CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc.
Highlights
CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to System High Corporation, also of Chantilly, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HR0011-11-R-0003, issued by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Department of Defense, for security support services.
We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.
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: CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc.
File: B-406130
Date: February 28, 2012
Richard J. Webber, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for the protester.
Lee Dougherty, General Counsel PC, for the intervenor.
Geraldine Chanel, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for the agency.
Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest challenging agencys evaluation of the protesters and awardees proposals under a technical approach factor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criterion.
2. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of the awardees proposal under other technical evaluation factors and to challenge the agencys cost realism evaluation, where, even accepting the protesters arguments, another intervening offeror (whose proposal is not challenged) would be in line for award.
DECISION
CACI Dynamic Systems, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to System High Corporation, also of Chantilly, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HR0011-11-R-0003, issued by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Department of Defense, for security support services.
We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.
BACKGROUND
DARPA is the central research and development agency within the Department of Defense. Agency Report (AR) at 1. DARPAs Security and Intelligence Directorate (SID) provides an important role in supporting DARPAs mission. In this regard, SID plans, executes, and directs multi-disciplined security, emergency management, and international cooperation efforts at DARPA. See RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 3.
The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for security services supporting SID for a base year and 4 option years with a 1-month transition-in period and a 1-month transition-out period. The services and support to be provided under the contract were detailed in the SOW. See SOW at 3-51. The objective of the contract is to augment SIDs staff and execute functions that the SOW describes as inherently non-governmental functions that are central to SIDs responsibilities. Id. at 3.
Offerors were informed that award would be on a best value basis, considering the following evaluation factors: technical approach, personnel, past performance, cost, and other (Small Business Subcontracting Plan). RFP § M.1 at 64-68. Subfactors were identified under the technical approach, personnel, and past performance factors.[1] The RFP provided that the technical approach and personnel factors were of equal importance and both were more important than the past performance factor. The RFP also informed offerors that the non-cost factors combined were more important than cost. The other (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) factor was stated to be of less importance than cost. Id. at 64.
The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals under each factor and subfactor. As relevant here, with respect to the management plan/execution of contract requirements subfactor, offerors were instructed to provide, among other things, information on their processes, procedures, and supervision plan to assure timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction of contract requirements in the SOW. RFP § L.8 at 45. With respect to the corporate support/facilities subfactor, offerors were instructed to discuss how their corporate philosophy, structure, physical facilities, in-house support staff, and other features of their operations might enhance or otherwise support the project. Offerors were specifically instructed to include information confirming whether they would satisfy the requirement for a Top Secret facility clearance. Id. at 46-47.
With respect to the personnel factor, offerors were instructed to provide resumes for all personnel proposed for the base year. RFP § L.8 at 47. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate resumes of all key personnel, and other randomly selected non-key personnel, for the extent to which these personnel possessed minimum qualifications and demonstrated relevant experience. RFP § M.1 at 66.
With respect to the past performance factor, offerors were instructed to provide their past performance history for all recent (within the past 5 years) and relevant work. The RFP stated that DARPA would consider an offerors past performance to be relevant if it addresses similar tasks found in this RFPs Statement of Work and was performed for [the Department of Defense], one of the services, or the intelligence community. RFP § L.9 at 59 (emphasis in original). The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate offerors past performance based upon the information provided in the past performance proposals, but that the agency may obtain information from other sources. Id. at 60.
The RFP recognized the importance of the government-wide goals for increased participation by small business concerns, noting that offerors who are not small businesses were encouraged to comply with the small business subcontracting goals set forth in the Small Business Act. Such offerors were instructed to specifically identify the small businesses they were proposing, and describe the extent of such small businesses participation in terms of the value of the total acquisition. RFP § L.5 at 41.
DARPA received proposals from five offerors, including CACI (the incumbent) and System High.[2] The technical proposals were reviewed by the agencys technical evaluation panel (TEP); past performance proposals by the past performance evaluation panel and cost proposals by the cost/price evaluation panel. All of these panels prepared consensus evaluation reports that were provided to the agencys source selection evaluation board (SSEB). Discussions were conducted with all five offerors, and proposal revisions received and evaluated. Final proposal revisions were evaluated as follows:[3]
| Technical Approach |
Personnel | Past Performance | Evaluated Cost[4] |
Other |
System High | Blue | Blue | Blue | $79.16M | N/A |
Offeror A | Blue | Blue | Blue | $87.78M | Blue |
CACI | Blue | Blue | Blue | $99.21M | Green |
Offeror B | Green | Green | Green | $90.70M | Blue |
Offeror C | Green | Green | Blue | $82.74M | Red |
AR, Tab 32, SSEB Source Selection Recommendation Report (SSEB Report), at 6.
