TITLE: B-299702; B-299702.2, Data Management Services Joint Venture, July 24, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299702; B-299702.2
DATE: July 24, 2007
***************************************************************************
B-299702; B-299702.2, Data Management Services Joint Venture, July 24, 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: Data Management Services Joint Venture

   File: B-299702; B-299702.2

   Date: July 24, 2007

   Joseph G. Billings, Esq., for the protester.

   Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Jeremy Becker-Welts, Esq., Bradley Arant Rose
   & White LLP, for Alon, Inc., an intervenor.

   Gary L. Brooks, Esq., and Stephani L. Abramson, Esq., National Archives &
   Records Administration, for the agency.

   Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
   of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
   decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Where, for purposes of evaluation under corporate experience subfactor,
   request for quotations (RFQ) defined relevant work as work similar in
   scope, magnitude, and nature to solicited effort, it was not consistent
   with the terms of the RFQ for the evaluators to consider work of lesser
   magnitude relevant; protest is denied, however, where agency had
   reasonable basis for viewing efforts not meeting solicitation definition
   as relevant, and there is no evidence that protester was prejudiced by the
   agency's relaxation of its criteria for determining relevance.

   2. Since, to demonstrate an impermissible "bait and switch," a protester
   must show not simply that a firm represented that it would rely on
   specific personnel whom it did not intend to furnish, but also that the
   misrepresentation had a material impact on the evaluation, allegation that
   successful vendor intends to substitute equally (or better) qualified
   personnel for the individuals specified in its quotation is legally
   insufficient since such a substitution could not materially affect the
   evaluation results.

   3. Protest arguing that successful vendor's Federal Supply Schedule
   contract does not contain all required labor categories is denied where
   agency reasonably determined that vendor had proposed equivalent labor
   categories.

   DECISION

   Data Management Services Joint Venture (DMSJV) protests the National
   Archives & Records Administration's (NARA) issuance of a delivery order to
   Alon, Inc. under that firm's General Services Administration (GSA) Federal
   Supply Schedule (FSS) contract No. GS-35F-0325R.[1] The order was issued
   pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. NAMA-07-Q-0004 for support
   staff for NARA's Electronic Records Archives (ERA) Program Management
   Office (PMO). The protester argues that the agency erred in its evaluation
   of quotations.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFQ, which was issued on November 3, 2006, sought quotations from
   firms holding FSS Information Technology Schedule 70 contracts. The
   solicitation contemplated the issuance of an order on a time-and-materials
   basis for a base period of 12 months, with four option periods of 12
   months each. The RFQ included descriptions of, and requested pricing for,
   64 labor categories; 13 of the 64 labor categories were designated as core
   positions.[2] Vendors were required to submit detailed information
   regarding the education and experience of the individuals whom they were
   proposing for the 13 core positions.

   The RFQ provided for issuance of an order to the vendor whose quotation
   was determined to represent the best value to the government, with
   quotations to be evaluated on the basis of the following factors:
   achievement of socio-economic objectives; personnel; understanding of the
   work statement; past performance; and price. The understanding of the work
   statement factor, which was to be addressed through an oral presentation,
   consisted of two equally weighted subfactors: staff management and
   corporate experience. The solicitation explained that in the determination
   of best value, the achievement of socio-economic objectives factor would
   be significantly more important than the personnel factor, the personnel
   factor significantly more important than the understanding of the work
   statement factor, and the understanding of the work statement factor and
   the past performance factor of equal weight. The solicitation further
   explained that the technical evaluation factors, when combined, were
   significantly more important than price.

   Five vendors submitted quotations by the December 11, 2006 due date. The
   agency evaluators rated the quotations under the four technical evaluation
   factors as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Offeror  |Socio-Economic|Personnel |Understanding of Work   |Past       |
   |         |Objectives    |          |Statement               |Performance|
   |---------+--------------+----------+------------------------+-----------|
   |Alon     |[deleted]     |[deleted] |[deleted]               |[deleted]  |
   |---------+--------------+----------+------------------------+-----------|
   |DMSJV    |[deleted]     |[deleted] |[deleted]               |[deleted]  |
   |---------+--------------+----------+------------------------+-----------|
   |Offeror A|Acceptable    |Acceptable|Outstanding             |Acceptable |
   |---------+--------------+----------+------------------------+-----------|
   |Offeror B|Acceptable    |Acceptable|Marginal                |Better     |
   |---------+--------------+----------+------------------------+-----------|
   |Offeror C|Acceptable    |Acceptable|Marginal                |Acceptable |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Vendor Screening Report at 7.[3]

