DENIED: March 4, 1993 GSBCA 12244-P THE FILLMORE GROUP, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. Frank C. Fillmore, Jr., President of The Fillmore Group, Ellicott City, MD, appearing for Protester. Russell P. Spindler and Robert Hampsch, Office of Counsel, Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA, and Douglas P. Larsen, Office of Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL, and VERGILIO. NEILL, Board Judge. This protest was filed by The Fillmore Group (Fillmore) on December 30, 1992. It concerns a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (respondent), for a logical design and functional specification for a relational database encompassing insensitive munitions information. This is protester's second protest concerning the RFP. Protester's initial protest was sustained on the ground that respondent improperly excluded protester from the competitive range based on an erroneous conclusion that protester's proposal did not identify the individual who would actually perform the work. Fillmore Group v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12057-P, 1992 BPD 367 (Nov. 30, 1992). In granting the protest, the Board directed respondent to reevaluate protester's proposal with the knowledge that Mr. Fillmore was the individual proposed to perform the contract. After reevaluating protester's proposal, respondent concluded that protester still did not have a reasonable chance of award without completely rewriting its proposal. Respondent, therefore, again excluded protester from the competitive range. Protester contends that this exclusion was improper. The parties have elected to submit their positions on the written record. Rules 9 and 11. For the reasons stated, we deny the protest. Findings of Fact 1. On April 23, 1992, respondent issued RFP N60530-92-R- 0158 for the "Insensitive Munitions Database Design." The solicitation was for a cost plus fixed fee contract. Protest File, Exhibits 2 at 3 (unnumbered), 4 at 2. 2. Solicitation Section L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS - contains detailed instructions concerning information to be included in an offeror's proposal. This section requires offerors to submit their proposals in three separately bound volumes, namely, a technical/management proposal, Volume I; a cost proposal, Volume II; and standard form 33, Volume III. Protest File, Exhibit 2 at 20. The technical/management proposal is limited to fifteen pages in length. Id. 3. Section L also provides information that offerors shall include in their technical/management proposal. One provision which relates to the preparation of the technical portion of Volume I reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Volume I shall be the technical proposal covering your understanding of the proposed work and your proposed method of approach to attain contract objectives. . . . To facilitate the evaluation, the technical proposal should be sufficiently specific, detailed and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for, and technical problems inherent in, the achievement of the specification and work program herein described, and has a valid and practical solution for each contemplated problem. It is realized that all of the technical factors cannot be detailed in advance; however, the technical proposal shall contain sufficient detail to indicate the proposed means for complying with all applicable specifications and shall include a complete explanation of the techniques and procedures to be exercised. . . . Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can or will comply with all specifications, statements paraphrasing the specifications or parts thereof, and phrases such as "standard procedures will be emplo yed" o r "well known techn iques will b e used, " etc., will b e consi dered insuf ficie nt. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 25. 4. Solicitation Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - states that offers are to be evaluated on the basis of technical/management proposals and cost realism. In the overall evaluation scheme, a greater value is assigned to the evaluation of technical/management proposals than to cost realism. The technical/management evaluation factor contains five subfactors which are of equal value, namely: (1) evidence of technical experience, (2) evidence of understanding of the requirements in the statement of work (SOW), (3) evidence of successful performance of similar tasks, (4) proposed program to meet joint service objectives, and (5) qualifications of personnel to be assigned to the program. Section M also states specifically that the "technical proposal must give clear, detailed information sufficient to enable evaluation based on the criteria" listed above. Protest File, Exhibit 2 at 26. 5. The SOW requires the contractor to present a detailed project plan at a "kickoff meeting" held within two weeks of contract award. Protest File, Exhibit 2, Attachment 1 at 2 (unnumbered). Fillmore's Proposal 6. Protester's technical/management proposal, Volume I, consists of a separate management proposal, technical proposal, and three appendices. Protest File, Exhibit 5. One of the appendices, entitled "Data Modelling Course Outline," is eight pages in length. This outline is generic and intended to be modified based on student interest and time constraints. It invites the reader to add, delete, or rearrange topics. Id., Appendix C, at 1 (unnumbered). 7. Protester's technical proposal consists of slightly more than one page. It is divided into two sections entitled "Approach" and "Deliverables." The section describing approach contains two paragraphs. This section does not specifically reference any portion of the SOW or note any anticipated problems which may be encountered during performance. It merely contains a description of the data modeling theory utilized by protester. The section disclosing contract deliverables lists five items to be provided to the Government during contract performance. The list of deliverables provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 2) An entity-relationship diagram composed in either a graphical package or in a CASE tool based on customer preference and tool availability. . . . . 4) A transaction design describing the attribute interdependencies when performing conventional insert, update, and deletion operations. . . . This design may be manifested in a matrix, decision table, decision tree, or some other format mutually agreeable to both the customer and the offeror. Protest File, Exhibit 5 at 4-5. Source Evaluation Report 8. Respondent's Source Evaluation Board (SEB) reevaluated protester's proposal in light of the guidance contained in the Board decision sustaining Fillmore's first protest. Protest File, Exhibit 17. The SEB concluded that protester's proposal was "technically inadequate without a complete and substantive revision." It was said that the proposal did not meet the solicitation requirement for a sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete proposal to permit "a sound determination as to whether the offeror has a thorough understanding of the technical problems inherent in the SOW or whether the work proposed would meet the requirements of the Government." This conclusion was based on an assessment of protester's technical proposal for compliance with subfactors two and four. The deficiencies found in protester's proposal for each of these factors was said to "independently render the Fillmore Group's proposal technically inadequate without a complete and substantive revision as the basis for further negotiations." Id. 9. Evaluation subfactor two measured an offeror's understanding of the requirements as stated in the SOW. Protest File, Exhibit 2 at 26. On reevaluation, the SEB concluded the following regarding protester's understanding of the tasks and requirements: The Technical Proposal portion of the proposal consists of little more than one page. The content of the Technical Proposal is so broad and generic that virtually every sentence is applicable to database design in general. The Technical Proposal does not refer to the NIMIS [Navy Insensitive Munitions Information System] in any way, nor does it explain how the general data modeling principles cited in the proposal would resolve specific problems inherent to the SOW. Because of its failure to refer to specific NIMIS problems in any way, the proposal does not incorporate any indication that the SOW has been read, much less understood. In effect, the substance of The Fillmore Group's Technical Proposal consists solely of the representation that "standard procedures will be employed." The RFP explicitly states this is insufficient. Id., Exhibit 17 at 1. 10. Evaluation subfactor four addressed an offeror's proposed program approach to determine the offeror's ability to meet the joint service objectives under the contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 26. The SEB concluded that protester's program approach was seriously flawed for failing to address the need for interactions with government personnel to resolve data conflicts and ensure the product will meet the diverse technical needs of the system users. The SEB also noted the absence of any schedule regarding start-up activities. Protester's proposal was also faulted for its lack of a work flow plan or milestones for completion of sub-tasks, and its failure to discuss management mechanisms for cost, schedule, and quality control. Id., Exhibit 17 at 2-3. 11. Respondent concluded that protester did not have a reasonable chance of award without completely rewriting its proposal and, therefore, excluded protester from the competitive range. Protest File, Exhibits 17 at 4, 18 at 10. Discussion The parties are in agreement that only two issues remain in this protest. The first concerns whether respondent reduced unfairly protester's evaluation score for failure to provide material which, in fact, was not required under the solicitation until after award. The second issue addresses whether the evaluation was inconsistently performed inasmuch as disparate scores were given on evaluation subfactors which allegedly overlap to a very high degree. Protester's Evaluation Scores Protester has not convinced us that its elimination from the competitive range, upon reevaluation, was attributable to an unfair reduction of evaluation scores for failure to provide in its proposal material not required by the RFP until after contract award. Protester is indeed correct that the solicitation requires the contractor to present a detailed project plan at a kickoff meeting to be held within two weeks of contract award. Finding 5. Technically speaking, a vendor is not required to submit such a plan with its proposal. What is required, however, is the inclusion in the proposal of sufficient detail to demonstrate the vendor's understanding of the SOW and its ability to prepare and present such a plan in the event of award. Protester unfortunately overlooks or ignores the specific solicitation instructions contained in Sections L and M. The solicitation explains that vendors are expected to submit technical proposals which will be "sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that a prospective offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for, and technical problems inherent in, the achievement of the specification and work program . . . ." The RFP also provides: "[T]he technical proposal shall contain sufficient detail to indicate the proposed means for complying with all applicable specifications and shall include a complete explanation of the techniques and procedures to be exercised." Finding 3. Section M advises offerors that their proposals will be evaluated against this standard. Finding 4. Respondent contends that the items mentioned in the evaluation report, Finding 10, are only listed as examples of how an offeror could have