BNUMBER:  B-261922
DATE:  November 7, 1995
TITLE:  Anchorage Enterprises, Inc.

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

Matter of:Anchorage Enterprises, Inc.

File:     B-261922

Date:   November 7, 1995

Erling T. Johansen, Esq., Davison & Davison, Inc., for the protester.
Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the 
agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and John Van Schaik, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation provided that technical and price considerations 
would be balanced to determine the best overall value to the 
government, and specifically reserved the right to award based on 
other than the lowest price, decision to award to offeror with 
significantly higher technically scored proposal and slightly higher 
price was unobjectionable.

DECISION

Anchorage Enterprises, Inc. (Anchorage) protests an award of contract 
by the Department of the Air Force to Record and Construction, Inc., 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. F10603-94-R-0003.  Anchorage 
alleges that the Air Force's award decision was based on a flawed 
evaluation of proposals and was influenced by an improper bias toward 
the awardee.  We deny the protest.

The solicitation was issued as a competitive 8(a) set-aside for 
Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) for 
Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho.  The SABER program provides for 
small-to-medium size maintenance and repair and minor construction 
projects in support of base civil engineers.  The RFP contemplated the 
award of an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery 12-month 
contract, with 4 option years.  

The RFP instructed offerors to submit separate technical and price 
proposals, and described the manner in which these would be reviewed 
by evaluation teams.  The RFP stated that technical and price factors 
would have equal weight in the source selection.  The solicitation 
specifically reserved the agency's right to award the contract to an 
offeror whose price was not the lowest proposed and stated that the 
award would be based on the best overall value to the government. 

Six offerors, including Anchorage and Record, submitted initial 
proposals.  The RFP instructed offerors to delete their company name 
and address from their technical proposals.  The contracting officer 
labeled the six proposals as proposals A through F during the review 
process.  After the initial round of evaluations, written discussion 
questions were sent to each offeror.  None of the offerors' responses 
to the questions was considered sufficiently compelling to warrant a 
change in the ratings that had been assigned to the proposals during 
the initial evaluation. 

Record's proposal received the second-highest overall technical score, 
while Anchorage's received the lowest.  Anchorage offered the lowest 
price; Record's was slightly higher.  The source selection officials 
determined that Record offered the best overall value to the 
government.  After receiving approval of Record's eligibility for 
award from the Small Business Administration, the Air Force awarded 
the contract to Record.  

Anchorage protests the Air Force's award decision, arguing that its 
own proposal should have been selected because it allegedly was 
technically equivalent to Record's and offered a lower price.[1]  

An award to an offeror with a higher technically scored proposal and a 
higher price is unobjectionable, so long as the result is consistent 
with the evaluation criteria and the agency has determined that the 
technical difference is sufficiently significant to outweigh the price 
difference.  Calspan Corp., B-258441, Jan. 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD  28.  
Here, the record supports the agency's decision to select Record for 
award as the technically superior offeror, even though it was slightly 
higher in price.  The evaluation documents show that in the 11 
technical evaluation areas established in the evaluation scheme, 
Anchorage's proposal was given the second-highest rating ("meets 
standards").  Record's proposal received the highest possible rating 
("exceptional or exceeds standards") in seven of the areas, and was 
rated as meeting the standards in the remaining four areas.  Record's 
proposal included a larger work force, exceptional technical support 
(e.g., computers and software), and better management staff.  
Anchorage has not challenged the evaluation with any specific 
allegations, stating only that the Air Force was arbitrary and 
capricious in its evaluation of proposals and that the evaluators were 
biased in favor of Record.[2]  Under these circumstances, the agency 
reasonably determined that Record's proposal was technically superior 
to Anchorage's; the agency also could reasonably determine under the 
RFP's evaluation scheme that Record's proposal's technical superiority 
offset Anchorages somewhat lower price.

Anchorage also alleges that it received an anonymous telephone call 
purporting to be from a person "involved in the . . . solicitation," 
stating that Record had received "inside" information between the 
"best and final offering phases one and two," showing the firm "how to 
restructure its proposal to enhance their chances of being the 
successful bidder."  The protester provides no further support for 
this allegation.

Procurement authorities are presumed to act in good faith and, in 
order for our Office to find otherwise, the protester must clearly 
demonstrate that the agency intended to injure the protester.  
QualMed, Inc. B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD  94.  Accordingly, 
we will not attribute prejudicial motives to contracting officials on 
the basis of unsupported allegations, inferences or supposition.  
Litton Sys., Inc., B-239123, Aug. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD  114.  Here, 
there is no evidence to support Anchorage's allegations other than its 
assertion of an "anonymous telephone call."  Moreover, the evaluation 
record tends to contradict the contention that Record was given 
"inside" information on how to "restructure" and enhance its best and 
final offer.  The Air Force engaged in two rounds of discussions with 
each of the offerors, during which Record's initial proposal was never 
determined to be deficient or in need of "restructuring"; in fact, its 
proposal (and best and final offers) consistently received the 
second-highest technical rating throughout the evaluation process.  
Therefore, it is apparent that Record's proposal was technically 
competitive from the outset; its competitive standing did not change 
after discussions were held.  

The protest is denied.
 
Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. In addition to its main basis for protest, Anchorage initially 
raised a number of general allegations that were not supported by 
specific information, and were not further elaborated upon in the 
protester's comments on the agency report.  For example, Anchorage 
alleged that the Air Force was arbitrary and capricious in its 
evaluation; engaged in technical leveling; violated the Competition in 
Contracting Act of 1984; and deprived Anchorage of its constitutional 
rights.  We find no support for these generalized allegations in the 
record and therefore will not discuss them individually.  In addition, 
Anchorage states that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
request with the agency to obtain certain evaluation-related 
documents, and complains that these were withheld from the firm.  Our 
Office has no authority under FOIA regarding the release of documents 
in the possession of an agency.  All Am.  Moving and Storage, 
B-243630; B-243804, July 8, 1991, 91-2 CPD  32.  Moreover, we fail to 
see how Anchorage's ability to support its protest allegations was in 
any way impeded, since all of the evaluation documents were released 
to Anchorage's attorney under a protective order that was issued in 
connection with this protest.  

2. Anchorage also alleges that, contrary to the RFP instructions, 
Record had included its name and other identifying information in its 
proposal, and that the contracting officer failed to remove these 
references before the evaluation.  The protester first raised this 
issue in its comments filed on September 1, 14 days after receiving 
the agency report.  Protests not based upon alleged improprieties in a 
solicitation must be filed no later than 10 working days after the 
protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for the protest, 
whichever is earlier.  4 C.F.R.  21.2 (a)(2) (1995).  Since the 
protester received the agency report on August 14, 1995, its comments 
on that report were due on August 28.  Pursuant to the protester's 
request, our Office granted the protester a short extension to file 
its comments.  Since a time extension for purposes of filing comments 
to an agency report does not waive the timeliness rules with regard to 
new grounds of protest, Telephonics Corp., B-246016, Jan. 30, 1992, 
92-1 CPD  130, we dismiss this basis of protest as untimely.