   The evaluators determined that the quotations of the two highest-rated
   firms, Alon and DMSJV, were essentially equal technically and that price
   would therefore play an enhanced role in the determination of best value.
   Alon's evaluated price was $57,510,665 [deleted]. The evaluators
   concluded, after performing a paired comparison of the quotations, that
   the difference in price outweighed any difference in technical quality,
   and, accordingly, that Alon's quotation represented the best value to the
   government. Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Vendor Screening Report at 54. The
   source selection authority agreed and selected Alon to receive the order.
   DMSJV was notified of the order to Alon on April 10 and protested to our
   Office on April 17.

   DISCUSSION

   The protester raises various challenges to the evaluation of both Alon's
   quotation and its own.

   We begin by noting that in the context of an RFQ such as the one here,
   where an agency solicits FSS vendor responses and uses an evaluation
   approach similar to that used in Federal Acquisition Regulation (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. Advanced Tech. Sys., Inc., B-298854,
   B-298854.2, Dec. 29, 2006, 2007 CPD para. 22 at 8.

   Corporate Experience

   The protester argues first that Alon should not have received a rating of
   [deleted] under the understanding of the work statement factor because it
   lacks acceptable corporate experience. Specifically, DMSJV contends that
   Alon lacks experience on contracts of the magnitude of the effort
   solicited here, as required by the RFQ.

   As previously noted, corporate experience was one of two equally-weighted
   subfactors under the understanding of the work statement factor. The RFQ
   provided for its evaluation as follows:

   CORPORATE EXPERIENCE: Demonstrated recent and relevant corporate
   experience on work of similar scope, magnitude and nature: experience in
   staffing on-site program management support to major systems software
   development or integration projects.

   RFQ at 74.

   The evaluators assigned Alon's quotation ratings of [deleted] under both
   the staff management and the corporate experience subfactors, for an
   overall rating of [deleted] under the understanding of the work statement
   factor. AR, Tab 11, Consensus Evaluator Factor Rating Sheet for Factor 3
   pertaining to Alon. With regard to the corporate experience subfactor
   specifically, the evaluators found that Alon had demonstrated [deleted]
   AR, Tab 12, Vendor Screening Report at 33. The evaluators further observed
   that the [deleted] Id.

    

   The protester argues that Alon's contracts with the TSA, NWS, and MDA were
   not similar in magnitude to the effort solicited here and thus should not
   have been considered relevant work under the corporate experience
   subfactor. DMSJV notes in this connection that Alon represented in its
   quotation that the MDA contract had a final/present value of $580,000 and
   the NWS contract a final/present value of $750,000 (as compared with an
   evaluated price for the work here of over $50 million), and that it
   furnished no information regarding the value of the TSA contract. The
   protester also argues that it was improper for the evaluators to consider
   the experience of Alon's "senior staff" under the corporate experience
   subfactor.

   In response, the agency argues that the RFQ provided for consideration of
   not simply the magnitude of vendors' existing and prior contracts, but
   also their scope and nature, and that the evaluators reasonably determined
   that the similarities between Alon's prior contracts and the effort
   solicited here with regard to the scope and nature of the work to be
   performed outweighed any differences in magnitude. In support of its
   position, the agency cites our decision in Computer Sys. Dev. Corp.,
   B-275356, Feb. 11, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 91, in which we found that a
   procuring agency had reasonably determined, in rating proposals under a
   corporate experience evaluation factor, that similarity with regard to the
   type of work performed outweighed similarity with regard to contract
   value. The agency also argues that since DMSJV was not present at Alon's
   oral presentation, it has no way of knowing whether Alon conveyed
   information regarding the value of its contract with the TSA during the
   presentation.

   First, the agency's argument that the protester has no way of knowing
   whether Alon provided information regarding the value of its TSA contract
   at its oral presentation clearly is not dispositive of the issue, given
   that the agency has not asserted that Alon did in fact furnish such
   information. There simply is no evidence in the record that Alon's TSA
   contract (or its MDA or NWS contracts) were similar in magnitude to the
   effort here. Accordingly, the issue before us is whether it was consistent
   with the terms of the RFQ and reasonable for the evaluators to have
   considered relevant Alon's experience on projects that were highly similar
   in scope and nature, but not similar in magnitude to the effort solicited
   here.

