TITLE: B-299798; B-299798.3, Savantage Financial Services, Inc., August 22, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299798; B-299798.3
DATE: August 22, 2007
*************************************************************************
B-299798; B-299798.3, Savantage Financial Services, Inc., August 22, 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: Savantage Financial Services, Inc.

   File: B-299798; B-299798.3

   Date: August 22, 2007

   Jon W. van Horne, Esq., Law Office of Jon W. van Horne, for the protester.

   Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan, Esq., and Adelicia
   Cliffe Taylor, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for IBM Global Business
   Services, the intervenor.

   Maj. Geraldine Chanel, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal is
   denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable
   and consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's
   disagreement with agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was
   unreasonable.

   DECISION

   Savantage Financial Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to IBM
   Global Business Services under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   W74V8H-06-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army, for educational
   support services for the GoArmyEd program. Savantage challenges the
   evaluation of its technical and price proposals and the resulting source
   selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The Army Continuing Education System (ACES) promotes lifelong learning
   opportunities for soldiers by providing and managing quality
   self-development education programs and services. Historically, ACES
   programs and services have been provided through an installation-centric
   model; however, through the GoArmyEd contract, ACES will offer active duty
   soldiers anytime, anywhere access to high quality educational
   opportunities from participating colleges and universities through the
   GoArmyEd web portal.[1] RFP Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 5-8.

   The RFP, issued on September 29, 2006, contemplated the award of a single
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with nine
   1-year options. Award was to be made without discussions unless
   discussions were otherwise determined to be necessary. RFP amend. 5, at 2.
   With regard to contract performance, the solicitation set forth the major
   tasks the contractor will be expected to perform, including--program
   management, operation and maintenance of the GoArmyEd portal, soldier
   support and educational services, management of GoArmyEd portal schools,
   programmatic and technical support, and transition management. RFP PWS, at
   15-49.

   The RFP provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering six
   evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance--technical
   approach, management capabilities and approach, corporate recent and
   relevant experience, small business participation plan (large businesses
   only), past performance and price/cost. RFP amend. 4, at 47-51. The RFP
   advised that only proposals rated at least acceptable under the technical
   approach factor and the management capabilities and approach factor were
   to be considered for award. The RFP also stated that the agency was "more
   concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than
   with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government." RFP
   amend. 4, at 44. Overall, the non-price factors, when combined, were
   significantly more important than price.

   As part of their price/cost proposal, offerors were required to provide
   their pricing for applicable items identified in section B of the
   solicitation. In addition, the RFP required that offerors' price proposal
   "shall contain sufficient price detail (i.e., a breakout) for labor,
   equipment, hosting, etc., to support the proposed Firm Fixed Price." RFP
   amend. 5, at 14. The solicitation further advised that price/cost
   proposals would be evaluated for completeness and that the agency would
   perform a price analysis to ensure fair, reasonable and realistic prices.
   RFP amend. 4, at 44, 51.

   The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals
   and requested, among other things, that offerors organize their proposals
   to correspond to the solicitation's evaluation factors. While setting
   forth page limitations for the various sections of the offerors'
   proposals, the RFP cautioned that each proposal was to clearly indicate
   the offeror's understanding of the proposal requirements through the
   submission of a satisfactorily completed proposal. RFP amend. 5, at 4-5.

