B-310732, PMC Solutions, Inc., January 22, 2008

B-310732 Jan 22, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PMC Solutions, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) under request for proposals (RFP) CR-07-0002, issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), for Lean Six Sigma (LSS) support. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310732, PMC Solutions, Inc., January 22, 2008 Decision Matter of: PMC Solutions, Inc. File: B-310732 Date: January 22, 2008 Britain Harvey for the protester. David P. Blackwood, Esq., U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's technical proposal with regard to employment status of proposed expert and protester's status as subcontractor under prior contracts is denied where record shows evaluation was reasonable and in accord with stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that agency, in –best value— procurement, improperly made award to offeror proposing significantly higher price than protester's is denied where record shows agency considered protester's and awardee's proposals' strengths and weaknesses in determining that technical superiority of awardee's proposal outweighed protester's lower price. DECISION PMC Solutions, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) under request for proposals (RFP) CR-07-0002, issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), for Lean Six Sigma (LSS) support. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued under the streamlined procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6 on July 17, 2007. It called for services related to the LSS methodology for process mapping and improvement. Initial work was to begin no later than September 2007, with a period of performance of not to exceed 45 days. RFP at 5. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on a –best value— basis under three factors: contractor qualifications, past performance, and price. Id. at 6. Ten proposals were received in response to the RFP. The proposals were reviewed by a technical evaluation panel, which rated BAH's and PMC's proposals outstanding. BAH's price was $129,500 and PMC's was $29,709. Agency Report at 1; Protest at 3.[1] The agency made award to BAH based on its finding that evaluated weaknesses in PMC's proposal and strengths in BAH's proposal made BAH's proposal the best value, despite its substantially higher price. PMC contends that its technical proposal was improperly evaluated in two respects and that the agency conducted an improper price/technical tradeoff. SSL EXPERT PMC contends that its proposal was unreasonably downgraded on the basis that one of its proposed LSS experts was a contract employee rather than a PMC employee. Protest at 1. PMC asserts that the downgrading was unreasonable because there was no requirement in the RFP that proposed personnel be in-house employees. Id. at 2. In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals, but will examine the record to ensure that it was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Harris Corp., B-299864 et al., Sept. 14, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 180. The evaluation here was unobjectionable. USCCR explains that the availability of PMC's expert was a concern in view of USCCR's requirement that the project be underway promptly after award. Agency Report, Statement of Contracting Officer (SCO), at 1-2. PMC's proposal included a resume indicating that the expert in question was not a PMC employee and was currently involved in a project for another company. Agency Report, Tab B, PMC Proposal, attach 1, at 4. USCCR determined that the expert's employment status raised doubts regarding his availability for a –quick turnaround project— that –needed to be performed on a very tight timeframe.— SCO at 1-2. Although the RFP did not expressly require that proposed experts be employed directly by the contractor, and the evaluation factors did not specifically address employment status, in evaluating a proposal an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. Preferred Sys. Solutions, B-291750, Feb. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 56 at 2. Here, under the contractor qualifications evaluation factor, resumes were required for all proposed personnel. RFP at 6. It is implicit, we think, that where an agency is evaluating proposed employees, the evaluation logically encompasses the employees' availability to perform under the contract.