TITLE: B-298662, Advanced Federal Services Corp., November 15, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298662
DATE: November 15, 2006
************************************************************
B-298662, Advanced Federal Services Corp., November 15, 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: Advanced Federal Services Corp.

   File: B-298662

   Date: November 15, 2006

   Howell Roger Riggs, Jr., Esq., Patrick O. Miller, Esq., and David H. Stem,
   Jr., Esq., Dick, Riggs, Miller & Stem, LLP for the protester.

   Ronald K. Henry, Esq., John L. Bowles, Esq., and Kevin S. Donohue, Esq.,
   Kaye Scholer, LLP, for Eastek, Inc., an intervenor.

   Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq. and Janet K. Baker, Esq., Army Materiel Command,
   for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and source
   selection decision is denied where agency's determinations were reasonable
   and consistent with the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Advanced Federal Services Corp. (AFS) protests the award of a contract to
   Eastek, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9128Z-06-R-0001,
   issued by the Department of the Army Communications-Electronics Life Cycle
   Management Command for business administrative support services (BASS).
   The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated offerors'
   technical proposals and past performance and made an improper source
   selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP sought proposals to provide BASS requirements for the Army
   Information Systems Engineering Command, Army Communications Security
   Logistics Activity, and the Communications-Electronics Life Cycle
   Management Command Acquisition Center Southwest. Offerors were required to
   propose BASS requirements for these facilities, including administrative
   support, shipping and receiving, logistics, system administration and
   automation, contract operations, security administration and access
   control.[1] RFP at 2.

   The RFP anticipated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity
   contract with fixed-price and cost-reimbursement task orders for a 1-year
   base performance period and four 1-year option periods. The competition
   was restricted to participants in the Small Business Administration 8(a)
   program for small, disadvantaged businesses. Offerors were advised that
   they would be evaluated on the basis of technical and personnel
   management, performance risk, and price. The RFP stated that for purposes
   of award, the technical and personnel management factor was more important
   than the performance risk factor, which was in turn more important than
   the price factor.

   The agency received proposals from ten offerors, conducted discussions,
   and made two competitive range determinations, narrowing the number of
   proposals under consideration to four. As relevant to the protest, the
   agency's final evaluation of offerors' proposals was as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |       |Technical and Personnel Management|Performance Risk |   Price   |
   |-------+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------|
   |  AFS  |            Acceptable            |       Low       |$6,983,719 |
   |-------+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------|
   |Eastek |           Outstanding            |       Low       |$8,864,159 |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab Q, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 3.[2]

   The agency's "outstanding" rating for Eastek's's proposal with regard to
   the technical and personnel management factor was based on six evaluated
   strengths, no weaknesses, and no deficiencies. Id. at 4. In contrast,
   AFS's proposal was evaluated as providing no strengths. Id. The agency
   selected Eastek for award, concluding that the strengths identified in
   Eastek's proposal, which received the highest technical scores of any
   offeror, offset the price savings offered by AFS. Id. at 6-7. Following
   notification of its nonselection and receipt of a post-award debriefing,
   AFS filed this protest.

   DISCUSSION

   Technical Evaluation

   AFS first protests that the agency failed to recognize various strengths
   in its proposal. More specifically, based on AFS's post-award debriefing
   which disclosed various evaluated strengths in Eastek's proposal, AFS
   complains that various aspects of its proposal should have been evaluated
   as reflecting strengths that were equal or superior to those proposed by
   Eastek.

   In reviewing a procuring agency's evaluation of an offeror's technical
   proposal, our Office's role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was
   reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and
   applicable statutes and regulations. Urban-Meridian Joint Venture,
   B-287168, B-287168.2, May 7, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 91 at 2. As with any
   evaluation review, our chief concern is whether the record supports the
   agency's conclusions. Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc., B-275786.2,
   Apr. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 144 at 9. To the extent a protester disagrees
   with an agency's evaluation, such mere disagreement does not render an
   evaluation unreasonable; our Office will not question an agency's
   evaluation judgments absent evidence that its judgments were unreasonable
   or contrary to the stated evaluation criteria. Kay & Assocs., Inc.,
   B-291269, Dec. 11, 2002, 2003 CPD para. 12 at 4.

   Here, AFS asserts that various aspects of its proposal, including its
   approach to recruiting, its quality control plan, its "well defined safety
   program," and its "implementation of standard operating procedures,"
   should have been evaluated as strengths by the agency. Protest, attach. A.
   In responding to AFS's protest, the agency provided a point-by-point
   comparison--consistent with, and supported by, the agency's
   contemporaneous evaluation record--of AFS and Eastek's proposals,
   identifying the bases for Eastek's evaluated strengths and the bases for
   the agency's conclusion that AFS's proposal met, but did not exceed the
   solicitation requirements.[3] Contracting Officer's Statement at 11-16.
   Although AFS expresses its disagreement with the agency's judgments, it
   has not demonstrated that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. Based
   on our review of the record, we find no basis to question the
   reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of AFS's proposal.[4]

   Past Performance Evaluation

   AFS next protests that the agency unreasonably determined that Eastek's
   past performance demonstrated a stronger history of management and
   performance as compared to AFS. Although both offerors were rated as "low
   risk" under the performance risk evaluation factor, the SSD noted that
   Eastek's "performance record demonstrated a stronger history of management
   involvement and responsiveness." AR, Tab Q, SSD, at 6. AFS claims that its
   research shows that Eastek began operations in May 2000 and has only 80
   employees; by contrast, AFS states that it began operations in 1995 and
   has 200 employees, and has performed more contracts. Protest at 7. On this
   basis, AFS argues, the agency could not have reasonably determined that
   Eastek's past performance was superior to that of AFS.