   Savantage, IBM, and a third offeror submitted proposals by the December
   28, 2006 extended closing date.[2] Each member of the agency's source
   selection evaluation board (SSEB) individually rated each offeror's
   technical proposal by assigning for each non-price factor, and its related
   subfactors, an adjectival rating of excellent, good, acceptable, marginal,
   or unacceptable.[3] These adjectival ratings were supported by detailed
   narratives of the strengths or weaknesses in the proposal. After the
   individual evaluations were conducted, the members of the SSEB met and
   assigned a consensus rating to each offeror's proposal for each non-price
   factor and related subfactors which were of equal importance; these
   overall ratings and proposed prices were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Factors                                     |IBM         |Savantage     |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |1: Technical Approach                       |Excellent   |Marginal      |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Understanding of Requirement             |Excellent   |Marginal      |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Transition Plan                          |Good        |Marginal      |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Established Systems Engineering Processes|Excellent   |Acceptable    |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |2: Management Capabilities & Approach       |Excellent   |Marginal      |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Program Management                       |Excellent   |Marginal      |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Key Personnel                            |Excellent   |Marginal      |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Quality Control Plan                     |Excellent   |Acceptable    |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Compensation Plan for Professional       |Pass        |Pass          |
   |  |Employees                                |            |              |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |3: Corporate Recent & Relevant Experience   |Excellent   |Good          |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Corporate Recent Experience              |Excellent   |Good          |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Corporate Relevant Experience            |Excellent   |Acceptable    |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |4: Small Business Participation Plan        |Acceptable  |N/A           |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Small Business Participation Goals       |Good        |N/A           |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Achievement of Successful Overall        |Acceptable  |N/A           |
   |  |Contract                                 |            |              |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Realism of Proposed [Small Business      |Acceptable  |N/A           |
   |  |Participation] Goals                     |            |              |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |5: Past Performance                         |Low         |Low           |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Quality of Product or Service            |Low         |Low           |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Timeliness of Performance                |Low         |Low           |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Cost Control                             |Low         |Low           |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Business Relations                       |Low         |Low           |
   |--------------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |               Overall Rating               |Excellent   |Marginal      |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |6: Price/Cost                                                           |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |  |Evaluated Price                          |$214,334,656|$190,443,754  |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Completeness                             |Yes         |No            |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Reasonableness                           |Yes         |Yes, for total|
   |  |                                         |            |only          |
   |--+-----------------------------------------+------------+--------------|
   |  |Realism                                  |Yes         |Unable to     |
   |  |                                         |            |determine     |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR exh. 14, SSEB Initial Consensus Report, at 11, 21, 33, 38, 40, 47.

   In its evaluation of Savantage's proposal, the SSEB found 15 weaknesses
   under factor (1) technical approach, and 14 weaknesses under factor (2)
   management capabilities and approach--the two most important evaluation
   factors. In addition, the agency found that Savantage's price proposal did
   not contain required price information for the option years which
   precluded the agency from determining price realism. AR exh. 14, SSEB
   Initial Consensus Report, at 12-14, 23-24. In contrast, the SSEB
   identified numerous significant strengths and no significant weaknesses in
   IBM's proposal under the two most important evaluation factors--technical
   approach and management capabilities and approach. Id. at 11-12, 22-23.

   The SSEB reported its initial evaluation findings to the source selection
   authority (SSA) and recommended award to IBM based on these initial
   evaluations. Id. at 60-61. The SSA reviewed the evaluation findings,
   including the associated strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, and
   adopted the SSEB's technical findings and evaluation of proposed prices.
   The SSA determined that IBM's proposal represented the best value on the
   basis of the following considerations:

     Savantage's overall rating for the non-price factors is "Marginal."
     Savantage received a Marginal rating for the 2 most important non-price
     factors. . . . Collectively, the "Marginal" ratings for the two most
     significant non-price factors in importance outweigh the Good rating in
     Factor 3 and results in an overall technical "Marginal" rating.

     Savantage's cost/price offer was incomplete without required supporting
     data in compliance with the RFP. Specifically, Savantage failed to
     provide [deleted] to support its firm fixed price in Option Years 1
     through 9. Savantage's evaluated price of $190,443,754 appears to be the
     lowest but it is the SSA's determination that it cannot be deemed
     reasonable based on the information provided. Because Savantage's
     proposal was not complete, it was impossible to determine if their price
     is realistic for the work to be performed, which calls into question
     whether their proposed price is really the lowest offered.

