TITLE: B-310542, Horizon Industries, Limited, January 7, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310542
DATE: January 7, 2008
******************************************************
B-310542, Horizon Industries, Limited, 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: Horizon Industries, Limited

   File: B-310542

   Date: January 7, 2008

   Jeffrey A. Lovitky, Esq., for the protester.

   Capt. Robert T. Wu, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest of proposal evaluation and award decision is denied where record
   shows they were reasonable and consistent with solicitation's terms.

   DECISION

   Horizon Industries, Limited protests the agency's evaluation of proposals
   and the award of a contract to Phacil under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. W91QUZ-06-R-0052, issued by the Department of the Army for contract
   and technical support services. Horizon challenges the evaluation rating
   ("exceptional," the highest rating available) given to the awardee's
   proposal for technical merit and past performance; the protester contends
   that the awardee's proposal instead should have been downgraded for
   failing to demonstrate that the awardee's proposed personnel and past
   performance met the RFP's personnel qualification requirements. Horizon
   also contends that its past performance should have been rated higher than
   acceptable and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions
   with it regarding a perceived need for additional information about its
   prior work.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on May 22, 2007, contemplated the award of an indefinite-
   delivery/indefinite-quantity contract at fixed hourly rates for
   acquisition, contract administration, and close-out services for the Army
   Contracting Agency, Information Technology E-Commerce, and Commercial
   Contracting Center (ITEC) and its customers for a base year and two option
   periods.[1] RFP at 2. The RFP advised that an award under the RFP would be
   based on the best overall response received considering
   technical/management approach, past performance, and price (where the
   first two factors were approximately equal in importance and, combined,
   were more important than price). RFP at 54. Under the technical/management
   approach factor, proposals were to be evaluated to assess the offeror's
   understanding of the requirements and its capability to successfully
   perform in accordance with the RFP's performance work statement (PWS)
   considering the following subfactors: project plan (including technical
   approach, organizational resources and management controls); quality
   control plan (including quality objectives, and methods for measuring
   quality and meeting or exceeding quality standards); and personnel. Under
   the personnel subfactor of the technical/management approach factor,
   information regarding the experience and qualifications of the offeror's
   proposed personnel was to be reviewed in assessing the firm's capability
   to meet PWS requirements; in relevant part, the PWS required that the
   contractor have available or have the ability to acquire personnel meeting
   the required qualifications and experience levels. RFP at 14, 54-55. Under
   the past performance evaluation factor, the agency was to evaluate the
   extent to which an offeror's proposal demonstrated past performance of
   recent (i.e., within 3 years), relevant (i.e., similar in complexity and
   magnitude) work of similar size and scope, as well as the firm's
   commitment to customer satisfaction, scheduled completion of work, and
   good workmanship. RFP at 46-47, 55.

   Nineteen proposals were received and evaluated, discussions were
   conducted, and revised proposals were evaluated. Phacil's proposal was
   rated exceptional under both the technical/management approach and past
   performance factors; Phacil's proposed price of $3,262,496.07 was the
   second lowest of all offers received. Horizon's proposal was rated
   exceptional under the technical/management approach factor and acceptable
   under the past performance factor; the protester's proposed price was
   $6,107,742.04. Finding that the Phacil proposal's strengths outweighed the
   slight cost advantage of another offeror's lower-priced proposal, the
   agency determined that the Phacil proposal represented the best value to
   the agency and made an award to Phacil on September 27. This protest
   followed.

   Horizon challenges the agency's evaluation and selection of the Phacil
   proposal for award. The protester alleges that, since the Phacil proposal
   failed to demonstrate that all of its personnel possess the qualifications
   and experience levels listed in the PWS, it should have been rated lower
   than exceptional under the technical/management factor (which includes
   personnel as one of its three equally weighted subfactors). Similarly,
   with regard to past performance, Horizon argues that the awardee's
   proposal failed to demonstrate that its prior work met all of the PWS
   personnel qualifications and experience requirements.

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, we examine
   whether the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the terms of the
   solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations; a protester's mere
   disagreement with the agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish
   that the agency acted unreasonably. See United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al.,
   Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 10-11. We have reviewed the protester's
   challenges to the evaluation of the awardee's proposal under the personnel
   subfactor of the technical/management approach factor, as well as under
   the past performance factor, and find that the agency's evaluation was
   reasonably based and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

   As an initial matter, we note that Horizon has not challenged the numerous
   proposal strengths found in the Phacil proposal under the other two
   subfactors--project plan and quality control plan--of the
   technical/management approach factor which were cited by the evaluators in
   support of the overall exceptional rating assigned to the proposal under
   the technical factor. Rather, Horizon argues that because Phacil's
   proposal contained summarized descriptions of personnel candidates' work
   histories that failed to demonstrate compliance with every personnel
   qualification of the PWS, the proposal should not have been rated
   exceptional. Our review of the record, however, fails to support Horizon's
   suggestion that any such demonstration was required here, since the RFP
   advised offerors that proposals (including personnel qualifications and
   experience information provided by the offeror) would be evaluated to
   assess the offeror's understanding of and capability to meet the PWS
   requirements, including the requirement to have personnel available--or
   the ability to acquire personnel--meeting the qualification and experience
   requirements of the PWS. RFP at 14, 54-55. Thus, the RFP did not require
   that proposals show compliance with every listed personnel qualification
   where they otherwise demonstrated the ability to acquire personnel with
   the qualifications required for the work under the RFP.[2]

   The record shows that the evaluators reviewed the general personnel
   experience summaries in Phacil's proposal (noting the substantial number
   of years of experience of the firm's candidates) and found that the firm
   had demonstrated its ability to acquire personnel with the required
   qualifications. In this regard, our review of the record confirms the
   reasonableness of the evaluators' favorable evaluation of Phacil's
   proposed comprehensive recruiting, screening, hiring, training, and
   retention efforts to ensure that PWS personnel qualifications and
   experience requirements would be met in performing task orders under the
   contract, and that Phacil fully demonstrated its ability to provide the
   required qualified personnel. Accordingly, we have no basis to question
   the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of the Phacil proposal as
   exceptional under the technical/management approach factor.

