TITLE: B-298694.7, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., June 22, 2007
BNUMBER: B-298694.7
DATE: June 22, 2007
**************************************************************
B-298694.7, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., June 22, 2007

   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: Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.

   File: B-298694.7

   Date: June 22, 2007

   James J. McCullough, Esq., Steven A. Alerding, Esq., and Deneen J.
   Melander, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the
   protester.

   Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., David T. Hickey, Esq., Dorn C. McGrath III,
   Esq., L. James D'Agostino, Esq., and Emily C. Parker, Esq., Greenberg
   Traurig LLP, for Atlantic Contingency Constructors, LLC; William A.
   Roberts III, Esq., and Richard B. O'Keeffe Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for
   Fluor International, Inc.; and J. Alex Ward, Esq., Edward Jackson, Esq.,
   Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., and Bradley A. Areheart, Esq., Jenner & Block
   LLP, for URS-IAP, LLC, the intervenors.

   Richard Welsh, Esq., Theodore H. Hoffmann, Esq., Sandra C. Simmons, Esq.,
   and Keleigh L. Biggins, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for
   the agency.

   Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency conducted an unreasonable technical evaluation of the
   protester's proposal is denied, where the agency provided a comprehensive,
   detailed record that fully supports the agency's assessment of strengths
   and weaknesses in the protester's proposal and demonstrates that the
   agency conducted the evaluation consistent with the solicitation's
   evaluation criteria.

   DECISION

   Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) protests the award by the
   Department of the Navy of three global contingency construction contracts
   under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-06-R-6002 to Fluor
   International, Inc. (Fluor), URS-IAP, LLC (URS), and Atlantic Contingency
   Constructors, LLC (ACC). KBR contends that the agency misevaluated
   proposals under the technical factors and thus made an unreasonable source
   selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   This acquisition is for construction and related engineering services in
   response to global natural disasters, humanitarian assistance, conflict,
   or projects with similar characteristics. The RFP contemplated award of up
   to three cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
   contracts for a base year with four 1-year options, with a not to exceed
   aggregate amount of $1 billion for all contracts during the 5-year span.
   RFP at 3, 56. Award was to be made without discussions unless discussions
   were otherwise determined to be necessary. RFP at 68.

   The solicitation provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering
   corporate experience, past performance, contingency plan, management
   approach, small business utilization, and cost. The non-cost factors were
   of equal importance and together were more important than the cost factor.
   The past performance factor consisted of two subfactors listed in
   descending order of importance--past performance and safety. The
   management approach factor consisted of two equally rated
   subfactors--organization, home office support, and key personnel; and
   accounting and management systems and procedures. The small business
   utilization factor consisted of two equally rated subfactors--past
   performance in small business utilization, and participation of small
   business concerns for this program. RFP at 68.

   Eight offerors submitted proposals and, after evaluating these proposals,
   the agency selected Fluor, URS, and ACC for award. KBR protested the
   evaluation of proposals under each of the evaluation factors and our
   Office sustained the protest, identifying flaws in the evaluation of the
   cost and contingency response plan factors. In addition, we identified
   four protest grounds where the agency had not adequately responded, such
   that it was unclear from the record whether the agency's evaluation was
   reasonable.[1] We recommended that the agency reevaluate proposals under
   the technical and cost factors, conduct discussions if determined
   necessary, and make a new source selection decision. Kellogg Brown & Root
   Servs., Inc., B-298694, et al., Nov. 16, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 160
   at 11-12.

   The agency reconvened the technical evaluation board (TEB) to reevaluate
   technical proposals, the cost evaluation board (CEB) to reevaluate cost
   proposals, and the source selection board (SSB) to review the findings of
   the TEB and CEB and conduct a cost-technical tradeoff. The TEB, CEB, and
   SSB issued revised evaluation reports documenting each board's conclusions
   under each of the evaluation factors. The source selection authority (SSA)
   adopted the findings of the boards and once again recommended award to
   Fluor, URS, and ACC. KBR again protested, but the agency took corrective
   action before an agency report was submitted to address a new concern that
   KBR raised with regard to the evaluation of the small business utilization
   factor.

