TITLE: B-298810.2, Hernandez Consulting LLC, December 21, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298810.2
DATE: December 21, 2006
*******************************************************
B-298810.2, Hernandez Consulting LLC, December 21, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Hernandez Consulting LLC

   File: B-298810.2

   Date: December 21, 2006

   Alex Hernandez for the protester.

   Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for C. Martin
   Company, Inc., an intervenor.

   Audrey H. Liebross, Esq., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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

   Protest that agency unreasonably found protester's proposal technically
   unacceptable due to lack of information is denied where information was
   necessary for agency to fully evaluate proposal and agency reasonably
   determined that necessary information was lacking.

   DECISION

   Hernandez Consulting LLC protests the rejection of its proposal as
   technically unacceptable under Department of Homeland Security, Federal
   Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), request for proposals (RFP) No.
   HSFEHQ-06-R-0043, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) small
   business set-aside for integrated operations and maintenance at FEMA-based
   housing in Louisiana. Hernandez primarily asserts that the agency
   improperly evaluated its proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on May 26, 2006, contemplated the award of multiple
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contracts on the basis of low
   price and technical acceptability under the following factors: technical
   approach (with subfactors for phase-in, task order performance plan,
   quality control plan, and resources and understanding), past
   performance/corporate experience, and price. Competition was limited to
   firms that reside or primarily do business in the State of Louisiana, and
   the solicitation provided guidance--including a non-exclusive list of
   eight factors, such as the state and date of incorporation, Louisiana
   state licenses, and the firm's record of past work in Louisiana--as to
   what firms the agency may consider to qualify. RFP at 3.[1]

   The agency received 19 proposals. The agency determined that three
   proposals, including the protester's, were technically unacceptable, and
   ultimately awarded contracts to 13 firms. Hernandez, whose proposal was
   based on a teaming arrangement with another firm, Latter & Blum Property
   Management, Inc., was informed by letter dated September 2 that its
   proposal had been rejected as technically unacceptable because (1) the
   quality control plan lacked detail and specifics, (2) the plan to locate,
   acquire and transport resources did not clearly demonstrate an ability to
   fulfill the contract requirements, and (3) the proposal did not express a
   thorough technical approach and understanding of the contract
   requirements.

   Hernandez filed an agency-level protest challenging the agency's
   conclusions. The agency sustained this protest and reevaluated the
   proposal. The reevaluation resulted in another finding that Hernandez's
   proposal was technically unacceptable. Specifically, the reevaluation
   found that the proposal lacked (1) supporting documents for the teaming
   arrangement, (2) specifics for the phase-in plan, (3) specifics for the
   quality control plan, (4) documentation for subcontracting arrangements,
   and (5) plans or technical specifications for how the firm would meet the
   terms and conditions of the contract.

   Hernandez challenges each of the reasons for rejection of its proposal.
   Specifically, it asserts that the RFP did not require supporting
   documentation for the teaming arrangement, its proposal did include a
   phase-in plan, quality control plan, and subcontracting plan that
   responded to the RFP's requirements, and that its proposal generally
   responded to every aspect of the RFP.

   In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not
   our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, we will examine the record only
   to determine whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent
   with the RFP evaluation scheme and applicable procurement statues and
   regulations. DeLeon Tech. Servs., Inc., B-293783, June 4, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 145 at 2. Offerors have the burden of submitting an adequately
   written proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's
   judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to
   establish that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. PEMCO World Air
   Servs., B284240.3 et al., Mar. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 71 at 15. We have
   reviewed all of Hernandez's challenges to the agency's evaluation and find
   them to be without merit. We discuss several examples below.

   TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

   Teaming Arrangement

   Hernandez proposed to fulfill the contract requirements using a teaming
   arrangement under which Hernandez would provide "the project management
   and servicing for this contract while coordinating with our partnering
   firm on project execution, as per requirements." Proposal at 1. The
   teaming arrangement, as noted by the evaluation team, was central to
   Hernandez's plan to locate, acquire, and transport resources. Agency
   Report (AR), exh. 10, at 1. Based on this finding, the agency found that
   "the teaming arrangement was essential to allow the contractor to fulfill
   the contract requirements." Id. At the same time, the agency found that
   Hernandez's proposal provided no detail or supporting documents regarding
   the arrangement between the two firms. Hernandez asserts that it was not
   specifically required by the RFP to provide this information. However,
   given the firm's reliance on the teaming arrangement to perform the
   contract, there was nothing unreasonable in the agency's determination
   that teaming arrangement details were required to evaluate Hernandez's
   proposal, and that the proposal therefore was inadequate in this regard.

