TITLE: B-310359.2, Sherrick Aerospace, January 10, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310359.2
DATE: January 10, 2008
************************************************
B-310359.2, Sherrick Aerospace, January 10, 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: Sherrick Aerospace

   File: B-310359.2

   Date: January 10, 2008

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

   Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Sean P. Bamford, Esq., and Heather Kilgore
   Weiner, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP for Sierra Lobo, Inc., an intervenor.

   Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Bruce D. Ensor, Esq. Department of the Army,
   for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest challenging evaluation of offerors' proposals is denied where
   the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's evaluations and
   source selection decision.

   2. Agency's consideration of past performance in its assessment of
   proposals under a business management evaluation subfactor did not result
   in prejudice where the record shows that the balance of agency's award
   rationale still favored the awardee.

   3. Protest challenging evaluation of awardee's past performance is denied
   where agency reasonably considered the past performance of the awardee's
   proposed subcontractor.

   DECISION

   Sherrick Aerospace protests the award of a contract to Sierra Lobo, Inc.
   under request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-06-R-006, issued by the
   Department of the Army, Army Material Command, for test planning,
   evaluation and documentation. The protester argues that the agency
   improperly evaluated offerors' technical proposals and past performance.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP sought test planning and evaluation support services for missile
   systems, subsystems and components at the United States Army Developmental
   Test Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, including test plans and
   procedures development, acquisition program documentation, detailed
   planning, design, and assessment, and other support activities. Offerors
   were required to propose labor, materials, transportation, and incidental
   support for the solicitation requirements. The solicitation anticipated
   award of a cost plus fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity
   contract, with a 1-year base term, and four 1-year options. The
   competition was restricted to participants in the Small Business
   Administration's 8(a) program for small, disadvantaged businesses.

   Offerors were advised that they would be evaluated on the following
   evaluation factors: business management, technical, past performance risk,
   and cost. Offerors were to be evaluated under the business management
   evaluation factor on the basis of charts to be discussed during oral
   presentations, based on nine subfactors.[1] RFP sect. M-2.2.c(1). For the
   technical evaluation factor, offerors were to be evaluated on the basis of
   a whitepaper responding to a sample task for test planning and evaluation
   of air-to-ground missiles, based on eight subfactors.[2] Id. sect.
   M-2.2.c(2). Offerors' proposed costs were to be evaluated to determine a
   most probable cost (MPC) to the government.

   The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose
   proposal provided the "best value" to the government. The RFP stated that
   the business management and technical evaluation factors were of equal
   importance, and were more important than past performance and cost
   combined. Id. sect. M-2.2.a.

   The agency received nine proposals by the January 9, 2007, due date. The
   agency convened a technical evaluation committee (TEC), cost area team
   (CAT), and past performance evaluation group (PPEG) to evaluate offerors'
   proposals. Each of these evaluation teams produced reports which were
   referenced and incorporated into the Army's final selection decision,
   which was approved by the source selection authority (SSA). The agency's
   final evaluation ratings for Sherrick's and Sierra Lobo's proposals was as
   follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                              |  SHERRICK  |SIERRA LOBO |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |BUSINESS MANAGEMENT FACTOR                    | EXCELLENT  | EXCELLENT  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |1. Process for assigning workload             | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |2. Process to minimize costs                  | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |3. Proposed personnel                         | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |4. Organizational structure                   |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |5. Recruitment/retention                      | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |6. Labor/materiel tracking                    | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |7. Contacts with defense/testing community    | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |8. Strategic plan analysis                    |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |9. Process to ensure safe working environment |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |TECHNICAL FACTOR                              | EXCELLENT  | EXCELLENT  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |1. Environmental tests                        | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |2. Resources for test plan document           | Excellent  |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |3. Electronic document management             | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |4. Allocation of test missiles for each test  |    Good    | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |5. Sequence of tests                          |    Good    | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |6. Test methodology                           | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |7. Document generation process                | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |8. Test schedule planning                     | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |PAST PERFORMANCE                              |  Low Risk  |  Low Risk  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |PROPOSED COST                                 | [deleted]  | [deleted]  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |MOST PROBABLE COST                            |$46,340,977 |$46,183,811 |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab E, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 53-60.[3]

   The selection decision identified Sherrick's and Sierra Lobo's proposals
   as excellent overall, and as the most competitive, and compared the two
   proposals in a final tradeoff determination. First, with regard to the
   past performance evaluation factor, the Army concluded that although both
   offerors had low past performance risk, Sierra Lobo's proposal "shows
   substantially more relevant performance history as a prime contractor for
   major Testing and Evaluation . . . cost-reimbursement contracts than the
   Sherrick proposal." Id. at 53.

