TITLE: B-299496; B-299496.2, Raymond Associates, LLC, May 29, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299496; B-299496.2
DATE: May 29, 2007
***********************************************************
B-299496; B-299496.2, Raymond Associates, LLC, May 29, 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: Raymond Associates, LLC

   File: B-299496; B-299496.2

   Date: May 29, 2007

   Scott M. Heimberg, Esq., Thomas P. McLish, Esq., Mark J. Groff, Esq., and
   Lauren R. Bates, Esq., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, for the
   protester.

   John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Gregory, Esq.,
   and Kathryn T. Muldoon, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Aegis
   Defence Services, Limited, an intervenor.

   LTC David Newsome, Jr., Department of the Army, 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

   1. Protest that agency's source selection decision was based on improper
   averaging of evaluation ratings is denied where record shows that award
   decision was not based on ratings alone.

   2. Protest that agency should have ranked protester's proposal more highly
   under technical evaluation factor due to its past performance as incumbent
   is denied where solicitation included separate past performance evaluation
   factor, and did not provide for considering past performance under
   technical factor.

   3. Protest that agency improperly credited awardee's proposal with
   strength for a [DELTED] is denied where [DELETED] was reasonably related
   to stated evaluation factors.

   DECISION

   Raymond Associates, LLC protests the Department of the Army's award of a
   contract to Aegis Defence Services, Limited under request for proposals
   (RFP) No. W91GYO-07-R-0007, for personal security services in support of
   the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. Raymond challenges
   the Army's evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on November 14, 2006, contemplated the award of a
   fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a
   6-month base period, with three 6-month options, to provide personal
   security details for up to 5 principals in Iraq. Award was to be made to
   the offeror submitting the proposal representing the "best value" to the
   Army, as determined under three evaluation factors: past performance,
   technical capability, and price. Past performance was significantly more
   important than technical capability, and the two combined were
   significantly more important than price. RFP at 41.

   Offerors were required to submit proposals in three volumes, one
   corresponding to each of the evaluation factors. RFP at 38. The past
   performance volume was to include information regarding five references,
   the technical capability volume was to address five specific areas:
   simultaneous high-quality security and force protection; work plan and
   mobilization; key personnel and manning; security clearances; and
   stability continuity and reliability;[1] and the price volume was to
   include line item pricing. RFP at 38-40. Proposals were to receive
   adjectival ratings (exceptional, good, satisfactory, marginal, or
   unsatisfactory) under the past performance and technical capability
   factors.

   The agency received 13 proposals. After rejecting 1 proposal as late, the
   Army evaluated the remaining 12, including Raymond's and Aegis's. For the
   purpose of evaluating technical capability, the agency composed a source
   selection evaluation board (SSEB), which evaluated Raymond's and Aegis's
   proposals under the technical capability factor (as relevant to this
   protest) as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Technical Capability (SUBFACTOR RATINGS)      |  Raymond   |   Aegis    |
   |-----------------------------------------------------------+------------|
   |SIMULTANEOUS HIGH QUALITY SECURITY/FORCE PROTECTION        |            |
   |-----------------------------------------------------------+------------|
   |Provide simultaneous high quality security and|    Good    |Exceptional |
   |force protection support (24/7) for up to five|            |            |
   |principles                                    |            |            |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |(a) during routine, normal business           |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |(b) during transit and temporary duty         |Exceptional |Exceptional |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |(c) during off-duty/leisure                   |Satisfactory|Satisfactory|
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |(d) during crisis and unexpected situations   |Satisfactory|    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Overall:                                      |Satisfactory|    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |WORK PLAN & MOBILIZATION                      |            |            |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Overall:                                      |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |KEY PERSONNEL, MANNING, AND CLEARANCES        |            |            |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |SECURITY CLEARANCES                           |            |            |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Overall:                                      |Exceptional |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |STABILITY, CONTINUITY, AND RELIABILITY        |            |            |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Overall:                                      |Exceptional |Exceptional |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Overall Technical Capability Rating:          |    Good    |    Good    |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab 27, 28. In addition to its good technical
   capability rating, Raymond's proposal received an excellent past
   performance rating, and offered a price of $21,872,642. Aegis's proposal
   likewise received an excellent past performance rating in addition to its
   good technical capability rating, and offered a price of $13,976,661. The
   agency determined that Aegis's proposal represented the best value based
   on its lower price.