   Phase-In Plan

   A required aspect of the phase-in plan was the offeror's plan to acquire
   and manage the resources necessary to perform the contract. Hernandez's
   proposal was general in nature and did not include specifics in this area;
   rather, Hernandez promised to provide all equipment and items necessary to
   accomplish the work, and further promised that, in the event Hernandez or
   its partner did not have the necessary materials, the firms would purchase
   them "immediately following contract award." Proposal at 4. The proposal
   did not provide, for example, any indication of the equipment the firms
   currently possess or that they might need to acquire. We think the agency
   reasonably could expect offerors to include this kind of detail in their
   phase-in plans, and that the agency therefore reasonably determined that
   Hernandez's plan was inadequate.

   Resources Plan

   The solicitation required offerors to provide a plan to obtain resources
   (both skilled labor and materials) to perform the work specified in the
   performance work statement. In response, Hernandez stated that both it and
   Latter & Blum "have an organic skilled labor force that can handle all the
   project management, quality assurance, reporting requirements,
   preventative maintenance, and a modest level of trouble calls. When we
   have an overflow of trouble calls that we can't organically support we
   will rely on our partner firms listed below in Exhibit A." Proposal at 10.
   The proposal then listed over 400 companies in Exhibit A, under the
   heading "Existing Materials and Service Vendors." The agency found this
   response lacking, since there was "no documentation or validation provided
   demonstrating that these firms were willing to support this effort, or
   have the capability to do so." AR, exh. 10, at 2. The evaluation in this
   area was reasonable. Since the proposal simply listed firms' names, with
   no explanation of the areas of performance in which each would be
   involved, or any indication of whether any or all would be available when
   needed, we think the agency reasonably concluded that Hernandez did not
   provide sufficient information for the agency to evaluate.

   ACCEPTABLITY OF AWARDEES

   Hernandez challenges the technical acceptability of 11 of the 13 awardees,
   asserting primarily that they either failed to satisfy the requirement
   that the firm reside or do business in Louisiana, or lacked experience in
   grounds maintenance and property management.

   Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.1(c)(4) and (f) (2006),
   require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and
   factual grounds for protest, and that the grounds stated be legally
   sufficient. These requirements contemplate that protesters will provide,
   at a minimum, either allegations or evidence sufficient, if
   uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood that the protester will
   prevail in its claim of improper agency action. Pacific Photocopy and
   Research Servs., B-278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 69 at
   4.

   As noted above, the RFP stated that in determining whether a firm would be
   eligible to compete as a Louisiana firm, the agency would consider
   numerous factors, not just those on which Hernandez's challenges are
   based, and did not indicate that a firm would be ineligible if it failed
   to satisfy any particular factor. Thus, a firm would not be precluded from
   competing just because it was not organized, headquartered, incorporated
   or domiciled in Louisiana; firms could meet other requirements that show
   they primarily do business in Louisiana.[2] It follows that Hernandez's
   allegation that some firms did not qualify under particular factors does
   not necessarily provide a basis to question the firms' eligibility for
   award.

   With regard to the awardees' alleged lack of experience, the protester
   merely states that this is the case, without providing the source of the
   information on which the allegations are based. Under this solicitation,
   moreover, joint ventures, subcontractors, and teaming arrangements were
   permitted. Since the experience of a technically qualified subcontractor
   (or joint venture or teaming partner) generally may be used to satisfy
   experience requirements for a prospective prime contractor, see Magnum
   Prods., Inc.; Amidia Indus., Inc., B-277917 et al., Dec. 8, 1997, 97-2 CPD
   para. 160 at 7 , the mere fact that certain awardees may lack experience
   in grounds maintenance and property management does not provide a valid
   basis for challenging the evaluation or awards.[3]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The other factors included the state in which the firm maintains a
   permanent office, the percentage of the firm's revenues attributable to
   work performed in Louisiana, the number of permanent employees in the
   state, membership in state organizations, and any other evidence submitted
   by the firm. RFP at 3.

   [2] We note that the information Hernandez furnishes in its protest
   indicates that all but one of the awardees have addresses in Louisiana.

   [3] We note that it appears from Hernandez's proposal that its experience
   in property management and grounds maintenance comes primarily from its
   teaming partner, Latter & Blum. Hernandez's Proposal, Company Experience,
   at 16-20.