement of
   work]/Section C" of the solicitation. RFP sect. L.5.B, at 85. The
   evaluated weaknesses for CNSI included, among other concerns, the
   following: (1) CNSI failed to furnish details concerning its performance
   on similar corporate IS contracts and focused instead on the individual
   capabilities and experiences of the presenters at the oral presentation,
   such that, overall, CNSI did not effectively convey its corporate
   experience; (2) CNSI did not demonstrate an understanding of, and approach
   to, the portfolio of IS tasks currently being performed at the Volpe
   Center; (3) CNSI demonstrated only a limited understanding of
   transportation and logistics issues; and (4) CNSI did not effectively
   respond to agency questions during the oral presentation regarding the
   hypothetical tasks offerors were required to address. Technical Evaluation
   Team (TET) Report at 33-39; Summary of Offeror's Proposal--CNSI at 2.

   Our Office will review an agency's evaluation of proposals to determine if
   the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP's stated
   evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.
   Independence Constr., Inc., B-292052, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 105 at
   4.

   CNSI asserts that the agency's evaluation unreasonably focused on the fact
   that the CNSI presenters at the oral presentation "referenced their own
   experience by saying `I' or `my' instead of CNSI." Protest at 7. According
   to the protester, "[c]iting CNSI for such trivialities is irrational." Id.

   This argument is without merit. As noted by the agency, and as discussed
   above, the contemporaneous evaluation documentation makes clear that the
   agency's concern in this area was not with the presenters' failure to
   refer to the company in a certain manner; rather, the agency found that
   CNSI had failed to furnish details concerning its performance on similar
   corporate IS contracts, such that, overall, CNSI had not effectively
   conveyed its corporate experience. Cost/Technical Tradeoff Analysis, Dec.
   16, 2005, at 7-8; TET Report at 34-39. Our review of the videotapes for
   CSC's and CNSI's oral presentations confirms that, while CSC, the
   incumbent contractor, cited specific experience and approaches undertaken
   at the Volpe Center and elsewhere as support for specific proposed
   approaches to contract performance, CNSI's references to experience tended
   to be more general and less closely tied to specific proposed approaches
   at the Volpe Center. CNSI has made no showing that the resulting weakness
   assigned its proposal in this area was unreasonable.

   CNSI also asserts that "so heavily weighting Sample Tasks that are based
   in large (if not whole) part on actual tasks already performed for the
   Agency by another offeror unreasonably favors CSC and prejudices CNSI."
   Protest at 7.

   We find no basis for questioning this aspect of the evaluation. The
   solicitation expressly provided that "the Offeror's understanding of the
   Government's requirements as demonstrated by the effectiveness of its
   response to the hypothetical tasks" would be equally weighted with the
   offeror's understanding of IS identified in the SOW and its understanding
   of and approach to the portfolio of IS tasks currently performed at the
   Volpe Center in the technical excellence evaluation. RFP sect. M.2.A, at
   111. CNSI has not shown that the agency assigned greater than the
   designated weight to CNSI's responses to the hypothetical tasks. Moreover,
   to the extent CNSI believed that the stated evaluation approach unfairly
   favored CSC, the incumbent contractor, we note that the RFP both generally
   described the TRIPS work within the IS functional area at the Volpe Center
   and specifically described the sample tasks. Since CNSI, which first
   raised this argument in its initial protest, has cited no other basis for
   its conclusion that the sample tasks were based on actual tasks already
   performed for the agency by CSC, we can only conclude that it first became
   aware of the basis for its protest in this regard from the solicitation.
   In these circumstances, CNSI was required to protest this alleged
   solicitation deficiency prior to the closing date for receipt of initial
   proposals. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2006). Its
   failure to do so renders its protest in this regard untimely. In summary,
   we find no basis to question the agency's overall evaluation of CNSI's
   proposal as acceptable under the technical excellence factor.