   Next, the Army determined that while very close, Sierra Lobo's proposal
   was superior to Sherrick's under the business management and technical
   evaluation factors. The selection decision noted that, although the
   offerors' had various strengths and weaknesses under the business
   management and technical evaluation factors, a "[p]roper analysis to
   determine which proposal offers the best value to the government cannot
   end at merely counting the number of adjectival ratings relating to major
   and minor advantages." Id. at 54. The Army discussed each offeror's
   strengths and weaknesses under the factors, but concluded that there was
   no basis to clearly distinguish between their proposals, aside from a
   single, overall discriminator. Specifically, the Army concluded that
   Sierra Lobo's "more relevant performance history as a prime contractor"
   gave a higher degree of confidence that the company could successfully
   perform the contract. Id. The selection decision further found that
   because "past experience can be an indicator of both performance risk and
   proposal risk, it would appear that [Sierra Lobo is] the more experienced
   offeror of the two as a firm experienced with the business management
   issues implicit with large government testing and evaluation contracts."
   Id.

   The Army selected Sierra Lobo's proposal for award, based on the following
   rationale:

     Sierra Lobo has demonstrated an overall superior proposal under the
     Business Management and Technical area. In addition, the past
     performance of Sierra Lobo acting as a prime contractor with significant
     T&E government contracts is more advantageous to the government. The
     [most probable cost] calculations also favors Sierra Lobo, even though
     the cost difference is small. Based upon a totality of the relative
     strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, Sierra Lobo therefore offers
     the best value to the government.

   Id. at 60.

   The agency advised Sherrick of the award determination on September 7,
   2007. Sherrick requested a debriefing, which was scheduled for September
   19. On September 17, Sherrick filed a protest with our Office. On
   September 18, Sherrick requested that the Army's debriefing be delayed
   until September 25. On September 21, the Army requested that we dismiss
   the protest as premature because the protest was filed prior to Sherrick's
   required debriefing.[4] In this regard, our Bid Protest Regulations state
   that where, as here, a debriefing is required, "the initial protest shall
   not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but
   shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the
   debriefing is held." Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2)
   (2007). We dismissed the protest on September 25. The agency provided a
   debriefing to Sherrick on September 25. On October 3, Sherrick filed this
   protest.

   DISCUSSION

   As a general matter, Sherrick raises numerous challenges to the Army's
   evaluation of proposals based on a comparison of the number of strengths
   and weaknesses identified in each offeror's proposal, rather than the
   agency's determination regarding the relative importance or weight of
   those strengths and weaknesses.[5] For example, as discussed further
   below, Sherrick argues that while the Army evaluated both offerors as each
   having three "major strengths" under the process for assigning workload
   subfactor of the business management evaluation factor, the agency focused
   on a single discriminator as the "only advantage" presented by either
   proposal. Protester's Comments on the AR at 4.

   To the extent that Sherrick argues that the selection decision did not
   accurately tally the number of strengths and weakness for each proposal,
   or that the selection decision focuses on specific discriminators between
   the proposals instead of their evaluation ratings, these arguments are
   unavailing. The evaluation of proposals and the assignment of adjectival
   ratings should generally not be based upon a simple count of strengths and
   weaknesses, but upon a qualitative assessment of the proposals consistent
   with the evaluation scheme. See Smiths Detection, Inc., B-298838,
   B-298838.2, Dec. 22, 2006, 2007 CPD para. 5 at 5-6. Moreover, it is well
   established that ratings, be they numerical, adjectival, or color, are
   merely guides for intelligent decision-making in the procurement process.
   Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12,
   B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 11. Where an agency
   reasonably considers the underlying bases for the ratings, including
   advantages and disadvantages associated with the specific content of
   competing proposals, in a manner that is fair and equitable and consistent
   with the terms of the solicitation, the protesters' disagreement over the
   actual adjectival or color ratings is essentially inconsequential in that
   it does not affect the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source
   selection decision. See id.; National Steel & Shipbuilding Co., B-281142,
   B-281142.2, Jan. 4, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 95 at 15.

