TITLE: B-298020; B-298020.2, IPlus, Inc., June 5, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298020; B-298020.2
DATE: June 5, 2006
***********************************************
B-298020; B-298020.2, IPlus, Inc., June 5, 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: IPlus, Inc.

   File: B-298020; B-298020.2

   Date: June 5, 2006

   John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq.,
   and David S. Stern, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester.

   Janice Davis, Esq., Davis & Steele, for Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc.,
   an intervenor.

   David H. Turner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Agency's post-proposal submission exchanges with awardee regarding
   price proposal were clarifications rather than discussions where the
   errors corrected were obvious on the face of the awardee's proposal. Other
   exchanges with awardee that may have resulted in discussions were not
   prejudicial to protester.

   2. Agency reasonably considered experience and past performance of both
   prime and subcontractor who were participants in Small Business
   Administration 8(a) mentor-protege program.

   DECISION

   IPlus, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dynamic Systems
   Technology, Inc. (DysTech) under request for proposals (RFP)
   N00140-05-R-1526, issued by the Department of the Navy for services in
   support of the Navy College Program (NCP). The protester contends that the
   agency conducted unequal discussions, improperly evaluated offerors'
   proposals, and made an improper source selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The agency sought proposals to provide support for the NCP, which is a
   "voluntary education program" that provides assistance for active duty and
   retired military and eligible civilian personnel to pursue personal and
   professional academic development. Offerors were required to propose all
   labor, management, and supervision to perform the support services
   required for the NCP. The RFP identified three categories of personnel
   required to perform the statement of work (SOW), education advisors, test
   examiners, and call center agents. RFP at 48. The RFP anticipated the
   award of a fixed-price contract, with a base performance period of 1 year,
   with four 1-year option periods. Id. at 94. The competition was restricted
   to participants in the Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a) program
   for small, disadvantaged businesses. Id. at 80.

   The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of four
   non-price factors, each of which was of equal importance: management plan,
   technical approach, corporate experience, and past performance. RFP at 94.
   For purposes of award, the RFP stated that award would be made to the
   "responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value," and that
   "[t]he evaluation of proposals will consider the offeror's technical
   proposal more important than the offeror's price proposal." Id.

   The agency received seven proposals in response to the RFP. Agency Report
   (AR), Tab 16, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 4. The agency
   evaluated DysTech's and IPlus's proposals as the two most highly rated,
   overall, and rated them as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                          |       DysTech        |        IPlus         |
   |--------------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
   |Management Plan           |  Highly Acceptable   |      Acceptable      |
   |--------------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
   |Technical Approach        |  Highly Acceptable   |      Acceptable      |
   |--------------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
   |Corporate Experience      |      Acceptable      |      Acceptable      |
   |--------------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
   |Past Performance          |      Acceptable      |      Acceptable      |
   |--------------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
   |Overall Rating            |  Highly Acceptable   |      Acceptable      |
   |--------------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
   |Proposed Price            |     $42,870,717      |      [deleted]       |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 17, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 1-2.

   The agency determined that although IPlus had proposed a lower price, the
   technical advantages offered by DysTech's proposal outweighed the price
   differential, and therefore DysTech's proposal was selected for award. Id.
   at 8-9. Following its debriefing, IPlus filed this protest.

   EXCHANGES WITH DYNAMIC REGARDING PRICE PROPOSAL

   The protester argues that a series of exchanges between the agency and
   DysTech allowed DysTech to revise its price proposal, and that the
   exchanges constituted unequal discussions. The agency contends that it
   conducted clarifications with DysTech, rather than discussions.

   Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.306 describes a spectrum of
   exchanges that may take place between an agency and an offeror during
   negotiated procurements. Clarifications are "limited exchanges" between
   the agency and offerors that may allow offerors to clarify certain aspects
   of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors. FAR sect.
   15.306(a)(2). Discussions, on the other hand, occur when an agency
   indicates to an offeror significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other
   aspects of its proposal that could be altered or explained to enhance
   materially the proposal's potential for award. FAR sect. 15.306(d)(3).
   When an agency conducts discussions with one offeror, it must conduct
   discussions with all other offerors in the competitive range. FAR sect.
   15.305(d)(1). The "acid test" for deciding whether discussions have been
   held is whether it can be said that an offeror was provided the
   opportunity to modify its proposal. National Beef Packing Co., B-296534,
   Sept. 1, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 168 at 11; Park Tower Mgmt. Ltd., B-295589,
   B-295589.2, Mar. 22, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 77 at 7.

