Base Technologies, Inc.
B-293061.2,B-293061.3, Jan 28, 2004
Base Technologies, Inc. (BTI) protests the award of a contract to Lifecare-Advanta Joint Venture (LAJV) under request for proposals (RFP) No. BPD-03-R-0010, issued by the Bureau of Public Debt, Department of Treasury, for financial crimes investigative services. BTI contends the agency conducted a flawed evaluation of both offerors' proposals, and held inadequate discussions with BTI.
We deny the protests.
B-293061.2; B-293061.3, Base Technologies, Inc., January 28, 2004
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.
Matter of: Base Technologies, Inc.
File: B-293061.2; B-293061.3
Date: January 28, 2004
L. James DAgostino, Esq., Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Leigh T. Hansson, Esq., and Natalia W. Geren, Esq., Reed Smith, for the protester.
Michael D. Harbart, Esq., Department of Treasury, 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.
1. Agencys consideration of key personnels lack of law enforcement, and limited years of, experience was proper, where these matters were reasonably encompassed within the solicitations evaluation criteria and related to the solicitations requirements.
2. During discussions, an offeror need not be told of all weaknesses that would enable it to achieve maximum evaluation score.
3. Agency may consider the references of one joint venture partner in evaluating a joint venture offerors past performance where they are reasonably predictive of performance of the joint venture entity.
4. Agencys scoring of past performance was reasonable and consistent with the solicitations evaluation criteria; protesters argument that agency failed to follow scoring scheme set forth in agencys internal evaluation plan does not provide a valid basis for protest.
Base Technologies, Inc. (BTI) protests the award of a contract to Lifecare-Advanta Joint Venture (LAJV) under request for proposals (RFP) No. BPD-03-R-0010, issued by the Bureau of Public Debt, Department of Treasury, for financial crimes investigative services. BTI contends the agency conducted a flawed evaluation of both offerors proposals, and held inadequate discussions with BTI.
We deny the protests.
The Financial Crimes Investigative Network (FinCEN) provides intelligence and analytical support to the international, federal, state, and local law enforcement and regulatory communities. It provides analytical case reports to investigators using state-of-the-art technology, in-house analysts, and various data sources to uncover potential criminal relationships. The FinCEN has a continuing requirement for on'site support related to these investigative services, which BTI currently provides under a contract set to expire shortly.
The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, sought a contractor to provide on-site support for the FinCEN in five program areas: case management, the USA Patriot Act, the commercial database program, the gateway program, and the pro-active targeting program. As stated in the RFP, case management support involves researching three classes of information--commercially available data (e.g., ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis, and Dun & Bradstreet databases), financial information (e.g., Bank Secrecy Act reports and Department of Treasury databases), and law enforcement information (e.g., FinCEN past cases, and databases from the Departments of Treasury, Justice, and Defense)--and involves such tasks as mail processing and telephone coverage, management of case information, and target information processing. USA Patriot Act support requires services related to an information-sharing service between law enforcement and financial and regulatory communities with respect to the investigation of financial crimes, money laundering, and terrorist activities, and includes such tasks as research (which was noted in the RFP as the highest priority to the FinCEN and the agencies supported by the FinCEN), case opening and closing, maintenance of financial institutions points of contact and e-mail address logs, returning results to the requestor, and archiving cases. Commercial database system and gateway system support requires answering requests for user identifications and passwords, maintaining logs and files of user access accounts, conducting database searches, and responding to requests concerning the gateway process. Pro-active targeting program support involves using artificial intelligence technology to locate unusual or questionable financial activity in various reports and financial records, and requires the contractor to conduct research, organize data, and process the results in the reports. RFP C.2.
The RFP contemplated the award of a labor-hour, performance-based contract for a base year with four 1-year options, with a minimum value of $1,000 and a maximum value of $20 million. RFP B.3, B.4, F.2.
