TITLE: B-310303.2, Veterans Technology, LLC, January 7, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310303.2
DATE: January 7, 2008
*****************************************************
B-310303.2, Veterans Technology, LLC, January 7, 2008

   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: Veterans Technology, LLC

   File: B-310303.2

   Date: January 7, 2008

   Gary L. Rigney, Esq., Gary L. Rigney Law Office, for the protester.

   Capt. Marlin D. Paschal, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as unacceptable and on
   that basis, properly determined that protester's proposal was ineligible
   for award on the basis of initial offers.

   DECISION

   Veterans Technology, LLC (VetTech) protests the rejection of its proposal
   under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911M-07-R-0006 issued by the
   Department of the Army for engineering and technical support services for
   the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command, Forces Strategic Command,
   and other associated air, space and missile defense organizations. VetTech
   challenges the agency's determination that VetTech's proposal failed to
   comply with the solicitation requirements.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The solicitation was issued as a total small business set-aside and
   contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
   contracts for a 1-year base period followed by four 1-year options. The
   RFP identified the following evaluation factors: technical, management,
   sample tasks, past performance and price.
   RFP at 108-11. Of relevance here, the RFP advised offerors that their
   responses to the sample tasks would be evaluated, and advised offerors to
   respond with sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate their approach to
   performing and understanding the sample task orders. Id. at 89-90.

   Specifically, each response to the sample task orders was to be evaluated
   to determine whether the offeror: (1) grasped the scope and requirements
   of the task orders; (2) proposed a sound technical approach; (3)
   demonstrated an appropriate use of its proposed labor mix and other
   resources; (4) provided a sound task management philosophy and effective
   task order management approach; (5) demonstrated an understanding of the
   key management and technical factors; (6) possessed the technical depth
   necessary to complete the task order; and, (7) had past experience
   performing similar and/or related efforts. Id. at 110. In addition, with
   respect to the pricing of the task orders, the RFP provided:

     The proposed price shall replicate the CLIN structure set forth in
     Section B. The offeror shall include a billable rate table by fiscal
     year depicting the maximum rates per labor category that would be paid.
     The offeror shall clearly explain the basis of price (e.g., basis of
     estimate) for each of the sample task order, to include the discounts
     proposed, methodology for application of the discounts, pricing of
     non-labor resources (ODCs) and pricing of travel.

   Id. at 97.

   With respect to the price proposals to be prepared for the sample task
   orders, the RFP advised that any significant, unexplained, inconsistency
   would raise questions about the offeror's understanding of the nature and
   scope of the work required to perform the task orders, and about the
   offeror's ability to perform the tasks.
   Id. at 111. The RFP set forth the agency's estimated lump-sum amount for
   each fiscal year and total program funding amount for the sample task
   orders. Each task order also contained a not-to-exceed dollar amount for
   travel costs.

   Finally, the RFP advised that the agency would use an alternate source
   selection procedure applicable to highly-complex RDT&E (research,
   development, testing and experimental) efforts. Id. at 112. This alternate
   procedure anticipated evaluation of proposals and selection of sources for
   award on the basis of initial offers, without holding discussions or
   establishing a competitive range. Id. After selection of the intended
   awardees, the solicitation anticipated "in-depth negotiations leading to
   contract awards...with the selected sources." Id. The RFP stated that
   these final negotiations with the selected offerors would not result in
   either the selected offeror's proposal being improved, or displacement of
   another selected offeror. The RFP also stated that in order to be eligible
   for a contract award, an offeror must be considered acceptable in all
   factors and subfactors, Id. at 108, and explained that the agency
   anticipated awarding up to seven contracts on the basis of the best
   overall value to the government, but reserved the right to make fewer
   awards. Id. at 107.

   On June 11, 2007, proposals were submitted by 12 offerors, including
   VetTech. The proposals were subsequently evaluated by the evaluation team.
   VetTech's proposal was rated "good" with respect to the technical,
   management, and past performance evaluation factors. However, VetTech was
   rated "unacceptable" with respect to VetTech's responses to the sample
   task orders.

   With respect to VetTech's approach to the sample tasks, the agency
   concluded that VetTech's solutions reflected high risk based on a lack of
   clarity in the proposal, and the company's failure to demonstrate an
   understanding of the task order requirements. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13,
   Source Selection Decision, at 12. Specifically, the Source Selection
   Authority (SSA) identified four reasons for concluding that the
   protester's proposal was unacceptable under the sample task order
   evaluation factor. These were that: (1) VetTech's proposed prices exceeded
   the government's estimated funding for both of the task orders; (2)
   VetTech failed to demonstrate that the corporate teaming members proposed
   to support the task orders possessed the requisite experience; (3) VetTech
   failed to present its technical approach to supporting several tasks under
   sample task order No. 2; and (4) VetTech failed to demonstrate that the
   personnel proposed (as opposed to the corporate teaming members in No. 2,
   above) possessed the requisite qualifications for their positions. Id.