   MANAGEMENT APPROACH

   CNSI challenges several of the weaknesses assessed its proposal under the
   management approach factor, under which its proposal was rated as
   acceptable (while CSC's was rated as good). For example, one weakness
   reflected the agency's concern that CNSI's proposed contract management
   and contract administration staffing--including the number of project
   leads it intended to use--was unclear from CNSI's proposal. TET Report at
   4. CNSI asserts that the evaluation in this regard was unreasonable
   because the RFP did not include workload information; as a result, CSC,
   the incumbent, was the only offeror that could have known how many project
   leads would be required.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. The RFP required offerors to
   "[d]escribe the organizational structure for accomplishing the functions
   described in [Contract Line Item Number] 0002, Section C.3.A, Contract
   Management, of the SOW"--that is, the contract schedule item and SOW
   section encompassing the "necessary technical and administrative
   management functions required for effective contract performance"--and
   specifically required that the "[r]oles, responsibilities, lines of
   authority, and LOE [level of effort] . . . be clearly described." RFP
   sections C.3.A, at 9, L.5.A, at 78. According to the agency, an electronic
   vendor reference library made available to offerors included the
   information needed to satisfy this requirement and estimate the necessary
   staffing. If CNSI believed the reference library included insufficient
   information to ensure a fair competition, or that it otherwise was unfair
   to evaluate staffing under the circumstances here, it was required to
   protest on this ground prior to the initial closing time. 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.2(a)(2).[1]

   CNSI also challenges the agency's assessment that CNSI's proposal failed
   to demonstrate knowledge of the local job market/local availability of
   staff, claiming that this consideration amounted to application of an
   unstated evaluation factor.

   While procuring agencies are required to identify significant evaluation
   factors and subfactors in a solicitation, they are not required to
   identify every aspect of each factor that might be taken into account;
   rather, agencies reasonably may take into account considerations, even if
   unstated, that are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated
   evaluation criteria. See Ridoc Enter., Inc., B-292962.4, July 6, 2004,
   2004 CPD para. 169 at 4; Network Eng'g, Inc., B-292996, Jan. 7, 2004,
   2004 CPD para. 23 at 3.

   This aspect of the evaluation was reasonable. The SOW required the
   contractor to "maintain the necessary staffing level and labor mix to meet
   the requirements set forth in Section C and to be flexible enough to
   respond to shifts in program emphasis and direction with minimal
   downtime," and to ensure that "staff turnover is managed with minimal
   disruption to the job order effort." RFP sect. C.3.A, at 10. Further, the
   solicitation required offerors to address in their written proposals and
   oral presentations their approach to addressing staffing fluctuations and
   contractual staffing requirements, and specifically provided for
   evaluation of "the Offeror's approach to managing staff and staffing
   fluctuations" under the management approach factor. RFP sections L.5.B, at
   78, 85, M.2.B, at 112. Since the solicitation indicated that the "vast
   majority" of the TRIPS personnel were located in Cambridge, RFP amend.
   A0001, General Questions no. 5, we think an offeror's knowledge of the job
   market and availability of staff in that general locality is reasonably
   related to its ability to managing staff and staff fluctuations so as to
   maintain the staffing level and labor mix necessary to meet the SOW
   requirements. It follows that this did not constitute application of an
   unstated evaluation factor.

   CNSI questions the assessment of a weakness with respect to its proposed
   deputy program manager, who was also proposed as an IS project manager.
   See, e.g., CNSI Technical Proposal at B-11. In this regard, the agency's
   technical evaluation team found that the "Deputy [Program Manager's]
   resume and experience reflect a business manager/finance background rather
   than IT/IS experience. This is not congruent with his role as the IS
   Project Manager." TET Report at 40. CNSI asserts that this conclusion
   overlooks the proposed individual's "experience in managing complex IS
   projects, most recently in Maine." Protest at 9.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. While the deputy program
   manager/IS project manager's resume indicated that [DELETED], it also
   apparently indicated the predominantly business orientation of his
   experience. Specifically, the resume indicated that [DELETED]. CNSI
   Technical Proposal at F-4 to F-6. While the resume indicates [DELETED],
   given the apparently business-oriented positions held from [DELETED] to
   [DELETED], we cannot conclude that the agency was unreasonable in finding
   that the individual was not the most qualified choice to act as an IS
   project manager.

   We conclude that neither CNSI's arguments discussed above, nor additional
   arguments made by CNSI and considered by our Office, furnish a basis to
   question the evaluation of CNSI's proposal as merely acceptable under the
   management approach factor.

   STAFFING

   The RFP required offerors to furnish 22 resumes for key personnel in
   six labor categories (IS project manager, subject matter expert, IS senior
   engineer, IS senior programmer, senior systems administrator and IS senior
   analyst) for whom the offeror could make a firm commitment, and specified
   that the resumes for these personnel "may not exceed an average of two
   pages per resume." RFP L.5.A.2, at 72. Inconsistent with this limitation,
   CNSI's proposal included 50 pages of resumes (plus an additional
   introductory page) documenting the qualifications of the 22 key personnel.
   Further, while the solicitation specified that the font size "shall be
   11 point proportional, averaging not more than 14 characters per inch
   (reduction is not permitted)," RFP sect. L.4.1, at 70, the agency
   determined that the majority of all of CNSI's resumes was in a smaller
   font size. Given CNSI's noncompliance with the solicitation requirements
   in this regard, and in order to mitigate or eliminate any competitive
   advantage CNSI might gain, the TET downgraded CNSI's proposal under the
   staffing factor from an initial rating of acceptable to marginal.
   Declaration of Chairman of TET, Mar. 16, 2006; see E-mail from Contracting
   Officer to Chairman of TET, July 19, 2005.