   The record here shows that the agency had a rational basis for its
   evaluations and source selection determination. Although our decision does
   not address every challenge raised by Sherrick regarding the number of
   strengths and weaknesses or adjectival ratings assigned to each offeror's
   proposal, we have reviewed all of the issues raised and find that none has
   merit.

   Past Performance Evaluation

   Sherrick argues that the Army's evaluation of Sierra Lobo's past
   performance was unreasonable. First, the protester argues that Sierra
   Lobo's proposal did not demonstrate experience with military testing
   contracts, and therefore Sierra Lobo's proposal should not have been rated
   as superior to Sherrick's under this evaluation factor. Sherrick also
   argues that the agency improperly considered the past performance record
   of Sierra Lobo's proposed subcontractor, Amtec Corp., in its evaluation of
   Sierra Lobo's proposal.[6]

   The RFP, however, did not require offerors to demonstrate specific
   military testing experience. Instead, the RFP stated the Army would
   evaluate the "past performance of the offerors and their proposed major
   subcontractors as it relates to the probability of successfully performing
   the solicitation requirements." RFP sect. M-2.3.c. The agency's
   evaluation, therefore, required an exercise of judgment as to whether an
   offerors' past performance was relevant to the solicitation's
   requirements.

   Here, the Army determined that Sierra Lobo had relevant experience with
   missile tests based on the company's contracts with NASA for engineering
   support and testing services. AR, Tab Q, Sierra Lobo Past Performance
   Evaluation, at 3-4. Further, the agency determined that Sierra Lobo's
   primary subcontractor, Amtec, had relevant past performance based on
   Amtec's contracts with the Army for test evaluation and support of missile
   and aviation systems at the Redstone Arsenal. Id. at 5-6. The protester
   provides no basis to challenge the reasonableness of the agency's
   determination that the past performance cited in Sierra Lobo's proposal
   for itself and its subcontractor were relevant to the solicitation
   requirements.

   To the extent that the protester argues that the agency could not consider
   Amtec's past performance in its evaluation of Sierra Lobo's proposal, we
   disagree. The RFP here clearly contemplated consideration of a
   subcontractor's past performance; in fact, offerors were expressly
   required to submit past performance information for any proposed
   subcontractor performing more than 25% of the contract requirements. RFP
   sect. L-25.c.1.l(3). Our Office has recognized that agencies are permitted
   to consider a proposed subcontractor's past performance, absent a specific
   solicitation provision prohibiting the consideration of such information.
   AC Techs., Inc., B-293013, B-293013.2, Jan. 14, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 26 at
   3. Furthermore, the FAR states that agencies' past performance evaluations
   "should take into account past performance information regarding
   predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or
   subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the
   requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition."
   FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii); see also Singleton Enters., B-298576, Oct.
   30, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 157 at 3-4 (concluding that the agency had
   incorrectly assumed that a solicitation that was silent as to the
   consideration of proposed subcontractors' past performance prohibited such
   consideration). On this record, we find no merit to the protester's
   arguments.

   Next, Sherrick argues that Sierra Lobo should have received a lower past
   performance rating because it did not submit information demonstrating
   past performance under statement of work (SOW) task 3.17.2, displays and
   exhibits. The Army's evaluation of Sierra Lobo's record showed that "[a]ll
   tasks were performed except for one (1) task." AR, Tab Q, Sierra Lobo Past
   Performance Evaluation, at 1. The RFP, however, did not state that
   offerors were required to demonstrate past performance with regard to each
   area of the SOW. The record here shows that the agency considered the fact
   that Sierra Lobo did not demonstrate past performance under this SOW task,
   but nonetheless determined that Sierra Lobo's proposal was superior to
   Sherrick's based on the discriminator discussed above. On this record, the
   protester's disagreement with the Army's judgment provides no basis to
   sustain the protest.

   Business Management and Technical Evaluation

   The protester argues that the agency unreasonably concluded that Sierra
   Lobo's proposal was superior to Sherrick's under several subfactors of the
   business management evaluation and technical evaluation factors. As
   discussed above, the Army evaluated the offerors under the separate
   evaluation factors (which were of equal importance), but ultimately
   considered the proposals under a combined evaluation of both factors, and
   the agency favored Sierra Lobo's proposal because of its proven past
   performance and experience. We agree with the protester that the Army
   improperly considered offerors' past performance in evaluating their
   proposals under the business management factor; however, as discussed
   below, the record shows that Sherrick was not prejudiced by this
   evaluation. Overall, we conclude that the Army's evaluation provides no
   basis to sustain the protest.

   First, Sherrick contends that the Army's evaluation under the subfactor
   titled "process for assigning workload," under the business management
   factor, was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria because the
   agency considered Sierra Lobo's past performance in its evaluation. The
   selection decision noted that both offerors were rated as "excellent"
   under this subfactor, but concluded that "the only advantage as to either
   offeror under this subfactor is the fact that Sierra Lobo actually has
   successfully performed as a prime contractor for numerous Test and
   Evaluation contracts." AR, Tab E, SSD, at 55.

   The protester correctly notes that the RFP contained separate evaluation
   factors for offerors' past performance records, and for offerors business
   management and technical proposals. In this regard, the solicitation did
   not state that offeror's past performance records would be considered in
   the evaluation of the business management and technical proposals.

   Solicitations must inform offerors of the basis for proposal evaluation,
   and the evaluation must be based on the factors set forth in the
   solicitation. FAR sect. 15.304. Thus, to the extent that the agency
   considered past performance in the evaluation of the offerors' proposals
   under the business management evaluation factor, this was a deviation from
   the stated evaluation criteria. See, e.g., GlassLock, Inc., B-299931,
   B-299931.2, Oct. 10, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 216 at 5-6 (sustaining protest
   where agency improperly considered offerors' past performance in
   evaluation of technical factors that did not contemplate consideration of
   such information). We do not believe, however, that Sherrick was
   prejudiced by the agency's evaluation. In this regard, our Office will not
   sustain a protest absent a showing of competitive prejudice, that is,
   unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it
   would have a substantial chance of receiving award. McDonald-Bradley,
   B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see also, Statistica, Inc.
   v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   Here, the agency's rationale that Sierra Lobo's experience and past
   performance record rendered its proposal superior under the process for
   assigning workload subfactor was the same as the agency's overall
   rationale for concluding that Sierra Lobo's proposal was superior to
   Sherrick's under the business management and technical evaluation factors.
   Thus, although the protester's argument focuses on the consideration of
   past performance regarding a single subfactor, the record shows that the
   performance confidence issue was also the only discriminator between the
   offerors' proposals under the business management and technical evaluation
   factors. As a result, correction of the apparent double-counting of Sierra
   Lobo's past performance advantage under the business management and
   technical evaluation factors would mean that the Army's evaluation drew no
   distinctions between the offerors' proposals under those factors. As
   discussed above, however, the agency concluded that Sierra Lobo's proposal
   was superior under the past performance evaluation factor, and had a
   lower-evaluated most probable cost--thus the remaining discriminator in
   the selection decision still favored Sierra Lobo. On this record, we think
   that there is no possibility that the agency's evaluation prejudiced
   Sherrick.

   With regard to Sherrick's remaining challenges to the evaluation of the
   offerors' proposals under the business management and technical evaluation
   factors, we find that none has merit. Thus, consistent with our discussion
   above, the protester's argument regarding the consideration of past
   performance under the business management and technical evaluation factors
   provides no basis to disturb the agency's overall award decision. We
   discuss the balance of Sherrick's primary challenges below.[7]

