BNUMBER:  B-260945.4
DATE:  September 29, 1995
TITLE:  Main Building Maintenance, Inc.

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

REDACTED DECISION
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.

Matter of:Main Building Maintenance, Inc.

File:     B-260945.4

Date:     September 29, 1995  

Garreth E. Shaw, for the protester.
Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore, Bucher & Morrison, DGR Associates, 
Inc, an interested party.
Kathryn M. Burke, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest is sustained where source selection authority based the 
selection of the awardee over the protester on his erroneous belief 
that the awardee's proposal included certain "value added strengths" 
not included in the protester's proposal.

DECISION

Main Building Maintenance, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
DGR Associates, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F08637-94-R-7011, issued by the Department of the Air Force for 
military family housing maintenance services, including service calls, 
change of occupancy maintenance, recurring maintenance, and appliance 
maintenance.  Main argues that the agency improperly evaluated 
proposals and failed to conduct meaningful discussions and that the 
source selection decision was based on an erroneous understanding of 
the differences between the proposals.

We sustain the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite 
quantity, fixed-price contract to provide services for a base year and 
3 option years.  The RFP stated that award would be made to the 
offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based 
on an integrated assessment of technical and price criteria, with 
technical criteria more important than price.  The RFP listed the 
following technical evaluation areas in descending order of 
importance:  area A, comprehension of requirements; area B, management 
organization and staffing;  area C, contract management; and area D, 
experience.  Each of the evaluation areas included evaluation items.

After an initial evaluation, 11 proposals were included in the 
competitive range.  Discussions were held with the competitive range 
offerors and best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted and 
evaluated.  Under each of the evaluation areas, the proposals were 
assigned color-coded ratings, performance risk ratings, and were 
ranked based on the color and risk ratings.[1]  The final evaluation 
ratings and rankings of Main and DGR were as follows:

Offeror             Main                DGR

Comprehension of requirementsblue, low risk
                    ranked fifth        +blue,[2] low risk
                                        ranked first

Management organization and staffing+blue, low risk
                    ranked first        blue, low risk
                                        ranked second

Contract management +blue, low risk
                    ranked second       green, low risk
                                        ranked seventh

Experience          green, low risk
                    ranked seventh      +blue, low risk
                                        ranked first
Main's BAFO included a price of [deleted] and DGR's BAFO included a 
price of [deleted].  In a written source selection decision, the 
source selection authority (SSA) compared each of the competitive 
range proposals to DGR's proposal.  Based on those comparisons, the 
SSA decided that DGR's proposal represented the best overall value.

Among numerous other contentions, Main argues that the written source 
selection decision indicates that the SSA awarded the contract to DGR 
as a result of a mistaken understanding of the differences between the 
DGR and the Main proposals.  In particular, the protester maintains 
that a number of significant strengths which the SSA attributed 
exclusively to DGR's proposal also were present in Main's proposal.

As explained, the SSA compared each of the competitive range proposals 
to DGR's proposal.  In one of those comparisons, to a proposal other 
than that of Main, the SSA stated:

     "While offeror `F' was very close to DGR in overall technical 
     ratings, finishing 2nd and 3rd respectively in the two most 
     important technical areas, DGR was technically superior because, 
     along with their other strengths, theirs was the only offer which 
     (i) provided a computerized system [deleted],  (ii) provided 
     [deleted] phone line which adds value in terms of customer 
     access, (iii) provided completion of routine service calls in 
     [deleted] days versus thirty, thereby adding value by reducing 
     the probability of costly expenditures for major maintenance, 
     (iv) provided for flexibility in scheduling which adds value in 
     terms of responsiveness to the customer and availability to meet 
     changing requirements, (v) provided [deleted], thereby reducing 
     the probability of expensive delays inherent in obtaining 
     approvals for unscheduled requirements, and (vi) provided for 
     [deleted] contact between the Contract Manager and maintenance 
     personnel through [deleted] thereby adding value in terms of 
     responsiveness and flexibility."

The selection statement further states that DGR's proposal was 
"clearly superior technically" and "the decision then is whether or 
not that superiority adds sufficient value to warrant award over the 
five lower priced offerors," including Main.  In comparing DGR's 
proposal to Main's proposal, the selection statement states:  "In the 
most important [evaluation] area . . . [Main] was clearly inferior to 
DGR in that none of the value added strengths which established DGR's 
technical superiority to offeror `F' were present in [Main's] 
proposal."

