Free Published Opinion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 1 of 43

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 07-186C (Filed Under Seal: October 24, 2007) (Reissued: November 6, 2007)1 ************************************* WESTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************************* Carolyn Callaway, Albuquerque, NM, for plaintiff. William P. Rayel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge This post-award bid protest action is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record pursuant to Rule 52.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). Plaintiff, Westech International, Inc. ("Westech" or "plaintiff"), challenges an award to PAI Corporation ("PAI"), under a solicitation issued by the United States, acting through the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration ("DOE/NNSA" or "NNSA"). The solicitation was issued to provide Security System Services for the NNSA Nevada Site Office ("NNSA/NSO") and Nevada Test Site ("NTS"). Plaintiff asks this court to: declare the DOE/NNSA's award of the contract to PAI arbitrary, capricious, and without a rational basis; enjoin permanently PAI's performance of the contract; direct the DOE/NNSA to reevaluate offers under the solicitation and make a new award
1

Post-Award Bid Protest; DOE; NNSA; Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record; RCFC 52.1; Probable Cost Adjustments; Bannum; Rational Basis.

The court issued this Opinion and Order under seal on October 24, 2007. The court directed the parties to submit proposed redactions by November 5, 2007. Defendant, on behalf of both parties, submitted proposed redactions. The court has incorporated these redactions, which are indicated by brackets, into this reissued Opinion and Order, and has made two non substantive corrections brought to the court's attention by the parties.

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 2 of 43

decision; grant plaintiff costs and fees incurred in bringing this action; and grant plaintiff any other relief this court deems just and proper. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's CrossMotion for Judgment on the Administrate Record is granted, and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record is denied. I. BACKGROUND2 A. Solicitation On April 18, 2005, the DOE/NNSA issued "a small business set-aside competitive solicitation," Solicitation Number DE-RP52-05NA99344 ("Solicitation" or "RFP"), for a contract to provide Security System Services for the NNSA/NSO. AR 1903. The "scope of work include[d] the Nevada Test Site (NTS), NSO Las Vegas metropolitan owned and/or leased facilities, and other facilities as assigned by NSO." Id. The NTS is "a 1,375 square-mile federal reservation located approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada." Id. The NTS "provides the supporting infrastructure, air space and utilities to serve the nation in developing innovative solutions to complex problems involving special nuclear material (SNM); hazardous materials; and multi-agency, integrated operations." Id. The facility "represents the United States' single, unique capability to support nuclear testing and major experiments that involve SNM or hazardous materials." Id. Further: Strong competencies such as nuclear safety and nuclear explosives safety and operations; remote field experiments and operations; first responder training; physical and environmental science; nuclear waste management systems and technology; design and fabrication of electronic, mechanical, and structural systems; remote and robotic sensing; management of a broad range of infrastructure, mining, engineering, and construction; and chemical, explosives, and hazardous materials systems and technology reside in the skilled employees of the NSO partnerships. Id. Consequently, due to the highly sensitive nature of the research conducted at the DOE site, security is essential. Id. The Solicitation sought offers for a cost-plus-fixed-fee, completion-type contract.3 Id. at

For purposes of ruling on the parties' cross-motions, the factual background is derived from the administrative record ("AR"). "A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract." 48 C.F.R. § 16.306(a) (2005). A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract may take one of two forms: completion or term. Id. § 16.306(d). The completion-type contract "describes the scope of work by stating a definite goal or target and specifying an end product," id. § 16.306(d)(1), whereas the term-type contract "describes the scope of work in general terms and obligates the contractor to -23

2

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 3 of 43

61, 1903. The contract encompassed a transition period and a three-year base period with two, one-year option periods. Id. at 1903. The deadline for the submission of proposals was July 7, 2005. Id. at 50, 2309, 2335. An Amendment to the Solicitation was issued on each of the following dates: May 25, 2005; June 9, 2005; and June 30, 2005. See generally id. at 2228-2341. The successful contractor would be required to: (1) perform Vulnerability Assessments ("VA"); (2) provide Operational Security Support ("OPSEC"); (3) prepare the NNSA/NSO Site Safeguards and Security Plans ("SSSP"); (4) provide Security Classification Administrative Support; (5) provide Physical Fitness Training; (6) provide Classified Matter Staffing and Administrative Support; (7) perform Pass and Badging services; and (8) provide Other Security Support.4 Id. at 67-69. A proposal was to be submitted in three volumes: Offer and Other Documents; Technical Proposal; and Cost Proposal. Id. at 52. B. Evaluation Criteria and Methodology 1. Evaluation Criteria The Solicitation provided that the acquisition would be conducted in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR") Part 15 and DOE Acquisition Regulation Part 915,5 id. at 63; and that the contract would be awarded on a best value basis6 after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation, id. at 47. Because the government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract based on the factors in the Solicitation and without discussions with offerors,7 offerors were advised that devote a specified level of effort for a stated time period." Id. § 16.306(d)(2). The Statement of Work ("SOW") for the Other Security Support element was divided essentially into (1) tasks regarding Information Technology ("IT")/Website Support and (2) tasks regarding Security Education/Safeguards and Security ("S&S") Professional Training. AR 6970. Part 15 of the FAR, 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.000-.609, "prescribes the policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions." 48 C.F.R. § 15.000. The DOE Acquisition Regulation implements and supplements the FAR and is used in conjunction with the FAR. Id. § 901.101. The Solicitation defined "best value" as "the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement." AR 64 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 2.101). The government reserved the right to hold discussions if the contracting officer later determined discussions were necessary. AR 47. -37 6 5 4

