Evolving Resources, Inc., B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3, April 27, 2001

Evolving Resources, Inc., B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3, April 27, 2001 TITLE: Evolving Resources, Inc., B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3, April 27, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3 DATE: April 27, 2001 ********************************************************************** Evolving Resources, Inc., B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3, April 27, 2001 Decision Matter of: Evolving Resources, Inc. File: B-287178; B-287178.2; B-287178.3 Date: April 27, 2001 Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, for the protester. Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, for Synectic Solutions, an intervenor. Glenn Heisler, Esq., and Russell Spindler, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of the evaluation of management proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Evolving Resources, Inc. (ERI) protests the award of a contract to Synectic Solutions under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-00-R-0328, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), for maintenance planning and design interface logistics support services. ERI challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' management proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on February 2, 2000, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base period and nine 1-year option periods for each of five lots, each lot serving different regional locations. This protest involves the award of lot II, set aside for Section 8(a) business concerns, [1] covering the regional location at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake and Point Mugu, California. The RFP stated that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the greatest value to the government, cost and other evaluation factors considered. The RFP listed the following non-cost evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) technical and associated risk; (2) management and associated risk; and (3) past performance risk. Under the RFP, offerors' technical and management proposals would be evaluated using the adjectival ratings of outstanding, highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory; offerors' technical and management risk would be evaluated as either high, medium, or low; and offerors' past performance risk would be evaluated as either very low, low, moderate, high, very high, or unknown. The RFP provided that the non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, would be considered significantly more important than cost. As relevant here, the management evaluation factor had two subfactors--(1) management approach (overall management approach; usage of teaming, personnel, and subcontractors; recruitment/retention; quality management; cost savings; and electronic capabilities) and (2) key personnel. The RFP advised that a poorly defined management approach would result in the assessment of increased proposal risk and/or a reduced qualitative rating. The RFP also advised that the evaluation of key personnel would be based on the extent to which personnel resumes submitted by the offeror met or exceeded the education and experience required by the labor category descriptions. Of the three firms submitting initial proposals, only the proposals of ERI and Synectic were included in the competitive range. Following written discussions, ERI and Synectic submitted final proposal revisions, which were evaluated as follows: ERI Synectic Rating/Risk Rating/Risk Technical highly satisfactory/medium satisfactory/low Management unsatisfactory/high satisfactory/medium Past Performance low low [2] ERI's evaluated cost was approximately 17 percent higher (i.e., over $4 million) than Synectic's evaluated cost. The agency determined to award a contract to Synectic, the firm submitting the technically superior, lower evaluated cost proposal. EVALUATION OF ERI'S MANAGEMENT APPROACH PROPOSAL ERI principally argues that the agency "used a higher, more rigorous standard" to evaluate its management proposal as opposed to Synectic's management proposal. Protester's Second Supplemental Protest, Mar. 9, 2001, at 2. ERI attempts to show this alleged disparity by making a side-by-side comparison of various sections of the management approach proposals submitted by it and Synectic. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will question the agency's evaluation only where it violates a procurement statute or regulation, lacks a reasonable basis, or is inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria for award. B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827, B-283828, Dec.