   Upon completion of the evaluation, the agency decided to make award
   without discussions to three offerors. AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer's
   Statement, at 3. After selecting three offerors, the agency conducted
   discussions with the apparent successful offerors, as anticipated by the
   alternate source selection procedures identified in the RFP. On September
   6, VetTech was notified of its elimination from the competition; the
   company was given a debriefing on September 19. This protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found its proposal
   unacceptable because the agency improperly evaluated its response to the
   sample task orders in the areas of cost, personnel clearances, team member
   experience and technical approach. We have reviewed each of these
   contentions and find no basis to disagree with the evaluation here. For
   illustration, we discuss below two of the areas where our review of the
   solicitation, VetTech's proposal, the evaluation materials, and the
   arguments raised during the course of this protest, lead us to conclude
   that the agency reasonably found VetTech's proposal unacceptable under the
   sample task order evaluation factor.[1]

   Team Member Experience

   In responding to the sample task orders, offerors were asked to identify
   the composition of the contractor team that would be used to perform the
   task. This required listing the prime contractor, the lead subcontractor
   (if not the prime) and all other companies that would be involved.
   Offerors were then instructed to describe how the proposed contractor team
   would perform the sample task by indicating which company would perform
   which parts of the team effort. In addition, the RFP required that the
   proposal describe up to three team examples of experience.

   VetTech in its response to Task Order 1, listed itself, Cepeda Systems &
   Software Analysis, Inc. (CSSA) and Sparta, Inc. as the team members
   VetTech proposed to support this task order, however, the task-related
   experience examples provided by VetTech identified the experience of
   individuals employed by Computer Sciences Corporation, MagnaCom and CSSA.
   VetTech Proposal, Vol. IV, at IV-1-2. The agency found VetTech's response
   deficient because VetTech failed to provide the related experience of
   individuals employed by team members proposed to support the task orders.
   Consequently, the agency could not determine whether VetTech's proposed
   team members themselves had the required task-related experience.

   Likewise, with Task Order 2, VetTech listed CSC, Sparta and VetTech as the
   team members to support this task order, however, VetTech only identified
   the experience examples as those of the "VetTech team member" and did not
   identify which specific team member possessed the task-related experience.
   Id. at IV-2-2.

   In its protest to our Office, VetTech argues that there was no requirement
   that the proposed individuals with task-specific experience had to be
   employed by the companies designated to support the tasks, and thus its
   proposal met the RFP requirement.[2] We disagree with VetTech's assertion.

   While VetTech argues that there was no requirement to provide this
   information, the RFP did require that the offeror identify at least three
   team examples of task-related experience. VetTech's proposal was unclear
   as to which team members would be performing the work and failed to
   provide the task specific experience of the team member.

   It is incumbent upon the protester to submit a response to the sample task
   orders that clearly demonstrated that it understood the requirement and
   proposed a plan, with appropriate team members, that detailed its ability
   to satisfactorily perform the task. An offeror has the responsibility to
   submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information,
   which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements
   and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. CACI Techs., Inc.,
   B-296946, Oct. 27, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 198 at 5. In this regard, an
   offeror must affirmatively demonstrate the merits of its proposal, and
   risks the rejection of its proposal if it fails to do so. HDL Research
   Lab, Inc., B-294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 8 at 5. Where a
   protester challenges an agency's evaluation of a proposal's technical
   acceptability, our review is limited to considering whether the evaluation
   is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFP and applicable
   procurement statutes and regulations. National Shower Express, Inc.;
   Rickaby Fire Support, B-293970, B-293970.2, July 15, 2004, 2004 CPD para.
   140 at 4-5. On this record, we find no basis to question the
   reasonableness of the agency's determination that VetTech's proposal
   failed to meet the solicitation requirements.

   Personnel Clearances for Sample Task Order 1

   For sample task order 1, the RFP stated that portions of the work involve
   sensitive compartmented information (SCI) which is required to be
   performed in government-provided sensitive compartmented information
   facilities (SCIF). RFP attach. 8, at 4. The agency states that access to
   an SCIF requires, at a minimum, a top secret clearance.

