Fotolia
With its acquisition of the Nuxeo digital asset management platform, longstanding enterprise content management vendor Hyland Software builds on its 2020 purchase of Alfresco, another cloud-native ECM vendor.
In this Q&A, Ed McQuiston, Hyland executive vice president and chief commercial officer, discusses the implications of adding Nuxeo’s technology to Hyland’s healthcare imaging system. Hyland could also use it to strengthen the search capabilities of OnBase Foundation, the platform connecting the company’s digital asset management (DAM) system, robotic process automation (RPA) tools and broad bundle of other content management capabilities.
The acquisition was finalized April 8.
You just acquired one of the leading cloud content management vendors. What are you calling the technology you just acquired with your purchase of Nuxeo, as opposed to ‘content services’?
Ed McQuiston: The space that Hyland is best known for is now being referred to as ‘content services‘ by the major analysts in our industry. Nuxeo also has a content services product, but they also, through the same platform, have a digital asset management platform, a DAM product they go to market with.
Each of these are really kind of category-level products that are all supplementary and tangential to the content services story.
Hyland has made a lot of key acquisitions, with Nuxeo and Alfresco being the latest in the content services area, and your acquisition of Another Monday giving you a foothold in RPA. What drives your acquisition strategy?
McQuiston: We’re very much in a mindset of buy versus build as it relates to these sort of category-level offerings, in addition to content services. When we purchased Another Monday, our feeling was that there is a lot of runway in the RPA market. It’s a need that’s been expressed to us by our customers, which is really what drives our strategy.
Similarly, when we started talking with Nuxeo, the digital asset management technology they employ is something that many of our customers have asked about. It’s something that we don’t necessarily believe that the best way to bring it to market would be developing from scratch. So you’re really looking through the lens of where are our customers leading us.
Where does the Nuxeo acquisition situate you in terms of cloud?
McQuiston: Cloud is the No. 1 thing our customers are talking about. You can’t talk to any tech industry expert and not hear about the acceleration of cloud adoption, really resulting from COVID, which kind of accelerated a lot of people’s transformation roadmaps.
As for us, that’s where we’re putting so much of our R&D efforts into offering cloud-native, REST API-based, microservice-based architecture across our portfolio, both for our content services products as well as those other category products. So when we look at Alfresco or Nuxeo, both of those companies really strengthen our cloud-first messaging, and they really offer both to our prospects and customers opportunities to leverage cloud-native.
One of the things that we’ve also seen with the acquisition of Alfresco — and that also very much propelled us to do the Nuxeo acquisition — is this other stripe of the content services market that Hyland wasn’t as present in: open source/DIY kind of customer that isn’t necessarily looking for a vendor to provide packaged solution that maybe isn’t the right fit for their business. They would rather build a solution in that sort of autonomous IT approach. Both Alfresco and Nuxeo lend themselves to that kind of customer. OnBase and Perceptive [a health IT and image capture unit of Lexmark that Hyland acquired in 2017] content products have taken a different approach, which is kind of speed-to-market, speed-to-value, off-the-shelf products.
Are you looking to coax some of your longtime on-premises customers into the cloud, or are you targeting new generations of customers?
McQuiston: We go through a discovery process with the customer or a prospect to understand what the customer needs. The customer will really dictate which way we go, as well as whether they’re predisposed to go to [public] cloud or Hyland cloud. We’ve got the flexibility to be able to answer that. We are definitely proactively talking to our customers about moves to the Hyland cloud, but we aren’t forcing our customers there.
We’ve worked really hard as a company, with our architecture and strategy, to give customers a path forward on the platform they own. And we’ve created what we call our foundation.
Did you see Alfresco and Nuxeo as competitors? And how is that going to work now?
McQuiston: I think there are similarities between Alfresco and Nuxeo that are much like [Hyland’s former relationship with Perceptive], so we’ll look to really leverage those. That DAM component within Nuxeo is unique, with a customer base that has different needs. That’s where Nuxeo brings tremendous expertise to those customers. We bring to Nuxeo 16,000-plus [Hyland] customers to speak to about whether they have needs around digital asset management that can be met using Nuxeo.
You’ve kept Alfresco as a separate unit, with its own brand and its own product. Will you do the same with Nuxeo?
McQuiston: It’s hard to speak to the content services side until we get under the covers of Nuxeo and really understand the technology in greater depth. You get minimal exposure for any number of reasons — including legal — even after you sign a deal. We’ll be doing that in the coming weeks and months.
What I can say for certain: We will absolutely be continuing with the Nuxeo products, we’ll be continuing with the customers, we’ll be continuing to add on to those customers, and we’ll absolutely be continuing to grow and expand on the DAM product. We need to look under the hood at the content services piece, much like we did with Alfresco. We’ve maintained the product and we made it so all our REST API-based components and microservices can now be leveraged by an Alfresco user.
How does AI fit into all this?
McQuiston: One of the things that we’re particularly excited about is Nuxeo Insight, an AI/machine learning product that will do a deep dive on content.
One of the use cases they shared with us was around a large clothing manufacturer that they work with, which is storing all of their digital photography in the Nuxeo DAM. Using Nuxeo, they are able to apply a significant amount of metadata to those images to where if they want a picture that contains a specific model, a specific piece of clothing, a specific asset in their library and location data they use the AI/ML engine to do all of that tagging, so that they can get really granular when they’re surfacing content. We’re extremely excited about looking at how that can play across our portfolio.
Will you look at using Nuxeo technology to enhance search across your content services products?
McQuiston: We really want to roll up our sleeves with this Nuxeo Insight product to see if it can help our customers who have such an incredible amount of content sitting in repositories. Many of those customers would love to be able to see more granularly into that content. We’ll look at whether AI and ML can surface ‘dark data‘ that’s just sitting there.
I think about healthcare, if somebody has an EMR [electronic medical record], and everything is in OnBase. There’s real power there if we were able to surface a lot more data, search the metadata and make it available to their analytics engines for whatever they’re doing, from care pathways to population health.
Looking at DAM, which has been around a long time, why is it new again in 2021?
McQuiston: It’s really kind of like back to the future. In the case of the DAM piece, everything has to do with the fact that DAM for a very long time was used primarily by marketing departments of the big companies in entertainment industry.
What’s happening now is that everything’s digital. How many companies have just troves of digital photography? It’s exploding, so you have the challenges for customers to apply metadata to it. That’s the hardest part, right? That’s the manual part. That’s the expensive part. When you combine not only that DAM searchability with granular metadata applied through an AI insight tool — now you’ve kind of got the ‘Holy Grail.’
If you’re that customer that I mentioned earlier, if you want to find a particular photoshoot with a specific model with a specific piece of clothing, how hard would that have been? How hard would that have been in the traditional application?
Licensing is such a critical revenue stream in the entertainment business. Being able to find the exact version of a particular character from your movie — there might be 20 renderings in that version — [is crucial] because there’s different prices for the licenses for those different characters. And so, you’re seeing this explosion of digital assets and it’s like the old is new again.
Do you anticipate any consolidation or even layoffs as a result of these acquisitions?
McQuiston: Quite the opposite. We’re really looking at continuing to grow our headcount. The company has grown tremendously in in the last four years, really more than doubling in size.
Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.
The collaboration between the data cloud vendor and robotic process automation vendor will enable joint customers to automate …
As the volume and complexity of data grows, organizations need AI and ML capabilities to surface insights and augment the …
Coming after the addition of natural language processing capabilities, the new embedded analytics tool strengthens the BI …
The open source Apache Kafka streaming technology and commercial vendor Confluent have grown over the last decade as …
Data quality is essential to operate a successful data pipeline and enable data-driven decision-making. These seven data quality …
The Facebook parent company, along with multiple contributors, including Ahana, Voltron Data and Intel, are developing a new open…
Both RFID and barcodes are valuable in the supply chain, but each is more useful for particular scenarios. Learn what to consider…
Lack of communication between a company’s finance and IT departments can cause problems with organizational goals and decisions. …
Navrina Singh, CEO of Credo AI, discusses the limits of MLOps and algorithmic auditing in providing governance for responsible AI.
With its Cerner acquisition, Oracle sets its sights on creating a national, anonymized patient database — a road filled with …
Oracle plans to acquire Cerner in a deal valued at about $30B. The second-largest EHR vendor in the U.S. could inject new life …
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that Java APIs used in Android phones are not subject to American copyright law, ending a …
SAP Multi-Bank Connectivity has added Santander Bank to its partner list to help companies reduce the complexity of embedding …
Over its 50-year history, SAP rode business and technology trends to the top of the ERP industry, but it now is at a crossroads …
Third-party support providers make a pitch that they can provide greater flexibility at a lower cost, but customers should think …
All Rights Reserved, Copyright 2011 – 2022, TechTarget