Thus, the source selection authority determined that DGR's proposal 
was technically superior to all others submitted and that it was 
superior to Main's proposal under the most important evaluation area, 
Comprehension of requirements, because Main's proposal included none 
of the six "value added strengths" listed above.

According to Main, the SSA was mistaken concerning at least four of 
the six strengths on which he relied to decide that DGR's proposal was 
superior to Main's proposal.  Specifically, Main argues that the SSA 
mistakenly stated that DGR's proposal was the only one to provide:

 1.  A computerized system [deleted],

 2.  [Deleted],

 3.  [Deleted] and

 4.  [Deleted] contact between the contract manager and maintenance 
 personnel through [deleted].

Main contends that it offered each of these strengths and therefore, 
the selection decision was flawed and should be overturned.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection 
decision, we will confine our analysis to a determination of whether 
the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the stated 
solicitation evaluation criteria.  SDA Inc., B-248528.2, Apr. 14, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  320.  Here, although the SSA explicitly based the 
selection decision between DGR and Main on his belief that only DGR's 
proposal included the six strengths listed above, Main's proposal and 
the evaluation record demonstrate that the SSA was misinformed on four 
of those six strengths.

First, although the SSA believed that only DGR proposed a computer 
system [deleted], in its report in response to the protest, the agency 
concedes that, in fact, Main did offer such a computer system.  The 
agency argues, however, that DGR's computer system was superior to 
Main's proposed computer system because it is compatible with 
[deleted].

While Main does not argue that its proposed computer system is 
compatible with [deleted], that compatibility was not the basis for 
the SSA's comparison and was not a basis for DGR's superiority as 
described by the SSA in the selection statement.  Rather, as 
explained, the SSA relied, erroneously as it turns out, on the belief 
that DGR, and not Main, offered a computer system [deleted].

Second, the agency essentially concedes that Main also proposed 
flexibility in scheduling.  In response to an allegation by the 
protester that DGR should not have been given credit in the evaluation 
for flexibility in scheduling, the agency notes that the evaluators 
gave Main's proposal credit for "recognizing peak times" and argues 
that both "flexibility in scheduling" and "recognizing peak times" 
simply recognize each firm's ability to have personnel available to 
meet contractual needs, in particular when demand is the greatest.  
Under the circumstances, we see no basis for the SSA's belief that 
only DGR's proposal offered flexibility in scheduling.

Third, with regard to the authority of both the contract manager and 
assistant manager to act on the company's behalf, Main's proposal 
states:

 "The Contract Manager will be vested with full authority to commit 
 all resources at the Company's disposal in all matters within the 
 scope of the contract.  In the Manager's absence, the assigned 
 Alternate Contract Manager will also be vested with the same level of 
 authority.  There will be no limitations on the Contract Manager and 
 he will be able to make `on the spot' decisions, including the 
 amendment and/or modification of the contract."

Main's proposal does not include an assistant contract manager; 
instead the proposal refers to this position as an alternate contract 
manager.[3]

The evaluation record shows that agency technical evaluators 
recognized that Main had proposed the proper level of authority in its 
contract manager, although the evaluators did not explicitly recognize 
that Main's proposal vested the proper authority in the alternate 
manager.  Under the management organization and staffing evaluation 
area for Main, an evaluator stated:

 "Proposal demonstrates a very strong knowledge of the importance of 
 the role and authority for a corporate contract manager.  The offeror 
 indicates that `there will be no limitations on the Contract Manager 
 and he will be able to make "on the spot" decisions, including the 
 amendment and/or modification of the contract.'"

Whether in reliance on this evaluation record or otherwise, the SSA's 
belief that Main's proposal did not provide for the contract manager 
and the assistant manager to have authority to act on the company's 
behalf is simply inconsistent with Main's proposal.[4]

Fourth, the record demonstrates that Main did provide for constant 
contact between the contract manager and maintenance personnel through 
use of beepers/pagers and radios.  Main's proposal, when it described 
the vehicles it would use on the contract, stated "[e]ach truck will 
be radio equipped for ease of communications."  In addition, 
concerning after-hours coverage, Main's proposal stated "on-call 
craftsman (representative) shall be available by telephone and pager 
throughout the period for which he is responsible."

Although Main's proposal included the use of radio-equipped vehicles 
and pagers, this was not reflected in the evaluation record.  None of 
the evaluation documents stated that Main had proposed the use of 
pagers or radio controlled vehicles.  Concerning DGR's proposal, 
however, a "Strengths Analysis Chart," which was part of the 
evaluation record, reflected the evaluators' awareness that DGR had 
proposed [deleted].
  
