TITLE: B-311329; B-311329.2, Alliance Technical Services, Inc., May 30, 2008
BNUMBER: B-311329; B-311329.2
DATE: May 30, 2008
*********************************************************************
B-311329; B-311329.2, Alliance Technical Services, Inc., May 30, 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: Alliance Technical Services, Inc.

   File: B-311329; B-311329.2

   Date: May 30, 2008

   Michael J. Gardner, Esq., George G. Booker, Jr., Esq., and Jessica L.
   Martyn, Esq., Troutman Sanders LLP, for the protester.

   Catherine Kellington, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.      Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with
   protester regarding experience is denied where record shows that there is
   no merit to allegation and that, even if protester's proposal received
   highest possible evaluation score in area where discussions allegedly were
   insufficient, its proposal would remain lower technically rated and higher
   priced than awardees' proposals; since protester thus would not be in line
   for award, it was not prejudiced by any insufficient discussions.

   2.      Protest that agency improperly failed to conduct comparative
   evaluation of proposals in determining "best value" is denied where
   proposals selected for award were highest technically rated and lowest
   priced.

   DECISION

   Alliance Technical Services, Inc. (ATS) protests contract awards to
   Gryphon Technologies, LC and EHS Technologies Corporation under request
   for proposals (RFP) No. N65530-06-R-0010, issued by the Department of the
   Navy for engineering, technical analysis, and support services for naval
   ship hull, mechanical and electrical, and combat support systems. ATS
   complains that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions and failed
   to document its "best value" determination.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on August 10, 2006, contemplated the best value award of
   one or more contracts based on an evaluation of technical factors
   (personnel, with subfactors for senior engineering technician, senior
   corrosion control technician and program manager; corporate experience and
   past performance; management quality assurance, with subfactors for
   technical understanding, organizational structure, management ability and
   quality assurance plan; and facilities, with subfactors for physical
   access, hardware capabilities and software capabilities) and price (which
   was to be evaluated for realism). RFP at 63, 64.

   Four offerors responded to the RFP. Following the evaluation of initial
   proposals, discussions, and the submission and evaluation of final
   proposal revisions, Gryphon's proposal was ranked first technically with
   95.7 (of 100 available) points--44.6 (of 47) points for personnel, 33.4
   (of 35) points for experience/past performance, 11.7 (of 12) points for
   management quality assurance, and 6 (of 6) points for facilities. EHS's
   proposal was ranked second technically with 85.8 points--40 for personnel,
   30.1 for experience/past performance, 9.9 for management, and 5.8 for
   facilities.[1] ATS's proposal was ranked fourth with 75 points--32.1 for
   personnel, 27 for experience/past performance, 10.1 for management, and
   5.8 for facilities. Agency Report (AR) at 4, Evaluation Summary Matrix.
   With respect to price, as evaluated for realism, EHS's price was low
   ($32,669,567.68), Gryphon's was second low ($34,306,671.99), and ATS's was
   third low ($38,386.570.33). Id. The agency awarded contracts to Gryphon
   and ETS, the two offerors with the highest technical scores and lowest
   evaluated prices. ATS protests the awards.

   DISCUSSIONS

   Under the corporate experience subfactor, offerors were evaluated for
   demonstrated experience in providing engineering and technical services
   related to the statement of work. RFP at 59. Among other things, offerors
   were specifically required to supply three work examples related to
   surface ship corrosion control post shakedown availabilities, and two
   examples related to monitoring surface ship shipboard work during an
   availability period while in a building yard or shipyard. RFP Amend. 4, at
   5. The agency found ATS's proposal unclear as to which of the listed
   experience information was to be evaluated for the work examples
   requested. During discussions, the agency advised ATS that "ATS provides
   corporate experience information . . ., but does not specify which
   information is to be used for the work examples requested." Discussion
   Question 9. In its final proposal revision (FPR), ATS provided an
   explanation of how the information in its proposal related to the work
   examples requested. Thereafter, in evaluating ATS's FPR, the agency found
   that the listed experience was not highly relevant. ATS asserts that the
   discussions in this area were not meaningful because the record shows
   that, during the initial evaluation, one of the evaluators made comments
   that were not communicated to ATS.

