TITLE: B-400109.2, Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated, July 28, 2008
BNUMBER: B-400109.2
DATE: July 28, 2008
*********************************************************************
B-400109.2, Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated, July 28, 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: Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated

   File: B-400109.2

   Date: July 28, 2008

   Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP,
   and Jon W. van Horne, Esq., VHT Law PLLC, for the protester.
   Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq.,
   Wiley Rein LLP, for The MIL Corporation, an intervenor.
   Lauren Kalish, Esq., and Mark Langstein, Esq., Department of Commerce, for
   the agency.
   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Evaluation of protester's technical proposal was unobjectionable where
   agency reasonably found weaknesses associated with sufficiency of
   information regarding firm's proposal of project management tool and
   project manager; risk connected to extensive hiring process; and lack of
   experience with customized help desk software.

   DECISION

   Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated protests the issuance of a task
   order to The MIL Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   SB1341-08-RP-0009, issued by the Department of Commerce, National
   Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for support services for
   NIST's Business Systems Division (BSD). The competition was limited to
   vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply
   Schedule (FSS) contracts. Savantage asserts that the agency improperly
   evaluated its technical and cost proposals.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP sought functional and technical support services for the BSD with
   the principal goal of supporting the agency's commerce business system.
   Proposals were to include a description of the vendor's technical
   approach, including its FSS labor categories and estimated hours. The RFP
   contemplated issuance of a labor-hour type task order under the successful
   vendor's FSS contract for a 1-year base period, with 4 option years.

   Proposals were to be evaluated for "best value" on the basis of six
   factors (with relevant subfactors)--(A) technical approach; (B) management
   plan (quality control plan, project management plan, and staff
   recruitment/retention plan); (C) key personnel (resumes of project
   manager, testing lead, and development lead); (D) experience; (E) past
   performance; and evaluated cost. Factor A was most important and was
   slightly more important than factors B and C, which were approximately
   equal to one another. Factors B and C, individually, were more important
   than factors D and E, which were approximately equal in importance. The
   non-cost factors were rated on an adjectival basis (exceptional,
   acceptable, marginal, unacceptable, and, for past performance only,
   neutral). Evaluated cost was approximately equal in importance to the
   non-cost factors combined and was not scored. Instead, the agency would
   determine whether proposed costs were consistent with the cost proposal
   instructions and, if necessary would ensure that the costs reflected 1,920
   hours multiplied by the proposed fully burdened hourly rate for each NIST
   functional title. Hourly rates that exceeded applicable FSS rates were to
   be adjusted downward and rates that did not reflect an appropriate
   escalation rate were also to be adjusted.

   Four vendors, including Savantage and MIL, submitted proposals, which were
   evaluated by a proposal evaluation board (PEB) (without conducting
   discussions). The PEB reached the following consensus technical ratings
   for Savantage and MIL:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                   |Savantage        |MIL               |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Factor A: Technical Approach       |Acceptable       |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Factor B: Management Plan          |Acceptable       |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Quality Control Plan               |Acceptable       |Acceptable        |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Project Management Plan            |Acceptable       |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Staff Recruitment/Retention Plan   |Acceptable       |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Factor C: Key Personnel            |Exceptional      |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Project Manager                    |Exceptional      |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Testing Lead                       |Exceptional      |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Development Lead                   |Exceptional      |Acceptable        |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Factor D: Experience               |Acceptable       |Acceptable        |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Factor E: Past Performance         |Exceptional      |Exceptional       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Proposed Cost                      |$14,678,304      |$15,582,336       |
   |-----------------------------------+-----------------+------------------|
   |Evaluated (Probable) Cost          |$15,022,283.68   |$15,582,336       |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   The agency made no adjustments to MIL's proposed cost but adjusted
   Savantage's upward based on its proposed deep labor rate discounts and low
   escalation factor. Based on an independent assessment of each proposal and
   the PEB's findings and recommendations, the contracting officer, as source
   selection authority (SSA), determined that MIL's proposal's higher
   technical rating and second lowest evaluated cost made it the best value.
   The SSA found that MIL's proposal offered significant benefits to the
   agency under factors A and B that outweighed Savantage's evaluated cost
   advantage, and issued MIL a task order under its FSS contract
   (No. GS-35F-4670G). After receiving a debriefing, Savantage filed this
   protest.[1]

   TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   Technical Approach

   Under the technical approach factor, proposals were to be evaluated on the
   soundness and feasibility of the vendor's proposed technical approach and
   on how it intended to satisfy the technical requirements in the
   performance work statement and performance requirements summary. RFP
   sect. M.2. In evaluating Savantage's proposal as acceptable under this
   factor, the PEB assessed several strengths and no weaknesses. Agency
   Report (AR), Tab 10, at 3.