Privacy Policy
Cookie Preferences
Do Not Sell My Personal Info

source

The editors at Solutions Review have compiled this list to spotlight some of the top-rated open-source and free BPM software solutions to consider.

Searching for BPM software (BPMS) can be a daunting (and expensive) process, one that requires long hours of research and deep pockets. The most popular BPM systems often provide more than what’s necessary for non-enterprise organizations, with advanced functionality relevant to only technically savvy users.
Thankfully, there are many free and open-source process management solutions out there. Some of these solutions are offered by vendors looking to eventually sell you on their enterprise product. Others are maintained and operated by a community of developers looking to democratize BPM.
This article will examine free and open-source BPM software by providing a brief overview of what to expect from each of the currently available options in the space. This is the most complete and up-to-date directory on the web.
Free BPM software refers to products offered commercially free by the solution provider. These offerings are usually trimmed-down versions of the expert or enterprise editions, offering basic functionality that enables users to generate reports or data visualizations.
Commercially free BPMS tools typically provide less functionality than their open-source counterparts. Still, they are often a great way to gain more than a free trial if it’s a product you were already considering.
You May Also Like

The Best Business Process Management Courses on JanBask Training for 2021

…July 29, 2021Best Practices

Open-source software has a source code that anyone can inspect, modify or enhance. These tools are publicly accessible and are commonly managed and maintained by organizations with a specific mission in mind. The open-source BPM solutions included in this list are surprisingly full-featured, offering various users an expansive list of capabilities.
It’s important to remember that some of the open-source solutions included in this list require some development skills, making them less than ideal fits for your use case. We recommend reading each tool’s FAQ to see how much coding is needed to utilize the software. The open-source tools usually do an excellent job of explaining the requirements for use on the download pages.

Description: Activiti is a java-centric, lightweight, and open-source BPMN engine that supports real-world process automation needs. Its business automation platform offers users a suite of cloud-native building blocks, including ones for audit services, cloud connectors, an application aggregation layer, extensible query services, and process and decision runtimes designed to integrate with cloud-native infrastructures.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: Alfresco is a leading open-source content management and solutions provider that targets its software at information-rich enterprises. With Alfresco Process Services, businesses and developers can utilize an open-source business process engine based on Activiti with the scalability and flexibility they need to handle a variety of critical processes. Alfresco, a Hyland solution, offers a Community Edition, which is 100% free and provides a suite of capabilities for non-critical business processes and content needs. The company’s open-source Enterprise Content Management software can handle any content, making it easy for users to share and collaborate on their projects.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: ARIS Community, by Software AG, is a BPM community where industry professionals can network with their peers, learn new approaches to process management, and download the free ARIS Express software to kickstart their business process management efforts. ARIS Express is a free, lightweight business process modeling tool by Software AG for occasional or beginner-level BPM users. Its functionalities include an intuitive user interface, free training materials, and models for organizational structures, company data, application systems, business processes.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: Bizagi Modeler is a free BPM tool designed to help single users create, optimize, and publish workflow diagrams that increase efficiencies and process governance efforts. With this collaborative business process mapping software, users can create and document business processes from a central cloud repository to identify opportunities and improve organizational productivity. Bizagi Modeler also allows users to review the process models anywhere on any device and provide real-time feedback. Bizagi Modeler users also can upgrade to the paid, enterprise-level version of the software.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: Bonitasoft provides companies with free tools for building, running, monitoring, and improving business apps. The company’s open-source business process management and digital process automation solutions can increase company visibility, visualize processes, identify bottlenecks, report on execution metrics, identify opportunities for process optimizations, and more. With extensive customization, users can code freely and create their extensions. Furthermore, Bonitasoft can connect to almost any enterprise system, including CRMs, ERP systems, and databases. 

