TITLE: B-299804, TELESIS Corporation, August 27, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299804
DATE: August 27, 2007
**********************************************
B-299804, TELESIS Corporation, August 27, 2007
Decision
Matter of: TELESIS Corporation
File: B-299804
Date: August 27, 2007
Payal Tak for the protester.
Terence W. Carlson, Esq., Department of Transportation, 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
Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where
record shows that agency reasonably downgraded proposal, and where other
alleged evaluation errors involved such minor considerations that they did
not prejudice protester.
DECISION
TELESIS Corporation protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS59-06-R-00016,
issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for information
technology (IT) support services. TELESIS primarily asserts that the
technical evaluation was flawed.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP, which was issued on June 1, 2006 as a section 8(a) set-aside,
contemplated the award of a fixed-price,
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ), time and materials
contract for a base year, with 4 option years. The performance work
statement (PWS) covered 12 areas of IT support: service center and network
operations center; telecommunications services; messaging and directory
services; network management and administrative; desktop services;
consolidated server services; systems and asset management; application
design, development, and maintenance; web development and maintenance;
network security; disaster recovery and business continuance operations;
and IT operations consulting. RFP at C-3. The total estimated ceiling
value of the contract, including the option years, was $155,000,000.
Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the "best
value" to the agency, with the evaluation to be based on price and three
technical evaluation factors: management approach (worth 30 percent of the
total technical score), technical response (50 percent), and past
performance (20 percent). Technical proposals were to include a chapter
addressing several specified areas under each of the technical evaluation
factors: the management approach chapter was to address nine areas (such
as business management qualifications, and an organizational management
structure); the technical response chapter included seven areas (such as
ability to provide IT staffing resources consistent with applicable
security requirements and IT certifications); and the past performance
chapter was to address seven aspects of past performance. Technical merit
(the three technical evaluation factors) was "somewhat more important"
than price. RFP at M-1.
Nineteen proposals were received and evaluated by a technical team.
TELESIS's proposal received a management approach score of 20.33 points
(of 30 available), a technical response score of 31.92 points (of 50
available), and a past performance score of 7.27 points (of 20 available),
for a total technical score of 59.52 (of 100 total available points).
TELESIS's evaluated price (a "base year composite cost") was $6,533.07.
Agency Report (AR), Competition Range Decision Document, at 3. The agency
concluded that TELESIS's proposal did not have a reasonable chance of
being selected for award, and thus eliminated it from the competitive
range. The agency included only one proposal--submitted by 1 Source
Consulting, Inc., and receiving a technical score of 88.37, with an
evaluated price of $6,668.00--in the competitive range.[1] After a
debriefing, TELEIS filed this protest.
TELESIS argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal with
respect to each of the four evaluation factors, specifically challenging
numerous technical proposal evaluated weaknesses and one price proposal
weakness. The determination of whether a proposal belongs in the
competitive range is principally a matter within the discretion of the
procuring agency. Dismiss Charities, Inc., B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000
CPD para. 84 at 3. Our Office will review an agency's evaluation of
proposals and determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive
range for reasonableness and consistency with the criteria and language of
the solicitation, as well as applicable statues and regulations. Novavax,
Inc., B-286167, B-286167.2, Dec. 4, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 202 at 13.
Contracting agencies are not required to retain in the competitive range
proposals that are not among the most highly rated or that the agency
otherwise reasonably concludes have no realistic prospect of award.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.306(c)(1); Wahkontah Servs.
Inc., B-292768, Nov. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 214 at 4. We have reviewed
the record and conclude that the evaluation of TELESIS's proposal, and its
resultant exclusion from the competitive range, were unobjectionable. We
discuss several of the protester's arguments below.
STAFFING/SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the
following technical response evaluation area:
Ability to provide the quality and quantity of IT staffing resources
consistent with applicable security requirements and technical IT
certifications relevant to [PWS] type work activities, including a table
showing the typical number of IT technical staffing resources available
to the Offeror, their security and certification qualifications;
RFP at M-6. TELESIS asserts that it provided two tables containing the
required information, and that the agency thus had no basis for
downgrading its proposal in this area.
The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Rather than providing one
table laying out the firm's IT technical staffing resources together with
the staff's security and certifications qualifications, TELESIS's proposal
included two tables. One contained the number of IT professionals and
security cleared staff generally available to TELESIS and its team members
(specifically, "Access to 12,000+ Industry IT professionals," and "More
than 6,000 security cleared staff"), and the second consisted of a list of
the various IT and security certifications held by the TELESIS team.
TELESIS Proposal, append. 2A-5, 2A-6. The agency found the tables
incomplete, since they (and the proposal generally) did not provide any
details explaining which or how many of the identified potential staff
possessed the security clearances and IT certifications listed. The agency
concluded that there was no way to relate TELESIS's identified staffing
resources to security clearances and IT certifications, and that it thus
was unable to evaluate the proposal in this regard. AR, Technical
Evaluation for TELESIS, at 6. We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's
downgrading of the protester's proposal on this basis.