   Sherrick contends that, as a general matter, the Army unreasonably
   considered the role of Amtec in its evaluation of Sierra Lobo's proposal
   under the business management evaluation factor. The protester contends
   that while the RFP stated that the performance risk evaluation would be
   based on the "past performance of the offerors and their proposed major
   subcontractors," the proposal risk evaluation would consider "an offerors'
   proposed approach in meeting the requirements of the solicitation." RFP
   sect. M-2.3.c. Sherrick contends that the difference between these two
   provisions means that the Army could not consider the experience of Amtec
   in evaluating Sierra Lobo's proposal because Sierra Lobo, and not Amtec,
   was the "offeror." We disagree. The RFP stated that offerors' proposals
   would be evaluated based on their proposed approach to the solicitation
   requirements and the sample task. To the extent that the protester argues
   that the agency was required to omit any consideration of the role that
   subcontractors would play in offerors' proposed performance of the
   contract, as detailed in their proposals, such an argument clearly lacks
   merit.

   Next, Sherrick argues that the Army's evaluation of proposals under the
   subfactor titled "proposed personnel," under the business management
   factor, improperly credited Sierra Lobo with the experience of its
   proposed contract manager. Sherrick alleges that this individual not
   employed by Sierra Lobo at the time it submitted its proposal, but was
   instead an employee of Ametc. The RFP, however, did not state that
   offerors were required to have current employment agreements or
   commitments with proposed key personnel at the time proposals were
   submitted. In the absence of such a provision, the agency was not
   required, as Sherrick suggests, to downgrade or reject Sierra Lobo's
   proposal.

   Additionally, the protester alleges that the proposed contract manager was
   an employee of Amtec, and that it was improper to credit Sierra Lobo with
   the experience of one of its subcontractor's employees. This argument,
   however, is merely an extension of Sherrick's argument that an agency is
   generally prohibited from considering the experience of a subcontractor in
   the evaluation of a proposal. For the same reasons discussed above, we
   conclude that this argument lacks merit.

   Next, the protester contends that the agency unreasonably criticized
   Sherrick's approach under the subfactor titled "allocation of test
   missiles," under the technical evaluation factor. The RFP required
   offerors to detail in their whitepaper proposals how they would approach a
   sample testing requirement. The RFP advised offerors that they would be
   allocated 18 missiles to perform the hypothetical test, and were
   instructed to "[s]pecify the quantity of missiles allocated for each test
   under the sample task and provide your rationale for those quantities."
   RFP sect. L-25.B.d.4.

   In its whitepaper, Sherrick proposed to test 12 of the 18 available
   missiles, keeping 6 in reserve to use as spares or for additional testing.
   AR, Tab J, Sherrick Proposal, Vol. 1, at 8. The Army determined that
   Sherrick's proposal was "good" under this subfactor, based on its proposed
   launcher configuration, as well as presented a "minor advantage" for its
   approach to grouping the missiles into distinct temperature paths. AR, Tab
   E, SSD, at 36. The Army also concluded, however, that Sherrick's proposal
   had a "minor disadvantage, due to its proposal to only utilize 12 of the
   18 missiles," because this approach "could reduce the assessed confidence
   of the results and would not take full advantage of the ability to lower
   risk to the Government/Customer on this sample task." Id. at 59. Sherrick
   argues that the increased confidence that the testing of additional
   missiles would provide was not worth the additional cost of such an
   approach and also that the benefit of a reserve outweighed the increased
   level of confidence from testing all missiles.

   We think the Army's criticism of Sherrick's approach was reasonable in
   light of the RFP's requirement that offerors justify their rationale for
   the number of missiles allocated for the sample test. Although the Army
   found that Sherrick's proposal had a minor advantage for certain elements
   of its approach to the allocation of missiles, the proposal also had a
   minor disadvantage based on Sherrick's decision to utilize only 12
   missiles for testing. In essence, the Army believed that the benefit of
   increased confidence in the missile tests outweighed the benefit of cost
   savings or a reserve of untested missiles. Sherrick's disagreement with
   the agency's judgment provides no basis to sustain the protest.