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: Camunda is an open-source software company providing process automation with a developer-friendly approach that is standards-based, highly scalable, and collaborative for business and IT. The vendor offers visibility into business operations and improves system resilience. The provider’s workflow and decision automation tools enable Camunda to build software applications flexibly, collaboratively, and efficiently, gaining the business agility, visibility, and scale needed to drive digital transformation. Camunda offers an Open-Source Modeler solution and Open-Source Community Edition of its platform.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.Description: jBPM is a free, open-source BPM software and workflow engine that bridges the gap between business analysts and developers. The software can function as a standalone service or can be embedded in custom formats. With jBPM, users have access to a business application capable of modeling business goals, improving visibility, outlining complex business logic, and more. The software can run on any java environment and be embedded easily for deployment into various applications.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: Joget is an open-source platform with no-code/low-code application development, business process automation, and workflow management capabilities. Features include drag-and-drop visual builders, reporting tools, app generators, seamless app installations, drag-and-drop workflow management, process automation, built-in application performance management, a decision rules engine, automatic Progressive Web Apps (PWA) compliance, DevOps support, and more. The platform can be implemented using Java Spring Framework and deployed on the Apache Tomcat server.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: jSonic is an open-source BPM system designed to empower process owners with process management, reporting dashboards, workflow management, collaboration tools, and data management. The process management module can help users manage business process development from design to testing and deployment. With its interactive, web-based, and user-friendly tool, users can design processes, define governing processes, and modify business logic without technical coding skills.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: Modelio is an open-source, extensible modeling environment that supports HTML, BPMN, UML, and other formats. The main features of Modelio’s platform include UML modeling tools, HTML publisher module, Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Java code generator, an XMI import/export functionality, scripting language support, and an extension module. Modelio is best suited for business architects, analysts, system architects, code developers, and software architects.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: The Red Hat Process Automation Manager is an application development platform for developers and business experts. It helps users develop cloud-native applications for automating business operations, modeling business processes, supporting BPMN, supporting complex event processing, and maintaining Decision Model and Notation (DMN) standards. Other features include process engines, case management, a resource optimization engine, cloud-native development, and an open-source, fully compatible design.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

Description: RunaWFE is a free and open-source business process management system (BPMS) that can help users optimize and automate their business processes. Its low-code functionalities include a workflow engine, process designer, form builder, task notifications, flexible role assignments, bots for automatic task execution, and integrations with software solutions like Active Directory and Alfresco. The system is available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.

Learn more and compare products with Solutions Review’s Free Buyer’s Guide for Business Process Management.

source

The Windows Club
TheWindowsClub covers authentic Windows 11, Windows 10 tips, tutorials, how-to’s, features, freeware. Created by Anand Khanse, MVP.
Here is a list of the best free open source document editor software for Windows 11/10. These are basically the free software that let you create and edit different types of documents and come with an open-source license. Basically, you can use these document editors for free as well as download the source code of these software. You can study and modify the source code without any restrictions.
Like any standard document editors, these let you create several kinds of documents that include text documents, spreadsheets, and presentations. You get all the required formatting tools and other document editing functions in these software. Plus, these editors support a wide number of document formats. So, you can create documents in different formats including DOC, DOCX, RTF, TXT, XLS, XLSX, PDF, and more. You can even encrypt the output documents in many of these free open source document editing software.
if(typeof ez_ad_units!=’undefined’){ez_ad_units.push([[728,90],’thewindowsclub_com-box-3′,’ezslot_5′,873,’0′,’0′])};if(typeof __ez_fad_position!=’undefined’){__ez_fad_position(‘div-gpt-ad-thewindowsclub_com-box-3-0’)};Let us check out the features provided by these editors in detail.

Best Free Open Source Document Editor software for Windows 11/10

Here is the list of best free open source document editor software for Windows 11/10:

1. LibreOffice
2. Apache OpenOffice
3. OxygenOffice Professional – Office Suite
4. CryptPad
5. FocusWriter

if(typeof ez_ad_units!=’undefined’){ez_ad_units.push([[728,90],’thewindowsclub_com-medrectangle-4′,’ezslot_4′,829,’0′,’0′])};if(typeof __ez_fad_position!=’undefined’){__ez_fad_position(‘div-gpt-ad-thewindowsclub_com-medrectangle-4-0’)};Let us discuss these software and their features in detail now!

1] LibreOffice

if(typeof ez_ad_units!=’undefined’){ez_ad_units.push([[728,90],’thewindowsclub_com-box-4′,’ezslot_3′,826,’0′,’0′])};if(typeof __ez_fad_position!=’undefined’){__ez_fad_position(‘div-gpt-ad-thewindowsclub_com-box-4-0’)};

LibreOffice is a free and open source office suite for Windows and other operating systems. Using it, you can create different types of documents including text documents, spreadsheets worksheets, presentations, drawings, and more. It comes with individual applications that let you create respective documents.
To create documents in formats including ODT, DOC, DOCX, XML, HTML, RTF, TXT, and more, you can use its LibreOffice Writer application. If you want to make spreadsheets, use the LibreOffice Calc application. It lets you create spreadsheets in formats like XLS, XLSX, HTML, CSV, DIF, ODS, etc. In order to generate beautiful presentations in PPT, PPTX, PDF, ODP, and other formats, you can use LibreOffice Impress. You also get applications like LibreOffice Math, LibreOffice Base, and LibreOffice Draw in this office suite.
It offers a lot of powerful document editing tools. You can insert images, audio, video, objects, shapes, tables, forms, and more objects in your documents. It also lets you format the text content using a variety of fonts, titles, headings, subheadings, preformatted text, and quotations. It also offers mathematical functions, formula expressions, pivot tables, graphs, and more that you can insert into your spreadsheets.
Apart from standard document editing tools, LibreOffice also offers useful and handy tools that help you create documents easily. These tools include Word Counter, Spell Checker, AutoCorrect, Chapter Numbering, Bibliography Database, Mail Merge Wizard, Macros, XML Filter Settings, and more. Besides that, you can create password-protected and secure documents using encryption and digital signature features.
All in all, LibreOffice is one of the best free open source document editors that lets you create professional and encrypted documents.
Read: Best Free LaTeX Editors for Windows PC.

