JAVIS Automation

JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc., B-290434; B-290434.2, August 5, 2002

Matter of:	JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc.	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.
File:	B-290434; B-290434.2
Date:	August 5, 2002

Thomas A. Cregger, Esq., and Jacob D. Flesher, Esq., Barry & Randolph, for the protester.

Patricia A. Papas, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency.

Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Challenge to agency's evaluation of protester's proposal for engineering services is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation factors.

DECISION

JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. protests the failure of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DCA100-01-R-4035, for Next Generation (NexGen) engineering services. JAVIS alleges that the evaluation of its technical proposal was improper.

We deny the protest.

DISA is responsible for providing the engineering for interoperable, integrated, and secure Department of Defense (DOD) command and control information systems. The RFP here, issued on November 13, 2001, sought to procure global scientific, engineering, integration, and technical services to support DISA's missions under multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) task order contracts, for a 1-year base period with six 1-year option periods.^[1] RFP §§ B.1, C.1, Statement of Work (SOW).

Through this RFP, DISA planned to consolidate its expiring engineering and integration contracts. As a result, the SOW emphasized that the required services encompassed a wide range of tasks and several disciplines.^[2] Notwithstanding the scope of the NexGen effort, the SOW also sought “seamless interoperability” of the various mission and support applications. RFP SOW at 1-2. The SOW established that the contractor was to provide integration, engineering, and related services in the following eight task areas: general systems engineering; information systems engineering; network engineering; security engineering; systems integration; systems implementation; information technology standards; and program management. The SOW also included eight sample task orders, representative of those to be issued under the NexGen contract.

The RFP established the following evaluation factors and subfactors, in descending order of importance with one exception noted below:

Factor	Subfactor
1. Corporate Experience and Past Performance	A. Corporate Experience
	B. Personnel Qualifications and Experience
	C. Past Performance Technical
	D. Past Performance Management
2. Quality and Management Structure	A. Quality Recognitions and Certifications
2. Quality and Management Structure	B. Management Structure[3]
3. Cost/Price

The RFP informed offerors that the corporate experience and past performance factor was significantly more important than the quality and management structure factor. The solicitation also established that each non-price factor was individually more important than cost/price, and that, when combined, the two non-price factors were “exceedingly” more important than cost/price. RFP §§ M.3.a, b. The RFP stated that the agency intended to award one or more contracts without discussions to responsible offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government.

Eleven offerors submitted proposals by the December 13 closing date. The solicitation instructions required proposals to have an executive summary, as well as separate volumes for corporate experience and past performance, quality and management structure, and cost/price. A source selection advisory council (SSAC) evaluated and ranked proposals utilizing a technical evaluation panel (TEP), a management evaluation panel (MEP), and a cost evaluation panel to review the respective portions of each offeror's proposal.

The agency evaluation panels rated the proposals under the weighted evaluation factors utilizing a color-coded descriptive rating system: blue, green, yellow, orange, red, and white.^[4] The RFP described the color ratings as follows:

Color-Code	Performance Capability	Strengths	Weaknesses	Past Performance
Blue	Proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards.	Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government.	Weaknesses are considered insignificant and have no apparent impact to the program.	Highly relevant/very recent past performance in all proposal task areas; excellent performance ratings.
Green	Proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach exceeds performance or capability standards.	Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government.	Minimal Government oversight or direction.	Relevant/somewhat recent past performance in all proposal task areas; acceptable performance ratings.
Yellow	Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements and approach meets performance or capability standards. Acceptable solution.	Few or no strengths.	Some weaknesses that are correctable with some Government oversight and direction.	Somewhat relevant/not very recent past performance; most acceptable performance ratings.
Orange	Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance.	Little, if any, strengths that are of benefit; weaknesses clearly offset strengths.	Weaknesses adversely impact the program; they are correctable with significant Government oversight and direction.	Little relevant/old past performance; mostly unacceptable performance ratings.
Red	Proposal fails to meet performance or capability standards. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal.	No beneficial strengths.	Numerous weaknesses that are so significant that proposal re-write is not feasible within a suitable timeframe.	Little relevant past performance; almost all unacceptable performance ratings.
White				Completely lacks relevant performance history or is unavailable.

The evaluation panels rated proposals by having each member identify strengths and weaknesses and assign a color rating for each technical/management subfactor and factor.^[5] The evaluation panels then developed consensus ratings based upon discussions among the members of the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal.