The evaluation panels consensus reports and the SSEB Report were provided to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who also received briefings. AR, Tab 33, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 1. The SSA determined that the proposals of System High, Offeror A, and CACI were essentially equal under the technical approach, personnel, and past performance factors. The SSA also concluded that System Highs technical proposal was slightly more desirable under the other (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) factor, because System High was a small business, and CACI and Offeror A were not. Id. at 5. Given the three highest rated offerors essential technical equivalence, the SSA selected System Highs proposal for award based upon its lower evaluated cost. Id. at 5-6.
Following a debriefing, CACI filed this protest.
DISCUSSION
Technical Approach Factor
CACI complains that the agency unreasonably assigned the same ratings to its and System Highs proposals under the management plan/execution of contract requirements and the corporate support/facilities subfactors. With respect to the management plan/execution of contract requirements subfactor, DARPA rated both firms proposals as blue/exceptional. See AR, Tab 32, SSEB Report, at 6. CACI contends that System Highs proposal should not have been rated blue/exceptional because System High allegedly lacks experience to manage a contract of this size, including managing the transition to performance. Additionally, CACI complains that System Highs proposed staff was comprised of a large number of contingent hires and its proposed program manager had only been with the awardee since July 2011. See Protesters Comments at 31-32.
The evaluation of an offerors proposal is a matter largely within the agencys discretion. Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Found., Ltd., B-402380, Mar. 22, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 91 at 5. In reviewing a protest that challenges an agencys evaluation of proposals, our Office will not reevaluate the proposals, but, rather, will examine the record to determine whether the agencys judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. With respect to color or adjectival ratings, we have recognized that they are merely guides for intelligent decision-making in the procurement process. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 11. Where an agency reasonably considers the underlying bases for the ratings, including the advantages and disadvantages associated with the specific content of competing proposals, in a manner that is fair and consistent with the terms of the RFP, the protesters disagreement over the adjectival or color ratings is essentially inconsequential in that it does not affect the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source selection decision. Sherrick Aerospace, B-310359.2, Jan. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 17 at 6.
Here, the evaluators found that System High offered a management plan that exceeded the RFPs requirements. Among the numerous strengths cited by the evaluators was System Highs identification of innovative management practices, such as the firms Customer Operational Processing Engine, an enterprise-wide, multi-purpose management tool, which would provide the agency with scalability and flexibility to integrate with its current data systems. See AR, Tab 27, Final System High Technical Consensus Evaluation Report, at 2. The evaluators also noted the awardees clear-cut approach to communications between contractor and government staff. Id. With respect to System Highs transition plan, the evaluators found that the awardees plan was comprehensive and extremely detailed, providing necessary staff within the time required and addressing all task areas and necessary training. Id. The agency noted no weaknesses in System Highs proposal under this factor.
Although CACI contends that System High lacks the size and experience to be rated blue/exceptional under this factor, the RFP did not provide for consideration of an offerors size or experience under the management plan/execution of contracts requirements subfactor. Rather, the RFP informed offerors that the agency would be evaluating offerors processes, procedures, and practices to manage and execute the contract. See RFP § M.1 at 65. Similarly, System Highs staffing plan and/or proposed personnel were not evaluated under this subfactor, as CACI seems to believe. We also find no merit to CACIs complaint concerning System Highs proposal of a large number of staff for which it had letters of intent. The RFP specifically informed offerors:
Assuming the quality of the personnel are the same, an Offeror proposing key personnel under Letters of Intent/Commitment will be rated equally as one proposing personnel currently employed.
RFP § M.1 at 67. In short, given the agencys determination that System Highs proposal had numerous strengths and no weaknesses under the management plan/execution of contracts requirements subfactor, the record supports the agencys assessment of the awardees proposal as blue/exceptional.
CACI also complains that the agency rated both its and System Highs proposal as acceptable under the corporate support/facilities subfactor. CACI contends that the agency improperly failed to recognize that CACI provides far greater quality of corporate support/facilities than System High, given its longer existence and larger size. Protest at 27-28.
As noted above, offerors were instructed to discuss how their corporate philosophy, structure, physical facilities, in-house support staff and other features of its operation might enhance or otherwise support the project. In addition, offerors were requested to confirm that they and their subcontractors had a Top Secret facility clearance. See RFP § L.8 at 46-47. The evaluators found that both CACI and System High satisfied, but did not exceed, the RFP requirements.
