IN2 LLC
Highlights
IN2 LLC, of Sterling, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's award of contracts to Choctaw Contracting Services, of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals No. W91247-12-R-0037 (RFP -0037) for family readiness program support services, and under request for proposals No. W91247-12-R-0042 (RFP -0042), for the staffing and operation of Army Strong Community Centers for the Army Reserve Family Programs Directorate. IN2 challenges the evaluation of its technical proposals as unacceptable.
Decision
Matter of: IN2 LLC
File: B-408099; B-408099.2; B-408100
Date: June 18, 2013
Dr. Sunil Bala for the protester.
Capt. Michael Barnicle, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest of the rejection of the protesters proposal is denied, where the agency reasonably found, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, that the protesters proposal was technically unacceptable.
DECISION
IN2 LLC, of Sterling, Virginia, protests the Department of the Armys award of contracts to Choctaw Contracting Services, of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals No. W91247-12-R-0037 (RFP -0037) for family readiness program support services, and under request for proposals No. W91247-12-R-0042 (RFP -0042), for the staffing and operation of Army Strong Community Centers for the Army Reserve Family Programs Directorate. IN2 challenges the evaluation of its technical proposals as unacceptable.
We deny the protests.[1]
BACKGROUND
The RFPs were issued as section 8(a) set-asides and provided for the awards of fixed-price contracts on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis. Performance work statements (PWS) were provided that identified the required services. Both solicitations identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors:
Technical capability | |
| Management approach |
Staffing plan | |
Recruitment and training plan | |
Past performance | |
Price |
RFP -0037 amend. 2, at 18; RFP -0042, at 28.
As relevant here, under the management approach subfactor, offerors were informed that, to be found technically acceptable, the offeror must provide a narrative demonstrating significant understanding of family readiness program objectives. See RFP -0037 amend. 2, at 18; RFP -0042, at 28.
Proposal preparation instructions were provided, directing offerors to respond separately to each evaluation factor. RFP -0037, amend. 2, at 14-16; RFP -0042, at 23-26. In this regard, offerors were warned not to simply rephrase or restate the government's requirement, and that statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof . . . will be considered unacceptable. RFP -0037 amend. 2, at 14; RFP -0042, at 24. The RFPs provided that, with respect to the technical capability factor, responses
shall be prepared in an orderly format and in sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the Offerors technical competence and ability to comply with the contract task requirements specified in the PWS. The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology [it] would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks.
RFP -0037 amend. 2, at 14; RFP -0042, at 24.
The Army received a number of offers, including IN2s and Choctaws, which were evaluated by the agencys source selection evaluation board (SSEB). All of the offers received under both RFPs were found to be technically unacceptable. Discussions were conducted, and revised proposals were received.
IN2s and Choctaws revised proposals for RFP -0037 were evaluated as follows:
|
IN2 |
Choctaw | ||
Technical Capability | ||||
|
Management Approach | |||
| Organizational chart | Fail | Pass | |
Team member roles | Fail | Pass | ||
Understanding of program objectives | Fail | Pass | ||
Staffing Plan | ||||
| Labor categories | Pass | Pass | |
Qualifications, skills, and capabilities | Fail | Pass | ||
Phase-in and retention | Pass | Pass | ||
Recruitment and Training Plan | ||||
| Turnover, training, and recruitment | Fail | Pass | |
OVERALL TECHNICAL RATING |
FAIL |
PASS | ||
Past Performance |
Acceptable |
Acceptable | ||
Price |
$13,160,848 |
$16,297,005 |
Agency Report (AR), RFP -0037, Tab 11, SSEB Evaluation Report, at 2-5, 11-14; Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 5, 7, 11.
The SSEBs ratings were supported by a narrative explanation under each evaluation area. IN2s proposal was found to have a number of deficiencies and to be technically unacceptable. For example, the SSEB found that IN2s proposal was deficient under the understanding of the program objectives subfactor because IN2 merely rephrased or restated the agencys PWS requirements in its proposal. AR, Tab 11, SSEB Evaluation Report, at 3.