In response to the protest, the agency argues that DGR proposed to 
better equip its personnel so it was reasonable to assign greater 
credit to DGR.  The agency explains that while Main's proposal 
indicated that its on-call craftsmen would be available by telephone 
and pagers, DGR proposed to have a [deleted].  In addition, the agency 
states that DGR proposed that [deleted], which would be a distinct 
advantage over Main's proposal of radios in vehicles since the 
majority of the time is spent in housing units and not in the 
vehicles.

The distinctions referenced by the agency did not appear in the 
evaluation record and therefore do not appear to have been relied upon 
by the SSA in the selection decision.  Simply stated, it appears to us 
that the SSA, relying on the evaluation record, which reflected the 
use of [deleted], but not Main, concluded that DGR's use of those 
devices was a "value added strength" in DGR's proposal; the SSA does 
not appear to have concluded that the "value added strength" was DGR's 
better approach in this area.  Because the SSA was not presented with 
complete, accurate information in this areas, the SSA did not have the 
opportunity to consider the benefits, if any, of Main's approach 
before deciding that DGR's proposal had a "value added strength" with 
respect to this item.

While source selection officials are entitled to independently judge 
the merits of competing proposals, these judgments must have a 
rational basis, see TRW, Inc., B-254045.2, Jan. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  
18, and agency officials may not disparately evaluate offerors' 
proposals with respect to the same requirements.  Sci-Tec Gauging, 
Inc.; Sarasota Measurements & Controls, Inc., B-252406; B-252406.2,     
June 25, 1993, 93-1 CPD  494.

Here, the written record demonstrates that the SSA was mistaken 
concerning four of the six "value added strengths" which he attributed 
exclusively to DGR's proposal.  The SSA considered those four 
strengths to fall within the most important technical evaluation area, 
comprehension of requirements.  Had Main's proposal also been given 
credit for those four strengths, it is likely that Main's proposal 
would have been perceived as stronger by the SSA and, on this record, 
we cannot conclude that it would not have been selected as the best 
value.  Consequently, we sustain the protest on this basis.

In deciding whether the appropriate remedy should be limited to a new 
source selection decision, rather than reopening of discussions and 
reevaluation, we review Main's other challenges to the evaluation of 
the proposals.

Main argues that DGR should not have been given credit in the 
evaluation and source selection for proposing to respond to service 
calls in [deleted] days, since the RFP required responses only in 30 
days.  The RFP encouraged offerors to include in their proposals all 
available information relating to the evaluation criteria "as well as 
any other information which the offeror feels would bear on his 
ability to perform the services."  The RFP also stated that award 
would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to 
the government and that each offer should be submitted "on the most 
favorable terms, from both technical and cost standpoints."  Where, as 
here, detailed technical proposals are sought and technical evaluation 
criteria are used to enable the agency to make comparative judgments 
about the relative merits of competing proposals, offerors are on 
notice that qualitative distinctions among the technical proposals 
will be made under the various evaluation factors.  See Cybernated 
Automation Corp., B-242511.3, Sept. 26, 1991, 91-2 CPD  293.  
Consequently, since offerors were on notice from the RFP of a 
comparative evaluation of the relative merits of competing proposals, 
any additional credit which DGR received for offering to exceed a 
minimum requirement was entirely proper.  Id.[5]

Main also argues that by giving DGR credit for needing no phase-in 
period, the evaluators deviated from the evaluation criteria in the 
RFP.  Main argues that under the evaluation plan for the RFP, under 
the evaluation item "Start-up schedule," credit was to be given based 
on how well proposals demonstrated the capability to provide required 
maintenance on the start-up date, including consideration of a phasing 
chart depicting acquisition of equipment, recruitment, training, and 
acquisition of materials.  According to Main, notwithstanding this 
standard, the agency assigned credit to DGR simply because, as the 
incumbent, DGR would not need a phase-in period.  In addition, Main 
notes that DGR was assigned credit under the comprehension of 
requirements evaluation area for not needing a phase-in period and 
argues that this was improper since that evaluation area concerned 
only offerors' understanding of the requirements.

Contrary to the protester's allegations, we conclude that the credit 
assigned to DGR's proposal for not needing a phase-in period was 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP.  The evaluation item "Start-up 
schedule" was included under the comprehension of requirements 
evaluation area and we think that the evaluation of a phase-in 
schedule was reasonably contemplated under that evaluation item.  
Although DGR was given credit for not needing a phase-in period since 
it was the incumbent, we do not see how this was inconsistent with the 
agency's concern under that factor for comprehension of the 
requirements of the solicitation.

Main also notes that the evaluators stated that under an award to the 
incumbent, "[t]here are no foreseeable obstacles to continued service 
thus saving time and money while ensuring customer satisfaction."  
According to Main, this consideration of potential cost savings of 
awarding to the incumbent was inconsistent with the RFP evaluation 
scheme which did not indicate that the cost savings related to 
awarding to the incumbent would be considered.  Since the RFP stated 
that the evaluation would include consideration of the "Start-up 
schedule" evaluation item, we think that the incidental mention of the 
advantages to the government of avoiding a transition phase, which 
would include a potential for a disruptive expenditure of time and 
money, was reasonable and consistent with the government's 
well-established practice of recognizing, in appropriate 
circumstances, the value of continued performance by an incumbent.  
See, e.g., Benchmark Sec., Inc., B-247655.2, Feb. 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  
133.

Main also raises a series of allegations in which it essentially 
disagrees with the ratings assigned to its own proposal or to DGR's 
proposal.  As explained, we confine our review of an agency's 
evaluation of proposals to a determination of whether the agency acted 
reasonably and consistent with the stated solicitation evaluation 
criteria.  SDA Inc., supra.  Mere disagreement with the agency's 
evaluation does not render the evaluation unreasonable.  CORVAC, Inc., 
B-244766, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD  454.   Here, we conclude that the 
ratings challenged by Main were reasonable.

Main argues that the rating of blue, low risk assigned to DGR's 
initial proposal under the comprehension of requirements evaluation 
area should have been reduced based on DGR's BAFO which, according to 
the protester, reduced DGR's ability to provide timely and quality 
change of occupancy maintenance.  DGR's initial proposal stated that 
each of [deleted] change of occupancy maintenance work crews would 
consist of [deleted].  In response to a discussion question, DGR 
changed its proposal to reflect [deleted], rather than [deleted], 
basic change of occupancy maintenance work crews.  In addition, DGR 
stated that those crews would not consist of all the members listed 
above but would include [deleted]. According to Main, this reduction 
in the number of crews and in the staff assigned to those crews would 
result in a significant lessening of DGR's ability to provide timely 
and quality maintenance and should have resulted in a reduction in 
DGR's rating under the comprehension of requirements evaluation area 
from blue, low risk to green, moderate risk.

The evaluators, however, did not view the change negatively, but as an 
appropriate response to a matter raised in discussions.  The agency 
noted during discussions with DGR that the firm's proposal stated that 
it would have [deleted] work crews "but the workforce is not 
distributed properly on the chart."  Rather than viewing DGR's 
response as reflecting poorly on DGR's comprehension of the 
requirements, the evaluators considered the reduction in the number 
and size of the firm's work crews to be a positive feature since the 
proposed sharing of personnel would minimize the chance of workers 
being idle.  Main provides no basis for us to conclude that this 
aspect of the evaluation was unreasonable.

Main also argues that the ratings assigned by the agency to DGR's 
proposal under the "Appliance and equipment" evaluation item under the 
first evaluation area and the "Quality control" evaluation item under 
the second evaluation area should have been lower.  Once again, Main 
has simply disagreed with the ratings, which we conclude are supported 
by the record.

For instance, although Main challenges the increase in DGR's rating on 
the "Appliance and equipment" evaluation item from moderate risk to 
low risk, the record shows that the rating was raised because DGR 
modified its proposal, as a result of discussions, in order to comply 
with a solicitation requirement that an annual inspection occur within 
3 months of change in occupancy maintenance.  On the "Quality control" 
evaluation item, Main argues that DGR should have been assigned a 
moderate or high risk rating, instead of low risk, because DGR's 
quality control representative does not report directly to the 
corporate office and has multiple duties.  The protester again is 
simply disagreeing with the assigned rating based on its view that it 
should have been lower; that disagreement provides no basis to 
challenge the rating assigned by the evaluators. 

Main also argues that the agency conducted unequal discussions.  The 
protester points out that the evaluators noted that in their initial 
proposals both DGR and Main failed to provide addresses and phone 
numbers of subcontractors.  Main notes that while this issue was 
raised during discussions with DGR--which corrected this discrepancy 
in its proposal--the issue was not raised with Main, which therefore 
did not have the same opportunity as DGR to improve its proposal 
through discussions.