   Savantage asserts that its proposal should have been rated exceptional
   under this factor because it developed, and has "the greatest in-depth
   knowledge of and experience with, the software application system" used by
   NIST, the support of which is the purpose of the services being procured
   here. Protest at 12.

   In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate
   proposals, but will examine the record to ensure that it was reasonable
   and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable
   procurement statutes and regulations. Harris Corp., B-299864 et al., Sept.
   14, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 180 at 5.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Under the agency's source
   selection evaluation standards, in order to receive an exceptional rating,
   a proposal had to exceed the RFP requirements and demonstrate a thorough
   understanding of the goals and objectives of the acquisition with one or
   more significant strengths and no significant weaknesses. AR, Tab 4, at
   11. An acceptable rating was represented by a good level of understanding
   of the goals and objectives, with strengths outweighing any weaknesses.
   Id. In its evaluation, the PEB specifically recognized as strengths
   Savantage's knowledge of and experience with the agency's core financial
   system and the fact that the firm had provided the original baseline code.
   AR, Tab 10, at 3. However, the agency also considered the fact that this
   development work was done more than 10 years ago and that, since then, the
   code has been heavily modified by the agency, resulting in a code very
   different from the original. PEB Chairman Statement para. 4. Although the
   PEB did not identify any weaknesses, and assigned the proposal other
   strengths, none was considered significant; all individual evaluators
   rated the firm's proposal as acceptable under this factor. Id. para. 5. In
   the absence of any significant strengths assigned by the PEB, the
   evaluation did not meet the definition of exceptional, and closely met the
   definition of acceptable. In view of the age of Savantage's experience and
   the subsequent changes to the relevant code, we think the PEB could
   reasonably conclude that the firm's proposal warranted only an acceptable
   rating under this factor.

   Project Management Tool

   Under the management plan factor, proposals were to be evaluated under
   three subfactors--quality control plan, project management plan, and staff
   recruitment and retention plan. Overall, the government was to evaluate
   the likelihood that a vendor's proposed plan to manage important aspects
   of the acquisition would result in efficient and effective contract
   management that would ensure the agency's requirements were met. RFP
   sect. M.2. In evaluating Savantage's proposal as acceptable under the
   quality control and project management subfactors, the PEB assessed
   weaknesses based on Savantage's proposed use of its InControl PM (project
   management) tool.[2] Specifically, the PEB was concerned as to whether
   NIST would be required to use the tool in lieu of its existing practices,
   such as use of MS (Microsoft) Project; whether NIST would have to
   integrate its current project plan methodology into InControl; and who
   would have access to view updates. PEB Chairman Statement paras. 6, 8. The
   PEB concluded that there were potential difficulties in NIST's accessing
   the tool to track project status, and that reliance on the tool may
   increase the risk of communication breakdowns between NIST and the
   contractor, since the tool was not used at NIST. AR, Tab 10, at 3.

   Savantage asserts that these weaknesses and the concerns underlying them
   are not valid, claiming that its proposal made clear that the InControl
   tool was for use by its project manager, not by NIST; that its use was
   optional; that it specifically proposed to use MS Project; and that access
   to all project performance information would be provided through its
   project management web site. Protest at 13; Initial Comments at 13; Final
   Comments at 2-3.

   The evaluation was unobjectionable. Under the relevant subfactors, the RFP
   provided for evaluation of how the vendor intended to provide effective
   quality control and relevant performance measures, and how it would
   perform project management via its proposed manager, including
   supervision, issue resolution, schedule management, resource management,
   and budget management. RFP sect. M.2. A vendor's proposed project
   management tools and the agency's access to the information produced by
   them are relevant to these subfactors. Savantage's proposal recognized
   that NIST had many of its own tools and procedures in place, and stated
   Savantage's plan to utilize them, but it also made clear that Savantage
   planned to use [deleted]. Proposal at 76. Savantage's proposal did also
   include use of MS Project--the management tool in use at NIST (PEB
   Chairman Supplemental Statement para. 2)--but it was proposed in
   conjunction with Savantage's own time reporting and accounting system, and
   InControl templates.[3] Proposal at 76-77. The PEB determined that
   Savantage's proposal to supplement InControl with NIST procedures did not
   alleviate its concerns regarding reliance on InControl. PEB Chairman
   Supplemental Statement para. 7. Further, while the proposal stated that
   clients would have immediate access to "all project information" through
   the management portal, would be given a "full view" of the project
   dashboard, and would have full admittance to the project management web
   site, the proposal did not explain whether it was offering read-only
   access or full participation rights. PEB Chairman Supplemental Statement
   para. 9. Likewise, although the proposal stated that Savantage would
   provide project management information through "frequent meetings and
   monthly reports," the agency determined that such meetings and reports
   would not provide real-time information. Supplemental AR at 5. We conclude
   that, despite Savantage's proposal to use existing tools, its repeated
   references to, and reliance on, the InControl toolkit for project
   management (Proposal at 64-65, 75-77), and the lack of clarity regarding
   who would have access to the information, the PEB reasonably found the
   proposal weak regarding potential access issues and the risk of
   communication breakdown.

   Project Manager

   The PEB assessed a significant weakness under the project management
   subfactor of the management plan factor based on a concern with whether
   the proposed project manger would be at the NIST site full time and would
   be fully devoted to the NIST project. AR, Tab 10, at 4. The weakness was
   based on proposal references to the manager's availability for issue
   resolution by [deleted]  and her current responsibility for other
   projects.

   Savantage asserts that the assessed weakness was based on an unreasonable
   reading of its proposal and was unwarranted. Specifically, Savantage
   explains, it proposed the manager as a full-time employee at the required
   1,920 hours per year, Initial Comments at 4, and clearly provided that she
   would be "accessible to NIST [deleted]" Proposal at 73. Savantage states
   that the reference to the manager's availability referred only to issue
   resolution. Id. at 76. With regard to the reference to other current
   projects, Savantage maintains that those references simply reflected what
   the manager was doing up to the present time; it could not reasonably be
   interpreted as an indication that the manager was proposed for less than
   full dedication to the task order if issued to Savantage. Initial Comments
   at 7.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. The RFP required that all work
   be done on site at NIST. RFP at 14. Savantage's proposal stated that the
   manager would be accessible at all times but, with regard to issue
   resolution, referred only to [deleted] access; it did not state, for
   example, that issue resolution could be initiated via face-to-face
   contact. Likewise, even though the manager was proposed on a full-time
   basis, Savantage points to no affirmative statement in its proposal that
   she would be on site full time. In addition, the proposed manager's resume
   reasonably could be read to imply less than full-time dedication to the
   solicited work. In this regard, under a heading entitled "Savantage
   Solutions 7/1997--Present," the resume details various positions the
   proposed manager, as [deleted], has held in the past, all of which were
   discussed in the past tense. Proposal at 92. In contrast, the resume
   speaks in the present tense regarding the manager's current work as
   "project manager for [deleted] accounts," and as "Program Manager for
   [deleted]  project." Id. We note that the resume indicates that the
   proposed manager is capable of and is currently managing multiple
   accounts, with multiple responsibilities, and has "managed [deleted]" in
   the past. Id. Based on the resume information and the limited identified
   methods of contacting the manager for issue resolution, we find the PEB
   reasonably inferred that she may not be on site full time or fully devoted
   to the NIST project. The PEB therefore reasonably assessed this as a
   significant weakness under the project management subfactor.[4]

   Staff Recruitment

   The PEB found multiple strengths in Savantage's proposal under the staff
   recruitment and retention subfactor, but assessed a weakness for the
   firm's extensive hiring process. Specifically, the PEB found that the
   process could potentially have an adverse impact on filling NIST positions
   in a timely manner. AR, Tab 10, at 4.

   Savantage asserts that this weakness was unwarranted. In its view, its
   proposal provided all required information and represented a typical
   hiring process. Protest at 15-16; Proposal at 85-86. It further notes
   that, in accordance with the RFP, its proposal specifically promised to
   provide resumes within 10 days of vacancy of a position. Proposal at 10.

