BNUMBER:  B-259917.2
DATE:  July 5, 1995
TITLE: Matter of:   EG&G Team 

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

                                            REDACTED VERSION[*]

Matter of:   EG&G Team

File:        B-259917.2

Date:     July 5, 1995   

James S. Hostetler, Esq., Robert S. Ryland, Esq., and Susan K. Fitch, 
Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, for the protester.
Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., James J. McCullough, Esq., and Anne B. Perry, 
Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for John J. McMullen & 
Associates, Inc., an interested party.
James Y. Miyazawa, Esq., and Eric A. Lile, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that evaluation failed to adequately consider the 
relevance and quality of protester's prior experience, as required by 
the solicitation evaluation scheme, is denied where record shows 
agency gave due consideration to protester's prior experience.

2.  Selection of the awardee's proposal on the basis of its overall 
technical superiority, notwithstanding approximately 20 percent higher 
price, was proper where agency determined technical superiority of 
awardee's proposal was worth the additional cost, and cost/technical 
tradeoff was consistent with the evaluation scheme.

DECISION

EG&G Team[1] protests the award of a contract to John J. McMullen & 
Associates, Inc. (JJMA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N00600-94-R-1565, issued by the Department of the Navy for pollution 
prevention, environmental, and technical support services.  EG&G 
argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal under the 
corporate experience factor, and failed to justify award to a 
higher-priced offeror.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, as amended, sought proposals for a cost-plus-fixed-fee 
contract for a base year with 4 option years.  The RFP required 
offerors to submit separate technical and cost proposals.  Evaluation 
of the technical proposals would be based on the following factors, in 
descending order of importance:  (1) key personnel; (2) technical 
approach; (3) management plan (staffing plan); and (4) corporate 
experience.  Proposals were to be scored on the basis of adjectival 
ratings of "outstanding," "better," "acceptable," "marginal," and 
"unacceptable."  The cost proposals were to be evaluated for realism.  
Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal 
represented the best value to the government, cost and other factors 
considered.  The RFP warned offerors that "an acceptable proposal with 
the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher-priced 
proposal affords the government a greater overall benefit," and that 
"the government may elect to pay a price premium of up to 
approximately 35 percent to select a technically superior offer."   

The Navy received two proposals--JJMA's and EG&G's--both of which were 
included in the competitive range.  The Navy conducted three rounds of 
discussions, and requested and received best and final offers (BAFO) 
after each round.  The Navy evaluated the final BAFOs as follows:

       TECHNICAL            EG&G                JJMA

Key Personnel       better              better

Technical Approach  better              outstanding

Management Plan     better              outstanding

Corporate Experienceacceptable          outstandingOverallbetteroutsta
                                        nding

EVALUATED COST      $39,859,958         $49,298,556
In comparing EG&G's and JJMA's BAFOs, the contracting officer 
determined that, although JJMA's evaluated cost was approximately $9.5 
million higher than EG&G's, JJMA's BAFO represented the best value in 
light of its (1) highest overall technical rating, and (2) outstanding 
ratings under each technical factor, except the most important factor 
(key personnel), under which EG&G and JJMA received the same ratings.  
The Navy thus awarded the contract to JJMA.  This protest followed.

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

EG&G argues that the Navy's evaluators failed to adequately consider 
the extent to which EG&G's performance of the contracts listed in its 
proposal reflected the relevance and quality of its corporate 
experience in performing the work contemplated here, as required by 
the RFP.  The protester specifically maintains that, although its 
proposal contained "exhaustive detail on specific deliverables and 
results achieved" on its prior contracts "and the relevancy of those 
deliverables to the current contract," the evaluation documentation 
failed to reflect a similar level of detail.  
 
In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency evaluation of 
proposals, we will not independently evaluate the proposals.  ACM 
Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-242064, Mar. 7, 1991, 91-1 CPD  255.  Rather, 
as the determination of the proposals is primarily a matter of agency 
discretion, we will review an evaluation only to determine whether it 
was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria.  Columbia 
Research Corp., B-247073; B-247073.2, Apr. 23, 1992, 92-1 CPD  385.

