TITLE: B-299000, Quimba Software, January 18, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299000
DATE: January 18, 2007
*******************************************
B-299000, Quimba Software, January 18, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Quimba Software

   File: B-299000

   Date: January 18, 2007

   Robert Dourandish for the protester.

   Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals under Small Business
   Innovation Research program on basis of undisclosed evaluation factors is
   denied where record shows that evaluation was consistent with and
   encompassed by the solicitation evaluation criteria.

   DECISION

   Quimba Software protests the Department of the Army's determination not to
   fund its phase I proposal under Department of Defense (DOD) Small Business
   Innovation Research (SBIR) program solicitation No. 2006.2. Quimba alleges
   that the Army failed to evaluate proposals and make award in accordance
   with the solicitation's stated evaluation factors.

   We deny the protest.

   The SBIR program is conducted pursuant to the Small Business Innovation
   Development Act, 15 U.S.C. sect. 638 (2000), which requires certain
   federal agencies to reserve a portion of their research and development
   funds for awards to small businesses. As part of its SBIR program, DOD
   issues an SBIR solicitation twice a year listing the research topics for
   which it will consider SBIR program admission. Firms first apply for a
   6-month phase I award to test the scientific, technical, and commercial
   merit and feasibility of a certain concept. If the firm's phase I
   performance is deemed successful, it may be invited to apply for a 2-year
   phase II award to further develop the concept. After the completion of
   phase II, firms are expected to obtain funding from the private sector
   and/or non-SBIR government sources to develop the concept into a product
   for sale in private sector and/or military markets. DOD's SBIR Website,
   http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir/ overview/index.htm>.

   Solicitation No. 2006.2 included Army topic No. A06-079, "Identification
   of Cultural Demographics to Predict Community Responses to Military
   Operations." The objective of the topic is to predict community responses
   to military operations in Iraq based on the interactions among cultural
   demographics obtained through electronic and/or textual population data
   sets, and to develop display technologies that can help a command staff
   rapidly develop a holistic understanding of the region. Solicitation at
   111.

   The solicitation contemplated the award of one or more fixed-price phase I
   contracts to those offerors whose proposals represented the "best value"
   to the government, and provided that proposals would be evaluated by
   government scientific or technical personnel knowledgeable in the topic
   area under three criteria: soundness, technical merit, and innovation of
   the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or
   subtopic solution; qualifications of the proposed principal/key
   investigators, supporting staff, and consultants, including not only the
   ability to perform the research and development but also the ability to
   commercialize the results; and potential for commercial (government or
   private sector) application and the benefits expected to accrue from this
   commercialization.

   The Army received 23 proposals, and an evaluation team evaluated each. The
   evaluators noted weaknesses in Quimba's proposal under all three factors,
   assigning scores of 42 (of 50 possible) points under the
   soundness/technical merit factor, 20 (of 30) points under the
   qualifications of personnel factor, and 12 (of 20) points under the
   commercialization application factor. For example, under the soundness/
   technical merit factor, the evaluators noted that Quimba failed to address
   using data from recent military operations, provided no prototype decision
   support tool, and proposed to hand annotate geographic boundaries to
   produce demographic and socioeconomic variables, which seemed laborious
   and time consuming. Under the qualifications of personnel factor, the
   evaluators found that Quimba lacked researchers/staff in
   human-factors/behavioral sciences and that, while Quimba proposed an
   intern to support the proposed hand annotation, no intern was currently on
   staff and the proposed time commitment for this task might have been
   understated. Under the commercial application factor, the evaluators found
   that Quimba had no letters of support showing that commercialization was
   feasible. AR, Tab D, Quimba Proposal Evaluation, at 1-3. Based on this
   evaluation, Quimba's proposal was ranked sixth overall, with a total of 74
   of a possible 100 points. The agency made award to Aptima, Inc., whose
   proposal was the highest-ranked (100 points). AR, Tab H, Ranking of
   Proposals, at 1.

   Quimba challenges the rejection of its proposal on several grounds. We
   have considered all of Quimba's arguments and find them to be without
   merit. We discuss the principal arguments below. Quimba argues that,
   because the solicitation did not specifically require the features for
   which its proposal was downgraded--for example, the solicitation did not
   require that offerors use military data, have personnel with a social
   science background, or provide letters of support--these weaknesses
   reflect the improper application of undisclosed evaluation factors. Quimba
   concludes that there was no proper basis for downgrading its proposal.

   Where an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has the discretion
   to determine which proposals it will fund. R & D Dynamics Corp.,
   B-285979.3, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 201 at 4. In light of this
   discretion, our review of an SBIR procurement is limited to determining
   whether the agency violated any applicable regulations or solicitation
   provisions, or acted in bad faith. U S Positioning Group, LLC, B-294027,
   June 21, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 133 at 3. While procuring agencies are
   required to identify significant evaluation factors and subfactors in a
   solicitation, they are not required to identify every aspect of each
   factor that might be taken into account; rather, agencies reasonably may
   take into account considerations, even if unstated, that are reasonably
   related to or encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. Client
   Network Servs., Inc., B-297994, Apr. 28, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 79 at 6;
   Nicholson/ Soletanche Joint Venture, B-297011.3, B-297011.4, Apr. 20,
   2006, 2006 CPD para. 71 at 8.

   Here, we have no basis to question the agency's decision not to select
   Quimba's proposal for a phase I award. We have reviewed the entire record
   and find that the challenged weaknesses fell within the scope of the three
   evaluation factors.