                     *        *        *        *        * 

     IBM offered a superior technical proposal that contained merit
     significantly greater than either Savantage Solutions or [the third
     offeror]. IBM's price was the second highest but did not exceed the
     [independent government cost estimate] and provides the best solution
     for completing the requirement and there is very low risk of
     unsuccessful completion of the contract.

   AR exh. 15, Source Selection Decision Document, at 47-48, 49. Award was
   made to IBM and the agency notified Savantage of the award decision. AR
   exh. 16, Agency's Letter to Savantage. After receiving a debriefing,
   Savantage filed this protest.

   DISCUSSION

   In its initial protest, Savantage challenged each specific weakness
   identified by the agency during its debriefing, arguing that its proposal
   was improperly rejected "for what appear to be arbitrary and capricious
   reasons." Protest at 23. In its comments, Savantage provided
   point-by-point arguments that addressed the weaknesses identified during
   the agency debriefing as well as the substantive nature of the agency's
   evaluated weaknesses as reflected in the contemporaneous evaluation and
   source selection documents.[4] According to the protester, the agency
   conducted an unreasonable evaluation of its proposal, and improperly
   determined that the proposal was unacceptable under the two most important
   evaluation factors--technical approach, and management capabilities and
   approach. Among other things, Savantage contends that the evaluators
   failed to recognize that Savantage met the solicitation requirements under
   these two evaluation factors, alleging that the evaluation was either
   "based on matters outside the stated evaluation criteria," based "on
   matters that are simply irrelevant or irrational," or was otherwise "based
   on nothing at all." Protester's Comments at 4.

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
   confined to a determination of whether the agency's judgment was
   reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors and
   applicable statutes and regulations. L-3 Communications Westwood Corp.,
   B-295126, Jan. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 30 at 5. Where the source
   selection authority reasonably considered the underlying bases for the
   ratings consistent with the terms of the solicitation, the protester's
   disagreement with the rating assigned to the proposal provides no basis to
   question the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source selection
   decision based on the underlying comparative strengths and weaknesses of
   the proposals. Ideamatics, Inc., B-297791.2, May 26, 2006, 2006 CPD para.
   87 at 4; see also, Command Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B-292893.2, June 30, 2004,
   2004 CPD para. 168 at 3.

   We have considered all of Savantage's arguments and the detailed
   contemporaneous record of the agency's evaluation, including the
   individual evaluators' summary evaluation forms, and source selection
   decision, and conclude, based on the extensive written record, that the
   agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal was reasonable. We discuss
   a few illustrative examples below.

   Understanding of Requirement Subfactor

   Under the understanding of requirement subfactor under the technical
   approach factor, the RFP provided that a proposal's technical approach
   section shall be sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete to clearly
   and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the
   Army's requirements and provides a comprehensive technical
   approach/solution to meeting the solicitation requirements. RFP amend. 4,
   at 47-48. Consistent with this, offerors were required to address 10
   specific elements such as, the offeror's concept of the operational
   aspects of a performance-based partnership, the expected performance of
   the contractor team and the government team; the processes and techniques
   for portal maintenance, oversight, and control, to include network
   operations; and the offeror's helpdesk and customer relationship
   management (CRM) concept, system, and processes to ensure that these
   services are provided in accordance with the PWS requirements. RFP amend.
   5, at 5-6.

   The record shows that in evaluating Savantage's proposal, the agency
   evaluators identified four strengths and seven weaknesses under the
   understanding of requirement subfactor. For example, the agency downgraded
   Savantage's proposal for failing:

     to demonstrate an adequate understanding of current Army education
     operational structure and stakeholder responsibilities as outlined in
     the PWS. For example, Savantage misidentified [Army training
     requirements and resources systems (ATRRS)] and ITAP [integrated total
     Army personnel database] as ACES legacy systems, which they are not.
     Furthermore, Savantage proposes assuming some of the responsibilities
     that SOC [servicemembers opportunity colleges] will have under the
     GoArmyEd contract which is not appropriate.

          to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the risks and
       appropriate mitigation strategies associated with such a large
       technical and services contract transition.

          to adequately discuss how the full range of technology package
       support as well as the required management will be performed.