The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal presented the best overall value to the government, considering past performance, technical merit, and price. Technical merit was said to be more important than past performance, and technical merit and past performance combined were said to be approximately equal to price. The technical merit factor included five subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: infrastructure, key personnel, hiring and retention plan, transition and succession plan, and sample reports. RFP M.2, M.5.
For the infrastructure subfactor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate [t]he Offerors ability and infrastructure to manage the requirements of this contract and deliver the services described in the performance work statement (Case Management, USA PATRIOT Act, Gateway, Commercial Database, and Pro-Active Targeting) . . . within sixty days of award. This subfactor also addressed requirements for security clearances, stating that
[t]he Government expects that the key personnel will start working on the contract as soon as their clearances are granted or on the effective date of award, whichever occurs later. The Contractor shall be able to provide at least 25% [of] the staff (excluding key personnel), with the appropriate adjudicated backgrounds within 15 business days after the effective date of the contract, 50% within 30 days, 75% within 45 days, and 90-100% within 60 days.
RFP amend. 0003, M.5.b(1).
For the key personnel subfactor, the RFP provided that the agency would consider [t]he qualifications of the Offerors key employees (defined at [section] H.3), which also includes their current security level clearance. RFP amend. 0002, M.5.b(2).
The RFP specified that past performance would be evaluated for performance on similar products or services . . . focus[ing] on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration. The RFP further stated that [a]n offeror with no past performance information will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the rating will not add to or detract from its rating). RFP M.5.a.
The RFP provided offerors with the expected staffing levels and the estimated annual hours per labor category, which offerors were to use in developing their evaluated prices. The RFP stated that price would be evaluated, for the base and option years, by multiplying the estimated number of hours per labor category (provided in the RFP) by the proposed hourly rates (provided by the offerors), and totaling these products to calculate the offerors annual evaluated prices.
Six proposals were submitted in response to the solicitation. Three proposals, including BTIs and LAJVs, were found to be in the competitive range and discussions were conducted with these offerors.
According to BTI, during discussions, BTI was informed of weaknesses in the qualifications of four of its key personnel: that one lacked law enforcement experience, one was not management material, and two others lacked the capability to perform their positions. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 33-38. The record shows that BTI was also informed of weaknesses with its transition and succession plan, and was encouraged to reduce its price. BTI was also advised of adverse past performance concerning three of its contracts, including its incumbent contract.
In its final proposal revision (FPR), BTI replaced one of its key personnel, but retained the other three, asserting that their qualifications were compliant with the RFP requirements. BTI also affirmed its belief that its transition and succession plan satisfied the RFP requirements, although it did not provide the additional detail requested by the agency, and stated that it would not be lowering its price. BTI explained its performance under the three prior contracts and objected to the inclusion of two of the negative references, including a recent incumbent contract reference.
During discussions, LAJV was informed of weaknesses in its transition and succession plan, asked to explain how it would achieve the necessary security clearances for its employees, and encouraged to reduce its price. LAJV specifically addressed these concerns in its FPR and also reduced its price.
The final evaluation scores for both offerors were as follows:
| || |
| || |
Infrastructure (35 pts.)
Key Personnel (30 pts.)
Hiring & Retention Plan (25 pts.)
Transition & Succession Plan (20 pts.)
Report Samples (15 pts.)
| || |
| || |
References (75 pts.)
Relevance (25 pts.)
Total Score (technical + past performance)
AR, Tab 10, Recommendation for Award, at 6-7.
The agency found that BTIs proposal warranted only 20 points under the key personnel subfactor, because [o]ne supervisor has little management experience or training and [m]any of the proposed key personnel have a small amount of law enforcement, regulatory, or financial knowledge and experience. Id. at 2. The agency noted three specific examples of key personnel that lacked experience--a case management night supervisor (who assertedly lacked law enforcement experience) and two senior data retrieval specialists (who each had less than 1 year of experience performing this function)--only one of which was mentioned during discussions. Id. at 3. The agency also noted that the four individuals mentioned during discussions were unacceptable for the proposed key personnel positions due to performance problems under the incumbent contract, but that this was not a factor in the evaluation. Id. at 2.