While the record shows that DGR, and not the protester, was given the 
opportunity to correct the discrepancy, we find that Main was not 
prejudiced as a result.  As the agency points out, although Main did 
not correct its proposal to include the addresses and phone numbers of 
its subcontractors, Main's proposal received a rating of blue, low 
risk, and was the highest ranked proposal under the management 
organization and staffing evaluation area.  In addition, the source 
selection statement does not mention the failure to include addresses 
and phone numbers of subcontractors as a distinguishing factor in the 
selection decision between DGR and Main.  Under the circumstances, we 
conclude that Main was not prejudiced by the agency's failure to raise 
this matter in discussions.[6]

Finally, Main argues that the agency improperly permitted DGR to amend 
its proposal late.  In a letter to each offeror requesting proposal 
clarifications, the agency stated that proposal changes must be 
received on January 23.  The protester notes that the agency's 
"Deficiency/Clarification Log" indicates that DGR's responses were 
received on January 25, and argues that DGR's clarifications, which 
included information essential for determining the acceptability of 
DGR's proposal, should not have been considered.  In response, the 
agency explains that the log to which Main refers was used to record 
the technical evaluation team's receipt of discussion responses, not 
the agency's receipt, and that all discussion responses, including 
those of DGR, were received before the deadline.  We have no basis to 
question the agency's explanation, and simply note that the log shows 
that the protester's discussion responses also were received on 
January 25.

In light of the above, we see no need for the reopening of 
discussions. Therefore, we recommend that the SSA reassess whether 
DGR's proposal offered the best value to the government in light of 
the points discussed in this decision.  If the SSA decides that the 
award should not have been made to DGR, the agency should terminate 
DGR's contract for the convenience of the government and make award as 
appropriate.  In any event, the Air Force should reimburse Main for 
its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing this protest, including 
reasonable attorneys' fees.  4 C.F.R.  21.6(d)(1) (1995).  In 
accordance with 4 C.F.R.  21.6(f), Main's certified claim for such 
costs, including the time expended and costs incurred, must be 
submitted directly to the agency within 60 days after receipt of this 
decision.

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The color ratings assigned were:  blue-exceptional; 
green-acceptable; yellow-marginal; and red-unacceptable.  Risk ratings 
of high, moderate, and low were used.

2. The evaluators assigned "+" or "-" designations to some of the 
                                        color ratings.

3. The RFP performance work statement (PWS) does not reference an 
Assistant Manager; rather, the PWS refers to an Alternate Manager who 
is to act for the contractor when the Contract Manager is absent. 

4. In response to Main's allegation concerning the authority of the 
contract manager and assistant contract manager, the agency argues 
both Main and DGR received the same rating of blue, low risk under the 
management organization and staffing area, item 3:  "Role and 
authority of the Contract Manager," the evaluation item which concerns 
the authority of the contract manager and the assistant manager.  
Thus, although the agency does not challenge Main's assertion that 
Main's proposal also offered managers with appropriate authority, 
essentially the agency argues that the failure to recognize this 
authority as set out in Main's proposal made no difference in the 
evaluation and selection since both proposals were highly rated on the 
relevant item.  This argument misses the point.  The issue is not the 
manner in which ratings were assigned by the evaluators; rather, as 
explained, the selection decision was flawed because the SSA selected 
DGR based, in part, on his erroneous belief that only DGR's proposal 
had provided the contract manager and assistant manager with proper 
authority.

5. Main also argues that in spite of the fact that its proposal and 
DGR's proposal both offered [deleted] telephone lines--[deleted] more 
than required by the RFP--the SSA gave only DGR credit for three 
telephone lines in the source selection.  While the agency notes that 
there is no reference to three telephone lines in Main's technical 
proposal, Main argues that the itemized cost breakdown in its price 
proposal included three telephone lines.  Nonetheless, the RFP stated 
that "[t]he technical proposal shall contain sufficient information to 
enable the evaluator to make a complete analysis of the proposal with 
respect to the evaluation criteria set out in the [RFP]."  We think 
this should have informed a reasonable offeror that technical credit 
would be assigned based only on review of the technical proposal.

6. We are aware of no requirement in the RFP, and the protester refers 
to no requirement, that a proposal include this information.  
Therefore, it was not a matter of technical acceptability.