2] Apache OpenOffice

Apache OpenOffice is a free open source document editor for Windows. It is a popular office suite that you can use for creating various types of documents. You can generate plain text documents, formatted documents, spreadsheets, and presentations using it.
Just Like LibreOffice, it also offers separate applications to process different types of documents. You can use OpenOffice Writer (for documents), OpenOffice Calc (for spreadsheets), OpenOffice Impress (for presentations), OpenOffice Draw (for drawing), OpenOffice Base (for the database), and OpenOffice Math (for formulas). So, you can use the respective application to create a particular type of document.
Using it, you can create documents with media files, tables, forms, objects, charts, clipart, and more. Plus, you can also format the content using a variety of formatting tools such as font, layout, style, page size, and many more advanced formatting tools. It also contains useful features like spellcheck, word counter, mail merge wizard, and more.
if(typeof ez_ad_units!=’undefined’){ez_ad_units.push([[728,90],’thewindowsclub_com-banner-1′,’ezslot_6′,682,’0′,’0′])};if(typeof __ez_fad_position!=’undefined’){__ez_fad_position(‘div-gpt-ad-thewindowsclub_com-banner-1-0’)};Talking about the document formats, it supports all the major document formats. These formats include ODT, DOC, DOCX, XML, HTML, RTF, XLS, XLSX, CSV, PPT, PPTX, and some more. You can also encrypt the output document and digitally sign it.
It is a great document editor that comes with a free and open source license.
Related: Create PDF Files and Documents with Free PDF Editor for Windows PC.

3] OxygenOffice Professional – Office Suite

OxygenOffice Professional – Office Suite, as the name suggests, is a free open source office suite that you can use to create and edit documents. It is basically a fork of OpenOffice and has a similar set of features.
Using it, you can create text documents, spreadsheets, presentations, drawings, web pages, and more. It also provides different applications to process different types of documents. In it, you can find all standard text formatting tools as well as can insert images, media files, charts, and more into your documents. Plus, spellcheck, word counter, macros, encryption, and other useful features are provided in it.
It is a great open source document editor that supports a good number of document formats. Some of the supported formats in it include ODF, ODP, PPT, PPTX, RTF, TXT, DOCX, XLSX, HTML, PDF, and more.
if(typeof ez_ad_units!=’undefined’){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],’thewindowsclub_com-large-leaderboard-2′,’ezslot_8′,683,’0′,’0′])};if(typeof __ez_fad_position!=’undefined’){__ez_fad_position(‘div-gpt-ad-thewindowsclub_com-large-leaderboard-2-0’)};If you want to use it, you can download it from sourceforge.net.
See: ConstEdit is a free HTML5 editor to create & edit HTML & HTML5 documents.

4] CryptPad

CryptPad is another free open-source document editor on this list. It is different from other mentioned software as it is a web-based document editor that you can use in a web browser online. This web service is end-to-end encrypted, so you can create secure documents online using it. Also, it provides you the flexibility to collaborate with your friends and colleagues on a particular document. You can also chat with the collaborators using it.
Using it, you can create text documents, spreadsheets, markdown slides, forms, and more types of documents. You can find all general formatting tools in it like fonts, text style, typographical emphasis, and more. It also lets you insert existing files including images, other documents, etc. You can further use tools like Math, Table, etc. It also shows you the word count.
It supports various output document formats including HTML, DOC, PDF, XLSX, ODS, and more. You can also print your documents, view editing history, and more. You can try it here.
Read: Best free Markdown Editor software for Windows 11/10.

5] FocusWriter

FocusWriter is yet another free open source document editor software for Windows. It is a distraction-free document editor that you can use to create documents without any screen distractions. It helps you concentrate on writing the actual content of the document. So, if you are looking for a distraction-free document editor that helps you focus on writing, you can try this one.
It provides you with all the standard document editing tools and features that you expect in a document processor. You can create documents in formats like TXT, RTF, DOCX, ODT, etc. Other than that, you can print the document or use the Print feature to save the document in PDF format.
All the generic formatting options like heading styles, typographical emphasis (bold, italic, underline, strikethrough), superscript or subscript, increase/ decrease indent, align text, and RTL & LTR text directions are present in it.
if(typeof ez_ad_units!=’undefined’){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],’thewindowsclub_com-leader-1′,’ezslot_11′,802,’0′,’0′])};if(typeof __ez_fad_position!=’undefined’){__ez_fad_position(‘div-gpt-ad-thewindowsclub_com-leader-1-0’)};Find & replace, spell check, word count, and some more features are also available in it. These tools help you create documents easily.
It is a good open source document editor that you can try for free. The good thing is that it comes in both installer and portable packages. You can download whichever version you prefer from its official website.
Read: Icecream PDF Editor: Free PDF Editor for Windows 11/10.

Which free document management software is best?

There are various document management software that are available for free. You can try Krystal DMS which is free software that lets you store, manage, and track documents. It lets you manage documents in formats like XLS, XLSX, DOC, DOCX, PPT, TXT, XML, CSV, ZIP, etc. Apart from that, these are some other free software that you can use for managing documents. These free software are Alfresco, LogicalDOC, Feng Office, Archimede, and OpenDocMan.

Which open source application can you use to create a digital document?

To create a digital document, you can use a lot of free open source applications. There is LibreOffice that lets you create several types of documents. You can also try OpenOffice for the same. Apart from that, in case you need a distraction-free document editor that lets you focus on writing, you can use FocusWriter. We have discussed these open source applications in detail below, so check out.

What is open source DMS?

DMS stands for Document Management System. An open source document management system (DMS) is software that lets you save, manage, and track your documents and that comes with an open source license. You can download, study, and manipulate the source code of such document management software. Some examples of open source DMS are OpenDocMan and LogicalDOC.
That’s it! Hopefully, this list helps you find a good open source document editor that you have been looking for.
Now read:

• Best Free Reference Manager software for Windows 11/10.
• Best Free Cloud Project Management Software and Tools.

Date: March 21, 2022Tags: Open Source

Komal has done M.Tech in CSE. For the last 4 years, she has been writing technical blogs – and she is keen on finding and bringing solutions to day-to-day tech problems.