   In our view, it was not consistent with the terms of the RFQ, which
   essentially provided that prior work efforts had to be similar in scope,
   magnitude, and nature to be considered relevant, for the evaluators to
   have considered Alon's contracts with the TSA, NWS, and MDA relevant. See
   Si-Nor, Inc., B-292748.2 et al., Jan. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 10 at 17. We
   think that this case is distinguishable from Computer Sys. Dev. Corp.,
   cited by the agency above, in that in the cited case, the solicitation
   identified size, complexity, and participation as factors to be considered
   in determining the significance of a prior work effort, but did not
   require that a project have been similar in all three respects to be
   considered significant, whereas here, the RFQ defines relevant work as
   work of similar scope, magnitude, and nature, meaning that all three
   factors need to be present for a contract to be considered relevant.

   That does not end our analysis, however, given that it is the agency's
   position that the terms of the RFQ notwithstanding, contracts of lesser
   magnitude than the effort here may in fact be relevant where sufficiently
   similar in scope and nature. In other words, the agency's position is, in
   essence, that the RFQ overstates the agency's requirements pertaining to
   prior work effort relevance.

   Where an agency takes the position that a solicitation overstates its
   requirements, and proposes to evaluate vendor responses on the basis of
   its actual, as opposed to its stated, requirements, the relevant inquiry
   is whether the protester was prejudiced by the overstatement. Unfair
   competitive prejudice from a waiver or relaxation of the terms of the RFQ
   exists where the terms were not similarly waived or relaxed for the
   protester, or the protester would be able to alter its quotation to its
   competitive advantage if it were given the opportunity to respond to the
   relaxed terms. See 4-D Neuroimaging, B-286155.2 et al., Oct. 10, 2001 ,
   2001 CPD para. 183 at 10. Here, the evaluators considered prior work
   efforts of lesser magnitude in their evaluation of both Alon's and DMSJV's
   corporate experience; that is, there is no evidence that the evaluators
   waived the requirement pertaining to similarity in magnitude for Alon
   while failing to waive it for DMSJV. Further, we see no basis to conclude
   that DMSJV would have cited different contracts as examples of its own
   corporate experience had it recognized that contracts dissimilar in
   magnitude might be considered relevant. Indeed, since three of the five
   contracts cited by the protester in its quotation as examples of its
   corporate experience have present values of less than 5 percent of its
   evaluated price for the services here, it appears that the protester, like
   the agency and the successful vendor, assumed that contracts dissimilar in
   dollar value might nonetheless be considered relevant if sufficiently
   similar in other respects. Given the apparent lack of prejudice to DMSJV,
   the agency's consideration of Alon's prior contracts despite their
   dissimilarity in magnitude provides no basis to object to the evaluation.

   The protester argues that, because the RFQ had separate evaluation
   criteria for personnel and corporate experience, it was improper for the
   evaluators to consider the experience of Alon's "senior staff" under the
   corporate experience subfactor. See Dix Corp., B-293964, July 14, 2004,
   2004 CPD para. 143 (an agency may consider the experience of key personnel
   in evaluating the corporate experience of a new business unless the terms
   of the solicitation reasonably preclude such substitution, such as where
   the solicitation includes separate evaluation criteria for corporate and
   key personnel experience). The agency responds that the reference to the
   experience of Alon's "senior staff" was a reference to the experience of
   Alon's president and vice-president, that is, Alon's corporate staff.
   Since, as NARA contends, the experience of these individuals was not
   considered under the personnel factor, we do not think that the evaluators
   were barred from considering it under the corporate experience subfactor.

   Regarding the protester's argument that if Alon were given credit for the
   experience of its corporate staff under the corporate experience
   subfactor, then DMSJV should have been given the opportunity to receive
   credit for the experience of its corporate staff, the evaluation record
   reveals that DMSJV in fact did receive credit for its corporate staff
   under the corporate experience subfactor. As discussed below, one of the
   evaluators' justifications for rating the protester's quotation as
   [deleted] under the corporate experience subfactor was that the "[o]wner
   demonstrated good understanding of requirements." AR, Tab 11, Consensus
   Evaluator Factor Rating Sheet for Factor 3 pertaining to DMSJV. See also
   AR, Tab 12, Vendor Screening Report at 31. Further, regarding the
   protester's argument that there is no evidence in the record that the
   contracts worked on by Alon's corporate staff were similar in magnitude to
   the effort here, as discussed above, we think that the agency could
   properly consider such efforts provided the contracts were sufficiently
   similar in other respects.