   Offerors were required to complete section B of the solicitation by
   submitting price information for each contract requirement line item
   number (CLIN) and sub-line item number (SubCLIN). RFP at 47. In evaluating
   DysTech's price proposal, the contracting officer determined that
   additional information was required "in order to fully analyze DysTech's
   pricing." Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The contracting officer
   states that the agency "knew exactly what [DysTech's] proposed firm-fixed
   price was for each line item of the contract," but also "believed that it
   would be prudent to seek clarification of DysTech's Price Proposal." Id.
   The agency thus contacted DysTech to ask for clarifications regarding its
   price:

     By telephone call to DysTech on or about 29 December 2005, I informed
     DysTech of our concerns and asked them to provide those clarifications.
     . . . I was quite explicit in stating that these were purely . . .
     matters of clarification, that we were not holding discussions, that we
     were not asking for final proposal revisions, and that we would not
     entertain any changes to DysTech's proposal.

   Id. at 3.

   DysTech responded to the requests for clarification via email on December
   29, 2005 and via email and hardcopy on January 19, 2006. See AR, Tabs 13
   and 14, DysTech responses. IPlus contends that, notwithstanding the
   agency's characterization of these exchanges as clarifications, DysTech
   was allowed to revise its proposal and that, therefore, the agency engaged
   in discussions with the awardee. Because the protester was not given a
   similar opportunity for discussions, IPlus contends that the award to
   DysTech was improper. We review the three areas where exchanges took place
   below.[1]

   (1) SubCLIN totaling errors

   The summary chart in DysTech's proposal identified a total price of
   $42,276,769.50. AR, Tab 8, DysTech Proposal Vol. II, at summary appendix.
   CLIN prices were intended to be a summary of the SubCLIN prices; the
   agency's calculation of all CLIN prices in DysTech's proposal also yielded
   a total of $42,276,769.50. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The
   agency's total of the SubCLIN prices, however, yielded a price of
   $42,870,717.86.[2] Id.

   The agency believed that the higher SubCLIN totals were DysTech's intended
   proposal price: "Because billing under the Contract would reflect SubCLIN
   pricing, we believed that the SubCLIN pricing accurately reflected
   DysTech's intended Contract pricing as, in fact, the SubCLIN pricing was
   the pricing that the Navy would be required to pay." Contracting Officer's
   Statement at 3.

   The agency requested that DysTech clarify the apparent errors in adding
   the SubCLIN amounts. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. DysTech
   addressed the error by providing a summary chart that recalculated the
   total contract price by adding all of the SubCLIN amounts. AR, Tab 14,
   Email from DysTech to Contracting Officer, Dec. 29, 2005. The agency
   viewed the submission by DysTech as verifying that the $42,870,717.86
   amount was correct.[3]

   IPlus contends that the exchanges between the agency and DysTech allowed
   DysTech to revise its price proposal, and that, therefore, discussions
   took place. An agency may allow an offeror to correct a clerical error in
   a cost or price proposal through clarifications, as opposed to
   discussions, where the existence of the mistake and the amount intended by
   the offeror is clear from the face of the proposal. Joint Threat Servs.,
   B-278168, B-278168.2, Jan. 5, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 18 at 12-13. The record
   here shows that the agency believed that the $42,870,717.86 amount
   reflected the addition of the SubCLIN amounts, and DysTech's response to
   the agency's question confirmed that figure. The record further shows that
   none of DysTech's SubCLIN prices changed as the result of the
   clarification of the CLIN totals. Furthermore, the exchange resulted in
   the agency confirming a higher price for DysTech under this fixed-price
   contract. Under these circumstances, we believe that this exchange did not
   constitute discussions, but rather was a clarification of an obvious
   error. See Joint Threat Servs., supra.

   (2) CLIN No. 4

   The agency requested that DysTech address what the agency believed was a
   mistakenly listed entry in its CLIN pricing. Offerors were instructed not
   to provide a price for CLIN No. 4, which was for data in support of CLINS
   0001 and 0002: "This CLIN is Not-Separately-Priced (NSP)." RFP at 10.
   DysTech, however, listed in its proposal a price of $[deleted] for CLIN
   No. 4. Although DysTech listed this price for CLIN No. 4, the accompanying
   narrative text repeated the RFP language that the CLIN was
   "Not-Separately-Priced." AR, Tab 8, DysTech Proposal Vol. II, at 15. The
   agency noted that the $[deleted] value was the sum of the values for CLINs
   0001 and 0002. See id. at 13-14. Based on these two indicia, the agency
   believed that the $[deleted] price for CLIN No. 4 had been listed in
   error, and requested that DysTech clarify that this CLIN was not intended
   to be priced: "[W]e believed that that amount was mistakenly listed next
   to CLIN 0004. However, I wished to confirm that that amount was not
   intended to be part of DysTech's price." Contracting Officer's Statement
   at 3.

