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.