          [to include sufficient] discussion regarding the risks surrounding
       the implementation of a completely new [deleted] tool and the
       [deleted] of the Saba software product that currently helps manage
       GoArmyEd courses and supports web-based stakeholder training.

   AR exh. 14, SSEB Initial Consensus Report, at 12-13.

   This led the evaluators to the following conclusion:

     Collectively, the strengths and weaknesses are not likely to result in
     satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high,
     as the proposal contained solutions which may not be feasible and
     practical, and will increase the level of effort for schools and other
     key stakeholders (e.g., reengineering the [deleted] concurrently with
     [deleted] as well as developing and implementing [deleted] during the
     six (6) month transition period). The approach proposed is further
     considered to reflect high risk in that it lacks clarity and precision,
     and is generally unsupported (e.g., Savantage stated that its approach
     will [deleted]. Savantage failed to demonstrate a full understanding of
     the complexities of the GoArmyEd requirements. If Savantage received
     contract award, they would require increased Army oversight and
     resources to ensure contract requirements are met.

   Id. at 13-14.

   Savantage argues that these evaluation conclusions are unreasonable. For
   instance, the protester maintains that one of the weaknesses cited by the
   evaluators--that Savantage had misidentified ATRRS and ITAP as ACES legacy
   systems--was the result of the agency's misevaluation of its proposal. In
   its protest filing, Savantage provided citations to its proposal allegedly
   showing where in Savantage's proposal the firm had in fact identified the
   ATRRS and ITAP as Army programs and not ACES legacy systems. Protester's
   Comments at 41.

   Here, for example, the relevant portion of Savantage's proposal states:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |GoArmyEd Issues/Objectives       |Savantage Team Solution Features and  |
   |                                 |Benefits                              |
   |---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
   |ACES is constrained by disparate |Our team brings relevant Army system  |
   |legacy systems that are not fully|experience with our partner [deleted] |
   |integrated.                      |who has supported key Army programs   |
   |                                 |(ITAP-DB and ATRRS) currently         |
   |                                 |supporting Soldiers and proven systems|
   |                                 |engineering processes for supporting  |
   |                                 |mission critical systems aimed at     |
   |                                 |optimizing the user experience.       |
   |                                 |Benefit: Provides enhanced capability |
   |                                 |to advance the ACES' goal of          |
   |                                 |integrating systems to further enhance|
   |                                 |their service offerings through       |
   |                                 |GoArmyEd.                             |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR exh. 6a, Savantage Proposal Vol. 1, at V1-1.0-3 (bold in original).

   The quoted portion of Savantage's proposal identifies disparate legacy
   systems as a problem and proposes a team experienced with ATRRS and ITAP
   programs as part of its solution to the problem. At a minimum, we think
   the Savantage proposal is itself unclear as to whether, as the protester
   claims, it could be read to indicate that Savantage had identified the
   ATRRS and ITAP programs as Army programs or whether these programs were
   ACES "legacy systems that [were] not fully integrated." AR exh. 6a,
   Savantage Proposal Vol. 1, at V1-1.0-3. It is an offeror's obligation to
   submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate, see
   Independence Constr., Inc., B-292052, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 105 at
   5; it is the substance of an offeror's proposal that an agency evaluates
   to establish an offeror's understanding of, and compliance with, the terms
   of an RFP. Since Savantage had the burden of submitting an adequately
   written proposal, yet failed to do so, we have no basis to question the
   reasonableness of the agency's evaluation.

   To the extent that Savantage contends that the agency should have looked
   to the corporate experience section of Savantage's proposal for an
   extensive discussion of the ATRRS and ITAP programs, we disagree. While
   Savantage's proposal did include information concerning the ATRRS and ITAP
   programs in the corporate experience section of its proposal, contracting
   agencies evaluating one section of a proposal are not obligated to go to
   unrelated sections of the proposal in search of needed information which
   the offeror has omitted or failed adequately to present. See, e.g., Sam
   Facility Mgmt., Inc., B-292237, July 22, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 147 at 5
   Thus, Savantage's allegations in this regard do not render the agency's
   evaluation unreasonable.

