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.