New LEADS challenges the agency’s determination that EIS’s quotation represents the best value to the government, arguing that in selecting EIS’s lower-rated, lower‑priced proposal for award, the agency placed undue emphasis on price and essentially converted the basis for award from a determination of “best value” to one of “lowest-cost, technically acceptable.” Protest at 9, 12. The protester also asserts that the agency’s source selection decision is not adequately documented, and that it misrepresents the relative merits of LEADS’s and EIS’s quotations.  Source selection officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and cost/price evaluation results; tradeoffs may be made, and the extent that technical superiority may be sacrificed for a cost/price advantage is governed by the test of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors. Joppa Maint. Co., Inc., B-281579; B-281579.2, Mar. 2, 1999, 2000 CPD para. 2 at 7. A protester’s mere disagreement with the source selection decision does not show that the source selection was not reasonably based or was otherwise inconsistent with the solicitation’s award language. Financial & Realty Servs., LLC, B-299605.2, Aug. 9, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 161 at 5-6. In addition, our Office has also long recognized that an agency, in making a source selection, may properly conclude that a technical scoring advantage based primarily on incumbency does not indicate an actual technical superiority that would warrant paying a cost premium. EDAW, Inc., B-272884, Nov. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 213 at 7; Sparta, Inc., B‑228216, Jan. 15, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 37 at 4.

We disagree with the protester that the agency failed to adequately document its source selection, placed undue emphasis on price in selecting EIS’s quotatation for award, and essentially changed the basis for award from “best value” to “lowest-cost, technically acceptable.” In this regard, the agency’s source selection statement (which totals six pages) provides a summary of each quotation’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the reasoning for the evaluation ratings received under each of the evaluation factors. The source selection statement continues by comparing the ratings of each of the quotations, providing an overall ranking of the quotations as evaluated under the non-price factors, and provides a table of the evaluated prices and summary of the agency’s review of the prices quoted. The source selection statement accurately acknowledges LEADS’s evaluated technical advantages, but concludes that the protester’s higher technical rating does not outweigh EIS’s price advantage. We find that the agency’s source selection decision is adequately documented, and given the specific price/technical merit tradeoff made in selecting EIS’s quotation for award, see no indication in the record that the agency, in making its source selection, placed undue emphasis on price or made award on a “lowest-cost, technically acceptable” basis.  We also do not agree with the protester that the agency’s source selection decision misrepresents the relative merits of LEADS’s and EIS’s quotations. In this regard, LEADS primarily complains that the statement in the source selection decision that LEADS’s quotation’s higher technical rating under the evaluation factors of experience and transition plan was due to LEADS’s status as the incumbent, which assertedly indicated that the source selection decision failed to reflect the actual advantages of LEADS’s quotation under these factors. Specifically, the protester contends with regard to the experience evaluation factor that its rating of “excellent” was not “merely by virtue of its status as the incumbent,” but was also, for example and as recognized by the evaluators, due to the “relevance, depth and scope of LEADS’ experience.” Protester’s Comments at 5. The protester also argues that its quotation should have been viewed as significantly superior to EIS’s under the experience factor (despite EIS’s “good” rating), given that the evaluators noted that a “chart” provided in EIS’s quotation “referenced vaguely relevant and similar experience in the RFQ.”   Supplemental Protest at 9. We agree with the protester that the agency, in assigning LEADS’s quotation an “excellent” rating under the experience factor, identified numerous strengths with regard to LEADS’s “experience,” and that these strengths are related to the relevance, depth and scope of LEADS’s experience. However, the agency also found that the vast majority of these strengths were in the context of LEADS’s 12-year record of performance as the incumbent contractor. We find no basis in this record to conclude that the agency did not reasonably assess the merits of LEADS’s quotation under this factor.  (LEADS Corporation, B-311002; B-311002.2, March 26, 2008) (pdf)

In any event, the protester’s argument is unpersuasive as it reflects an unreasonable interpretation of the RFP. To be reasonable, an interpretation of solicitation language must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions. Stabro Labs, Inc., B-256921, Aug. 8, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 66 at 4. The protester’s interpretation that the RFP does not permit the agency to find that a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal represents the best value to the agency unless the proposals are found to be technically equal, is unreasonable because it renders meaningless the RFP’s clear instruction to all offerors that all technical factors combined were to be approximately equal in importance to price. Contrary to the protester’s position, the solicitation permitted a tradeoff between technical and price factors and did not prohibit an award to an offeror that submitted a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal. (Angel Menendez Environmental Services, Inc., B-310340.2, April 11, 2008) (pdf)