   The TEB reconvened to consider the small business utilization issue raised
   by KBR in the previous protest, and the TEB, CEB, and SSB issued their
   final reports. With the concurrence of the TEB and CEB, the SSB revised
   the overall technical rating of URS (increasing it from good to excellent)
   and adjusted upwards the total evaluated price of ACC, but otherwise did
   not change the technical ratings or adjust the price for any of the
   offerors from this initial evaluation. The revised ratings for the
   relevant proposals were as follows:

   +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |               |     KBR      |     ACC      |     URS      |    Fluor     |
   |---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   |Technical      |     Good     |     Good     |  Excellent   |  Excellent   |
   |---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   ||Corporate     |  Excellent   |     Good     |     Good     |  Excellent   |
   ||Experience    |              |              |              |              |
   ||--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   ||Past          |     Good     |  Excellent   |  Excellent   |     Good     |
   ||Performance   |              |              |              |              |
   ||--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   ||  |Past       |     Good     |  Excellent   |  Excellent   |     Good     |
   ||  |Performance|              |              |              |              |
   ||  |-----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   ||  |Safety     |  Excellent   |  Excellent   |  Excellent   |     Good     |
   ||--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   ||Contingency   | Satisfactory |     Good     |  Excellent   |  Excellent   |
   ||Response Plan |              |              |              |              |
   ||--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   ||Management    | Satisfactory |     Good     |     Good     |  Excellent   |
   ||Approach      |              |              |              |              |
   ||--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   |||Organization,|     Good     |     Good     |     Good     |  Excellent   |
   |||Home Office  |              |              |              |              |
   |||Support, and |              |              |              |              |
   |||Key Personnel|              |              |              |              |
   |||-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   |||Accounting   |   Marginal   | Satisfactory | Satisfactory |  Excellent   |
   |||and          |              |              |              |              |
   |||Management   |              |              |              |              |
   |||Systems and  |              |              |              |              |
   |||Procedures   |              |              |              |              |
   ||--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   ||Small Business|     Good     |     Good     |  Excellent   |     Good     |
   ||Utilization   |              |              |              |              |
   ||--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   |||Past         | Satisfactory |  Excellent   |  Excellent   |     Good     |
   |||Performance  |              |              |              |              |
   |||in Small     |              |              |              |              |
   |||Business     |              |              |              |              |
   |||Utilization  |              |              |              |              |
   |||-------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   |||Participation|     Good     | Satisfactory |     Good     |     Good     |
   |||of Small     |              |              |              |              |
   |||Business     |              |              |              |              |
   |||Concerns for |              |              |              |              |
   |||this Program |              |              |              |              |
   |---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   |Evaluated Cost |$1,040,477,795|$1,052,767,620|$1,060,231,026|$1,045,099,517|
   |---------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
   +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Contracting Officer's Statement at 6, app. A.

   The SSB compared Fluor's, URS's, and ACC's proposals to KBR's and the
   other offerors' under each of the evaluation factors and assessed overall
   technical rankings as follows: Fluor--first, URS--second, ACC--third, and
   KBR--fifth. Agency Report (AR), encl. 47, SSB Report, at 11.

   Under the corporate experience factor, the SSB noted that KBR's proposal
   had a "slight advantage" over Fluor's, even though both firms had
   "comparable experience." KBR also was found to have "more relevant recent
   experience" than both URS and ACC, and thus KBR's proposal was rated
   superior to those two firms under this evaluation factor. Id. at 30, 49,
   63.

