BNUMBER:  B-261886
DATE:  October 30, 1995
TITLE:  Dylantic, Inc.

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

Matter of:Dylantic, Inc.

File:     B-261886

Date:     October 30, 1995

Howard W. Roth III, Esq., Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, 
L.L.P., for the protester.
John R. Osing, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq. and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest against rejection of proposal as technically unacceptable and 
subsequent award on the basis of initial proposals to next 
lower-priced offeror is denied where protester failed to comply with 
solicitation requirement for detailed information demonstrating 
compliance with qualifications requirements for pharmacy technicians; 
since the solicitation clearly advised offerors of the agency's intent 
to award without discussions, and there was a reasonable basis for 
concluding that awardee had submitted the low, technically acceptable 
offer, agency was not required to conduct discussions. 

DECISION

Dylantic, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically 
unacceptable and the award of a contract to The Chesapeake Center, 
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-95-R-0026, issued by 
the Naval Medical Logistics Command for pharmacy technician services 
for the three Branch Medical Clinics associated with the Naval Medical 
Center, Portsmouth, Virginia.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to the 
low-priced, technically acceptable offeror for a 1-year base period 
plus 4 option years for the full-time services of 21 pharmacy 
technicians.  Offerors were to submit both technical and cost 
proposals.  Regarding the technical proposal, the RFP set forth 
detailed requirements for information pertaining to the qualifications 
of the proposed individuals to perform the required services.[1]  
Solicitation clause L.18, entitled "Instructions For Preparation of 
Proposals," provided in pertinent part that:

     "(1) . . . [t]he technical proposal shall include the following 
     documentation:

        "(i) (A) Proof of graduation from a Pharmacy Technician 
        program accredited by the American Society of Hospital 
        Pharmacists (ASHP) or proof of completion of a formal (i.e. 
        technical or hospital based program) pharmacy technician 
        training program.  A copy of the certificate is required, or,

        "(i) (B) Proof of experience of at least 12 months within the 
        preceding 36 months as a pharmacy technician.

                         .     .     .     .     .

        "(iii) Letters of recommendation from two practicing 
        physicians, pharmacists, or pharmacy supervisors attesting to 
        the health care worker's clinical skills.  Reference letters 
        must include name, title, phone number, date of reference, 
        address and signature of the individual providing reference.

        "(iv) Proof of current Basic Life Support, Level C (BLS-C) 
        [Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care 
        Provider training certification].  A copy of a current BLS-C 
        card is required."

The above clause specifically cautioned offerors that "[a]ny proposal 
which does not offer at a minimum, that which is requested in this 
solicitation, may be determined to be substantially incomplete and not 
warrant any further consideration."  In addition, the RFP stated the 
government's intention to evaluate proposals and award a contract 
without discussions, and specifically warned that initial offers 
should contain an offeror's best terms from a cost or price and 
technical standpoint.

Ten proposals were received by the March 23, 1995, closing time.  
Although Dylantic, the incumbent contractor for these services, 
submitted the lowest-priced offer, its proposal was found to be 
technically unacceptable due to deficiencies in the information 
provided to establish the qualifications of the individuals it 
proposed to perform the required services.  Of 27 candidates proposed, 
only 7 were found acceptable; the remaining 20 were judged 
unacceptable based on the failure to satisfy at least one of the 
employee qualifications requirements.  Upon learning of the resulting 
award to the second-low offeror (Chesapeake), Dylantic filed this 
protest with our Office.

Dylantic argues that it furnished sufficient information to 
demonstrate adequate qualifications for at least 21 of the proposed 
candidates.  In addition, Dylantic contends that because it is the 
incumbent contractor for these services, and some of the proposed 
candidates found unacceptable were currently working as pharmacy 
technicians at the facilities to be staffed under the contemplated 
contract, contracting officials should have been well aware of their 
qualifications.  In any case, according to the protester, it should 
have been allowed to submit clarifications to satisfy the alleged 
deficiencies or, in the alternative, the agency should have held 
discussions.

In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate 
proposals; rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the 
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation 
criteria.  Maritime Management, Inc.,       B-260311.2; B-260311.3, 
July 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD  11.  In a negotiated procurement, any 
proposal that fails to conform to material terms and conditions of a 
solicitation should be considered unacceptable and may not form the 
basis for an award.  IT Corp., B-258636 et al., Feb. 10, 1995, 95-1  
78.  We find that the Navy reasonably determined Dylantic's proposal 
to be technically unacceptable because of a failure to satisfactorily 
establish the qualifications of its proposed candidates, as required 
by the solicitation.

Three of Dylantic's proposed candidates were found unacceptable due to 
the lack of a current BLS-C Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and 
Emergency Cardiac Care Provider training certification card in their 
respective information packages--two packages contained no card, while 
the third included a card which had expired on March 15, prior to the 
March 23 closing time.  Given this failure to demonstrate completion 
of the required medical training, which Dylantic does not rebut, we 
conclude that the three candidates were properly found unacceptable.
 
