B-299546.2, Control Systems Research, Inc., August 31, 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: Control Systems Research, Inc.
Hoke
Smith,
Joel
H. McNatt, Esq., Cheek & Falcone, PLLC, for Atmospheric Technology Services
Company, an intervenor.
Raymond
M. Saunders, Esq., and Maj. Carla T. Peters, Department of the Army, for the
agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging agency’s technical and past performance evaluation is denied, where the agency evaluated the protester’s proposal in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.
DECISION
Control Systems Research,
Inc., (CSR) protests the award of a contract by the Department of the Army to
Atmospheric Technology Services Company (ATSC) under request for proposals
(RFP) No. W9113M-06-R-0001, for meteorological support services (
The USAKA/RTS is located on
The solicitation was issued on
A site visit was held for the prospective offerors on July 17 to 19.[3] On July 20, the RFP package was updated to address questions generated by the site visit. CO Statement at 2; RFP amend. 2. Proposals were due on July 31.
Three proposals were received in response to the RFP. CSR’s proposal was evaluated as “acceptable”
in the technical and management areas with an “unknown risk” past performance
rating and a total evaluated probable cost of $13,183,734.[4] ATSC’s proposal was evaluated as
“exceptional” for the technical and management areas with a “low risk” past
performance rating and a total evaluated probable cost of $17,295,557.[5] Based upon a cost/technical tradeoff, the
agency concluded that ATSC’s proposal represented the best value to the
government and decided to make award to that firm.[6] AR, Tab 12a, Source Selection Decision (
CSR filed a pre-award protest with our Office on
The agency then reevaluated the source selection documents
and issued a new source selection decision wherein ATSC was again selected for
contract award. AR, Tab 12B, Amended
Source Selection Decision (
It is true that CSR is the lowest cost but that is where the benefit that CSR brings to the table ends. In a best value determination I am to perform a comparative cost/technical trade off and determine whether the non cost strengths of the higher priced offerors warrant the price premium. In this case ATSC is Technically and Managerially superior to CSR. Of the 11 personnel they provided resumes for, 10 have degrees in their field and 8 have experience either in forecasting in an ITCZ or maintaining equipment in a corrosive marine environment. The functional mix of employees ATSC proposed are qualified to perform the functions assigned to them and ATSC has expertise and past performance data directly relating to customers typically found at USAKA/RTS.
After a debriefing, this protest to our Office followed.[9]
CSR first challenges its “unknown risk” past performance rating. As indicated above, CSR’s “unknown risk” past performance rating was assigned because the agency determined that it had no relevant performance history. CSR argues that the agency in evaluating past performance improperly restricted relevant past performance to meteorological support experience with MRTFB ranges conducting missile defense and space launch operations. CSR asserts that its proposal showed substantial relevant past performance in meteorological support for aviation operations, which, according to CSR, are similar to the mission support requirements required under this solicitation. Therefore, the protester contends that a rating of “unknown risk” for its past performance was inappropriate because CSR’s proposal reflected that the firm had a relevant past performance record.
We review agency determinations regarding whether past
performance references are relevant for reasonableness and consistency with the
RFP evaluation criteria. Bevilacqua
Research Corp., B-293051, Jan. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 14 at 6;
The RFP provided with respect to the past performance area
that the currency and relevance of the offerors’ past performance would be
evaluated and called for offerors to provide a list of contracts during the
last 3 years “for efforts similar to this
Providing meteorological mission support services; Providing meteorological data reduction and analysis services; and Operating and maintaining electronic instrumentation in a corrosive marine environment.
The
The record supports the agency’s conclusion that the type
of meteorological support needed for USAKA/RTS is different in a significant
way than the meteorological support for ordinary CONUS aviation operations.[11] While CSR has expressed disagreement with the
materiality of some of the agency’s stated differences between these
meteorological services, it has not, in our view, shown that these differences
are not legitimate or immaterial; indeed, CSR did not rebut that the agency’s
point that additional sensor packages are necessary for the meteorological
support services. CSR’s Comments at
12-14. Additionally, none of CSR’s past
performance references cite corporate experience in operating and maintaining
electronic instrumentation in a corrosive marine environment. We thus find the agency reasonably rated
CSR’s past performance as “unknown risk.”
CSR’s also challenges the agency’s evaluation of its
proposal under the management and technical areas. The evaluation of a technical proposal is
primarily the responsibility of the contracting agency, since the agency is
responsible for defining its needs and the best methods of accommodating them,
and it must bear the burden of any difficulties resulting from a defective
evaluation. Federal Envtl. Servs.,
Inc., B-260289, B-260490,
CSR argues that the considerable meteorological experience of its key personnel was not reasonably evaluated. The RFP stated the following with regard to the personnel experience factor of the technical area:
The Government will evaluate the educational and work experience of each offeror’s key personnel to determine the extent to which they are relevant or related to:
a. Providing meteorological mission support services;
b. Performing meteorological measurements near the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)
c. Performing meteorological data reduction and analysis
d. Operating and maintaining range weather instrumentation electronic instrumentation in a corrosive marine environment.
RFP at 68.[12]
As stated above, the agency deemed meteorological
experience with missile mission support to be relevant to the meteorological
work to be performed under this contract at USAKA/RTS, and the protester’s
proposal was downgraded because none of CSR’s key personnel had such experience. AR, Tab 12B, Amended Source Selection
Decision (
With regard to the remainder of the technical area as well as the management area, CSR essentially contends that the RFP work is simply for meteorological services and the agency’s evaluation gave unreasonable weight to the alleged differences with respect to the solicited meteorological services. As stated above, we find the agency could find these differences significant. Thus, it could reasonably downgrade CSR’s proposal for failing to recognize or address these differences in its proposal.[13]
Finally, CSR objects to the award selection decision. Where, as here, the RFP allows for a
price/technical tradeoff, the selection official has discretion to select a
higher-priced, but technically higher rated proposal, if doing so is reasonably
found to be justified. BTC Contract
Servs., Inc., B-295877,
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] The ITCZ is the region that circles the earth, near the equator, where the trade winds of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere come together, which causes unique and varying weather patterns. See http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov.
[2] The first of the technical factors was significantly more important than the second factor.
[3]
The protester argues that contrary to the terms of the RFP, when its
representative arrived in
[4]
The solicitation advised offerors that adjectival ratings of “exceptional,”
“good,” “acceptable,” and “unacceptable” would be assigned for each evaluation
area and factor. AR, Tab 9, Source
Selection Evaluation Plan, at 7-8. The
past performance area would receive an adjectival rating of either “low risk,”
“moderate risk,” “high risk,” and “unknown risk.”
[5]
The high ratings for ATSC’s proposal were in part based on the fact that the
proposed key ATSC employees had performed all aspects of meteorological support
services for USAKA/RTS while they were employed by a predecessor firm on this
contract. Agency Report (AR),
Tab 8, ATSC’s Proposal, vol. V, at 10.
While CSR questions ATSC’s low risk past performance rating because that
firm had limited meteorological experience, an agency can consider key
personnel in evaluating past performance.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii); Trailboss
Enters., Inc., B-297742,
[6] The third offeror’s proposal had a significantly higher total evaluated probable cost of [REDACTED]. This proposal was evaluated as “exceptional” for the technical area, and “good” for the management area, and received a “low risk” past performance rating.
[7]
The agency acknowledged that CSR had
a “wealth” of past performance with regard to meteorological forecasting and
observation. AR, Tab 12B, Amended Source
Selection Decision (
[8]
CSR argues that the reevaluation was simply a “smokescreen” by the contracting
officer to “complete negotiations and award this contract to ATSC unencumbered
by the GAO.” CSR’s Comments at 23. CSR also makes a number of other allegations
of bias and bad faith by agency officials in favor of ATSC. Government officials are presumed to act in
good faith and any argument that contracting officials are motivated by bias or
bad faith must be supported by convincing proof; we will not attribute unfair
or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference or
suppositions. ACC Constr. Co., Inc.,
B-289167,
[9]
CSR complains about the content and scheduling of the debriefing. We will not consider these issues because the
scheduling and conduct of a debriefing is a procedural matter that does not
involve the validity of an award. The
Ideal Solution, LLC, B-298300,
[10]
According to agency, there is no network of sensors outside of the Kwajalein
Atoll, and the nearest sources of additional weather data are
[11]
CSR contends that requiring experience in
providing meteorological support of missile testing and space operations is
unnecessarily restrictive because such experience can only be acquired at the
USAKA/RTS. CSR’s Comments at 11. However, the agency maintains that similar
experience could have been acquired at another MRTFB, such as Vandenberg Air
Force Base,
[12] These four subfactors were equally weighted. RFP at 71.
[13]
For example, one of the reasons CSR’s proposal was downgraded, which has not
been contested by CSR, is that it appears that CSR has no familiarity with the
Universal Documentation System used for all customers of USAKA /RTS. AR, Tab 12B, Amended Source Selection
Decision, at 2.
[14] FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv) provides, “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.”
[15] CSR made a number of other nonmeritorious contentions which we did consider but did not expressly discuss in this decision.