Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied, where the protester did not allocate labor hours across the base and options years as required by the solicitation and created doubt about its ability to provide the required level of support in the last two years of performance, and where the protester’s proposal to bill its task order lead as an indirect cost did not include the expected level of effort from this position.
Quantum Research International Inc. challenged the Army’s corrective action in response to an earlier bid protest and its award of a task order for engineering, system engineering, test, and technical support to Torch Technologies Inc.
After the initial award decision, Quantum protested the agency’s evaluation of the Risk Mitigation and Management factor for both offerors. The agency took corrective action, but because Quantum had expressed no objections to its Technical Expertise rating, the Army re-evaluated only the Risk Mitigation and Management factor for both Torch and Quantum.
As a result of the reevaluation, the Army rated Quantum “acceptable” for risk mitigation and management, down from its original “good” rating. The agency assigned a weakness to Quantum for its ability to manage the project effectively. The Army noted that Quantum distributed its total labor hours across the option and base years at a uniform 20 percent annually. However, the RFQ directed offerors to allocate the total labor hours across the base and option years at 11 percent, 16 percent, 20 percent, 24 percent, and 29 percent.
The agency concluded that Quantum’s distribution of labor hours compromises task manning, surge capability and reach-back capability. The agency also reasoned that the total number of hours proposed, 76,800, particularly as uniformly allocated annually, did not allow for an increase in hours over the option years. As a result, the Army concluded that Quantum would not have sufficient hours to support the requirements for option year 4 and possibly option year 3. Further, Quantum proposed 12,470 hours less than the independent government estimate, which raised concerns that the protester did not understand the number of hours and type of support needed for the requirement, particularly in the final option years.
The agency also expressed concerns about Quantum’s failure to propose a task order lead and its proposal to provide a program manager and liaison officer at no charge. Because the proposal was ambiguous as to how the task order lead hours would be performed and billed, the agency assessed a moderate risk that Quantum would not be able to provide adequate support. These missing positions also contributed to the discrepancy in the number of total labor hours proposed.
While both offerors had essentially equivalent capabilities under the technical expertise factor, Torch was rated higher for risk mitigation and management. Therefore, also Torch offered a slightly higher price—in part due to the higher number of labor hours it proposed—the Army concluded that its proposal offered the best value and affirmed its earlier award decision.
In its protest, Quantum argued that the yearly allocation of hours in the RFQ was a suggestion, not a requirement. According to Quantum, had it not been penalized in this area, it would have received an outstanding rating for risk mitigation and management. Quantum also argued the Army arbitrarily allowed Torch to omit two components of the PWS critical requirements from its quotation without being disqualified or assessed any weakness, which could have downgraded its rating. Finally, Quantum argued the Army irrationally considered its task order lead proposal as a price risk and did not sufficiently analyze Torch’s task order lead proposal.
First, the court found the RFQ advised that offerors “shall assume” that labor hours shall be distributed in the percentage defined in the solicitation. The plain language of this provision is that quotations must allocate hours to each year of the contract as listed. The court explained that the Army was entitled to determine the level of effort for each year of the contract and to instruct offerors to adhere to its determination so that it can uniformly evaluate offers. The court also noted the protester did not cite any other provision of the solicitation that modified or negated this requirement.
Nevertheless, the Army evaluated Quantum’s quotation on its merits and explained by its allocation of hours posed a risk that the protester would not be able to provide the required amount of labor in option years three and four. The court found nothing arbitrary about this evaluation.
Further, the RFQ did not require offerors to address every component of the technical expertise section by name or be disqualified. Offerors were directed to specifically address nine critical requirements. While Torch’s proposal did not mention every single system listed in one area of the PWS, the Army was satisfied that it addressed the actual requirements. Further, the court noted the Army treated Quantum’s proposal the same way, as the protester omitted discussion of two elements from its quotation. If the Army was required to disqualify Torch’s quotation, it would be similarly required to reject Quantum’s for the same reason.
Finally, the court considered Quantum’s complaint about the Army’s evaluation of its task order lead proposal. The agency’s IGCE anticipated this position would perform 11,520 hours. Quantum proposed to bill this individual as an indirect cost and did not include the labors hours in its total. In its quotation, Quantum referred to the task order lead as “no charge,” “no direct charge,” “no cost, and “indirect charge.” In its initial evaluation, the Army stated that it could not determine from Quantum’s quotation whether the offeror intended its task order lead to be an indirect cost or gratuitous service. The Army also expressed concern that Quantum’s quotation did not provide a standard by which it could judge this individual’s work, because its quotation did not state how many hours the task order lead would perform. The reevaluation raised the same concerns.
Quantum argued that the Army should have understood that its relatively low quotation for total hours—76,800—not as a risk but as a reflection of uncharged hours for its Task Order Lead. However, Quantum did not state in its quotation how many hours it anticipated its Task Order Lead would perform. Although Quantum argued the Army should have understood that the delta between the number of hours in its quotation and the number of hours the Army anticipated was the number of hours its task order lead would perform, the protester did not make that clear in its offer and it offers no proof from the record that this assertion is correct.
Finding no errors in the evaluation, the court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the protest.
Quantum Research International is represented by Jon Davidson Levin. The government is represented by Michael Duane Austin, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch. Torch Technologies Inc. is represented by Robert J. Symon.