   CNSI asserts that it was arbitrary and capricious for the agency to
   downgrade its proposal for deviating from the formatting requirements.
   CNSI notes in this regard that its proposal stated that the

     resumes of our 22 proposed key staff average two pages each, in
     accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFP. For the
     convenience of the reader, CNSI has intentionally left some white space
     after the last resume within a key labor category so that the resumes
     within a different category begin on a new page, i.e., under a separate
     tab. This enhances readability and facilitates locating individual
     resumes easily, but results in an overall page count which is greater
     than 44 pages.

   CNSI Technical Proposal, sect. F.

   Offerors are required to prepare their proposals in the format established
   by the solicitation, including page and other limitations, and assume the
   risk that an agency will not evaluate proposal pages beyond the page
   limits, or take other reasonable steps to eliminate any unfair competitive
   advantage that the offeror may have gained by violating the limitations.
   See Coffman Specialties, Inc., B-284546, B-284546.2, May 10, 2000, 2000
   CPD para. 77 at 3 (agency reasonably downgraded proposal that failed to
   comply with solicitation's formatting requirements, including page limit);
   Centech Group, Inc., B-278904.4, Apr. 13, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 149 at 5.

   Here, CNSI's proposal both exceeded the 44 pages permitted for resumes for
   the 22 key personnel and used a smaller font size than permitted for most
   of each resume. While CNSI asserted in its proposal that the additional
   pages were merely the result of leaving white space after the last resume
   within a key labor category, we note that this in fact accounted for no
   more than approximately 2.3 of the 6 extra pages when counting only the
   space between the labor categories, or approximately just over 3 pages
   when including the space after the last resume in the last labor category.
   Moreover, this does not account for the fact that most of each
   resume--including, for example, over 90 percent of the deputy program
   manager/IS project manager's resume, approximately 75-80 percent of the
   other two IS project managers' resumes, and approximately 80 percent of
   one of the IS senior engineer's resumes--used a smaller font size than
   permitted by the solicitation. In these circumstances, the downgrading of
   CNSI's proposal under the staffing factor for failing to conform to the
   formatting requirements was reasonable.[2]

   COST/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

   CNSI challenges the source selection on the basis that the agency failed
   to conduct a cost/technical tradeoff between CSC's technically
   higher-rated, higher-cost proposal and CNSI's lower-rated, lower-cost
   proposal, and thus failed to consider the cost advantage offered by CNSI.

   Source selection officials have broad discretion in determining the manner
   and extent to which they will make use of the technical and cost
   evaluation results, and their judgments are governed only by the tests of
   rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria. Chemical
   Demilitarization Assocs., B-277700, Nov. 13, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 171 at
   6.

   Here, the record indicates that CNSI's low cost was taken into account in
   the source selection. As discussed above, the SSA first determined that
   QSS's proposal's technical advantages offset CNSI's lower cost, making
   QSS's the better value of the two proposals. Then, the SSA determined that
   CSC's proposal's technical advantages offset QSS's lower cost, and
   therefore represented the overall best value proposal. SSD at 4. Since the
   SSA determined that QSS's proposal was a better value than CNSI's, and
   that CSC's was a better value than QSS's, we think it follows that the
   agency effectively found that CSC's proposal was a better value than
   CNSI's, even without a direct comparison of the two.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] In its March 27 comments on the agency report, CNSI generally asserts
   that the agency should have analyzed each offeror's proposed level of
   effort in light of its proposed approach, rather than with respect to
   "some predetermined Level of Effort." CNSI Comments, Mar. 27, 2006, at 5.
   However, CNSI received the evaluation documents on March 3, so this
   argument, raised more than 10 days after CNSI learned the basis of
   protest, is untimely. 4 C.F.R. 21.2(a)(1). In any case, CNSI has made no
   showing that the agency in fact relied on a predetermined staffing level
   in questioning CNSI's staffing approach.

   [2] CNSI otherwise challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the
   staffing factor. However, it has made no showing that its proposal
   warranted a higher initial rating than acceptable, the same rating that
   was assigned CSC's proposal based on 19 of its proposed 22 key personnel
   having experience at the Volpe Center or having supported Volpe Center
   projects.