demonstrated an understanding of the SOW. Respondent's Brief at 6. We agree. It is not these items, as such, which were required. Rather, the evaluators expected mention of these or similar items as evidence of the offeror's understanding of the task at hand. When protester failed to provide the requisite degree of detail, the proposal was justifiably marked down. If anything, the record in this case amply supports the low evaluation scores given to protester for subfactors two and four of the technical/management evaluation factor. See Finding 4. As noted, protester's proposal was found technically inadequate based on evaluation subfactors two and four. Findings 8-10. With regard to subfactor two, namely, "understanding the requirements in the statement of work," respondent concluded that protester's broad and generic data modeling principles cited in its proposal did not indicate how it would resolve the specific problems inherent to the SOW or refer to the NIMIS in any way. Finding 9. Respondent reasonably concluded, therefore, that "the proposal does not incorporate any indication that the SOW has been read, much less understood." Id. Respondent's evaluation of protester's proposal for compliance with subfactor four, namely, "proposed program approach to meet joint service objectives," reflects a serious concern with protester's ability to accomplish in a satisfactory manner the objectives in the SOW. Finding 10. Protester's technical proposal did little to assure the evaluators that the protester actually recognized and planned for the particular requirements of this project. This part of protester's proposal consists of slightly more than one page and does not specifically reference the SOW. Finding 7. In its brief, protester makes reference to the eight-page course outline included in its proposal as evidence of expertise in database design. Protester's Brief at 4. The course outline obviously does not relate to this solicitation, or any particular course for that matter. Finding 6. Furthermore, the list of deliverables provided by protester leaves unanswered questions concerning the entity-relationship diagram by stating that it will be "composed in either a graphical package or in a CASE tool based on customer preference and tool availability." Finding 7. This part of the proposal likewise leaves unresolved the transaction design, indicating that "it may be manifested in a matrix, decision table, decision tree, or some other format mutually agreeable to both the customer and the offeror." Id. In short, we find no support in the record for protester's contention that its evaluation scores were unfairly marked down for failure to include items which are not required until after contract performance. On the contrary, the revaluation of protester's proposal, in the light of our decision granting the earlier protest by Fillmore, was very much in keeping with solicitation provisions. An Alleged Inconsistency in the Evaluation Process In its second allegation, protester contends that the evaluation of its proposal was done in an inconsistent fashion. Protester points out that the scores it received on technical/management evaluation subfactors one, three, and five are higher than the scores received on evaluation subfactors two and four. Protester argues, however, that there is overlap in these subfactors because they evaluate the same attributes of protester's proposal. Given the alleged overlap, Fillmore contends that the scores for the five subfactors should not have varied to the extent they do and that the variance demonstrates an obvious inconsistency in the evaluation process. Respondent admits that the scores for subfactors one, three, and five are higher than the scores for subfactors two and four. Respondent's Brief at 9. Nevertheless, respondent challenges protester's underlying assumption that there is a high degree of overlap between the two groups of subfactors. We agree with respondent. The technical/management evaluation subfactors one, three, and five relate to evidence of technical experience, evidence of successful performance of similar tasks, and qualifications of proposed personnel, respectively. Finding 4. Respondent correctly notes that these factors look backwards to past performance. Respondent's Brief at 9. By contrast, subfactors two and four are prospective in nature and relate to the specific tasks outlined in the SOW which are to be performed upon contract award. Id. We conclude, therefore, that an offeror could be found acceptable with regard to its technical experience, past performance, and personnel, but unacceptable in terms of its actual demonstration of an understanding of the SOW. As noted, the solicitation specifically required offerors to demonstrate in a specific, detailed, and complete manner their understanding of the SOW. Findings 3, 4. Failure to do so could readily result in fatally low scores on subfactors two and four notwithstanding higher scores on subfactors one, three, and five. Conclusion We have long held that the law vests considerable discretion in the conduct and judgment of technical evaluators. Computer Sciences Corp., GSBCA 11497-P, 92-1 BCA 24,703, at 123,297, 1992 BPD 6, at 32. Their evaluations will be upheld unless the protester proves that the evaluation results were "clearly erroneous," "unreasonable," or constitute "an abuse of discretion." Corporate Jets, Inc., GSBCA 11049-P, 91-2 BCA 23,998, at 120,118, 1991 BPD 111, at 17; American Computer Educators, Inc; GSBCA 10539-P, 90-2 BCA 22,919, at 115,075, 1990 BPD 110, at 9; Advanced Technology, Inc., GSBCA 8878-P, 87-2 BCA 19,817, at 100,272, 1987 BPD 16, at 33. In this case, protester has clearly failed to meet this rigorous burden of proof. Decision The protest is DENIED. ________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: _______________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge ________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge