Matter of: TRI-COR Industries, Inc. File: B-259034.2 Date: March 14, 1995

Matter of: TRI-COR Industries, Inc. File: B-259034.2 Date: March 14, 1995

Where protester's proposal did not demonstrate an adequate technical understanding of required software support services, an agency is not required during discussions to pinpoint each specific instance in which the protester's proposal exhibited a lack of technical understanding; the agency conducted meaningful discussions by identifying the apparently misunderstood software disciplines and directing the protester to the performance areas most likely to be affected.

Attorneys

DECISION

TRI-COR Industries, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-93-R-5001, issued by the United States Marine Corps, to provide software support services for the maintenance, evaluation and development of the Marine Corps' tactical command, control, communications, computer and intelligence (C4I) systems. The protester contends that its proposal was eliminated from the competitive range because the Army conducted an improper evaluation and deprived TRI-COR of meaningful discussions.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on May 4, 1993, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort, indefinite quantity contract for a base year with 4 option years. The competition was limited to 8(a) firms. [1] The RFP statement of work (SOW) requested services in several software disciplines necessary for the effective maintenance, evaluation, and development of the C4I systems. These software disciplines included configuration management, quality assurance, testing, C4I analysis, document development, system administration, and field support services.

The RFP set forth a best value evaluation scheme, with technical factors significantly more important than cost. The RFP stated that technical proposals would be numerically rated under five equally important evaluation factors: (A) Hypothetical Tasks, (B) Personnel Qualifications, (C) Corporate Resources and Experience, (D) Management Structure, and (E) Plan of Approach/Standard Procedures. Under Factor E, offerors were required to demonstrate their "understanding of the technical objectives and magnitude of the tasks described in the statement of work," and to describe their technical and administrative approach to accomplishing these tasks.

Fifteen firms, including TRI-COR, submitted initial proposals by June 25. A technical evaluation review panel (TERP) evaluated technical proposals according to the Source Selection Plan, which provided for numerical scores and corresponding adjectival ratings of "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor," with respect to each factor. Following the initial technical evaluation, nine proposals were included in the competitive range. TRI-COR's proposal was the lowest ranked of those included. [2] TRI-COR's proposal had a variety of evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies under each factor and received an overall rating of "fair." The TERP drafted discussion questions for each competitive range offeror, including the protester, and received proposal revisions by April 11, 1994.

After evaluating the revised proposals, the TERP determined that TRI-COR's revised proposal had inadequately addressed most of its weaknesses and deficiencies and, in certain instances, added new deficiencies. As a result, TRI-COR's overall technical score dropped after discussions, although its score remained within the "fair" range overall. TRI-COR's overall rating represented three "fair" ratings under the Hypothetical Tasks, Personnel Qualifications, and Corporate Resources and Experience factors; one "good" rating under the Management Structure factor; and one "poor" rating under the Plan of Approach/Standard Procedures factor. [3] The following evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies in TRI-COR's proposal contributed to its "fair" and "poor" ratings: the protester's response to the hypothetical tasks revealed "problems . . . with the basic software development process and the SOW disciplines [which] makes [TRI-COR] a high risk to fail;" some of the protester's proposed personnel did not demonstrably possess the qualifications required by the RFP; all relevant corporate experience belonged to TRI-COR's proposed subcontractors; and TRI-COR's understanding of certain software disciplines was "limited" or "seriously flawed." TRI-COR's revised proposal received the seventh-low technical score.

On August 26, a contract award review panel (CARP) reviewed the TERP's evaluation of all revised proposals. After comparing the proposals, the CARP narrowed the competitive range to those proposals which received at least an overall "good" rating and which were free from any "poor" ratings at the factor level. [4] The excluded proposals, including TRI-COR's, were viewed as lacking any reasonable prospect for award in relation to the "good" proposals received by the agency. TRI-COR was notified on September 19 that its proposal had been eliminated from the competitive range, and this protest followed.

TRI-COR protests that evaluation errors and inadequate discussions improperly caused its proposal's elimination from the competitive range. In response to this protest, TRI-COR received all evaluation documentation relating to its proposal, including the scores and ratings assigned by the TERP during the initial and revised proposal evaluation. Based upon this documentation, TRI-COR raised numerous specific contentions regarding the manner in which the agency evaluated its proposal and conducted discussions with respect to various evaluation factors.

TRI-COR protests some of the deficiencies attributed to its proposal under the Plan of Approach/Standard Procedures factor, where it received a "poor" rating, and also contends that discussions were not meaningful and prevented it from addressing the deficiencies for this factor. As noted above, the Plan of Approach/Standard Procedures factor requested the offeror to demonstrate its understanding of the RFP technical requirements; the TERP's initial evaluation report reflects that the agency seriously questioned TRI-COR's appreciation of certain software engineering disciplines in which support was requested. [5] Specifically, the TERP found serious flaws in TRI-COR's understanding of configuration management (CM), the process of identifying, documenting and controlling the functional characteristics of the software being developed, so that the various configurations of the item are traceable. In the TERP's assessment, TRI-COR's proposal did not,

"demonstrate an understanding of when items should be controlled, an understanding of the baseline process, an understanding of the relationship of ECPs [engineering change proposals] and PCRs [problem change reports], or an understanding of what goes into an ECP. They don't know which documents technically describe a CI [configuration item]. They state that systems administrators generate software releases; this should be a CM task."