The evaluation of EG&G's corporate experience was adequately 
documented.  Specifically, in reviewing the 22 prior and current 
contracts listed in EG&G's proposal, the evaluators stated in the 
consensus report that EG&G's proposal showed that the firm "has 
provided support similar [to the current RFP] requirements in the 
following areas:  HAZMAT Program planning, ODS initiatives, waste 
minimization, PRIME, pollution prevention studies, and in-depth 
packing research and analysis."  In addition, the evaluators observed 
that EG&G's proposal provided "a good summary of these efforts" and 
correlated "past contract efforts and relevancy to [statement of work] 
areas[,]" which showed that EG&G "delivered high quality products and 
measurable results on time and within budget."  The evaluators' 
references to EG&G's performance on specific types of services similar 
to those required here and their review of EG&G's on-time delivery of 
support products clearly shows that the quality and relevance of 
EG&G's experience were considered in the evaluation of its proposal 
under the corporate experience factor.  While the evaluation record 
does not detail how every single element of EG&G's proposal was viewed 
under the corporate experience factor, this level of detail in the 
evaluation was not required.  Columbia Research Corp., supra.  We 
conclude that this aspect of the evaluation was unobjectionable.

COST/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

EG&G raises numerous challenges to the cost/technical tradeoff.  It 
argues, for example, that the contracting officer has not adequately 
documented her determination that the benefits of JJMA's higher-rated 
proposal warranted the $9.5 million higher cost, given that the 
technical factors and cost were to be accorded equal weight.  

Cost/technical tradeoffs made in selecting an awardee under a best 
value evaluation scheme are subject only to the tests of rationality 
and consistency with the established evaluation factors.  Litton 
Indus., Inc., B-236720, Dec. 26, 1989, 89-2 CPD  595.  We find that 
the tradeoff here was proper; EG&G's arguments are without merit.  

Documentation

First, although the RFP did not identify the specific weighing of the 
cost and technical factors, as indicated, it did provide that the 
"[g]overnment may elect to pay a price premium of up to approximately 
35 percent to select a technically superior offer."  This provision 
clearly put offerors on notice that the government might pay a premium 
for technical superiority.  

Second, we find that the tradeoff is adequately documented.  The 
record shows that in making the award decision the contracting officer 
found that, although the firms received the same rating of better 
under the most important key personnel factor, JJMA's ratings of 
outstanding overall and under each of the other three technical 
evaluation factors showed its proposal was superior to EG&G's.  
Specifically, the contracting officer found under the technical 
approach factor that JJMA's sample tasks "demonstrated first-hand 
knowledge of processes required, comprehensive labor analyses, and 
detailed procedures," such that JJMA would "produce exceptional work 
plans."  The contracting officer also determined that JJMA's 
management plan was advantageous because it delineated the lines of 
responsibility and authority, which would "facilitate timely 
completion of tasks" and "allow necessary flexibility" and "rigorous 
project control"; that JJMA's "exceptional staffing plan," which 
proposes current, knowledgeable employees "with whom JJMA has 
contingency hire agreements," would "minimize start-up delays and 
associated costs"; and that JJMA's recruiting program is 
"well-substantiated by previous successful" efforts on contracts 
similar to the current requirement.  In addition, the contracting 
officer highlighted JJMA's exceptional "corporate experience in 
performing same or similar work," which would "minimize costs and 
delays in task completion," since "JJMA will not need to expend 
extensive time in analyzing requirements, devising work plans, and 
developing staffing requirements."  Finally, the contracting officer 
viewed JJMA's proposed key personnel who were "currently performing 
similar tasks under a number of Navy contracts" as highly beneficial 
since the staff's technical knowledge and experience "would bring 
efficiency and timeliness in the completion of the tasks under this 
contract," thus reducing the need for government guidance during 
contract performance.  The contracting officer then specifically 
concluded that JJMA's higher proposed cost was justified by its 
proposal's technical advantages.  

We see nothing unreasonable with this conclusion or with the adequacy 
of the documentation supporting it.

Price Premium

EG&G argues that the RFP's price premium clause permitted paying a 
substantial price premium (such as JJMA's 20.15 percent higher price) 
only where the higher-priced proposal is rated outstanding and the 
lower-priced proposal is rated acceptable, not, as here, where the 
lower-priced proposal is rated better.  This argument is without 
merit.  As indicated, the only guidance in the RFP as to the 
permissible tradeoff was the statement that up to a 35 percent price 
premium could be paid for a technically superior proposal.  JJMA's 
20.15 percent premium fell well within this limit.  Nothing in the RFP 
provided that tradeoffs of certain cost differences would be made only 
where there was a certain degree of technical superiority.[2]

Corporate Experience

EG&G argues that, in making the tradeoff, the contracting officer 
repeatedly considered corporate experience under all the technical 
factors (rather than only under the least important corporate 
experience factor), thereby improperly elevating it to the most 
important factor, contrary to the announced evaluation scheme.[3]