   Finally, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably determined that
   Sherrick's proposal had a weakness under the subfactor titled "sequence of
   tests," under the technical factor, based on its proposal to perform a
   "loose cargo" test. The Army concluded that Sherrick's approach of
   performing this test early in the sequence of tests was a weakness because
   it could result in damage to the missiles before other tests were
   complete. AR, Tab E, SSD at 59-60. The protester does not rebut the
   agency's criticism of its proposed test sequence, but instead
   contends--with no support for its assertion--that Sierra Lobo's proposal
   followed the same approach. Although our Office issued a protective order
   in connection with this protest, under which counsel for Sherrick was
   provided access to Sierra Lobo's proposal and the agency's evaluation
   documents, the protester does not cite any evidence to support its
   position regarding Sierra Lobo's proposal. We have also reviewed the
   record and find no support for the protester's argument. Thus, the
   protester's unsupported allegation provides no basis to sustain a protest.
   See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2, B-259694.3, June 16, 1995,
   95-2 CPD para. 51 at 24.

   Source Selection Decision

   Finally, the protester argues that the Army improperly weighed the
   evaluation factors in its selection decision, and that the agency also
   failed to adequately justify its rationale for selecting Sierra Lobo's
   proposal. As discussed above, the protester's objections to the evaluation
   of offerors' proposals and the selection decision focuses on the number of
   strengths and weaknesses assigned to each proposal, and certain
   discriminators identified between the proposals. Our review, however,
   finds that the SSA in her selection decision considered the full
   evaluation record and reasonably exercised her discretion in identifying a
   overall discriminator that merited selecting Sierra Lobo's proposal for
   award. On this record, the protester provides no basis to challenge the
   reasonableness of the selection decision.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The business management subfactors are as follows: (1) process for
   assigning workload, (2) process to minimize costs, (3) proposed personnel,
   (4) organizational structure, (5) recruitment/retention, (6)
   labor/materiel tracking, (7) contacts with defense and testing community,
   (8) strategic plan analysis, (9) process to ensure safe working
   environment. Subfactors 1-3 were of equal importance; subfactors 4-6 were
   of equal importance, though less important than the first three
   subfactors; subfactors 7-9 were of equal importance, but were less
   important than the first six. RFP sect. M-2.2.c(1).

   [2] The technical subfactors are as follows: (1) environmental tests, (2)
   resources for test plan document, (3) electronic document management, (4)
   allocation of test missiles tests, (5) sequence of tests, (6) test
   methodology, (7) document generation process, (8) test schedule planning.
   Subfactors 1-3 were of equal importance; subfactors 4-7 were of equal
   importance, though less important than the first three subfactors;
   subfactor 8 was of the least importance. RFP sect. M-2.2.c(2).

   [3] The agency used an evaluation scheme of excellent, good, satisfactory,
   and unacceptable for the business management and technical evaluation
   factors; past performance was evaluated on the basis of risk, with ratings
   of high, moderate, low, or unknown risk.

   [4] A debriefing is required if the competition was conducted under
   Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. The FAR provides that "[a]n
   offeror, upon its written request received by the agency within 3 days
   after the date [of notification of contract award] shall be debriefed and
   furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award." FAR
   sect. 15.506(a)(1).

   [5] Sherrick also argues that the evaluation record is incomplete because
   the Army did not retain copies of the worksheets produced by individual
   evaluators. In order for us to review an agency's evaluation of proposals,
   an agency must have adequate documentation to support its judgment.
   Northeast MEP Servs., Inc., B-285963.5 et al., Jan. 5, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 28 at 7. While an agency is not required to retain every document or
   worksheet generated during its evaluation of proposals, the agency's
   evaluation must be sufficiently documented to allow review of the merits
   of a protest. Remington Arms Co., Inc., B-297374, B-297374.2, Jan. 12,
   2006, 2006 CPD para. 32 at 10. Here, the Army explains that the reports of
   the three evaluation teams represent the consensus judgments of the
   individual evaluations, and that the SSA relied upon these reports in her
   selection decision. Furthermore, the selection decision discusses the
   consensus reports in detail and fully explains the rationale for selecting
   Sierra Lobo's proposal for award. On this record, we conclude that the
   agency has provided an adequate record to allow our Office's review of the
   procurement and the protester's challenges.

   [6] Amtec was the incumbent on the predecessor contract.

   [7] Sherrick has raised numerous collateral challenges including, as
   discussed above, disagreements with the agency's tally of the number of
   strengths and weaknesses for each proposal, and the assignment of
   adjectival ratings. We have reviewed all of these challenges and find that
   none has merit.