Under the transition and succession plan subfactor, BTIs proposal received less than full points because its plan was considered weak and sketchy and BTI did not provide additional detail in its FPR, even though these concerns were raised during discussions. Id. at 3.
With regard to past performance, the agency gave BTIs proposal full points under the relevance subfactor based solely on its incumbent contract. Id. at 1; Tr. at 211. BTIs 72 out of 75-point score under the references subfactor did not include consideration of its incumbent contract, since the report on BTIs performance under this contract had not been finalized and BTI objected to the inclusion of a negative assessment of its performance given by the most recent contracting officers technical representative (COTR). Instead, BTIs reference scores were based on two other references provided by BTI, and two references obtained from the Contractor Performance System. AR, Tab 10, Recommendation for Award, at 1'2.
LAJVs proposal received maximum scores under the infrastructure, hiring and retention plan, transition and succession plan, and report sample subfactors, but received only 20 points under the key personnel subfactor because, as the agency noted, not all of LAJVs key personnel had the required security clearances or experience. The agency noted that although LAJV made improvements [in its FPR in response to discussions] related to the number of personnel with security clearances and indicated it anticipates hiring some personnel from the current contract with existing security clearances, some of its key personnel still lacked extensive experience. Id. at 5-6.
With regard to past performance, the agency noted LAJV had no past performance as a newly formed joint venture, but evaluated the contracts determined relevant of one of the partners. AR, Tab 15, LAJV Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet, at 3. The agency gave LAJV less than the maximum points (15 of 25 points) under the relevance subfactor because not all of the referenced contracts had work similar to [this] requirement. However, the agency gave LAJV the maximum 75-point score under the references subfactor because the references rated LAJVs performance as superior in each of the five elements assessed. AR, Tab 10, Recommendation for Award, at 5.
Based upon LAJVs higher overall score (205 points as compared to BTIs 202 points) and lower evaluated price, the agency determined that LAJVs proposal provided the best overall value and selected LAJV for award. These protests followed.
BTI challenges the evaluation of both its and LAJVs proposals under the technical merit evaluation factor, arguing that LAJVs score should have been lower, and its score should have been higher under certain technical merit subfactors. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations and source selection decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agencys judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD 223 at 4. A protesters mere disagreement with the agencys judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. UNICCO Govt Servs., Inc., B- 277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD 134 at 7.
BTI first argues that LAJVs proposal should have received a lower technical score because LAJV is a new joint venture, with no Dun & Bradstreet rating or corporate experience. Although the protester does not point to which subfactor LAJVs proposal should have been downgraded under in this regard, the corporate infrastructure subfactor appears to be the only relevant subfactor under which this information could have been assessed. However, the record shows that, under this subfactor, the agency recognized that LAJV proposed a corporate infrastructure and staffing plan sufficient to begin delivering services within 60 days of contract award, as contemplated by this evaluation subfactor (quoted above). AR, Tab 15, LAJV Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet, at 4. Based on our review, we find the agencys judgment was reasonable.
BTI also contends that LAJVs proposal should have received a lower technical score under the infrastructure and key personnel subfactors because not all of its key personnel would have security clearances at the start of the contract. However, the RFP did not require that all of the key personnel have security clearances at the start of the contract; rather, the RFP not only contemplated that key personnel might not have clearances until after contract award, but actually provided, under the infrastructure subfactor, for performance by the key personnel to begin either the effective date of award or when security clearances were obtained, whichever is later. As the agency was satisfied with LAJVs proposed plan to obtain security clearances in a timely fashion, it did not downgrade LAJVs proposal under this subfactor. However, under the key personnel subfactor, where the agency evaluated the current status of the security clearances of key personnel, LAJVs proposal was assessed a weakness and received a lower score because not all of LAJVs key personnel currently possessed these clearances. Based on our review, we find this evaluation unobjectionable, as it was reasonable and consistent with the RFPs evaluation criteria.