OBTAIN/REPLACE QUALIFIED STAFFING
TELESIS challenges the downgrading of its proposal under the following
management approach evaluation area:
replace qualified staffing resources required by the contract's labor
categories to support existing and new task order work, and to meet
changing workload requirements, including a table showing employee
turnover rates for each of the past three years (for offeror and any
teaming partner);
RFP at M-5. The agency found that TELESIS's lead time for hiring personnel
for new task orders was excessive--concluding that it had "no demonstrated
ability...to rapidly obtain resources"--and that TELESIS "did not address
such things as what they would do when a new task order was awarded or an
existing task order was expanded." AR, Technical Evaluation for TELESIS,
at 1. TELESIS asserts that this evaluated weakness was unfounded, since it
proposed to fill positions within 2 weeks, and outlined its processes in
its proposal accordingly.
The evaluation in this area was reasonable. TELESIS's proposal states that
the firm has "the ability to completely staff this task within two weeks
of contract award." TELESIS Proposal sect. 2.2. However, TELESIS's
staffing following award of the contract itself was not the focus of the
agency's concern; rather, the agency found that the proposal failed to
provide information regarding the staffing of new task orders when issued,
or the staffing measures that would be taken in the event of an expansion
of an existing task order. [2] Given the absence of such information from
TELESIS's proposal, the agency reasonably downgraded the proposal on this
basis.
PROGRAM MANAGER CERTIFICATION
TELESIS asserts that the agency improperly downgraded its proposal based
on its program manager's failure to hold PMI PMP (Project Management
Institute Project Management Program) or ITIL (Information Technology
Institute Library) certification, since neither qualification was
specifically required under the solicitation.
This argument is without merit. While the protester is correct that the
RFP did not require that management personnel have these specific
qualifications, it did specifically require sufficiently "qualified
management, technical, and support personnel to perform all tasks as
ordered in specific task orders, including applicable industry
certifications (Microsoft, Cisco, and others)." RFP at C-4. The agency
asserts that PMP and ITIL certifications are standard for project
managers. TELESIS does not challenge the agency's position but, rather,
merely reasserts its position that these certifications were not required
by the RFP. Given the RFP requirement for qualified management personnel,
with specific reference to applicable industry certifications, the agency
reasonably downgraded TELESIS's proposal based on its proposed program
manager's lack of industry certifications.
ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal
under the following management approach area:
An organizational management structure and approach with clear roles,
responsibilities and organizational accountability, including the
availability and allocation of resources allowing them to successfully
meet task order requirements for services and support identified in [the
PWS] for the potential IT activity areas outlined [in the 12 areas of IT
support];
RFP at M-4. TELESIS asserts that it provided an organizational management
structure chart that met the requirements under this area. TELESIS further
claims that the unreasonableness of its reduced score in this area is
demonstrated by the score's inconsistency with its proposal's relatively
strong rating (3.3 out of 4 available points), and the agency's positive
comments, under the following management approach area:
Contract management administration and responsiveness to performance and
reporting requirements of the contract and its task orders, including a
roles and responsibilities matrix for management of task orders services
delivery
RFP at M-5. The evaluation in this area was reasonable. While TELESIS
asserts that its chart "clearly shows the lines of communication between
TELESIS's program manager and the Government," the record shows that
TELESIS's proposal was downgraded for lack of detail regarding the project
manager or contract manager "interfacing" with the contracting officer.
AR, Technical Evaluation for TELESIS, at 1. We find nothing unreasonable
in the agency's concluding that merely providing lines of communication on
an organizational chart is insufficient to explain the manner in which
interaction will occur between these individuals. Furthermore, the agency
also downgraded TELESIS's proposal in this area based on its failure to
discuss organizational management structure in terms of the 12 areas of IT
support laid out in the solicitation, as called for by the quoted
language. Id. Finally, we find no inconsistency between the ratings under
the two evaluation areas, because the two areas provided for assessing
different things. While the first area focused on offerors' organizational
management structure, the second called for a roles and responsibilities
matrix with regard to individual staff positions (the agency found this to
be "clear" in TELESIS's proposal). We conclude that the evaluation in this
area was unobjectionable.
EXPERIENCE
TELESIS challenges the agency's finding that it lacked experience
providing IT services under a contract of the type, size and scope of the
effort called for here. AR, Technical Evaluation for TELESIS, at 8-9.
TELESIS asserts that it was unreasonable for the agency to downgrade its
proposal for this reason, since no 8(a) firm could demonstrate experience
performing a $155 million--or approximately $30 million per year--services
contract.