   Horizon also challenges the agency's evaluation of Phacil's past
   performance as exceptional and contends that the work summaries in
   Phacil's proposal failed to show performance of relevant work, since they
   did not demonstrate that all of the personnel experience and qualification
   requirements in the PWS were met during performance of the prior work. Our
   review of the record provides no support for Horizon's position. FIrst,
   the RFP's past performance evaluation terms did not require a
   demonstration that the personnel qualifications of the current RFP were
   met while performing its previous work. Rather, for the evaluation of past
   performance, the RFP required that offerors detail their performance of
   recent (i.e., within 3 years), relevant (i.e., similar in complexity and
   magnitude) work of similar size and scope, as well as commitment to
   customer satisfaction, timely completion of work, and good workmanship.
   RFP at 55. Second, and in any event, contrary to the protester's
   contention that Phacil failed to show that its prior work was related to
   the personnel qualification requirements, Phacil's proposal included a
   chart that specifically matched personnel qualifications listed in the
   current PWS to the firms' past contracts for similar work.[3]

   Further, while Horizon generally contends that Phacil's prior work should
   be considered less relevant or not relevant because the awardee describes
   it as assisting in, rather than conducting, procurements, the record
   provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's
   determination that Phacil's prior work is directly relevant to the type of
   contracting office assistance to be provided under the RFP. In this
   regard, Phacil's proposal was found to detail its prior contracting
   support activities for various Department of Defense agencies, including
   guiding market research, developing solicitations, assisting in
   evaluations, performing cost analyses, performing contract management and
   administration tasks, and close-out services. The agency further explains
   that, unlike other offerors' past performance proposals that were
   considered less relevant to the current requirement (including Horizon's),
   Phacil's proposal showed performance of similar work performed for
   contracting offices that conduct procurements (like ITEC, the contracting
   office to be serviced under the current RFP).[4] In sum, our review of the
   record provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's
   determination that Phacil's prior acquisition-related work is directly
   relevant and that, given the highly favorable past performance reference
   survey ratings received for the firm, its past performance warranted a
   rating of exceptional.[5]

   Horizon challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal's rating of
   acceptable under the past performance evaluation factor. The protester
   further contends that, to the extent the agency perceived a lack of detail
   in the firm's past performance proposal, the agency failed to conduct
   meaningful discussions with the firm since it did not raise the matter
   with the protester. We need not address these contentions, however, since
   the protester has not shown that it has been prejudiced by the challenged
   actions. Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester
   demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was competitively prejudiced
   by the agency's actions, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that,
   but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of
   receiving the award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD
   para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577. 1581
   (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, given the reasonableness of the agency's
   evaluation of the Phacil proposal as exceptional under both the
   technical/management approach and past performance factors, and the
   awardee's significantly lower price (which is almost half the price
   proposed by the protester), there is no indication in the record that,
   even if Horizon's proposal were rated exceptional under both non-price
   evaluation factors, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving
   the award.[6] See Abt Assocs. Inc., B-295449, B-295449.2, Mar. 2, 2005,
   2005 CPD para. 54 at 4.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] ITEC procures information technology (IT) equipment, hardware,
   software, and associated services, as well as non-IT services, for a
   variety of Department of Defense program offices. The contractor will
   support ITEC's contracting activities by providing pre-award contract
   support, post-award contract administration, assistance with acquisition
   planning, development of strategic sourcing options, assistance with
   source selection evaluation, identification of acquisition problems or
   concerns, development of innovative and practical solutions, participation
   in the analysis of the overall effectiveness of ITEC acquisition programs,
   recommendations for improvements or corrective actions, and close-out
   services. RFP at 14.

   [2] Our review of the Horizon proposal shows that it also did not match
   each PWS personnel qualification and experience requirement to the
   qualifications and experience of the sampling of individuals it proposed
   (i.e., the protester's proposal only briefly summarized a single
   individual's qualifications by labor category even for labor categories
   where the agency estimated that more than one individual would be
   required).

   [3] Horizon's argument that past performance proposals were to show that a
   firm's prior work complied with current personnel qualification
   requirements is undermined by the fact that, unlike Phacil's chart
   indicating such compliance, its own past performance proposal did not
   match personnel qualification requirements to the firm's prior work.

   [4] The agency explained that it found acquisition work performed for a
   contracting office more similar and relevant to the work to be performed
   here, since ITEC, the entity to be served under the contract, is a
   contracting office. In this regard, the agency found Horizon's
   acquisition-related work in support of a program management buying office
   (that is, an office that was providing subject matter expertise and
   assorted acquisition support to a contracting office conducting
   procurements on its behalf) to be further removed from, and thus less
   directly relevant to, the work required here. The agency points out that
   unlike that type of office, a contracting office like ITEC is responsible
   for every aspect of the procurements it conducts for its customers,
   including the skilled use of data management computer programs available
   only to the agency's contracting offices.

   [5] In comparison, while Horizon's prior work was found to be within the
   general scope of the current requirement, its prior contracts were
   significantly smaller in size than the effort under the RFP, as well as
   significantly lower in price.

   [6] The protester does not allege that its technical capability and past
   performance are superior to the Phacil proposal so as to warrant payment
   of Horizon's significantly higher price, or suggest that, if discussions
   had been conducted, it would have significantly lowered it price to the
   extent necessary to have had a reasonable chance of award here.