TITLE: B-311126, B-311126.2, B-311126.3, B-311126.4, Savannah River Alliance, LLC, April 25, 2008
BNUMBER: B-311126, B-311126.2, B-311126.3, B-311126.4
DATE: April 25, 2008
******************************************************************************************
B-311126, B-311126.2, B-311126.3, B-311126.4, Savannah River Alliance, LLC, April 25, 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: Savannah River Alliance, LLC

   File: B-311126, B-311126.2, B-311126.3, B-311126.4

   Date: April 25, 2008

   Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., Tammy Hopkins, Esq., Pamela A. Reynolds, Esq.,
   and Amy T. Kingston, Esq., Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP, for the
   protester.

   James J. McCullough, Esq., Deneen J. Melander, Esq., Steven A. Alerding,
   Esq., and William S. Speros, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
   Jacobson, LLP, for Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, an intervenor.

   H. Jack Shearer, Esq., Charmaine A. Howson, Esq., Timothy P. Fischer,
   Esq., and Jeffrey Galan, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency.

   Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Agency's selection of higher-priced, higher-rated proposal for award is
   reasonable, where the key discriminator between proposals was under the
   key personnel factor, which was one of the most heavily weighted factors
   in the evaluation and was "critical" to successful performance, and where
   the agency reasonably concluded that awardee's superior key personnel were
   worth the additional price; protester's disagreement with the evaluation
   of multiple other factors and subfactors does not render the evaluation
   unreasonable.

   2. Allegation that a key personnel reference had a personal conflict of
   interest that tainted the evaluation of key personnel is denied, where the
   reference was provided by the offeror and did not have an official role in
   the procurement, and the information provided by the reference had no
   impact on the evaluation.

   3. Allegation that organizational conflicts of interest exist due to the
   employment of several of the awardee's key personnel is denied, where any
   conflict, if it exists, is personal to the employees, and not the
   organization, and is too speculative to impute to their employers.

   DECISION

   Savannah River Alliance, LLC (SRA) protests the award of a contract to
   Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC (SRNS), issued by the Department of
   Energy (DOE) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RFP09-06SR22470 for
   the management and operation of the Savannah River Site, a DOE-owned
   facility in South Carolina. SRA alleges myriad evaluation errors.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The Savannah River Site is a 310-square-mile industrial complex in the
   southern part of South Carolina adjacent to the Savannah River. The site
   is dedicated to environmental management cleanup, developing and deploying
   technologies to support the cleanup mission, providing capability for
   supporting the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile, and processing and
   storing nuclear materials in support of the United States' nuclear
   non-proliferation effort. RFP sect. C-1.1. DOE's Office of Environmental
   Management is the landlord for the site and, since 1989, has contracted
   with Washington Savannah River Company (WSRC) to manage and operate the
   site. Agency Report (AR), Tab B.2, Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Report,
   at 2.

   The RFP sought to restructure the workscope of the predecessor contract
   and implement a performance-based contract, whereby the selected
   contractor would provide all of the "personnel, facilities, equipment,
   materials, supplies, and services" necessary to manage and operate the
   site and its mission activities. RFP sect. C-1.2. Included in the RFP's
   scope of work are environmental closure activities (soil and water
   remediation, deactivation and decommissioning, solid waste handling, and
   nuclear materials management), Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL)
   activities,[1] National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
   activities[2] (tritium[3] operations, nuclear nonproliferation, and
   radiological assistance), and landlord/site services (environmental,
   safety, and health [ES&H], engineering and construction, operations
   support, and business services). RFP sect. C-3; AR, Tab E.1, Source
   Selection Decision, at 1. The RFP advised offerors to "challenge the
   status quo and existing paradigms in formulating and implementing safe,
   high quality, timely, and cost-effective programs and operations" at the
   site and encouraged the use of "innovative methods of accomplishing this
   Scope of Work consistent with the most efficient and effective means of
   performance." Safety, also, was identified as an "integral part of mission
   accomplishment" and offerors were advised to "systematically integrate
   safety, security, and environmental protection into management and work
   practices at all levels" of performance. RFP sect. C-1.2.

   The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a
   5-year base period with one 5-year option. Id. sect. B-2.3. Award was to
   be made on a best-value basis, considering key personnel (worth 25 percent
   of the non-price portion of the evaluation), organizational structure and
   management approach (25 percent), technical management approach (20
   percent), ES&H (15 percent), past performance (7.5 percent), relevant
   experience (7.5 percent), and cost and fee. Id. sect. M-2. Key personnel,
   which was one of the most important evaluation factors, was to be
   evaluated based on written proposal submissions (including resumes,
   reference checks, and letters of commitment) and oral presentations during
   which the offerors' key personnel would be asked to respond to three
   managerial problems. The remaining factors were to be evaluated based on
   written proposals. Cost and fee were to be evaluated for reasonableness
   and realism, based on the evaluated key personnel compensation costs for
   the first 2 years of contract performance and fee for the entire potential
   10 years of contract performance. Id. The RFP stated that the non-price
   factors were "significantly more important than" price, and advised that
   DOE was "more concerned with obtaining a superior [m]anagement and
   [b]usiness proposal[4] than making an award at the lowest evaluated
   price." Id. sect. M-3.

   The RFP required the selected contractor to be devoted entirely to this
   contract; the contractor was prohibited from performing any other
   commercial or government work for the duration of the contract, and was
   required to be established as a separate corporate entity from its parent
   company. Id. sect. H-41. To satisfy this requirement, SRA and SRNS were
   formed as new corporate entities. SRA was comprised of corporate
   affiliates of the incumbent WSRC team: Washington Group International,
   Inc.; Bechtel National, Inc.; CH2MHill Constructors, Inc.; BWXT Services,
   Inc.; and subcontractor Battelle-Savannah Rivers, LLC. SRNS was comprised
   of Fluor Federal Services, Inc.; Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock
   Company (a Northrop Grumman Newport News business unit); Honeywell
   International, Inc.; subcontractor teaming partner Lockheed Martin
   Services, Inc.; and subcontractor Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Contracting
   Officer's Statement at 1 n.1; AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 14.

   Both offerors submitted proposals in response to the RFP, and their key
   personnel participated in oral presentations. The SEB evaluated each
   offeror's proposal under each of the evaluation factors, noted a variety
   of "significant strengths," "strengths," and "weaknesses" for each
   proposal, and assigned proposals the following adjectival ratings:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                              |    SRA     |    SRNS    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Key Personnel (25%)                           |    Good    | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Organizational Structure & Management Approach|    Good    |    Good    |
   |(25%)                                         |            |            |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Technical Management Approach (20%)[5]        |            |            |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |       |EM Closure Activities                 |    Good    |    Good    |
   |       |--------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |       |SRNL Activities                       | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |       |--------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |       |NNSA Activities                       |    Good    |    Good    |
   |       |--------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |       |Landlord Services & Site Support      |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |ES&H (15%)                                    |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Past Performance (7.5%)                       |    Good    |    Good    |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Relevant Experience (7.5%)                    | Excellent  | Excellent  |
   |----------------------------------------------+------------+------------|
   |Evaluated Price                               |$424,859,509|$473,146,404|
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab E.1, Source Selection Decision, at 4.