The record shows that CACI in its initial proposal stated that three of its subcontractors did not have Top Secret facility clearances, although they anticipated receiving them soon. See CACI Initial Technical Proposal, at 43, Fig. 1-29. Following discussions, CACI addressed this issue in its final proposal revision, and the TEP found that CACI adequately explained how it intended to meet this requirement. The TEP also found that CACIs proposal satisfied the requirements under this subfactor by adequately discussing how its corporate structure would enhance the project with little proposal risk. The TEP concluded that CACIs proposal was acceptable because it satisfied, but did not exceed, the requirements of this factor. AR, Tab 22, Final CACI Consensus Evaluation Report, at 5. Similarly, the TEP found that System Highs proposal satisfied, but did not exceed, the requirements of this subfactor. Specifically, the evaluators found that the awardee adequately discussed its corporate structure and facilities, provided a team that was experienced in providing security support in a multi-level, multi-disciplined security environment, and had valid Top Secret facility clearances for itself and all its subcontractors. See AR, Tab 27, Final System High Consensus Evaluation Report, at 4.
Although CACI disagrees with the agencys judgment that both firms satisfied the requirements of this subfactor, but did not exceed them, its disagreement does not demonstrate that the agencys judgment was unreasonable. Rather, the record shows that the agency reasonably considered the advantages and disadvantages of both CACIs and System Highs proposals under this subfactor.
Interested Party
CACI also challenges agencys evaluation of System Highs technical proposal under the personnel and past performance factors,[5] and the evaluation of its and System Highs cost proposals. With respect to the offerors evaluated costs, CACI challenges a number of aspects of the agencys cost realism evaluation, which it asserts that, if corrected, would have resulted in System Highs evaluated costs increasing to approximately $83.81M and CACIs evaluated costs decreasing to approximately $87.97M.[6] See Protesters Comments at 14, 18, 21. As explained below, CACI is not an interested party to challenge the agencys evaluation of System Highs proposal under the personnel and past performance factors or the agencys cost realism evaluation, because, even accepting CACIs arguments with respect to these issues, Offeror A is an intervening offeror that would be in line for award.
Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-56 (2006), only an interested party may protest a federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1) (2011). A protester is not an interested party where it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained. Where there is an intervening offeror that would be in line for award if the protesters challenge to the award were sustained, the protester does not have the requisite interest to qualify as an interested party. Recon Optical, Inc., B-310436, B-310436.2, Dec. 27, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 10 at 18 n. 22.
Here, CACI has not specifically challenged the evaluation of Offeror As technical or cost proposals, nor challenged the agencys determination that Offeror As and CACIs proposals were essentially equal.[7] Because under CACIs own calculations Offeror As evaluated costs would be lower than CACIs, and because the two firms proposals were found to be essentially equal, even if we accept CACIs challenges to the evaluation of System Highs proposal, Offeror As proposal, and not CACIs, would be in line for award. See Science Applications Intl Corp.; Dept. of the Navy -- Recon., B-247036.2, B-247036.3, Aug. 4, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 73 at 8-9 (where proposals were found technically equal, the only discriminator for award was evaluated costs). Accordingly, CACI is not an interested party to challenge the agencys evaluation of System Highs proposal under the personnel and past performance factors or the agencys cost realism evaluation, and these grounds of protest are dismissed.
The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.
Lynn H. Gibson
General Counsel
[1] For example, under the technical approach factor, the RFP identified the following subfactors: understanding of the statement of work; management plan and execution of contract requirements; staffing plan and teaming arrangements; and corporate support/facilities. RFP § M.1 at 64-66.
[2] System High is a small business that proposed to team with three other small businesses. System High Final Proposal Revision at 106.
[3] Proposals were adjectivally rated as blue (exceptional), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal), or red (unacceptable). Under the past performance factor, an offeror without relevant past performance would receive a grey (neutral) rating. As relevant here, a blue/exceptional rating under the technical approach and personnel factors reflected a proposal that exceeded requirements in a beneficial way and any weaknesses were insignificant. A blue/exceptional rating under the past performance factor reflected that the contractors and subcontractors recent/relevant past performance was consistently superior for work accomplished with a few minor problems and with corrective action that was highly effective. See AR, Tab 10, Source Selection Plan, at 27-28.
[4] The offerors evaluated probable costs are expressed in millions (M) of dollars. The governments estimate for the contract was $110.1M. CACIs proposed costs of $100.36M were reduced to $99.21M by the agency in its cost realism evaluation. System Highs proposed costs of $77.39M were increased by the agency to $79.16M. See AR, Tab 32, SSEB Report, at 7.
[5] As noted above, the proposals of CACI, System High, and Offeror A were rated blue/exceptional under the personnel and past performance factors and were determined to be essentially technically equal.
[6] CACI does not challenge the evaluation of Offeror As evaluated costs of $87.78M, which, even accepting CACIs calculations of what its evaluated costs should have been, would be approximately $190,000 lower than CACIs evaluated costs.
[7] We do not credit CACIs general and unsupported assertion that the agency used a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis for award, rather than best value, where, despite having the evaluation record, it did not challenge Offeror As ratings or the agencys determination that Offeror As and CACIs proposal were essentially equal.