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 4 of 43

their initial proposal should reflect the best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Id. The four evaluation criteria, in order of descending importance, were: Key Personnel, Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Cost.8 Id. at 64-65. The Solicitation noted that in determining the best value to the government, the Key Personnel, Technical Capability, and Past Performance proposal evaluation criteria were significantly more important than the Cost Evaluation Criteria. Id. at 64; see also id. at 65 ("The Cost Evaluation Criteria [are] significantly less important" than the other three criteria). At the Preproposal Conference with potential offerors, the government's representative advised that approximately 40 to 50 Full-Time Equivalent ("FTE") employees would be associated with the contract.9 Id. at 2180, 2202. a. Technical Evaluation Criteria In evaluating the proposals, the Technical Evaluation Criteria were assigned the following weight: Key Personnel, assessed 45 points; Technical Capability, assessed 40 points; and Past Performance, assessed 15 points. Id. at 1910. There were no subcriteria. Id. at 65. i. Technical Evaluation Criterion 1 - Key Personnel The Solicitation identified four positions for Key Personnel: Program Manager; Vulnerability Assessments Manager ("VA Manager"); Operational Security Manager ("OPSEC Manager"); and Site Safeguards and Security Plan Manager ("SSSP Manager"). Id. at 40. Key Personnel were required to be "highly qualified" and "demonstrate the ability to effectively manage a program of the nature, size and scope of the work required in the [SOW]." Id. at 55. The offeror's proposed Key Personnel would be evaluated on "their qualifications, currency and relevancy of experience, attainment of advanced degrees in related disciplines, and demonstrated technical expertise, in the specific positions for which they are proposed. Currency and relevancy of experience is significantly more important than education." Id. Further, the Program Manager position was "considered significantly more important" and would be "given more weight in the evaluation than any other key personnel." Id. Finally, the offeror's Key Personnel were required to submit signed and dated letters of commitment, at agreed upon salary and benefits packages, and their resumes had to demonstrate that their experience and Key Personnel, Technical Capability, and Past Performance were considered "Technical Evaluation Criteria." AR 65. Cost reasonableness, realism, and completeness comprised the "Cost Evaluation Criteria." Id. at 66. However, the "General Questions and Answers" section stated that the government had not "released a `forecasted' required number of FTEs for any activities on this contract. [The government] assum[ed] that capable offerors [would] be able to understand and interpret the requirements as outlined in the Statement of Work . . . and propose accordingly based upon their own unique approach and expertise." AR 2398. -49 8

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 5 of 43

qualifications made them well-suited for the proposed positions. Id. ii. Technical Evaluation Criterion 2 - Technical Capability In evaluating the offeror's Technical Capability, the NNSA considered four facets of the proposal. First, the offeror had to explain how its technical approach would successfully accomplish the SOW. Id. at 55, 65. In evaluating the offeror's technical approach, the NNSA would consider "whether the Offeror[] . . . demonstrate[d] a thorough understanding of any technical risks and their impact associated with performance of the contract, as well as the Offeror's approach for minimizing those risks." Id. at 65. Second, the NNSA would consider the offeror's ability to "provide a highly trained professional nucleus of employees who possess the necessary skills and flexibility to perform the SOW." Id. at 55. Third, a description of the offeror's corporate experience in performing all aspects of the SOW would be considered. Id. Finally, the NNSA would evaluate the offeror's transition plan, which had to include a description of the "proposed transition activities that will mitigate the risk to the continuity of operations of critical NNSA NSO and Nevada Test Site Security missions and tasks." Id. iii. Technical Evaluation Criterion 3 - Past Performance Finally, the Solicitation required an offeror to include information regarding its past performance for contracts completed or in process during the last five years and in place for at least three months where the work was relevant to the SOW. Id. at 56. An offeror also was expected to provide a self-assessment of its relevant past performance and was encouraged to provide information in the self-assessment on problems it encountered and the measures it implemented to resolve the problems. Id. As explained in the pertinent regulation, "[p]ast performance is one indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully." 48 C.F.R. § 15.305(a)(2)(i). As such, past performance evaluations would examine "[t]he currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in [the] contractor's performance." Id. For an offeror who did not have a relevant record of past performance, the NNSA would evaluate the offeror as neither favorable nor unfavorable, and would give the offeror a neutral rating. AR 65; see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.305(a)(2)(iv) ("In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance."). b. Cost Evaluation Criteria In addition to the Technical Evaluation Criteria, the Solicitation also stated that Cost Evaluation Criteria would be applied in order to determine the best value to the government. AR 66. As such, an offeror's cost proposal would be evaluated in accordance with FAR § 15.404 to determine "cost reasonableness, realism, and completeness." Id. The Solicitation provided:

-5-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 6 of 43

NNSA will determine a probable cost estimate to use as the total evaluated cost. The amount that will be used as the evaluated cost or price for purposes of the best value determination will be the sum of the proposed fee, the evaluated cost for the transition period, and the evaluated cost of the total effort (including option periods) for contract performance after the transition period. Id. To determine reasonableness, the NNSA would evaluate the cost proposal for "the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions and estimating techniques used to generate the proposed costs, and the consistency of those assumptions and techniques with the proposed accomplishment of the required work." Id. Second, in analyzing cost realism, the cost proposal would be evaluated to ascertain if the "proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the SOW requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's Technical Proposal." Id. The NNSA would utilize a cost realism analysis to calculate the probable cost of each offeror's proposal in order to evaluate best value. Id. "Probable cost is determined by adjusting each Offeror's proposed costs to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis." Id.; see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.305(a)(1) (stating that when "contracting on a costreimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror's understanding of the work, and the offeror's ability to perform the contract"). Finally, for cost completeness, each proposal would be evaluated based upon the submission requirements contained in the Solicitation's cost instructions. AR 66. As explained above, the Cost Evaluation Criteria were considered "significantly less important" than the Technical Evaluation Criteria (Criteria 1 through 3). Id. at 65, 2508. That lesser degree of significance notwithstanding, the Solicitation cautioned that "[i]nconsistencies between the Cost Proposal and other portions of the proposal could raise concerns regarding the Offeror's understanding of the requirements and ability to perform the work for the proposed cost." Id. at 66. Indeed, offerors were advised that it was within the discretion of the NNSA to construe an "unrealistic, unreasonable, or incomplete cost proposal . . . [as] evidence of the offeror's lack of or poor understanding of the requirements of the solicitation, . . . thus . . . adversely affect[ing] the offeror's rating on the Technical Proposal criteria." Id. 2. Evaluation Methodology The Source Evaluation Board ("SEB") was tasked to evaluate the proposals in accordance with FAR Part 15 and the Technical and Cost Evaluation Criteria published in the RFP. Id. at 1907. During the evaluation process, the SEB used a Source Selection Plan, which had been approved by the Source Selection Authority ("SSA"). Id. The Voting Members of the SEB "developed a consensus evaluation of the strengths . . . , significant strengths . . . , weaknesses . .

