TITLE: B-310551.2, American Cybernetic Corporation, February 1, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310551.2
DATE: February 1, 2008
*************************************************************
B-310551.2, American Cybernetic Corporation, February 1, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: American Cybernetic Corporation

   File: B-310551.2

   Date: February 1, 2008

   Harry Steinberg for the protester.

   Mary C. Schaffer, Esq., and David T. Copenhaver, Esq., Department of the
   Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, for the agency.

   Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest against agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied
   where record shows allegations are without merit, or that alleged
   evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to the
   protester.

   DECISION

   American Cybernetic Corporation (ACC) protests the award of a contract to
   Svanaco, Inc. d/b/a as American Eagle under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. BPD-CSB-07-CI-0001, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau
   of the Public Debt on behalf of the United States Chemical Safety and
   Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), for website redesign and hosting
   services. ACC, which submitted a significantly higher-priced proposal,
   challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's "best value"
   determination that resulted in the award to Svanaco, which submitted the
   highest technically rated, lowest-priced proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, as amended, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract
   under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule for a
   base period, with four 1-year options, for a contractor to redesign CSB's
   public use internet website and external hosting activities. RFP at 3, 6,
   13. CSB is an independent federal agency responsible for investigating
   industrial chemical accidents and the CSB website, hosted internally on a
   server at CSB headquarters, is an important tool for informing the public
   about the agency's activities and disseminating safety information. The
   RFP included a detailed performance work statement that set forth a
   detailed listing of tasks and deliverables required. Id. at 6-13.

   Proposals were to be evaluated on a "best value" basis considering the
   following factors: (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; (3)
   personnel qualifications; (4) quality assurance plan; and (5) price. RFP
   at 18-20. The non-price factors when combined were stated to be
   approximately equal to price, and offerors were advised that price would
   become more important as proposals became technically more equal. Id. at
   18.

   Proposals were received from four firms, including ACC and Svanaco, which
   were evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation team, using an
   adjectival rating system which was not disclosed in the solicitation. The
   consensus evaluation and technical rankings were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |       Factor       |  Svanaco   | Offeror A  | Offeror B  |    ACC     |
   |--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
   | Technical Approach |   Highly   |Satisfactory|Satisfactory|Satisfactory|
   |                    |Satisfactory|            |            |            |
   |--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |  Past Performance  |   Highly   |   Highly   |Satisfactory|   Highly   |
   |                    |Satisfactory|Satisfactory|            |Satisfactory|
   |--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |     Personnel      |Outstanding |  Marginal  |  Marginal  |Satisfactory|
   |   Qualifications   |            |            |            |            |
   |--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
   | Quality Assurance  |Outstanding |Satisfactory|Satisfactory|Satisfactory|
   |        Plan        |            |            |            |            |
   |--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |      Ranking       |     1      |     2      |     3      |     4      |
   |--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
   |    Total Price     |  $351,680  |  $697,995  |  $388,240  |  $789,300  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report exh. 11, Award Recommendation; Contracting Officer's
   Statement (COS) at 1-2. The contracting officer reviewed the evaluation
   findings and made award to Svanaco, finding that Svanaco's proposal--which
   was the highest-rated and lowest-priced offer received--represented the
   best value to the government. In doing so, the contracting officer
   concluded that the two highest-priced proposals, while technically
   acceptable, were too expensive to justify an award regardless of their
   technical score. COS at 2. After a debriefing, ACC filed this protest.

   ACC raises a number of objections to the evaluation of its proposal under
   each evaluation factor. According to the protester, its proposal was
   evaluated "in a manner that evidences a poorly structured, subjective, and
   ill-designed evaluation process, which did not offer a predefined variable
   measurement matrix with technically sound measurement constructs having a
   uniform evaluative process." Protest at 1-2.[1]

   The agency provided a detailed report in response to the protest that
   specifically addressed each of ACC's numerous arguments. In its comments
   responding to the report, ACC simply states that the agency's report
   "further substantiates the claim which was originally submitted by the
   protester" but provides no specific rebuttal to any of the agency's
   explanation. Protester's Comments. We have reviewed the agency's
   substantive response to the protester's initial allegations and, in the
   absence of any evidence or arguments to the contrary from the protester,
   we have no basis to conclude that the agency's evaluation was
   unreasonable. Industrial Prop. Mgmt., B-291336.2, Oct. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 205 at 5.

   Moreover, we think the record shows that there was no prejudice to ACC
   arising from any alleged evaluation errors. In this regard, even if we
   assume that ACC's proposal should have been assigned the highest possible
   rating under each non-price factor, based on the record, we see no
   reasonable possibility that the contracting officer would have concluded
   that ACC's proposal was worth paying more than twice the price of
   Svanaco's proposal, or the proposal of the second-lowest-priced,
   similarly-rated offeror. Prejudice is an essential element of every viable
   protest, and where none is shown or is otherwise evident, we will not
   sustain a protest. Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept.
   22, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 208 at 7.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] To the extent, ACC alleges that the RFP did not specifically disclose
   the relative weights of the evaluation factors or the use of an adjectival
   rating system, these allegations are untimely. A protest based upon
   alleged improprieties in a solicitation apparent prior to the time set for
   receipt of proposals and filed after award, as in this case, is untimely,
   and will not be considered. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2007).