   The SEB compared proposals under the various factors and subfactors and
   described several areas of distinction, but concluded overall that the
   proposals were "substantially equivalent" under all but the key personnel
   factor. For that factor, the SEB concluded that while the two offerors
   proposed chief executives and laboratory directors who had "substantially
   equivalent" experience, the rest of SRNS's key personnel had more
   "extensive experience," which the SEB found "important" to meet the
   performance expectations in the contract. In addition, the SEB concluded
   that the SRNS team performed better during the oral presentation; as the
   SEB stated, "SRA did not function as an integrated team and overall was
   less interactive than the SRNS team," whereas the SRNS team performed more
   "effectively, efficiently[,] and seamlessly together[,] with all personnel
   engaged in some aspect of problem solving, response development and/or
   presentation for all three [managerial] problems." AR, Tab B.2, SEB
   Report, at 19-20.

   The SEB reported its findings to the source selection authority (SSA), who
   agreed with most of the SEB's conclusions. For example, the SSA found "no
   significant discriminators" between the two proposals under the
   organizational structure and management approach, technical management
   approach, ES&H, past performance, or relevant experience factors. The SSA
   acknowledged that while there were "differing technical approaches and
   strengths" in each proposal, as was documented by the SEB, there were "no
   discernable advantages between offerors" under these evaluation factors.
   AR, Tab E.1., Source Selection Decision, at 5.

   However, for the key personnel factor, the SSA disagreed in part with the
   SEB's conclusions. Specifically, the SSA disagreed with the SEB's finding
   that the experience of the offerors' chief executives was substantially
   equivalent. The SSA found a "substantial difference in the magnitude of
   [the chief executives'] past responsibilities" that persuaded the SSA to
   conclude that SRNS's chief executive provided a "greater range of
   demonstrated performance" when compared to SRA's chief executive. This,
   coupled with the "extensive and diverse" experience of the other members
   of the SRNS key personnel team, and the superior performance of the SRNS
   team during oral presentations, led the SSA to conclude that the SRNS team
   would be better able to satisfy the scope of work and provide the best
   value to the government. Id. at 6. As the SSA stated:

     It is my determination that the superior executive team proposed by
     SRNS, with their broader level of federal and commercial experience will
     challenge the status quo, drive innovation[,] and significantly improve
     overall site productivity. Based on my experience, a highly capable and
     high performing senior executive management team is a highly significant
     factor in achieving productivity improvements and successful problem
     solving on DOE sites. The SRNS leadership team's ability to bring in
     relevant lessons learned as a result of their broader experience base
     increases the likelihood that innovative practices will be successfully
     implemented that will result in work being accomplished more
     efficiently.

     The [Savannah River Site] is at a critical juncture in its evolution
     with the implementation of a program strategy that will increase the
     number of prime contractors on site as well as increase the performance
     risk for the [management and operations] contractor. Key personnel are
     critical to successfully and safely manag[ing] the various critical
     [site] programs and the change ahead for [the site] which requires the
     best and brightest management team. Consequently, that is why the key
     personnel criterion was assigned the relatively high weight of 25%.
     Therefore, I believe the advantages in leadership, innovation,
     efficiency, and productivity improvements possible through the superior
     SRNS Key Personnel team as compared to the SRA team more than outweigh
     the evaluated price differential of $48.3 million over ten years or $4.8
     million per year.

   Id. at 7-8. Award was made to SRNS and this protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   SRA complains that the agency should have rated SRA's proposal higher, and
   SRNS's proposal lower, under each of the evaluation factors. SRA contends
   that the assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the SEB report was
   unreasonable, unfair, and inconsistent with the RFP. SRA asserts that the
   source selection decision is flawed because the SSA did not fully consider
   or document the numerous asserted advantages that SRA's proposal offers
   over SRNS's.[6]

   In reviewing protests of an agency's evaluation, our Office does not
   reevaluate proposals, but instead examines the record to determine whether
   the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the solicitation's
   evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.
   Cherry Road Techs.; Elec. Data Sys. Corp., B-296915 et al., Oct. 24, 2005,
   2005 CPD para. 197 at 6. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
   judgment is not sufficient to establish that an agency acted unreasonably.
   Id.

   In its protest, SRA selectively identifies some of the SEB's comments in
   the final report, or isolated comments of a technical advisor or
   evaluator, and contends that these comments should have resulted in lower
   ratings for SRNS's proposal and higher ratings for SRA's proposal.
   However, as discussed below, these arguments ignore the many other
   comments that support the agency's evaluation conclusions. In response to
   the protest, DOE provided a detailed record of its evaluation and source
   selection decision, which shows that the agency evaluated the relative
   merits of the proposals and assessed ratings in a fair and impartial
   manner consistent with RFP. Although the source selection decision may not
   have discussed each and every asserted strength and weakness as the
   protester would have liked, or agreed with the protester as to the
   significance of certain identified strengths or weaknesses, the record
   demonstrates that the SEB and SSA considered all of the information
   available, and issued a well-reasoned and rational SEB report and source
   selection decision that fairly highlighted the key discriminators among
   the offerors' proposals. SRA disagrees with the conclusions regarding key
   discriminators, but as noted above, mere disagreement with the agency's
   conclusions is insufficient to sustain a protest. Cherry Road Techs.;
   Elec. Data Sys. Corp., supra, at 6. Based on our review of the record,
   including the agency's discussion and assessment of relative advantages
   and disadvantages associated with the specific content of proposals, we
   find the evaluation to be reasonable. Specific challenges raised by SRA
   are discussed more fully below.[7]

   Key Personnel Factor

   SRA contends that its key personnel should have been rated superior to
   SRNS's. As stated above, the evaluation of key personnel included the
   evaluation of the offerors' written submissions (including resumes,
   reference checks, and letters of commitment) and the offerors' responses
   to three managerial problems during oral presentations. The RFP stated
   that the written submissions would be evaluated "for the extent of [the
   key personnel's] qualifications and experience with respect to the
   functions they are proposed to manage." Oral presentations were to be
   evaluated to determine, among other things, "[w]hether the Offeror's
   management team understands the management challenges created in the
   problems," the "observed interaction and participation of the Offeror's
   Key Personnel in dealing with the presented problems as an integrated
   team," and the "quality and effectiveness of communicating the response."
   RFP sect. M-2(a)(1) and (2).

   The RFP identified two required key personnel (chief executive and SRNL
   director); the selection of all other key personnel was left to each
   offeror's discretion. Id. sect. M-2(a)(1). SRA proposed [REDACTED] key
   personnel, and SRNS proposed [REDACTED]. SRA's key personnel consisted of
   persons that possessed DOE and site-specific experience; some had worked
   at the site under the incumbent contract. SRNS's key personnel had a
   broader range of experience managing projects and programs with broad
   scopes and complexity, including projects at DOE, in the commercial
   sector, and other government agencies. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 20. In
   accordance with the RFP, the SEB evaluated each position and specifically
   discussed elements of each person's background and experience in its
   report. The SEB identified 6 significant strengths and 8 strengths for
   SRA's key personnel, and 11 significant strengths and 4 strengths for
   SRNS's key personnel. The SEB did not assess any formal weaknesses to
   either offeror's key personnel under this factor, but noted weaknesses
   throughout its report to explain why a particular key personnel position
   was rated only a strength instead of a significant strength.[8]

   As stated above, the SSA concluded that, overall, SRNS' key personnel were
   superior to SRA's, largely because the agency determined that the broader,
   more diverse experience of SRNS's key personnel (especially with regard to
   SRNS's chief executive) was more advantageous to accomplishing the RFP's
   requirements, and the SRNS team performed better during the oral
   presentations. AR, Tab E.1, Source Selection Decision, at 6-8.