September 8, 2022

Microsoft’s Brad Smith says India has become a software superpower; Applauds Data Bill decision

September 6, 2022

Windows 11 22H2 Drivers are now available

September 2, 2022

How to Recover Deleted WhatsApp Messages on iPhone and Android with RecoverGo (WhatsApp)

August 30, 2022

Wondershare MobileTrans v4.0 Review: Transfer, backup, restore data between phones

Copyright © 2022 The Windows Club

source

Three Cities Management, LLC (TCM), a small business of Middletown, New York, protests the award of a contract to Rice Services, Inc. (Rice), a small business of Smithville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SD21R0054, which was issued by the Department of the Army for mess attendant and waiter services at the United States Military Academy (USMA) in West Point, New York. TCM challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals, tradeoff analysis, and resulting source selection decision.
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: Three Cities Management, LLC
File: B-420812; B-420812.2
Date: August 31, 2022
Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester.
Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Rice Services, Inc., the intervenor.
Abraham Young, Esq., Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Major Michael R. Tregle, Jr., and Captain Camille Grathwohl, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ technical proposals and past performance is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation.
2. Protest that the agency failed to perform a proper best-value tradeoff and essentially converted the basis for award from tradeoff to lowest-priced, technically acceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency performed a best-value tradeoff that was reasonable and adequately documented.
DECISION
Three Cities Management, LLC (TCM), a small business of Middletown, New York, protests the award of a contract to Rice Services, Inc. (Rice), a small business of Smithville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SD21R0054, which was issued by the Department of the Army for mess attendant and waiter services at the United States Military Academy (USMA) in West Point, New York. TCM challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals, tradeoff analysis, and resulting source selection decision.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP, which was issued on August 2, 2021, and subsequently amended seven times, sought proposals to provide mess attendant and waiter services at the Cadet Mess in Washington Hall at the USMA. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, RFP at 1, 3. The contractor will provide mess attendant and waiter services supporting family style service, cafeteria style service, optional meals, mandatory meals, grab and go,
take out service, individual plate service, and special event meals for 4,400 cadets, serving 1.8 million meals annually. Id. at 3.
The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period (including a 1-month phase-in period), and six 1-year option periods. Id. at 63‑74. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis utilizing the following evaluation factors: (1) integrated staffing and management approach; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 88. The integrated staffing and management approach factor was significantly more important than past performance, and the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id.
Under the integrated staffing and management approach factor, offerors were to submit separate staffing and management plans, which the agency was to evaluate under a single integrated evaluation factor to determine if the offeror had clearly demonstrated a sound understanding of the solicitation’s requirements. Id. at 58-59, 88. Additionally, the agency was to consider proposed staffing by number and labor category proposed for the duration of performance, as well as proposed personnel qualifications by position and labor category, the program management approach, property management plan, and phase-in approach. Id. at 88.
Under the past performance factor, offerors were to provide information regarding the offeror’s performance of at least three, and up to six, contracts for similar services performed within the past 5 years. Id. at 60‑61. The agency would evaluate each contract for recency, relevancy, and quality. Id. at 90. To be recent, the effort must have been performed for at least 12 months during the 5 years prior to the due date for proposals. Id. The assessment of relevancy would include a determination of the similarity of scope and magnitude, with the scope assessment based on a comparison of the effort to the requirements of the RFP’s performance work statement (PWS) and magnitude based on the dollar value of work performed. Id. Each recent effort would be assigned a relevancy rating as follows:
Adjectival Rating
Description
Very Relevant
Present/past performance involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Relevant
Present/past performance involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant
Present/past performance involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Not Relevant
Present/past performance involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Id. at 90‑91.
Considering the quality of the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, the agency was to assign the offeror a performance confidence assessment as identified in the following table:
Adjectival Rating
Description
Substantial Confidence
Based on offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral Confidence
No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
Limited Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Id. at 91.
The agency received six proposals in response to the RFP, including from TCM and Rice. Following the evaluation of proposals, the agency established a competitive range consisting of the proposals submitted by TCM, Rice, and a third offeror. AR, Tab 10a, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2. Thereafter, the agency sent evaluation notices (ENs) and a request for final proposal revisions to the offerors in the competitive range. Id. As relevant here, the agency evaluated the final revised proposals of TCM and Rice as follows:
TCM
Rice
Factor 1 – Integrated Staffing and Management Approach
Outstanding
Outstanding
Factor 2 – Past Performance
Substantial
Substantial
Factor 3 – Price
$50,045,838
$45,885,828
Id. at 6 (prices rounded to the nearest whole dollar).
The source selection authority (SSA) documented an independent review of the proposals, and agreed with the analysis of the evaluators with respect to each factor. Id. at 5‑6. The SSA then conducted a comparative assessment of the proposals across each of the evaluation factors. With respect to the integrated staffing and management approach, the SSA found that the proposals of TCM and Rice were technically equal, noting that each proposal had multiple strengths demonstrating an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirement, as well as an ability to provide high quality services. Id. at 6. The SSA then discussed each strength found in each proposal that supported the conclusion that the proposals were technically equal under this factor. Id. at 6‑7.
With respect to past performance, the SSA discussed each of the recent and relevant contracts submitted by TCM and Rice, noting the time of performance, the similarities to the instant requirement, and the performance ratings that were provided. Id. at 7‑9. Comparing the underlying data, the SSA determined that the proposals of TCM and Rice were technically equal under past performance as well. Id. at 9.
In making the award decision, the SSA reiterated the basis for finding that the proposals submitted by TCM and Rice were equal under the non-price factors. Id. at 10‑11. The SSA further found that the relative merits of TCM’s proposal did not warrant paying the associated $4,160,010 price premium. Id. at 11. The SSA therefore found that Rice’s proposal presented the best value to the government, and selected it for award. Id. Following a debriefing, TCM filed this protest with our Office.
DISCUSSION
TCM challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the integrated staffing and management approach and past performance factors, tradeoff analysis, and resulting award decision.[1] For the reasons that follow, we find no basis on which to sustain the protest.
Evaluation of TCM’s Integrated Staffing and Management Approach
