Inland Technologies International, LTD.

Decision

Matter of:  Inland Technologies International, LTD.

File:  B-407598

Date:  January 16, 2013

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably found the protester's proposal unacceptable

Inland Technologies International, Ltd., of Nova Scotia, Canada, protests the award of a contract to Empire Aircraft Services, Inc., of Summerville, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4484-12-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for deicing fluid recovery and recycling services.  Inland challenges the propriety of the agency's evaluation of proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on August 17, 2012, sought proposals to provide deicing fluid recovery and disposal services at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a
6-month base period and two 1-year options.  The award was to be made on a best-value basis considering three evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  (1) technical acceptability, (2) past performance, and (3) price. 

Under the technical acceptability factor, the RFP listed the following two subfactors:  (1) recovery plan, and (2) continuation of essential service plan.  RFP at 27-28.  With regard to these subfactors, the proposal preparation instructions explained that an offeror's technical proposal was required to provide plans that "clearly demonstrate an understanding of all tasks specified in the [performance work statement]," and describe the offeror's approach to performing the requirements of the plan.  See RFP at 23.  As relevant here, the instructions required offerors to address the following requirements:

FACTOR 2: CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICE PLAN

The offeror shall submit a plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed during periods of crisis. 

The offeror shall -

1. Identify provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operation can be resumed;
2. Address in the plan, at a minimum -
1. Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as pandemic that occurs in repeated waves;
2. The time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site;
3. The components, processes, and requires [sic] for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home;
4. Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified 'essential contractor service' personnel; and
5. The approach for communicating expectation to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities in a crisis.

Id.

The RFP provided that, under the recovery plan subfactor, an offeror's technical proposal would be evaluated to ensure that the recovery plan processes and procedures demonstrate the offeror's knowledge concerning the performance requirements and state and federal environmental laws.  RFP at 27.  Under the

continuation of essential service plan subfactor, an offeror's technical proposal would be evaluated "to ensure that the offeror has provided a written plan describing how they will continue to perform their essential contractor services," including each of the minimum requirements, "for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed."  Id. at 28. The past performance evaluation was to consider relevant and recent past performance information.  Relevant past performance was defined as providing deicing fluid recovery and recycling services with a total value of at least $150,000 per year and recent performance was defined as performance within the last 3 years.  Id. 

The RFP explained that offerors' technical proposals would be assigned ratings of exceptional, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable.  RFP at 27.  As relevant here, a marginal rating was assigned to a proposal if the agency had doubt as to whether an aspect of the proposal met a specified minimum performance or capability requirement, but also found such uncertainty correctable.  Id.  An unacceptable rating was warranted where a proposal failed to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements and the proposal had one or more deficiencies; an unacceptable proposal was considered "not awardable."  Id.  The agency rated past performance with confidence levels of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence and unknown confidence.  Id. at 28. 

Three offerors, including Inland and Empire, submitted proposals by the
September 7 closing date.  After evaluation by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB), the results were as follows:

	Empire	Inland	Third Offeror
Subfactor 1: Recovery Plan	Exceptional	Marginal	Marginal
Subfactor 2: Continuation of Essential Service Plan	Marginal	Unacceptable	Unacceptable
Past Performance	Limited Confidence	Substantial Confidence	Unknown Confidence
Price[1]	$877,014	$1,622,841.78	$900,000

AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Decision Document, at 4.

In selecting Empire for award on September 29, the source selection authority (SSA) found that the marginal rating Empire's proposal received under the second subfactor could be corrected by requiring Empire to update its continuation of essential service plan to address the requirement to communicate expectations to employees regarding their roles during a crisis, and that Empire's price was fair and reasonable when compared with the IGE and the third offeror.  Id. at 2.  The SSA also found that, despite a past performance rating of limited confidence, the company's recovery plan reflected extensive knowledge of the requirements for the collection and disposal of spent deicing fluid.  Id.

In contrast, the SSA found that despite Inland's past performance rating of substantial confidence, and the possibility that it may have been able to improve its marginal rating under the recovery plan subfactor to exceptional during discussions, the proposal merited an unacceptable rating under the continuation of essential service plan subfactor.  The SSA further found that because Inland's proposed price  was 46 percent more than Empire's and 55 percent higher than the IGE, it was not likely that Inland would decrease its price in negotiations sufficiently to become competitive with the other offerors.  Id.

DISCUSSION

Inland contends that the Air Force unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the two technical acceptability subfactors; that Empire's and Inland's proposals were evaluated unequally under the continuation of essential service plan subfactor; and that the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Empire's past performance.  Because, as discussed below, we conclude that the agency reasonably found Inland's proposal unacceptable under the continuation of essential service plan subfactor, we need only address this issue.

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations.  See Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4.  It is an offeror's obligation to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows for a meaningful review by the procuring agency.  American Title Servs., a Joint Venture, B-404455, Feb. 4, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 38 at 4.  A protester's mere disagreement with the evaluation is not sufficient to render it unreasonable.  Ben-Mar Enters. Inc., B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 68 at 7. 