   Under the past performance factor, the SSB recognized that all four firms
   "demonstrated positive past performance trends," but noted that KBR's
   proposal had a "significant weakness" for work on two recent hurricane
   response projects, where the firm received one "marginal" and one
   "unsatisfactory" reference rating. URS and ACC were found to have better
   performance records than KBR, but KBR's proposal was found to be more
   advantageous than Fluor's under this factor due to KBR's "better safety
   record." Id. at 30-31, 49-50, 63-64.

   Under the contingency response plan factor, the SSB found KBR's plans to
   be less detailed than the awardees' plans, noting that KBR provided "only
   the basic elements" of a plan, with "few supporting details regarding its
   capabilities and how it would achieve the proposed solutions." For
   example, the agency found that KBR's proposal provided only "limited
   detail on [REDACTED]." According to the SSB, this "lack of detail in KBR's
   proposal precluded a better understanding of the plan and introduced an
   element of risk in meeting the Government's requirements" that was not
   found in the awardees' more detailed and comprehensive plans. Id. at
   31-32, 50-51, 65.

   Under the management approach factor, KBR's proposal was found to be less
   advantageous than the awardees' proposals, due primarily to KBR's
   "marginal" rating under the accounting and management systems and
   procedures subfactor. This marginal rating was given because of findings
   of the Defense Contract Audit Agency that KBR's systems were "Inadequate
   in Part" and that KBR was non-compliant with cost accounting standards 401
   and 418. Id. at 33, 52, 66.

   Under the small business utilization factor, the SSB found Fluor, URS, and
   ACC to have a "stronger positive trend of past small business utilization"
   than KBR. Although all firms had some involvement in the Small Business
   Administration's mentor-protegee program and had received small business
   awards, the record of meeting projected subcontracting goals differed
   among the firms. In this regard, ACC was found to have exceeded
   approximately 62 percent of its subcontracting percentage goals on past
   contracts, and both URS and Fluor were found to have exceeded
   approximately 39 percent of their subcontracting percentage goals,
   although many of these goals were "significantly exceeded." In contrast,
   the SSB noted that KBR achieved only 31 percent of its subcontracting
   goals, and the majority of these were "well below" the stated percentage
   goals. Id. at 33-34, 52-53, 66-67.

   The SSA reviewed and adopted the findings of the SSB and found that the
   technical advantages of the Fluor, URS, and ACC proposals were worth the
   additional cost. AR, encl. 38, SSA Decision, at 5-9. Awards were made to
   Fluor, URS, and ACC, and KBR protested, complaining that the agency
   misevaluated its proposal under the non-cost factors, and that the agency
   misevaluated URS's proposal under the corporate experience factor.

   DISCUSSION

   In reviewing protests of an agency's evaluation, our Office does not
   reevaluate proposals, but instead examines the record to determine whether
   the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP criteria.
   Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 223 at 4. A
   protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not
   establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. UNICCO Gov't Servs., Inc.,
   B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 134 at 7.

   KBR complains that the agency failed to raise KBR's proposal ratings after
   the agency found additional strengths and fewer weaknesses in KBR's
   proposal during the reevaluation. KBR challenges nearly every assessed
   weakness in its proposal and contends that proposals were evaluated
   unequally.[2]

   It is well established that ratings, be they numerical, adjectival, or
   color, are merely guides for intelligent decision-making in the
   procurement process. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc.,
   B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 11. Where the
   evaluators and the source selection decision reasonably consider the
   underlying bases for the ratings, including advantages and disadvantages
   associated with the specific content of competing proposals, in a manner
   that is fair and equitable and consistent with the terms of the
   solicitation, the protesters' disagreement over the actual adjectival or
   color ratings is essentially inconsequential in that it does not affect
   the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source selection decision.
   See id.; National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., B-281142, B-281142.2, Jan.
   4, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 95 at 15. Thus, the evaluation of proposals and
   the assignment of adjectival ratings should generally not be based upon a
   simple count of strengths and weaknesses, but upon a qualitative
   assessment of the proposals consistent with the evaluation scheme. See
   Smiths Detection, Inc., B-298838, B-298838.2, Dec. 22, 2006, 2007 CPD
   para. 5 at 5-6; Systems Research and Applications Corp., B-298107,
   B-298107.2, June 26, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 103 at 6.

   In response to the protest, the Navy provided a detailed record
   documenting its reevaluation and source selection decision. This extensive
   analysis shows that the agency evaluated the relative merits of the
   offerors' proposals, including essentially all of the areas cited by the
   protester, and assessed ratings in a fair and equitable manner consistent
   with the RFP. The record demonstrates that the SSB and SSA considered all
   of the information available and took into account both GAO's earlier
   decision as well as the protester's arguments in the previous protests. In
   so doing, the agency expanded upon the description of strengths and
   weaknesses found in each offeror's proposal, in some instances adding to,
   or eliminating, strengths and weaknesses identified in the original
   evaluation. The record shows that the agency did not merely count the
   number of strengths or weaknesses in each proposal in assigning adjectival
   ratings, but rather considered the relative merits associated with the
   assessed strengths and weaknesses, and issued a well-reasoned and rational
   SSB report and source selection decision that highlighted the key
   discriminators among the offerors' proposals. Based on this reasonable
   assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages associated with
   the specific content of proposals, we find that KBR's disagreements with
   the actual adjectival ratings to be inconsequential, given that they do
   not affect the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source
   selection decision. See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc.,
   supra, at 11.

   For example, under the contingency response plan factor, where KBR
   received a satisfactory rating, KBR argues that its proposal deserved a
   higher adjectival rating because the TEB identified four additional
   strengths and one less weaknesses than during the original evaluation.
   However, as discussed above, KBR was not entitled to an increased rating
   based solely on the number of strengths and weaknesses; the agency did not
   "tally" the number of strengths and weaknesses, but instead relied on its
   detailed narrative assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in
   evaluating the relative advantages and disadvantages of each proposal.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 12. The agency notes that the other
   offerors were treated similarly and states, for example, that ACC's
   proposal received six additional strengths and no additional weaknesses,
   and yet received the same rating under this factor as in the earlier
   evaluation. Id. at 11. The agency's comprehensive evaluation simply
   reflects the agency's view that KBR's contingency response plan was less
   detailed than the awardees' in a number of areas and that the agency
   considered this to pose a risk to performance that outweighed the
   additional strengths identified in the proposal. E.g., AR, encl. 47, SSB
   Report, at 32. Although KBR disagrees with this assessment, and argues
   that its proposal strengths outweigh any weaknesses, our review of the
   record indicates that the agency reasonably concluded that KBR's proposal
   was not as advantageous as the other offerors, who provided more
   comprehensive and detailed contingency response plans.[3]

   KBR also argues that the agency evaluated undisclosed evaluation criteria
   in considering the level of detail in various components of KBR's
   contingency response plan. In this regard, the agency cited numerous
   examples of plan features that lacked detail, including KBR's [REDACTED].
   AR, encl. 46, TEB Report, at 110; see Protest at 17; Protester's Comments
   at 12-19. KBR complains that the RFP did not require detailed descriptions
   of each of these plan features and, in any event, KBR provided sufficient
   information in its proposal to warrant a higher adjectival rating under
   the contingency response plan factor.

   An agency may properly take into account specific, albeit not expressly
   identified, matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to, the
   stated evaluation criteria. Independence Constr., Inc., B-292052, May 19,
   2003, 2003 CPD para. 105 at 4. The RFP here generally advised offerors
   that their contingency response plan would be evaluated for the
   "effectiveness of the offeror's contingency response plan to perform work
   for this contract" and for their "approaches that maximize quality, result
   in optimal use of resources, are cost effective, and are highly responsive
   to the interests of the Navy and its customers." In addition, offerors
   were specifically required to address a plan to minimize response time
   (including coordination of subcontractors); a plan to obtain materials,
   equipment, and workforce globally; a plan to provide design and
   engineering services; and a plan to control and monitor prime and
   subcontractor costs. RFP at 61. Thus, contrary to KBR's arguments, the RFP
   reasonably contemplated consideration of all the areas of KBR's proposal
   for which the agency found detail lacking.[4]