   As to the concern that Savantage proposed to assume some of the
   responsibilities that SOC (servicemembers opportunity colleges) will have
   under the GoArmyEd contract, the protester insists that this criticism
   "can't be substantiated" and therefore was unreasonable. Protester's
   Comments at 44. However, the record, in fact, clearly substantiates this
   criticism. The contemporaneous summary evaluation forms indicate that one
   evaluator specifically documented her concerns that Savantage's approach
   assumes some SOC responsibilities. This evaluator stated that Savantage's
   proposal to create "an Academic Advisory Board for GoArmyEd seems to imply
   that ACES needs academic thought leaders to guide the program other than
   SOC." AR exh. 21, Moorash Summary Evaluation Form, at 3. As a result, the
   agency evaluators concluded that Savantage's proposed advisory board
   reflected a lack of understanding of the RFP requirements because academic
   quality and student support services is a school responsibility that will
   be supported by SOC, the Army's academic facilitator. RFP PWS, at 37-38.
   While the protester maintains that the evaluators concerns about
   "assuming" some SOC responsibilities are unfounded, Savantage failed to
   explain why the agency's articulated reasons for these concerns were not
   reasonable. Consequently, we have no basis to conclude that this weakness
   was improperly identified, or was assessed in a manner inconsistent with
   the terms of the solicitation.

   Transition Plan Subfactor

   Savantage next challenges the evaluators' determination that its proposed
   transition plan represented a high risk of unsuccessful performance.
   Protester's Comments at 54. For example, one of the six weaknesses that
   reflected the agency's concern that Savantage's proposed transition plan
   was highly risky was described as follows:

     Savantage proposed a transition approach that is very unrealistic and
     highly risky since it proposed to not only transition the current
     GoArmyEd system, but also to simultaneously accomplish all of the
     following tasks in the first six months of contract performance:
     implementing a new CRM tool; introducing a new school onboarding
     process; discontinuing the current Saba software and migrating its
     functionality to[deleted]; and developing and implementing fourteen (14)
     functional gaps. In addition, Savantage proposed to accomplish all of
     the above work with an unproven management structure.

   AR exh. 14, SSEB Initial Consensus Report, at 17. Savantage asserts that
   the agency's criticism regarding the risk involved with Savantage's plan
   to replace Saba and the existing CRM software--both of which were
   proprietary to the incumbent contractor--with new software was
   unreasonable. Thus, the protester alleges that because the RFP, as
   supplemented by the agency's responses to industry questions, did not
   include any technical details regarding these two software programs, IBM,
   the incumbent, was the only offeror that could have known how Saba and the
   custom-coded CRM software implemented web-based stakeholder training.
   Protester's Comments at 57-60.

   As a preliminary matter, if Savantage believed the RFP included
   insufficient information to ensure a fair competition, or that it
   otherwise was unfair to evaluate transitioning of these software programs
   to new software under the circumstances here, it was required to protest
   on this ground prior to the closing time. A protest based upon alleged
   improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing
   time for receipt of initial proposals must be filed before that time. Bid
   Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2007). In any case,
   Savantage does not meaningfully dispute or otherwise demonstrate that the
   weaknesses identified in its proposed transition plan were unwarranted or
   were not supported by the contemporaneous evaluation record.

   We conclude that neither Savantage's arguments discussed above, nor
   additional arguments made by Savantage and considered by our Office,
   furnish a basis to question the overall evaluation of Savantage's proposal
   as marginal under the technical approach evaluation factor. The record is
   replete with instances where the weaknesses identified in Savantage's
   proposal either were based on the level of detail, understanding, and risk
   presented in its proposal, or were areas where Savantage's approach met
   the RFP requirements but the evaluators concluded that its approach
   increased the risk of unsuccessful performance. While Savantage maintains
   that the marginal ratings were unjustified, its arguments amount to little
   more than disagreement with the agency's evaluation findings and does not
   render the evaluation ratings unreasonable. Ben-Mar Enters., Inc.,
   B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 68 at 7.