The contracting officer gave corporate experience no undue weight in 
the tradeoff.  Rather, corporate experience was an inherent element of 
some of the other factors that went into the tradeoff decision.  For 
example, under the management plan (staffing plan) factor, offerors' 
proposed recruiting/hiring programs were to be supported with 
"examples of previous successful recruiting/hiring/staffing efforts on 
contract(s) of a similar magnitude."  The contracting officer regarded 
JJMA's proposal advantageous under this factor on the basis that its 
proposed recruiting/hiring/staffing program was well substantiated by 
previous similar efforts.  Thus, while corporate experience arguably 
was considered, in a sense, under this factor, it was considered in a 
manner consistent with the factor as described in the RFP.  EG&G cites 
the key personnel factor as one under which corporate experience was 
considered.  The record shows otherwise.  This factor provided that 
the evaluation of personnel would be based on the extent to which 
their resumes showed they met or exceeded the educational and 
experience requirements in the RFP.  The contracting officer's 
comments on JJMA's advantage in this area--e.g., "JJMA's highly 
qualified personnel" were timely and efficient, and its proposed 
"subcontractors are currently performing similar tasks under a number 
of Navy contracts")--clearly were properly focused on the individual 
employees' qualifications, not on JJMA's corporate experience.

Uncompensated Overtime

The protester maintains that the contracting officer improperly 
considered its proposal of uncompensated overtime (UCOT) negatively in 
the tradeoff, since this was not a stated evaluation factor.  However, 
while UCOT may not have been identified as a separate evaluation 
factor, in allowing offerors to propose UCOT the RFP required 
proposals to identify "any hours against which the UCOT rate is 
applied" and required the use of accounting practices "consistent with 
[the offeror's] cost accounting practices" to estimate UCOT overtime.  
The RFP further warned that "[p]roposals which include unrealistically 
low rates, or which do not otherwise demonstrate cost realism, will be 
considered in a risk assessment and evaluated for award in accordance 
with that assessment."  We think these statements in the RFP were 
sufficient to put offerors on notice that any proposal which included 
uncompensated overtime would be subject to scrutiny on that basis.  
There thus is no basis for objecting to the contracting officer's 
considering UCOT in the tradeoff decision.

Error

EG&G maintains that the tradeoff erroneously attributed an EG&G 
proposal strength--its proposed use of lower level, lower cost 
personnel who could perform the required work most efficiently--to 
JJMA.  However, the agency found that JJMA proposed "a work force 
which will most efficiently support the government requirement by 
ensuring the highest quality work effort within established delivery 
schedules."  In other words, the record shows that the efficient 
staffing of contracts was a strength in both offerors' proposals.  
Thus, there is no basis for concluding that the tradeoff was erroneous 
in this regard. 

In conclusion, since the contracting officer identified specific 
strengths in JJMA's proposal as justifying JJMA's higher cost, and  
the technical factors were more important than cost, we think the 
contracting officer reasonably concluded that the technical 
superiority of JJMA's proposal warranted paying JJMA's higher price, 
and that JJMA's proposal offered the best value to the government.  

The protest is denied.

     Robert P. Murphy
     General Counsel

* The decision issued on July 5, 1995, contained proprietary 
information and was subject to a General Accounting Office protective 
order.  This version of the decision has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.

1. EG&G Team is a joint venture consisting of EG&G Washington 
Analytical Services; Center, Inc.; SRS Technologies; Basic Technology 
Corporation; and Radian Corporation.

2. The protester also maintains that its interpretation of the clause 
is supported by the source selection plan.  However, allegations of 
deviations from a source selection plan do not constitute a basis for 
questioning the validity of an award selection.  See National Steel & 
Shipbuilding Co., B-250305.2, Mar. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD  260.  

3. EG&G asserts that the agency's overemphasis of corporate experience 
resulted in deemphasizing its superior proposed key personnel in the 
tradeoff.  However, there is no basis for assuming that EG&G's key 
personnel were considered superior to JJMA's in any significant way.  
Of the 29 resumes EG&G submitted, 9 were rated outstanding, 18 better, 
and 2 acceptable.  Five of JJMA's resumes were rated outstanding, 20 
better, and 4 acceptable.  The evaluators did not consider this 
difference to warrant EG&G's proposal receiving a higher rating than 
JJMA under the key personnel factor, and there is no reason to believe 
the contracting officer would come to a different conclusion.  Thus, 
the matter of the corporate experience factor aside, there simply is 
no basis for concluding that the contracting officer underemphasized 
EG&G's proposed key personnel in the tradeoff decision.