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 7 of 43

. , significant weaknesses . . . , and deficiencies . . ." of the proposals.10 Id. The Voting Members then assigned a consensus point score for each responsive technical proposal using the following method. Each Voting Member reviewed and assessed the technical proposal against the relevant evaluation criterion. Id. at 1908. After independent evaluation, the Voting Members of the SEB compared their respective findings to achieve a consensus of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies for each criterion. Id. Risks were "evaluated as a component of weaknesses and deficiencies." Id. Once a consensus was reached, the SEB assigned a rating for each criterion using the adjectival ratings, defined below. Id. Next, the SEB assigned each criterion a percentage. Id. The percentage was then multiplied by the weight assigned to the criterion, and this numeric value was the final score for the criterion. Id. This process was repeated for each criterion for each offeror. Id. The final weighted point scores were then tallied to arrive at a total score for the technical proposal. Id. The adjectival rating definitions were as follows: Excellent: The proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of contractual requirements and capability to perform the contractual work. The proposal contains strengths, including significant strengths, which appreciably outweigh any weaknesses. No deficiencies exist. Good: The proposal demonstrates a good understanding of contractual requirements and capability to perform the contractual work. The proposal contains strengths that outweigh any weaknesses. No deficiencies exist. Marginal: The proposal demonstrates a marginal understanding of contractual requirements and capability to perform the contractual work. The proposal contains weaknesses, including significant weaknesses, which outweigh strengths. No more than one deficiency exists. Poor: The proposal demonstrates a poor understanding of contractual requirements and capability to perform the contractual work. The proposal contains weaknesses, including significant weaknesses, which appreciably outweigh strengths. One or more deficiencies exist.

"Strength" is "an attribute in the proposal that increases the potential of successful contract performance." AR 64. "Significant strength" is "an attribute that appreciably increases the potential of successful contract performance." Id. "Weakness" is "a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance." Id. "Significant weakness" is "a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance." Id. "Deficiency" is "a material failure of the proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level." Id. -7-

10

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 8 of 43

Neutral: For evaluation of Past Performance Only. The Offeror lacks a record of relevant or available past performance history. The Offer is evaluated as neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance. Id. at 63-64. Adjectival ratings were assigned in accordance with the following: Adjective Excellent Good Marginal Poor Neutral (past performance only) Id. at 1908. C. Award The NNSA received fourteen proposals by the July 7, 2005 deadline. Id. at 2508. A competitive range was established on September 22, 2006, of the five most highly rated offerors: Santa Fe Protective Services ("Santa Fe"); Gregg Protection Services; Protection Strategies, Incorporated ("PSI"); Westech; and PAI. Id. at 1906-07; see also id. at 1265 (letter from the contracting officer to the President and CEO of Westech informing Westech that its "proposal was among the most highly rated proposals and is included in the competitive range"). As noted above, while the Solicitation stated that award would be made without discussions, the government reserved the right to conduct discussions. Id. at 47. Thus, "[g]iven the number of highly rated technical proposals, and the significant variations in the offerors' proposed costs, the Contracting Officer determined that it would be advantageous to the Government to conduct discussions to maximize the ability of the selection official to make a best value source selection." Id. at 1907. On September 23, 2006, the government sent its first discussion letter to offerors in the competitive range, identifying concerns and providing offerors the opportunity to explain their proposals. See id. at 343-48, 1265-71. The September 23, 2006 discussion letter asked Westech to, amongst other things, provide a staffing summary specifying the SOW areas that each FTE would perform, elaborate on the proposed Program Manager's experience, and elaborate on how Westech would accomplish the VA SOW.11 Id. at 1267. Each offeror submitted a revised proposal on October 6, 2006. Id.
11

Percentage of Available Points 85 to 100 70 to 84 55 to 68 0 to 54 69

The September 23, 2006 discussion letter also raised concerns regarding Westech's proposed staffing for the OPSEC SOW and the Classified Matter Staffing and Administrative Support SOW. AR 1267-68. The letter further asked Westech to clarify how approximately 0.2 FTE would be sufficient for the IT/Website Support Category, under the Other Security Support SOW, for the entire contract period. Id. at 1269. -8-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 9 of 43

Upon examination of the revised proposals, the SEB sought additional information from the four remaining offerors.12 Id. Then, in a November 2, 2006 discussion letter, the government provided its staffing estimate to the four offerors and asked each to substantiate any deviations from the government's estimate in accordance with the offeror's technical approach. See id. at 556-57, 1601-02; see also id. at 1907 (requesting information regarding "the number of FTEs proposed in relation to the Government[']s estimate of FTEs necessary for accomplishing the SOW requirements"). The breakdown was as follows: Program Management Vulnerability Assessments Operational Security/Security Classification Administrative Support/ Classified Matter Staffing and Administrative Support/Other Security Support Site Safeguards and Security Plan Physical Fitness Training Pass and Badging Total Id. at 1601. The information requested by the SEB was submitted by the offerors on November 9, 2006. Id. at 1907. On December 4, 2006, the SEB issued its Final Evaluation Report ("Report"). Id. at 1898-1982. The awardee, PAI, received an overall technical score of 90.20 (Excellent),13 while Westech's overall technical score was [ ] (Good).14 Id. at 1910. Gregg Protection Services was eliminated from the competition "due to an actual or apparent conflict of interest involving the proposed Program Manager." AR 1907. [ ] and PSI also rated overall as "Excellent," receiving scores of [ respectively. AR 1910.
14 13 12

1 3

9 3 12 5 33

] and 90.50,

The SEB's evaluation scores were:
Offeror Key Personnel 45 Points Technical Capability 40 Points Past Performance 15 Points Total 100 Points Final Proposed Cost ($) Probable Cost ($)

Santa Fe PSI PAI Westech

[ [ [ [

] ] ] ]

[ [ [ [

] ] ] ]

[ [ [ [

] ] ] ]

[

]

[ [

] ]

[ [

] ]

90.50 90.20

22,088,411

22,093,871

[

]

[

]

[

]

