B-298810.2, Hernandez Consulting LLC, December 21, 2006

B-298810.2 Dec 21, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hernandez Consulting LLC protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), request for proposals (RFP) No. HSFEHQ-06-R-0043, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) small business set-aside for integrated operations and maintenance at FEMA-based housing in Louisiana. Hernandez primarily asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298810.2, Hernandez Consulting LLC, December 21, 2006 Decision Matter of: Hernandez Consulting LLC File: B-298810.2 Date: December 21, 2006 Alex Hernandez for the protester. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for C. Martin Company, Inc., an intervenor. Audrey H. Liebross, Esq., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 Protest that agency unreasonably found protester's proposal technically unacceptable due to lack of information is denied where information was necessary for agency to fully evaluate proposal and agency reasonably determined that necessary information was lacking. DECISION Hernandez Consulting LLC protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), request for proposals (RFP) No. HSFEHQ-06-R-0043, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) small business set-aside for integrated operations and maintenance at FEMA-based housing in Louisiana. Hernandez primarily asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 26, 2006, contemplated the award of multiple indefinite'delivery/indefinite quantity contracts on the basis of low price and technical acceptability under the following factors: technical approach (with subfactors for phase-in, task order performance plan, quality control plan, and resources and understanding), past performance/corporate experience, and price. Competition was limited to firms that reside or primarily do business in the State of Louisiana, and the solicitation provided guidance--including a non'exclusive list of eight factors, such as the state and date of incorporation, Louisiana state licenses, and the firm's record of past work in Louisiana--as to what firms the agency may consider to qualify. RFP at 3.[1] The agency received 19 proposals. The agency determined that three proposals, including the protester's, were technically unacceptable, and ultimately awarded contracts to 13 firms. Hernandez, whose proposal was based on a teaming arrangement with another firm, Latter & Blum Property Management, Inc., was informed by letter dated September 2 that its proposal had been rejected as technically unacceptable because (1) the quality control plan lacked detail and specifics, (2) the plan to locate, acquire and transport resources did not clearly demonstrate an ability to fulfill the contract requirements, and (3) the proposal did not express a thorough technical approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Hernandez filed an agency-level protest challenging the agency's conclusions. The agency sustained this protest and reevaluated the proposal. The reevaluation resulted in another finding that Hernandez's proposal was technically unacceptable. Specifically, the reevaluation found that the proposal lacked (1) supporting documents for the teaming arrangement, (2) specifics for the phase-in plan, (3) specifics for the quality control plan, (4) documentation for subcontracting arrangements, and (5) plans or technical specifications for how the firm would meet the terms and conditions of the contract. Hernandez challenges each of the reasons for rejection of its proposal. Specifically, it asserts that the RFP did not require supporting documentation for the teaming arrangement, its proposal did include a phase-in plan, quality control plan, and subcontracting plan that responded to the RFP's requirements, and that its proposal generally responded to every aspect of the RFP. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, we will examine the record only to determine whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation scheme and applicable procurement statues and regulations. DeLeon Tech. Servs., Inc., B'293783, June 4, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 145 at 2. Offerors have the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to establish that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable.