TITLE: B-310442, D&J Enterprises, Inc., December 13, 2007
BNUMBER: B-310442
DATE: December 13, 2007
**************************************************
B-310442, D&J Enterprises, Inc., December 13, 2007

   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: D&J Enterprises, Inc.

   File: B-310442

   Date: December 13, 2007

   John T. Flynn, Esq., Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLP, for the
   protester.

   Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's technical proposal
   and resulting exclusion from competitive range is denied where record
   shows agency reasonably downgraded proposal on basis that it failed to
   address, or inadequately addressed, material solicitation requirements.

   DECISION

   D&J Enterprises, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
   competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912P8-07-R-0101,
   issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for debris management
   services. D&J argues that the Corps unreasonably evaluated its technical
   proposal, and that its proposal's elimination from the competitive range
   therefore was improper.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP provided for a "best value" evaluation based on price and four
   equally weighted technical factors: past performance;
   management/operations plan (with subfactors for organizational
   structure/key personnel, technical approach and methodology, geographic
   area management, safety-site specific safety and health plan, quality
   control plan, waste reduction/recycling strategy); small business
   subcontracting plan; and technical approach to sample task order (with
   subfactors for technical approach, production rate, use of local
   subcontractors, and activity hazard analysis). RFP sect. M, at 110.

   The Corps received and evaluated 23 proposals.[1] D&J's proposal was rated
   low risk for past performance; acceptable for management/operations plan
   with, as relevant here, subfactor ratings of acceptable for organization
   and key personnel, unacceptable for geographic area management, marginal
   for contractor quality control plan, and unacceptable for disaster debris
   waste and recycling strategy; marginal for small business subcontracting
   plan; and acceptable for sample task order with, as relevant, a subfactor
   rating of unacceptable for job hazard analysis. Consensus Evaluation. The
   contracting officer and the source selection authority reviewed the
   evaluation results and concluded that D&J's proposal was not among the
   most highly rated, and eliminated it from the competitive range.
   Competitive Range Determination at 2, 3. The Corps included the eight
   highest-rated proposals in the competitive range.

   D&J asserts that the Corps unreasonably evaluated its proposal,
   specifically challenging many of the weaknesses that resulted in its
   assigned ratings, and concludes that it should not have been eliminated
   from the competitive range.

   We will review an agency's evaluation and exclusion of a proposal from the
   competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the solicitation
   criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Novavax, Inc., B-286167,
   B-286167.2, Dec. 4, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 202 at 13. Contracting agencies
   are not required to retain in the competitive range proposals that are not
   among the most highly rated or that the agency otherwise reasonably
   concludes have no realistic prospect of being selected for award. Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.306(c)(1); Wahkontah Servs., Inc.,
   B-292768, Nov. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 214 at 4. We have reviewed the
   record and conclude that the evaluation of D&J's proposal and its
   resultant exclusion from the competitive range were reasonable. We discuss
   several of the protester's arguments below.

   ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE/KEY PERSONNEL

   Under the organizational structure and key personnel subfactor of the
   management/operations plan factor, offerors were required to provide
   resumes, letters of intent, an explanation of the division of
   responsibilities, and the management organizational structure to the field
   supervisory level. RFP sect. J, attach. 6, at 63, sect. M, at 110. In
   rating D&J's proposal acceptable under this subfactor, the Corps
   identified as a weakness that D&J's key personnel resumes were not
   sufficiently detailed to support those individuals' assignments under the
   contract. The agency further found that the proposal did not include
   required letters of intent, did not clearly identify the key team members,
   and did not identify the employee responsible for responding if the Corps
   contacted the contractor. Consensus Evaluation at 4.

   D&J asserts that these weaknesses are unfounded, claiming that its
   proposal included a list of key personnel showing each individual's job
   title and experience by specific disaster, including duties and
   responsibilities, and that its management plan included additional
   information regarding key personnel experience and qualifications. D&J
   asserts that its proposal also included detailed corporate and disaster
   project organization charts, and specifically indicated the employee who
   would be responsible for responding to Corps contacts.

   The evaluation was unobjectionable. Based on our review, D&J's proposal
   did not include resumes. Instead, it included a list of proposed key
   personnel, identifying for each the disasters in which the individual had
   participated and the individual's nominal function or title for each
   disaster. For example, D&J's proposal listed one principal as having
   participated in the Hurricane Camille cleanup effort, with responsibility
   for "bidding," and in the Hurricane Hugo cleanup, as the chief executive
   officer. However, the proposal did not identify or explain the functions
   the individual performed in these roles--for example, what responsibility
   for "bidding" entailed. Proposal, Vol. II, at 1-14. Nor does the
   additional information that D&J asserts it provided in its management
   proposal describe the duties of the key personnel in any detail. Instead,
   in most cases, the information is limited to name and employment history,
   with very general information about the functions that the employee
   performed and, in some cases, an education record. Proposal, Vol. III, at
   4-9. For example, this information indicated for D&J's proposed project
   manager that he worked extensively in all areas of field operation,
   including laborer, equipment operator and project supervisor, and has
   received certifications in, among other things, environmental compliance
   and management. The information did not include, for example, a
   description of the responsibilities in his prior role as project
   supervisor. Id. at 7. In the absence of this information, we think the
   agency reasonably concluded that it could not determine whether the
   proposed key personnel had sufficient experience to perform the jobs for
   which they were proposed.