   Next, KBR challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the past
   performance subfactor of the past performance factor, under which KBR
   received a "good" rating. KBR asserts that the agency gave too much weight
   to two past performance references, who gave KBR "marginal" and
   "unsatisfactory" ratings for its work in response to Hurricane Katrina.
   KBR contends that the agency ignored the unusual circumstances regarding
   performance of those projects and discounted KBR's overall record of
   "stellar" performance in a contingency environment. Protester's Comments
   at 27. KBR also complains that its proposal was evaluated disparately to
   URS's and ACC's proposals, which both received "excellent" ratings under
   this subfactor, even though URS and ACC received unfavorable performance
   ratings from some references.

   In evaluating past performance, the agency conducted an extensive review
   of responses from past performance references, Construction Contractor
   Appraisal Support Systems ratings, information presented by the offerors
   in their proposals, and information regarding awards, letters of
   commendation, and other forms of performance recognition. As the agency
   explains, it gave "significant weight" to KBR's Hurricane Katrina response
   projects because this contingency relief work was "very recent and highly
   relevant to the RFP." Contracting Officer's Statement at 31. In contrast,
   the projects for which URS and ACC received unfavorable performance
   ratings were reasonably found to be less recent and less relevant, and the
   agency found that the two firms had a better overall record of performance
   than did KBR.[5] Contracting Officer's Statement at 31-32; AR, encl. 47,
   SSB Report, at 49, 63-64. Given that the RFP indicated that the agency
   would place greater weight on more recent performance and projects of
   similar size, scope, and contract type to that required by the
   solicitation, RFP at 60, and the discretion afforded an agency in
   evaluating past performance, we cannot find unreasonable the agency's
   evaluation of the past performance factor.[6]

   KBR contends that the agency misevaluated its proposal under the
   organization, home office support, and key personnel subfactor of the
   management approach factor, under which KBR's proposal received a good
   rating. KBR again asserts that its proposal deserved a higher rating under
   this subfactor because of additional strengths found during the
   reevaluation, that the agency evaluated unstated criteria, and that the
   firm adequately addressed in its proposal the areas where the agency
   assessed weaknesses.

   The record confirms that the agency identified a number of strengths
   regarding KBR's proposal that were not found in initial evaluation, but as
   with KBR's contingency response plan, the agency found KBR's proposal to
   lack detail in a number of areas that outweighed the additional strengths
   found. Specifically, the agency found that, while KBR "outlined" its
   organizational structure and provided position descriptions and other
   information required by the RFP, the firm provided only "limited insight
   into its overarching corporate structure or its resources, subcontractors,
   or capabilities." Furthermore, KBR's field staffing plan, although found
   to be "sufficiently detailed," did not supply the "numbers or details of
   resources available to staff contingency construction work." AR, encl. 47,
   SSB Report, at 32; see also encl. 46, TEB Report, at 160. In both areas,
   the agency found that KBR relied on "generalized assertions" and a
   "general outline" that did not provide the desired level of detail to show
   how KBR's organizational structure and staffing plan would contribute to
   task order performance. Contracting Officer's Statement at 39, 41.

   We find the agency's consideration of these weaknesses to be reasonably
   based and consistent with the RFP. The RFP advised that the agency would
   evaluate "the effectiveness of the offeror's organization to perform work
   for this contract" and required offerors to address in their proposals,
   among other things, the "organizational structure and positions . . . as
   it relates to the management approach for this contract and performance of
   task orders," and "a field-staffing plan that supports three concurrent
   task orders." RFP at 61-62. Here too, we consider the agency's evaluation
   of the detail offerors provided about specific features of their
   organizational structure and field staffing plan that relate to the
   performance of the task orders, even if not expressly identified in the
   solicitation, to be encompassed within the RFP's evaluation scheme. While
   we agree with KBR that it addressed in some form these areas in its
   proposal, we find also that the agency reasonably assessed weaknesses to
   KBR's proposal for not providing as comprehensive a response as expected
   by the agency in the evaluated areas.