   During the contracting officer's December 29, 2005 call, DysTech confirmed
   that the $[deleted] amount for CLIN No. 4 had been listed in error.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. IPlus contends that DysTech's
   response constituted discussions because it resulted in a $[deleted]
   reduction to DysTech's proposed price.

   Here, the record shows that DysTech's proposed overall price did not
   change. The approximately $[deleted] value for CLIN No. 4 was not included
   in the bottom-line price for DysTech's proposal; that is, the sum of all
   CLINs, excluding CLIN No. 4, yields a price of approximately $42 million,
   and not $[deleted]. Thus, DysTech's confirmation that CLIN No. 4 should
   have been unpriced did not change the overall price of approximately $42
   million. As noted above, the overall price was inaccurately totaled by
   DysTech in its proposal price summary; the corrected amount as calculated
   by the agency and confirmed by DysTech is consistent with the exclusion of
   the $[deleted] price for CLIN No. 4. Thus both the existence of an error
   and the intended bid was apparent from the face of the proposal.[4] See
   CIGNA Gov't Servs., LLC, May 04, 2006, B-297915.2, 2006 CPD para. __ at 9.
   Under these circumstances, we believe that this exchange did not
   constitute discussions, but rather was a clarification of an obvious
   error. See Joint Threat Servs., supra.

   (3) Backup data

   Finally, IPlus contends that the agency improperly allowed DysTech to
   revise its proposal by providing backup data regarding labor rates that
   were not included in DysTech's original proposal. The RFP stated that
   offerors were required to provide "[s]upporting data including labor rates
   and hours, burdened rates, material lists and costs, travel changes, and
   `other direct' costs used in developing the price." RFP at 93. Although
   DysTech had provided backup data for its other labor categories, there
   were no similar data for the test examiner position. The contracting
   officer concluded that, "while the pricing for test examiners was clearly
   stated and did not appear out of line, I believed that it would be helpful
   to have DysTech clarify its pricing further by providing that additional
   back-up information." Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. DysTech
   provided the data in response to the agency's request via email and hard
   copy delivery. See AR, Tab 15, DysTech Supplemental Price Data. The agency
   concluded that "[t]he totals for that breakdown corresponded with the
   pricing totals that had already been provided in DysTech's price proposal
   and did not revise its proposed firm-fixed pricing." Contracting Officer's
   Statement at 4.

   Unlike the other two exchanges between DysTech and the agency, this
   exchange appears to have constituted discussions. The exchange allowed
   DysTech to revise its proposal by submitting the required backup data that
   the agency believed was necessary to confirm DysTech's price. Nonetheless,
   >because the discussions related to backup data for a fixed-price labor
   rate, as opposed to the rates themselves or any other deficiency, we do
   not believe that, on this record, IPlus was prejudiced by the agency's
   actions. Even where an agency conducts discussions with an offeror that
   are required to make that awardee's proposal acceptable, we will not
   sustain a protest unless the agency's actions were prejudicial to the
   protester. USATREX Int'l, Inc., B-275592, B-275592.2, Mar. 6, 1997, 98-1
   CPD para. 99. Here, DysTech did not change any of its labor rates, nor did
   its proposed fixed price change as the result of this submission of data.
   While the backup data submitted by DysTech may have been required by the
   solicitation, there is no basis in the record to believe that this
   information had any material impact on the evaluation of DysTech's
   proposal or its selection for award. In this regard, the agency evaluated
   DysTech's technical proposal, and, as noted above, calculated DysTech's
   proposed price prior to these exchanges. In sum, we find no basis on this
   record to sustain the protest based on any of the exchanges between the
   agency and DysTech regarding price.

   CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE

   The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the
   offerors' corporate experience and past performance records. Both
   offerors' proposals were evaluated as "acceptable" under these evaluation
   factors. AR, Tab 17, SSD, at 1-2. Our Office examines an agency's
   evaluation of offerors' experience and past performance records to ensure
   that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria
   and applicable statutes and regulations; however, the necessary
   determinations regarding the relative merits of offerors' past performance
   records are primarily matters within the contracting agency's discretion.
   Prudent Techs., Inc., B-297425, Jan. 5, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 16 at 4. In
   this regard, our Office will not question an agency's determinations
   absent evidence that those determinations are unreasonable or contrary to
   the stated evaluation criteria. Id.