   Finally, since we conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated
   Savantage's proposal under the technical approach evaluation factor, and
   since the RFP here advised that proposals must be rated at least
   acceptable under this evaluation factor to be eligible for award, we need
   not consider Savantage's other challenges to the Army's evaluation
   findings under the management capabilities and approach evaluation factor.
   Nor will we consider the protester's arguments concerning the agency's
   evaluation of its price proposal. James J. Flanagan Shipping Corp.,
   B-286129, Nov. 27, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 156 at 4 n.2.

   Conflict of Interest

   In its supplemental protest, Savantage argues that this procurement is
   fatally flawed by an impermissible conflict of interest. Specifically,
   Savantage asserts that a member of the SSEB had "some type of compensated
   relationship with University of Maryland University College (UMUC)."
   Protester's Supplemental Comments, at 3. UMUC, the protester alleges, is a
   subcontractor to IBM under the eArmyU program and therefore this SSEB
   member evaluated proposals in a manner that favored IBM, causing it to win
   the GoArmyEd contract awarded here. Supplemental Protest at 1-3.

   As relevant here, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides as
   follows:

     Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and,
     except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete
     impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions
     relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree
     of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule
     is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of
     a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships.

   FAR sect. 3.101-1.

   Contrary to Savantage's assertions, we find no conflict of interest
   present here. The agency report includes detailed explanations and
   declarations in response to the protester's claims. Our review of the
   record shows that none of the agency personnel who evaluated Savantage's
   proposal, including this particular evaluator (who was temporarily
   employed as a consultant with ACES through the Intergovernmental Personnel
   Act Mobility Program), held a position that would be affected by the
   outcome of the procurement.

   In addition, in response to Savantage's challenges, the evaluator has
   provided evidence that he has had no relationship with his former
   employer, UMUC, for several years. While Savantage quibbles with the
   adequacy of the evaluator's representations, we think the materials in the
   record answer the allegations raised. Moreover, the record confirms that
   this evaluator's ratings were consistent with the ratings given by other
   members of the SSEB under these two evaluation factors.[5] Accordingly,
   there is no basis to conclude that this award was tainted by a conflict of
   interest.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] This acquisition is a follow-on to the existing Army University Access
   Online (eArmyU) contract which was competitively awarded to
   PricewaterhouseCoopers, now IBM.

   [2] The third offeror's proposal is not relevant to resolution of
   Savantage's protest; accordingly, our decision here does not further
   discuss that proposal.

   [3] Of relevance to this protest, the solicitation defined a marginal
   rating as follows:

     The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of
     meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages
     of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the
     disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not
     likely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful
     performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be
     feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to
     reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally
     unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the
     requirements. Risk Level: High.

   RFP amend. 4, at 45-46.

   [4] The weaknesses identified in Savantage's proposal are described
   slightly differently in the agency's contemporaneous evaluation documents
   compared to the description provided in Savantage's debriefing; the
   weaknesses are, however, identical in substance.

   [5] To the extent Savantage complains that this evaluator unfairly
   influenced or persuaded the other evaluators to lower the ratings
   initially assigned to the protester's proposal resulting in lower overall
   consensus ratings assigned to its proposal, we note that consensus ratings
   need not be those initially assigned by the individual evaluators. Rather,
   the consensus ratings may properly be determined after discussions among
   the evaluators, which is what occurred here as documented in the SSEB
   consensus evaluation report. Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., B-294229,
   B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 208 at 4; Manufacturing Eng'g
   Sys., Inc., B-293299.3, B-293299.4, Aug. 3, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 194 at 6.
   Since there is no evidence in the record that the challenged evaluator had
   any remaining ties with UMUC, we will not consider this matter further.