Three more proposed candidates were found unacceptable because their 
information packages did not demonstrate compliance with the 
solicitation requirement for either graduation from a pharmacy 
technician program or a minimum of 12 months experience in the 
preceding 36 months as a pharmacy technician.  One individual's 
package did not show any pharmacy technician experience or completion 
of an accredited pharmacy technician program.  The remaining two 
individuals' packages contained no proof of graduation from a pharmacy 
technician program.  Although their packages indicated pharmacy 
technician experience, they did not indicate dates of employment, so 
that it could not be determined whether they possessed the requisite 
12 months experience in the preceding 36 months.  While Dylantic 
maintains that the individuals are qualified, and has provided the 
relevant dates of employment for the latter two individuals in its 
comments on the agency report, its failure to furnish the required 
information in its proposal properly led the agency to find them 
unacceptable.

The seventh proposed candidate was found unacceptable because her 
information package contained only one acceptable letter of 
recommendation rather than the two required by the solicitation.  A 
second letter was signed by an individual identified only as a "line 
supervisor," whereas the RFP required that the letter be signed by a 
practicing physician, pharmacist or pharmacy supervisor.  Dylantic 
responds that the listed "line supervisor" is a pharmacy supervisor, 
but nothing in the letter of recommendation itself indicated that; the 
agency therefore reasonably determined the candidate to be 
unacceptable.

In addition, the Navy found three other candidates (as well as one of 
the candidates above) unacceptable because, while their packages 
contained photocopies of the front side of a current BLS-C 
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care Provider 
training certification card, they did not include copies of the back 
of the card.  The required BLS-C card contains information on its 
front side--the individual's name, course name, issue date and 
expiration date--and different information on its backside--name of 
the organization conducting the training, instructor's name, 
instructor's identification number and the holder's signature.  The 
Navy reports that without the information on the backside, the 
certification of completion of the required training cannot be 
verified.  Since the information on the backside was required by the 
solicitation to be included in the technical information packages and 
was necessary to assure compliance with a material solicitation 
requirement for medical training, the information itself was material 
such that failure to furnish it for a proposed individual rendered the 
candidate unacceptable.  

In summary, we find that the Navy reasonably concluded that Dylantic 
failed to furnish for at least 10 of the 27 candidates for the 
pharmacy technician positions sufficient information to demonstrate 
compliance with the detailed personnel qualification requirements of 
the solicitation.  Since 21 acceptable candidates were required, 
Dylantic's failure rendered its proposal unacceptable.  (Given this 
conclusion, we need not consider the acceptability of the other 
candidates found unacceptable by the agency.)

Although Dylantic refers to its status as an incumbent contractor, 
such status does not serve as a substitute for the omitted 
information.  An agency is not required to overlook a flawed proposal 
on the basis of the offeror's prior performance; on the contrary, all 
offerors are expected to demonstrate their capabilities in their 
proposals.  Pedus Bldg. Servs., Inc., B-257271.3 et al., Mar. 8, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  135.  Likewise, the mere fact that some of Dylantic's 
proposed candidates already work at one of the installations covered 
by the contemplated contract does not serve as a substitute for the 
omitted information; the three Branch Medical Clinics associated with 
the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth are located within a 30-mile 
radius of the medical center, and the protester has offered no 
evidence establishing that the evaluators in fact were aware of the 
qualifications of the proposed individuals.  Further, although a 
contracting agency in evaluating proposals may consider evidence from 
sources outside the proposals, see Continental Maritime of San Diego, 
Inc., B-249858.2; B-249858.3, Feb. 11, 1993, 93-1 CPD  230, agencies 
are not obligated to go in search of needed information, specifically 
requested by the solicitation, which the offeror has omitted or failed 
to adequately present.  See Telos Field Eng'g, B-251384, Mar. 26, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  271.   

Dylantic complains that it was not given a chance to correct the 
informational deficiencies in its proposal through either the 
clarification process or discussions.   However, since the information 
omitted from Dylantic's proposal was material in establishing the 
qualifications of the proposed individuals to perform the services, 
and thus essential for determining the acceptability of Dylantic's 
proposal, its omission could not properly be regarded as a minor 
informality or uncertainty to be cured through clarifications.  IT 
Corp., supra.  As for the Navy's determination not to conduct 
discussions with offerors, we note that the RFP clearly advised 
offerors of the agency's intent to award without discussions.  
Therefore, Dylantic could not reasonably presume that it would have a 
chance to clarify or improve its proposal through discussions; the 
burden was on Dylantic to submit an initial proposal that adequately 
demonstrated its own merits, and the protester ran the risk of not 
receiving award by failing to do so.  Infotec Dev., Inc., B-258198 et 
al., Dec. 27, 1994, 95-1 CPD  52.  Since the RFP clearly advised 
offerors of the agency's intent to award without discussions, and 
there was a reasonable basis for concluding that Chesapeake had 
submitted the low, technically acceptable offer, there is no basis to 
object to the agency's decision not to conduct discussions.  Federal 
Acquisition Regulation  15.610(a)(4); Facilities Management Co., 
Inc.,     B-259731.2, May 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD  274.

Although Dylantic notes that it offered a lower price, approximately 1 
percent lower than the awardee's, since Dylantic's proposal was 
unacceptable, it could not form the basis for award.  Therefore, the 
fact that award was made to a higher-priced offeror provides no basis 
to object to the award.  Western Environmental Corp., B-258567, Jan. 
30, 1995, 95-1 CPD  46.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFP stated that the contractor must agree "to initiate 
performance of this contract using only the health care worker(s) 
whose professional qualifications have been determined technically 
acceptable by the Government as part of the source selection process."