TCM challenges the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the integrated staffing and management approach factor, asserting two primary objections. The protester first contends that the agency unreasonably failed to assign multiple additional strengths to TCM’s proposal. Second, TCM argues that the agency engaged in an impermissible unequal evaluation by crediting the proposals of Rice and a third offeror with strengths, while not similarly evaluating strengths for materially similar aspects of TCM’s proposal. For the reasons that follow, we find no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation.
In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals; rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable, and in accordance with solicitation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Patriot Def. Grp., LLC, B‑418720.3, Aug. 5, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 265 at 7. An agency’s judgment that the features identified in a proposal do not significantly exceed the requirements of the RFP or provide advantages to the government–and thus do not warrant the assessment of unique strengths–is a matter within the agency’s discretion and one that we will not disturb where the protester has failed to demonstrate that the evaluation was unreasonable. Protection Strategies, Inc., B‑416635, Nov. 1, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 33 at 8 n.4. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s assessment, without more, does not render the evaluation unreasonable. The Ginn Grp., Inc., B‑420165, B‑420165.2, Dec. 22, 2021, 2022 CPD ¶ 17 at 9. Under those guiding principles, we find no merit to TCM’s arguments that its proposal should have received additional strengths under the integrated staffing and management approach factor.
The protester first contends that the agency unreasonably failed to assign strengths for the qualifications of TCM’s personnel, the number of personnel and labor categories proposed, and TCM’s phase-in plan. Protest at 12‑16. With respect to personnel qualifications, the protester argues that TCM’s proposal merited an additional strength for exceeding minimum experience and qualification requirements. Id. at 12-14. In support of its argument, the protester principally relies on its incumbency to assert that it “unquestionably has the ‘best possible qualified personnel’ for this contract.” Id. at 12; see also Protester’s Comments at 6 (“[T]he Army should have assigned it another strength based on its clear ability to hire and retain the best-qualified personnel, based on its 20-year history and the very experienced personnel it proposed.”). We find nothing objectionable with the agency’s evaluation in this regard.
As an initial matter, we have explained that a protester’s apparent belief that its incumbent status entitles it to higher ratings provides no basis for finding an evaluation unreasonable, as there generally is no requirement that an offeror be given additional credit for its status as an incumbent, or that the agency assign or reserve the highest rating for the incumbent contractor. NLT Mgmt. Servs., LLC–Costs, B-415936.7, Mar. 15, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 122 at 6-7; PricewaterhouseCoopers Public Sector, LLP, B‑415504, B-415504.2, Jan. 18, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 35 at 7.
Furthermore, while the agency explains that it found the qualifications of the protester’s proposed personnel satisfactory but not “particularly advantageous” to the government so as to warrant the assessment of a unique strength, see Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5, the record demonstrates that the qualifications were favorably assessed and played an important part in the overall assessment of outstanding for the protester’s proposal under the integrated staffing and management approach factor.
Specifically, the record reflects that the agency was unable to determine from TCM’s initial proposal whether the protester’s proposed management and supervisory personnel satisfied minimum experience and qualification requirements, resulting in the assignment of a weakness. AR, Tab 6a, TCM Initial Technical Eval. Team Consensus Rep. at 2. Following discussions, the agency found that TCM’s revised proposal was “sufficient” to address these concerns, removing the weakness and, as a result, raising the overall adjectival rating for the protester’s proposal under the factor from good to outstanding. AR, Tab 9a, TCM Final Technical Eval. Team Consensus Rep. The SSA reviewed and adopted those findings. AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 5. Thus, the record demonstrates that TCM’s proposal received credit for the experience and qualifications of the proposed management and supervisory personnel, but that any exceedance of the RFP’s requirements in that regard did not provide advantages to the government, as evidenced by the removal of the weakness and the revised adjectival rating. On this record, we find no basis to question the agency’s judgment that the qualifications of TCM’s personnel did not exceed requirements in such a way as to warrant a strength.
The protester next argues that TCM’s proposal merited an additional strength for the number of personnel and labor categories provided in its proposed staffing plan, which the protester characterizes as reducing risks that might be introduced by cross-utilization of staff or augmentation with temporary personnel. Protest at 14‑15. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that the agency in fact favorably credited TCM’s proposal for these aspects. Specifically, the evaluators–and subsequently the SSA–credited both the number of personnel and labor categories TCM proposed. With respect to the number of personnel, the agency noted in support of one strength, “[t]he staffing matrix clearly depicted the number of personnel required by meal hour and type of meals to include weekends and/or holidays. The Offeror proposed very detailed methodology used to develop the productive hours/man‑year.” AR, Tab 6a, TCM Initial Technical Eval. Team Consensus Rep. at 1; AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 7.
With respect to labor categories, the agency noted in support of another strength, “[p]roposed [s]taffing is broken down into levels that cover all aspects of the requirement. The Staffing Matrix depicted all proposed on-site staffing which included [DELETED].” Id. Thus, the record reflects that the agency considered these aspects of TCM’s proposal in assigning it strengths. To the extent the protester believes that its proposal merited a more heavily or significantly-weighted strength, the protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, does not provide a basis to sustain the protest. Protection Strategies, Inc., supra at 8. Similarly, to the extent the protester believes it should have been assigned multiple strengths for the same aspect of its proposal, such a challenge provides no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation. See SMS Data Prods. Grp., Inc., B‑418925.2 et al., Nov. 25, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 387 at 8.
The protester further argues that the agency unreasonably failed to assign a strength for TCM’s phase‑in plan. Protest at 15‑16. The protester asserts that, as the long‑performing incumbent for these services, TCM requires no formal phase‑in plan and therefore will ensure full operations earlier than the required 30 days after award, meriting a strength. Id. This argument fails for at least two reasons.
First, as addressed above, there is no requirement that an incumbent be given extra credit for its status as an incumbent. We have previously rejected arguments that an incumbent’s transition or phase-in plan must receive additional credit merely because the protester is the incumbent. See, e.g., Sterling Medical Assocs., Inc., B‑418384, B‑418384.2, Mar. 26, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 130 at 7; Integral Consulting Servs., Inc., B‑415292.2, B-415292.3, May 7, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 170 at 7.
Second, the record demonstrates that the agency reasonably considered and evaluated the protester’s specific approach. Similar to the personnel experience and qualifications discussed above, the record reflects that the evaluators took notice of TCM’s phase-in plan, but did not find that it exceeded requirements in such a way as to merit a strength:
The Phase‑In Plan clearly identifies the approach that will be used to perform the requirement by [DELETED] as required in the Performance Work Statement.
* * * * *
The proposed Phase In Plan identifies how services will be maintained by [DELETED] in accordance with the submittal timelines listed within the Performance Work Statement.
AR, Tab 6a, TCM Initial Technical Eval. Team Consensus Rep. at 1, 2.