   For the corporate experience factor, offerors were required to
   "demonstrate either similar or directly related work experience of similar
   size, scope, magnitude and complexity to the statement of work (SOW)" by
   addressing "history, organization, qualifications and work experience
   within the last 5 years as they related to the requirements of the SOW,
   and any other information the offeror considers relevant to the SOW." RFP
   at 92. For past performance, offerors were required to describe
   performance "on similar contracts it has held within the last five (5)
   years which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which
   is detailed in the RFP." Id.

   IPlus's Corporate Experience and Past Performance

   In its proposal, IPlus did not identify any corporate experience or past
   performance for itself; rather, it relied upon the experience and past
   performance records of its subcontractors, Manufacturing Engineering
   Systems, Inc. (MES) and NonPublic Educational Services, Inc. (NESI). AR,
   Tab 9, IPlus Proposal Vol. I, at 28-29. IPlus contends that the agency's
   evaluation failed to give it adequate credit for the information submitted
   regarding its subcontractors. In particular, IPlus argues that the agency
   should have given it a higher evaluation rating because one of the
   subcontractors, MES, was IPlus's mentor under the SBA mentor-protege
   program for 8(a) contractors.

   As an initial matter, the agency notes that IPlus's proposal represented
   that a mentor-protege relationship existed between IPlus and MES when, in
   fact, the SBA had not granted final approval of the mentor-protege
   agreement (MPA).[5] IPlus's proposal stated:

     IPLUS is a certified 8(a) company and protege firm of MES, as defined in
     our Mentor-Protege Agreement (MPA) in accordance with U.S. Small
     Business Administration (SBA) guidelines. [deleted]

   AR, Tab 9, IPlus Proposal Vol. I, at 2.

   During its evaluation of proposals, the agency attempted to verify the
   status of the MPA. The SBA advised the agency that although "informal
   approval" had been granted to the MPA, there had been no formal, written
   approval at that time. AR, Tab 12, IPlus Technical Evaluation, at 2. The
   agency concluded that the inaccurate representation of the status of the
   MPA in IPlus's proposal was evidence of a performance risk:

     Therefore, it is evident that the IPLUS MPA is pending, but has not been
     officially approved. The TEB [technical evaluation board] recognizes the
     offeror, IPLUS, submitted their proposal prior to receiving but with the
     expectation of official approval of their Mentor-Protege status.
     However, as of the date of this evaluation, IPLUS does not officially
     hold the MPA status that they claim to hold, which is seen by the TEB as
     an increased risk to successful contract performance because this is
     another example of the offeror's performance of providing minimal effort
     to meet requirements.

   Id.

   IPlus acknowledges that, at the time its proposal was submitted, the SBA
   had not formally approved the relationship. Protester's Comments at 13.
   IPlus argues, however, that the SBA had "informally" approved the
   relationship and had "said that IPlus could use the MPA and mentor-protege
   relationship in its federal government proposals." Id., Exh. A, Decl. of
   IPlus President, at 1. Regardless of what IPlus now argues it was advised
   on an informal basis by the SBA, IPlus did not explain the distinction
   between a formal and informal approval status in its proposal. Thus, when
   the agency investigated the status of the MPA with the SBA, it found that
   IPlus did not have an approved MPA.[6] We believe that the agency was
   reasonably concerned that IPlus had not accurately explained the approval
   status of its MPA.

   Contrary to the protester's assertion, the agency did credit IPlus with
   the past performance and experience of its subcontractors:

     IPLUS was rated as Acceptable for the Corporate Experience (CE) factor .
     . . . Being a relatively newly established company, IPLUS's technical
     proposal did not address their history, organization, qualifications or
     work experience within the last five years as it relates to the SOW. . .
     . IPLUS's technical proposal also details its teaming relationship with
     the team of MES and NESI, the contractors currently supporting the NCP
     program. Based on the fact that both MES and NESI will share some of the
     program management responsibilities . . . their experience in supporting
     the NCP requirement under those contracts is considered relevant
     experience of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to the current RFP
     requirements. . . .

     IPLUS's technical proposal was rated as Acceptable for . . . Past
     Performance (PP). As a recently established company, IPLUS did not list
     any directly related PP. However, its team-members MES and NESI clearly
     demonstrated past-performance experience that was of similar scope,
     magnitude and complexity to the RFP requirements under such contracts as
     . . . the current NCP contracts.[7]

   AR, Tab 17, SSD, at 4.