BTI next contends that its proposal was improperly downgraded under the key personnel subfactor because not all of its key personnel had law enforcement or years of experience. BTI asserts that these experience requirements constituted impermissible unstated evaluation criteria. We disagree.
In evaluating a proposal, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. North Am. Military Housing, LLC, B-289604, Mar. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD 69 at 5. Here, the key personnel subfactor stated that the qualifications of key personnel would be qualitatively evaluated. Given that an individuals experience is part of his or her qualifications, we believe that under this subfactor the agency could reasonably consider whether key personnel have relevant experience (in this case law enforcement experience) as well as the years of experience of these individuals. In this regard, we note that this experience is logically related to the requirements of the RFP, which recognizes that the FinCENs mission is to provide analytical and intelligence support to law enforcement and regulatory communities, and requires the contractor to provide support for this mission, including investigative research in various law enforcement, financial, and regulatory databases to uncover potential criminal relationships. Thus, we find that the agency could properly consider the contractors proposed key personnels law enforcement and years of experience in its evaluation under this subfactor.
BTI nevertheless complains that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with it concerning the lack of law enforcement and years of experience of its key personnel. Although BTI acknowledges that law enforcement and years of experience were discussed in the context of four of its key personnel, it complains that the agency failed to raise these concerns with regard to any of its other personnel, and that it was misled as to the agencys concerns and requirements. Protesters Hearing exh. 5; Tr. at 34, 38, 54-56.
While discussions must address at least deficiencies and significant weaknesses identified in proposals, the scope and extent of discussions are largely a matter of the contracting officers judgment. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(d)(3); Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc., B-290080 et al., June 10, 2002, 2002 CPD 136 at 6. In this regard, we review the adequacy of discussions to ensure that agencies point out weaknesses that, unless corrected, would prevent an offeror from having a reasonable chance for award. Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc., supra. An agency is not required to afford offerors all-encompassing discussions, or to discuss every aspect of a proposal that receives less than the maximum score, and it is not required to advise an offeror of a weakness that is not considered significant, even if the weakness subsequently becomes a determinative factor in choosing between two closely ranked proposals. Hines Chicago Investments, LLC, B-292984, Dec. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD __ at 3-4.
Here, even assuming that the agency did not reasonably apprise BTI during discussions that its proposal would be downgraded if the proposed personnel did not have law enforcement or extensive years of experience,  this weakness related only to BTIs ability to achieve a maximum score under this subfactor, and did not prevent BTI from having a reasonable chance for award. Thus, discussions were not required to be conducted with BTI on this point.
Additionally, we find no evidence in the record that BTI was misled by the discussions as to the agencys concerns or requirements. To the contrary, according to BTI, it specifically informed the agency during discussions that it disagreed with the agency that law enforcement experience was required by the RFP and discussed with the agency the years of experience of some its personnel. Tr. at 38, 55; Protesters Hearing exh. 5; BTIs Post-Hearing Comments at 14-15.
BTI also complains that it was not adequately advise[d] during discussions about weaknesses in its transition and succession plan arising out of a lack of detail. Protest at 9. However, BTI does not deny that it was advised during discussions that its succession plan was weak or that it was requested to provide more detail. Indeed, BTI claims in its FPR that it reviewed its submitted succession plan (which consists of less than one page of text) and determined it to be compliant with the requirement of the RFP. Thus, the record shows that the agencys discussions on this point were meaningful.
BTI next contends that LAJV should have received a lower past performance score because it is a new joint venture without any prior history of past performance. BTI also complains that LAJVs past performance score was based solely on the performance history of only one of the joint venture partners.