   The evaluation here was reasonable. Under this subfactor, proposals were
   to be evaluated on the basis of a vendor's capability to obtain suitable
   resources to effectively perform the required work, including the breadth
   of the pool of resources, recruiting strategies and techniques, ability to
   screen candidates to match qualifications, experience, visa requirements,
   and availability to perform. RFP sect. M.2. Savantage's proposed process
   included [deleted]. Proposal at 85. Once this was done, Savantage would
   [deleted]. Id. If the [deleted] were unsuccessful, it would begin a
   [deleted]. Id. Once a satisfactory candidate was found, the project
   manager would [deleted]. Id. at 86. Once accepted by the project manager
   and the agency, the candidate would be [deleted]. Id. Apart from the
   simple promise to provide resumes within 10 days of a vacated position,
   the proposal provides no time frames for what, on its face, we think
   reasonably can be viewed as an extensive hiring process. Although the RFP
   did not specify mandatory time frames for filling vacant positions, the
   staff recruitment subfactor was sufficiently comprehensive to encompass
   this consideration. We conclude that the PEB reasonably determined that
   the proposed hiring process could adversely impact the timely filling of
   NIST positions, and thus properly termed it a weakness under this
   subfactor.[5]

   Experience with Remedy Help Desk

   In evaluating Savantage's proposal as acceptable under the experience
   factor, the PEB found a number of strengths, including the firm's
   provision of the original base line code for the agency's current
   financial system. AR, Tab 10, at 5. However, it assessed a weakness based
   on Savantage's lack of demonstrated experience with the Remedy Help Desk
   application currently in place at NIST and the risk associated with the
   vendor's learning curve. Id. The protester asserts that this weakness is
   not valid because its proposal in fact demonstrated its experience with
   Remedy Help Desk.[6] Protest at 18.

   The evaluation in this area was unobjectionable. The Remedy application is
   used at NIST to track such things as the names of help desk users, the
   issues addressed, and the number of calls received and resolved. PEB
   Chairman Statement para. 14. The agency acknowledges that Savantage's
   proposal described its experience with this application, but explains that
   the weakness was based on the firm's lack of relevant experience with the
   customized version of the application in place at NIST. PEB Chairman
   Supplemental Statement para. 17. The agency also explains that, while the
   proposal contained information on experience with the uncustomized
   version, one of the evaluators was concerned that the proposed key
   personnel lacked demonstrated experience with the application.

   Savantage does not maintain that it in fact possesses experience with
   NIST's customized application; rather, it asserts that requiring this
   experience is restrictive of competition, since only an incumbent
   contractor could possess it. Likewise, Savantage does not argue that its
   key personnel had experience with the application; rather, it asserts that
   its key personnel would not be using this software tool, and thus did not
   need this experience, and that its help desk lead--who would use it--had
   demonstrated experience. Final Comments at 8-9.

   Savantage's assertions are without merit. There is nothing
   unreasonable--or unduly restrictive of competition--in an agency's
   evaluation taking into account a vendor's experience, or lack of
   experience, with the version of an application actually in use at the
   agency. Similarly, although Savantage's key personnel were not directly
   responsible for the help desk work, the evaluators could reasonably view
   their lack of experience with this application as a weakness to the extent
   that their positions involved the help desk function. Thus, for example,
   the agency reasonably could consider the project manager's experience with
   the application, since she would be responsible for overall supervision of
   contract operations (including the help desk), reviewing and monitoring
   technical work for quality and efficiency, and proactively identifying
   issues or problems. RFP sect. J.1, attach. 1. We conclude that there is no
   basis for questioning this aspect of the evaluation.