   IPlus next argues that its subcontractor's past performance and corporate
   experience records should have been rated higher by the agency. IPlus
   contends that, as the incumbent contractors proposed to perform work under
   the contract, MES and NESI should have received "highly acceptable" scores
   for corporate experience and past performance, and that those scores
   should have been credited to IPlus's proposal because of the MPA between
   IPlus and MES.

   As discussed above, the agency did credit IPlus with the experience and
   past performance of its subcontractors. There is no requirement, however,
   that an agency must directly "credit" or otherwise substitute a
   subcontractor/mentor's experience or past performance for a prime
   contractor/protege that lacks past performance of its own.[8] Instead, an
   agency may consider the prime contractor/protege's lack of experience and
   past performance and balance that information against the
   subcontractor/mentor's experience and past performance.[9] J.A. Farrington
   Janitorial Servs., B-296875, Oct. 18, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 187 at 5. In
   J.A. Farrington, our Office held that an agency may reasonably determine
   that a prime contractor who lacks past performance of its own warrants a
   "confidence" rating, as opposed to a higher rating, given that it would be
   the entity responsible for performing the contract, even where its mentor
   or subcontractor has "considerable positive past performance." Id.

   As to the actual ratings, the agency evaluated IPlus's corporate
   experience as "acceptable." AR, Tab 17, SSD, at 4. The agency noted that
   MES and NESI had "relevant experience of similar scope, magnitude, and
   complexity to the current RFP requirements" based on their performance of
   the current contract for the NCP. AR, Tab 17, SSD, at 4. The agency also
   noted that IPlus's proposed personnel had relevant experience based on
   their prior work for the subcontractors under the current NCP contract.
   Id. at 5. Despite the relevant experience of its subcontractors, however,
   the agency believed that IPlus's lack of corporate experience was a
   concern that had to be considered in evaluating the proposal as a whole:
   "Even though IPLUS has proposed both incumbent contractors to perform
   portions of the solicitation's requirements the fact that IPLUS has no
   corporate experience of its own precludes a higher-than-acceptable rating
   in this factor." AR, Tab 17, SSD, at 4. The agency was not required to
   ignore IPlus's lack of corporate experience or substitute its
   subcontractors' experience. J.A. Farrington, supra, at 5. We therefore
   conclude that the agency's evaluation of IPlus corporate experience was
   reasonable.

   The agency also evaluated IPlus's past performance record as "acceptable."
   AR, Tab 17, SSD, at 4. IPlus's proposal cited five contract references,
   two for MES and three for NESI. AR, Tab 9, IPlus Proposal Vol. I, at
   28-29. Of these five references, both of MES's references were for
   performance of the current NCP contract requirements; two of NESI's
   references were for performance of the current contract requirements as a
   subcontractor to MES, and a third NESI reference was as a prime contractor
   under a Department of Education contract. Id. The agency concluded that
   MES was performing contract requirements "identical" to those in the RFP,
   but that, in addition to positive remarks, the past performance ratings
   also contained negative comments regarding the quality of MES's
   performance, with ratings ranging from "exceptional to unsatisfactory."
   AR, Tab 12, IPlus Technical Evaluation, at 4-5. For example, the past
   performance references for MES noted a lack of supervision of staff
   activities: "Only when the government notified them that there were
   problems such as time and attendance or work priorities did they become
   aware of the problems." Id. at 4. Additionally, a member of the evaluation
   team who was familiar with MES's performance under the current contract
   noted "a history of high turnover/retention." Id. For NESI, the agency
   concluded that its performance of certain requirements as a subcontractor
   to MES under the current NCP contract did not involve enough work for the
   entire reference to be considered relevant. For the Department of
   Education contract, the agency concluded that NESI's performance was of
   "somewhat similar scope," with "good to exceptional" ratings. Id.

   The protester argues that the agency improperly focused on MES's
   performance problems and did not give adequate credit to the quality of
   that company's past performance. As with the corporate experience
   evaluation, the protester also objects to the agency's determination that
   IPlus could not merit a "highly acceptable" rating based on the
   evaluations of its subcontractors, alone, in light of the fact that IPlus
   had no past performance of its own. Id. We believe that the agency's
   evaluation of the proposed subcontractors' past performance references, in
   conjunction with its concern regarding IPlus's lack of past performance,
   was reasonable, and that the protester provides no basis to challenge the
   agency's determination that its proposal warranted an "acceptable" rating,
   aside from disagreement as to the overall resulting score. A protester's
   mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation of past performance is not
   sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Chenega Tech.
   Prods., LLC, B-295451.5, June 22, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 123 at 3-4.