Where an RFP requires the evaluation of offerors past performance, an agency has the discretion to determine the scope of the offerors performance histories to be considered, provided all proposals are evaluated on the same basis and consistent with the RFPs requirements. Honolulu Shipyard, Inc., B-291760, Feb. 11, 2003, 2003 CPD 47 at 4. The performance history of one or more of the individual joint venture partners may be considered in evaluating the past performance of the entire joint venture, so long as doing so is not expressly prohibited by the RFP. Northrop Grumman Tech. Servs., Inc.; Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co., B-291506 et al., Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD 25 at 30.
Here, the RFP did not preclude consideration of a joint venture partners past performance in lieu of performance by the joint venture entity, or require consideration of all of the partners past performance, but instead contemplated that the agency would evaluate relevant contracts and subcontracts that are similar in nature to the requirements of the RFP.
In its proposal, LAJV identified several prior contracts from only one of its partners, LifeCare, who was proposed to provide investigation experts and analysts, to include all of the senior project management and supervisory team and senior data retrieval specialists, and corporate resources for specialized investigation research training and Microsoft product training. The proposal explained that LifeCares core competencies include legal counsel, forensic accounting, auditing, assessments and reviews, investigations, data analysis, data mining, case management, and centralized operations center management. AR, Tab 8, LAJV Proposal, 1.3. Given that the description of LifeCares efforts encompassed most of the services required under the RFP, we find that the agency could properly consider LifeCares performance history to be reasonably predictive of the performance of the joint venture as a whole. See Northrop Grumman Tech. Servs., Inc., supra, at 30-31.
We also find unobjectionable that the agency did not consider the past performance of LAJVs other partner, Advanta, who, according to LAJVs proposal, would be support[ing] the LifeCare efforts by providing staffing of data retrieval specialist and administrative support personnel. AR, Tab 8, LAJV Proposal, 1.3. As noted above, the RFP did not require consideration of the past performance of all of the joint venture partners, and LAJV did not provide (nor was it required to provide) performance history of this partner, given the apparent lesser role that Advanta would play in performing the contract.
BTI complains, however, that, in considering the prior contracts of LifeCare, the agency inflated LAJVs scores under the relevance subfactor. BTI argues that, under the evaluation plans scoring scheme, LAJVs proposal should have received a score of no more than 10 points (rather than the 15 points received) for relevance because the identified contracts were considerably less in dollar value than that which will be required under the RFP. As BTI notes, in order to receive a score of 15 points under the evaluation plan, an offerors contracts had to be close but do not match the estimated size of the requirement, and contracts that were considerably less than the estimated size, such as LAJVs here, could receive a score of no more than 10 points.
However, where, as here, an agencys source selection evaluation plan is an internal agency guideline, not incorporated into the RFP, the failure to adhere to such a plan does not provide a valid basis for protest. Global Readiness Enters., B-284714, May 30, 2000, 2000 CPD 97 at 6. It is the evaluation scheme in the RFP, not internal agency documents, to which an agency is required to adhere in evaluating proposals and in making the source selection. Basic Contracting Servs., Inc., B-284649, May 18, 2000, 2000 CPD 120 at 11 n.2.
Here, the record demonstrates that the agency evaluated relevance in accordance with the RFP criteria--namely it considered whether the identified contracts provided the same or similar services to the RFPs requirements, focusing on the quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration--and recognized the relative distinctions among offerors as required by the FAR, see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i), and these distinctions were reasonably reflected in the respective past performance scores.
Specifically, the agency noted that BTIs incumbent contract provided the same type of services as required here, and gave it the maximum 25 points under the relevance subfactor. In comparison, the agency recognized that LAJVs contracts were less relevant than BTIs, which translated into a lower score of 15 points. While the agency found several strengths regarding the relevance of LAJVs past performance, such as LAJVs good general knowledge, government contracting experience, and the fact that at least one of the contracts appeared to involve similar type investigative work, AR, Tab 15, LAJV Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet, at 2-3; Tr. at 183-85, 189, the agency also noted that not all of LAJVs referenced contracts had work similar to the RFPs requirements, specifically noting as weaknesses that a [m]ajority of contracts provided had to do with medical services or Workers Compensation management, that LAJV lacked law enforcement experience, and that LAJVs specific knowledge of the FinCENs processes and techniques was sketchy. AR, Tab 15, LAJV Technical Evaluation Summary Score Sheet, at 3; Tr. at 222. The agency also noted in its evaluation that the joint venture was newly formed and had no record of past performance outside of its individual partners, and that the dollar values of LAJVs referenced contracts were smaller than that of the effort which will be required here. All of these evaluated factors resulted in a score of only 15 of 25 points under the relevance subfactor.