   KBR next argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal under the past
   performance in small business utilization subfactor of the small business
   utilization factor, under which KBR's proposal received a "good" rating.
   KBR complains that the agency miscalculated that KBR met only 31 percent
   of its small business subcontracting goals under prior contracts, when KBR
   in fact met at least 52.9 percent of its goals. KBR complains that the
   agency's math is incorrect and that it inappropriately considered an
   overseas contract.[7]

   The RFP required all offerors to provide the Standard Form (SF) 294s,
   "Subcontracting Reports for Individual Contractors," for all contracts
   referenced under the corporate experience factor and documentation showing
   compliance with utilization goals for Historically Underutilized Business
   Zones, small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women owned small
   businesses, veteran owned small businesses, small disadvantaged veteran
   owned small businesses, and, if applicable, historically black colleges
   and universities and minority institutions. RFP at 64. For each of the
   applicable small business types, the SF-294 for a particular contract
   identified both the "current goal" and the "actual cumulative" achievement
   in terms of dollar amounts and percentages; the "current goal" entries
   identified a percentage that was to be achieved and an estimated dollar
   amount of the subcontracts to be awarded based on an overall estimated
   contract value, while the "actual cumulative" achievement reflected the
   dollar amounts and percentages of subcontracting awards actually made
   based on the overall actual dollars incurred under the contract.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 45; exhs. 3-8. In addition, offerors
   were to provide information on any awards received for providing
   outstanding support to various small business programs, and information
   regarding the offeror's participation with mentor-protege agreements and
   use of the Community Rehabilitation Programs certified under the Javits
   Wagner O'Day (JWOD) program. RFP at 64.

   Using the same evaluation method for each proposal, the agency reviewed
   the firm's SF-294s and determined how many percentage goals were achieved,
   how many were missed, and the areas where the goals were exceeded or
   missed by significant amounts. The agency calculated small business
   compliance based on the "actual cumulative" percentages identified in the
   SF-294, excluding from calculations any contracts that were identified as
   being performed overseas.[8] The agency considered, also, whether an
   offeror received awards and commendations for meeting small business
   goals, and the offeror's participation in the mentor-protege and JWOD
   programs. As detailed above, the agency concluded that all of the awardees
   had a stronger record of performance than did KBR, and that all of the
   awardees exceeded their small business subcontracting goals to a greater
   degree than did KBR. AR, encl. 47, SSB Report, at 33, 52, 66-67. We find
   this evaluation to be reasonable. KBR contends that the agency's
   calculations should not have been based on the percentage "actual
   cumulative" achievements identified on the SF-294s, arguing that in some
   instances the firm was not given credit for awarding more subcontract
   dollars than it committed to. Protest at 32-33. For example, with regard
   to one of KBR's contracts (CONCAP III), KBR committed to a "small business
   concerns" goal of 74 percent, or $74,000,000, which was based on an
   estimated overall contract value of $100,000,000. However, KBR was in fact
   awarded $446,689,816 in contract dollars, which is more than four times
   the estimated contract value. Of this, KBR awarded $199,947,441 in
   subcontracts to small business concerns. While this dollar value exceeded
   the $74,000,000 identified as a goal, it constituted only 44.7 percent of
   the overall contract dollars actually awarded. Contracting Officer's
   Statement at 45; exh. 4. Although KBR asserts that it should be credited
   for exceeding its small business goal because it awarded subcontract
   dollars exceeding $74,000,000, we find reasonable the agency's
   consideration that the overall percentage goal had not been met.

   KBR also complains that the agency improperly considered an SF-294 for
   KBR's LOGCAP III contract, "since the pertinent work" of one of the task
   orders performed under the contract was performed overseas in Iraq. KBR
   asserts that, other than this one task order, the contract was "not
   relevant to this procurement and, accordingly, was not referenced in KBR's
   proposal." Protester's Comments at 37. However, contrary to KBR
   contention, it in fact identified the contract, along with three others,
   in the small business utilization portion of its proposal and provided the
   SF-294 for that work. See Contracting Officer's Statement, exh. 4. KBR
   noted in this section of its proposal that one of the other contracts was
   for work that was performed "OCONUS" [outside the continental United
   States], but KBR did not provide any notation that would identify for the
   agency that the LOGCAP III contract was performed overseas, or that the
   SF-294 subcontracting report that KBR provided for this contract should
   not be considered under this evaluation factor. KBR Technical Proposal
   (Small Business Utilization) at 204. Although KBR noted in another section
   of its proposal (the corporate experience section) that one task order
   under the LOGCAP III contract was performed in Iraq, KBR Technical
   Proposal (Corporate Experience) at 10, 59, it is not evident from KBR's
   proposal that the remainder of the contract, which KBR does not allege was
   performed overseas and which does contain subcontracting goals, should not
   be considered for evaluation under the small business utilization factor.
   Furthermore, we note that during the course of the previous protests,
   counsel for the protester included the LOGCAP III contract in its own
   calculations in determining KBR's small business goal utilization
   percentages. Agency Submission (May 17, 2007) at 3; attach. A. Given that
   KBR's proposal included the LOGCAP III subcontracting report and did not
   make clear that the report should not be considered, we find the agency's
   consideration of it here to be reasonable.

   KBR next complains that URS's proposal was misevaluated under the
   corporate experience factor because the agency improperly credited URS
   with the experience of its subcontractors. KBR argues that the evaluation
   of subcontractor experience under the corporate experience factor is
   inconsistent with the RFP.[9]

   An agency may base the evaluation of corporate experience on the
   experience of subcontractors when the subcontractors are to do the work to
   which the experience is applicable, so long as the solicitation allows for
   the use of subcontractors and does not prohibit the consideration of a
   subcontractor's experience in the evaluation. Loral Sys. Co., B-270755,
   Apr. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 241 at 5; Seair Transport Servs., Inc.,
   B-252266, June 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 458 at 5.

   The RFP here required that each "offeror shall provide up to 25 specific
   project examples in the $1 million and greater range that demonstrate
   experience with new construction, renovations, and repairs." RFP at 59.
   KBR identified 25 projects where it was the prime contractor. URS
   identified only 16 projects where either URS or IAP (URS's joint venture
   partner) was the prime contractor, and identified 9 others that were
   performed by the major subcontractors.[10] Protest at 38. The RFP did not
   prohibit the consideration of subcontractor projects, and required only
   that the offeror list 25 projects to be considered. Since the RFP
   otherwise encouraged team members and subcontractor participation, see,
   e.g., RFP at 58, 59, 60, 67, we find the agency's decision to consider
   subcontractor experience under this evaluation factor to be
   reasonable.[11]

   Finally, KBR contends that the source selection decision was unreasonable,
   based on a flawed evaluation of the factors and subfactors discussed
   above. As noted, however, we find the evaluation to be well-documented and
   reasonable. The record shows that the agency fairly considered and
   evaluated the many strengths and weaknesses of each offeror's proposal in
   a manner that was consistent with the RFP, and reasonably determined that
   the technical advantages of the awardees' proposals were worth the
   additional cost over KBR's less advantageous and lower priced proposal.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] These protest grounds involved the evaluation of (1) KBR's past
   performance, (2) KBR's proposal under the organization, home office
   support, and key personnel subfactor of the management approach factor,
   (3) KBR's proposal under the small business utilization factor, and (4)
   URS's proposal under the corporate experience factor.