   The protester also takes issue with the rating of its own quotation as
   merely [deleted] under the corporate experience subfactor. DMSJV argues
   that its quotation should have received a more favorable rating than
   Alon's under this subfactor because it demonstrated both more, and more
   relevant, experience than Alon. The protester also argues that the
   evaluators improperly downgraded the rating of its quotation under the
   corporate experience subfactor based on concerns pertaining to the
   percentage of work to be performed by employees of the joint venture.
   DMSJV argues that this was improper since such concerns are matters of
   responsibility and contract administration.

   As noted by the protester, the agency evaluators assigned DMSJV's
   quotation a rating of [deleted] under the corporate experience subfactor.
   The evaluators furnished the following justification for the rating on
   their consensus rating worksheet:

   [deleted]

   AR, Tab 11, Consensus Evaluator Factor Rating Sheet for Factor 3
   pertaining to DMSJV. Similarly, the Vendor Screening Report identified the
   following strengths and weaknesses pertaining to DMSJV's corporate
   experience:

   [deleted]

   AR, Tab 12,Vendor Screening Report at 31.

   Regarding the protester's argument that it should have received a more
   favorable rating than Alon under the corporate experience subfactor
   because it has more, and more relevant, experience, we think that the
   evaluation record demonstrates a reasonable basis for the assignment of
   ratings of [deleted] to both quotations under the subfactor. As explained
   above, we see no basis to conclude that the evaluators were required to
   assign Alon's quotation a rating lower than better. With regard to DMSJV's
   quotation, we think that a rating of [deleted] was justified given that
   only two of the five contracts cited by the protester as examples of its
   corporate experience were in fact performed by the joint venture (the
   other three having been performed by the mentor partner, ASC), and the
   present/final value of these two contracts were $584,412 and $1,909,661,
   respectively, meaning that both were, like Alon's prior contracts, of a
   magnitude considerably smaller than the effort here. Regarding the
   protester's complaint that concerns regarding the percentage of work to be
   performed by the joint venture should not have been considered a weakness
   under the corporate experience factor, we agree; since such concerns do
   not pertain to corporate experience, we see no rationale for considering
   them weaknesses under the subfactor. Nonetheless, given the above
   information pertaining to the number and value of the prior contracts
   performed by the joint venture itself, we see no basis to conclude that
   but for the wrongly attributed weakness, DMSJV should have received a
   rating of [deleted] under the corporate experience subfactor.

   Past performance

   The protester challenges the evaluation of both its own and Alon's
   quotations under the past performance factor. Both quotations received
   ratings of [deleted] under the factor.

   The RFQ informed vendors that their past performance would be evaluated
   "under existing and prior contracts for similar products and services" and
   instructed them to submit "no more than five (5) Past Performance
   references" for similar efforts. RFQ at 52. The solicitation further
   provided that "[i]f the prime Contractor or its subcontractors have no
   past performance history in the requisite contract amount, the Offeror may
   submit information on past performance at lower dollar levels, providing
   that the Offeror adheres to the above limitations as to the number of
   chronologically consecutive contracts." Id.

   The protester argues that Alon's past performance should have been rated
   as unacceptable because Alon "did not have contracts similar in size to
   the work of the RFQ and submitted only three contracts that could be
   evaluated for past performance."[4] Supplemental Protest at 11.

   Regarding the protester's first allegation, the RFQ explicitly permitted
   the submission of past performance information on contracts of lower
   dollar value than the effort here. To the extent that the protester is
   arguing that NARA should not have considered Alon's lower-value contracts
   relevant despite the RFQ language explicitly permitting the submission of
   past performance information pertaining to such efforts, we disagree; it
   would make no sense for the agency to permit vendors to submit information
   on lower-value contracts if it did not intend to consider it. With regard
   to DMSJV's argument that Alon's past performance should have been rated
   unacceptable because the agency received performance surveys pertaining to
   only three relevant contracts, the RFQ did not require past performance
   information on a specified minimum number of contracts--its only
   restriction pertained to the maximum number of projects that could be
   submitted for consideration. Moreover, even a total lack of relevant past
   performance on the part of a vendor would not have resulted in a rating of
   unacceptable for past performance; instead, under the procedures used
   here, it would have resulted in the neutral rating of "No Past
   Performance."[5]

   Regarding the evaluation of its own past performance, DMSJV takes issue
   with the evaluators' identification of the following weaknesses in the
   Vendor Screening Report:

   [deleted]

   AR, Tab 12, Vendor Screening Report at 45.