   SRA protests the SSA's favorable recognition of the diverse backgrounds of
   the SRNS key personnel, especially with regard to the chief executive
   position. According to SRA, the SSA should have given more favorable
   consideration to DOE and site-specific experience; "diversity of
   experience," the protester argues, is an unstated evaluation criteria.
   Protest at 27-28. However, the RFP did not require DOE or site-specific
   experience, or suggest that incumbency would result in more advantageous
   evaluation ratings. Rather, the RFP contemplated a broad scope of work and
   encouraged offerors to be "innovative" in their technical approaches,
   "challenge the status quo and existing paradigms," and adopt practices
   that foster "continuous improvement." RFP sections C-1.2; C-1.3.
   Specifically with regard to the chief executive, where the SSA found
   breadth of experience to be a significant discriminator between the
   proposals, the RFP required consideration of the "depth and breadth of
   his/her qualifications in the management and administration of
   organizations." Id. M-2(a). Thus, based on the RFP's expressed desire for
   innovation and improvement, rather than the status quo, coupled with the
   specific reference to broad experience (at least for the chief executive),
   we find reasonable the SSA's determination that the more diverse
   experience of SRNS's key personnel was deserving of a higher rating.[9]

   SRA contends, also, that four of SRNS's proposed key personnel [REDACTED]
   lacked essential experience for their positions, which should have
   translated into weaknesses instead of strengths in the evaluation.
   In contrast, SRA argues that four of its proposed key personnel [REDACTED]
   should have been credited with significant strengths. Protest at 20-28;
   SRA's Comments at 13-44. In failing to assess SRNS's proposal weaknesses
   and SRA's proposal significant strengths, SRA contends, the agency failed
   to take into account qualitative differences in the proposals,[10]
   disregarded the evaluation criteria that required consideration of
   experience as it relates to the function each individual was proposed to
   manage, and evaluated offerors' key personnel disparately.

   As an initial matter, we note that the record evidences that the agency
   took into account qualitative distinctions in the proposals. While it may
   be true that some of SRA's key personnel are more experienced than SRNS's
   in certain areas, in other areas, SRNS's personnel were found to be more
   experienced.[11] Although SRA focuses on a few positions in its protest,
   it does not challenge the many significant strengths and strengths
   assessed for the many other identified key personnel in both offerors'
   proposals, which resulted in SRNS's proposal receiving nearly twice as
   many significant strengths as SRA's proposal. Also, SRA does not challenge
   the agency's evaluation of the oral presentation, and the record shows
   that the SRNS team performed far better as an integrated unit in
   responding to the managerial problems than did SRA, thus demonstrating
   "superior leadership" capabilities to the agency.[12] AR, Tab E.1, SSA
   Decision, at 7. Based on our review of the record, including the oral
   presentations, we find the agency's evaluation of key personnel to be
   reasonable.

   For example, SRA asserts that SRNS's [REDACTED] lacked [REDACTED]
   experience, which SRA argues should have translated to a weakness in the
   evaluation and not a strength. The agency disagreed, explaining in the SEB
   report that the individual had over 25 years of relevant experience, had
   managed large staffs with budgets [REDACTED], and had participated in
   [REDACTED]--all of which the SEB found advantageous to performing the
   functions he was proposed to manage. The SEB explained, nonetheless, that
   this experience did not rise to the level of a significant strength
   because most of the individual's experience was with [REDACTED]; his
   [REDACTED] experience, the SEB recognized, was "limited." AR, Tab B.2, SEB
   Report, app. A, at 10.

   In comparison, the SEB assessed SRA's [REDACTED] a strength for possessing
   [REDACTED] experience, but also determined that this individual did not
   deserve a significant strength because he "does not have extensive
   experience with [REDACTED]." Id. at 5. Since the RFP expressly identified
   activities involving [REDACTED], see RFP sect. C-3.3(a), we find no error
   or inconsistency in the agency's evaluation of either offeror's proposed
   [REDACTED] key personnel under this factor.[13]

   Similarly, the agency fairly evaluated both offerors' proposed SRNL
   directors. For this position, the RFP provided that, in addition to
   considering experience and qualifications, the agency would consider the
   individual's "recognition for scientific or engineering accomplishments
   and recognition for successfully managing a multidisciplinary nuclear
   research and development organization." RFP sect. M-2(a); see also id.
   sect. L-4(a)(1) (requiring key personnel to identify "Publications,
   Awards, Honors, and Professional Recognition"). Both offerors' proposals
   received strengths for these positions. For SRNS's director, the SEB
   favorably considered his PhD in nuclear engineering, his work experience
   successfully managing a multidisciplinary nuclear research and development
   organization, his experience establishing consortia with universities and
   industry, his strong research background, and the extensive professional
   recognition he had received for his work. However, the SEB did not assign
   this individual a significant strength because his experience managing a
   multidisciplinary organization was "at the division level." AR, Tab B.2,
   SEB Report, app. A, at 9-10.

   Likewise, SRA's proposed SRNL director was favorably recognized for his
   PhD in health sciences, his experience with several national laboratories,
   and his work in forming university alliances. However, the individual had
   received only "limited recognition for scientific or engineering
   accomplishments," which was a criteria for evaluation of this factor as
   stated in the RFP.[14] Id. at 4. Thus, even though SRA's proposed SRNL
   director had managed multidisciplinary organizations above the division
   level, he had not received the scientific and engineering-related awards
   and recognition that SRNS's proposed SRNL director had received, and thus
   the agency reasonably determined that SRA's director also was not
   deserving of a significant strength under the evaluation criteria.[15]

   The record also confirms that the agency properly assessed strengths, and
   not significant strengths or weaknesses, to SRNS's proposed [REDACTED],
   and SRA's proposed [REDACTED], based on each individual's more limited
   experience as relevant to their proposed functions. Id. at 4, 10. SRA
   disagrees with the agency's conclusions and contends that the areas where
   SRNS's key personnel lack experience are more critical to performing
   "primary" functions than the areas where SRA's key personnel lack
   experience, and that this should have resulted in discriminators in favor
   of SRA. E.g., SRA's Comments at 23-24, 40. However, this reflects only
   SRA's disagreement with the assessment of significant discriminators
   in the evaluation. The record here is well-reasoned and shows that the
   agency reasonably considered experience relative to proposed function and
   did not evaluate the offerors unequally.

   Organizational Structure & Management Approach Factor

   SRA contends that SRNS's proposal should have received a lower rating
   under the organizational structure and management approach factor because
   [REDACTED] of SRNS's proposed key personnel are not directly employed by
   SRNS, but remain employees of SRNS's team members.

   For evaluation under this factor, the RFP required each offeror to propose
   a "management approach (functional organization, lines of authority, roles
   and responsibilities, and interface with DOE and NNSA) to safely and
   seamlessly perform the Statement of Work . . . and to achieve the safe and
   efficient accomplishment of [Savannah River Site] missions." RFP sect.
   M-2(b). The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate each approach for,
   among other things, "the extent to which it provides an efficient and
   realistic approach to meet the general performance expectations."[16] Id.
   SRA contends that because SRNS's key personnel are not directly employed
   by SRNS, they cannot "seamlessly" perform the work like SRA can, whose key
   personnel ([REDACTED][17]) are directly employed by SRA. Protest at 29.