   This argument is without merit. The statements of the individual evaluator
   to which ATS refers were not carried forward into the consensus
   evaluation, which formed the basis for ATS's score under the corporate
   experience subfactor, and upon which the discussion questions were based.
   Accordingly, the evaluator's comments do not provide a basis for
   questioning the adequacy of discussions with ATS. See generally Lakeside
   Escrow & Title Agency, Inc., B-310331.3, Jan. 7, 2008, 2008 CPD para. __
   (where individual evaluator comments are not included in consensus
   evaluation report, objections to statements of evaluator are irrelevant).
   In any case, ATS's proposal received 75 total technical points, while the
   awardees' proposals received 95.7 and 85.8 technical points. Under the
   corporate experience subfactor, ATS's FPR received 19 of the 25 available
   points. Final Evaluation, Subfactor B-1. This being the case, even if
   ATS's proposal received a perfect score of 25 points for corporate
   experience, its total evaluated score would only increase to 81 points.
   Since, even under this scenario, ATS's proposal would be rated lower
   technically than the two awardees' proposals, and its price would remain
   higher than both awardees' prices, ATS would not be in line for award even
   if it prevailed on this aspect of its protest. Under these circumstances
   ATS was not prejudiced by any failure by the agency to provide meaningful
   discussions. G&N, L.L.C., B-285118 et al., July 19, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 3
   at 11.

   BEST VALUE DETERMINATION

   ATS asserts that the best value determination was flawed because the
   agency has provided no documents showing that proposals were evaluated by
   individual evaluators and because the agency has provided no evidence that
   it conducted a comparative analysis of the proposals to determine which
   was the best value.

   This argument is without merit. First, the lack of documents prepared by
   individual evaluators does not render an agency's evaluation unreasonable
   per se; rather, we consider the record adequate if the consensus documents
   and source selection decision sufficiently document the agency's rationale
   for the evaluation. Joint Mgmt. and Tech. Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2,
   Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 208 at 3-4; Global Eng'g and Constr.,
   LLC, B-290288.3, B-290288.4, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 180 at 3 n.3.
   Here, the evaluation documentation is sufficient because it includes the
   evaluators' consensus report, which details the strengths and weaknesses
   of the proposals that formed the basis for both the agency's evaluation
   ratings for each offeror and the selection decision itself. With respect
   to the absence of a detailed comparative evaluation of the proposals,
   since the proposals selected for award were both higher technically rated
   and lower priced than ATS's proposal, such a comparative evaluation--i.e.,
   a price-technical tradeoff--was not required. MD Helicopters, Inc., Agusta
   Westland, Inc., B-298503 et al., Oct. 23, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 164 at 49
   n.49.

   SUPPLEMENTAL PROTEST

   In an April 14 supplemental protest, ATS argues that the agency improperly
   evaluated the proposals of EHS and Gryphon under the program manager and
   senior engineering technician personnel subfactors; failed to consider the
   individual evaluators' findings in evaluating ATS's proposal under the
   personnel factor; improperly evaluated ATS's proposal under the past
   performance subfactor; provided disparate discussions; improperly failed
   to document the individual evaluators' FPR evaluations; and that the
   awards represent illegal personal services contracts.

   Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest not based on an apparent
   solicitation impropriety must be filed within 10 calendar days after the
   basis of protest is known, or should have been known, whichever is
   earlier. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2008). Where a protester files
   supplemental protest grounds, each new ground must independently satisfy
   the timeliness requirements of our Regulations. QualMed, Inc., B-257184.2,
   Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 94 at 12-13. Here, ATS's supplemental
   protest raises new issues that are based on documents ATS received from
   the agency on April 1.[2] Since ATS did not file the supplemental protest
   until April 14, more than 10 days later, the issues raised are untimely
   and will not be considered.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1]The score sheet provided by the agency indicates EHS's total score as
   86.7 points, instead of the correct sum of 85.8 points.

   [2]Some of the issues ATS raises in its supplemental protest provide
   specifics regarding issues raised in its initial protest. For example,
   while ATS initially challenged the Navy's evaluation of the awardees'
   technical proposals, in the supplemental protest it specifically
   challenges the evaluation with respect to key personnel offered by the
   awardees. Where an initial protest raises general protest allegations and
   a supplemental protest provides specific "examples" of the alleged general
   flaws, the supplemental grounds are untimely; such a staggered
   presentation of "examples," each of which involves different factual
   circumstances and requires a separate explanation from the agency,
   constitutes precisely the kind of piecemeal presentation of issues that
   our timeliness rules do not permit. FR Countermeasures, Inc., B-295375,
   Feb. 10, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 52 at 9.