   The protester argues that the agency should not have considered it a
   weakness that only two of the contracts that it submitted were for the
   joint venture itself (as opposed to the large business partner). DMSJV
   acknowledges that our Office has held that in evaluating past performance,
   an agency may appropriately consider the experience of the individual
   members of a joint venture and, at the same time, consider the lack of
   experience of the joint venture, see, e.g., Transventures Int'l, Inc.,
   B-292788, Nov. 4, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 195 at 7; ITT Federal Servs. Int'l
   Corp., B-283307, B-283307.2, Nov. 3, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 76 at 14, but
   urges us to reconsider these decisions. We see no basis for departing from
   our precedent. Since it is the joint venture that will be performing the
   work here, we see no reason that the agency could not properly have
   considered the extent of its experience in its evaluation.

   DMSJV also takes issue with the evaluators' finding that the NARA
   references disclosed weaknesses in overall customer satisfaction. The
   protester argues that all of the negative comments cited by the evaluators
   are attributable to a single reference, and that this reference made
   positive, as well as negative, comments regarding customer satisfaction
   with its performance, but that the evaluators picked up on the negative
   comments only.

   The reference's comments indicated that the government staff was satisfied
   with the performance of some ASC employees and dissatisfied with the
   performance of others.[6] We think that the evaluators could reasonably
   have regarded customer dissatisfaction with a portion of the contractor
   workforce as a weakness.

   Bait and switch

   DMSJV argues that Alon does not intend to hire some of the individuals
   whom it identified in its quotation as key personnel, and that it has thus
   engaged in an impermissible "bait and switch." In its initial protest, the
   protester cited as evidence of Alon's purported intention to switch
   personnel, conversations between government contracting personnel and
   several employees of the incumbent, ASC, during the course of which the
   government personnel allegedly encouraged the ASC employees to seek
   employment with Alon. In commenting on the agency report, DMSJV cited as
   further evidence that Alon intended to hire incumbent personnel for
   certain core positions (and thus did not intend to rely upon the personnel
   whom it had identified in its quotation) an excerpt from one of Alon's
   oral presentation slides that stated that Alon had [deleted] AR, Tab 15,
   Alon Quotation, Oral Presentation Slides.

   As previously noted, the RFQ identified 64 labor categories and designated
   13 of them as core positions. Vendors were required to submit a Personnel
   Data Form for each individual proposed for a core position. The
   solicitation provided that "[t]he [c]ontractor agrees to assign to the
   task order those key persons whose Personnel Data Forms were submitted as
   required to fill the core requirements of the task order." RFQ at 79. The
   RFQ further provided that "the qualifications of the proposed personnel
   for whom Personnel Data Forms are submitted will become the minimum
   qualifications for any contractor personnel who may replace those
   personnel when performing under the affected labor category." Id. at 52.

   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. Advanced Tech. Sys.,
   Inc., supra, at 10.

   Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is evidence of an
   intention to switch here, the protester's argument that an impermissible
   "bait and switch" occurred must fail because there is no evidence of
   baiting. In this connection, DMSJV has not alleged that Alon intends to
   replace the individuals designated in its quotation with less qualified
   ones; its allegation is that Alon intends to substitute for the
   individuals named in the quotation equally (or better) qualified employees
   of the incumbent. Since the substitution of equally qualified individuals
   for the ones designated in a quotation could not have had a material
   effect on the evaluation results, such a substitution does not constitute
   an impermissible "bait and switch."[7]

   Evaluation of Personnel

   DMSJV argues that it was unreasonable for the agency evaluators to assign
   Alon's quotation a rating of [deleted] under the personnel evaluation
   factor given that they identified the following deficiency pertaining to
   Alon's proposed senior risk management specialist:

   Candidate has the following deficiency: [deleted].

   AR, Tab 12, Vendor Screening Report at 12. The protester notes that the
   Vendor Screening Plan defined a deficiency as follows:

   A "Deficiency" is a material failure of the quote to meet a requirement or
   a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of
   unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

   AR, Tab 8, Vendor Screening Plan at 12. DMSJV contends that in view of the
   deficiency in experience and expertise pertaining to a key employee,
   Alon's quotation should have been rated as unacceptable under the
   personnel factor and its risk of nonperformance considered high.