The TEP assigned JAVIS's proposal an overall orange rating under the corporate experience and past performance factor; the overall rating reflected subfactor ratings of orange under the corporate experience, personnel qualifications, and past performance technical subfactors, and yellow under the past performance management subfactor. The MEP likewise assigned JAVIS's proposal an overall orange rating under the quality and management structure factor; the proposal received subfactor ratings of red under the quality recognitions and certifications subfactor, and orange under the management structure subfactor.

Based on the evaluation of all offers, taking price into account as well, the SSAC ranked JAVIS eighth of the 11 proposals received. The agency source selection authority concurred in the SSAC rankings, and on April 22, 2002, DISA announced its decision to make award to four small businesses: ARTEL, Inc.; Pragmatics, Inc.; FGM, Inc.; and Femme Comp. Inc.

On May 2, following a written debriefing by the agency, JAVIS filed its protest with our Office, alleging that DISA's evaluation of its technical proposal was improper. JAVIS challenges each instance where the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the non-price factors resulted in less than a yellow rating.^[6] JAVIS asserts that if its proposal had been evaluated properly, then the protester would have been determined eligible for a contract award. While we discuss only some for illustrative purposes, we have examined each of the protester's arguments in detail and find no basis to question the agency's evaluation.

In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc., B-285244, July 18, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 132 at 4. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment in its determination of the relative merit of competing proposals does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. C. Lawrence Constr. Co., Inc., B-287066, Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 70 at 4. As demonstrated below, we find that DISA's evaluation of JAVIS's proposal was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria.

For example, JAVIS challenges the orange rating the TEP assigned to its proposal under the corporate experience subfactor. In accordance with the RFP, the agency evaluated each offeror's experience as related to the SOW task areas and sample task orders. RFP amend. 1, § M.3.c(1)(a). The TEP found that JAVIS's corporate experience demonstrated a marginal or minimal understanding in many SOW task areas, and showed limited work efforts similar to the majority of NexGen sample task orders. JAVIS's proposal received yellow ratings in four task areas and orange ratings in four task areas. Additionally, while JAVIS's proposal received a green rating in one sample task order, it received orange ratings in the remaining seven sample task orders. The TEP “rolled up” these ratings into an overall orange rating for the corporate experience subfactor. JAVIS challenges the orange ratings received, contending that its performance on DISA's large and complex engineering and interoperability efforts demonstrated substantial experience as related to the large majority of NexGen task areas and sample task orders. Our review shows that the agency's evaluation under this subfactor was reasonable.

With regard to the corporate experience subfactor, the RFP instructed offerors to provide an experience summary as well as narratives for up to 20 prior contract efforts that demonstrated experience similar to the NexGen SOW requirements. The RFP also directed offerors, for each corporate experience narrative submitted, to state the SOW task areas and/or sample task orders to which the experience related. RFP § L.14.b(1)(i). JAVIS's proposal included seven corporate experience narratives, five of which appear to claim experience in either all SOW task areas or sample task orders, or all of both.^[7] When describing its corporate experience, both in its experience summary and narratives for each referenced effort, JAVIS's proposal failed to demonstrate how its experience directly related to specific SOW task areas or sample task orders.^[8] JAVIS argues that the executive summary of its proposal included a table establishing the experience that it possessed relative to each sample task order, but this listing is completely lacking in both detail and support. It was JAVIS's responsibility to demonstrate in its proposal how its corporate experience was relevant to the NexGen SOW; it was not the agency's obligation during the evaluation process to fill in the gaps. Quality Elevator Co., Inc., B-271899, Aug. 28, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 89 at 4. As JAVIS had the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal, yet failed to do so, we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation.^[9]

JAVIS also challenges its orange rating under the personnel qualifications and experience subfactor. The solicitation required offerors to provide resumes for their key personnel, addressing each individual's education and experience with regard to the position proposed, and to complete the personnel qualifications and experience matrix for their entire staff. RFP amend. 1, § L.14.b(1)(ii). The TEP determined that the resumes of JAVIS's two key personnel collectively demonstrated familiarity with all SOW task areas, but that JAVIS's proposal provided only marginal evidence that its workforce overall had the ability to perform the NexGen contract. Although the protester argues that DISA's evaluation of JAVIS's personnel qualifications and experience was unjustified, the record does not support this assertion.