Where, as here, the RFP states a best value evaluation plan--as opposed to selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer--evaluation of proposals is not limited to determining whether a proposal is merely technically acceptable; rather, proposals should be further differentiated to distinguish their relative quality under each stated evaluation factor by considering the degree to which technically acceptable proposals exceed the stated minimum requirements or will better satisfy the agency’s needs. See The MIL Corp., B-294836, Dec. 30, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 29 at 8; Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc.; Meridian Mgmt. Corp., B-281287.5 et al., June 21, 1999, 2001 CPD para. 3 at 8. In fact, we have long stated that evaluation ratings should be merely guides for intelligent decision-making, see Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B‑281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 11, and that therefore evaluators and SSAs should reasonably consider the underlying bases for ratings, including the advantages and disadvantages associated with the specific content of competing proposals, in a manner that is fair and equitable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. See MD Helicopters, Inc.; AgustaWestland, Inc., B-298502 et al., Oct. 23, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 164 at 15. Indeed, as indicated above, the FAR requires that agencies sufficiently document their judgments, including documenting the relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weakness, and risks supporting their proposal evaluations. See FAR sections 4.801(b), 15.305(a), 15.308; Century Envtl. Hygiene, Inc., supra, at 4. Here, given the nearly complete absence in the record of any assessment of the firms’ different approaches under the mission capability and proposal risk subfactors (as noted above, the SSET did assess Jacobs’s proposed “seamless team” approach and lack of OCIs as proposal strengths, justifying a blue/excellent rating with low risk under the management practices subfactors), we find that the SSET failed to evaluate the firms’ proposals under these subfactors consistent with the RFP, which we find prevented the SSA from meaningfully weighing the relative merits of the offerors’ proposals. In this regard, the SSA indicated in his testimony that it was his practice in making selection decisions to look beyond the color/adjectival ratings in weighing the offerors’ proposals, see Tr. at 323-25, and the contemporaneous record evidences that the SSA attempted to look beyond the adjectival ratings here to ascertain the relative quality of the firms’ technical proposals. See, AR, Tab 50, Memorandum for Record, Jan. 30, 2007. However, we do not find that the SSA was provided with a reasonable opportunity to do so here, given the SSET’s failure to qualitatively assess the merits of the offerors’ proposals, as required by the RFP. See Tr. at 330-39. Accordingly, since the record evidences that the agency did not evaluate the proposals under the mission capability and proposal risk subfactors in a way that reasonably distinguished their relative merits in accordance with the RFP’s evaluation scheme, we sustain the protests.  (Systems Research and Applications Corporation; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-299818; B-299818.2; B-299818.3; B-299818.4, September 6, 2007) (pdf)

The protester contends that the contracting officer and SSA improperly converted the procurement to one based on low price among technically acceptable offers instead of following the RFP’s provision that technical superiority was to be significantly more important than price. As explained below, we conclude that the record shows that the evaluation and selection decision here were reasonable and consistent with the RFP. Based on the record here, we find the tradeoff determination and award reasonably based. Our review, as discussed further below, confirms not only the SSA’s view of the comparable technical merit of the proposals, but also the reasonableness of the determination that, given the level of technical merit available at a significantly lower price, an award to Crown based on its slightly higher-rated proposal was not warranted. The evaluation record here is clear. As the contracting offficer points out in her analysis of the TEP report, both firms’ proposals presented comparable strengths under each evaluation factor. For instance, under the prior experience factor, where both firms were rated “excellent,” each was credited for extensive experience with HUD and other property closings at similar volumes and in similar geographic areas. For the technical and management factor, both firms met state licensing requirements, provided comprehensive quality control plans, set out detailed work strategies, and have several offices in the area. Given the similarity in the noted strengths for both proposals, we find reasonable the contracting officer’s conclusion that the difference in technical ratings assigned for the factor (“excellent” for Crown and “good” for Lawyers) does not reflect any material difference in technical merit. For past performance, Crown’s proposal was rated “excellent” and Lawyers’ was rated “good.” While there is little explanation of the difference in past performance ratings in the record, our review shows that at least two past performance references rated Lawyers “excellent” under each subfactor. Additionally, while one evaluator apparently noted some negative performance information for the firm, the same evaluator also cited numerous strengths for the firm. For the final technical factor, personnel qualifications, the record also supports the SSA’s conclusion that the two firms’ proposals were comparable in technical merit. Both firms’ staff resumes and biographies showed that all proposed key personnel met or exceeded the RFP’s experience requirements and that the level of effort proposed was satisfactory for successful performance of the work. While Crown was credited (and rated “excellent”) for having personnel committed solely to this project, it is also clear in the evaluation record that Lawyers (rated “good” for the personnel factor) was found to have fully staffed the effort with qualified, experienced personnel, for which its proposal was rated favorably. (Crown Title Corporation, B-298426, September 21, 2006) (pdf)

ATI misunderstands the nature of this acquisition. Where, as here, a solicitation calls for detailed technical proposals and sets forth weighted evaluation criteria that enable the agency to make comparative judgments about the relative merits of competing submissions, the agency properly may rate one submission higher than another based on its exceeding the solicitation’s stated requirements. ManTech Sec. Tech. Corp., B-297133.3, Apr. 24, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 77 at 7; see also Chicago Dryer Co., B-293940, June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 137 at 4 (protest that agency should have selected protester’s technically acceptable, lower-priced proposal over awardee’s technically superior, higher-priced proposal that exceeded solicitation’s minimum requirements was denied where solicitation provided for comparative evaluation of technical proposals, which indicated that qualitative distinction would be made between competing submissions). Here, the record shows that the agency rated Brown’s quotation higher than the protester’s primarily because Brown’s provided several features that exceeded the minimum requirements of the solicitation in ways deemed beneficial to the agency. For example, the record shows that Brown’s test stand had a component that was larger than required under the specifications, which the agency deemed desirable because it would enhance the ease of operating the device. In comparison, ATI’s quotation did little more than reiterate the specifications verbatim; it provided nothing that exceeded the minimum requirements of the RFQ. Since firms were specifically advised that the agency was conducting this acquisition on a best value (as opposed to low price, technically acceptable) basis, there was nothing improper in the agency’s making these qualitative distinctions between the quotations, and selecting the higher-priced Brown quotation as providing the most advantageous product considering price and non-price factors; this is especially so in light of the fact that the RFQ advised firms that the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. (Aviation Technology, Inc., B-298313.2, September 21, 2006) (pdf)

In a competitive procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule program in which the solicitation announced that award would be made on a best value basis and that technical factors were more important than price, the agency improperly selected the awardee to receive the order based upon the awardee's technically acceptable, lowest-priced quote.  (Computer Products, Inc., B-284702, May 24, 2000)