   In response, the agency explains that "when the [evaluators] stated that
   one of the candidates proposed by Alon for one of the key positions had a
   deficiency, the [evaluators] did not mean a `deficiency' in the technical
   sense as a material failure," rather, "the [evaluation team] was noting
   that the candidate was deficient [deleted] Agency Reply/Report on the
   Supplemental Protest at 22. The agency observes that it was an
   "unfortunate use of the word." Id. While the protester disputes the
   agency's explanation, it seems reasonable to us. The RFQ defined desired,
   as opposed to required, qualifications for the position of senior risk
   management specialist, and we do not see how a failure to offer desired
   qualifications could be termed a failure to meet a solicitation
   requirement.

   Mapping to FSS Schedule

   Each vendor was required to furnish as part of its quotation a pricing
   table identifying for each labor category described in the RFQ the
   corresponding labor category from the vendor's FSS contract. The protester
   argues that three of the labor categories identified by Alon in its table
   are not equivalent to the labor categories described in the RFQ and that
   Alon's FSS contract thus does not contain all required labor categories.
   Specifically, DMSJV contends that Alon has not identified an equivalent
   labor category for the core positions of senior risk management
   specialist, facilities and operations specialist, and senior
   organizational development specialist.

   The FSS program, directed and managed by GSA, gives federal agencies a
   simplified process for obtaining commonly used commercial supplies and
   services. FAR

   sect. 8.401(a). The procedures established for the FSS program satisfy the
   requirement for full and open competition. 41 U.S.C. sect. 259(b)(3)
   (2000); FAR sect. 6.102(d)(3); Tarheel Specialties, Inc., B-298197,
   B-298197.2, July 17, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 140 at 3. Non-FSS products and
   services may not be purchased using FSS procedures; instead, their
   purchase requires compliance with the applicable procurement laws and
   regulations, including those requiring the use of competitive procedures.
   American Sys. Consulting, Inc., B-294644, Dec. 13, 2004, 2004 CPD para.
   247 at 3. Accordingly, where an agency announces its intention to order
   from an FSS contractor, all items are required to be within the scope of
   the vendor's (or, if not prohibited by the solicitation, its
   subcontractors') FSS contract(s).[8] Altos Fed. Group, Inc., B-294120,
   July 28, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 172 at 4.

   The RFQ identified the function to be performed by, and the desired
   qualifications of, the senior risk management specialist as follows:

   FUNCTION: Implements ERA Risk Program including support to the Risk Review
   Boards and Risk Review Teams. Facilitates formal Risk Management meetings.
   Manages operations of risk management tools. Develops risk scenarios and
   assesses impact on schedule, cost and program mission. Reviews ERA risk
   related deliverables from ERA PSI Contractor. Writes or updates ERA
   Program Management Risk Plans, procedures, and processes. Performs other
   tasks as directed.

   DESIRED EDUCATION: Bachelor's Degree (BA/BS) in Business Administration,
   Public Administration, Engineering or related field. Eight years
   progressively responsible experience with increasingly more complex or
   difficult assignments may be substituted for educational requirement.

   DESIRED GENERAL EXPERIENCE: Twelve years experience in planning or
   performing project or program risk analysis and management efforts.

   DESIRED SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE: Two years experience in facilitating risk
   review meetings and in applying currently available risk management tools
   such as @Risk and Risk Radar on project plans, technical approaches,
   project schedule or cost estimation.

   RFQ at 16.

   In its pricing table, Alon identified the labor category from its FSS
   contract that was equivalent to the above category as senior requirements
   analyst. Alon's FSS contract included the following description of that
   position:

   Minimum/General Experience: 10 years experience gathering requirements for
   business and technical solutions. Must have strong writing and
   communications skills and the ability to interface with senior and
   executive management. Must be knowledgeable with the implementation of
   applicable Government mandates such as the President's Management Agenda
   and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Master's degree is
   equivalent to two (2) years experience.

   Functional Responsibility: Duties may include conducting process or
   requirements analyses, supporting IT systems development with subject
   matter knowledge, assisting in IT procurement, performing system audits,
   conducting training, and assisting in the preparation of management and
   financial reports and presentations.