-9-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 10 of 43

Ms. Debby C. Miller, the SSA, then reviewed the SEB's Report. See id. at 1983-90. Because she was satisfied that the SEB utilized the established criteria in performing the evaluations of the proposals and satisfied the requisites of the Source Selection Plan and applicable laws and regulations, the SSA concurred with the SEB's ratings and probable cost determinations. Id. at 1986. For Key Personnel, the most heavily weighted criterion, the SSA noted that although Westech was rated as "Excellent," there was a "discernable difference between Westech and the other three Offerors." Id. at 1987. Westech was evaluated lower than the others because its proposed Program Manager was considered "Neither a Strength nor Weakness." Id. (finding that Westech's proposed Program Manager did not demonstrate that he possessed the breadth of experience and technical expertise necessary for the position); see also id. (stating that the remaining three offerors were rated either as "[ ]" or "[ ]" for the Program Manager position). For Technical Capability, the second most heavily weighted criterion, the SSA discussed Westech's technical approach and expressed "concern[] that Westech's shortfall in its proposed staffing, without adequate explanation, could adversely affect successful performance of [some of the] SOW elements." Id.; see also id. at 1911 ("Westech was rated lower because in evaluating its Technical Approach, the SEB identified weaknesses in some SOW areas."). Additionally, the SSA was concerned that "Westech's approach to VAs could compromise the role of the Federal personnel in providing independent oversight of the contractor." Id. at 1987. Lastly, the SSA evaluated the Past Performance criterion, the least weighted criterion, and noted that Westech was "slightly higher than the other three Offerors . . . because it had more contracts that were considered either significant strengths or strengths." Id. Based on her analysis of the Technical and Cost Evaluation Criteria, the SSA compared Westech's proposal against the other three offerors: Overall, even though Westech's proposed OPSEC, VA and SSSP Managers have extensive breadth of experience in each of their respective areas, I find that Westech's Program Manager demonstrated a lesser breadth of experience and technical expertise than the Program Managers proposed by Santa Fe, PSI and PAI. The technical approach proposed by an offeror is also an important aspect of successful contract performance. I find that Westech's overall technical approach increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Specifically, Westech's labor understaffing, without adequate explanation, is a very serious concern of mine. I am also concerned that Westech's approach to VAs could compromise the role of the Federal personnel in providing independent oversight of the contractor. Although Westech was rated the highest in Past Performance, I do not find that this past performance strength overcomes those risks to successful performance of the

Excellent (85-100%)

Good (70-84%)

Marginal (55-68%)

Poor (0-54%)

AR 1985. -10-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 11 of 43

SOW. Accordingly, I find these risks are a significant discriminator between Westech and the other three Offerors. Id. Thus, the SSA concluded that "[t]his shortcoming in Westech's technical proposal does not merit award at a lower probable cost relative to the other three Offeror[s'] cost proposals." Id. at 1989. Based on her evaluation, the SSA found that PAI's proposal represented the best value to the government. Id. On December 6, 2006, PAI and Westech were notified that PAI would be awarded the contract. Id. at 1991-92, 2013-14. On December 7, 2006, award was made to PAI. Id. at 2077. D. Procedural History The NNSA's December 6, 2006 letter to Westech advising that PAI had been awarded the contract also informed Westech that, pursuant to FAR § 15.506(a)(1), Westech could request a debriefing within three days after receipt of that letter. Id. at 2013. The letter further informed Westech that if it preferred an oral debriefing, the SEB had reserved January 2007 for the meeting. Id. By letter dated December 6, 2006, Westech made its request for a debriefing,15 id. at 2041, and by letter dated December 11, 2006, Westech advised the NNSA that only an oral debriefing would permit the company to "make business decisions as a result of this source selection." Id. at 2042. The NNSA conducted the requested debriefing on January 31, 2007. Id. at 2056. On March 20, 2007, plaintiff filed its Post-Award Procurement Protest Complaint in this court. On March 22, 2007, the court held a status conference with the parties, and, in accordance with the parties' proposal, directed defendant to file the administrative record by April 10, 2007.16 The court also directed the parties to file a joint status report by April 17, 2007, to propose briefing deadlines. The dates suggested were adopted by the court. On May 13, 2007, plaintiff filed its Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record ("Motion" or "Pl.'s Mot."). Defendant filed its Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record and Response to Plaintiff's Motion ("Cross-Motion" or "Def.'s Cross-Mot.") on June 4, 2007. Plaintiff filed its Reply and Response to Defendant's Cross-Motion ("Pl.'s Reply & Resp.") on July 1, 2007. Defendant filed its Reply on July 16, 2007. Counsel advised that October 25, 2007, was the earliest available date for oral argument, but the court deems it unnecessary. The Solicitation provided that during the debriefing, the government was required to disclose information such as "[t]he agency's evaluation of the significant weak or deficient factors in the debriefed offeror's offer"; "[t]he overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating of the successful and the debriefed offeror and past performance information on the debriefed offeror"; and a "summary of the rationale for award." AR 47-48. The administrative record was filed on April 10, 2007, and a supplement to the administrative record was filed on May 3, 2007. -1116 15

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 12 of 43

In its Cross-Motion, defendant moved to supplement the administrative record with a declaration from Patricia M. Bodin ("Ms. Bodin"), a Security Team Lead for the Assistant Manager for S&S at the NSO ("Motion to Supplement"). Def.'s Cross-Mot. 30 n.13. On July 1, 2007, plaintiff filed its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Supplement ("Opposition") and Motion to Strike Declaration and Section V of Defendant's Cross-Motion ("Motion to Strike"). On July 16, 2007, defendant filed its Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition, and its Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. Lastly, on July 23, 2007, plaintiff filed its Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. II. THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS A. Plaintiff's Assertions Plaintiff first asserts that the NNSA erred by making upward adjustments to its proposed costs in the amount of $2,843,725. Pl.'s Mot. 15. Specifically, plaintiff claims that five areas were adjusted over the length of the contract by the NNSA without a rational basis: (1) an increase of [ ] for adding 0.8 FTE17 for a Subject Matter Expert ("SME") Consultant;18 (2) an increase of [ ] to substitute a VA SME for an administrative person;19 (3) an increase of [ ] to add 15,342 In its proposal, Westech stated that 1.0 FTE equaled 1,860 labor hours. AR 1663. To arrive at this number, Westech assumed a 40-hour workweek multiplied by 52 weeks per year (40 hours x 52 weeks = 2,080 hours). Id. Westech then subtracted [ ] to arrive at 1,860 hours per year (2,080 hours - [ ] = 1,860 hours). Id. In its Motion, plaintiff explained how it calculated the five increases it contests. The calculations were based on the NNSA's cost analysis of Westech's proposal and, where appropriate, encompass the five contract years. See generally AR 1853-69. Plaintiff's calculation for the additional 0.8 FTE for five years is as follows: Cost for 0.8 FTE SME Consultant: [ Material & Subcontracts ("M&S") at [ ]: [ Total: [ Pl.'s Mot. 18. Plaintiff's calculation for the cost of substituting the VA administrative support person with a VA SME is as follows: Labor: Overhead at [ ]: Subtotal: General & Administrative ("G&A") at [ ]: Total: -12[ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ]
19 18 17

