B-310732, PMC Solutions, Inc., January 22, 2008
Decision
Matter of: PMC Solutions,
Inc.
Britain Harvey for the protester.
David P. Blackwood, Esq., U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, for the agency.
Frank Maguire, Esq., and John M. Melody,
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of
the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that agency
improperly evaluated protester’s technical proposal with regard to employment
status of proposed expert and protester’s status as subcontractor under prior contracts
is denied where record shows evaluation was reasonable and in accord with
stated evaluation criteria.
2. Protest that agency, in “best value”
procurement, improperly made award to offeror proposing significantly higher
price than protester’s is denied where record shows agency considered
protester’s and awardee’s proposals’ strengths and weaknesses in determining
that technical superiority of awardee’s proposal outweighed protester’s lower
price.
DECISION
PMC Solutions, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) under request for proposals (RFP) CR-07-0002, issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), for Lean Six Sigma (LSS) support.
The RFP was issued
under the streamlined procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
subpart 12.6 on
Ten proposals were
received in response to the RFP. The proposals
were reviewed by a technical evaluation panel, which rated BAH’s and PMC’s
proposals outstanding. BAH’s price was
$129,500 and PMC’s was $29,709. Agency
Report at 1; Protest at 3.[1] The agency made award to BAH based on its
finding that evaluated weaknesses in PMC’s proposal and strengths in BAH’s
proposal made BAH’s proposal the best value, despite its substantially higher
price. PMC contends that its technical
proposal was improperly evaluated in two respects and that the agency conducted
an improper price/technical tradeoff.
SSL EXPERT
PMC contends that
its proposal was unreasonably downgraded on the basis that one of its proposed
LSS experts was a contract employee rather than a PMC employee. Protest at 1.
PMC asserts that the downgrading was unreasonable because there was no
requirement in the RFP that proposed personnel be in-house employees.
In reviewing an agency’s technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals, but will
examine the record to ensure that it was reasonable and in accordance with the
stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes
and regulations. Harris Corp.,
B-299864 et al.,
The evaluation here was unobjectionable. USCCR explains that the availability of PMC’s
expert was a concern in view of USCCR’s requirement that the project be
underway promptly after award. Agency
Report, Statement of Contracting Officer (SCO), at 1-2. PMC’s proposal included a resume indicating
that the expert in question was not a PMC employee and was currently involved
in a project for another company. Agency
Report, Tab B, PMC Proposal, attach 1, at 4.
USCCR determined that the expert’s employment status raised doubts
regarding his availability for a “quick turnaround project” that “needed to be
performed on a very tight timeframe.”
SCO at 1-2. Although the
RFP did not expressly require that proposed experts be employed directly by the
contractor, and the evaluation factors did not specifically address employment
status, in evaluating a proposal an agency properly may take into account
specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically
encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. Preferred Sys. Solutions, B-291750,
PAST PERFORMANCE
Consistent with the
RFP, PMC submitted three past performance summaries, including projects for the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Protest at 2. PMC contends that the agency improperly rated
its proposal “higher risk” on the basis that it was the prime contractor on
only one of the three submitted projects.
This aspect of the
evaluation was reasonable. USCCR
explains that it was concerned with offerors’ experience with “quick
performance” projects and as the “lead” on relevant projects, which closely
reflected the contractor’s roles and responsibilities under the instant
contract. SCO at 2. USCCR determined that, although the Coast
Guard project on which PMC worked was a “quick turnaround,” PMC was a member of
a team of five firms and it was unclear what support PMC received from the
other firms.
Although the RFP did
not express a specific preference or requirement for past performance as a
prime or “lead” contractor, USCCR properly could take into account in its past
performance evaluation relevant information reasonably predictive of the quality
of contract performance. Preferred
Sys. Solutions, Inc., supra, at 2.
Since the awardee here would be a prime contractor, the agency
reasonably could consider offerors’ performance of prior contracts as a prime
contractor. Likewise, since the agency’s
requirement entailed quick turnaround work, it reasonably could consider
offerors’ performance of prior contracts under which quick turnaround work was
required. Both considerations clearly would
be predictive of future performance and, therefore, reasonably were encompassed
by the past performance evaluation. See
Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture, B‑297011.3, B-297011.4,
PRICE/TECHICAL
TRADEOFF
PMC asserts that,
given that its and BAH’s proposals received the same outstanding rating, award
to BAH at a four times higher price could not be the “best value” to the
government, consistent with the solicitation.
Where, as here, a
solicitation provides for a price/technical tradeoff, the agency retains discretion to make award
to an offeror with a higher technical rating, despite a higher price, so long
as the tradeoff decision is properly justified and otherwise
consistent with the stated evaluation and source selection scheme. Midwest Metals, Inc., B-299805,
Ratings, be they numerical, color, or adjectival, are merely guides for intelligent decision making in the
procurement process. Citywide
Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13,
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] The record includes conflicting award amounts, including $120,000, $129,000, and $120,500. For simplicity, we use $129,500, the figure set forth in the agency report. Agency Report at 1. The amount of the award does not affect our decision.
[2]
PMC seems to argue that USCCR should have entered into “clarifications” with it
following receipt of proposals. Protest
at 3; Protester’s Comments,