   Minimum Education: Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science. Eight (8) years
   of experience is equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree.

   AR, Tab 15, Alon FSS Contract at 21-22.

   The protester argues that the functions to be performed by an Alon senior
   requirements analyst do not encompass the functions required to be
   performed by a senior risk management specialist, as defined by the RFQ.
   DMSJV further argues that 12 years of experience are required for the
   position described in the RFQ, whereas Alon's "equivalent" position
   requires only 10 years of experience.

   The agency responds that the only risks that the senior risk management
   specialist here will need to address are the risks associated with the
   development and implementation of the IT systems being acquired--that is,
   the only risks that will need to be addressed are those associated with
   the development and implementation of the system requirements--and that a
   senior requirements analyst is thus perfectly suited for the position. We
   think that the agency's position is reasonable. With regard to the
   argument concerning the number of years of experience, the RFQ did not
   state that 12 years of experience were required; it stated that 12 years
   of experience were desired. Since the RFQ did not define 12 years of
   experience as a requirement, we do not think that it was inconsistent with
   the position description for Alon to identify only 10 years of experience
   in its position description.

   Turning to DMSJV's argument that Alon did not identify an equivalent labor
   category for the position of facilities and operations specialist, the RFQ
   included the following description of this position:

   FUNCTION: Review substantive and complex technical documents related to
   ERA implementation, including documents and artifacts related to
   logistics, physical security, facilities planning, network and
   telecommunications planning, operations and maintenance planning, and
   installation. Performs other tasks as directed.

   DESIRED EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering,
   Information Technology, Computer Science or related field. Eight years
   progressively responsible experience with increasingly more complex or
   difficult assignments may be substituted for educational requirement.

   DESIRED GENERAL EXPERIENCE: Ten years experience supporting large systems
   installations.

   DESIRED SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE: Eight years experience in area of
   expertise.

   RFQ at 31.

   Alon identified the position in its FSS contract equivalent to the above
   position as subject matter expert I. Alon's FSS contract described the
   position of subject matter expert I as follows:

   Minimum/General Experience: Requires ten years experience in information
   systems, including five years of specialized experience providing
   state-of-the-art solutions in information systems technology. If the area
   of expertise is new state-of-the-art technology, experience must be
   consistent with the age of the technology. Vendor certification in RDBMS,
   development language, or telecommunication technology may be substituted
   for advanced degree or experience requirements.

   Functional Responsibility: Duties may include providing expert services
   and leadership in specialized technical areas, generally providing
   technical expertise in state-of-the-art technology.

   Minimum Education: Master's Degree or other equivalent degree program (or
   an additional 2 years general IT experience).

   AR, Tab 15, Alon FSS Contract at 23.

   DMSJV argues that the functions to be performed by a facilities and
   operations specialist, as defined by the RFQ, are distinct from those to
   be performed by a subject matter expert I, as defined in Alon's FSS
   contract. In this connection, the protester asserts that "[a] Facilities
   and Operations Specialist is responsible for the operation of the system
   and the facility where the system is located," whereas "[a] subject matter
   expert tells the requirements analyst what needs to be done by the
   computer system." Protester's Comments, May 29, 2007, at 37.

   As noted above, the RFQ defined the function of a facilities and
   operations specialist as "[r]eview[ing] substantive and complex technical
   documents related to ERA implementation;" it did not contain the
   definition advanced by DMSJV. We think that it was reasonable for the
   agency to conclude that the functions to be performed by an Alon subject
   matter expert I--i.e., providing expert services and leadership in
   specialized technical areas--are consistent with this function.

   Finally, with regard to the protester's argument that Alon did not propose
   an appropriate equivalent labor category for the position of senior
   organizational development specialist, the RFQ described that position as
   follows:

   FUNCTION: Identify and use methodologies and tools to assess user
   acceptance issues and requirements relative to a transformational
   information system such as ERA. Develop and execute strategies to
   facilitate and promote user acceptance of the ERA system. Identify
   opportunities and approaches for securing and expanding internal and
   external stakeholder involvement in the ERA program.

   DESIRED EDUCATION: Masters Degree in Industrial or Organizational
   Psychology, Business or Public Administration, Human Resource Management
   or extensive study into human factors as part of an Information
   Technology, or related field. Fifteen years progressively responsible
   experience with increasingly more complex or difficult assignments may be
   substituted for educational requirement.