In addition to its flawed CM approach, TRI-COR's proposal was found to exhibit a "limited QA [quality assurance] understanding" and confusion over the appropriate sequence of CM, QA, and test activities during the software development process.

The TERP drafted discussion questions intended to convey the main performance risk posed by the various deficiencies under this factor, namely,

"[t]he tasks listed for CM, QA, and test are divided among different phases; appropriate tasks are not always provided in all phases. [TRI-COR does] not demonstrate the ability to determine what to do at the appropriate time."

The TERP's discussion questions, which the contracting officer submitted to TRI-COR without revision, were:

"1. The offeror should provide the procedures for controlling changes to documentation and the sequence of such tasks as they relate to the proposed technical course of action in support of the Statement of Work.

"2. The offeror should provide the quality assurance and testing procedures and the sequence of such tasks as they relate to the proposed technical course of action in support of the Statement of Work."

TRI-COR claims that these questions did not constitute meaningful discussions because they did duplicate the exact concerns enunciated in the TERP report. TRI-COR contends that it should have received a discussion question mirroring each specific concern reflected in the TERP's report, so that it would know precisely what issues to address.

In order for discussions in a negotiated procurement to be meaningful, agencies must advise the offeror of the deficiencies in its proposal, so that the offeror may have an opportunity to revise its proposal to satisfy the government's requirements. Pan Am World Servs., Inc.; et al., B-231840; et al., Nov. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 446. However, the content and extent of discussions is a matter of the contracting officer's judgment based on the particular facts of the procurement. Syscon Servs., Inc., 68 Comp.Gen. 698 (1989), 89-2 CPD Para. 258. In reviewing whether there has been sufficient disclosure of deficiencies, the focus is not on whether the agency describes the deficiencies in such detail that there could be no doubt as to their identity and nature, but whether the information was sufficient in the context of the procurement to afford the offeror a fair and reasonable opportunity to identify and correct deficiencies in its proposal. Eagan, McAllister Assocs., Inc., B-231983, Oct. 28, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 405. There is not, as suggested by TRI-COR, a requirement that agencies conduct all-encompassing discussions; rather, agencies must only reasonably lead offerors into those areas of their proposals needing amplification, given the context of the procurement. Id.

We find that the Marine Corps's discussions with TRI-COR were meaningful. The primary purpose of evaluating an offeror's Plan of Approach was not to test the sufficiency of its technical approach, per se, but, as stated in the RFP, to evaluate the offeror's understanding of the government's technical requirements, as described in the SOW. Had the agency conducted discussions in the manner suggested by TRI-COR, reproducing every concern stated in the TERP report, it might have elicited a response which merely parroted back those concerns point by point. Such extensive discussions would have robbed the agency of any assurance that TRI-COR independently appreciated the RFP technical requirements, thus defeating the primary purpose of the Plan of Approach/Standard Procedures factor. See Id.; Syscon Servs., Inc., supra; Hill's Capitol Sec., Inc., B-233411, Mar. 15, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 274.

In our view, the discussion questions asked of TRI-COR struck a reasonable balance between identifying proposal deficiencies and testing the protester's independent understanding. The discussion questions identified those software disciplines which apparently confused the protester and the primary performance risk associated with the protester's misunderstanding, that is, TRI-COR's apparent inability to determine the appropriate sequence of software development activities.

The record also supports the "poor" rating TRI-COR's proposal received under the Plan of Approach/Standard Procedures factor. Although the protester disputes some of the deficiencies attributed to its proposal under this factor, TRI-COR has given no reasoned explanation as to why the government's conclusions were incorrect, other than to reiterate the statements made in its proposal and to vouch for their accuracy. Under the circumstances, the protester's objection to the agency's evaluation constitutes no more than a mere disagreement with the evaluation results-- which does not demonstrate that the evaluation was flawed. See United Int'l Eng'g, Inc.; et al., 71 Comp.Gen. 177 (1992), 92-1 CPD Para. 122.

TRI-COR also protests the "fair" ratings it received under the Personnel Qualifications and the Corporate Resources and Experience factors. Although the record supports the appropriateness of the "fair" ratings, we need not discuss the specific allegations raised by TRI-COR, since its proposal's "poor" Plan of Approach/Standard Procedures rating itself justified its elimination from the competitive range. Id. As mentioned above, the agency determined after a round of discussions that only those proposals which were free from any "poor" ratings stood a reasonable chance for award and should remain within the competitive range. The record supports the reasonableness of this determination, since the major deficiencies in TRI-COR's proposal under one of the five equally weighted evaluation factors seriously compromised its competitive position in relation to the overall "good" proposals that were selected for further consideration.

The protest is denied.

1. The General Accounting Office reviews procurements conducted competitively under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, since award decisions are not purely discretionary and are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc., B-255797.3; et al., Aug. 11, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 158.

2. TRI-COR also proposed the highest evaluated probable cost.

3. A "poor" rating is assigned where the "offeror's interpretation of the . . . requirements is so superficial, incomplete, vague, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be unsatisfactory."

4. As this is an ongoing procurement, we do not disclose how many proposals are now in the competitive range.

5. The TERP raised similar concerns after evaluating TRI-COR's initial and revised response to the Hypothetical Tasks, where the protester's apparent lack of technical understanding made the firm "a high risk to fail." TRI-COR has not protested the evaluation of its proposal or the adequacy of discussions with respect to this factor.