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.