CWS's revised quotation still proposed this person for the position, however, and failed to identify any replacement.
The TEP identified this as a "major omission," presenting significant risk for the protester's ability to successfully meet the requirement. The evaluators noted, further, that this risk was compounded by weaknesses in other areas of CWS's quotation. In the evaluation of the oral presentation, which was rated marginal, the TEP noted one strength, two weaknesses, one deficiency, and one risk. The TEP pointed out that an "operations manager was not present" at the oral presentation, "nor [was his] absence addressed," despite "bidders [being] instructed to have all three key personnel present for the oral presentations.
At the conclusion of phase 2 of the technical evaluation, the agency assigned CWS's quotation the overall rating of marginal. Relying on section M of the RFQ, which states that a quotation evaluated as unacceptable under any technical factor or sub-factor was ineligible for award, and section L, which provides that the government might exclude a quotation that was not among the most highly rated or was unlikely to receive an award, the agency determined that CWS's quotation was "clearly.
On February 19, , the agency notified CWS that it was not selected for award. Protest at After requesting and receiving a debriefing, CWS filed this protest with our Office. CWS challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation under the technical response, management and staffing, and past performance factors.
Oppo's under-screen selfie cam means no annoying notch
The protester also alleges that the agency evaluated quotations disparately, claiming that it received a deficiency after its operations manager resigned prior to oral presentation, while Group also lacked key personnel while the procurement was being conducted but it was not rated unfavorably. We have considered all of the allegations raised by CWS and find no basis to sustain the protest. In reviewing a protest challenging an agency's technical evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate the quotations; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency's evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations.
Innovative Mgmt. Approaches, Inc. A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.
As noted above, CWS argues that the agency's evaluation of its quotation under the management and staffing factor was unreasonable, and alleges disparate treatment by the agency. CWS asserts that its deficiency rating for lack of key personnel was arbitrary and capricious and that, because the awardee also did not have the required key personnel available but did not receive an unfavorable rating, the protest should be sustained.
We disagree. The record here does not support CWS's allegations regarding an unreasonable evaluation of its management and staffing factor by the agency. There is no dispute concerning the solicitation's requirement that the three mandatory key personnel be available to start working on the designated contract start date, nor is there any basis to conclude that the protester had key personnel in place at the time of the final technical evaluation. In this circumstance, the agency's assessment of a significant deficiency based on the protester's failure to meet the RFQ's key personnel requirement is consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
Accordingly, we deny this basis of protest. With regard to CWS's disparate treatment allegations, the protester is essentially arguing that the agency waived the key personnel requirements when it evaluated Group's quotation, and that it, therefore, had to waive the requirement for CWS. Again, we disagree, as described in further detail below.
IT news, careers, business technology, reviews | Computerworld
According to the protester, Group's key personnel positions, including operations and incident manager, service desk manager, and IT operations and incident manager, were also not filled at the time of the TEP's evaluation, and Group was actively recruiting for those positions. In support of its allegations, CWS attaches a job posting for Group's IT operations and incident manager position, claiming that the description of duties in that posting was "copied and pasted directly from the solicitation.
Not only was Group actively recruiting, the protester asserts, but the protester also claims that, "as incumbent on site," it has "personal information" that the proposed awardee's staff was not present at the contract kick-off meeting. MCC disputes those allegations. The agency maintains that the awardee proposed the same key personnel in its quotation and throughout the solicitation process.
Moreover, MCC submits a declaration from its acting chief information officer, who served as a technical evaluation chair TEC for the RFQ, that specifically refutes CWS's claims that the awardee's key personnel were absent at the "kick-off" meeting. In his declaration, the TEC explains that the same three key individuals, listed in Group's initial quotation, were subsequently included in the revised quotation during the second phase of the evaluation process.
In addition, the TEC explains that these individuals attended both the oral presentations and the "kick-off" meeting after the award. Attached to the declaration are copies of the sign-in sheets from the oral presentation and "kick-off" meeting, which bear the same three signatures of proposed key personnel.
On this record, we find no basis to conclude that the agency engaged in disparate treatment. In this regard, we need not decide whether the Group's job posting attached to the current protest was indeed targeting potential key personnel for the IT requirement at issue, because the mere effort to hire additional qualified personnel to meet the needs of an RFQ, through job posting or otherwise, generally does not demonstrate that the vendor failed to propose appropriate personnel or misrepresented the availability of the personnel.
See , e.
Moreover, here, the protester does not attempt to disprove nor in any way comment on MCC's arguments advanced in the TEC's declaration, effectively abandoning its claim about unavailability of awardee's key personnel. Forest City Military Cmtys. In sum, the protester fails to present facts that reasonably indicate that the agency's determination of CWS's unacceptability under management and staffing factor was anything other than rational.
We also find no evidence of disparate treatment by the agency. Because the solicitation clearly provided that a quotation evaluated as unacceptable in any technical factor was ineligible for award, RFQ at 70, and that a quotation might be excluded from further consideration when it was not among the most highly rated or was unlikely to be selected for award, RFQ at 67, we need not consider any other arguments made by the protester. Our review of the record confirms that in accordance with the terms of the RFQ, the agency reasonably determined that the protester did not have a realistic prospect of award given its significantly lower, as compared with the awardee, technical approach rating, its unacceptable rating under the management and staffing factor, and its overall rating of marginal.
Accordingly, references to the record throughout this decision will indicate the title of the document as included in the AR followed by Bates numbers. CWS is the incumbent contractor on the current contract for desk support services. To find key contact information including Sales and Marketing, locate our offices, report a site problem, or inquire about reprints or back issues, please see our Contact Us page.
- Available on.
- Most Popular Reviews;
- PROUDLY SERVING!
Here are the latest Insider stories. More Insider Sign Out. Sign Out Sign In Register. Latest Insider. Business Tech. Mobile Tech. Digital Downloads. Best Places to Work. Resource Library. Check out the latest Insider stories here. More from the IDG Network.