Synectic Solutions, Inc.
Highlights
Synectic Solutions, Inc. (SSI) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Evolving Resources, Inc. (ERI) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-04-R-0023 to provide information technology (IT) support services at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Point Mugu, California. SSI challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical and price proposals, the agency's determination not to conduct discussions, and the agency's cost/technical tradeoff.
B-299086, Synectic Solutions, Inc., February 7, 2007
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: Synectic Solutions, Inc.
Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and Nicole S. Allen, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., for the protester.
Andre Long, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest challenging agency's technical and price evaluations is denied where the record supports the reasonableness of the evaluations.
2. Protest challenging agency's determination not to conduct discussions is denied where the solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended to make award without conducting discussions, and the record establishes that the agency had a reasonable basis for making its source selection decision.
DECISION
Synectic Solutions, Inc. (SSI) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Evolving Resources, Inc. (ERI) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-04-R-0023 to provide information technology (IT) support services at the
BACKGROUND
The RFP was issued on December 27, 2004, restricting competition to participants in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program for small, disadvantaged businesses, and seeking proposals for a cost-reimbursement contract to provide IT support services including full spectrum development, systems engineering, systems integration, software support, and lifecycle support services for various communications, electronic, information technology, wireless technology, and command and control systems for Navy fleet and range operational requirements. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 62. As initially issued, the RFP established
The solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of cost and the following equally-weighted non-cost evaluation factors: technical-management,[2] past performance, and experience.[3] The technical-management evaluation factor was comprised of four equally-weighted subfactors: technical approach, management structure, communications approach, and key personnel/ staffing. RFP sect. M, at 107-09. The solicitation advised offerors that the non-cost evaluation factors combined were significantly more important than cost, and provided that cost proposals would be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness, as well as for cost realism.
Eight offerors, including SSI and ERI, submitted proposals by the specified closing date. Thereafter the agency evaluated the offerors' various proposal submissions,[4] with the following final results regarding ERI's and SSI's proposals:[5]
SSI | ERI | |
Technical-Management (Score/Risk Rating) | Satisfactory/ Low Risk | Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk |
Technical Approach | Satisfactory/ Low Risk | Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk |
Management Structure | Satisfactory/ Low Risk | Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk |
Communications Approach | Satisfactory/ Medium Risk | Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk |
Key Personnel/ Staffing | Marginal/ Medium Risk | Highly Satisfactory/ Low Risk |
Past Performance | Low Risk | Very Low Risk |
Experience | Medium Risk | Low Risk |
Evaluated Cost | [deleted] | $23,695,334 |
Agency Report (AR) at 6-7; Tab G, Source Selection Decision, at 4-6.
As shown in the table above, ERI's proposal was rated higher than SSI's proposal under each of the non-cost evaluation factors and subfactors. Specifically, with regard to the first technical-management subfactor, technical approach, the solicitation stated that proposals would be evaluated to determine an offeror's understanding of the technical support requirements and how well the proposal demonstrates how the work will be performed. RFP sect. M, at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency evaluated ERI's proposal as highly satisfactory with low proposal risk on the basis that it consistently demonstrated approaches that exceeded the solicitation requirements. AR, Tab C, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 144. The agency's evaluation elaborated that ERI's proposal:
showed a clear understanding of how to support the SOW elements that might be classified as 'traditional' IT support (i.e. management support, logistics, databases, CM/DM, training, computer security, etc.), and also demonstrated a comprehensive approach to supporting
IT elements of the SOW tied to specialized engineering workgroups (i.e. testing and evaluation, engineering environment, and wireless security).
In contrast, the agency evaluated SSI's proposal as satisfactory under this subfactor, explaining that the proposal falls short of demonstrating approaches that cover the full spectrum of engineering IT services this contract entails, particularly in some specialized areas of testing and evaluation, transition support, the engineering environment and wireless security.
With regard to the second technical-management subfactor, management structure, the solicitation provided for evaluation of an offeror's organizational structure and lines of authority, specifically, who reports to whom, and who is responsible for what under the contract statement of work. RFP sect. M, at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency again evaluated ERI's proposal as highly satisfactory with low risk, stating: ERI and its subcontractors . . . provide[] both core personnel expertise as well as an extended consultant pool available for specialized technical expertise which is needed to handle rapidly evolving requirements inherent in working RDT&E [research development testing & evaluation] projects. AR, Tab C, at 144. In contrast, the agency evaluated SSI's proposal as satisfactory under this subfactor, explaining that there are some concerns regarding [SSI's] having a thin management structure, [deleted].
