TITLE: B-310732, PMC Solutions, Inc., January 22, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310732
DATE: January 22, 2008
***********************************************
B-310732, PMC Solutions, Inc., January 22, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: PMC Solutions, Inc.

   File: B-310732

   Date: January 22, 2008

   Britain Harvey for the protester.

   David P. Blackwood, Esq., U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, for the agency.

   Frank Maguire, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's technical proposal
   with regard to employment status of proposed expert and protester's status
   as subcontractor under prior contracts is denied where record shows
   evaluation was reasonable and in accord with stated evaluation criteria.

   2. Protest that agency, in "best value" procurement, improperly made award
   to offeror proposing significantly higher price than protester's is denied
   where record shows agency considered protester's and awardee's proposals'
   strengths and weaknesses in determining that technical superiority of
   awardee's proposal outweighed protester's lower price.

   DECISION

   PMC Solutions, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Booz Allen
   Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) under request for proposals (RFP) CR-07-0002, issued
   by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), for Lean Six Sigma (LSS)
   support.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP was issued under the streamlined procedures of Federal Acquisition
   Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6 on July 17, 2007. It called for services
   related to the LSS methodology for process mapping and improvement.
   Initial work was to begin no later than September 2007, with a period of
   performance of not to exceed 45 days. RFP at 5. The RFP provided that
   proposals would be evaluated on a "best value" basis under three factors:
   contractor qualifications, past performance, and price. Id. at 6.

   Ten proposals were received in response to the RFP. The proposals were
   reviewed by a technical evaluation panel, which rated BAH's and PMC's
   proposals outstanding. BAH's price was $129,500 and PMC's was $29,709.
   Agency Report at 1; Protest at 3.[1] The agency made award to BAH based on
   its finding that evaluated weaknesses in PMC's proposal and strengths in
   BAH's proposal made BAH's proposal the best value, despite its
   substantially higher price. PMC contends that its technical proposal was
   improperly evaluated in two respects and that the agency conducted an
   improper price/technical tradeoff.

   SSL EXPERT

   PMC contends that its proposal was unreasonably downgraded on the basis
   that one of its proposed LSS experts was a contract employee rather than a
   PMC employee. Protest at 1. PMC asserts that the downgrading was
   unreasonable because there was no requirement in the RFP that proposed
   personnel be in-house employees. Id. at 2.

   In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate
   proposals, but will examine the record to ensure that it was reasonable
   and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable
   procurement statutes and regulations. Harris Corp., B-299864 et al., Sept.
   14, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 180.

   The evaluation here was unobjectionable. USCCR explains that the
   availability of PMC's expert was a concern in view of USCCR's requirement
   that the project be underway promptly after award. Agency Report,
   Statement of Contracting Officer (SCO), at 1-2. PMC's proposal included a
   resume indicating that the expert in question was not a PMC employee and
   was currently involved in a project for another company. Agency Report,
   Tab B, PMC Proposal, attach 1, at 4. USCCR determined that the expert's
   employment status raised doubts regarding his availability for a "quick
   turnaround project" that "needed to be performed on a very tight
   timeframe." SCO at 1-2. Although the RFP did not expressly require that
   proposed experts be employed directly by the contractor, and the
   evaluation factors did not specifically address employment status, in
   evaluating a proposal an agency properly may take into account specific,
   albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by
   or related to the stated evaluation criteria. Preferred Sys. Solutions,
   B-291750, Feb. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 56 at 2. Here, under the
   contractor qualifications evaluation factor, resumes were required for all
   proposed personnel. RFP at 6. It is implicit, we think, that where an
   agency is evaluating proposed employees, the evaluation logically
   encompasses the employees' availability to perform under the contract. The
   fact that PMC's proposed expert was not a PMC employee and was involved
   with another company's project reasonably was viewed by the agency as
   casting doubt on the expert's availability when needed and, as a result,
   on PMC's ability to perform quick turnaround work beginning promptly after
   award.