   COST EVALUATION

   As discussed, under the RFP, vendors were to base their cost proposals on
   their and any partner's current FSS contract labor categories. Contracting
   Officer's Statement para. 6. Vendors were encouraged to propose reductions
   in their ceiling rates, but the RFP specifically provided that, in
   evaluating cost, the agency would adjust any rates that did not reflect an
   appropriate escalation rate. Id. paras. 6, 16; RFP sect. M.2. In its
   evaluation, the agency noted that Savantage had proposed significant
   discounts, ranging from [deleted] to [deleted] percent for the entire
   period of performance. The evaluators found that these deep discounts,
   coupled with Savantage's proposal to reduce its escalation rate from
   [deleted] percent to [deleted] percent, called into question the firm's
   ability to maintain a skilled workforce and complete the work requirement
   at the proposed rates over the entire contract period, thus posing a risk
   to the government. Contracting Officer's Statement paras. 44, 47, 56. As a
   result, for evaluation purposes, the agency increased Savantage's
   [deleted] percent escalation rate for each option period by [deleted]
   percent, to match the past inflation rate of [deleted]  percent. Id.
   para. 47.

   Savantage challenges the upward adjustment of its proposed escalation
   factor for its proposed labor rates, asserting that a proper analysis
   would have confirmed the validity of its proposed rates, which were based
   on its experience under contracts with similar skill sets.

   The evaluation and upward adjustment of the escalation factor appear to
   have been consistent with the RFP. However, we need not determine whether
   the adjustment was reasonable. In this regard, the SSA, in his source
   selection decision, specifically determined that, even if no adjustments
   for cost realism purposes had been made--which would have resulted in a
   6.2 percent cost advantage for Savantage as compared to the evaluated 3.7
   percent difference--he still would have decided that MIL's proposal
   represented the best value. In this regard, the SSA found that MIL's
   proposal offered significant benefits to the government under the first
   two evaluation factors, specifically finding that MIL offered a better
   technical approach and methodology, superior transition plan, and superior
   staff recruitment and retention plan than that offered by any other
   proposal. AR, Tab 12, at 4. Since we have found no error in the agency's
   evaluation under the technical factors, and the SSA has determined that
   Savantage would not be in line for award even without the upward cost
   adjustment, there is no possibility of prejudice from any error in the
   agency's evaluation in this area. We will not sustain a protest absent a
   reasonable possibility that the protester was prejudiced by the agency's
   actions. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3;
   see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Savantage challenges the agency's award on numerous bases. We have
   considered all of Savantage's arguments and find that they have no merit,
   or that the alleged impropriety did not prejudice the protester. This
   decision addresses Savantage's most significant arguments.

   [2] As described in its proposal, the InControl toolkit includes 
   [deleted]. Proposal at 65.

   [3] Contrary to Savantage's assertion (Final Comments at 3), the
   evaluators did not "completely miss" its inclusion of MS Project as one of
   its tools. One of the evaluators identified, as strengths, the firm's use
   of MS Project and [deleted]. AR, Tab 8. While these strengths were not
   included in the consensus evaluation, their presence in the individual
   worksheets demonstrates that the PEB was aware of this aspect of
   Savantage's proposal.

   [4] Savantage also challenges the agency's assessing a weakness under the
   key personnel factor due to the project manager's apparent lack of full
   dedication to the NIST project. Protest at 16. In a related argument,
   Savantage asserts that the PEB improperly found weaknesses for its testing
   and development lead personnel. Id. at 17. Since Savantage's proposal was
   rated exceptional for each of its key personnel and exceptional overall
   for this factor, it is clear that any error had no prejudicial impact on
   the evaluation.

   [5] Savantage asserts that this weakness originated with an individual
   evaluator who found that the vendor's "outside" hiring seemed extensive.
   Final Comments at 7. Savantage maintains that, in light of its large pool
   of internal resources, outside hiring will be rare and thus did not
   warrant downgrading its proposal. Id. This argument is without merit. The
   hiring process appears to have been extensive, not only for outside hires,
   but for internal hires as well (the consensus evaluation did not draw a
   distinction between internal and external hiring in identifying this
   concern. AR, Tab 10, at 4). Internal hiring called for input from
   [deleted], with no timeframes identified for this hiring process.

   [6] Savantage also argues that, based on its experience in developing the
   agency's financial management system, its proposal should have been
   evaluated as exceptional under this factor. Protest at 19. This assertion
   is without merit. The PEB recognized as a strength Savantage's experience
   with the development of the financial management system. AR, Tab 10, at 5.
   However, as discussed above, in view of the changes made to the software
   over the past 10 years, the evaluators could reasonably conclude that a
   strength associated with this experience did not warrant an overall
   exceptional rating.