This argument is without merit. The agency has advised us that the
proposals of 1 Source and other offerors demonstrated experience
performing IT contracts comparable to that being solicited here.[3] In
contrast, TELESIS's three largest relevant contracts were a $15.6 million
contract over 4 years (approximately $4 million per year), a $29 million
contract over 5 years (approximately $6 million per year), and a $2.7
million contract over 2 years (approximately $1.5 million per year). We
conclude the agency reasonably downgraded TELESIS's proposal for lack of
comparable experience.
PASS THROUGH RATE
TELESIS asserts that the agency incorrectly evaluated its subcontractor
"pass through" rate, that is, the rate by which TELESIS will increase its
subcontractor's charges when TELESIS bills the agency for those charges.
The agency evaluated the rate as 9.5 percent. TELESIS maintains that,
while its proposal stated its pass through rate is 9.5 percent, the agency
should have evaluated it as 0 percent, since the proposal also stated
"[t]he subcontractor pass through rate is the maximum pass through and
under no circumstances will the rates to the Government exceed TELESIS'
proposed ceiling rates." TELESIS Proposal, Parts 2-1, 2-5 (emphasis in
original), attach. J-10. TELESIS asserts that this language means that, in
the event Lockheed Martin charges TELESIS more than TELESIS's proposed
labor rates, TELESIS will only bill DOT the labor rates contained in its
proposal; only in the event that its subcontractor charges TELESIS less
than the proposed labor rate will TELESIS charge DOT the 9.5 percent pass
through rate. Consequently, according to TELESIS, it will never be
reimbursed more than the proposed labor rates, and the pass through rate
thus should have been evaluated as 0 percent.
The pass through rate evaluation was reasonable. TELESIS's proposal
unequivocally states, without qualification, that "TELESIS is proposing a
subcontractor pass through rate of 9.5%." TELESIS Proposal at Parts 2-1,
2-5. While TELESIS's proposal goes on to provide that the rates to the
government will not "exceed TELESIS's proposed ceiling rates," the term
"ceiling rates" is not explained or defined in the proposal. In
particular, there is nothing in the proposal to support TELESIS's claim
that "ceiling rates" was intended to refer to the labor rates contained in
the price proposal. This being the case, and given the unequivocal
proposal language establishing a 9.5 percent pass through rate, the agency
reasonably evaluated TELESIS's proposal as providing for a 9.5 percent
pass through rate. See DRS Sys., Inc., B-289928.3, B-289928.7, Sept. 18,
2002, 2002 CPD para. 192 at 16-17 (offeror has the burden of submitting an
adequately written proposal and runs the risk that its proposal will be
evaluated unfavorably where it fails to do so).
ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS
The protester challenges the evaluation on numerous additional grounds.
For example, the protester asserts that the agency improperly downgraded
its proposal for lacking ID/IQ task order experience, for failing to state
that it would use an "Earned Value Management" financial accounting
system, and for failing to demonstrate experience with "automated tools,"
among other assertions.
We need not address these arguments, since the record shows that the
challenged areas of the evaluation had no material impact on the overall
evaluation. Specifically, the arguments concern evaluation score
reductions totaling only approximately 8 points. Thus, even if we found
these arguments to have merit, TELESIS's technical score would increase
only from 59.52 to approximately 68 points. Given that TELESIS's score
would remain significantly lower than 1 Source's technical score of 88.37
(as well as CIT's score of 83.33), and that technical merit was more
important than price, there is no reason to believe on this record that
this revised score would affect the competitive range determination. See
generally Scientific and Commercial Sys. Corp.; Omni Corp., B-283160 et
al., Oct. 14, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 78 at 19 (increasing protester's
technical score would be insufficient to affect award decision).
Consequently, we cannot conclude that TELESIS was competitively prejudiced
by any flaws in these areas of the evaluation. See McDonald-Bradley,
B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3 (GAO will not sustain a
protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it
was prejudiced by the agency's actions); see Statistica, Inc., v.
Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] In response to a protest filed in our Office by Creative Information
Technology, Inc. (CIT) (B-299804.2, dismissed June 27, 2007), the agency
added CIT's proposal--with a score of 83.33 and a price of $7,787--to the
competitive range.
[2] The protester asserts that "the Techbits table contained in the
introduction to the Team TELESIS approach (see Chapter 2: Technical
Response, Section 2.0) states that the TELESIS approach includes the
ability to staff tasks within two weeks." Letter from TELSIS to GAO, July
20, 2007, at 6. Our review of the Techbits Table shows four bullet points,
none stating that TELESIS would staff task orders within 2 weeks. In any
event, such a commitment alone, absent an explanation of its ability to
meet the commitment, would appear to fall short of meeting the evaluation
criteria.
[3] We have reviewed this information in camera, since the protester was
not represented by counsel; accordingly, we did not issue a protective
order in this case, and the protester did not have access to other
offerors' proposal information.