] (7,440 hours x [ ] ]

] per hour)

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 13 of 43

labor hours (approximately 1.7 FTEs per year) to match the government estimate;20 (4) an increase of [ ] to escalate wages for plaintiff's employees covered by the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 351-358 (2000),21 at three percent;22 and (5) an increase of [ ] to the

Pl.'s Mot. 18. Plaintiff's Motion states that the G&A costs are "[ [ ].
20

]"; however, [

] of [

] is

Plaintiff's calculation for the additional labor hours is based on the following computation: Labor: Overhead at [ ]: Subtotal: G&A at [ ]: Total: Pl.'s Mot. 18. The Service Contract Act requires that most government service contracts contain clauses that protect workers' wages and fringe benefits. See 41 U.S.C. § 351(a). Specifically, the Service Contract Act directs the Secretary of Labor ("Secretary") to issue special minimum wage orders, called "Wage Determinations," for each class of service worker employed in a particular locality, and it prohibits contractors/employers from paying less than the Secretary's Wage Determinations. Id. § 351(a)(1). Another Service Contract Act provision applies to fringe benefits. Id. § 351(a)(2). The following is plaintiff's calculation for the three percent escalation for Service Contract Act positions: Labor Escalation: Overhead at [ ]: Subtotal: G&A at [ ]: Total: [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ] ]; however, upon rounding up to the
22 21

[ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ]

Pl.'s Mot. 18. Plaintiff's Motion reflects that the total is [ nearest dollar, the total is [ ]. -13-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 14 of 43

subcontractor's costs for a three percent escalation for Service Contract Act positions.23 24 Pl.'s Mot. 16-18. Second, plaintiff maintains that the NNSA penalized plaintiff "twice for the same perceived deficiency in staffing: once by downgrading Westech's technical score and again by evaluating Westech at the higher probable cost which included adding the staff by which NNSA believed Westech fell short." Id. at 15; see also id. at 32 (arguing that the NNSA's "double penalty" prejudiced plaintiff). Thus, plaintiff asks this court to: (1) declare the NNSA's award of the contract to PAI "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law"; (2) impose a permanent injunction against PAI's performance of the contract; (3) direct the reevaluation of offers and a new award decision; and (4) grant plaintiff costs and fees incurred in pursuing this action and bid proposal expenses incurred in responding to the Solicitation. Id. at 33. B. Defendant's Response Defendant contends that the administrative record demonstrates that the NNSA did not commit error in weighing plaintiff's proposal and making necessary adjustments. Def.'s Cross-Mot. 6. According to defendant, the NNSA rationally downgraded plaintiff's technical rating, as well as increased plaintiff's probable cost, in accordance with the Solicitation and precedent, because of plaintiff's understaffing. Id. Even assuming plaintiff could establish that the NNSA committed Plaintiff's calculation for the three percent increase for the subcontractor's Service Contract Act positions is: Subcontract Cost: M&S at [ ]: Total: Pl.'s Mot. 18. Plaintiff's Motion notes that the total of these five increases is approximately $196 less than the NNSA's total probable cost for Westech's proposal, AR 1853, and the difference is likely the result of the NNSA's use of a higher overhead rate for contract year 2007 than for the remaining years of the contract. Pl.'s Mot. 18 n.6; see also AR 1854, 1864, 1867 (reflecting that the overhead rate used for contract year 2007 was [ ], while the rate used for the remaining contract years was [ ]). Defendant disagrees with some of plaintiff's calculations. Defendant points out that plaintiff added the three percent escalation in wages to the VA SME and 1.7 additional FTEs; however, defendant states that because plaintiff is challenging the three percent escalation, the analysis instead should be as follows: [ ]. Def.'s Cross-Mot. 11 n.3. The parties' differences in characterizing the amounts are inconsequential. The parties agree that the NNSA added approximately $2.8 million in probable costs. Id. at 5; Pl.'s Mot. 17. -1424 23

[ [ [

] ] ]

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 15 of 43

error, defendant argues that plaintiff cannot succeed because it failed to establish that the NNSA's alleged errors were significant enough to prejudice plaintiff. Id. at 6-7. Lastly, defendant claims that "the harm to the NTS, NSO and national security would greatly outweigh any harm to Westech and granting Westech's requests for injunctive relief would not be in the public interest." Id. at 7. Thus, defendant maintains that plaintiff is not entitled to a permanent injunction. Id. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Jurisdiction The United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims") possesses jurisdiction over post-award bid protest cases pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) (2000). Specifically, the Tucker Act provides that the Court of Federal Claims "shall have jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to . . . the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement." Id. § 1491(b)(1). Further, the Tucker Act permits the Court of Federal Claims to "award any relief that the court considers proper, including declaratory and injunctive relief except that any monetary relief shall be limited to bid preparation and proposal costs." Id. § 1491(b)(2). B. Standard for Bid Protest Challenges The standard for review of a bid protest case is set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2000), which provides that the reviewing court shall "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Id. § 706(2)(A); see also Galen Med. Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (same); Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (same); Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (same). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") has interpreted this standard to hold that, "`a bid award may be set aside if either (1) the procurement official's decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure.'" Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332). When a protestor challenges the decision on the first ground, the test is "whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion, and the disappointed bidder bears a `heavy burden' of showing that the award decision had no rational basis." Id. (citation omitted). When challenging a procurement on the ground of a regulatory violation, the protestor "must show a clear and prejudicial violation of [the] applicable statutes or regulations." Id. Therefore, "an agency's procurement decisions will be upheld unless shown to be `arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of -15-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 16 of 43

