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.