As reflected in the evaluation of TCM’s proposal, the phase‑in period involves not simply transition to performance by successor contractor personnel, but also the fulfillment of administrative and documentation requirements. See, e.g., RFP at 7 (“Contractor shall provide documentation of [the contractor’s customer service program] to the COR [contracting officer’s representative], within the contract phase‑in period of performance.”), at 27 (“Initial inventories . . . will be conducted by the Contractor, the COR and functional area representatives during the contract phase‑in.”). On this record, we find no basis to object to the agency’s determination that TCM’s phase‑in plan met, but did not exceed, the agency’s requirements.
TCM also contends that the agency engaged in impermissible unequal treatment when it failed to assign the protester’s proposal several strengths for aspects of its proposal that the protester contends were substantively indistinguishable from aspects of the awardee’s proposal that were favorably evaluated by the agency.[2]
It is a fundamental principle of government procurement that a competition must be conducted on an equal basis; that is, the contracting agency must treat all offerors equally, and even‑handedly evaluate proposals against common requirements and evaluation criteria. L3 Security and Detection Sys., Inc., B‑417463, B‑417463.2, July 8, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 248 at 4. When a protester alleges disparate treatment, however, it must show that the differences in the evaluation did not stem from differences between the offerors’ proposals. Environmental Chem. Corp., B‑416166.3 et al., June 12, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 217 at 10‑11. As addressed in the following representative examples, we find no basis to conclude that the agency engaged in impermissible disparate treatment.
The protester first alleges that the agency failed to reasonably credit TCM for its property management plan, while simultaneously assigning a strength to Rice for its allegedly similar approach. Supp. Protest at 2‑5. This argument is without merit. The agency found that Rice’s proposal merited a strength for its property management plan because it “demonstrates a clear description of the Offeror’s property management system that includes inventories, procedures, maintaining [government-furnished property (GFP)], replacement, and physical security in accordance with the solicitation.” SSDD at 7. Notably, as the agency points out, the strength is founded on the completeness of the awardee’s property management plan, including, in part, the proposal’s discussion of physical security of government‑furnished property. Indeed, the proposal expressly discusses processes for maintaining physical security of government‑furnished property. See AR, Tab 14a, Rice Proposal Vol. I, at I‑50 to I‑51 (detailing physical security measures).
In contrast, while the protester’s property management plan does appear detailed with respect to inventory and tracking processes, it does not contain a discussion of physical security measures similar to those that contributed to the strength assigned to the awardee’s proposal, a fact that the protester does not rebut. See AR, Tab 4a, TCM Proposal Vol. I, at 61-65; Supp. Comments at 7‑8. Accordingly, we cannot find that the differences in evaluation did not stem from differences between the offerors’ proposals.
As another example, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably failed to assign a strength to TCM’s proposal with respect to its approach to meals requiring the use of mermites,[3] while finding a strength in Rice’s proposal for its allegedly similar approach. Supp. Protest at 6. The record reflects that Rice’s proposal received a strength for providing a detailed staffing plan for each meal type, including those requiring mermites, as well as other meal types. See AR, Tab 15a, Rice Technical Eval. Team Consensus Rep. at 1; AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 6. Thus, contrary to the protester’s argument, Rice’s proposal did not receive a strength for meals requiring the use of mermites. Rather, it received a strength for the detail of its staffing plan with respect to each meal type, of which meals requiring mermites were one. The record further reflects that TCM’s proposal similarly received a strength for the detail of its staffing plan with respect to each meal type. See AR, Tab 6a, TCM Initial Technical Eval. Team Consensus Rep. at 1 (“The staffing matrix clearly depicted the number of personnel required by meal hour and type of meals to include weekends and/or holidays.”); AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 7 (same). Thus, the agency similarly assigned strengths to each proposal, and the protester’s argument that the agency engaged in disparate treatment is legally and factually without support.
Evaluation of Rice’s Past Performance
TCM next challenges the agency’s evaluation of Rice’s past performance. Specifically, the protester contends that the agency unreasonably assigned Rice the highest past performance rating based upon an improper finding that Rice’s contract for similar services at the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) is relevant to the USMA requirement, and that the agency consequently erred in finding TCM and Rice equal under the past performance factor. Protest at 19‑21; Comments at 9‑11. For the reasons that follow, we find no basis on which to sustain the protest.
The evaluation of an offeror’s past performance is within the discretion of the contracting agency, and we will not substitute our judgment for reasonably based past performance ratings. AAR Integrated Techs., B‑416859.4, June 11, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 214 at 6; TeleCommunication Sys., Inc., B‑413265, B‑413265.2, Sept. 21, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 266 at 7. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Lukos, LLC, B‑416343.2, Aug. 13, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 282 at 8.
Although Rice submitted past performance information regarding four efforts, see AR, Tab 5a, Rice Proposal Vol. II at II‑6 to II‑12, the agency found that only one of those efforts, performed in support of the USNA, satisfied the recency requirements of the solicitation, see AR, Tab 6b, Rice Performance Confidence Assessment at 1; AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 8 n.1. The agency assigned the effort a relevancy rating of relevant based upon the determination that it involved similar scope and magnitude as required by the RFP. AR, Tab 6b, Rice Performance Confidence Assessment at 1. In support of that finding, the agency noted the similarities in the types of meal support services to be provided, including family‑style service, cafeteria style meals, take‑out service, individual plate–VIP service, special events, custodial responsibilities, maintenance of government-furnished property, dishwashing operations, and administrative requirements, as well as that the USNA contract did not involve condiment room operation, as will be required for the USMA. Id. at 1‑2. The agency further noted that the invoiced value of the work under the USNA contract was approximately $20.3 million, or approximately $485,000 monthly, as compared to the estimated $63 million, or $750,000 monthly, value of the USMA requirement. Id. at 1.
In assessing the quality of performance, the agency noted that Rice had received ratings of exceptional across all evaluation categories in its Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, and further that the requiring activity had reported that Rice had continuously exceeded expectations. Id. at 2. In assigning Rice a rating of substantial confidence, the agency found that Rice had experience providing similar services while noting that the magnitude of the USNA effort “was only determined to be similar to that required by the solicitation.” Id. at 1. In light of Rice’s exceptional quality ratings, the agency had a high expectation of successful performance, and therefore assigned a Substantial Confidence rating. Id. The SSA independently reviewed and concurred with the evaluation findings. AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 5‑6, 8.
The protester’s principal objection is to the agency’s assignment of a rating of relevant to Rice’s USNA contract, which TCM argues is unwarranted in light of the lower dollar value of the USNA contract when compared to the USMA requirement. Protest at 20‑21; Comments at 10. In essence, the protester argues that because the approximately $485,000 monthly value of the USNA requirement is 35% lower than the government’s estimated $750,000 monthly value of the USMA contract, the USNA contract did not have a similar magnitude to the USMA requirement, and therefore should not have been rated any higher than somewhat relevant. Comments at 10. Had the agency rated the USNA contract lower than relevant, the protester argues, it would have given Rice a lower past performance rating and found that TCM was superior under that factor. Protest at 21.
