B-297452, SERAPH Inc., January 12, 2006

B-297452 Jan 12, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SERAPH Inc. protests the award of a contract to CACI Premiere Technology, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23095-R-DOT097, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for support services assisting the Coast Guard in developing and implementing capabilities to detect, identify, interdict and detain terrorist threats in the maritime domain. SERAPH primarily argues that the Coast Guard improperly evaluated the experience of two of its proposed key personnel. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297452, SERAPH Inc., January 12, 2006 Decision Matter of: SERAPH Inc. File: B-297452 Date: January 12, 2006 Dale Yeager for the protester. Daniel J. Donohue, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, PC, for CACI Premiere Technology, Inc., an intervenor. Audrey Roh, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Alleged misevaluation of two proposed personnel under –relevant past experience/proposed personnel— factor as lacking relevant experience did not competitively prejudice protester, and thus does not provide basis for sustaining protest, where contemporaneous evaluation record shows that protester's proposal was not downgraded based on evaluation of the two personnel, and that proposal ultimately was eliminated from consideration for award based on evaluated deficiencies under different factor, which protester does not question. DECISION SERAPH Inc. protests the award of a contract to CACI Premiere Technology, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23095-R-DOT097, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for support services assisting the Coast Guard in developing and implementing capabilities to detect, identify, interdict and detain terrorist threats in the maritime domain. SERAPH primarily argues that the Coast Guard improperly evaluated the experience of two of its proposed key personnel. We deny the protest. On July 18, 2005 the Coast Guard issued a combined synopsis/solicitation for tactical operations education and training services to respond to terrorist threats in the maritime domain. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for a period of 1 year, with a 1-year option period. The solicitation provided for a –best value— award based on four evaluation factors: relevant past experience/proposed personnel, understanding of the work, relevant past performance, and price. Relevant past experience/proposed personnel was the most important factor, while the two other technical factors were of equal importance; the three technical factors combined were significantly more important than price. The RFP required prices (on fixed-price or time-and-materials (T&M) bases) for 10 separate contract line item numbers (CLIN) covering various training courses and training teams. The Coast Guard received 15 proposals. In evaluating SERAPH's proposal under the first factor, relevant past experience/proposed personnel, the technical evaluation team (TET) assigned SERAPH an overall rating of green, which represented low risk.[1] The report explained that SERAPH's proposed staff appears to meet or exceed the experience needed to conduct the training, but also stated that SERAPH's chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (CBRNE) specialist did not appear to have much experience in the CBRNE field, Agency Report (AR), Technical Evaluation Report, Tab 8, at 7, and that the boat specialist SERAPH proposed –has more of a boarding/close quarters combat background than that of a boat specialist.— Id.For the understanding of work factor, the TET assigned SERAPH's proposal an overall rating of yellow, representing moderate risk. In this regard, the TET found that SERAPH's proposal was not adequate to allow the team to determine whether the company fully understood the RFP. For the third factor, past performance, SERAPH received the highest rating, blue. SERAPH's evaluated price was $2,809,800 (the fourth lowest) for the fixed price CLINs, as compared to CACI's price of $3,007,305 (the fifth lowest). (These figures exclude the T&M CLINs, for which all proposals were evaluated at $7,180,000.) The agency made an initial determination that 11 of the proposals--including SERAPH's--had no chance of being selected for award based on their technical ratings and prices. The proposals that remained in consideration, unlike SERAPH's, received green or higher ratings under each of the technical evaluation factors.