   The RFP did not require that key personnel be direct employees of the
   offeror; it required only that each key personnel provide a 2-year
   commitment to the contract. RFP sections L-4(a)(1), M(a)(1). All of SRNS's
   key personnel provided a 2-year commitment to the contract without any
   "contingencies or constraints" on their employment.[18] SRNS's Second
   Supp. Comments, Tab 4, Key Personnel Commitment Letters. The RFP required,
   and SRNS provided, the "Name of [the] Company/Partner [each] Key Person
   will work for," thus contemplating that entities other than SRNS could
   remain as the employer for the individual. RFP sect. L-4(a); see also id.
   sect. L-4(b) (contemplating that teaming arrangements will be used to
   perform the work). Although SRA contends that section H-41 of the
   solicitation, which required that a "separate corporate entity must be set
   up solely to perform this Contract," mandates that personnel also be
   employed by the offeror, no such limitation is stated in section H-41 or
   elsewhere in the solicitation.

   Here, in evaluating the organizational structure and management approach
   factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror's management organization, lines of
   authority, roles and responsibilities, and how the team members would
   function together as a seamless unit. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 21-22;
   id., app. B. As part of this evaluation, the SEB considered the key
   personnel commitments, corporate guarantees, and the corporate governance
   structure proposed by SRNS. Contracting Officer's Statement at 29. Based
   on this, the SEB found no risks to seamless operation and, instead,
   reasonably concluded that SRNS's approach warranted many significant
   strengths and strengths in the evaluation. Among other things, the SEB
   found that SRNS's approach established clear "lines of authority,"
   "detailed roles and responsibilities," and a "functional organizational
   structure" that the agency determined "increases the probability of
   successful contract performance."[19] AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. B, at
   5. SRA disagrees with this assessment, but has not shown it to be
   unreasonable.[20]

   Technical Management Factor

   SRA protests the evaluation of three of the equally-weighted subfactors
   under the technical management factor: EM closure activities, SRNL
   activities, and landlord services and site support.[21]

   1.      EM Closure Activities

   EM closure activities, as described in the statement of work, include soil
   and water remediation efforts, deactivation and decommissioning of
   facilities and structures, solid waste handling and removal, and nuclear
   materials management. RFP sect. C-3. Offerors' overall technical
   management approaches were to be evaluated "to ensure EM Closure
   Activities are conducted in a safe, secure, environmentally sound and
   fiscally responsible manner and fully comply with all applicable law,
   regulations, DOE directives, and terms and conditions of the contract."
   Id. sect. M-2(c)(1). Under this subfactor, each offeror was required to
   propose two "innovative" approaches that were to "challenge the status
   quo" in performing EM closure activities; these proposed innovations were
   to be evaluated for "strategy for implementation," "feasibility," and
   "resultant benefits."[22] Id.

   Each offeror's proposal was rated "good" under this subfactor. The SEB
   found that both offerors' proposed approaches, overall, were
   "substantially equivalent," even though proposals "differ[ed] in some
   areas and in the level of detail provided." For example, the SEB noted
   that both offerors "demonstrated excellent fiscal responsibility," but
   that SRA's proposal provided more detail than SRNS's as to "how all
   current nuclear material activities will be conducted in a secure manner."
   AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 23-24. With regard to the offerors' four
   proposed innovations, the SEB noted that all "had sound strategies for
   implementation," but that SRA's two innovations were "more feasible" than
   SRNS's. The SEB noted, however, that SRNS's [REDACTED] was an "order of
   magnitude higher [than SRA's proposed innovations] with respect to
   challenging the status quo and could facilitate dramatic change at [the
   Savannah River Site]." Id. at 24.

   SRA contends that the agency's concerns regarding the "feasibility" of
   SRNS's proposed innovations and the lack of detail in addressing how
   nuclear material activities will be conducted in a "secure" manner (both
   of which were reflected as weaknesses in the evaluation of SRNS's
   proposal) should have resulted in SRNS's proposal receiving a lower rating
   under the EM closure activities factor, given that feasibility and
   security were two elements of the evaluation criteria. Protest at 33-40.
   However, the agency convincingly explains that these weaknesses were not
   fatal to the viability of SRNS's proposed approach. For example, contrary
   to SRA's characterizations, SRNS's proposal did not completely fail to
   address nuclear material security; the proposal simply was not as detailed
   as the agency would have liked and was less detailed than SRA's proposal.
   SRNS's proposal did, however, generally address security issues in
   connection with EM closure activities. See Contracting Officer's Statement
   at 32; SRNS's Comments at 68-69. With regard to the agency's expressed
   concerns regarding the feasibility of SRNS's proposed innovations, the
   agency explains that these concerns did not reflect a lack of viability of
   SRNS's proposed innovations, but instead pertained to scheduling (whether
   SRNS's [REDACTED] could be implemented "in the proposed timeframe")
   or issues for which there were possible solutions (SRNS's [REDACTED]).[23]
   Supp. Contracting Officer's Statement at 14, 17; AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report,
   app. C, at 8-9.

   In any event, the agency considered these weaknesses and reasonably
   determined that they were outweighed by numerous other strengths and
   significant strengths identified in the evaluation of SRNS's proposal
   under this factor. For example, the SEB found numerous strengths because
   SRNS' proposed approach to EM closure activities was "safe and fiscally
   responsible," "safe and disciplined," "environmentally sound and
   compliant," and "cost effective"[24] AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. C, at
   6-7. In addition, SRNS's proposed innovations received significant
   strengths because they "significantly challeng[ed] the status quo"[25] and
   had "great potential to positively impact" the EM closure workscope.[26]
   Id. at 8. Similarly, the agency considered the numerous strengths,
   significant strengths, and weaknesses of SRA's different approach and
   innovations, and concluded that any advantages or disadvantages between
   SRA's and SRNS's proposals were not significant. SRA has not shown that
   the agency's comprehensive evaluation was flawed.

   2.      SRNL Activities

   As stated above, the SRNL is a DOE operated and federally funded research
   and development laboratory. RFP sect. C-1.1. The RFP provided that
   proposals would be evaluated under the SRNL subfactor for "completeness,
   balance, and feasibility" to develop the SRNL "into a multi-program world
   class National Laboratory while operating safely and maintaining the
   technical expertise to address emerging DOE scientific challenges." This
   evaluation was to include, among other things, consideration of the
   offeror's approach to "building external collaborations, and employing
   innovative or best-in-class approaches." RFP sect. M-2(c)(2).

   Each offeror's proposal was rated "excellent" under this subfactor. Both
   were found to "provide a good plan for improving [the] SRNL and
   positioning it for the future," both "identified excellent potential
   external collaborations," and both proposed to position the SRNL as a
   "distinct business unit." Although the SEB noted differences in the
   management approaches, overall it determined that the proposals were
   "substantially equivalent" under the SRNL subfactor. AR, Tab B.2, SEB
   Report, at 25-26.

   SRA contends that its proposal should have been rated superior to SRNS's
   under the SRNL subfactor because SRA's approach to "building external
   collaborations" included an "already existing university consortium"
   supported by [REDACTED]. First Supp. Protest at 33. In contrast, SRA
   argues, SRNS only offered "plans to form . . . consortiums in the future."
   Id. at 34. The SEB recognized this distinction and gave SRA's proposal a
   significant strength for its approach based on the existing relationships
   and [REDACTED], and gave SRNS's proposal a strength because it also
   proposed partnerships that were found to be advantageous to the
   government. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 26, app. C, at 10-11, 14. The
   record does not evidence that SRNS proposed only future plans to build
   collaborations as SRA contends; rather, SRNS's proposal identifies several
   "existing collaborative relationships," for which the agency properly gave
   SRNS credit. AR, Tab D.1. SRNS's Proposal, at 110-11. Thus, the record
   shows that, on the issue of forming collaborations, SRA's proposal was
   rated higher than SRNS's due, in part, to having [REDACTED]; but
   considering the other strengths and significant strengths identified in
   each offeror's proposal under this subfactor, the agency found no
   significant discriminator between proposals. Although SRA disagrees with
   this assessment, it has not shown it to be unreasonable.[27]

   3. Landlord Services & Site Support

   Landlord services and site support activities include providing
   engineering and construction management, operations support, and business
   services.[28] RFP sect. C-3.4.

   For this subfactor, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate "the
   comprehensiveness and feasibility of the Offeror's proposed plan to
   interface with other site contractors and tenant site entities both as it
   performs its own work and as it provides landlord services to others in
   accordance with Section C-4 of the [statement of work]." Id. sect.
   M-2(c)(4). Section C-4 required, "[w]ithin 60 days after the start of
   transition," that the contractor develop a [site] "Interface Management
   Plan (IMP) to identify and manage all site interfaces and to provide site
   landlord services to DOE, NNSA, DOE/NNSA contractors, and tenant entities
   engaged in onsite activities" Id. sect. C-4.

   Both proposals were rated "good" under this evaluation subfactor and were
   found to be "substantially equivalent." Both were found to provide a "very
   well structured approach to interface with other site contractors and
   tenants," and both reflected a "good understanding of the complexities of
   the [site] interfaces in the future as new DOE contracting strategies are
   implemented." AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 27-28. Both proposals received a
   significant strength and a strength, and only SRA's proposal received a
   weakness. This weakness was assessed because SRA's proposal "fail[ed] to
   discuss how it would fit DOE into" its interface plan, which was important
   because "SRA's direct interface with DOE prime contractors will have to be
   coordinated with DOE." Id., app. C, at 23.

   SRA complains that the assessed weakness reflects consideration of
   unstated evaluation criteria. According to SRA, the RFP required only
   coordination with site contractors and did not specify that consideration
   would be given to "how DOE fit[s] into the interfacing process." Protest
   at 48. However, the RFP, in section C-4, clearly contemplates DOE
   involvement, and thus we find no merit to this protest ground.

   ES&H Factor

   The RFP required offerors to "conduct a comprehensive ES&H program that
   provides for the protection of workers, the public, and the environment,"
   and to implement a "program that will ensure that nuclear safety
   requirements are implemented consistently across [the site]." RFP
   sect. C-3.4(a)(1) and (2). Section M of the solicitation advised that the
   agency would evaluate each offeror's proposed approach "to enhance the
   existing ISMS [Integrated Safety Management Systems] for all work on the
   [site] and ensure continual improvement in ES&H performance." In addition,
   the agency would evaluate the offeror's plan for managing the site's
   "nuclear safety program." Id. sect. M-2(d).

   Both offerors' proposals were rated "good" and were found to have
   "comparable good approaches" to enhancing the existing ISMS, implementing
   ES&H requirements across the site, and managing the site's nuclear safety
   program. After considering the various strengths, significant strengths,
   and weaknesses associated with each proposal, the agency found both
   proposals to be "substantially equivalent." AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at
   28-29.

   SRA complains that SRNS's proposal should have been rated lower because
   the evaluators found that the proposal "lacked understanding" of the
   implementation of the ISMS and DOE's hierarchy of controls for safety
   systems, which SRA asserts "inherently are basic elements of the
   evaluation criterion for the ES&H factor." Protest at 54-55. However, SRA
   misinterprets and mischaracterizes both the evaluation record and SRNS's
   proposal. As the agency explains, the SEB identified two weaknesses in
   SRNS's proposal under the ES&H factor, both relating to proposal
   statements that were inconsistent with the RFP. This led the SEB to assess
   weaknesses because these proposal inconsistencies called into question the
   offeror's "complete understanding" of the RFP requirements in particular
   areas. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. D, at 5-6. The agency further
   explains, however, that its review of SRNS's entire proposal did not
   evidence a complete lack of understanding, as suggested by SRA. Rather,
   the proposal included "comprehensive details" and "demonstrated a good
   understanding" of the requirements, which in fact is reflected in the
   numerous assigned strengths and significant strengths. Contracting
   Officer's Statement at 43-45; AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. D, at 3-5.
   Nevertheless, the inconsistencies were found to pose a risk to
   performance, which was duly noted by the SEB in the evaluation.[29] AR,
   Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. D, at 5. Based on our review of the record, we
   find no error in the agency's judgment.

   SRA also contends that SRNS failed to provide a plan for managing the site
   nuclear safety program. Protest at 55. Again, SRA is factually inaccurate.
   The SEB report noted (as "[n]either a [s]trength nor a [w]eakness") that
   SRNS's proposal "will take the first 30 days of transition to evaluate the
   [incumbent contractor's] work scope to prepare a transition plan." AR, Tab
   B.2, SEB Report, app. D, at 6. However, contrary to SRA's
   characterization, the proposal did include a plan to ensure that nuclear
   safety work will continue without interruption or reduction of quality, as
   required by the solicitation. See AR, Tab D.1, SRNS's Proposal, at 166-69.
   Given that the contract transition period is 90 days and SRNS's proposal
   meets the RFP requirements, we see no reason why the agency was required
   to assess a weakness to SRNS's proposal.

   Past Performance & Relevant Experience Factors

   SRA challenges the evaluation of past performance and relevant experience,
   essentially arguing that its performance history and experience were
   deserving of higher ratings than SRNS's.

   The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate each offeror's past
   performance "to determine the degree to which the quality of the past
   performance demonstrates [the offeror's] ability to successfully perform
   the [statement of work]." RFP sect. M-2(e). Relevant experience was to be
   evaluated "to determine the degree to which the similarity and extent of
   that experience demonstrates the ability to successfully perform the
   mission areas of the [statement of work]." Id. sect. M-2(f). The RFP
   further stated, however, that "experience need not be directly associated
   with DOE programs and facilities" to be favorably considered. Rather,
   "[o]perational, engineering, research and development, facilities and
   business experience that from a technical perspective is reasonably
   similar to the types of work identified in the [statement of work] is
   acceptable." Id. sect. L-4(f).

   Because both SRA and SRNS are newly formed entities, the agency considered
   the past performance and relevant experience of each of the team members
   and, where relevant, their corporate parents. For past performance, the
   SEB considered ES&H data (e.g., information on workplace fatalities, and
   accident and injury data), past performance questionnaire responses,
   performance history in achieving socioeconomic goals, whether prior
   contracts had been terminated, and performance evaluations. The SEB
   considered both the positive and negative past performance of all of the
   team members, and documented its analysis in the SEB report. For relevant
   experience, the SEB noted differences in the types of experience for
   individual team members and major subcontractors, but concluded that
   "cumulatively both Offerors overall have demonstrated extensive experience
   managing contracts similar to or greater in size to" the contract
   requirements here. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 33.

   With regard to the evaluation of past performance, SRA complains that the
   agency failed to recognize SRA's superior team record of ES&H performance
   as a discriminator in favor of SRA. Second Supp. Protest at 41-47.
   However, the SEB did, in fact, recognize that SRA's safety data was
   superior to SRNS's. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 30. Although both
   offerors' proposals received strengths for ES&H data because both
   offerors' records were "trending positively toward the DOE averages," Id.
   at 30; id., app. E, at 2,6, SRNS also received a weakness in recognition
   of the unfavorable ES&H data concerning one of its team members. AR, Tab
   B.2, SEB Report, app. E, at 7. Thus, the record shows that the agency
   recognized differences in ES&H data in the evaluation. In any event, there
   were numerous other aspects of the agency's comprehensive past performance
   evaluation that revealed strengths and weaknesses and an overall record of
   performance that was "more favorable than unfavorable" for both offerors.
   AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 33. When all of this information was
   considered, the agency reasonably found no significant discriminator
   between proposals under the past performance factor.[30]

   With regard to the evaluation of relevant experience, SRA contends that it
   has more extensive experience than SRNS in each of the mission areas of
   the statement of work, based on the SRA team members' experience on the
   incumbent contract. Protest at 65. The SEB recognized several significant
   strengths in the evaluation of SRA's proposal based on the site-specific
   experience of SRA's team members from the incumbent contract. AR, Tab B.2,
   SEB Report, app. F, at 1-4. However, since site-specific experience was
   not required by the RFP, see RFP sect. L-4(f), the agency reasonably found
   that the experience of SRNS's team members was also "highly relevant," of
   "similar scale," reflected experience in "core competencies," and thus was
   deserving of significant strengths in the evaluation. AR, Tab B.2, SEB
   Report, app. F, at 5-6. These conclusions were reasonably supported by
   detailed explanations in the SEB report identifying the relevant
   experience of both offerors' team members and explaining why the agency
   believed that the experience increased the probability of successful
   performance. Id. at 5-8, see also Contracting Officer's Statement at
   33-42. Again, SRA disagrees with the agency's assessment, but has not
   shown it to be unreasonable.[31]

   SRA also asserts that the agency improperly considered the "corporate
   resources, experience, and past performance" of [REDACTED], because
   neither company is a member of the SRNS team.[32] Second Supp. Protest at
   64-65; SRA's First Supp. Comments at 46-49; SRA's Second Supp. Comments at
   10-16. This argument is a red herring. While it is true that [REDACTED] is
   the signatory to the operating agreement that formed SRNS, SRNS's proposal
   makes clear that [REDACTED] play significant roles in providing resources
   and performing work for this contract. Accordingly, the agency properly
   considered the experience of both. Cobra Techs., Inc., B-280475 et al.,
   Oct. 6, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 98 at 4-5.

   Alleged Conflicts of Interest

   SRA contends that the key personnel evaluation is tainted by personal and
   organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) involving an evaluation
   reference, SRNS's proposed SRNL director, and several of SRNS's other key
   personnel.

   SRA first argues that the evaluation was tainted in that one of the
   individuals who provided references to the SEB in connection with two
   proposed key personnel provided biased information because she had a
   personal conflict of interest: at the time of the evaluation, she was
   married to an employee of one of SRNS's team members.

   The RFP required each proposed key personnel to provide a reference, and
   stated that these "reference checks" would be part of the key personnel
   evaluation. RFP sect. M-2(a)(1). One of SRA's key personnel and one of
   SRNS's key personnel identified a DOE employee as a reference. As was
   known by SRA at the time of its proposal submission and during the
   evaluation, but was not known to the SEB or SSA, this DOE employee was
   married to an employee of one of SRNS's team members. Supp. Contracting
   Officer's Statement at 2-3. The evaluators had no reason to suspect bias
   on the part of this reference, given that it was SRA that identified this
   DOE individual as a key personnel reference, and presumably SRA would not
   have identified a reference that could be biased against it. Id. at 5. The
   DOE employee reference gave the SRA individual a somewhat negative
   reference, and gave the SRNS individual a positive reference.

   During the evaluation, the SEB noted that, with regard to the one SRA key
   personnel, the negative reference was inconsistent with the other positive
   references, and thus the agency requested additional references, all of
   which were positive. As a result, the SEB "discounted" the negative
   reference, concluded that the reference checks for this SRA individual
   were "[f]avorable," and rated this SRA individual a strength in the key
   personnel evaluation. Supp. Contracting Officer's Statement at 6; AR,
   Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. A, at 5, 11. With regard to the one SRNS key
   personnel, the DOE reference was found to be consistent with other
   "[f]avorable" references, and the SRNS individual was also given a
   strength in the evaluation. Supp. Contracting Officer's Statement at 6;
   Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. A, at 5, 11.

   We have recognized that an actual or apparent conflict of interest may
   arise when an agency employee has both an "official role in the
   procurement" and a "personal stake in the outcome." TPL, Inc.,
   B-297136.10, B-297136.11, June 29, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 104 at 8 (citing
   examples). Here, however, the DOE reference in question did not have an
   official role in the procurement--she was not involved in drafting,
   reviewing or approving the RFP; evaluating proposals; or reviewing or
   approving the award. She merely provided a personnel reference for two
   individuals because she was identified by the offerors as a person to
   contact as a reference check. We have found that a conflict of interest
   does not necessarily exist, even where the same agency employee provides a
   reference and performs the evaluation, absent a showing (which has not
   been made here) of improper influence on the evaluation. Id. at 9. Based
   on this record, we find that the evaluators acted reasonably in dealing
   with this reference's comments.[33] In any event, even if the DOE
   reference were biased or had a conflict of interest, the record shows that
   this had no impact on the evaluation and thus SRA was not prejudiced as a
   result. See Laerdal Med. Corp., B-297321, B-297321.2, Dec. 23, 2005, 2005
   CPD para. 12 at 7 (prejudice is not established where, even if a conflict
   of interest or bias exists, it has no impact on the evaluation).

   SRA also complains that several of SRNS's proposed key personnel create
   the potential for OCIs. Specifically, it contends that the SRNL director's
   role as the president and owner of a consulting firm "conflicts" with his
   role as SRNL director for SRNS, and that the director could use
   information obtained during performance for the competitive advantage of
   his company and clients in the future. SRA's Comments at 87. SRA also
   contends that [REDACTED] of SRNS's proposed key personnel have "divided
   loyalty" because they are employed by SRNS's member companies and not SRNS
   itself. SRA's Comments at 83. As discussed below, we do not agree with SRA
   that the situations it describes with regard to SRNS's key personnel
   present the potential for OCIs.

   It is true that contracting officers have a duty to avoid, neutralize, or
   mitigate potential significant OCIs so as to prevent unfair competitive
   advantage or the existence of conflicting roles that might impair a
   contractor's objectivity. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
   sections 9.504(a), 9.505; Aetna Gov't Health Plans, Inc.; Found. Health
   Fed. Servs., Inc., B-254397.15 et al., July 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 129
   at 12-13. As FAR Subpart 9.5 explains, OCIs that must be avoided include
   situations where a company has divided loyalties that impair its ability
   to render impartial advise to the government ("impaired objectivity"), or
   where the company has access to information that its competitors do not
   that could lead to a competitive advantage for the firm ("unequal access
   to information").[34] FAR sect. 9.5; Aetna Gov't Health Plans, Inc.;
   Found. Health Fed. Servs., Inc., supra, at 12-13. It must be noted,
   however, that there is a distinction between an OCI and a personal
   conflict of interest: with an OCI, the conflicted party is the
   organization; with a personal conflict of interest, the conflict is with
   the individual. See Daniel I. Gordon, Organizational Conflicts of
   Interest: A Growing Integrity Challenge, 35 Pub. Cont. L.J. 25, 29 (Fall
   2005) (distinguishing personal from organizational conflicts of
   interests); see also FAR sections 3.101-1, 9.505, 9.508. The facts here,
   at most, give rise to personal conflicts of the individual SRNS employees
   and are not OCIs.