With regard to the third technical-management subfactor, communications approach, the solicitation provided for evaluation of the offeror's method of addressing communications and operations challenges as they relate to the areas of avionics, threat simulation, and asymmetric warfare. [6] RFP sect. M, at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency again rated ERI's proposal as highly satisfactory with low risk, specifically addressing each of the three evaluation areas identified in the solicitation as follows:
For avionics, [ERI's] approaches utilize existent system platforms . . . and established test methods to handle these challenges economically and provide added value to the contract. For threat simulation ERI's approaches utilize sophisticated modeling and simulation coupled with existent EW [electronic warfare] sensor systems to simulate real-world threats and stimulate sensors without requiring the presence of actual threats. This significantly lowers the cost of testing and evaluation and adds value to the contract. For asymmetric warfare ERI has developed expertise in handling special challenges involved in AW [asymmetric warfare], including simulation, network security and communications between multiple DoD and non'DoD agencies. This greatly reduces the cost of conducting full'scale asymmetric warfare exercises and adds value to the contract. ERI identifies the complexity of AW including the spiral nature of hardware and software management to support the AW exercises which the ERI Team clearly identifies as the most challenging area. ERI provides innovate comprehensive approaches to handling those AW operational and communications challenges, including realistic scenario driven exercises which provide added value to the government.
AR, Tab C, at 144.
In contrast, the agency evaluated SSI's proposal as satisfactory with medium risk under this subfactor, stating that although SSI's proposal showed a clear understanding of the complex nature of asymmetric warfare, SSI seemed to lack a detailed understanding of some aspects of avionics and threat simulation outside the area of communications, and also fell short in demonstrating well structured methods of handling the asymmetric challenges.
With regard to the fourth technical-management subfactor, key personnel/staffing, the solicitation provided for evaluation of personnel with regard to qualifications, educational levels, experience, licenses and/or certificates, technical skills, familiarity with avionics and asymmetric warfare communication systems, and availability. RFP sect. M, at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency again evaluated ERI's proposal as highly satisfactory with low performance risk, stating that: [ERI's] key personnel possess very specialized knowledge in areas of avionics, secure communications and asymmetric warfare. These sources of expertise are rare which is an enhancing feature that benefits the government. AR, Tab C, at 144. In contrast, the agency evaluated SSI's proposal as marginal with medium risk, stating: [SSI's] lack of key personnel having relevant expertise in specialized areas of Avionics and Asymmetric Warfare present a risk in being able to successfully perform some areas specified with the SOW. This risk could potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance.
With regard to the past performance evaluation factor, the solicitation provided for evaluation of an offeror's prior performance of the same or very similar requirements, specifically advising offerors that the agency will give more consideration, and a more favorable rating, to information that demonstrates quality of performance for requirements with the same or very similar scope, dollar value, and complexity relative to the procurement under consideration. RFP sect. M, at 108. Under the past performance factor, the agency evaluated ERI's proposal as very low risk, noting that, as the incumbent contractor, ERI's past performance has been exceptional and that the prior work it has performed has been very similar to the solicited requirements with regard to scope, dollar value, and complexity. AR, Tab C, at 147. In contrast, although SSI's prior performance was generally assessed by SSI's prior customers as reflecting very low performance risk, the agency concluded that SSI's prior work was only somewhat similar to the solicited requirements.
Overall, the agency concluded that ERI's proposal was clearly superior to SSI's under each of the non-cost evaluation factors, and especially in the critical areas of avionics, threat simulation and asymmetric warfare systems.
DISCUSSION
Technical-Management Evaluation
SSI first protests that the agency's evaluation of SSI's and ERI's proposals reflected unstated evaluation factors, complaining that it was improper for the agency to criticize SSI's failure to meaningfully address asymmetric warfare because the asymmetric warfare requirements constituted only a minor, if not insignificant part of the total contract requirements. Protest at 8.
