TITLE: B-310794, S4, Inc., February 12, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310794
DATE: February 12, 2008
*************************************
B-310794, S4, Inc., February 12, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: S4, Inc.

   File: B-310794

   Date: February 12, 2008

   John Goss for the protester.

   Raymond LaBenne for CLR Group Ltd., an intervenor.

   Maj. John G. Terra, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

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

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency improperly issued task order to vendor quoting higher
   price than protester's is denied where evaluation was on "best value"
   basis and record shows agency considered relative strengths of vendors'
   quotations in finding that technical superiority of successful vendor's
   quotation outweighed protester's lower price.

   DECISION

   S4, Inc. protests the issuance of a task order to CLR Group Ltd. under
   request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4452-07-Q-A088, issued by the
   Department of the Air Force for information technology (IT) and related
   services in support of Air Mobility Command's (AMC) global air mobility
   missions. S4 asserts that the selection determination was flawed and
   inadequately documented.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued on September 20, 2007 as a small business set-aside to
   holders of General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
   contracts for IT services, provided for the issuance of a
   time-and-materials, labor-hour type task order for a base year with two
   option years for a broad array of IT services. A task order was to be
   issued to the vendor whose quotation was evaluated as the "best value" to
   the government, considering technical evaluation factors--past performance
   and mission capability (comprised of two subfactors--staffing and
   technical approach) and price. RFQ at 2; attach. 2, at 1. The technical
   factors were of equal importance and the subfactors under mission
   capability were of equal importance. Past performance and mission
   capability, combined, were significantly more important than price. RFQ,
   attach. 2, at 1.

   The evaluation under the mission capability factor (representing the
   evaluators' views as to the vendor's ability to meet performance or
   capability requirements) was expressed with color/adjectival
   ratings--blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and
   red/unacceptable. Risk (high, moderate, or low) associated with a vendor's
   proposed approach, weaknesses in the proposed approach, and weaknesses in
   the quotation itself was assessed under the mission capability subfactors.
   Past performance was rated in terms of relevance--very relevant, relevant,
   somewhat relevant, and not relevant, id. at 1-3--and the past performance
   evaluation was expressed in terms of confidence (high, significant,
   satisfactory, unknown, little, and no), representing the evaluators'
   assessment of the probability of successful performance.

   Four quotations, including S4's and CLR's, were received and evaluated.
   [2] On October 12, initial evaluation notices were issued, along with a
   request for revised quotations. Revised quotations were received by
   October 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Final Best Value Determination, at
   5. S4's quotation, low priced at $5,679,076.02, was found to have two
   strengths and no deficiencies, and was rated green/acceptable/low risk
   under the staffing subfactor, blue/exceptional/low risk under the
   technical subfactor, and very relevant/significant confidence under past
   performance. CLR's quotation, priced at $6,035,372.20, was found to have
   five strengths and no deficiencies, and was rated identically to
   S4's--green/acceptable/low risk for staffing, blue/exceptional/low risk
   for technical, and very relevant/significant confidence for past
   performance.

   The source selection authority (SSA) considered the relative strengths and
   benefits of the two quotations, and determined that CLR's quotation was
   sufficiently technically superior to S4's that it was the best value,
   notwithstanding its higher price. The agency thus issued a task order to
   CLR.

   Noting that "the solicitation did not specify that if technical quotations
   were rated equal, consideration would also be given to (the) number of
   strengths," S4 asserts that, given that its and CLR's quotations received
   the same evaluation ratings, selection of CLR at a higher price could not
   be the best value, consistent with the solicitation. Protester's Comments
   at 1. S4 also maintains that the agency unreasonably determined that CLR's
   additional three strengths were more valuable than S4's low price. Id.

   Where, as here, a solicitation provides that a task order will be issued
   to the vendor whose quotation is determined to be the best value,
   considering price and other factors, the agency retains the discretion to
   select a vendor with a technically superior evaluation, despite a higher
   price, so long as the tradeoff is properly justified and otherwise
   consistent with the stated evaluation and source selection scheme. See
   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. In making such a tradeoff decision, ratings, be they numerical,
   color, or adjectival, are merely guides for intelligent decision making in
   the procurement process; they do not mandate selection of a particular
   quotation. KPMG Consulting LLP, B-290716, B-290716.2, Sept. 23, 2002, 2002
   CPD para. 196 at 13.

   The evaluation and source selection here were unobjectionable. First,
   while the RFQ did not specifically provide that the number of strengths a
   quotation received in the evaluation would be considered in the selection
   decision, it is implicit in any best value evaluation that the SSA will
   consider the merits of the submissions in selecting the one that
   represents the best value. In doing so, as noted, SSAs are not bound to
   adopt evaluators' adjectival or color ratings--which are only advisory in
   nature--as the single measure of a submission's merit; rather, they
   properly may further evaluate the submissions and determine that certain
   features of one make it a better value than another. See KPMG Consulting
   LLP, supra.[3]

   In making the selection decision here, the SSA reviewed the full technical
   evaluation record, including the strengths cited by the evaluators for
   each quotation and the resulting color/adjectival ratings, past
   performance ratings and cost evaluation results. The SSA was aware that
   the two quotations received identical ratings, but she then conducted her
   own assessment of the evaluators' conclusions and, in her two-page
   narrative review of each quotation, commented on the benefits of each
   quotation's identified technical strengths. For example, the SSA found
   that one of S4's two strengths was significant because it meant no
   "spin-up" time would be required. She found the second strength to be of
   "some value," but not as significant, because the "same results could be
   achieved" with other methods. AR, Final Best Value Determination, at 5. In
   her similar analysis of the five strengths associated with CLR's
   quotation, the SSA found that all five strengths were significant. For
   example, she noted that one process proposed by CRL was "unique" and
   "extremely valuable" because it reduced the managers' workload and helped
   integrate and synchronize data. Another CRL approach, the SSA found, would
   enhance the agency's efforts to build enterprise services, and enhance
   interoperability with a specified database. In conclusion, the SSA
   expressly stated that, while S4 team's approach provided "some benefit" to
   the Air Force, the "CLR team's technical approach is far more valuable to
   the government, especially in terms of supporting overall program goals
   and future integration efforts." Id. at 15. It was on the basis of the
   SSA's judgment as to the two quotations' strengths that she determined
   that CLR's quotation was the best value and selected it despite its higher
   price.

   We conclude that the selection decision reflects an appropriate comparison
   of the merits of the S4 and CLR quotations, and a reasonable determination
   to select a higher-priced quotation because of its greater technical
   merit. Accordingly, we have no basis to object to the selection decision.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The protester was not represented by counsel who could be admitted to
   a protective order, and therefore did not have access to source selection
   sensitive and proprietary information. Accordingly, our discussion in this
   decision is necessarily general. Our conclusions, however, are based on
   our review of the entire record.

   [2] Both S4 and CLR elected to team with other FSS contractors; S4 teamed
   with two other firms, and CLR teamed with three other firms.

   [3] The protester asserts that it did not consider revising portions of
   its quotation to identify additional strengths because it had already
   received the highest rating; S4 was advised of its ratings in the October
   26 request for revised quotations. In a best value procurement, however,
   since adjectival and other ratings are only advisory, a vendor makes
   competitive judgments based on those ratings at its own risk.