Thus, the record evidences that the agency fully recognized the relative strengths and weaknesses of these offerors in terms of whether the prior contracts provided similar services, including consideration of the size of the contracts, in a manner consistent with the RFP, and thus awarded LAJVs proposal a significantly lower score than BTIs for the relevance subfactor. Tr. at 183-91. BTIs argument that LAJV should have received an even lower score reflects either its attempt to impose the internal agency evaluation plan on the evaluation, which does not constitute a valid basis for protest, or its disagreement with the agencys judgment, which does not render this judgment unreasonable. UNICCO Govt Servs., Inc., supra, at 7.
BTI also complains that the agency misevaluated its past performance under the references subfactor, where it only received 72 of a possible 75 points. As noted above, the agency received unfavorable comments from the COTR on BTIs incumbent contract for the period of June 2002 through March 2003, and brought this to BTIs attention during discussions. In response, BTI asserted that the negative reference should be ignored because BTI had not had an opportunity to formally respond (although BTI provided a written response to the negative comments in its FPR), and informed the agency of three earlier assessments of its incumbent contract performance that were more favorable. Given BTIs objection to the consideration of the most recent past performance, which the agency reasonably believed to be the most relevant with regard to the incumbent contract, the agency did not consider any of the earlier incumbent contract performance references, either. BTI contends that the failure to consider the earlier, more favorable references was unreasonable, arguing that this positive performance was simply too close at hand to ignore. Supplemental Protest at 3.
The record shows that BTIs past performance evaluation was downgraded only 3 points; thus, even assuming BTIs past performance warranted a perfect score, its total score would then be 205 points, the same score received by LAJVs proposal, and LAJVs proposal would still be in line for award based on its lower evaluated price. Thus, BTIs was not prejudiced by the agencys past performance evaluation, even assuming BTIs protest arguments here have merit.
Finally, BTI argues that the agency improperly evaluated LAJVs price. As BTI notes, LAJV proposed five part-time management personnel at no cost to the government to support contract performance. BTI asserts that the agency was required to, but did not, assess the impact on price or risk associated with these free individuals.
However, as the agency explains, the five free individuals were not required under the RFP, nor obligated to perform under the contract, and thus pricing information was not required. Moreover, the individuals were considered superfluous to the contract, because the services to be performed were covered by other stated personnel, who were priced as required under the RFP using the estimated number of hours stated in the RFP. Tr. at 262-66, 281. The record also reflects that these free individuals were irrelevant to the evaluation and were not a factor in recommending award. Tr. at 263; AR, Tab 10, Recommendation for Award, at 6. Thus, we fail to see how there was any risk to the government, or that the price of these individuals was required to be evaluated.
The protests are denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
The joint venture partners are LifeCare Management Partners and Advanta Medical Solutions, LLC.
 Section H.3, titled Reassignment and Replacement of Key Contractor Personnel, permits the agency to require a contractor to replace key personnel who are objectionable to the government. This clause does not define qualifications for the key personnel, but does identify the key personnel positions to be evaluated (project managers, supervisors, and senior data retrieval specialists); the position descriptions for these positions are listed elsewhere in the RFP.
 Although the parties dispute what was said during discussions, for purposes of this decision, we accept the protesters recitation of events.
 The evaluation plan, which was not disclosed to the offerors, provided that each proposal could receive a maximum of 225 points: 125 points for technical merit and 100 points for past performance.