   For example, with respect to the agency's evaluation under the
   soundness/technical merit factor, Quimba's proposal was downgraded for
   failing to offer as resourceful and innovative a means of gathering
   demographic information as other proposals and for failing to address the
   availability of military sources of information. In this regard, Quimba's
   proposal specifically stated that there "is no database of demographic
   information available for Iraq or Bagdad," AR, Quimba Proposal, Tab B, at
   5, while other proposals identified websites that provided relevant
   demographic information. The evaluators determined that using available
   current data increased the likelihood of producing a relevant and useful
   final product. AR, Tab 3, Technical Response to Protest, at 1. Further,
   while Quimba generally proposed using "military sources" of demographic
   information (AR, Quimba Proposal, Tab B, at 5), it identified only one
   potential source, the Center for Army Lessons Learned. The agency viewed
   Quimba's failure to fully address using military data as a weakness. AR,
   Tab D, Quimba Proposal Evaluation, at 1; Tab 3, Technical Response to
   Protest, at 1. While the solicitation did not explicitly require offerors
   to identify databases of demographic information, or to address military
   sources, as noted above, the stated purpose of the program was to predict
   community responses to military operations based on the interactions among
   cultural demographics obtained through electronic and/or textual
   population data sets. Since use of demographic information clearly was
   contemplated by the solicitation, we think the agency reasonably could
   consider, consistent with the stated evaluation factors, the extent to
   which offerors identified relevant websites and other sources of
   demographic information in evaluating the soundness and technical merit of
   their proposed approach to the topic problem.

   Similarly, we think Quimba's failure to propose human factors/behavioral
   scientists reasonably could be considered by the agency under the
   qualifications of personnel factor, given that the goal of this project is
   to provide on-site military personnel with relevant demographic
   information to develop an understanding of the region. A human
   factors/behavioral scientist reasonably could be viewed as beneficial in
   that such an expert would be able to assist military personnel in gaining
   the desired understanding. Although Quimba proposed to provide a computer
   scientist, an expert in text mining, and Arabic language and cultural
   consultants, it did not specifically offer a human factors/behavioral
   scientist. AR, Tab 3, Technical Response to Protest, at 3. Quimba suggests
   that its response to two visualization tasks and one optional task
   implicitly demonstrated its human factors expertise. However, we have
   reviewed Quimba's responses to these tasks and find nothing (there or
   elsewhere in its proposal) that references human factors expertise or
   suggests that Quimba would use human factor/behavioral scientists in the
   planning and design of its visualization tools. Quimba Proposal at 14-16;
   Protester's Response to Agency Report, Tab 3, Quimba Spreadsheet at D11.
   We conclude that the evaluation was unobjectionable.[1]

   Quimba alleges that the evaluation team failed to include experts
   knowledgeable in marketing and commercialization or with practical
   experience in the development and deployment of demographic information
   systems. Protester's Response to Agency Report, Tab 3, Quimba Spreadsheet,
   at D7. However, the selection of individuals to serve as proposal
   evaluators is a matter within the discretion of the agency; accordingly,
   we will not review allegations concerning the qualifications of evaluators
   or the composition of evaluation panels absent a showing of possible
   fraud, conflict of interest, or actual bias on the part of evaluation
   officials. Glatz Aeronautical Corp., B-293968.2, Aug. 10, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 160 at 3 n.1. Quimba has made no such showing.

   Finally, Quimba argues that the agency's concerns regarding the use of an
   intern to perform hand annotations and the hours required to perform such
   annotations was essentially a nonresponsibility determination that should
   have been referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for review
   under the certificate of competency program. See Federal Acquisition
   Regulation sect. 19.602-1(a). This argument is without merit. An agency
   may use traditional responsibility factors, such as personnel competencies
   and capabilities, as technical evaluation factors where, as here, a
   comparative evaluation of those areas is to be performed. Advanced
   Resources Int'l, Inc.--Recon., B-249679.2, Apr. 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD para.
   348 at 2. A comparative evaluation means that competing proposals will be
   rated on a scale relative to each other rather than on a pass/fail basis.
   Dynamic Aviation-Helicopters, B-274122, Nov. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 166
   at 3. We continue to hold that no SBA referral is required where, while
   the small business offeror's proposal is evaluated as acceptable, it is
   not selected for award because another offeror's proposal is evaluated as
   superior under a comparative analysis or because of a cost/technical
   tradeoff analysis. Capitol CREAG LLC, B-294958.4, Jan. 31, 2005, 2005 CPD
   para. 31 at 6-8. The assessment of proposed staff that occurred here was
   part of a comparative, best value evaluation, not a responsibility
   determination; Quimba's proposed staff was not evaluated on a pass/fail
   basis. Accordingly, no referral to SBA was required.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Quimba questions whether Aptima proposed a human factors/behavioral
   scientist and, moreover, whether Aptima's proposal contained any of the
   weaknesses found in Quimba's proposal. It asks that it be provided
   Aptima's (and the other offerors') proposal and evaluation in order to
   confirm whether it was properly evaluated. Quimba is not entitled to
   review the other offerors' proposals. There is nothing in Quimba's
   submissions that calls into question the evaluation of Aptiva's proposal
   (or other offerors' proposals), and it is well-established that a
   protester may not use the protest process in order to obtain information
   that might give rise to a protest basis. See Global Eng'g & Constr. Joint
   Venture, B-275999.3, Feb. 19, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 77 at 4.