TITLE: B-298436.2, Kearney & Company, October 4, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298436.2
DATE: October 4, 2006
**********************************************
B-298436.2, Kearney & Company, October 4, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Kearney & Company

   File: B-298436.2

   Date: October 4, 2006

   John R. Tolle, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, LLP, for
   the protester.

   Kacie A. Haberly, General Services Administration, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably rejected protester's quotation as technically
   unacceptable where quotation failed to provide technical/management
   information for team member under planned teaming arrangement, making it
   impossible for agency to fully evaluate quotation.

   DECISION

   Kearney & Company protests the rejection of its quotation as technically
   unacceptable under General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Supply
   Service, Services Acquisition Center, request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   XPN-B-XS014, for various financial management services for the Department
   of Homeland Security. Kearney asserts that the agency improperly evaluated
   its quotation.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued on April 28, 2006, contemplated the award of a blanket
   purchase agreement (BPA) to multiple vendors holding a GSA Federal Supply
   Schedule (FSS) contract under Schedule 520, Financial and Business
   Solutions (FABS).[1] The BPA encompassed a broad range of financial
   concepts, activities, and deliverables under schedule special item numbers
   520 11 Accounting, 520 12 Budgeting, and 520 13 Complementary Financial
   Management Services.

   Award was to be made on a "best value" basis, with evaluation factors of
   past performance, demonstrated technical/management capability,
   socioeconomic support, and price. Under the technical/management factor,
   firms were required to describe their technical approach, including
   "corporate visibility, emphasis, and involvement of the offeror in the
   effective management of work efforts, employee recruitment, pre-security
   screening of staff, and compensation and retention plans." RFQ at 10. For
   evaluation purposes, as relevant here, price was equal in weight to the
   past performance and technical/management factors combined. Award was to
   be made without discussions. The RFQ provided no specific instructions for
   responding with a contractor teaming arrangement (CTA).[2]

   Thirty-three vendors timely submitted quotations. After determining that
   four quotations were unacceptable, the agency awarded BPAs to nine firms.
   Kearney, which submitted its quotation as the "team leader" under a CTA
   with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), was informed by letter dated July 12
   that its quotation was rejected as technically unacceptable because (1) it
   lacked sufficient detail to allow for a definitive assessment under the
   demonstrated management/ technical capability factor for SINs 520 12 and
   520 13, and (2) PWC's quoted rates exceeded those under its FABS schedule
   contract. Kearney requested a debriefing, and the agency responded by
   letter dated July 12. In that letter, the agency stated that the
   deficiencies cited in the June 13 letter were not accurate; rather, the
   actual deficiencies in Kearney's quotation were that (1) it failed to
   sufficiently address the corporate visibility, emphasis, and involvement
   of PWC in the effective management of work efforts, and (2) it failed to
   address PWC's employee recruitment, pre-security screening of staff, and
   compensation plans.

   Kearney asserts that it was improper for the agency to reject its
   quotation for failing to provide information about PWC, since the
   solicitation did not specifically state that the agency would be
   evaluating teaming partners.

   In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation of vendor submissions under
   an RFQ, we will not reevaluate the quotations; we will only consider
   whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the
   evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and applicable procurement
   statutes and regulations. American Recycling Sys., Inc., B-292500,
   Aug. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 143 at 4.

   There was nothing unreasonable in the agency's evaluating PWC as part of
   Kearney's quotation. In evaluating proposals (or, as here, quotations), an
   agency reasonably may consider a firm's ability to perform the work
   required under the solicitation where the firm is a member of the
   offeror's proposed team involved in the contract effort, and the
   solicitation does not prohibit such consideration. See Wackenhut Servs.,
   Inc., B-276012.2, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 75 at 6 (agency properly
   attributed teaming partner's experience to offeror); Myers Investigative
   and Sec. Servs., Inc., B-286971.2, B-286971.3, Apr. 2, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 59 at 4 (agency properly considered subcontractor's experience where
   solicitation did not prohibit such consideration).

   Here, the solicitation did not prohibit the agency from evaluating this
   aspect of Kearney's quotation, and PWC was to be significantly involved in
   performing the contract work under the terms of the firms' CTA. In this
   latter regard, Kearney and PWC both were to be in privity of contract with
   the government and, furthermore, the terms of the Kearney/PWC CTA stated
   that (1) the firms will act as independent contractors, (2) neither firm
   has the right to make commitments or act as agent on behalf of the other
   firm without prior written consent, and (3) neither firm is liable for the
   acts of the other. Agency Report, Tab 5, GSA Schedule CTA, at 3. Given
   that PWC would have a significant role in performing the contract and, in
   fact, could be independently performing the work, it was entirely
   reasonable for the agency to evaluate PWC's demonstrated capability. It
   follows that, since Kearney's quotation's failure to include adequate
   technical/management information for PWC prevented the agency from fully
   evaluating PWC, the agency reasonably rejected the quotation.

   Kearney also asserts that the agency improperly evaluated PWC's quoted
   rates as higher than those under PWC's FABS schedule contract, since the
   quotation specifically stated that the quoted rate would be discounted by
   18 to 30 percent, making it lower than the schedule rate.

   Prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest; we will not sustain
   a protest against an alleged evaluation error unless the protester was
   prejudiced by the agency's actions. See Shilog Ltd., Inc., B-261412.4,
   Nov. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 260 at 10. Here, even if we ultimately agreed
   with Kearney that this aspect of the evaluation was flawed, Kearney would
   not be in line for award because (as discussed above) its quotation
   reasonably was found technically unacceptable under the technical/
   management factor. Consequently, Kearney was not prejudiced by any error
   in this area, and this argument thus provides no basis for sustaining the
   protest. AEC-ABLE Eng'g Co., Inc., B-257798.2, Jan. 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD
   para. 37.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] While our decision refers to the "award" of a BPA, which is the
   terminology used by the parties here, the Federal Acquisition Regulation
   (FAR) in fact refers to the "establishment" of a BPA against an FSS
   contract. FAR sections 8.403(a)(2), 8.404(b). GSA's terminology reflects
   the fact that, although the agency proceeded under the FSS, it actually
   conducted the procurement much like a negotiated procurement under FAR
   part 15.

   [2] Under a CTA, two or more GSA Schedule contractors work together, by
   complementing each other's capabilities, to offer a total solution to meet
   an ordering activity's requirement. CTAs under GSA schedule contracts
   differ from traditional prime contractor/subcontractor arrangements in
   that (1) each team member has privity of contract with the government, (2)
   each team member is responsible for its duties laid out in the CTA
   document, and (3) each team member must have a GSA schedule contract.
   Under GSA acquisition policy, CTAs are encouraged in response to
   government agency requirements. This information, submitted with the
   agency report, comes from GSA's website,
   www.gsa.gov/contractorteamarrangements. Agency Report, Tab 6.