   >

   DysTech's Past Performance and Corporate Experience

   IPlus next contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated DysTech's past
   performance and experience as "acceptable." As was the case with its
   evaluation of IPlus's proposal, the agency evaluated both DysTech's own
   corporate experience and past performance, as well as that of its
   subcontractor, ESI. AR, Tab 12, DysTech Technical Evaluation, at 5-8.
   Although the protester argues that the agency unreasonably considered the
   scope and size of the experience and past performance references as
   similar to the RFP requirements, the agency considered all of the
   objections that the protester raises in its protest. For example, the
   agency addressed the fact that although the past performance ratings for
   DysTech ranged "from very good to excellent," certain of the past
   performance references were for contracts of smaller magnitude than that
   called for in the RFP. AR, Tab 12, DysTech Technical Evaluation, at 8. We
   believe that the agency reasonably evaluated DysTech's proposal as
   acceptable under both the corporate experience and past performance
   evaluation factors. To the extent that IPlus argues that the awardee's
   ratings should have been lower, the protester's disagreement with the
   agency's evaluation of DysTech's experience and past performance provides
   no basis to challenge the evaluation. Chenega Tech. Prods., supra, at 3-4.

   TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   The protester next contends that the agency conducted an improper
   technical evaluation of both offerors' proposals. In reviewing a procuring
   agency's evaluation of an offeror's technical proposal, our role is
   limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
   the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. L-3
   Communications Westwood Corp., B-295126, Jan. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 30
   at 5.

   As a preliminary matter, IPlus alleges that the agency's evaluation was
   flawed because it placed a high value on proposal elements that exceeded
   the RFP's minimum requirements. IPlus argues that such an evaluation
   approach was improper because the RFP did not disclose that the agency
   would so heavily favor proposals that exceeded the RFP requirements,
   arguing that "[i]f offerors had known that the Navy's primary focus was on
   innovations and creative approaches versus addressing the Navy's Section M
   criteria, offerors, including IPlus, would have written their proposals
   differently to focus on those issues." Supplemental Protest at 10. This
   argument is without merit. Where, as here, a solicitation provides for
   award on a best-value basis, an agency may reasonably assess as a proposal
   advantage the manner in which a proposal exceeds the minimum requirements
   of the solicitation. See, e.g., American Material Handling, Inc.,
   B-297536, Jan. 30, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 28 at 4. An agency's judgments
   regarding the degree to which offerors exceed a solicitation's minimum
   requirements are the essence of any price/technical tradeoff. F2W-WSCI,
   B-278281, Jan. 14, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 16 at 7-8. In such procurements,
   evaluation strengths properly may be found where a proposal includes
   enhancements or features not expressly identified in the solicitation,
   provided the strength is consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.
   SGT, Inc., B-294722.4, July 28, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 151 at 12.

   DysTech's Management Plan and Technical Approach

   With regard to the agency's evaluation of DysTech's management plan and
   technical approach, IPlus contends that the agency improperly evaluated
   DysTech's proposal by awarding scores of "highly acceptable" under these
   factors for proposal strengths that IPlus contends were merely those
   "expected of a reasonable competent offeror." Supp. Protest at 14. The
   only example cited by the protester, however, is DysTech's proposal for a
   "recognition program" intended to provide incentives to employees.
   Although the protester contends that IPlus provided a similar benefit, the
   evaluation record demonstrates that the agency reasonably identified
   strengths in DysTech's detailed approach to employee incentives that the
   agency believed "caters specifically to the objectives of the Navy's
   Voluntary Education program and the services required in the RFP." AR, Tab
   12, DysTech Technical Evaluation, at 2. In contrast, the agency concluded
   that IPlus's management plan adequately addressed recruitment of
   personnel, but did not adequately address retention or prevention of
   turnover. AR, Tab 17, SSD, at 4. In the agency's direct comparison of the
   offerors, the agency explained that DysTech's proposal's greater detail in
   addressing staff retention and its management organization warranted
   higher evaluation scores as compared to IPlus's proposal. Id. at 6.

   The protester also contends that DysTech intended to rely too heavily on
   hiring of the incumbent contractor staff. In its protest, IPlus contends
   that "[i]n an email dated February 22, 2006, Dynamic System's Program
   Manager/Vice President of Sales and Marketing [] stated that Dynamic
   Systems plans to `extend an offer of employment to every incumbent
   contractor employee.'" Protest at 11. IPlus contends that this email
   indicated that DysTech intended to hire all incumbent staff "without
   regard to qualifications, interview or other review," and should have
   raised questions regarding DysTech's management plan and technical
   approach. Id. The protester, however, has never provided a copy of this
   email. Furthermore, the date of the alleged email was after award, and the
   protester fails to explain how the email could have been relevant to the
   agency's evaluation of the proposals. In any event, DysTech's proposal
   specifically stated that "[deleted]," and explains that its proposed
   approach involves "[deleted]." AR, Tab 7, DysTech Proposal Vol. I, at 4.