   VetTech in its response to Task Order 1 indicated that it intended to use
   designated program high security facilities, as necessary. AR, Tab 10,
   VetTech Proposal, Response to Sample Task Order 1, at 9. VetTech also
   stated that its team has "all the required clearances, access and secure
   facilities to ensure that all data associated with this effort will be
   protected and safeguarded as required." Id. at 7. The agency found
   VetTech's response deficient because it failed to demonstrate how VetTech
   would provide the support required in the agency's SCIF given VetTech's
   failure to identify which of its proposed personnel would work in the
   SCIF, and failed to identify the security clearances of the personnel
   proposed.

   The protester argues that the RFP did not require offerors to identify the
   security clearances of the individuals proposed and now asserts that two
   of the personnel proposed for this effort do possess Top Secret
   clearances.[3]

   Again, we think offerors were required to demonstrate their understanding
   of the sample task requirements by proposing a methodology for performance
   of the sample task, and demonstrating their ability to satisfy the
   requirement. The RFP specifically stated that access to SCI data was
   needed in order to accomplish this task. Since VetTech did not identify
   which of its proposed personnel had the appropriate security clearances to
   perform this work, we think the agency reasonably concluded that the
   protester failed to demonstrate an understanding of the requirements of
   this task.

   In summary, the protester failed in its responsibility to clearly
   demonstrate compliance with the RFP requirements with respect to the
   sample task orders. The record supports the reasonableness of the agency's
   decision to find the proposal unacceptable for failure to adequately
   address the sample task orders, and the protester's mere disagreement with
   the agency's judgment does not establish that the agency acted
   unreasonably.[4]

   Lastly, VetTech argues that all of the agency's negative findings could
   have been clarified without revisions to VetTech's proposal and in any
   event were not sufficient to determine that VetTech's proposal was
   unacceptable. Since the solicitation advised offerors that the agency
   intended to make award without discussions, the protester could not
   presume it would have a chance to correct deficiencies and weaknesses
   through discussions. The burden was on VetTech to submit an initial
   proposal that adequately demonstrated its merits, and the protester ran
   the risk of rejection by failing to do so. DRT Assocs., Inc., B-237070,
   Jan. 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 47 at 2. There is no basis in this record
   for concluding that the decision to award without discussions was
   improper, or that the rejection of VetTech's proposal was unreasonable.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] While the examples below do not include VetTech's challenge to the
   evaluation conclusion that VetTech's proposed sample task prices exceeded
   the RFP-provided total program funding amount, we note for the record that
   there is no dispute on this issue--VetTech's price, in both instances,
   exceeded the dollar ceiling for these sample tasks by a small amount.
   While VetTech argues it was misled by an ambiguity in the solicitation
   about the not-to-exceed amount for travel costs for these tasks, we see
   nothing ambiguous about the solicitation's guidance in this area. In
   addition, given the solicitation's clear indication that the agency
   intended to select awardees on the basis of initial proposals, there was
   no requirement for the agency to open discussions with VetTech on this
   matter.

   [2] VetTech in its response to the agency report attempts to clarify its
   proposal by identifying the task specific experience of its team members,
   information that should have been provided in its initial proposal.

   [3] With respect to this issue, the protester includes a detailed
   discussion of the regulations and directives applicable to classified
   information under conditions that do not appear to be relevant here. The
   RFP's sample task orders specifically stated that access to SCI data was
   necessary to perform these task orders, and that access to SCIF facilities
   was necessary.

   [4] To the extent that VetTech argues that, at a minimum, its protest
   should be sustained for inadequate documentation by the agency of its
   conclusions of technical acceptability, we disagree. In this regard,
   VetTech points out that the individual evaluator worksheets do not
   identify its proposal as unacceptable--as was ultimately reflected in the
   consensus evaluation report and the agency's source selection decision. It
   is not unusual for individual evaluator ratings to differ from one
   another, or to differ with the consensus ratings eventually assigned;
   source selection officials may reasonably disagree with the evaluation
   ratings and results of lower-level evaluators. See Verify, Inc.,
   B-244401.2, Jan. 24, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 107 at 6-8. The overriding
   concern for our purposes is not whether the final ratings are consistent
   with earlier, individual ratings, but whether they reasonably reflect the
   relative merits of the proposals. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., B-276247,
   May 27, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 195 at 2 n.1. With respect to VetTech's more
   general challenges to the documentation in its protest, we note that the
   record consists of contemporaneous evaluation worksheets and a source
   selection decision which demonstrate the agency's concerns with respect to
   the protester's response to the sample task orders. Here, based on our
   review of the evaluation record, we conclude that the record contains more
   than adequate support for the agency's ultimate conclusions.