The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the agency's discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method for accommodating them. U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3,
Here, contrary to SSI's assertion that solicitation requirements regarding asymmetric warfare constituted only a minor or insignificant portion of the contract, two of the four subfactors under the technical-management evaluation factor specifically identified asymmetric warfare as one of a very limited number of areas in which proposals would be evaluated. As discussed above, under the third technical-management subfactor, communications approach, the solicitation provided for evaluation of the offeror's method of addressing communications and operations challenges as they relate to the areas of avionics, threat simulation and asymmetric warfare. RFP sect. M, at 108. Similarly, under the fourth technical-management subfactor, key personnel/staffing, the solicitation specifically stated that an offeror's key personnel would be evaluated with regard to their familiarity with avionics and asymmetric warfare communication systems.
SSI also protests that the agency improperly evaluated SSI's proposal for having a thin management structure, [deleted].
As noted above, the solicitation provided for evaluation of an offeror's organizational structure and lines of authority, specifically, who reports to whom, and who is responsible for what under the contract statement of work. RFP sect. M, at 108. Further, the solicitation stated that proposals would be evaluated to determine whether it clearly demonstrates the Offeror's ability to meet all of the requirements.
Past Performance
Next, SSI protests the agency's evaluation with regard to the past performance evaluation factor. In this regard, SSI asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as low risk, rather than very low risk.
The evaluation of an offeror's past performance, including the agency's determination of the relevance and scope of an offeror's performance history, is a matter of agency discretion, which we will not find improper unless unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria, undocumented, or inconsistent with applicable statutes or regulations. Family Entm't Servs., Inc., d/b/a/ IMC, B-291997.4,
Here, as discussed above, the solicitation specifically provided that in evaluating past performance, the agency would give more consideration, and a more favorable rating for performance of prior work with the same or very similar scope, dollar value and complexity relative to the procurement under consideration. RFP sect. M, at 108. The record further shows that the agency concluded that the prior work on which SSI relied for its past performance evaluation was only somewhat similar to the contract requirements at issue here. SSI has not meaningfully challenged the agency's characterization of its prior work. Accordingly, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's assessment of low risk with regard to SSI's past performance.
Price Reasonableness Determination
Next, SSI protests that the agency failed to properly perform a price analysis as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.404-1. In this regard, SSI does not dispute that the agency conducted a proper cost realism analysis, during which the agency evaluated various elements of the offerors' proposed costs; nonetheless, SSI asserts that the procurement was flawed based on the agency's alleged failure to comply with the separate FAR requirements regarding price analysis. We disagree.
Here, the agency received eight proposals and concluded that at least three of these proposals, including SSI's and ERI's, met the solicitation requirements. The agency noted during its evaluation that all three of the proposals meeting the solicitation requirements offered prices that were lower than the independent government cost estimate and, further, that these three proposals were priced within a [deleted] percent range of each other. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR), Tab A, Declaration of Contracting Officer; Tab D, Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). On this record, assuming a separate price reasonableness analysis was required, there is no basis to assert that the agency failed to comply with any FAR requirements since the agency compared proposed prices between the three acceptable proposals, as well as the IGCE.
ERI's 8(a) Status
SSI also complains that award to ERI was improper because the date for receipt of proposals was 2 days before ERI's 8(a) status was to expire. The agency set an initial date for receipt of proposals on
With regard to the award to ERI, SBA regulations state that an offeror's status as an 8(a) contractor is determined as of the date the offeror submits a written self-certification that it is small to the procuring activity as part of its initial offer. 13 C.F.R. sect. 121.404(a), (b). SBA regulations further state that an award may be made to an offeror whose 8(a) program term has expired, provided that it was an 8(a) program participant eligible for contract award on the initial date specified for receipt of offers.[10] 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.507(d). Here, ERI's timely submitted proposal was eligible for award.[11]
Source Selection Determination
Next, SSI protests that the agency's source selection was improperly based on a mechanical comparison of offerors proposals that failed to justify ERI's higher cost. We disagree. As discussed above, the SSD explained that, in addition to the ERI's higher ratings for all evaluation factors and subfactors, ERI's proposal had specific advantages over SSI's proposal in the critical areas of avionics, threat simulation and asymmetric warfare systems, and that ERI's past performance and experience were superior to SSI's based on its very low risk ratings for very similar contract work. Id. at 14. Further, the agency specifically concluded that the technical advantages of ERI's proposal were worth the [deleted] percent cost premium as compared to SSI's proposal.