TCM’s arguments amount to disagreement with the agency’s evaluation of the relevancy of Rice’s USNA contract. Where, as here, the solicitation does not expressly define scope, magnitude, or complexity, agencies are afforded great discretion to determine the relevance of an offeror’s past performance. Rocky Mountain Mobile Medical, B‑418788.2 et al., Dec. 23, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 413 at 11; Erickson Helicopters, Inc., B‑418981, Oct. 22, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 351 at 8. As discussed above, the record reflects that the agency’s relevancy assessment was based in part upon the nearly identical services to be provided under each contract. Additionally, the agency took note of the lower dollar value of the USNA contract in its evaluation, determining that its lower–though still substantial–value rendered it “only . . . similar” to the USMA contract in that regard. While the protester argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to find that the USNA contract had a “similar” magnitude to the USMA requirement and therefore to assign a rating of relevant, that argument only expresses disagreement with the agency’s judgment of similarity. In light of the close similarities of services provided to another service academy, as well as the substantial value of the USNA contract both in terms of raw dollar value and as a percentage of the USMA requirement, we do not find unreasonable the agency’s determination that the USNA contract involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the USMA requirement.
The protester further argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to find TCM and Rice technically equal under the past performance factor in light of TCM’s repeated recent performance of similar work as compared to Rice’s single contract. Protest at 20‑21; Comments at 11. The record reflects that the SSA took into account TCM’s greater number of recent and relevant projects, but also the lower performance ratings that TCM received as compared to Rice’s uniformly exceptional ratings on the USNA contract. Specifically, the SSA found that: “[a]lthough TCM has more recent references, including its work on the current contract which is very relevant, the other two references are for lower magnitude efforts which do not encompass all of the tasks required by the solicitation, and its quality ratings varied between satisfactory, very good, and exceptional.” AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 9.
Thus, the agency considered TCM’s additional, recent past performance references, but in keeping with the RFP’s evaluation method, also considered the quality of performance. On balance, the agency found that Rice’s exceptional past performance on a relevant contract was comparable to TCM’s satisfactory to exceptional performance on the incumbent contract and two additional references of lower magnitude. On this record, we do not find the agency’s conclusion unreasonable.
Best-Value Tradeoff
Finally, TCM contends that the agency erred in its best-value tradeoff. The protester argues that the agency’s tradeoff was based upon flawed underlying evaluations, failed to undertake a qualitative comparison of proposals, and improperly converted this tradeoff procurement into a lowest‑price, technically acceptable procurement. Protest at 22‑28; Comments at 11‑19. For the reasons that follow, we find no basis to sustain the protest.
When a procurement provides for the award of a contract on a best-value tradeoff basis, it is the function of the selection official to perform any necessary price/technical tradeoff, that is, to determine whether one proposal’s technical superiority is worth its higher price. NCI Info. Sys., Inc., B‑412680, B‑412680.2, May 5, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 125 at 9. Between two technically equal proposals, price may properly become the determining factor; a documented tradeoff determination is not required where the agency selects the lowest-priced proposal among proposals the agency has reasonably determined to be equal technically based on a documented qualitative assessment of proposals. American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier Grp., Inc., B‑418266.9 et al., Mar. 3, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 72 at 24. A protester’s challenge to the degree of benefit that the agency would derive from a particular feature of the protester’s proposal, as compared to the benefit that would be derived from the awardee’s proposal, is a disagreement with the agency’s subjective judgment and is not sufficient to establish that an evaluation conclusion was unreasonable. Karrar Sys. Corp., B‑310661.3, B‑310661.4, Mar. 3, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 55 at 4‑5.
Here, we find unobjectionable the SSA’s tradeoff and source selection decision. As discussed above, we do not find that the underlying evaluations of the non‑price factors were unreasonable or otherwise improper.
Additionally, we disagree with the protester that the agency did not undertake a qualitative comparison of the proposals, and converted the procurement to one where award was made on a lowest‑priced, technically acceptable basis. The record shows that in determining the proposals submitted by TCM and Rice to be technically equal under the integrated management and staffing approach factor, the SSA took notice of the fact that each proposal had received multiple strengths, demonstrating an exceptional understanding and approach, as well as the ability to provide high quality services. AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 6. The SSA then detailed the individual strengths assigned to each proposal under that factor that supported the finding that the proposals were technically equal. Id. at 6‑7. After reviewing and agreeing with the underlying evaluation findings, the SSA explained that the three proposals “provided equally highly rated proposals,” with “numerous strengths demonstrating their very detailed approach and understating of the requirement,” and that the “risk of unsuccessful performance for all is low.” Id. at 10. The SSA further noted that the strengths in all three proposals were awarded for the offerors’ “detailed understanding of the requirement,” and that none of the proposals “was appreciably more beneficial to the Government than the proposals submitted by the other Offerors.” Id.
Similarly, as addressed above, the record reflects that, in determining the proposals to be equal under the past performance factor, the SSA considered the underlying data, including TCM’s greater number of similar past projects but lower performance ratings than Rice. AR, Tab 10a, SSDD at 8‑9. On this record, we find no basis on which to find that the SSA did not consider and compare the strengths of each proposal, or that the SSA converted the basis for award to lowest-priced, technically acceptable.
The protest is denied.
Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel
[1] TCM also initially raised protest arguments related to the validity period of Rice’s proposal, the evaluation of Rice’s proposal under the integrated staffing and management approach factor, and the conduct of discussions with TCM. Those grounds of protests were either dismissed by our Office, see Electronic Protest Docketing System No. 20, Notice of Resolution of Req. to Dismiss, or withdrawn by the protester, see Protester’s Comments at 1 n.1.
[2] The protester also alleges that the agency engaged in similar disparate treatment with respect to another unsuccessful offeror. We note, however, that our Office has recognized that generally no competitive prejudice can flow from alleged disparate treatment with respect to other unsuccessful offerors. See, e.g., Systems Implementers, Inc.; Transcend Technological Sys., LLC, B-418963.5 et al., June 1, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 138 at 16 n.8; Operations Servs., Inc., B‑420226, Jan. 4, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 21 at 5 n.4; Smiths Detection, Inc., B‑420110, B-420111, Nov. 5, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 359 at 6 n.4.
[3] As detailed in the RFP, a mermite is a container used to transport food for feeding under field conditions and other locations. RFP at 19.
Related
Related
Related
Related
Related
Related
Related
Stay informed as we add new reports & testimonies.

source