   On this record, we believe that the agency's evaluation of DysTech's
   proposal under these factors was reasonable, and IPlus provides no basis
   to challenge the agency's evaluation.

   IPlus's Management Plan

   IPlus argues that the agency improperly concluded that it had proposed too
   many individuals for its management team:

     [W]ith the combination of three organizations [IPLUS and its
     subcontractors], the total number on the corporate management team is
     [deleted] individuals. [Deleted] of these will be utilized in day-to-day
     activities as they accomplish the required services. The TEB considers
     these high numbers of corporate management personnel to be excessive for
     effective management.

   AR, Tab 12, IPlus Technical Evaluation, at 1.

   IPlus argues that the agency should not have criticized this approach,
   because the additional management personnel should have been deemed a
   strength, rather than a liability. We believe that the agency's concern
   was reasonable, as it related to the effectiveness and efficiency of
   IPlus's management structure. The protester's disagreement provides no
   basis to challenge this assessment. Kay & Assocs., supra, at 4.

   IPlus also alleges that the agency improperly considered the company's
   past performance in evaluating its management plan for retention of
   personnel. The agency concluded as follows:

     Problems encountered under the current NCP contracts illustrate that
     maintaining adequate staff levels and avoiding excessive turnover are
     areas of great importance and risk in a requirement requiring worldwide
     staffing. High turnover causes loss of productivity, both for the
     contractor and the government. The TEB noted the offeror's proposal
     fails to provide an adequate plan indicating how they will prevent
     excessive staff turnover. Under Risk Mitigation, IPLUS addresses Filling
     Staff Vacancies, but it fails to provide any examples of previous
     successful risk mitigation methods it has used to prevent staff
     vacancies. The TEB realizes that IPLUS has been recently established and
     might not have examples to provide, however, many portions of the
     proposal do discuss the IPLUS team with references to MES and NESI
     activities under their current contracts. Therefore, the lack of
     examples describing previous successful avoidance techniques to prevent
     staff turnover demonstrates a weakness in their management plan. IPLUS
     lists the only risk to their management plan is filling staff vacancies
     and staff absences, however, they fail to address the need to maintain
     staff once they are hired.

   AR, Tab 12, IPlus Technical Evaluation, at 1.

   IPlus argues that because the current contract was performed by its
   subcontractors MES and NESI, the agency had improperly applied past
   performance information in the evaluation of the management plan. We
   disagree. An agency may reasonably take into account its own experience
   and knowledge with a particular proposal approach in assessing whether
   that approach will likely succeed in the performance of contract
   requirements. Arctic Slope World Servs., Inc., B-284481, B-284481.2, Apr.
   27, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 75 at 7. Here, the agency could reasonably
   consider the degree to which IPlus's proposal addressed or failed to
   address retention issues in its plan. In any event, the agency's criticism
   did not state that the IPlus's proposal was weak based solely on prior
   failures by IPlus's subcontractors; rather, the agency stated that IPlus's
   proposal did not adequately describe prior successful risk mitigation
   methods. AR, Tab 12, IPlus Technical Evaluation, at 1; Tab 17, SSD, at 4.
   This protest ground is therefore without merit.[10]

   SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

   IPlus finally argues that the agency's best value tradeoff and source
   selection decision were flawed because of the alleged errors discussed
   above, and because the agency failed to give more weight to factors IPlus
   contends made its proposal superior to DysTech's. As discussed above, we
   find that there is no basis to challenge the agency's evaluation of
   proposals. Furthermore, IPlus has not set forth any persuasive challenges
   to the source selection; at best, IPlus expresses disagreement with the
   agency's determination that features in DysTech's more highly-rated,
   higher-priced proposal merited selection for award over IPlus's lower
   technically-rated, lower-priced proposal.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] IPlus contends that DysTech and the agency understood DysTech's
   responses to the requests for clarification to be, in fact, proposal
   revisions in response to discussion questions. In its email responding to
   the agency's request for information, DysTech stated: "Per your
   instruction, I've revised our price (see attached)." AR, Tab 14, Email
   from DysTech to Contracting Officer, Dec. 29, 2005. Our review of this
   matter, however, focuses on the substance of the exchanges, rather than
   the parties' characterizations. As discussed below, we believe that there
   is no basis to sustain the protest with regard to this issue.

