Matter of: LRL Sciences, Inc. File: B-251903 Date: May 3, 1993

Matter of: LRL Sciences, Inc. File: B-251903 Date: May 3, 1993

PROCUREMENT Competitive Negotiation Offers Competitive ranges Exclusion Administrative discretion Agency's elimination of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was reasonable where the protester's proposal failed to demonstrate an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation's statement of work (SOW) and failed to demonstrate that the protester's proposed personnel had experience relevant to the requirements of the SOW.

Attorneys

DECISION LRL Sciences, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP04- 92AL82548, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for technical and management support services for DOE's Albuquerque field office. LRL argues that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a competitive set-aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1988 & Supp. III 1991),[1] contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee term level of effort contract, with work to be assigned on a task order basis. The successful contractor under the RFP will assist the DOE Albuquerque Field Office of Energy and Special Programs in the areas of environmental waste management, technology transfer, and commercialization, assist the DOE Albuquerque Field Office of Management and Administration in developing, implementing, and maintaining environmental, safety, and health programs, and assist the DOE Los Alamos Area Office in oversight activities relating to weapons and nonweapons research and development operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was most advantageous to the government. The RFP listed the following evaluation criteria and subcriteria:

A. Personnel and Technical/Management 1. Personnel Qualifications and Experience a. Key Personnel b. Other Personnel 2. Technical Management a. Technical/Management Approach b. Task Assignment Management B. General Business 1. General Business Experience a. Administrative Management b. Contract Performance 2. Corporate Commitment C. Cost Proposal 1. Completeness 2. Credibility 3. Realism

The solicitation informed offerors that the personnel and technical/management evaluation criterion was approximately three times as important as the general business evaluation criterion. The RFP also provided that cost would not be separately scored, but would be evaluated under its the designated subcriteria and considered in determining the offerors' understanding of the magnitude and significance of the required effort.

The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of technical proposals. Offerors were informed that they were to "substantiate the experience, formal and informal training, and demonstrated performance of all proposed key personnel . . . by furnishing resumes." The RFP included a resume format, and specified that the resumes furnished "should be carefully prepared in order to reflect current experience and specific qualifications as applicable to the [RFP's statement of work (SOW)]." The RFP also set forth "personnel qualification requirements," which detailed certain education and experience requirements for proposed personnel.

The agency received seven proposals by the February 18, 1992, proposal due date. The agency determined that LRL's proposal had no reasonable chance of being selected for award and therefore excluded it from the competitive range because: (1) several of the protester's proposed personnel did not have experience relevant to the RFP requirements; (2) the proposal did not demonstrate an understanding of technology transfer and commercialization programs; and (3) the proposal did not demonstrate experience with the management and business systems required to successfully manage a task order level of effort contract.

LRL argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal since its proposed personnel are experienced in every category specified in the RFP, including technology transfer and commercialization, and the management of task order contracts.

The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination as to whether an offer is in the competitive range are matters within the discretion of the contracting activity, since it is responsible for defining its needs and the best methods of accommodating them. Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 223. In reviewing protests against competitive range determinations, our Office will not reevaluate the proposals for the purpose of substituting our judgment for that of the agency. Consultants & Designers, Inc., B-247923.2, July 22, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 40. Instead, we examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria. Hummer Assocs., B-236702, Jan. 4, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 12. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. The Travel Co., Inc., B-249560.2, Feb. 15, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 176.

The agency's source evaluation panel (SEP) found that LRL's proposed key personnel lacked experience relevant to the requirements of the RFP SOW. For example, the SEP found that LRL's proposed project manager lacked 5 years of experience as required by the RFP "in the management of a contract similar in scope to this procurement." Specifically, the SEP determined that LRL's proposed project manager lacked experience in the areas of nuclear waste management, the packaging and transportation of nuclear waste, and the management of a task order contract as a contractor. The SEP similarly found that LRL's proposed deputy project manager lacked the requisite experience in the areas of waste management, and packaging and transportation of waste. With regard to LRL's proposed program manager for environmental and waste management, the SEP found that the individual proposed lacked "[5] years experience in the area of environmental/waste management and the associated [f]ederal and DOE requirements," and lacked experience in managing task order contracts, as required by the RFP. The SEP also determined that two of LRL's proposed program managers for industrial commercialization lacked the requisite 5 years experience in the formulation and execution of programs that are agency-wide and national in scope involving industry competitiveness in the world markets, and in the development of new technologies related to the management of nuclear waste and long range plans for environmental restoration. Another proposed program manager was found to lack the requisite experience in long range environmental restoration or in the management of nuclear waste. The agency also found that the waste management engineer proposed by LRL did not have 5 years of experience related to nuclear, hazardous and mixed waste management as required by the RFP.