IN2s and Choctaws revised proposals for RFP -0042 were evaluated as follows:
|
IN2 |
Choctaw | ||
Technical Capability | ||||
|
Management Approach | |||
| Organizational chart | Pass | Pass | |
Team member roles | Pass | Pass | ||
Understanding of program objectives | Fail | Pass | ||
Staffing Plan | ||||
| Labor categories | Fail | Pass | |
Qualifications, skills, and capabilities | Fail | Pass | ||
Phase-in and retention | Fail | Pass | ||
Recruitment and Training Plan | ||||
| Turnover, training, and recruitment | Pass | Pass | |
OVERALL TECHNICAL RATING |
FAIL |
PASS | ||
Past Performance |
Acceptable |
Acceptable | ||
Price |
$3,098,101 |
$4,218,401 |
AR, RFP -0042, Tab 15, Source Selection Decision, at 4, 6-7, 9.
The SSEB found that IN2s revised proposal also had a number of deficiencies and was technically unacceptable. Id., Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation Report, at 4-6. For example, the SSEB found that IN2s proposal was deficient under the understanding of program objectives subfactor because IN2s proposal had merely provided an explanation of what the Army Strong Community Centers did, but failed to explain how it intended to achieve the programs objectives. Id. at 5; Contracting Officers Statement, RFP -0042, at 7.
Choctaw was selected for award under both RFPs as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror, and these protests followed.
DISCUSSION
IN2 objects to the evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable, arguing that the evaluated deficiencies were minor matters or reflected latent ambiguities in the RFPs. See Comments, RFP -0037, at 5; Comments, RFP -0042, at 4.
In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate submissions; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the agencys judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Panacea Consulting, Inc., B-299307.4, B-299308.4, July 27, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 141 at 3. An offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal, and it runs the risk that its proposal will be evaluated unfavorably when it fails to do so. Recon Optical, Inc., B-310436, B-310436.2, Dec. 27, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 10 at 6. A protesters disagreement with an agencys judgment is not sufficient to establish that an agency acted unreasonably. Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 70 at 3.
We find from review of the record that the Armys evaluation of IN2s proposals was reasonable. As an initial matter, we do not agree that the deficiencies assessed in IN2s proposals were the result of latent ambiguities in the RFPs. Rather, the solicitations clearly informed offerors of the requirements its proposals must satisfy, and these requirements were further identified in the agencys discussions with the protester. There is no merit to the protesters objection that the solicitations evaluation schemes did not clearly identify the information required to be provided, where offerors were informed in the proposal preparation instructions as to what information should be provided under each factor and subfactor.
With regard to RFP -0037, IN2 did not demonstrate its understanding of the family readiness program objectives, as required by the RFP, RFP -0037 amend. 2, at 15, where IN2s proposal merely restated the PWS requirements. See AR, RFP -0037, Tab 11, SSEB Evaluation Report, at 3. Although IN2 disagrees with the agencys judgment, arguing that [o]ne cannot explain their understanding of a program without first stating what it is, it has not shown that judgment to be unreasonable. Protest at 7. In this regard, we find no merit to IN2s argument that the firms understanding is reflected in our proven track record and experience as shown in Volume II: Past Performance. Id., citing IN2s Revised Technical Proposal, at § C.1.6 (emphasis in original). IN2s performance of past similar work does not satisfy the solicitation requirement to demonstrate its understanding of the work solicited here.
With regard to RFP -0042, as with its proposal under RFP -0037, IN2 did not demonstrate its understanding of the programs objectives. See AR, RFP -0042, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation Report, at 4-5. In this regard, the agency found that IN2 had failed to demonstrate any methodology for how IN2 would achieve the programs objectives. Id.; Legal Memorandum, RFP -0042, at 11. We find no merit to the protesters contention that this evaluation subfactor is the least amenable to methodology and that IN2 was not required under the RFPs evaluation criteria to provide its methodology to achieve the programs objectives. Comments, RFP -0042, at 4-5. As stated above, the RFP specifically required offerors to demonstrate their methodology for meeting the PWS requirements.[2]
The protests are denied.[3]
Susan A. Poling
General Counsel
[1] Because a protective order was not issued in connection with the protests, our decision is necessarily general.
[2] To the extent the protester contends that it is not possible for offerors to demonstrate their methodology under this evaluation subfactor, such a challenge to the terms of the solicitation had to be filed prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2013).
[3] Because the deficiencies we identify above render IN2s proposal technically unacceptable, we need not address the protesters other objections to the agencys evaluation.