TITLE: B-400109, Systalex Corporation, July 17, 2008
BNUMBER: B-400109
DATE: July 17, 2008
*********************************************
B-400109, Systalex Corporation, July 17, 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: Systalex Corporation

   File: B-400109

   Date: July 17, 2008

   Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Isaias "Cy" Alba, IV, Esq., and Desiree
   Lomer-Clark, Esq., PilieroMazza 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 firm's failure to
   include sufficient examples of change management tools, recommendations
   for improving current tools, how methodologies should be updated, and how
   identified training technology should and could be implemented.

   DECISION

   Systalex Corporation, 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.
   Systalex asserts that the agency improperly evaluated the protester's
   proposal.

   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,
   core financial system. Proposals were to include a description of each
   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 GSA, 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-price 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-price 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 Systalex and MIL, submitted proposals. A proposal
   evaluation board (PEB) evaluated the proposals (without conducting
   discussions) and reached the following consensus technical ratings for
   Systalex and MIL:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                     |Systalex         |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              |Marginal         |Exceptional     |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |Project Manager                      |Exceptional      |Exceptional     |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |Testing Lead                         |Marginal         |Exceptional     |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |Development Lead                     |Marginal         |Acceptable      |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |Factor D: Experience                 |Exceptional      |Acceptable      |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |Factor E: Past Performance           |Acceptable       |Exceptional     |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |Evaluated (Probable) Cost            |$17,640, 126     |$15,582,336     |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   The agency made no adjustments to either vendor's proposed costs. 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 higher technically-rated proposal and lower
   evaluated cost made its proposal the best value, and issued that firm a
   task order under its FSS contract (No. GS-35F-4670G). After receiving a
   debriefing, Systalex filed this protest.[1]

   Systalex asserts that the evaluation was flawed because the agency
   improperly rated its proposal under the technical approach and key
   personnel evaluation factors. The protester maintains that a proper
   evaluation would have resulted in its proposal being more highly rated,
   and thus would have represented the best value for award.

   In considering a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
   confined to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
   regulations. United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 75 at 10-11.

   TECHNICAL APPROACH EVALUATION

   Under the technical approach factor, proposals were to be evaluated on the
   soundness and feasibility of the offeror's proposed technical approach and
   how it intended to satisfy the technical requirements in the performance
   work statement and performance requirements summary. RFP sect. M.2. In
   evaluating Systalex's proposal, the PEB noted six weaknesses, including
   the firm's failure to include examples of change management tools or
   recommendations for improving current change management tools. [2] Agency
   Report (AR), Tab 10, at 6. It also found that the proposal called for
   methodologies to be updated, but did not state how they should be updated,
   and mentioned [deleted]  technology, but did not address how it should and
   could be implemented at NIST. Id.

   Change Management

   Systalex asserts that, contrary to the agency's evaluation conclusion, its
   proposal discussed in detail how the current change management process was
   being implemented and made recommendations on how the current methodology
   could be improved by integrating the existing tools to eliminate errors
   and omissions due to manual entry. Protest at 10. In this regard, Systalex
   states that it included the types of change management it proposed, the
   process for identifying where the changes are necessary, and the process
   for implementing the changes. Initial Comments at 3. Systalex states that
   it also proposed to increase efficiency by studying alternative tools that
   allow for more rapid and accurate tracking of changes while continuing
   current services without interruption. Protest at 6. Systalex maintains
   that it was impossible to provide more specific information because each
   situation and change issue is unique.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Although the protester's
   proposal included numerous definitions of change management, the agency
   found that it proposed using a structure already in place at NIST and
   failed to state what tools would be used to achieve change management
   goals.[3] AR at 14. Similarly, the proposal referenced the firm's
   experience in stating that Systalex would "explore new tools" to enhance
   change management implementation "in the future," and its team's
   experience with a specific software application that would be used to
   enhance the version control system. Systalex Proposal at 51. However, the
   agency found the proposal otherwise included only limited recommendations
   for improving current change management tools, and that it did not
   demonstrate Systalex's stated expertise in implementing the referenced
   software application. Supplemental Agency Report at 3; PEB Chair
   Supplemental Statement, para. 5. Our own review of the proposal is
   consistent with these findings. While Systalex also proposed various
   improvements, such as increased [deleted], the agency found that it
   provided only limited information as to how those improvements would be
   made. Again, our review confirms that only limited information was
   provided and the proposal stated that the improvements would be detailed
   and coordinated upon award. Systalex Proposal at 50-51, 53. Based on this
   record, we think the PEB could reasonably conclude that Systalex's
   proposal was weak with regard to examples of change management tools and
   recommendations for improving those currently in use.[4]