   Further, while D&J asserts that it provided detailed organization charts
   in its proposal (Proposal, Vol. III, at 11-12), as the agency notes, many
   of the individuals listed as key personnel are not identified on the
   disaster project organization chart. Supp. Agency Report at 4. The agency
   thus determined--reasonably, we think--that it was not clear which key
   personnel would actually be performing the contract. In addition, D&J does
   not dispute that its proposal did not include the required letters of
   intent for proposed key personnel. Finally, while D&J's proposal did
   identify an individual who would respond to an agency contact, the Corps
   points out that this was deemed unacceptable because disaster debris
   operations require a team response and that is what the agency was looking
   for in evaluating the proposal. Id. The protester does not dispute the
   agency's position in this regard. We conclude that there is no basis for
   questioning the evaluation under the organizational structure/key
   personnel subfactor.

   GEOGRAPHIC AREA MANAGEMENT

   Under the geographic area management subfactor (of the
   management/operations plan factor), offerors were required to address
   sectoring, sector managers, the number of crews in each sector, and the
   haul destination from each sector. RFP sect. J, attach. 6, at 63, sect. M,
   at 110. The Corps rated D&J's proposal unacceptable under this subfactor
   based on its finding that it did not address the identified elements.
   Consensus Evaluation at 6. D&J concedes that it did not address sectoring,
   sector managers, the number of crews in each sector, or haul destinations,
   but maintains that it could not address these items without knowing the
   specific disaster involved; it concludes that it was unrealistic and
   unreasonable for the agency to require offerors to address these factors.
   Since D&J failed to address the requirements specified in the
   solicitation, the agency reasonably could determine that the proposal was
   unacceptable under this subfactor. To the extent D&J believed the
   requirements were unreasonable, it was required to protest on this ground
   prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. See Bid Protest
   Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) 2007.

   SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

   Section L of the solicitation provided percentage goals for the
   subcontracting plan for different groups (e.g., small businesses and small
   disadvantaged businesses), and required offerors to provide information
   demonstrating how they had met small business goals under prior contracts.
   RFP sect. L, at 102. Offerors' subcontracting plans were to be evaluated
   against the section L goals, as well as for compliance with Army Federal
   Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS), Appendix DD. RFP sect. M, at
   110. The agency rated D&J's proposal marginal under the subcontracting
   plan factor because D&J's plan did not fully comply with the appendix and
   because, while its proposal offered to meet the RFP's stated goals, it did
   not include any information demonstrating that D&J had met its
   subcontracting goals in the past, as required by the RFP. Consensus
   Evaluation at 8-9. D&J argues that its proposal in fact addressed each
   item in the appendix, and therefore unreasonably was rated marginal.

   The evaluation was unobjectionable. The basis for D&J's argument--that it
   addressed each item in the appendix--ignores the manner in which the
   evaluation in this area was structured. AFARS appendix DD contains eight
   items, under seven of which proposals were scored based on criteria
   established in the appendix, and the last of which contained subitems, all
   of which a subcontracting plan had to satisfy in order to be found
   acceptable. AFARS Appendix DD. Under this rating scheme, a proposal did
   not receive the maximum available score simply because it addressed each
   item. D&J's plan received 33 of the 100 available points, including fewer
   than the full amount of available points for each of the seven scored
   items; for example, while its plan addressed item 2 (efforts to broaden
   the small business and small disadvantaged business active vendor base),
   it received only 2 of 10 available points for the item. AFARS Scoring
   Sheet at 1. Moreover, regarding D&J's general assertion that it addressed
   all items, our review confirms that it did not furnish information showing
   compliance with subcontracting goals under prior contracts. Based on this
   failure, and D&J's overall subcontracting plan score, the agency
   reasonably rated its plan marginal.

   SAMPLE TASK ORDER--ACTIVITY HAZARD ANALYSIS

   Offerors were required to submit an activity hazard analysis (AHA), in
   accordance with the latest version of Engineer Manual (EM) 385-1-1, to
   address the situation presented by the sample task order (STO). The agency
   rated D&J's proposal unacceptable under the STO factor for failure to
   include this analysis. The protester asserts that the evaluation was
   unreasonable because its proposal did in fact include the required
   analysis, under its management plan.

   This argument is without merit. While D&J's management plan indeed
   included an AHA, the RFP actually required two AHA's--one under the
   management plan (RFP attach. 6, at 83) and one specifically responding to
   the STO scenario (RFP sect. L, at 103, sect. J, attach. 12, at 86, sect.
   M, at 110). D&J's proposal omitted the separate AHA for the STO, and did
   not indicate that the AHA included with its management plan was also meant
   to be considered as its response to the STO. In any case, the AHA included
   with D&J's management plan (Proposal, Vol. II, at 120) did not address all
   of the requirements detailed in EM 385-1-1. For example, D&J's AHA did not
   list equipment or training requirements, both of which were to be included
   in the AHA for the STO scenario. EM 385-1-1, Figure 1-2. We conclude that
   there is no basis to question the agency's evaluation of D&J's AHA under
   the STO factor.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Proposals were rated outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or
   unacceptable under each factor and subfactor.