In evaluating the resumes of JAVIS's key personnel, the TEP determined that individually the depth of experience of the key personnel did not fully demonstrate complete familiarity with all task area requirements, but that together, the resumes demonstrated experience in all SOW task areas.^[10] While JAVIS argues that the resumes of its key personnel each demonstrated in-depth engineering experience with both DOD generally and with DISA specifically, our review of the record shows that the evaluation here was reasonable. Further, the agency's decision to assign an overall orange rating to JAVIS's proposal under the personnel qualifications and experience subfactor was reasonable, notwithstanding the favorable evaluation of JAVIS's key personnel, in light of the evaluation of JAVIS's overall workforce, discussed further below.^[11]

The RFP required offerors to submit a staffing matrix, indicating the number of employees assigned per labor category, their educational experience, and their security clearances. JAVIS's staffing matrix indicated a total assigned staff of 87 personnel; the offeror then qualified its staffing representation, stating that it actually had a total of 60 employees, some of whom possessed more that one skill set and which JAVIS included in more than one labor category. The TEP determined that JAVIS's proposal failed to identify personnel for all labor categories that would be required for a majority of efforts anticipated under the NexGen contract. For example, the TEP found that JAVIS did not propose sufficient functional analysts, and did not propose any hardware installation technicians and national defense operation analysts. Moreover, the TEP concluded that JAVIS's decision to include its personnel in multiple labor categories made it impossible to determine the actual number and percentage of JAVIS's employees that possessed educational degrees and security clearances. JAVIS maintains that it prepared the staffing matrix in strict accordance with the RFP, and that “[t]here is nothing complex or confusing about the illustration o[f] its contents.” Protester's Comments at 16. We disagree. While offering an actual total staff of 60 employees, JAVIS's proposal states that 65 of those employees possess either a bachelor's, master's, or doctorate degree, without, however, indicating which of its staff possess which of the degrees. Similarly, JAVIS's proposal indicates that its 60 employees possess a total of 65 secret or top secret clearances, again without indicating which employees possess which clearances. As JAVIS's proposal failed to clearly explain the educational experience and security clearances that its staff actually possessed, we have no basis to object to the agency's evaluation here or the overall orange rating assigned under the personnel qualifications and experience subfactor.^[12]

JAVIS also objects to its rating under the quality recognitions and certifications subfactor. The RFP directed offerors to complete a quality recognition and certification matrix, which instructed offerors to attach copies of notification letters or certificates for each quality recognition award claimed. RFP attach. 6, Quality Recognition and Certification Profile Form. JAVIS's proposal listed three quality recognitions, including a Hammer Award^[13] as a member of the DISA Global Command and Control System (GCCS) team, but did not include copies of any award letters or certificates. The MEP assigned JAVIS's proposal a red rating because of the offeror's failure to provide any evidence to support the quality recognitions claimed.

JAVIS argues that the agency's evaluation was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria because there was no RFP requirement that offerors submit copies of certificates or awards. JAVIS is factually mistaken regarding the RFP requirements here. As noted above, the solicitation expressly instructed offerors to include copies of awards or certificates as part of the quality recognitions claimed, and JAVIS failed to comply with this unambiguous requirement. An offeror in a negotiated procurement acts at its own peril when its proposal does not provide specific information as required by the solicitation's instructions. Jet Invs., Inc., B‑276215, B-276215.2, May 22, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 193 at 2. Here, the absence of supporting documentation affected the evaluators' ability to determine both the significance and the credibility of the quality recognitions claimed by JAVIS.

JAVIS alternatively contends that two of the agency evaluators had actual knowledge of the Hammer Award given to JAVIS as part of the DISA GCCS team, and should have taken this into account in the evaluation of JAVIS's proposal. In support of its assertion that the agency evaluators knew of the protester's Hammer Award, notwithstanding the proposal's lack of supporting documentation, JAVIS cites a statement of the MEP chairman in the evaluation record.^[14] The agency denies that its evaluators had actual knowledge that JAVIS was included among the recipients of the Hammer Award given to the DISA GCCS team, and has submitted declarations in support of this assertion.

An agency properly may use information known by its own evaluators, as with any other reference, to aid in the evaluation of proposals. Arctic Slope World Servs., Inc., B-284481, B-284481.2, Apr. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 75 at 7. Moreover, an evaluator may not reasonably ignore personally known information about an offeror merely because it was not included in the offeror's proposal. See Safeguard Maint. Corp., B‑260983.3, Oct. 13, 1995, 96-2 CPD ¶ 116 at 12. We need not decide if the evaluators here had personal knowledge of JAVIS's Hammer Award, however, because the record demonstrates that the protester was not prejudiced as a result of any alleged error in this regard.

Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility of prejudice, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. Parmatic Filter Corp., B-285288.3, B-285288.4, Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 71 at 11; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, even if given credit for the Hammer Award, JAVIS's proposal still failed to provide the required documentation to support the other two quality recognitions claimed. JAVIS does not assert, nor does the record indicate, that the evaluators had any personal knowledge to support these aspects of the protester's proposal. Even if JAVIS's proposal were assigned a higher, orange rating under the quality recognition and certifications subfactor based on the Hammer Award alone, this rating, when combined with the orange rating received under the management structure subfactor, would not have altered the overall orange rating assigned JAVIS's
proposal for the quality and management structure factor. Under the circumstances, we conclude that JAVIS was not prejudiced even assuming the agency evaluators knew about the offeror's Hammer Award.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

^[1] The RFP also informed offerors that the government was conducting both a full and open competition, and a small business set-aside competition, utilizing separate SOWs. Only the small business set-aside competition is relevant to this protest.
^[2] The range of tasks and disciplines for the NexGen contracts included command and control, facilities, communications, airborne platforms, and information systems.
^[3] The RFP stated that the quality recognitions and certifications subfactor and the management structure subfactor were equal in importance.
^[4] The RFP established that no color rating would be assigned to the cost/price factor. In addition to the color ratings for the non-price factors, evaluators were also required to prepare a supporting evaluation narrative.
^[5] The RFP also required that evaluators conduct a risk assessment, concerning each offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the solicitation. JAVIS's protest does not challenge the risk assessments of its proposal.
^[6] Specifically, the protester asserts that DISA improperly evaluated JAVIS's proposal under the following five (of six) subfactors: corporate experience, personnel qualifications and experience, past performance technical, quality recognition and certifications, and management structure subfactors.
^[7] The narratives were unclear as to what areas or task orders were being referenced. Specifically, each narrative included a heading entitled, “Sample [task order] & Section or Contract SOW Task Area,” followed by the numerals 1 through 8, presumably intended to correspond to either the eight task areas or the eight task orders in the SOW. The narratives did not indicate, however, whether the numerals listed referred to the task areas, the task orders, or some or all of both.
^[8] While the corporate experience narratives in JAVIS's proposal went to considerable length listing task orders by name or number, these did not refer to the NexGen SOW task areas or sample task orders, but instead to the task orders issued under each referenced contract.
^[9] The protester also argues that the agency evaluation was improper because JAVIS's proposal showed substantial experience in support of DISA's “core missions.” We find the agency decision not to consider JAVIS's corporate experience as it related to DISA's core missions to be consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and, therefore, unobjectionable. To the extent that JAVIS believes that an offeror's corporate experience vis-à-vis DISA's core missions should have also been an evaluation criterion, its protest is untimely since it concerns an alleged impropriety apparent from the face of the solicitation and was not raised prior to the closing time for submission of proposals. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2002).
^[10] For example, the TEP found that while the resume of one key individual showed limited experience in security engineering and information technology standards, the resume of JAVIS's other key individual showed a good level of experience in these task areas, and that “[t]he strengths of one complement the weaknesses of the other.” Agency Report, Tab 6, Consensus Evaluation Report, Jan. 10, 2002, at 1.
^[11] In its comments on the agency report submitted on June 17, the protester argues for the first time that the agency's evaluation of JAVIS's proposal under the staffing criterion of the personnel qualifications and experience subfactor was improper. This argument could and should have been raised when JAVIS filed its initial protest with our Office on May 2. Our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the untimely, piecemeal presentation of protest issues, and in this regard, a protester may not delay raising additional protest issues where, as here, the protester should have been aware of those grounds at the time of filing its initial protest. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2); Brickwood Contractors, Inc., B-290444, July 3, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ __ n.3. The fact that JAVIS may have also submitted this issue to the attention of the agency after filing its protest with our Office has no bearing on our timeliness rules. Accordingly, we decline to consider this protest basis on the merits.
^[12] In a supplemental protest, JAVIS also alleged a disparate evaluation of its proposal with regard to the personnel qualifications and experience subfactor, in comparison the proposals of other offerors. JAVIS failed to file its comments on the agency report on the supplemental protest in a timely manner, and thus effectively abandoned this allegation. Southwest Eng'g Assocs.; Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc., B‑276465.6, B-276465.7, July 28, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 31 at 2-3. In any event, the supplemental comments that JAVIS did eventually file at best express mere disagreement with the agency report and make no substantive rebuttal to the agency's position.
^[13] Hammer Awards were presented by former Vice President Gore to provide recognition to teams of federal employees and private sector partners whose work resulted in more efficient and less costly government. Agency Statement in Response to Protester's Comments, June 26, 2002, at 4.
^[14] As part of the consensus evaluation report, the MEP chairman stated, “[JAVIS] ha[s] a Hammer Award as part of the Hammer Award given to the DISA GCCS team.” Agency Report, Tab 6, Consensus Evaluation Report, Jan. 23, 2002, at 3.