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.'" Process Control Techs. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 71, 75 (2002) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706); see also Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a trial court initially must determine if the government "acted without rational basis or contrary to law when evaluating the bids and awarding the contract"). The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-369, 98 Stat. 1175, mandates that agencies evaluate sealed bids and competitive proposals, and award a contract, based on the factors specified in the solicitation. 41 U.S.C. § 253b(a) (2000); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.608(a) (requiring proposals to be evaluated "solely on the factors specified in the solicitation"). Accordingly, if an agency fails to comply with the terms of the solicitation, such failure may "constitute grounds for overturning the bid award." Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 410, 417 (1999), aff'd, 216 F.3d 1054. Therefore, when the court finds a "reasonable basis" for an agency's action, the court should "stay its hand even though it might, as an original proposition, have reached a different conclusion as to the proper administration and application of the procurement regulations." Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). "This standard recognizes a zone of acceptable results in each particular case and requires that the final decision reached by an agency is the result of a process that `consider[s] the relevant factors' and is `within the bounds of reasoned decision making.'" Mgmt. Solutions & Sys., Inc. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 820, 827 (2007) (quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 105 (1983)); see also Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1333-34 ("[T]he test for reviewing courts is to determine whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion, and the disappointed bidder bears a heavy burden of showing that the award decision had no rational basis." (citation and internal quotations omitted)). Because the standard requires this court to review the reasonableness of the agency's decision, instead of its correctness, the court "must exercise restraint in examining information that was not available to the agency." ARINC Eng'g Servs., LLC v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 196, 200-01 (2007). Thus, this court will interfere with the government procurement process "only in extremely limited circumstances." CACI, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Further, negotiated procurements allow a "breadth of discretion" to the contracting officer, thus imposing a heavier burden of proof on the protestor. Burroughs Corp. v. United States, 617 F.2d 590, 597-98 (Ct. Cl. 1980). Similarly, "best value" contract awards afford a contracting officer more discretion than awards based solely on price. Galen Med. Assocs., 369 F.3d at 1330; see also E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445, 449 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("Procurement officials have substantial discretion to determine which proposal represents the best value for the government."). As such, the protestor's burden is especially heavy in negotiated, best value procurements. Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 377, 380 (2003), aff'd, 365 F.3d 1345. An agency's decision is afforded even greater weight when a trial court is asked to review a technical evaluation. See E.W. Bliss, 77 F.3d at 449 ("[T]echnical ratings . . . involve discretionary determinations of procurement officials that a court will not second guess."); Omega World Travel, Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 570, 578 (2002) ("It is -16-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 17 of 43

well settled that contracting officers are given broad discretion with respect to evaluation of technical proposals." (citing E.W. Bliss, 77 F.3d at 449)). Thus, "where an agency's decisions are highly technical in nature, . . . judicial restraint is appropriate and proper." Electro-Methods, Inc. v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 755, 762 (1985). If a trial court determines that an agency's decision-making "fails an APA review under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)," the court must then determine whether the government's conduct prejudiced the protestor. See Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1351. "`[T]o prevail in a protest the protester must show not only a significant error in the procurement process, but also that the error prejudiced it.'" Galen Med. Assocs., 369 F.3d at 1330 (quoting Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Prejudice, in this context, requires the protestor to show a "substantial chance" that it would have received the contract award, but for the APA error. See Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1358 ("To establish prejudice, Bannum was required to show that there was a `substantial chance' it would have received the contract award but for the . . . errors in the bid process."). While an agency's failure to comply with the terms of the solicitation may serve as grounds for rejecting a bid award, Keco Indus., Inc. v. United States, 492 F.2d 1200, 1206 (Ct. Cl. 1974), not all errors require a court to reject an agency's decision. SMS Data Prods. Group, Inc. v. United States, 900 F.2d 1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating that, for example, a harmless error "does not make a bid unacceptable"); see also Andersen Consulting Co. v. United States, 959 F.2d 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (stating that "overturning awards on de minimis errors wastes resources and time, and is needlessly disruptive of procurement activities and governmental programs and operations"); Metcalf Constr. Co. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 617, 622 (2002) ("[M]inor errors or irregularities, i.e., harmless errors, committed in the course of the procurement process are not sufficient grounds to warrant judicial intrusion to upset a procurement decision." (citation omitted)). Finally, not every violation of the APA mandates an equitable remedy; rather, a court must consider other relevant factors, such as the public interest, in granting injunctive relief. PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1225 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that "injunctive relief [does] not issue as a matter of course"). In PGBA, the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims where a protestor's claim for injunctive relief was denied on "public interest grounds," though the plaintiff succeeded in establishing prejudicial error in the procurement process. Id. at 1223 (stating that the agency "made several prejudicial errors in its evaluations of the technical merits of PGBA's and WPS's proposals . . . however, the [Court of Federal Claims] concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored allowing [the agency] and WPS to proceed with the contract"). Thus, an agency's error does not necessarily require the trial court to impose equitable relief, but instead requires the court to decide whether to issue the injunction. Id. at 1228-29 (listing the traditional four factors that the trial court should use in determining whether to issue a permanent injunction: "(1) whether, as it must, the plaintiff has succeeded on the merits of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief; (3) whether the balance of hardships to the respective parties favors the grant of injunctive relief; and (4) whether it is in the public interest to grant injunctive relief"). Because injunctive relief is relatively "drastic in nature," a -17-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 18 of 43

plaintiff must establish that its right to such relief is clear. See Banknote Corp., 56 Fed. Cl. at 380-81; see also Seattle Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 560, 566 (2000). C. Standing The court must first address standing because it is a "threshold requirement in every federal action." Sicom Sys. Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 975-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Standing to bring a bid protest challenge as an "interested party" is "limited to actual or prospective bidders or offerors whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract." Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "The term `interested part[y]' excludes those who did not submit proposals, bidders who withdrew from a solicitation, and offerors who were not competitively ranked for the award." Microdyne Outsourcing, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 230, 232 (2006) (citing Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1334). In the case sub judice, Westech's proposal was determined to be within the competitive range, AR 1906-07; thus, plaintiff has demonstrated that it qualifies as a protestor whose direct economic interest was affected by the award to PAI. Plaintiff, therefore, satisfies the standing requirement. D. Judgment on the Administrative Record Pursuant to RCFC 52.1, the Court of Federal Claims reviews an agency decision based on the administrative record. Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1356.25 The standard for judgment on the administrative record, given all the disputed and undisputed facts in the administrative record, is whether the plaintiff has met the burden of proof to show that the decision was not in accordance with law. A & D Fire Prot., Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 126, 131 (2006); see also Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1357 (instructing the court to make "factual findings under RCFC 52.1 from the [limited] record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record"). "The resolution of a motion respecting the administrative record is akin to an expedited trial on the paper record, and the Court must make fact findings where necessary." Baird v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 114, 116 (2007). Contrary to a summary judgment proceeding, a genuine issue of material fact will not foreclose judgment on the administrative record. Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1356.