   [2] The protester does not challenge the agency's calculations of the CLIN
   and SubCLIN amounts; rather, its protest challenges only whether the
   agency improperly conducted discussions.

   [3] DysTech's response actually showed a total of $42,870,711.90. AR, Tab
   14, Email from DysTech to Contracting Officer, Dec. 29, 2005, at attach.
   1. As noted above, the agency concluded that the sum of the SubCLIN
   amounts yielded a total of $42,870,717.86; the agency viewed DysTech's
   response as confirming this amount and relied on it in the SSD. See AR,
   Tab 17, SSD, at 1. The agency notes that the $5.96 difference resulted
   from "rounding variations." Agency Supp. Memorandum of Law, at 8. We view
   this discrepancy as immaterial.

   [4] Although the protester raises the argument regarding discussions only
   with regard to CLIN No. 4, DysTech in fact repeated this error in the
   corresponding CLINs for the option years, e.g., CLINs Nos. 9, 14, 19, and
   24. The protester does not challenge the agency's evaluation with regard
   to these other CLINs. To the extent that DysTech's proposal contains
   additional examples of this error, we view them as further support for the
   agency's view that the mistake was apparent from the face of the proposal.
   See Agency Supp. Memorandum of Law, at 31 n.22.

   [5] The SBA mentor-protege program is designed to encourage approved
   mentors to provide various forms of assistance (i.e., technical and
   contract management assistance, financial aid in the form of equity
   investments and/or loans, and subcontract support) to eligible protege
   participants in order to enhance the capabilities of the proteges and to
   improve their ability to successfully compete for federal contracts. The
   amount of work performed by a protege under this type of arrangement is
   governed by a written agreement between the protege and mentor, which is
   approved by the SBA. For a detailed discussion of this program, see 8(a)
   Business Development Mentor-Protege Program, available at:
   http://www.sba.gov/8abd/indexmentorprogram.html.

   [6] IPlus states that the SBA approved the MPA on September 21, 2006,
   nearly two months after its proposal was submitted and approximately three
   weeks after the agency inquired to the SBA regarding the status of the
   MPA. See Protester's Supp. Comments, Exh. A, Decl. of IPlus President, at
   1. The protester argues that the agency could have made additional,
   subsequent inquiries to the SBA to determine whether the MPA had been
   approved. We do not believe that, under these circumstances, the agency
   was required, after first learning that the there was not a formally
   approved mentor-protege relationship, to inquire further. IPlus
   represented in its proposal that it had an MPA, but did not clarify that
   the MPA had only been informally, as opposed to formally, approved.
   Offerors are required to submit adequately written proposals, and an
   offeror who does not accurately represent facts or fails to submit
   complete information runs the risk that its proposal will be evaluated
   unfavorably. See Standard Communications, Inc., B-296972, Nov. 1, 2005,
   2005 CPD para. 200 at n.2.

   [7] IPlus also contends that the agency's characterization of the company
   as a "newly established company" was unreasonable. IPlus contends that
   "IPlus was incorporated in 1994," and that "[t]he company is approximately
   12 years old." Protester's Comments at 11. As discussed above, however,
   IPlus did not identify any corporate experience or past performance within
   the relevant period of time identified in the solicitation. Thus,
   regardless of the characterization of the IPlus as "newly formed," IPlus
   did not identify any basis for the agency to credit the company with any
   corporate experience or past performance of its own.

   [8] Indeed, there are instances where it would be inappropriate for an
   agency to give a protege prime contractor credit for its mentor
   subcontractor's past performance or experience. For example, under a past
   performance criterion regarding management of subcontractors, an agency
   cannot reasonably credit a small business protege prime contractor with
   the past performance of its large business mentor subcontractor if the
   evaluation criterion is meant to measure the prime contractor's ability to
   supervise and control the subcontractor's performance. See Accurate
   Automation Corp., B-292403, B-292403.2, Sept. 10, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 186
   at 8.

   [9] The protester also claims that the SBA regulations regarding MPA
   require agencies to substitute a mentor's experience and past performance
   for a protege who lacks such references. The relevant SBA regulations,
   however, are silent as to the evaluation of proposals in the manner
   suggested by IPlus. See 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.520.

   [10] The protester has also raised other objections to the agency's
   evaluation of the offerors' proposals. We have reviewed all of the issues
   identified by the protester, and do not find any to have merit.