B-400109.2, Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated, July 28, 2008
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: Savantage Financial Services, Incorporated
Katherine
S. Nucci, Esq., and Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, and Jon W. van
Horne, Esq., VHT Law PLLC, for the protester.
Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq., Wiley
Rein LLP, for The
Lauren Kalish, Esq., and Mark Langstein, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the
agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Evaluation of protester’s technical proposal was unobjectionable where agency reasonably found weaknesses associated with sufficiency of information regarding firm’s proposal of project management tool and project manager; risk connected to extensive hiring process; and lack of experience with customized help desk software.
DECISION
Savantage Financial Services,
Incorporated protests the issuance of a task order to The
The RFP sought functional and technical support services
for the BSD with the principal goal of supporting the agency’s commerce
business system. Proposals were to
include a description of the vendor’s technical approach, including its
Proposals were to be evaluated for “best value” on the
basis of six factors (with relevant subfactors)--(A) technical approach; (B)
management plan (quality control plan, project management plan, and staff
recruitment/retention plan); (C) key personnel (resumes of project manager,
testing lead, and development lead); (D) experience; (E) past performance;
and evaluated cost. Factor A was most
important and was slightly more important than factors B and C, which were
approximately equal to one another.
Factors B and C, individually, were more important than factors D and E,
which were approximately equal in importance.
The non-cost factors were rated on an adjectival basis (exceptional,
acceptable, marginal, unacceptable, and, for past performance only,
neutral). Evaluated cost was
approximately equal in importance to the non-cost factors combined and was not
scored. Instead, the agency would
determine whether proposed costs were consistent with the cost proposal
instructions and, if necessary would ensure that the costs reflected 1,920
hours multiplied by the proposed fully burdened hourly rate for each NIST
functional title. Hourly rates that
exceeded applicable
Four vendors, including Savantage and
Savantage |
|
|
Factor A: Technical Approach |
Acceptable |
Exceptional |
Factor B:
Management Plan |
Acceptable |
Exceptional |
Quality Control Plan |
Acceptable |
Acceptable |
Project Management Plan |
Acceptable |
Exceptional |
Staff Recruitment/Retention Plan |
Acceptable |
Exceptional |
Factor C: Key
Personnel |
Exceptional |
Exceptional |
Project Manager |
Exceptional |
Exceptional |
Testing
Lead |
Exceptional |
Exceptional |
Development Lead |
Exceptional |
Acceptable |
Factor D: Experience |
Acceptable |
Acceptable |
Factor E:
Past Performance |
Exceptional |
Exceptional |
Proposed Cost |
$14,678,304 |
$15,582,336 |
Evaluated
(Probable) Cost |
$15,022,283.68 |
$15,582,336 |
The agency made no adjustments to
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
Technical Approach
Under the technical approach factor, proposals were to be
evaluated on the soundness and feasibility of the vendor’s proposed technical
approach and on how it intended to satisfy the technical requirements in the
performance work statement and performance requirements summary. RFP sect. M.2. In evaluating Savantage’s proposal as
acceptable under this factor, the
Savantage asserts that its proposal should have been rated exceptional under this factor because it developed, and has “the greatest in-depth knowledge of and experience with, the software application system” used by NIST, the support of which is the purpose of the services being procured here. Protest at 12.
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 in this area was reasonable. Under the agency’s source selection
evaluation standards, in order to receive an exceptional rating, a proposal had
to exceed the RFP requirements and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the
goals and objectives of the acquisition with one or more significant strengths
and no significant weaknesses. AR, Tab
4, at 11. An acceptable rating was
represented by a good level of understanding of the goals and objectives, with
strengths outweighing any weaknesses.
Project Management Tool
Under the management plan factor, proposals were to be
evaluated under three subfactors--quality control plan, project management
plan, and staff recruitment and retention plan.
Overall, the government was to evaluate the likelihood that a vendor’s
proposed plan to manage important aspects of the acquisition would result in
efficient and effective contract management that would ensure the agency’s
requirements were met. RFP
sect. M.2. In evaluating Savantage’s
proposal as acceptable under the quality control and project management
subfactors, the
Savantage asserts that these weaknesses and the concerns underlying them are not valid, claiming that its proposal made clear that the InControl tool was for use by its project manager, not by NIST; that its use was optional; that it specifically proposed to use MS Project; and that access to all project performance information would be provided through its project management web site. Protest at 13; Initial Comments at 13; Final Comments at 2-3.
The evaluation was unobjectionable. Under the relevant subfactors, the RFP
provided for evaluation of how the vendor intended to provide effective quality
control and relevant performance measures, and how it would perform project
management via its proposed manager, including supervision, issue resolution,
schedule management, resource management, and budget management. RFP sect. M.2. A vendor’s proposed project management tools
and the agency’s access to the information produced by them are relevant to
these subfactors. Savantage’s proposal
recognized that NIST had many of its own tools and procedures in place, and stated
Savantage’s plan to utilize them, but it also made clear that Savantage planned
to use [deleted]. Proposal at 76. Savantage’s proposal did also include use of
MS Project--the management tool in use at NIST (
Project Manager
The
Savantage asserts that the assessed weakness was based on
an unreasonable reading of its proposal and was unwarranted. Specifically, Savantage explains, it proposed
the manager as a full-time employee at the required 1,920 hours per year, Initial
Comments at 4, and clearly provided that she would be “accessible to NIST
[deleted]” Proposal at 73. Savantage states that the reference to the
manager’s availability referred only to issue resolution.