   Raymond challenges the evaluation and award on several grounds. We have
   considered all of Raymond's arguments and find that they afford no basis
   to sustain the protest. We discuss Raymond's most significant arguments
   below.

   RAYMOND'S TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION

   Averaging of Adjectival Ratings

   Raymond challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal as only
   satisfactory under the Simultaneous High Quality Security and Force
   Protection subfactor under the technical capability factor. Specifically,
   Raymond contends that its rating was based on an incorrect averaging of
   its adjectival ratings of good, good, exceptional, satisfactory, and
   satisfactory for the five elements comprising the subfactor (see chart
   above). Raymond maintains that the ratings reasonably should have been
   averaged into an overall good rating for the subfactor. Had its proposal
   received a good rating under this subfactor, Raymond continues, it would
   have had two good ratings and two exceptional ratings for the four
   subfactors, which reasonably could have been averaged into an overall
   excellent rating for the technical capability factor; since Aegis's
   proposal was rated only good under this factor, Raymond concludes, its own
   proposal may have been found to be the best value.

   Raymond attaches unwarranted weight to the adjectival ratings. Such
   ratings are not binding on the source selection official, but, rather,
   serve only as a guide to intelligent decision making. Chapman Law Firm,
   LPA, B-293105.6 et al., Nov. 15, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 233 at 5. The record
   demonstrates that the Army's comparison of the proposals and award
   decision were based not on a mechanical averaging of the ratings, but on
   the underlying qualitative merits of the proposals.[2] AR, Tab 31. In this
   regard, the SSEB report contains a paragraph (consistent with the chart
   above) explaining in narrative form reasons for the adjectival ratings
   received by each proposal,[3] and the evaluated strengths, weaknesses, and
   deficiencies for each proposal. AR, Tab 29, at 6-7. [4] The report
   identifies four specific strengths, and no weaknesses or deficiencies, for
   Raymond's proposal. Id. It was with reference to this report, not merely
   the adjectival ratings, that the source selection authority (SSA) made the
   award decision. There is no indication in the source selection decision
   document, or elsewhere, that the SSA followed a methodology of averaging
   factor and subfactor ratings to arrive at an overall rating. Rather, the
   record shows that the award decision took into account the specific
   strengths of the proposals, and did not mechanically adopt the SSEB's
   adjectival ratings. On this record, there is no reason to conclude that
   arriving at a different average adjectival rating--good rather than
   satisfactory--for the first technical capability subfactor would have had
   any effect on the award decision. Chapman Law Firm, LPA, supra.[5]

   Satisfactory Subfactor Ratings

   Raymond maintains that the satisfactory ratings its proposal received
   under the "during off-duty leisure" and "during crisis and unexpected
   situations" categories under the Simultaneous High Quality Security and
   Force Protection subfactor are unreasonable when compared to Aegis's
   ratings for those categories (satisfactory and good, respectively). In
   this regard, Raymond asserts that its proposal provided specific
   information concerning these categories, while Aegis's was "vague and
   non-committal." Protester's Comments, Apr. 5, 2007, at 11.

   The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the agency's
   discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the
   best methods for accommodating them. U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, Dec.
   18, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 218 at 2. In reviewing a protest against an
   agency's evaluation of proposals, we will examine the record to determine
   whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the
   stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
   regulations. See Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc..
   B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 169 at 3. A protester's
   disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that the
   evaluation was unreasonable. Hanford Envt'l. Health Found., B-292858.2,
   B-292858.5, Apr. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 164 at 4.

   The evaluation in these areas was reasonable. Regarding "off
   duty/leisure," Raymond's proposal explained where its team would be
   billeted in relation to certain principals' billeting, and that the
   principals were able to request assistance if necessary in their billets.
   AR, Tab 5, at 14. Aegis's proposal stated that "the coverage would depend
   on the security of the location and the preferences of Principal." AR, Tab
   8, at 24. Given these limited responses by both offerors (Raymond's
   proposal contained no other information regarding security during off duty
   or leisure periods), we see nothing unreasonable in the agency's
   determination that both were satisfactory.

   Regarding "crisis and unexpected situations," Raymond's proposal contained
   no specific paragraph or section addressing this element of the subfactor.
   In its protest, Raymond asserts that there were procedures laid out
   elsewhere in its proposal (including a description of [DELETED])
   explaining what it would do in the event of an attack when the principals
   are in their offices, off duty in their billets, and while in transit;
   however, it does not specify the areas of its proposal where this
   information was located. Protester's Comments, Apr. 5, 2007, at 11. In
   contrast, Aegis's proposal specifically addressed the "crisis and
   unexpected situations" element. While, as the protester points out,
   Aegis's proposal contained a general paragraph stating that, during crises
   or unexpected situations, the response will depend on the location, AR,
   Tab 8, at 24, it also included outlines of tactics and procedures to be
   used during crises/extreme conditions (in addition to other situations),
   with a detailed explanation of how Aegis would respond in certain
   situations. AR, Tab 8, at 19-24. The protester points out that these
   procedures are limited to transit situations; however, Aegis's proposal
   nevertheless appears to have included a greater amount of information than
   Raymond's specifically addressing this area. We thus find nothing
   unreasonable in the agency's rating Aegis's proposal good and Raymond's
   merely satisfactory in this area.

   Probability of Success

   Raymond argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to ignore the
   firm's past performance when assessing its probability of success, which
   it argues was encompassed by the technical capability evaluation
   factor.[6] Raymond asserts that its "ongoing technical excellence"
   demonstrates that "there is a high probability for success and almost no
   risk" that it would fail to perform, as required for an exceptional rating
   under the technical capability factor. Protester's Comments, Apr. 5, 2007,
   at 7. Given its "proven ability to perform," the protester asserts, the
   agency should be required to set forth a specific reason for rating its
   proposal as merely good under the technical capability factor. Id. at 6-7.

   This argument is without merit. The two factors were set forth in the RFP
   as separate and distinct evaluation considerations. The past performance
   factor provided for evaluating five references in order to assess the
   agency's confidence that the offeror will perform successfully, while the
   technical capability factor provided for evaluating the offerors' methods
   and procedures for executing the requirements of the solicitation, as well
   as their probability of success. RFP at 43. The RFP did not provide for
   considering offerors' past performance in assessing their probability of
   success in performing the contract under the technical capability
   evaluation factor. It follows that there was no proper basis for the
   agency to assign Raymond's proposal a higher technical capability rating
   based on its past performance. See BAE Sys. Norfolk Ship Repair, Inc.,
   B-297879, Mar. 29, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 75 at 8-9 (protester's reliance on
   its past performance rating to challenge its management capability
   technical evaluation rating was misplaced); see Apptis, Inc., B-299457 et
   al., May 23, 2007, 2007 CPD para. __ (where solicitation provided for
   separate analyses, agency's consideration of past performance as part of
   assessing technical approach risk was improper).

   EVALUATION OF AEGIS'S PROPOSAL

   [DELETED]

   Raymond alleges that the agency improperly credited Aegis's proposal with
   a strength for having [DELETED]. Raymond asserts that it was improper to
   credit Aegis with this strength under the technical capability factor,
   since the solicitation stated that the government would provide [DELETED].

   This argument is without merit. Although agencies are required to identify
   in a solicitation all major evaluation factors, they are not required to
   identify all areas of each factor that might be taken into account in an
   evaluation, provided that the unidentified areas are reasonably related to
   or encompassed by the stated evaluation factors. AIA-Todini-Lotos,
   B-294337, Oct. 15, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 211 at 8. Here, under the first
   technical evaluation subfactor (Simultaneous High Quality Security and
   Force Protection), offerors' proposals were to be evaluated on their
   ability to provide security and force protection for the principals in
   various situations. The agency found that Aegis's [DELETED] would "greatly
   enhance the planning phase for all movements with the principals, above
   and beyond what's asked for in the statement of work." AR, Tab 40, at 10.
   We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's justification for assigning
   Aegis's proposal a strength in this area; it clearly relates directly to
   the first evaluation subfactor. The evaluation in this area therefore was
   unobjectionable.

   In any case, Aegis's proposal received a good rating under the technical
   capability factor based on five identified strengths, including its
   [DELETED]. Eliminating one strength would leave Aegis's proposal with four
   strengths. Since this is the same number of strengths Raymond's proposal
   received in support of its good rating, there is no reason to believe that
   Aegis's proposal would receive less than a good rating even if this
   strength were eliminated. It follows that there is no reason to believe
   that a change in this regard would have any effect on the award decision.
   See Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004
   CPD para. 104 at 7 (prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest,
   in the absence of which we will not sustain a protest).

   Past Performance

   Raymond alleges that the agency improperly failed to consider negative
   past performance information regarding Aegis. Specifically, the protester
   points to Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) Report
   No. 05-005, "Compliance with Contract No. W911S0-04-C-0003 Awarded to
   Aegis Defence Services Limited," which was critical of certain aspects of
   Aegis's performance under a contract for personal security services (among
   other things) in Iraq. Raymond asserts that the agency improperly failed
   to consider this information, and that Aegis's rating would have been
   lower had it done so.