Where, as here, the RFP allows for a cost/technical tradeoff, the agency retains discretion to select a higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal if doing so is reasonably found to be in the government's best interest and is consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme. 4-D Neuroimaging, B-286155.2, B-286155.3,
Discussions
Finally, SSI contends that the agency improperly decided not to conduct discussions with offerors. SSI asserts that, had discussions been conducted SSI could have addressed the various weaknesses in its proposal.[12]
Where, as here, an RFP provides for award on the basis of initial proposals without discussions, an agency may make award without discussions, unless discussions are determined to be necessary. FAR sect. 15.306(a)(e). While discussions are necessary where the solicitation provides for award on a best value basis and the source selection official is unable to determine without further information which proposal represents the best value to the government, an agency may dispense with discussions where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the proposal of the intended awardee represents the best overall value. Facilities Mgmt. Co., Inc., B-259731.2,
Here, as discussed above, the agency had a reasonable basis for evaluating proposals, for performing a meaningfully comparison of the those proposals, and for making a determination regarding which proposal offered the best value to the government. See Sierra Military Health Servs., Inc.; Aetna Gov't Health Plans, B'292780 et al.,
The protest is denied.[13]
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] The amendment explained that February 11 was a Compressed Work Schedule regular day off for personnel at
[2] Offerors were advised that, under the technical/management factor, proposals would be qualitatively evaluated as outstanding, highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory, and that performance risk assessments of low, medium, or high would also be made. RFP sect. M at 107. Of relevance to this protest, the agency defined a highly satisfactory rating as applicable to a proposal that exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the [g]overnment or meets requirements and contains enhancing features which benefits the Government; a satisfactory rating was defined as applicable where a proposal meets requirements and [a]ny weaknesses are acceptable to the Government. AR, Tab F, Competitive Award Panel Minutes, at 6.
[3] With regard to the past performance and experience evaluation factors, offerors were advised that the agency would make risk assessments of very low, low, moderate, high, very high, and unknown. RFP sect. M at 107.
[4] On
[5] The agency's evaluation of the six other offerors' proposals are not relevant to resolution of this protest; accordingly, those proposals and the agency's evaluation of them are not further discussed.
[6] Asymmetric warfare refers to threats outside the range of conventional warfare, including terrorism. AR at 15.
[7] Similarly, under the experience evaluation factor, for which the solicitation stated that offerors would be evaluated on the depth and breadth of their prior experience involving work with the same or very similar scope, dollar value, and complexity as this requirement, RFP sect. M at 109, SSI's proposal was rated as presenting a higher risk than ERI's proposal due to the agency's conclusions that: SSI did not sufficiently demonstrate that they have extensive engineering systems experience in communications hardware & software related to avionics systems, asymmetric warfare and wireless security; SSI's breadth of experience in asymmetric warfare is minimal; and that SSI was lacking significant experience within some areas of engineering, avionics, asymmetric warfare and security. AR, Tab C, at 149.
[8] SSI similarly protests that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in criticizing SSI's proposal for focusing on [deleted] software and failing to recognize other required software tools, complaining that the solicitation did not specifically mention the other software tools for which support will be required. SSI Comments,
[9] Indeed, in response to a similar agency criticism that SSI lacked relevant expertise in specialized areas of avionics and asymmetric warfare, SSI effectively acknowledged that only [deleted] of SSI's [deleted] key personnel provided information regarding experience in avionics. Protester Comments,
[10] Although offerors submitted proposal revisions to extend their offers and update proposal information, such proposal submissions do not affect the validity of an offeror's initial proposal and 8(a) eligibility certification. 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.507(d).
[11] To the extent the protester argues that the agency's selection of the proposal due date reflected bad faith on the part of the agency, the record does not support this allegation. That is, the record does not establish that the agency acted with a malicious and specific intent to injure the protester. See, e.g., Bannum, Inc., B-298281.2,
[12] SSI also notes that, if the agency had conducted discussions and sought revised proposals, ERI would have had to recertify its 8(a) status and, apparently, would have been eliminated from the competition.
[13] In pursuing this protest, SSI has raised various collateral issues. For example, SSI notes that the positions of contracting officer and source selection authority (SSA) were held by the same person, and that this individual participated in the evaluation of proposals, and was the sole member of the panel which advised the SSA. Thus, the protester complains, the SSA advised himself! Protester's Comments on the Agency Report,