   SRA has not alleged, nor does the record evidence, any facts showing that
   SRNS or its team member organizations have impaired objectivity or that
   these entities serve multiple, or conflicting, roles that could lead to an
   impaired objectivity OCI; nor has SRA alleged that SRNS or its team member
   organizations had unequal access to information that would render this
   competition unfair. Rather, SRA argues merely that the individual
   employees are not adequately committed to SRNS and may use their positions
   to benefit their employing team member companies, or, in the case of the
   SRNL director, that he will use information in the future that will
   benefit his own company.

   With regard to the SRNL director, the individual's ownership of a
   consulting business does not appear to "conflict" with his role as SRNS's
   proposed SRNL director, as SRA asserts. The individual has divested
   himself of all of his consulting work, except for one unrelated contract
   which he is performing as a means of income until this protest is
   resolved. Declaration of SRNS's SRNL director para. 5. He and the other
   [REDACTED] key personnel have signed commitment letters to work solely on
   the Savannah River Site project without any "contingencies or constraints"
   on their positions. SRNS's Second Supp. Comments, exh. 4, SRNS Key
   Personnel Commitment Letters. To the extent that SRA asserts that the SRNL
   director or others may use information learned during performance to
   benefit themselves or their employers in future endeavors, this is
   speculative and insufficient to impute any conflict of interest on these
   individuals or their employers. See American Mgmt. Sys., Inc., B-285645,
   Sept. 8, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 163 at 6 (possible benefit from current
   procurement to a contractor is too speculative and remote to establish a
   significant OCI).

   In addition, we see no significant potential for OCIs arising out of the
   fact that [REDACTED] of SRNS's key personnel will remain employees of the
   team member companies rather than become direct employees of SRNS. Given
   that the employers are team members of SRNS working together to perform
   the site work, we agree with the agency that there is unlikely to be any
   divergence of interest. Under the incumbent contract, currently performed
   by SRA's team members, the key personnel are employed by the team members
   and not the prime contractor, WSRC. OCIs have not arisen under that
   situation, and as the agency reasonably explains, OCIs are unlikely to
   happen here. Contracting Officer's Statement at 56. The contracting
   officer here reviewed SRNS's disclosures regarding potential OCIs, and
   reasonably determined that there was no basis to question these
   disclosures. Id. SRA's arguments do not call into question the
   reasonableness of the contracting officer's judgment.

   In sum, the evaluation record evidences a comprehensive and
   well-documented analysis of proposals under each of the evaluation
   factors, which supports the SSA's determination that SRNS's proposal
   presented the best value to the government, notwithstanding its higher
   evaluated price. As the SSA explained, key personnel were "critical" to
   successful performance and implementation of program strategy, which is
   why SRNS's superior-rated key personnel were worth the additional cost.

   AR, Tab E.1, Source Selection Decision, at 8. Based on our review of the
   record, we find the SSA's determination to be reasonable.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The SRNL is a DOE operated and federally funded research and
   development laboratory. RFP sect. C-1.1.

   [2] The NNSA is responsible for supporting the nuclear weapons stockpile
   programs and nonproliferation activities on the site. RFP sect. C-1.1.

   [3] Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.

   [4] The management and business proposals addressed the non-price factors.
   RFP sect. L-4.

   [5] The SEB did not assign overall ratings for the technical management
   approach factor.

   [6] Several of the protest grounds were raised as supplemental protests,
   based on information contained in the SEB report and source selection
   decision that the agency provided in response to the protest. The
   intervenor requested dismissal of these grounds, arguing that they were
   untimely raised. The intervenor asserts that SRA had reviewed unredacted
   copies of the SEB report and source selection decision during the
   debriefing, and thus SRA was required to raise its protest grounds based
   on these documents in its initial protest. SRNS's Request for Partial
   summary Dismissal, at 2. While it is true that SRA's representative were
   allowed to review unredacted copies of the SEB report and source selection
   decision during the debriefing, the agency limited the review to 3 hours
   and only permitted five representatives to review the documents. Those
   representatives were prohibited from taking notes; were not allowed to
   bring pens, pencils, recording devices, or personal belongings into the
   review room; and were not allowed to take any materials with them at the
   end of the 3-hour time frame. Considering that the two documents exceeded
   135 single-spaced pages in length, we do not find that SRA was
   sufficiently on notice of its bases of protest contained in these
   documents, from the limited review allowed, so as to give rise to an
   obligation to protest within 10 days.

   [7] Although we do not discuss each and every argument raised by SRA, we
   have considered all of SRA's arguments and find them to be without merit.

   [8] For example, the SEB assigned SRA's proposed [REDACTED] a strength and
   not a significant strength because, although he posed 25 years of
   experience in [REDACTED], including experience at the site, his experience
   "was for scopes of lesser complexity than that of the proposed position."
   AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. A, at 4.

   [9] Based on our review of the record, we also find reasonable the SSA's
   determination that SRNS's proposed chief executive had broader, more
   diverse experience than SRA's proposed chief executive.

   [10] For example, SRA contends that its [REDACTED] is more experienced
   than SRNS's [REDACTED], its SRNL director is more experienced than SRNS's
   director, and its [REDACTED] is more experienced than SRNS's [REDACTED].

   [11] For example, SRNS's proposed [REDACTED] was assessed a significant
   strength and SRA's proposed [REDACTED] was assessed a strength, based, in
   part, on the fact that SRA's manager comparatively had fewer years of
   relevant experience and his experience was for "scopes of lesser
   complexity" than that of the proposed effort. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report,
   app. A, at 4, 9.

   [12] Ultimately, as noted above, oral presentation performance (which was
   part of the stated evaluation criteria) became a key discriminator between
   proposals under the key personnel factor.

   [13] Although SRA contends that tritium experience is more critical to
   performance than budget, real estate, and personnel experience, SRA's
   Comments at 30-31, the agency explains (and the RFP notes) that tritium
   operations must be operated as a "defined, severable cost center," and
   budget, real estate, and personnel experience are specifically identified
   in the RFP as being necessary to operating a center in this manner.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 23; see also RFP sect. C-3.3(a). In
   addition, SRNS proposed [REDACTED], which the agency evaluated in
   accordance with the key personnel evaluation criteria. See AR, Tab B.2,
   SEB Report, app. A, at 7 (giving a significant strength to SRNS's proposed
   [REDACTED] for, in part, his "over 40 years of experience" in support of
   [REDACTED]); AR, Tab D.1, SRNS's Proposal, at 8 ([REDACTED]). SRA
   complains that the agency did not similarly evaluate, or give credit for,
   SRA's proposed [REDACTED], who possessed experience that SRA's key
   personnel lacked, e.g., First Supp. Protest at 14, 19-20; SRA's Comments
   at 31, but the RFP did not require the evaluation of [REDACTED] since they
   were not proposed as key personnel, and SRA did not provide the
   information required under the key personnel evaluation criteria for the
   agency to evaluate such individuals.

   [14] Although SRA correctly notes that the resume of its SRNL director
   reflects some scientific accomplishments, we agree with the agency's
   assessment that the vast majority of the accomplishments are "management
   focused." Contracting Officer's Statement at 18; AR, Tab C.2, SRA's Key
   Personnel Resumes, at 32-34.

