BNUMBER:  B-259562.2
DATE:  January 18, 1996
TITLE:  Air-Flo Cleaning Systems

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Air-Flo Cleaning Systems

File:     B-259562.2

Date:     January 18, 1996

Lawrence S. Mozham for the protester.
Christopher J. Aiple for Service-Tech Corporation, an interested 
party.
Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Philip Kauffman, Esq., and Jeanne 
Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably downgraded the protester's proposal because it 
failed to include information required by the request for proposals 
and because its past performance was reasonably found deficient based 
on the agency's experience with the protester under prior contracts.

DECISION

Air-Flo Cleaning Systems protests the rejection of its proposal by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. 539-11-95, for duct-cleaning services at the VA Medical Center in 
Cincinnati, Ohio.  Air-Flo contends that its technical proposal was 
improperly evaluated, and that its low price should have entitled the 
firm to the award.

We deny the protest.

The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror 
whose offer conformed to all requirements of the solicitation and was 
considered to be most advantageous to the government, price, and other 
factors considered.  Further, the RFP expressly reserved the right to 
award the contract to other than the offeror whose price was lowest 
and provided that the evaluation of proposals would be based on the 
following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  
technical approach, past performance, and price.  Each factor, 
including price, was to be scored and firms were to be ranked based on 
the combined score.  The RFP provided detailed instructions for 
preparing proposals, directing offerors to furnish as part of their 
proposals: 

     "all descriptive material necessary for the contracting officer 
     to determine whether the equipment offered meets the requirements 
     of the RFP, and to establish exactly what the offeror proposes to 
     furnish and what the government would be binding itself to 
     purchase by making an award."  

Offerors were directed to provide proof "of having state of the art 
equipment for cleaning HVAC ductwork and systems."  The RFP also 
advised that all equipment used in the performance of the contract had 
to conform to OSHA standards, listed specific requirements for various 
types of equipment, and required offerors to comply with the latest 
standards developed by the National Air Duct Cleaning Association 
(NADCA). 

Six firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP.  Air-Flo did not 
submit a technical proposal or references, but submitted a pricing 
table as its offer.  When proposals were evaluated, Air-Flo received a 
"not rated" score for its technical approach and past performance.  
The VA determined that two proposals were in the competitive range and 
made its source selection based on those firms' initial proposals.  
After the contract was awarded, another firm protested the competitive 
range determination and the VA agreed to conduct discussions with all 
offerors as corrective action.  During discussions, the agency 
informed Air-Flo of its failure to submit a technical proposal with 
its initial offer.  When best and final offers (BAFO) were requested, 
Air-Flo submitted some information concerning its technical approach 
and past performance in a letter.

The agency's technical evaluation team reviewed the BAFO submissions 
and revised its scores for each offeror.  Air-Flo's proposal offered 
the second lowest price and received the fifth lowest overall score, 
which was based on all three evaluated factors.  Air-Flo's proposal 
was considered weak in the areas of technical approach and past 
performance.  The other firm whose proposal was found in the initial 
competitive range was selected for award, the original contract was 
terminated for convenience and a new award made.  Upon receiving 
notice of the new award, Air-Flow submitted an agency-level protest.  
When the VA denied that protest, this protest followed.

Air-Flo protests that it is qualified to perform the work and that it 
should have received the award because its price was lower than the 
awardee's price.  Air-Flo states that its technical proposal was 
directed at a lay person's level of understanding, and essentially 
objects to the notion that technical superiority can be measured by 
the inclusion of more material in a technical proposal.  Air-Flo also 
objects to the VA's evaluation of the firm's past performance. 

In reviewing whether a proposal was properly evaluated, our Office 
will not reevaluate the proposal, as the determination of whether a 
proposal meets the contracting agency's needs is a matter within the 
agency's discretion, but will examine the record to determine whether 
the evaluators' judgments were reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation criteria.  Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, 
Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  171. 

For the technical approach evaluation factor, the RFP specifically 
instructed offerors to furnish the following information:

     "1.  Describe the method your company utilizes in cleaning HVAC 
     ductwork.

     "2.  Describe the equipment your company utilizes in cleaning 
     HVAC ductwork.  Enclose brochures describing equipment with 
     offer.

     "3.  Are you a member and do you follow the standards of NADCA?  
     If so, please provide a copy of NADCA's duct cleaning standards 
     and a copy of your NADCA membership certificate."

The evaluation team determined that Air-Flo's proposal only described 
its cleaning methods in very general terms, failed to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable industry standards, and failed to 
discuss in any detail the equipment it was proposing to use.

We agree with the evaluation team's finding that the very general 
technical information submitted as the protester's proposal failed to 
address a number of the RFP requirements.  For example, although the 
RFP requested information regarding membership in the NADCA and 
compliance with that organization's standards, Air-Flo, which is not a 
member of NADCA, only stated in its proposal that the firm's 
"standards exceed the NADCA Regulations concerning the cleaning and 
inspection of duct work."  As noted above, the RFP warned offerors 
that proposals should include sufficient descriptive material to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the RFP.  Where, as 
here, the solicitation specifically directs offerors to demonstrate 
their capabilities in their technical proposals, an offeror disregards 
any specific requirements at its peril.  See Laboratory Sys. Servs., 
Inc., B-256323, June 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  359.  In the absence of 
specific information demonstrating compliance with the RFP 
requirements, the agency reasonably downgraded the protester's 
proposal under technical approach.    

The evaluation team found that where Air-Flo's proposal did describe 
its procedures more specifically, it indicated methods that did not 
comply with NADCA standards, such as inflating rubber balloons in 
ducts to block outside air flow during the use of certain vacuum 
equipment.  While Air-Flo asserts that this particular practice is not 
a procedure that was developed by the firm, but is the practice 
recommended by the vacuum equipment manufacturer, the protester's 
assertions do not rebut the agency's conclusion that the practice is 
inconsistent with the industry standard specified in the RFP.  

Regarding past performance, the evaluation record shows that the VA 
contacted two of the references listed in Air Flo's proposal.  (The 
RFP required that offerors furnish a list of references in their 
proposals.)  These references rated Air Flo "fair to good."  Further, 
the evaluators noted that the VA has experienced difficulties with 
Air-Flo's performance under prior contracts, where "there have been 
OSHA and safety violations which cause the team to question Air-Flo's 
ability to comply with the specifications."  The VA could reasonably 
rely on its own direct experience with Air-Flo to assess that firm's 
past performance and the protester has not demonstrated that this 
rating was unreasonable.  While the protester challenges the 
contracting officer's assertion that the VA contacted two of the 
references listed in Air-Flo's proposal and that these references 
provided only fair-to-good reports of the protester's performance, we 
do not think that the record contains sufficient information to 
disprove the agency's statements in this regard.  For example, Air-Flo 
does not allege that it spoke to every person at the referenced 
organizations who could have been contacted by the agency, nor does 
the protester provide any direct statements from personnel of these 
organizations to rebut the agency's assertions.  

In sum, the record reflects that the agency properly downgraded 
Air-Flo's technical approach because of the omissions and 
informational deficiencies relative to the requirements listed in the 
RFP and Air-Flo's past performance based on VA's own experience with 
Air-Flo.   Under the RFP evaluation scheme, these matters were 
properly taken into account by the VA in determining that Air Flo, 
despite its lower price, had not submitted the proposal most 
advantageous to the government.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States