   DESIRED GENERAL EXPERIENCE: Six years experience in developing and
   implementing organizational development plans, strategies and activities.

   DESIRED SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE: Three years experience facilitating
   meetings, seminars, workshops or similar events addressing information
   technology human factors, or user acceptance of new technologies.

   RFQ at 32. Alon identified its equivalent labor category as information
   systems engineer IV, a position that its FSS contract described as
   follows:

   Minimum/General Experience: Requires ten years experience. Relevant
   experience includes, but is not limited to, analysis and design of complex
   systems applications, such as web-based systems; use of programming
   languages; knowledge of database management systems; and software
   development management experience.

   Functional Responsibility: Duties may include performing, leading, and
   coordinating activities for the development of complex systems in one or
   more of the following areas: requirements analysis, design analysis,
   design, programming, software integration, documentation, test and
   evaluation, and other technical tasks.

   Minimum Education: Bachelor's Degree or other equivalent degree program
   (or an additional 4 years general IT experience).

   AR, Tab 15, Alon FSS Contract at 25-26.

   DMSJV maintains that the positions are not equivalent in that the function
   of a senior organizational development specialist is to facilitate the
   adaptation of stakeholders to a system, whereas an Alon information
   systems engineer IV "is involved primarily in developing systems
   applications, programming languages and software." Protester's Comments,
   May 29, 2007, at 39.

   The protester's argument overlooks the fact that the functional
   responsibilities described in Alon's FSS contract for the position of
   information systems engineer IV include the testing and evaluation of
   complex systems, as well as leading and coordinating such activities. We
   think that the functions to be performed by the senior organizational
   development specialist in connection with the work effort here--i.e.,
   assessing and promoting user acceptance of the ERA--may reasonably be
   viewed as encompassed within the Alon position description.

   Pricing

   DMSJV argues that NARA should have found Alon's proposed pricing
   unreasonable because Alon intends to hire incumbent personnel to fill some
   of the core positions, but has proposed to pay these individuals at rates
   lower than their current salaries. The protester bases its allegation that
   Alon intends to hire incumbent employees on the previously-cited excerpt
   from Alon's quotation stating that it [deleted] DMSJV bases its allegation
   that Alon intends to pay these individuals at rates lower than their
   current salaries on the fact that Alon proposed hourly rates for the core
   positions lower than its own proposed rates, which the protester claims
   are based on the salaries that ASC is currently paying.

   There is no indication in Alon's quotation as to the salaries that it
   intends to pay its employees; the quotation indicates only the hourly
   rates at which the services are offered. Thus, there is no evidence in the
   record (and DMSJV offers none) to show that Alon intends to compensate its
   employees at rates lower than the rates paid by the incumbent, ASC. As
   noted by the agency, Alon's lower prices might be due to lower overhead or
   profit margin--or even to Alon's willingness to take a loss on certain
   positions.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] DMSJV is a partnership between Data Management Services, an 8(a),
   woman-owned, Historically Underutilized Business Zone company, and
   American Systems Corporation (ASC), a large business. Protest at 1. ASC is
   the incumbent contractor for the services being solicited.

   [2] The RFQ included separate line items for the core and the non-core
   labor categories, with the line items corresponding to the latter
   identified as optional.

   [3] Quotations were to be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable under
   the achievement of socio-economic objectives factor; as outstanding,
   better, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable under the personnel and
   understanding of the work statement factors; and as outstanding, better,
   acceptable, marginal, or no past performance under the past performance
   factor. AR, Tab 8, Vendor Screening Plan at 12-14.

   [4] While, consistent with the RFQ instruction that directed vendors to
   submit five references, Alon submitted information on five contracts, the
   evaluators determined one of the contracts to be not relevant; in
   addition, the point of contact on another failed to return the performance
   survey.

   [5] The Vendor Screening Plan noted that a rating of "No Past Performance"
   meant that the "[q]uote receives no merit or demerit for this factor." AR,
   Tab 8, Vendor Screening Plan at 14.

   [6] The comments made by the individual reference were as follows:

   [deleted]

   Contractor Past Performance Evaluation Document at 3.

   [7] We also note that NARA has protected itself against the possibility of
   a "bait and switch" by the successful vendor by including in the RFQ the
   above-cited language providing that the qualifications of proposed key
   personnel will become the minimum qualifications for those proposed to
   replace them.

   [8] The RFQ here did in fact require that all items be on the vendor's own
   schedule.