The evaluation in this area was reasonable. The RFP required that all work be done on
site at NIST. RFP at 14. Savantage’s proposal stated that the manager
would be accessible at all times but, with regard to issue resolution, referred
only to [deleted] access; it did not state, for example, that issue resolution
could be initiated via face-to-face contact.
Likewise, even though the manager was proposed on a full-time basis,
Savantage points to no affirmative statement in its proposal that she would be
on site full time. In addition, the
proposed manager’s resume reasonably could be read to imply less than full-time
dedication to the solicited work. In
this regard, under a heading entitled “Savantage Solutions 7/1997--Present,”
the resume details various positions the proposed manager, as [deleted], has
held in the past, all of which were discussed in the past tense. Proposal at 92. In contrast, the resume speaks in the present
tense regarding the manager’s current work as “project manager for [deleted]
accounts,” and as “Program Manager for [deleted] project.”
Staff Recruitment
The
Savantage asserts that this weakness was unwarranted. In its view, its proposal provided all required information and represented a typical hiring process. Protest at 15-16; Proposal at 85-86. It further notes that, in accordance with the RFP, its proposal specifically promised to provide resumes within 10 days of vacancy of a position. Proposal at 10.
The evaluation here was reasonable. Under this subfactor, proposals were to be
evaluated on the basis of a vendor’s capability to obtain suitable resources to
effectively perform the required work, including the breadth of the pool of
resources, recruiting strategies and techniques, ability to screen candidates
to match qualifications, experience, visa requirements, and availability to
perform. RFP sect. M.2. Savantage’s proposed process included
[deleted]. Proposal at 85. Once this was done, Savantage would
[deleted].
Experience with Remedy Help Desk
In evaluating Savantage’s proposal as acceptable under the
experience factor, the
The evaluation in this area was unobjectionable. The Remedy application is used at NIST to
track such things as the names of help desk users, the issues addressed, and
the number of calls received and resolved.
Savantage does not maintain that it in fact possesses experience with NIST’s customized application; rather, it asserts that requiring this experience is restrictive of competition, since only an incumbent contractor could possess it. Likewise, Savantage does not argue that its key personnel had experience with the application; rather, it asserts that its key personnel would not be using this software tool, and thus did not need this experience, and that its help desk lead--who would use it--had demonstrated experience. Final Comments at 8-9.
Savantage’s assertions are without merit. There is nothing unreasonable--or unduly restrictive of competition--in an agency’s evaluation taking into account a vendor’s experience, or lack of experience, with the version of an application actually in use at the agency. Similarly, although Savantage’s key personnel were not directly responsible for the help desk work, the evaluators could reasonably view their lack of experience with this application as a weakness to the extent that their positions involved the help desk function. Thus, for example, the agency reasonably could consider the project manager’s experience with the application, since she would be responsible for overall supervision of contract operations (including the help desk), reviewing and monitoring technical work for quality and efficiency, and proactively identifying issues or problems. RFP sect. J.1, attach. 1. We conclude that there is no basis for questioning this aspect of the evaluation.
As discussed, under the RFP, vendors were to base their
cost proposals on their and any partner’s current
Savantage challenges the upward adjustment of its proposed escalation factor for its proposed labor rates, asserting that a proper analysis would have confirmed the validity of its proposed rates, which were based on its experience under contracts with similar skill sets.
The evaluation and upward adjustment of the escalation
factor appear to have been consistent with the RFP. However, we need not determine whether the
adjustment was reasonable. In this
regard, the SSA, in his source selection decision, specifically determined
that, even if no adjustments for cost realism purposes had been made--which
would have resulted in a 6.2 percent cost advantage for Savantage as compared
to the evaluated 3.7 percent difference--he still would have decided that
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] Savantage challenges the agency’s award on numerous bases. We have considered all of Savantage’s arguments and find that they have no merit, or that the alleged impropriety did not prejudice the protester. This decision addresses Savantage’s most significant arguments.
[2] As described in its proposal, the InControl toolkit includes [deleted]. Proposal at 65.
[3]
Contrary to Savantage’s assertion (Final Comments at 3), the evaluators did not
“completely miss” its inclusion of MS Project as one of its tools. One of the evaluators identified, as
strengths, the firm’s use of MS Project and [deleted]. AR, Tab 8.
While these strengths were not included in the consensus evaluation,
their presence in the individual worksheets demonstrates that the
[4]
Savantage also challenges the agency’s assessing a weakness under the key
personnel factor due to the project manager’s apparent lack of full dedication
to the NIST project. Protest at 16. In a related argument, Savantage asserts that
the
[5]
Savantage asserts that this weakness originated with an individual evaluator
who found that the vendor’s “outside” hiring seemed extensive. Final Comments at 7. Savantage maintains that, in light of its
large pool of internal resources, outside hiring will be rare and thus did not
warrant downgrading its proposal.
[6]
Savantage also argues that, based on its experience in developing the agency’s
financial management system, its proposal should have been evaluated as
exceptional under this factor. Protest
at 19. This assertion is without
merit. The