The decision in Bannum was based upon RCFC 56.1, which was abrogated and replaced by RCFC 52.1. However, RCFC 52.1 was designed to incorporate the decision in Bannum. See RCFC 52.1, Rules Committee Note (June 20, 2006). -18-

25

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 19 of 43

IV. DISCUSSION A. The NNSA's Cost Realism Analysis Was Rationally Based. For a cost-reimbursement contract, such as the one in the case sub judice, the regulations require that a cost realism analysis be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror.26 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1(d)(2). A cost realism analysis is: the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal. Id. § 15.404-1(d)(1). As noted above, the Solicitation stated that each offeror's proposal would be evaluated based on cost reasonableness, realism, and completeness. AR 66. In accordance with the Solicitation, the NNSA performed a cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost of each offeror's proposal in order to evaluate best value. Id. As provided in the regulations, probable cost was established by adjusting the offeror's "proposed costs to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis." Id. As discussed above, plaintiff alleges that the NNSA's cost realism adjustments to Westech's proposal lacked a rational basis in five areas: (1) the addition of 0.8 FTE for an SME Consultant; (2) the substitution of a VA SME for an administrative person; (3) the increase of labor hours (approximately 1.7 FTEs) to match the government estimate; (4) the increase of wages for plaintiff's employees covered by the Service Contract Act; and (5) the increase of a subcontractor's costs for a three percent escalation for Service Contract Act positions. Pl.'s Mot. 17-27. In its Final Proposal Revision, Westech offered a price of [ ], AR 1985, which represents 30 FTEs among Westech and its subcontractors Polestar Applied Technologies
26

The regulation further provides that:

(i) The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror's proposal. The probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. (ii) The probable cost is determined by adjusting each offeror's proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1(d)(2)(i)-(ii). -19-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 20 of 43

("Polestar") and Corporate Allocation Services ("CAS"). Id. at 1956. However, the government estimated that Westech's probable cost would be [ ], an increase of $2,843,725 to Westech's final proposed cost. Id. at 1985. In order to overturn the agency's cost realism determination, plaintiff must establish that the NNSA's decision lacked a rational basis. JWK Int'l Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 371, 393 (2001); see also CTA, Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 684, 693 (1999) ("`Decisions on cost realism are within the agency's sound discretion and expertise, and the judgment will not be overturned absent any rational basis.'" (citation omitted)). While an agency's cost realism analysis need not have been performed with "impeccable rigor" to be rational, OMV Med., Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the analysis must reflect that the agency considered the information available and did not make "irrational assumptions or critical miscalculations." Id.; see also United Payors & United Providers Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 323, 329 (2003) ("`Because the agency is in the best position to make this cost realism determination, our review is limited to determining whether its cost evaluation was reasonably based and not arbitrary.'" (citation omitted)). Finally, in the context of a best value procurement, the court's consideration of the NNSA's decision is particularly deferential. See Galen Med. Assocs., 369 F.3d at 1330. Thus, in the case sub judice, because "contracting officers are vested with wide discretion with regard to the evaluation of bids," Labat-Anderson, Inc. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 806, 846 (1999), and are also entitled to "broad discretion . . . to determine whether a proposal is technically acceptable," Cont'l Bus. Enters. v. United States, 452 F.2d 1016, 1021 (Ct. Cl. 1971), "plaintiff has an unusually heavy burden of proof in showing that the determination . . . was arbitrary and capricious." Id. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff has failed to meet its burden. 1. The NNSA's Decision to Add 0.8 FTE to Plaintiff's Probable Cost for an SME Consultant Was Rationally Based. Plaintiff's first challenge is to the NNSA's decision to add 0.8 FTE to plaintiff's proposal for an SME consultant for the Security Classification Administrative Support SOW. Pl.'s Mot. 19-20. According to plaintiff, the NNSA lacked a rational basis to increase plaintiff's proposed workforce because the task cited by the agency was not explicitly mentioned in the SOW. Id. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the SOW did not require a consultant to assist in selfassessments. Id. at 20. Because plaintiff proposed [ ] as a part-time SME consultant, plaintiff states that "it is reasonable to assume that he would be available for additional assignments should NNSA desire to add such work." Id. Further, plaintiff maintains that the awardee PAI was given credit for providing access to additional SMEs even though no SMEs were included in PAI's cost proposal and no probable cost adjustment was made to PAI's proposal. Id. Lastly, plaintiff argues that the NNSA, without a rational basis, "ma[d]e that additional .8 FTE a highly paid consultant." Id. at 21. Thus, plaintiff contends, had the NNSA used a reasonable rate for the additional proposed costs in this category, plaintiff's proposal would have been -20-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 21 of 43