 To receive the maximum 30-point score for key personnel, the evaluation plan stated that all designated key personnel had to have extensive experience, and demonstrated knowledge in law enforcement, regulatory, financial or relevant programs. Fewer points were awarded if only some of the key personnel had such experience (e.g., 20 points if only the project managers and at least three key personnel had the requisite experience, 10 points if only the project managers had the experience, and 0 points if none of the key personnel had the experience). AR, Tab 16, Evaluation Plan, at 6.
 References were asked to evaluate quality, timeliness, cost control, problem resolution, and customer service, which were worth 15 points each.
 Under the evaluation plan, to receive the maximum score (25 points) under the relevance subfactor, an offerors prior contracts had to be close to or exceed the estimated size of the requirement in terms of contractor personnel furnished, have a sufficient number of government clients to indicate an understanding of governmental contracts, and have a mix of labor categories and work . . . comparable to what is described in the solicitation. Fifteen points were to be awarded if the prior contracts were close but do not match the estimated size of the requirement in terms of contractor personnel furnished, there are some governmental clients, and the mix of labor categories and work matches some of the solicitation requirements. Ten points were to be awarded if the prior contracts were considerably less than the estimated size of the requirement in terms of contractor personnel furnished, there are few governmental clients, and the mix of labor categories and work matches a few of the solicitation requirements. AR, Tab 16, Evaluation Plan, at 4.
 The evaluation record does not explain how, or even if, these two contracts are relevant to the requirements here.
 Under the transition and succession subfactor, LAJVs initial proposal did not receive maximum points because its plan, like BTIs, lacked detail. However, unlike BTI, it provided a more detailed plan in its FPR in response to discussions, which caused the agency to raise LAJVs score in the final evaluation.
 BTI also complains that none of LAJVs key personnel (who BTI asserts do not have a history of employment with either LAJV or the joint venture partners) provided commitment letters to demonstrate that LAJV could adequately staff the contract. However, the RFP did not require offerors to submit commitment letters from its proposed personnel, and BTI similarly did not provide commitment letters. To the extent that BTI complains that LAJV does not currently employ sufficient people to staff the contract, we note that BTIs proposal states that it also does not have a full complement of employees hired and ready to begin work at the commencement of the contract. See AR, Tab 6, BTIs Initial Proposal, 2.3.2, at 15.
 BTIs proposal contained numerous references to law enforcement and financial crimes as it relates to the contractors support of the FinCENs mission. This evidences that BTI was aware that law enforcement experience could well be credited under the RFP.
 Although disputed by the protester, the agency asserts that it specifically advised the protester during discussions that lack of law enforcement experience and work experience would be considered in the evaluation. Tr. at 98, 100. As indicated above, for purposes of this decision, we do not resolve this dispute, but will accept the protesters version.
 We note that LAJV was not afforded discussions on this issue either, even though it was assessed a similar weakness for lack of key personnel experience.
 BTIs other contracts were smaller in dollar value than the required effort here and were for straight information technology services, which did not include performing the investigative support work required under the RFP. Thus, it appears that BTI was given the benefit of the doubt in receiving a perfect score under the relevance subfactor.
 The dollar values of LAJVs contracts are also smaller than those identified by BTI.
 Competitive prejudice is necessary before we will sustain a protest; where the record does not demonstrate that the protester would have a reasonable chance of receiving award but for the agencys actions, we will not sustain a protest, even if deficiencies, such as an unequal evaluation of proposals or lack of meaningful discussions, are found. Statistica v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
 BTI also asserted that the five positions were transferred from key personnel positions to free positions, thus allowing LAJV to improperly reclassify employees from direct to indirect charges and unfairly reduce its price. BTIs Comments at 28. However, the record shows this to be untrue, since LAJVs proposal makes clear that the five positions were, at all times, proposed at no cost to the government (that is, a transfer of positions did not occur), and the reductions in LAJVs FPR price were unrelated to these positions. See Tr. at 269, 272.