   PAST PERFORMANCE

   Consistent with the RFP, PMC submitted three past performance summaries,
   including projects for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the U.S.
   Coast Guard, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Protest at 2. PMC
   contends that the agency improperly rated its proposal "higher risk" on
   the basis that it was the prime contractor on only one of the three
   submitted projects. Id. PMC notes that the RFP did not require or prefer a
   prime contractor status, and asserts that USCCR should have taken into
   account that it was the "lead and sole provider" of relevant services on
   the two projects on which it was a subcontractor (NRO and Coast Guard).
   Id. at 2.

   This aspect of the evaluation was reasonable. USCCR explains that it was
   concerned with offerors' experience with "quick performance" projects and
   as the "lead" on relevant projects, which closely reflected the
   contractor's roles and responsibilities under the instant contract. SCO at
   2. USCCR determined that, although the Coast Guard project on which PMC
   worked was a "quick turnaround," PMC was a member of a team of five firms
   and it was unclear what support PMC received from the other firms. Id.
   Additionally, USCCR determined that, although the NRO project was not a
   team effort, it was a 2-year project, which the evaluators did not
   consider to be probative of future performance on a contract that required
   "very short turnaround." Id.

   Although the RFP did not express a specific preference or requirement for
   past performance as a prime or "lead" contractor, USCCR properly could
   take into account in its past performance evaluation relevant information
   reasonably predictive of the quality of contract performance. Preferred
   Sys. Solutions, Inc., supra, at 2. Since the awardee here would be a prime
   contractor, the agency reasonably could consider offerors' performance of
   prior contracts as a prime contractor. Likewise, since the agency's
   requirement entailed quick turnaround work, it reasonably could consider
   offerors' performance of prior contracts under which quick turnaround work
   was required. Both considerations clearly would be predictive of future
   performance and, therefore, reasonably were encompassed by the past
   performance evaluation. See Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture,
   B-297011.3, B-297011.4, Apr. 20, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 71 at 8. [2]

   PRICE/TECHICAL TRADEOFF

   PMC asserts that, given that its and BAH's proposals received the same
   outstanding rating, award to BAH at a four times higher price could not be
   the "best value" to the government, consistent with the solicitation.

   Where, as here, a solicitation provides for a price/technical tradeoff,
   the agency retains discretion to make award to an offeror with a higher
   technical rating, despite a higher price, so long as the tradeoff decision
   is properly justified and otherwise consistent with the stated evaluation
   and source selection scheme. Midwest Metals, Inc., B-299805, July 17,
   2007, 2007 CPD para.131; University of Kansas Med. Ctr., B-278400, Jan.
   26, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 120 at 6.

   Ratings, be they numerical, color, or adjectival, 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. Here, as discussed, while USCCR assigned the
   proposals adjectival ratings, it did not limit its evaluation or its
   tradeoff decision to these ratings. Rather, the agency fully considered
   the actual qualitative differences in the technical proposals. See, e.g.,
   Bernard Cap Co., Inc., B-297168, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 204 at 6.
   The price/technical tradeoff reflected these qualitative differences. As
   discussed, USCCR determined that timely performance was "critical" and
   that it had "little time for delays." SCO at 3. USCCR's evaluated concerns
   regarding PMC's technical capabilities (i.e., the availability of its
   proposed expert) and past performance (i.e., PMC's relative lack of "lead"
   responsibility on prior projects) reasonably reflected the need for timely
   performance, without delays; these concerns could lead to PMC's being
   unable to perform in a timely manner. Further, the agency was fully aware
   of PMC's substantially lower price, but considered it relevant that PMC
   proposed substantially fewer hours than BAH; the agency thus viewed BAH as
   "more likely to provide a better quality deliverable." Id. We conclude
   that the agency's tradeoff determination was reasonable.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The record includes conflicting award amounts, including $120,000,
   $129,000, and $120,500. For simplicity, we use $129,500, the figure set
   forth in the agency report. Agency Report at 1. The amount of the award
   does not affect our decision.

   [2] PMC seems to argue that USCCR should have entered into
   "clarifications" with it following receipt of proposals. Protest at 3;
   Protester's Comments, Nov. 30, 2007. An agency, however, has broad
   discretion to decide whether to engage in clarifications with an offeror.
   INDUS Tech., Inc., B-297800.13, June 25, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 116. There
   was no requirement for clarifications here.