approximately [ ] lower than that of the next highest offeror, and plaintiff's proposal would have presented the best value to the government. Id. The SOW for Security Classification Administrative Support required: The Contractor shall provide Q-cleared personnel to research, develop, draft and prepare local classification guides per year as required by NSO programmatic offices. Using data supplied by the NSO Classification Officer, they will prepare the quarterly NSO classification report to HQ. This report will encompass classification guidance provided for NSO operations, education and training statistics, document review and declassification statistics, local guide status and NSO pending classification issues. AR 68. For Security Classification Administrative Support, plaintiff proposed 1.2 FTEs. Id. at 1623. The proposal included a Classification Support person (1.0 FTE) to perform various functions, including researching and locating documents, gathering data and performing statistical analyses, and "assist[ing] in the activities associated with program self-assessments." Id. Westech also proposed a part-time SME consultant (0.2 FTE), [ ], id. at 1683, to "review, maintain, and ensure accuracy of local classification guides issued by the NSO Classification Program Manager" and to "assist in and respond to findings associated with program selfassessments and Security Surveys," id. at 1623. Plaintiff's argument fails because it ignores several aspects of the SOW and the Solicitation. First, the Solicitation stated that each offeror's cost proposal would be evaluated to determine cost realism. AR 66 (stating that the cost proposal would be evaluated to determine "if the proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the SOW requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's Technical Proposal"). The NNSA's November 2, 2006 discussion letter required plaintiff to "substantiate, in accordance with [its] technical approach, . . . any deviations from [its] staffing summary" against the government estimate of FTEs provided in the discussion letter. Id. at 1601 (noting that offerors in the competitive range were invited to revise their technical approach as necessary). Thus, plaintiff was aware that its cost proposal could be adjusted if the proposal was not realistic, did not meet the SOW requirements, or was inconsistent with its technical proposal. Further, plaintiff's proposal stated that the SME consultant and the Classification Support person would be involved with program self-assessments. Id. at 1623. As noted above, the Solicitation required the NNSA to evaluate the offeror's technical approach, including the offeror's ability to identify and mitigate risks. Id. at 55; see also id. at 65 (noting that the offeror's technical approach should demonstrate "a thorough understanding of any technical risks and their impact associated with performance of the contract, as well as the Offeror's approach for minimizing those risks"). Westech's proposal identified the following technical risks:

-21-

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 22 of 43

The Nevada Site Office (NSO) Classification Office must have experienced contractor support staff and local classification guides and orders that meet NSO requirements. If staff and guidelines do not conform to DOE orders[,] the risks include not meeting support schedules, and incomplete or inaccurate local guidance[.] This could result in the compromise of classified information with subsequent damage to national security. Id. at 1634. Accordingly, plaintiff proposed that such risks could be reduced by "using qualified personnel to manage, conduct, and support the classification program; . . . and conducting routine self-assessments and review of other contractor's classification program activities." Id. at 1635. Westech sought to minimize this risk, in part, by relying upon [ ]. Id. (emphasizing its candidate's exceptional qualifications). The NNSA's evaluation of Westech's technical approach determined that while Westech's proposed 0.2 FTE for an SME to assist in and respond to findings associated with program self-assessments and security surveys "may be appropriate for routine classification guide updates, this amount of coverage will not be sufficient to resolve findings that result from the self-assessments or surveys." Id. at 1871. Specifically, the NNSA found 0.2 FTE to be insufficient because "[a]ny findings require an involved response to resolve the findings," and "[t]he SME would be required to assist in this response." Id. at 1959. Thus, the NNSA added 0.8 FTE for this category to plaintiff's proposal "to ensure adequate coverage." Id. The NNSA, not the court, is in the best position to determine the staffing needs of its agency. A dispute of this nature is a classic example of the type of technical requirements that should be determined by the agency seeking outside personnel to assist in the fulfillment of the agency's mission. The NNSA provided a coherent reason justifying its finding that plaintiff failed to include sufficient personnel. Finally, plaintiff contends that, assuming the NNSA's decision to add 0.8 FTE for Security Classification Administrative Support was reasonable, then the NNSA's decision to use plaintiff's labor rate for [ ] was unreasonable. Pl.'s Mot. 21; Pl.'s Reply & Resp. 8-9 (arguing that NNSA should have used an administrative rate of [ ] per hour for the additional 0.8 FTE rather than [ ] rate); see also Pl.'s Mot. 18 n.1 (stating that [ ] rate was [ ] per hour); AR 1685-86 (same). However, plaintiff's proposal stated that to mitigate risks, plaintiff offered "experienced and knowledgeable personnel." AR 1635. Plaintiff emphasized that "[p]roof resides in our proposed SME contributor, [ ]" because he has "30+ years experience" with NTS contractors. Id. Thus, the terms set forth in plaintiff's proposal defeat its position, and the NNSA's decision to utilize a labor rate for one of its key experts, [ ], to calculate the additional 0.8 FTE, id. at 1959, was rational.27 In its Motion, plaintiff contends that PAI "was given credit for providing access to additional SMEs although they were not included in PAI's cost proposal and no probable cost adjustment was made to PAI's proposal." Pl.'s Mot. 20. However, a review of PAI's proposal reveals that, unlike that of plaintiff, [ ]. AR 165-67, 594-95. Thus, PAI's probable cost was not adjusted for this reason. -2227

Case 1:07-cv-00186-MMS

Document 39

Filed 11/06/2007

Page 23 of 43

2. The NNSA's Decision to Convert an Administrative Position to an SME in the VA Area Was Rationally Based. Plaintiff next argues that the NNSA's decision to require 3.0 FTE SMEs for VA tasks lacked a rational basis. Pl.'s Mot. 22-23. In plaintiff's view, the NNSA's downgrading of plaintiff's proposal for this perceived deficiency was unreasonable, and the NNSA further "compounded its error by increasing Westech's cost by [ ] to convert an administrative person to [an] SME." Id. at 23. According to plaintiff, because the NNSA determined that plaintiff's initial staffing proposal was adequate, the agency should not have increased VA staffing, which consequently raised Westech's costs for the VA component of its offer. Id. Plaintiff argues that had defendant not made this change, its offer would have been [ ] lower than the next highest offer; and, thus, would have represented the best value to the government. Id. Specifically, the SOW for the VA task requires that: VAs shall be performed by the Contractor's Q-cleared, Subject Matter Experts in the areas of vulnerability analysis and facility modeling. The Contractor shall perform, conduct and prepare the reports of facility modeling and VAs; conduct Table-top analyses and prepare reports of those activities; and develop force-on-force plans and scenarios for protective force operations at key NSO facilities. In addition, the Contractor shall identify critical system components to be performance tested. AR 67. As noted above, the government estimated a need for 3.0 FTEs to perform the VA task. Id. at 1601. The NNSA asked each offeror to "substantiate, in accordance with [the offeror's] technical approach (Criterion 2 - Technical Capability, paragraph (i)), any deviations from [its] staffing summary against the above estimate." Id. In response to the November 2, 2006 discussion letter, plaintiff's final proposal offered a team of 3.0 FTEs for the VA task,28 co