   This argument is without merit. The Army has provided affidavits from the
   principal procurement officials involved--the SSA, two contracting
   officers, and the SSEB chairman--in which the officials assert that they
   were unaware of the SIGIR report. Letter from Army to GAO, May 3, 2007,
   at 4-7. Since the protester has not provided any evidence demonstrating
   that the report was disseminated to these individuals, or other officials
   involved with the procurement, or that these individuals, or other
   officials involved in the procurement, were actually aware of the report,
   the agency's failure to consider the report does not provide a basis for
   questioning the evaluation. See East-West Indus., Inc., B-297391.2,
   B-297391.3, July 19, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 161 at 7.

   SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

   Raymond argues that the agency's best value decision is not adequately
   documented because it does not articulate a comparative assessment of
   Aegis's and Raymond's proposals against the source selection criteria.

   We review the documentation supporting a source selection decision to
   determine whether the decision was adequately supported and rationally
   related to the evaluation factors. J.A. Jones Mgmt. Servs., Inc.,
   B-278684, July 24, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 47 at 4. Implicit in this is the
   requirement that the evaluation be documented in sufficient detail to show
   that it was not arbitrary. FAR sections 15.305(a), 15.308; Quality
   Elevator Co., Inc.. B-276750, July 23, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 28 at 3. As
   discussed above, the SSEB report contained an analysis of each proposal,
   detailing the bases for assigning specific ratings under the evaluation
   factors, and identifying evaluated strengths, weaknesses, and
   deficiencies. AR, Tab 29. The SSA referenced these evaluation findings in
   the source selection decision document, and went on to specifically
   determine that Raymond's exceptional past performance and strong technical
   capability ratings did not "sufficiently overcome [Aegis's] significant
   price differential[ ]." AR, Tab 31, at 18. This documentation is
   sufficient to demonstrate that the agency's decision was not arbitrary.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The RFP did not label these areas as subfactors, but they were
   evaluated as such; accordingly, we discuss them as subfactors.

   [2] As required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.308.

   [3] For example, the awardee's proposal received a good rating under the
   Simultaneous High Quality Security and Force Protection subfactor due to
   its exceptional ratings for high quality security and force protection
   support 24/7 for up to 5 principals, and protection during transit and
   temporary duty.

   [4] This area of the SSEB report states that Raymond's technical proposal
   resulted in a team consensus satisfactory rating for the technical
   capability factor, rather than the good rating the record shows the
   proposal actually received. AR, Tab 29, at 7. It appears that this error
   did not prejudice the protester, as both the source selection decision
   document and other areas of the SSEB report accurately reflect that
   Raymond's proposal received a good rating under the technical capability
   factor. AR, Tab 29, at 6; Tab 31, at 17.

   [5] Raymond asserts that the individual SSEB member ratings under various
   subfactors were averaged improperly. For example, Raymond asserts that it
   was improper for the agency to average two individual ratings of
   exceptional with two good ratings assigned by the other two evaluators
   into an overall score of exceptional, while averaging the same ratings for
   Raymond into an overall rating of good. This argument is without merit. A
   consensus rating need not be the same as the initial ratings assigned by
   the individual evaluators, since the final rating may be arrived at after
   discussions among the evaluators. I.S. Grupe, Inc., B-278839, Mar. 20,
   1998, 98-1 CPD para. 86 at 5-6. Consequently, the fact that the SSEB
   reached different consensus ratings for the two offerors despite their
   identical individual evaluator ratings does not provide a basis to
   challenge the award.

   [6] Specifically, the exceptional and good ratings for the technical
   capability factor were defined as follows:

     "Exceptional" The proposal greatly exceeds stated requirements, as
     reflected through an innovative, comprehensive, outstanding approach.
     The response is complete in terms of the basic content and level of
     information the Government seeks for evaluation. There is a high
     probability of success and almost no risk that this Offeror would fail
     to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements. Any weaknesses
     are minor.

     "Good" The proposal exceeds stated requirements. The response is
     complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the
     Government seeks for evaluation. There is a high probability of success
     and negligible risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the quantity,
     quality, and schedule requirements. There are no significant weaknesses,
     but there may be minor weaknesses that need not be corrected to make
     award.

   RFP at 43.