Under the continuation of essential service plan subfactor, the SSEB rated Inland's plan unacceptable because its proposal failed to provide a specific plan that addressed the minimum solicitation requirements.  AR, Tab 11, SSEB Report,
at 8-9. 

Under the heading "States of Emergency", and the subheading "Performance During Crisis," the proposal stated as follows: 

[DELETED]

AR, Tab 6, Inland Technical Proposal, at 16.

In the absence of a specific response, the agency evaluated Inland's states of emergency discussion as its response to the continuation of essential service plan requirement, and concluded that the discussion was inadequate because it merely acknowledged the requirement to provide 24-hour coverage.  AR, Tab 11, SSEB Report, at 8.  The agency concluded that the protester's proposal failed to adequately address any of the requirements under the subfactor  Id.

As a preliminary matter, the protester concedes that it did not provide a specific continuation of essential service plan that was outlined in a single section of its proposal.  See Protest at 7.  Inland argues, however, that the solicitation instructions provided only "limited guidance" regarding this requirement, and did not require a specific, identifiable plan.  Protester's Comments at 3, 8.  Instead, the protester argues that the agency should have understood or inferred that it had addressed the solicitation requirements based on scattered references in its proposal.  See id.  We disagree.

With regard to the requirement for a specific plan, the RFP specifically stated that "[t]he offeror shall submit a plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed during periods of crisis," and further stated that the plan "will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror has provided a written plan describing how they will continue to perform their essential contractor services."  RFP at 23, 28.  On this record, we find no merit to Inland's argument that the solicitation was unclear or did not require a specific written plan addressing the continuation of essential service requirement.[2]

In light of the RFP's clear requirement to provide a written plan, and the protester's acknowledgement that it did not provide a specific written plan, we think that the SSEB's evaluation of Inland's proposal was reasonable under this subfactor.  To the extent that Inland argues that the Air Force should have understood or inferred that it had addressed the continuation of essential services plan subfactor requirements based on scattered references throughout its proposal, we disagree.  See Telecom Support Servs. Inc., B-407305, Dec. 4, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 347 at 3.  (evaluators are not required to adapt their evaluation to comply with an offeror's submission or search for information).  Since the record confirms that Inland failed to include a continuation of essential service plan that addressed the minimum solicitation requirements, we find the SSEB's evaluation of the proposal as technically unacceptable to be reasonable.  See American Title Servs., a Joint Venture, supra.

We further think that the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal with regard to the "States of Emergency" section was reasonable, in that this reference appeared to be the only reference that specifically addressed the requirements of the subfactor.  As discussed above, the agency found that this section was merely a generic acknowledgement of the solicitation requirements that did not address the specific elements of the continuation of essential service plan subfactor, apart from the equipment regarding the time to respond to a continuity.  AR, Tab 11, SSEB Report, at 8.  It is well-settled that it is the offeror's duty to include sufficiently detailed information in its proposal to establish that the equipment offered will meet the solicitation requirements, and that blanket statements of full compliance are insufficient to fulfill this duty.[3]  IVI Corp., B-310766, Jan. 23, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 21 at 3. 

We also find no merit to the protester's argument that Inland's and Empire's proposals were treated unequally.  The record reflects that Empire's proposal was rated marginal, rather than unacceptable because the SSEB found that Empire's proposal did not address one of the requirements, regarding an approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities.  AR, Tab 11, SSEB Report at 6.  As discussed above, Inland's proposal received an unacceptable rating because it failed to include a continuation of essential service plan that adequately addressed any of the five requirements.  Id. at 8-9.  On this record, we find no evidence that the SSEB evaluated the proposals unequally or in a manner inconsistent with the evaluation criteria.

Because we conclude that the Air Force reasonably found Inland's proposal unacceptable under the continuation of essential service plan subfactor, and therefore ineligible for award, we need not address the protester's other arguments.  In this regard, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably rated its proposal as marginal under the recovery plan subfactor.  Even if we were to agree with the protester's argument regarding this subfactor, the protester could not have been prejudiced because it would remain ineligible for award based on its unacceptable rating under the continuation of essential service plan.  See Systems Research and Applications. Corp., B-407224.3, Dec. 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 352 at 11.

Similarly, Inland complains that the SSEB unreasonably assigned Empire's proposal a limited confidence rating for past performance, because Empire's past performance record evidenced that the firm had not performed a deicing contract valued at $150,000 dollars or more--which was the value threshold for finding a performance reference relevant under the evaluation criteria.[4]  Inland argues that Empire should have received an unknown confidence rating based on its lack of relevant past performance, and that this is further evidence that the agency elevated Empire's proposal and treated offeror's unequally.  Even if we were to agree with the protester that Empire's proposal merited an unknown confidence rating, this rating would not preclude award to Empire.  See RFP at 28; see Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., B-296516.2, B-296516.3, Mar. 17, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 63 at 11 n.5; Wilcox Indus. Corp., B-281437.2 et al., June 30, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 3 at 5 n.5.

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling
General Counsel

---