TITLE: B-298854; B-298854.2, Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., December 29, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298854; B-298854.2
DATE: December 29, 2006
**************************************************************************
B-298854; B-298854.2, Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., December 29, 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 Technology Systems, Inc.

   File: B-298854; B-298854.2

   Date: December 29, 2006

   William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Michael S.
   Caldwell, Esq., and Jon W. Burd, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for the
   protester.

   John Bell, Esq., John Bell Law Office, for Binary Information Technology,
   Inc., an intervenor.

   Faisal Siddiqui, Esq., Export-Import Bank of the United States, for the
   agency.

   Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging evaluation of quotations for information technology
   (IT) services is denied where the record establishes that the agency's
   evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and
   the record supports the agency's source selection decision.

   DECISION

   Advanced Technology Systems, Inc. (ATS) protests the issuance of a task
   order by the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)[1] to
   Binary Information Technology, Inc. (BIT) under that firm's General
   Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract,
   pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. EXIM-06-Q-0019 to obtain IT
   support services.[2] ATS challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations
   and the subsequent decision to issue a task order to BIT, a vendor
   submitting a higher technically rated, higher priced quotation.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   On July 28, 2006, the Ex-Im Bank issued RFQ No. EXIM-06-Q-0019 to vendors
   holding FSS contracts for IT services, stating that the agency intended to
   award a fixed-price, labor-hour, level-of-effort task order for a base
   year with four 1-year option periods. A primary objective of the
   solicitation is to obtain IT support services for "EXIM Online"--that is,
   the agency's recently-developed "fully integrated web-based transaction
   processing system for the insurance and medium term guarantee
   business."[3] RFQ SOW, at 2. The solicitation reflected a combination of
   requirements previously performed under other contracts by three vendors:
   ATS, BIT, and BearingPoint, Inc. BearingPoint built and developed the EXIM
   Online system under a contract that ran from September 2001 to
   September 2006; BIT and ATS are each incumbent contractors that have
   performed various IT services for the Ex-Im Bank, including: Oracle
   database administration support, software quality assurance (QA) services,
   J2EE (Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition) development and workflow support
   for the EXIM Online system, Lotus Notes efforts, and website support.

   The solicitation's SOW described the principal objectives of this
   requirement as follows: (1) to acquire system development life cycle
   (SDLC) support to sustain and enhance the agency's unique and
   custom-designed EXIM Online system; and (2) to provide programming,
   maintenance and enhancement support for the content of Ex-Im Bank's
   internal and external websites. RFQ SOW, at 2. The SOW advised vendors
   that the anticipated scope of work would cover three software development
   environments: (1) Java applications,[4] including the primary application
   J2EE and four Documentum applications;[5] (2) Lotus Notes applications;
   and (3) Ex-Im Bank's internal and external websites. Id. at 2-3.

   The SOW required vendors to propose personnel, materials, and equipment to
   perform the following functions--transition, SDLC support, [6] web
   maintenance, and QA testing--and provided the following estimated levels
   of effort projected for each function:

        Function                                                   Hours 
        1. J2EE                                                    13440 
        2. Lotus Notes                                              3840 
        3. Web Maintenance                                          3360 
        4. QA Testing                                               1920 

   RFQ SOW, at 4-9, 18.

   The solicitation advised vendors that award would be based on the
   quotation determined to be the "best value" to the government, price and
   other factors considered, and established the following evaluation
   factors: (1) resumes and references of proposed staff; (2) proposed
   staffing mix; (3) management/technical approach; (4) corporate
   experience/past performance; and (5) price. RFQ SOW, at 18-19. The
   solicitation provided that the evaluation factor regarding the resumes of
   proposed staff was considerably more important than any other evaluation
   factor, stating that consideration of this factor alone would reflect
   "roughly half of the value of all technical criteria." Id. at 18. The
   solicitation further stated that the next evaluation factor, proposed
   staffing mix, was "more important than management approach and corporate
   experience/past performance combined." Finally, the solicitation provided
   that "[p]rice is a significantly less important consideration than
   technical capabilities." Id. at 18-19.

   In addressing the specific criteria against which proposed personnel would
   be evaluated, the solicitation stated:

     Key Personnel:[ [7]] The Government will evaluate the offeror on the
     experience skills and qualifications of the proposed Key personnel to
     successfully complete the requirements of this SOW. The Government will
     evaluate the proposed Key Personnel's ability to successfully complete
     the requirements based upon their recent past success and productivity
     on relevant projects.[[8]]

   RFQ SOW, at 16.

   ATS and BIT each submitted quotations responding to the RFQ.[9] A
   technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated the vendors' quotations under the
   non-price criteria using a qualitative adjectival rating system.[10]

   In its quotation, BIT proposed a total of 13 personnel. Of these, six were
   proposed to support the EXIM Online system, and five had direct
   experience, as former employees of BearingPoint, in building and
   developing the EXIM Online system. Additionally, five individuals had
   experience with Documentum applications, and all had provided executed
   letters of commitment to BIT. BIT's initial quotation reflected a price of
   [DELETED] for the base year and a total price of [DELETED].

   ATS's quotation proposed a total of 12 personnel, six of whom were
   dedicated to support the EXIM Online system. However, in contrast to BIT's
   quotation, none of the six proposed personnel had any experience in
   developing or building the EXIM Online system; rather, three were ATS
   incumbent personnel with only limited experience with EXIM Online through
   ATS's prior support contract, and three were newly-hired personnel with no
   institutional knowledge of the EXIM Online system. ATS's initial quotation
   reflected a task order price of [DELETED] for the base year and a total
   price of [DELETED].

   Following the initial evaluation of quotations, Ex-Im Bank opened
   discussions with the vendors during which the agency identified certain
   weaknesses in the vendors' quotations. In conducting written discussions
   with ATS, the agency stated:

     The proposal contains the following weaknesses:

       o   A well written transition plan which generally offsets a need for
       greater depth and breadth of knowledge of EXIM Online in the total
       proposed staffing picture. But lacking commitments of any significant
       contribution by additional incumbent EXIM-On-Line contractor personnel
       in the staffing mix, support capability in this area is a concern in
       terms of possible disruption to current delivery schedules and
       commitments.

       o   No documented Documentum experience outside of exposure provided
       by the Bank's EXIM Online. JAVA developer experience is weak. QTP
       [QuickTest Pro] experience not evident.

   AR exh. 9, Discussion Letter to ATS.

   In conducting written discussions with BIT, the agency advised BIT that:

     The proposal contains the following weakness:

       o   Proposed staff does not reflect the required skills and experience
       for Lotus Notes support and Web support described in the [SOW].

       o   The proposal reflects a feasible approach to EXIM Online support
       via a significant contribution from incumbent contractor staff;
       however, the offeror appears to be relying heavily on this at the
       expense of providing a detailed transition plan. The transition plan
       is not adequate.

   AR exh. 9, Discussion Letter to BIT.

   Thereafter, ATS and BIT each submitted final revised quotations. In its
   revised quotation, ATS acknowledged the agency's concern regarding the
   lack of incumbent personnel, stating that it had "entered into preliminary
   discussions with several of these personnel," and had "made contingent
   offers to two," but added that "all of these incumbent personnel were
   unable to commit to ATS." [11] AR exh. 18, ATS's Revised Quotation, at
   1-1. As it had in its initial quotation, ATS continued to propose its own
   personnel to support EXIM Online, only three of whom had any experience
   with the EXIM Online system. Id.

   In responding to the agency's concern regarding lack of personnel with
   Documentum experience, ATS asserted that two of the proposed individuals
   had experience "beyond the exposure that our current ATS staff have in
   support[ing] EXIM Online." ATS maintained that one of the individuals--who
   had never worked on the EXIM online system--had gained Documentum
   experience under another contract, and that a second proposed individual
   had "completed a three-day Documentum Boot Camp."[12] AR exh. 18, ATS's
   Revised Quotation, at 1-6.

   Finally, in responding to the need for personnel with QTP expertise, ATS
   stated that one of the individuals it proposed "has significant experience
   using automated testing tools but does not have direct experience using
   QuickTest Pro," adding that this individual "is currently undergoing
   training on QuickTest Pro in anticipation of the EXIM award." AR exh. 18,
   ATS's Revised Quotation, at 1-8.[13] ATS asserted that the individual that
   was "currently undergoing training on QuickTest Pro" would be "fully
   capable of handling all QTP requirements by the completion of the
   transition period." Id. ATS made no changes with respect to its task order
   prices.

   In its revised quotation, BIT provided a more detailed transition plan and
   changed its entire personnel proposed for the Lotus Notes and web support
   functions. In doing so, BIT added two Lotus Notes specialists with nine
   and ten years experience, respectively, and two web development
   specialists with seven and five years experience, respectively. In its
   revised quotation BIT raised its task order prices from [DELETED] to
   $1,897,919.60 for the base year, and its total price increased from
   [DELETED] to $10,487,203.86. AR exh. 24, BIT's Revised Quotation, at 5, 7,
   8-12, 18, 25.

   Thereafter, the revised quotations were evaluated by the TEP and assigned
   consensus ratings. ATS's quotation was rated "average;" BIT's quotation
   was rated "very good." Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 24. In
   documenting the basis for the ratings, the agency evaluators repeatedly
   referenced the greater experience of BIT's personnel regarding the
   solicitation requirements requiring capabilities with J2EE and
   Documentum.[14] For example, the agency evaluators described BIT's
   quotation as having "Strong J2EE, [and] Documentum . . . experience," and
   noted that "[BIT's] [p]roposed staff consists of mostly incumbents very
   knowledgeable on EXIM Online system." AR exhs. 12 and 13, Evaluator
   Worksheets. In contrast, in evaluating ATS's quotation, while the
   evaluators recognized the "Strong" experience of ATS's personnel with
   regard to Lotus Notes,[15] they also repeatedly documented their
   assessments that ATS's proposed personnel were "less Experienced Java
   Developers." Id.

   The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority,
   determined that BIT's quotation offered a technical advantage over ATS's
   quotation because the agency "would secure the best EXIM Online team for
   the best price" even though BIT's quotation "was not the cheapest
   proposal." COS at 28; AR exh. 6, Contracting Officer's Determination and
   Findings. Accordingly, BIT's quotation was selected for award and ATS was
   notified of the selection. This protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   At the outset, ATS complains that the agency record contains limited
   contemporaneous documentation indicating how the agency reached the
   evaluation ratings and, similarly, that the source selection decision was
   insufficiently documented. In response, the agency notes that the members
   of the TEP reviewed the vendors' submissions and individually documented
   their ratings of each quotation, then met as a group, discussed their
   assessments of each vendor's submissions, and documented a consensus
   rating for each vendor.

   In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, we examine
   the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and
   in accord with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation. Abt
   Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 223 at 4.
   Implicit in the requirement that the agency's judgment be reasonable is
   the requirement that these judgments be documented in sufficient detail to
   show they are reasonable. Advanced Tech. Sys. Inc., B-296493.6, Oct. 6,
   2006, 2006 CPD para. 151; FAR sect. 8.405-2.

   Here, the evaluation documentation is sufficient in that it includes the
   TEP evaluators' individual worksheets, the TEP's consensus ratings, and
   the contracting officer's notes. This evaluation record identifies the
   various evaluated strengths and weaknesses of the vendors' quotations and
   clearly formed the basis for the agency's ratings for each quotation, as
   well as for the source selection decision. See AR exh. 6, CO
   Determinations and Findings; AR exhs. 10-13, Evaluation Notes. As
   discussed above, the solicitation provided that the non-price evaluation
   criteria were more important than price, and the record shows that ATS's
   quotation was evaluated as offering less experienced personnel with regard
   to the solicitation requirements that are anticipated to make up the
   significant majority of the overall contract effort. In this context, the
   record establishes that the agency concluded that the technical
   superiority of BIT's quotation warranted payment of a somewhat higher
   price,[16] and accordingly, represented the best overall value to the
   government. Based on this record, ATS's assertion that the agency failed
   to adequately document its evaluation and source selection decision is
   without merit.

   ATS also protests the substance of the agency's evaluation and source
   selection decisions, first challenging the agency's assessment of various
   strengths and weaknesses with regard to its own and to BIT's quotations.
   ATS maintains that but for the allegedly improper assessments, ATS's
   quotation would have been selected for award.

   In the context of an RFQ, where an agency solicits FSS vendor responses
   and uses an evaluation approach similar to that used in FAR Part 15
   negotiated procurements, our Office will review the agency's actions to
   ensure that the evaluation of vendors' submissions was reasonable and
   consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable
   procurement statutes and regulations. Labat-Anderson, Inc., B-287081 et
   al., Apr. 16, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 79 at 5-6; Digital Sys. Group, Inc.,
   B-286931, B-286931.2, Mar. 7, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 50 at 6. A protester's
   mere disagreement with the agency's judgment or its belief that its
   quotation deserved a higher technical rating alone is not sufficient to
   establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Worldwide Language Res.,
   Inc., B-297210 et al., Nov. 28, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 211 at 3; Applied
   Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., B-291191, Nov. 15, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 202 at 2.

   ATS first complains that the agency unreasonably assigned an "average"
   rating to ATS's quotation, as opposed to BIT's "very good" rating, on the
   basis that ATS proposed three employees who were new to the EXIM Online
   portion of the requirements. ATS asserts that this assessment evidences
   disparate and unequal treatment of ATS in that BIT must have proposed
   individuals who would be new to the Lotus Notes and web support
   requirements. Protest at 2; Protester's Comments at 7 (Nov. 6, 2006).
   These arguments are without merit.

   The RFQ required vendors to describe in their quotations how they intended
   to "transition the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding of the
   various systems" from incumbent personnel to the vendors' staff to avoid
   disruption of "the flow of existing work tasks in progress and planned for
   the future." RFQ amend. 1, at 2. Further, the solicitation provided that
   the skills and qualifications of proposed personnel would be assessed on
   the basis of their recent experience with related projects. RFQ SOW, at
   16. As noted above, the SOW stated that "[t]he primary Java application at
   Ex-Im Bank is the Exim Online system," and provided that work involving
   the Java application, J2EE, would require approximately 13,440 hours per
   year--nearly 10,000 hours per year more than the level of effort
   associated with performance of the Lotus Notes requirements.

   Here, as discussed above, the record shows that the agency concluded that
   BIT's quotation proposed use of BearingPoint incumbents and, thus, offered
   strengths and advantages not offered by ATS's quotation, since the
   personnel proposed by BIT had created and developed the EXIM Online
   system. In contrast, the evaluated weaknesses in ATS's revised quotation
   included the following: (1) ATS's proposed personnel lacked direct
   experience with the EXIM Online system requirements; therefore, ATS's
   transition approach posed greater risk of performance; and (2) ATS's
   proposed personnel were weak in the areas of Documentum support and QTP
   experience. The record indicates these distinctions were the primary basis
   for rating BIT's quotation as "very good," and ATS's quotation as only
   "average." Our review provides no basis to question the agency's
   assessments in this regard.

   ATS also asserts that the agency's "myopic focus" on simply counting the
   number of BearingPoint incumbents proposed by each vendor impermissibly
   led the agency to double-count the same weakness--that is, ATS's lack of
   committed BearingPoint incumbents--under more than one evaluation
   criteria. In ATS's view, under the stated evaluation scheme, the agency
   was required to give less weight to this aspect of ATS's quotation (its
   lack of committed BearingPoint incumbents) and give "proper credit to the
   fact that ATS was as good as or better than the other [vendors] in every
   other facet of this competition." Protester's Comments at 2, 12-13 (Nov.
   6, 2006).

   The record does not support ATS's contentions. Rather, as discussed above,
   the solicitation identified the various evaluation criteria that would be
   considered in the agency's overall determination regarding each vendor's
   likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements, and the
   vendor's ability to do so in a manner that will provide maximum value to
   the government. ATS was specifically put on notice that the agency would
   make qualitative distinctions between competing submissions. See RAI,
   Inc.; The Endmark Corp., B-250663 et al., Feb, 16, 1993, 93-1 CPD para.
   140 at 6. ATS's complaints regarding alleged evaluation deficiencies offer
   little more than disagreement with the agency's judgments regarding the
   relative merits of the competing quotations.

   Finally, in its supplemental protest filed with our Office on November 6,
   ATS alleges that BIT engaged in an impermissible "bait and switch" of the
   personnel it proposed to perform the Lotus Notes and web maintenance
   tasks. According to the protester, it allegedly learned that three of the
   four individuals proposed for these tasks "never showed up to work on the
   project" and allegedly were replaced by "three entirely new individuals."
   Supplemental Protest at 22-25 (Nov. 6, 2006).

   To establish an impermissible "bait and switch," a protester must show
   that a firm either knowingly or negligently represented that it would rely
   on specific personnel that it did not expect to furnish during contract
   performance, and that the misrepresentation was relied on by the agency
   and had a material effect on the evaluation results. See Worldwide
   Language Res., Inc., supra at 5.

   As required by the solicitation, BIT proposed four specific individuals to
   perform the Lotus Notes and web maintenance requirements, and the agency
   relied on these representations in evaluating the quotation. Our review of
   the record provides no basis for concluding that BIT misrepresented the
   availability of the personnel proposed. Rather, the record shows that,
   after issuance of the task order contract to BIT, one of the two personnel
   positions proposed by BIT for the Lotus Notes task was eliminated at the
   request of the agency, and one of the two individuals originally proposed
   for the web maintenance task by BIT accepted another position and was
   replaced, with Ex-Im Bank's approval, by an individual considered by the
   agency to be equally qualified. Supplemental AR at 24-28; Intervenor's
   Comments at 3-4 (Dec. 5, 2006).

   The protest is denied.[17]

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The stated objective of the Ex-Im Bank is to "work towards leveling
   the playing field for American exporters by matching officially supported
   foreign competition and filling financing gaps." RFQ Statement of Work
   (SOW), at 1. In this regard, the Ex-Im Bank provides working capital
   guarantees (pre-export financing), export credit insurance (post-export
   financing), and loan guarantees and direct loans (buyer financing). Id.

   [2] Ex-Im Bank conducted this procurement as an FSS purchase under Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8. However, in various places the
   solicitation refers to vendors' responses to the solicitation as
   "proposals." This inconsistency does not affect our analysis in this
   decision. For purposes of accuracy, our decision refers to the vendors'
   responses as "quotations."

   [3] The solicitation elaborated that "EXIM Online supports the processes
   necessary to manage the entire life cycle of an insurance policy from
   application through underwriting to policy generation." RFQ SOW, at 5.

   [4] The RFQ advised vendors that "The primary Java application at Ex-Im
   Bank is the Exim Online system." RFQ SOW, at 2.

   [5] The solicitation referenced "Documentum eContent Server," "Documentum
   Captiva InputAccel," "Documentum Rendition Server," and "Documentum Media
   Server." Id. at 2.

   [6] The requirement for SDLC support requires the contractor to provide
   engineering support for J2EE and Lotus Notes applications. RFQ SOW, at 4.

   [7] As amended, the solicitation provided that all proposed personnel were
   considered key personnel and required submission of resumes for all
   personnel.

   [8] The solicitation further provided: "Letters of commitment from
   proposed individuals will have an impact on the Government's assessment of
   the stability of the proposed staffing plan." RFQ SOW, at 19.

   [9] BearingPoint also submitted a quotation. That quotation was not
   selected for award, BearingPoint has not protested its nonselection, and
   the agency's evaluation of its quotation is not relevant to the issues
   raised in ATS' protest. Accordingly, BearingPoint's quotation is not
   further discussed.

   [10] Quotations were rated as either "outstanding" (outstanding in all
   aspects); "very good" (above average in all aspects); "average" (adequate
   overall/needs some improvement); or "poor" (inadequate proposal/does not
   meet SOW). Agency Report (AR) exh. 7, Evaluators' Worksheet.

   [11] In its revised quotation, ATS elaborated that it "was not prepared to
   offer employment to the entire BearingPoint team but rather just a subset
   of that team." AR exh. 18, ATS's Revised Quotation, at 1-1.

   [12] ATS elaborated that the "Boot Camp" had "provided a technical
   introduction to the basic operations of the Documentum Content Server
   platform and a general overview of Documentum technology and products." AR
   exh. 18, ATS's Revised Quotation, at 1-6.

   [13] ATS's revised quotation also proposed a second individual with QTP
   experience, to be used only as a consultant "to provide additional
   support" on a limited basis. Id. at 1-8.

   [14] As noted above, the solicitation specifically advised vendors that
   the anticipated level of effort involving J2EE was more than 3 times the
   anticipated level of effort involving Lotus Notes, web maintenance, or QA
   testing; and nearly 50 percent greater than the requirements for all of
   these other functions combined. RFQ SOW, at 18.

   [15] As noted above, the solicitation advised vendors that the level of
   effort anticipated to provide support services for Lotus Notes was
   significantly less than the level of effort anticipated to be required to
   support J2EE.

   [16] In the agency report responding to ATS's initial protest, the
   contracting officer mistakenly referenced a price for BIT's quotation that
   was slightly less than BIT's final revised price; the contracting officer
   states that this was a clerical error in preparing the agency's response
   to ATS's protest. Supplemental COS at 21-23 (Nov. 21, 2006). There is no
   indication that the agency relied on the erroneous price in making its
   source selection decision, and we do not view this post-protest clerical
   error as affecting the merits of the agency's source selection decision.

   [17] In pursuing this protest, ATS has made various other collateral
   arguments regarding the agency's evaluation and source selection
   decisions. We have reviewed all of ATS's arguments and find no basis for
   sustaining its protest.