   [15] To the extent that SRA complains that the weakness assessed to its
   SRNL director was less critical to performance than the weakness assessed
   to SRNS's director, this argument is contrary to the RFP, which
   specifically stated that SRNL directors would be evaluated for scientific
   accomplishments and recognitions in addition to their qualifications and
   experience. See RFP sect. M-2.2(a)(1).

   [16] Also evaluated under the organizational structure and management
   approach factor was the offeror's approach to involving small businesses
   and implementing contractor assurance requirements. RFP sect. M-2(b).

   [17] [REDACTED].

   [18] We find no merit to SRA's argument that SRNS's Limited Liability
   Company Operating Agreement rendered meaningless the key personnel
   commitments and was inconsistent with the solicitation. SRA contends, in
   this regard, that the Operating Agreement allows for SRNS's team members
   to "remove" key personnel from SRNS at any time "without approval of DOE."
   SRA's Third Supp. Protest and First Supp. Comments at 57-59. This is not
   the case. The operating agreement does not reflect an intention that key
   personnel will be removed from the contract, and does not suggest that
   removal can occur over the objection of DOE. To the contrary, we find
   nothing in the operating agreement that is inconsistent with the
   solicitation, which allows for the substitution of key personnel during
   performance with contracting officer approval.

   [19] Although the key personnel oral presentation was not considered in
   evaluating the organizational structure and management approach factor, we
   note that SRA's management team was less "integrated" and performed less
   "efficiently and seamlessly" than SRNS's team during the oral
   presentation, which tends to contradict SRA's argument that direct
   employment by the contracting entity necessarily translates into more
   "seamless[]" performance. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, at 20.

   [20] To the extent that SRA contends that the key personnel evaluation
   also is flawed because the agency did not adequately consider the fact
   that [REDACTED] of SRNS's key personnel were not directly employed by
   SRNS, we similarly find the protest to be without merit.

   [21] SRA did not protest the fourth subfactor--NNSA activities.

   [22] SRA's proposed innovations were its "[REDACTED]" and "[REDACTED]."
   SRNS's proposed innovations were its "[REDACTED]" and "[REDACTED]." AR,
   Tab. B.2, SEB Report, at 24.

   [23] The agency points out that SRA also received weaknesses for its
   proposed innovations. AR, Tab B.2, SEB Report, app. C, at 4, 6. Although
   SRA contends that the weaknesses its proposal received for innovations
   were less severe than SRNS's proposal weaknesses, SRA's arguments rely on
   a strict comparison of only weaknesses and omit any consideration of the
   variety of strengths and significant strengths that each offeror's
   proposal received, many of which the protester did not challenge.
   Considered together, the record supports the agency's conclusion that
   there were no significant discriminators between proposals under this
   evaluation subfactor.

   [24] The record does not support SRA's complaint that the agency did not
   consider its proposed cost savings under the technical factor and
   subfactors, including EM closure activities. In myriad places, the agency
   gives credit to both offerors' proposals for proposed cost efficiencies or
   savings, except where the agency found the savings to be "speculative" or
   "unsubstantiated." See Contracting Officer's Statement at 51-55. The
   record further shows that both offerors' proposals were evaluated
   similarly in this regard.

   [25] Although SRA contends that the agency should not have given SRNS's
   proposed innovations credit for challenging the status quo, especially
   since the agency identified weaknesses based on feasibility, as discussed
   above, challenging the status quo was an important objective of the
   statement of work, and thus was reasonably considered, and feasibility was
   only one aspect of the evaluation under the EM closure activities
   subfactor. RFP sections C-1.2, M-2(c)(1).

   [26] SRA contends that some of the touted benefits of SRNS's proposed
   innovations were unrelated to, or broader than, EM closure activities
   workscope, and therefore should not have been credited with strengths or
   significant strengths. Protest at 35-40; Second Supp. Protest at 33-38.
   However, the agency has explained, and our review of the record confirms,
   that each of the benefits credited in the evaluation are related in some
   way to the broad scope of work for EM closure activities, and thus these
   benefits were properly considered in the evaluation. To the extent that
   the agency also credited SRNS's innovations because, in addition to
   benefiting EM closure activities, they more broadly benefited other DOE
   activities, we find nothing in the solicitation that prohibits
   consideration of the additional benefits, especially where, as here,
   offerors were encouraged to be "innovative" and "challenge the status quo
   and existing paradigms" in implementing programs and operations. RFP
   sect. C-1.2.

   [27] SRA complains that the agency failed to properly consider four items
   proposed by SRA under the SRNL subfactor: [REDACTED]. First Supp. Protest
   at 34 n.17. However, SRA does not explain, and we are unable to determine,
   why these should have resulted in a higher rating under the SRNL
   subfactor.

   [28] Landlord services and site support also include ES&H activities, but
   these activities were evaluated under a separate evaluation factor in the
   solicitation.

   [29] SRA's proposal was similarly assessed a weakness based on proposal
   inconsistencies with regard to contractor oversight. SRA contends that
   these inconsistencies were mere "clerical errors," but the agency
   reasonably considered the proposal statements to be discrepancies in the
   proposal and not clerical errors. Contracting Officer's Statement at
   46-48.

   [30] SRA also complains that the agency improperly considered negative
   past performance of one of SRA's team members regarding allegations of
   [REDACTED], failed to consider negative past performance of one of SRNS's
   team members with regard to a licensing issue, and did not sufficiently
   downgrade SRNS's proposal for the negative past performance of one of its
   team members relating to socioeconomic programs. The record shows that the
   agency reasonably considered the information before it; we find no error
   in these aspects of the evaluation.

   [31] SRA points to two tables attached to the SEB report that, for each
   offeror, listed the team members' prior contracts and then identified how
   many of the statement of work activities that each of those contracts had
   covered. Protest at 65. Because the SRA team members comprised the
   incumbent contractor, SRA had more "checked boxes" than SRNS in the
   tables. However, as the agency reasonably explains, the number of checked
   boxes is not indicative of who has more relevant experience. In this
   regard, the agency looked at each prior contract to determine whether it
   was relevant to the activities that the team member was proposed to
   perform. Where, for example, a team member of SRNS was proposed only to
   perform a specific activity, it was not penalized because its prior
   experience did not include other statement of work activities for which it
   was not proposed. Thus, even though many of SRA's team member contracts
   encompassed multiple areas to a greater extent than SRNS's team member
   contracts, this properly was not considered to indicate that SRNS's team
   members had less relevant experience. See Supp. Contracting Officer's
   Statement at 37-38.

   [32] [REDACTED]. E-Mail from Agency Counsel to GAO (Mar. 28, 2008). The
   RFP specifically contemplated consideration of the past performance and
   corporate guarantees of parent corporations where, as here, the offeror
   was a new entity formed solely to perform this contract. RFP sect. L-4(e).

   [33] Another favorable reference for one of SRNS's proposed key personnel
   mentioned to the agency that he was "somewhat concerned about a potential
   conflict of interest between himself and the proposing contractors." AR,
   Tab B.6, Key Personnel Reference Worksheet, at 59. However, we agree with
   the agency that no conflict existed since the reference was not a federal
   employee or evaluator, and he did not have a role in the procurement. The
   information provided was consistent with all other references for this key
   personnel, does not evidence bias, and was properly considered by the
   agency.

   [34] A third type of OCI involves "biased ground rules," which is not at
   issue in this case.