   AFS's allegations regarding the agency's past performance evaluation fail
   to state a basis for protest. See 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(f). The RFP's
   evaluation criteria for the past performance factor do not include the
   factors on which AFS relies to assert that it should have received a
   higher past performance rating. Specifically, the RFP stated that
   offerors' past performance would be evaluated as follows:

     The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the
     quality, relevancy and recency of the Offeror's past performance, as
     well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the
     probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. When
     assessing performance risk, the Government will focus its inquiry on the
     past performance of the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractors as
     it relates to all solicitation requirements. These requirements include
     all aspects of cost, schedule, performance and supportability, including
     the Offeror's record of: 1) conforming to standards of good workmanship;
     2) adherence to contract schedules. . . ; 3) forecasting contract costs;
     4) ability to resolve technical and personnel management problems
     quickly and effectively; and 5) business-like concern for the interests
     of its customers; and 6) commitment to customer satisfaction.

   RFP sect. M, para. C.2.a.

   In short, the RFP contemplated evaluation of the quality of an offeror's
   past performance -- not the size or age of its organization. Accordingly,
   AFS's assertion that the agency's past performance evaluation was flawed
   for failing to assess these factors does not state a basis for protest.

   Source Selection Decision

   Finally, AFS protests that even if the agency's evaluation of the
   offerors' technical proposals was reasonable, the agency could not have
   rationally made award to Eastek in light of that firm's higher proposed
   price. AFS argues that the agency's evaluation record fails to explain why
   Eastek's higher technical score was worth the approximately $2 million
   price difference between the offerors' proposals, and that such a
   difference could not have been justified.

   Where, as here, the RFP allows for a price/technical tradeoff, the source
   selection authority (SSA) retains discretion to select a higher-priced,
   higher technically rated proposal if doing so is reasonably found to be in
   the government's best interest and is consistent with the solicitation's
   stated evaluation scheme. 4-D Neuroimaging, B-286155.2, B-286155.3, Oct.
   10, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 183 at 10. Although agencies must document the
   rationale for a source selection decision, including any tradeoffs, there
   is no requirement to quantify the specific cost or price value difference
   when selecting a higher-priced, higher technically rated offeror. FAR
   sect. 15.308.

   Here, as discussed above, the agency reasonably documented its
   determination that Eastek's proposal provided six strengths and no
   weaknesses, which resulted in its technical and personnel management
   factor rating of "outstanding," and that AFS's proposal provided no
   strengths, which resulted in its rating of "acceptable." The record is
   clear that the agency relied on Eastek's technical superiority, evidenced
   by its evaluated strengths, as warranting its higher price. In this
   regard, the SSA documented her basis for selecting Eastek's proposal for
   award as follows:

     [T]he six strengths of [Eastek's] proposal significantly outweighed
     [AFS's] proposal which had no strengths or weaknesses . . . .

     The combination of [Eastek's] OUTSTANDING rating in the Technical and
     Personnel Management factor, and LOW RISK rating in the Performance Risk
     Assessment factor is more important than the Price. [AFS] proposes a
     price that is approximately $2 million lower than [Eastek]. . . . I have
     determined that the technical superiority demonstrated by [Eastek] . . .
     warrants the higher proposed price.

   AR, Tab Q, SSD, at 5-7.

   On this record, we find no basis to question the reasonableness of the
   agency's selection of Eastek's proposal for award.[5]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Amendment 10 to the RFP removed certain of the automated task
   requirements.

   [2] Proposals were assigned adjectival ratings of "outstanding," "good,"
   "acceptable," or "unacceptable" for the technical and personnel management
   evaluation factor, and ratings of "low," "moderate," "high" or "unknown"
   risk for the performance risk factor.

   [3] Specifically, for example, the agency explained that Eastek's proposal
   provided for its chief operating officer to be directly involved in
   contract performance and that four experienced corporate officers would
   oversee the performance of tasks; AFS did not offer such high-level
   management involvement, and proposed that its quality control manager
   would also serve as deputy project manager. Contracting Officer's
   Statement at 13-14. Similarly, for example, the agency explained that
   Eastek's proposal provided specific, detailed information regarding its
   merit award program, discussing stated award values, types of awards, and
   frequency with which awards would be considered; AFS's proposal provided
   no similar information and indicated that performance awards would be
   considered only annually. Id.

   [4] Following receipt of the agency report and the supporting evaluation
   record, AFS made various arguments challenging the agency's evaluation of
   Eastek's proposal; however, these arguments were submitted more than 10
   days after AFS's receipt of the agency report. Accordingly, AFS has not
   timely challenged the agency's evaluation of Eastek's proposal. 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2006); Orion Int'l Techs., Inc., B-293256, Feb. 18,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 118 at n.1. Although AFS asserts that its arguments
   challenging the evaluation of Eastek's proposal are sufficiently related
   to issues raised in AFS's initial protest to warrant consideration, the
   record does not support this assertion. AFS's protest, including
   Attachment A, refers to the evaluated strengths in Eastek's proposal
   (which were identified during AFS's post-award debriefing) and provides
   AFS's commentary regarding aspects of its own proposal which AFS asserts
   should have been evaluated as strengths. Nothing in AFS's initial protest
   challenges the agency's determination that Eastek's proposal merited the
   strengths identified.

   [5] In its protest submissions, AFS has raised various other issues,
   including, for example, a speculative allegation that Eastek could not
   have written a proposal containing all of the six strengths identified by
   the agency within the 10-page proposal limitation. We have considered all
   of AFS's allegations and find no basis for sustaining its protest.