The protester contends that the SEP's determination with regard to LRL's proposed project manager "is outrageous" and discusses in general the project manager's past work experience. The protester also disputes the SEP's determinations concerning LRL's proposed deputy project manager and some of LRL's other personnel, e.g., the program manager for industrial commercialization, but only discusses in general these individuals' past work experience. The protester does not specifically challenge the SEP's determination that a number of LRL's other proposed personnel lacked experience relevant to the RFP's SOW as required.

While the protester may be correct in its assertion that its proposed personnel have extensive past work experience, the resumes submitted with LRL's proposal do not describe, nor does the protester point out, how the proposed personnel's qualifications and experience, as reflected on the resumes submitted by LRL in its proposal, meet the minimum "personnel qualification requirements" set forth in the RFP. LRL's resumes are vague in relating how the proposed personnel meet the RFP's requirements, despite the solicitation's detailed instructions that require resumes to reflect the relationship of the proposed personnel's experience to the specific minimum experience requirements set forth in the RFP.[2] Based on our review of LRL's proposal, including the resumes, we cannot find that the agency acted unreasonably in downgrading LRL's proposal with regard to LRL's proposed personnel, inasmuch as the proposal resumes did not adequately address the minimum personnel qualification requirements required by the RFP. Engineering Mgmt. Resources, Inc., B-248866, Sept. 29, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 217. In this regard, it is an offeror's responsibility to prepare an adequately written proposal which can be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the solicitation; an offeror runs the risk of being rejected if it does not submit an adequately written proposal. Cook Travel, B-238527, June 13, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 571.

The agency also found that LRL's proposal did not demonstrate an understanding of the complexities of the management of technology transfer and commercialization programs. The protester does not substantively rebut the agency's determination here. Rather, the protester argues that there are "really no experts" in technology transfer because the primary legislation mandating technology transfer was not enacted until 1989. See National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 1674 (1989) (codified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. Secs. 3710, 3710a, & 3710c (Supp. III 1991)). The protester, however, adds "that there are persons with general knowledge" in technology transfer, and contends that its staff attorney "is about as knowledgeable as any person in this area," and that two of LRL's proposed program managers for industrial commercialization have experience in technology transfer.

LRL's proposal was downgraded by the agency because the proposal did not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements of the RFP with regard to technology transfer, and not because LRL's proposed personnel lacked experience in this area. As such, LRL's arguments concerning the existence of experts in this area and the relative experience of its staff attorney and program managers are not relevant to the propriety of the agency's determination that the proposal itself did not demonstrate an understanding of the complexities of technology transfer.[3] Additionally, as pointed out by the agency, there are individuals with experience and expertise in the area of technology transfer, as technology transfer in the federal government has been ongoing since 1980. See Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 2311 (1980) (codified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. Secs. 3701-3717 (1988 & Supp. III 1991)). In sum, because LRL's arguments here either express the protester's disagreement with the agency's conclusion that LRL's proposal did not demonstrate an understanding of the complexities of technology transfer, or are irrelevant to the agency's determination, we have no basis on which to conclude that LRL's proposal was improperly downgraded here.

The agency also determined that LRL's proposal did not demonstrate experience with the management and business systems required to successfully manage a task order level of effort contract, as is contemplated here. The agency found that LRL's proposal did not address the specifics of the concepts, systems and procedures that LRL would use to plan, control and measure labor hours, cost performance, contract schedule and reporting requirements. The agency also determined that LRL's proposed management structure did not demonstrate the capability of quickly responding to fluctuating requirements, and that the proposal was not clear with regard to the project manager's authority over other certain personnel.

The protester responds only that its "proposal is replete with detailed information concerning task order contract performance," and that "the management system which LRL intends to utilize in this procurement is clearly set out in its [proposal]." The protester thus concludes, without further explanation, that the agency's determination that the proposal did not demonstrate experience with the management and business systems required to successfully manage a task order level of effort contract, "is absurd on its face."

The protester, while clearly disagreeing with the agency's conclusions, again has failed to point to any specific information in its proposal to substantiate its claim that the agency erred in concluding that the proposal did not demonstrate experience with the management and business systems required to successfully manage a task order level of effort contract. Based on our review of the record, including LRL's proposal, we do not find the agency's conclusion here to be unreasonable.

In sum, the foregoing deficiencies in LRL's proposal reasonably support DOE's exclusion of that firm from the competitive range.

The protest is denied.

1. Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration to enter into contracts with government agencies and to arrange for performance through subcontracts with socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 19.805 and 13 C.F.R. Sec. 124.311 (1992) provide for and govern competitively awarded contracts set aside for section 8(a) qualified concerns. Premier Cleaning Sys., Inc., B-249179.2, Nov. 2, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 298.

2. While the LRL proposal includes a matrix that purportedly shows that the proposed personnel satisfy solicitation requirements, the resumes do not adequately detail the requested information.

3. In any event, although LRL may be correct in its assertion regarding the experience of its staff attorney and program managers in technology transfer, this information is not reflected in its proposal. There is no mention at all of the staff attorney and his alleged knowledge of technology transfer in the proposal, and the resumes of the two program managers do not describe in any detail their experience in technology transfer.