   [2] KBR initially also protested that the agency ignored asserted proposal
   strengths, but since other offerors similarly did not receive strengths
   for these same or similar proposal features, KBR agreed that it was not
   prejudiced as a result of this aspect of the evaluation. See Protester's
   Comments at 10 n.1, 30 n.4.

   [3] KBR asserts that the Navy's criticism that KBR's contingency response
   plan is less detailed is unreasonable, given that GAO found, in its
   earlier decision, that the plans were not dissimilar. In our decision, we
   found only that dissimilarities were not evident from the record or
   otherwise explained by the agency. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc.,
   supra, at 10. Here, the agency has provided a more detailed and
   comprehensive explanation of the proposal differences, which we find to be
   reasonable and supported by the record.

   [4] To the extent that KBR asserts that its plan provided sufficient
   details to meet the RFP requirements, we find that this is reflected in
   the "satisfactory" rating that KBR's proposal received under this
   evaluation factor. Further, based on our review of the record, the agency
   reasonably concluded that the awardees' proposals were more detailed and
   deserved higher ratings.

   [5] The contracts for URS involved the design and installation of a dam
   failure warning system and engineering services, and the contract for ACC
   involved base operating services. Contracting Officer's Statement at 31.

   [6] KBR asserts that the agency should have more favorably considered its
   overall record of performance and that its proposal should not have
   received the same rating as in the initial evaluation, given that on
   reevaluation the agency considered additional favorable performance and
   eliminated consideration of unfavorable performance. As noted above, the
   agency conducted a comprehensive evaluation and, on balance, found that
   the risk to contract performance based on KBR's unfavorable performance in
   connection with Hurricane Katrina outweighed its proposal strengths under
   this evaluation factor. KBR's disagreement does not render the agency's
   judgment unreasonable. See UNICCO Gov't Servs., Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7,
   1997, 97-2 CPD para. 134 at 7.

   [7] KBR also asserts that the agency erred in identifying a "minor
   weakness" in KBR's proposal under the participation of small business
   concerns subfactor of the small business utilization factor. This weakness
   was due to an error in KBR's proposal--the first two pages of KBR's
   subcontracting plan identified only 1-year contract value and subcontract
   amounts, instead of 5-year values. KBR asserts this error was "minor"
   because the last page contained the 5-year values. The agency explains
   that other offerors were treated similarly for making the same or similar
   errors, and, in any event, the record does not show that this weakness had
   an impact on, or was a key discriminator in, the award decision.
   Consequently, KBR has not been prejudiced as a result. McDonald-Bradley,
   B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v.
   Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   [8] Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 19.702(b) provides that
   small business subcontracting plans are not required for contracts
   "performed entirely outside the United States and its outlying areas."

   [9] KBR also asserts that URS's subcontractors are unlikely to perform
   "given the contingent nature and global scope of the solicited work," and
   that additional oversight of the subcontractors will be necessary and will
   increase the cost of contract performance. Protester's Comments at 41.
   However, the first issue is a matter of contract administration that our
   Office will not review, Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a)
   (2007); Riverwood of Miss., Inc., B-280448, Sept. 30, 1998, 98-2 CPD para.
   81 at 2 n.2, and, as to the second issue, KBR has provided no evidence
   beyond mere speculation that URS's proposed costs of performance are not
   accurate or reasonable.

   [10] The record shows that the agency rated KBR's proposal higher than
   URS's under this factor, due in part to the fact that URS and IAP had less
   experience than KBR. AR, encl. 47, SSB Report, at 49.

   [11] KBR relies our decision in Technology and Mgmt Servs., Inc.,
   B-240351, B-240351.2, Nov. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 375, for the
   proposition that a subcontractor's experience may not be considered under
   the corporate experience factor here. However, in that case, unlike here,
   the RFP expressly limited the evaluation of corporate experience to the
   offeror and "its" experience. Here, there is no such limiting language on
   the projects to be submitted.