   Updated Methodologies

   With regard to updated methodologies, Systalex asserts that its proposal
   did in fact specifically address what methodologies needed updating and
   how the upgrades would be accomplished. Protest at 11. For example, it
   proposed to establish and enforce industry-standard [deleted] and to
   increase developers' ability to implement changes; to relieve increased
   calls to the customer interaction center (CIC) through [deleted]. Id.;
   Systalex Proposal at 5, 18, 32-34.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Notwithstanding Systalex's
   proposal of the various identified upgrades, in assigning this weakness,
   the agency found that the proposal did not provide adequate detail in
   demonstrating how the firm would accomplish the upgrades. Thus, while
   Systalex's proposal included ideas for helping address [deleted] in the
   CIC, the agency notes, it has already explored these ideas under
   Systalex's current and previous task orders, and the proposal failed to
   present information that resolved the issues that prevented implementation
   of these solutions in the past, particularly the use of [deleted]. AR at
   15; Tab 3, para. 10. Of the four proposed "main methods" of delivering
   training, three--[deleted]--were acknowledged by Systalex as currently in
   use at NIST. Systalex Proposal at 33. As to the single new method
   proposed, [deleted] technology, the agency found, and our review confirms,
   that the proposal lacked detail and failed to explain how the technology
   could and should be implemented at NIST. AR, Tab 3, para. 12; AR, Tab 10,
   at 6. Systalex claims that implementation was covered by its reference to
   a [deleted], and that anticipated cost savings addressed why it "should"
   be implemented. However, the proposal only devoted eight lines of text to
   the technology and, apart from mentioning [deleted] and cost savings,
   failed to provide any significant detail regarding implementation.
   Systalex Proposal at 34. In view of this limited detail, coupled with
   Systalex's proposal of existing methodologies with minimal detail as to
   how they would be updated, we find that the agency reasonably found the
   protester's technical approach weak in this area.[5]

   KEY PERSONNEL EVALUATION

   Systalex challenges the PEB's evaluation of its proposed testing lead and
   development lead as marginal under the key personnel factor. The protester
   claims that both personnel fully met the RFP requirements and that its
   proposal thus should have been rated exceptional under this factor.

   We need not determine whether the PEB erred in rating Systalex's proposal
   marginal under the key personnel factor. In this regard, the SSA, in his
   source selection decision, specifically determined that, even if
   Systalex's proposal had earned an acceptable or exceptional rating under
   this factor, it would not represent the best value. AR, Tab 12, at 3. In
   making this determination he noted that Systalex had proposed the second
   highest evaluated cost and that its proposal was not rated higher than any
   of the others under the most important technical factor--technical
   approach--or under the management approach factor, which was equally as
   important as the key personnel factor. Id. Since we have found no error in
   the agency's evaluation under the technical approach factor, and the SSA
   has determined that, even with the highest possible rating under the key
   personnel factor, the protester would not be in line for award, 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).

   ALLEGED IMPROPER RECRUITMENT

   Systalex asserts that, after it filed its initial protest, the agency
   improperly recruited some of its employees to perform work under the
   firm's incumbent task order and MIL's newly issued task order. In
   Systalex's view, the agency's actions violate the statutory stay in
   contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984
   (CICA) and violate the agency's implied duty of good faith and fair
   dealing as Systalex performs an extension to its incumbent task order. In
   addition, Systalex asserts that the agency's plan to hire its employees to
   perform work encompassed by MIL's newly issued task order constitutes a
   violation of the requirements for a public-private competition under
   Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76.

   Systalex's assertions are without merit. Issues regarding whether an
   agency is complying with the CICA stay requirements are not subject to
   review by our Office. Grot Inc., B-276979, Aug. 14, 1997, 97-2 CPD
   para. 50 at 3, n.1. Likewise, our Office does not review matters of
   contract administration such as whether an agency's actions interfere with
   the performance of a protester's task order. Bid Protest Regulations,
   4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a) (2008). With regard to its assertions of a
   violation of OMB Circular A-76, since there is no evidence that the agency
   has taken any steps to convert work currently performed by a contractor,
   to work by federal employees, Systalex's protest is premature and not for
   review.[6] See ITT Elec. Sys., Radar Sys.--Gilfillian, B-299150, Feb. 2,
   2007, 2007 CPD para. 19 at 3.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

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

   [2] Systalex does not challenge three other weaknesses assessed by the PEB
   under this factor: not enough detail on the requirements traceability
   matrix; failure to state how the firm would meet performance tuning
   standards on newly developed software; and an entire page of the proposal
   was missing leading to an incomplete narrative. AR, Tab 10, at 6.

   [3] Systalex asserts that, since the RFP required offerors to provide
   "continuity" for a continuous technology change management, it was
   unreasonable for the evaluators to downgrade its proposal for offering to
   continue and enhance its current methods. Systalex Supplemental Comments
   at 5-6. This assertion is without merit. While the RFP required
   continuity, as discussed, Systalex's proposal provided limited information
   on how its proposed improvements of current tools would be made. Thus, in
   our view, the agency reasonably found its proposal weak in this area.

   [4] Systalex notes that the consensus evaluation refers to there being
   "no" examples of change management tools while the supplemental agency
   report explains that the weakness was based on "limited" recommendations.
   Systalex Supplemental Comments at 4. We see no meaningful distinction in
   the weakness as assessed and explained by the agency; it is clear that the
   agency found the proposal weak in this area. Apart from the protester's
   assertions, there is no basis for finding that the PEB failed to review,
   and base its evaluation on, the firm's entire proposal.

   [5] Our conclusion is not changed by Systalex's observation that one
   evaluator listed [deleted] technology as a strength, Systalex Supplemental
   Comments at 5; finding the proposal of a technology to be a strength is
   not inconsistent with a finding that the proposal failed to provide
   sufficient detail about implementing the technology. Further, the fact
   that the strength was not included in the consensus evaluation does not
   provide a valid basis for protest. See Resource Applications, Inc.,
   B-274943.3, Mar. 5, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 137 at 5 (consensus score need
   not be the score initially awarded by the majority of evaluators; it may
   properly be determined after discussions among the evaluators).

   [6] In any event, the agency denies that it has taken any formal personnel
   actions to hire Systalex employees to perform the requirements of MIL's
   task order; interviewing any of those employees for the purpose of hiring
   them to do so; or making any decisions that would reduce the scope of
   MIL's task order, and nothing in the record shows otherwise. AR at 16.