TITLE: B-298077, Critical Incident Solutions, LLC, May 30, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298077
DATE: May 30, 2006
********************************************************
B-298077, Critical Incident Solutions, LLC, May 30, 2006
Decision
Matter of: Critical Incident Solutions, LLC
File: B-298077
Date: May 30, 2006
Robert L. Ford for the protester.
Davis Young, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably determined that the protester's quotation was
unacceptable where the required resume of the proposed planner included in
the quotation did not show that he had the required experience.
DECISION
Critical Incident Solutions, Inc. (CIS) protests the award of a contract
to Applied Marine Technology, Inc. (AMTI) under request for quotations
(RFQ) No. N00189-06-T-Z366, issued by the Department of the Navy for
non-personal exercise and training planning services required by the Naval
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Two (EODMU2).
We deny the protest.
The global presence of EODMU2 personnel, coupled with their extended,
accelerated, and unplanned deployment, have created urgent requirements in
individual and detachment pre-deployment training schedules, since the
attacks of September 11, 2001. To this end, the agency issued the RFQ,
which sought a Senior EOD Exercise and Training Planner, who was to
provide assistance with the development, coordination, execution and
documentation of the EODMU2 pre-deployment training program. The planner's
tasks include development and supervision of exercise scenarios based on
real world intelligence and events, development of training programs,
supervision of the scheduling of training areas, and drafting
post-exercise reports. RFQ at 6-7.
The RFQ was issued to five vendors holding General Services Administration
(GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts. The RFQ listed two
evaluation criteria, resumes and price. The RFQ stated that the resumes
would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, and that if the resume was
determined to "fail," then this would render the entire quotation
"unacceptable." RFQ at 4.
The RFQ's resume requirements for the proposed planner were stated as
follows:
The contractor [i.e., the planner] shall have experience in EOD
operations and the asymmetrical Improvised Explosive Device (IED)
threat. Of particular value in awarding of the contract is overseas EOD
and IED related client support in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically,
the contractor shall have experience with the Combined Exploitation
Cell, Counter-IED technology, and IED/WMD [weapons of mass destruction]
detect and defeat programs. The contractor shall also have Subject
Matter Expert (SME) reach-back capabilities to assist with technical
issues ranging from bench-level scientific and literary research to
military specialties such as Special Operations Force (SOF) and EOD. The
contractor shall have, at a minimum, 15 years experience in US Naval EOD
and have qualified as a Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Master
Technician. The contractor shall have prior experience in the field of
military training and the evaluation of EOD training operations.
RFQ at 4. The RFQ further instructed potential vendors:
Quoters are required to submit resumes on the form provided as
Attachment 1, Resume Form which will be used to assess the quoter's
capability to perform tasks described in the Statement of Work.
RFQ at 9. The resume form stated that "[r]esume length must not exceed the
provided three (3) pages (exclusive of the cover sheet)." RFQ, attach. 1,
at 2.
CIS and AMTI were the only vendors that responded to the RFQ. CIS's
quotation not only included a 4-page resume, but also 92 pages of
additional informational materials.[1] The agency determined that CIS's
quotation was technically unacceptable, based on its review of the resume,
which did not indicate that the proposed planner had the required
experience with the Combined Exploitation Cell, Counter-IED technology,
and IED/WMD detect and defeat programs; had experience in overseas EOD
operation and the asymmetrical IED threat client support in Afghanistan
and Iran; or was qualified as a Navy Master EOD Technician.
In contrast, AMTI's slightly higher-priced quotation included a 4-page
resume, from which the agency determined that the proposed planner met all
of the requirements. The agency therefore determined that AMTI represented
the best value to the government and made award to that firm. CIS then
filed this protest, challenging the agency's evaluation of the resume of
its proposed planner.[2]
The FSS program, directed and managed by GSA, gives federal agencies a
simplified process for obtaining commonly used commercial supplies and
services. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 8.402(a). Where, as
here, an agency issues an RFQ under FAR Subpart 8.4 and conducts a
competition (see FAR sect. 8.405-2), we will review the record to ensure
that the agency's evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms
of the solicitation. See RVJ Int'l, Inc., B-292161, B-292161.2, July 2,
2003, 2003 CPD para. 124 at 5. In such a competition, it is the vendor's
burden to submit a quotation that is adequately written and establishes
the merits of the quotation, or run the risk of the agency rejecting the
quotation as technically unacceptable. Verizon Fed., Inc., B-293527, March
26, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 186 at 4; Godwin Corp., B-290291, June 17, 2002,
2002 CPD para. 103 at 4.
The solicitation here included detailed requirements that a resume had to
meet to obtain an evaluation of "pass," including that the proposed
planner "shall have experience with the Combined Exploitation Cell,
Counter-IED technology, and IED/WMD detect and defeat programs." RFQ at 4.
As noted, the agency found that the resume for CIS's proposed planner did
not show this required experience. CIS, in its comments on the agency
report, does not argue that its 4-page resume listed such experience.
Instead, CIS argues that the additional information it submitted with its
quotation "implie[d] experience relative to the asymmetrical IED threat .
. . and the global war on terrorism." Protester's Comments at 4. Our
review of the record reveals that the additional materials that CIS
submitted with its quotation at best only implied the planner may have had
such experience. Based on our review, we do not find unreasonable the
agency's determination that the resume provided for CIS's proposed planner
"failed" and CIS's quotation was therefore properly rejected as
unacceptable.[3]
CIS also generally questions the agency's evaluation of the resume of
AMTI's proposed planner (which it has not seen) and speculates that AMTI's
proposed planner's resume also may not have shown the required experience.
We have reviewed the agency's evaluation of this individual's resume (in
camera due to the absence of a protective order) and have found no basis
to question the agency's evaluation in this regard.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] The protester asserts that the additional 92 pages of material should
have been considered in the evaluation. While it is not clear under the
terms of the RFQ that this material should have been considered by the
agency, the record indicates that the evaluators in fact did consider this
material in the final evaluation of the quotations.
[2] To the extent that CIS also contends that the evaluation criteria were
ambiguous because they lack "objective quantitative rating criteria for
the evaluation of the resumes," its protest is untimely and will not be
considered. Protest at 5. Protests of alleged solicitation improprieties,
to be timely, must be raised prior to the closing time for receipt of
proposals. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2006).
[3] In light of our determination that the agency reasonably concluded
that the resume of CIS's proposed planner did not show the required
experience with the Combined Exploitation Cell, Counter-IED technology,
and IED/WMD detect and defeat program, we need not address CIS's remaining
allegations regarding the agency's evaluation of the resume.