BNUMBER:  B-261946
DATE:  November 13, 1995
TITLE:  Engineering and Computation, Inc.

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

Matter of:Engineering and Computation, Inc.

File:     B-261946

Date:   November 13, 1995     

Suresh Verma for the protester.
Joyce Freiwald for F2 Associates Inc., and William M. Moeny for Tetra 
Corporation, interested parties.
Col. Mark L. Sucher, Lt. Col. Charles D. Ankney, and Capt. Donna M. 
Clark,  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

Agency's determination to award contract based on initial proposals 
without conducting discussions is unobjectionable where the 
solicitation notified offerors of this possibility and source 
selection was consistent with solicitation's terms.

DECISION

Engineering and Computation, Inc. (ECI) protests the award of a 
contract by the Department of the Air Force to Tetra/F2 under request 
for proposals (RFP)  
No. F33615-95-R-5515, which was issued by Wright Patterson Air Force 
Base.  ECI alleges improprieties in the evaluation and argues that 
because its proposed cost was lower than the awardee's, it was 
improper for the agency to award the contract without conducting 
discussions.  

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee completion 
type contract to provide a field demonstration of a prototype aircraft 
component cleaning and coating removal system based on laser 
technology that can accommodate a wide variety of parts and 
soils/coatings.  The contractor is to design, fabricate, test, 
evaluate and demonstrate an automated, controllable laser cleaning and 
coating removal system, and transfer this technology to the agency.  
The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated for 
technical excellence, price, and other general considerations, and 
that these criteria were listed in descending order of importance.  
The RFP also stated that award would be made to the offeror whose 
proposal was considered most advantageous to the government based upon 
an integrated assessment of these evaluation factors.  The RFP advised 
offerors of the agency's intent to award the contract based on initial 
proposals, without conducting discussions (although the agency 
reserved the right to conduct discussions "if later determined by the 
contracting officer to be necessary").  Federal Acquisition Regulation   
52.215-16, Alternate III.

Six offerors, including ECI and Tetra/F2, submitted proposals.  When 
the technical proposals were evaluated, Tetra/F2's proposal was rated 
"exceptional," with a low risk rating, whereas ECI's proposal was 
rated "marginal minus," with a high risk rating.  Based on the 
technical evaluation team's report, which found Tetra/F2's proposal 
technically superior and without significant weaknesses, and 
Tetra/F2's cost which although higher than ECI's, was considered fair 
and reasonable, the source selection authority (SSA) selected Tetra/F2 
for award.

ECI challenges the evaluation of technical proposals and protests that 
it was improper for the Air Force to award the contract without 
holding discussions, given  that ECI offered a cost advantage.  

In considering protests against an agency's evaluation of proposals, 
we will not reevaluate the technical proposals; rather, we will 
examine the agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable 
and consistent with the solicitation's stated criteria.  MAR Inc., 
B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  367.  Offerors have the burden of 
submitting an adequately written proposal, and an offeror's mere 
disagreement with the agency's judgment concerning the adequacy of the 
proposal is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted 
unreasonably.  Lucas Aerospace Communications & Elecs., Inc., 
B-255186, Feb. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  106.

ECI argues that the evaluators  improperly were  influenced by a 
subjective preference for eximer laser technology over CO2 laser 
technology and therefore misevaluated ECI's approach, which relied 
primarily on the use of CO2 lasers.  We find no support for this 
allegation in the record.  The RFP advised offerors to demonstrate an 
understanding of at least three laser systems, listed as CO2, eximer, 
and ND:YAG.  In its technical proposal, ECI discussed only two laser 
systems, omitting any mention of eximer lasers.  Since the protester 
failed to demonstrate any understanding of this system, we think the 
agency's assessment of this portion of ECI's proposal as marginal was 
reasonable.  The protester's arguments regarding the alleged 
superiority of one system over the others is simply irrelevant to the 
issue of whether the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the 
RFP.

ECI also generally alleges that the evaluation was improper, based on 
its conclusory assertion that its own proposal was "excellent."  In 
response, the agency has submitted an analysis of its evaluation, 
pointing out the specific weaknesses that were found in ECI's proposal 
under each of the evaluation criteria.  ECI has not refuted any of the 
agency's assertions or demonstrated any specific impropriety in the 
evaluation and, based on own review of the evaluation record, we think 
it was entirely consistent with the evaluation scheme that was 
established in the RFP.  In this circumstance, based on our review, we 
have no basis to question the evaluators' conclusion that the proposal 
overall failed to demonstrate the requisite level of understanding for 
this requirement, and warranted a rating of marginal minus.

ECI protests that the agency was required to conduct discussions, 
arguing that any deficiencies in its proposal were "only informational 
in nature," and that the cost difference between its proposal and the 
awardee's proposal warranted holding discussions. 

A Department of Defense contracting agency may make an award on the 
basis of initial proposals and not conduct discussions or allow 
offerors to revise their proposals where the solicitation advises that 
proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without 
discussions with the offerors, unless the agency determines otherwise.  
FAR  15.610(a)(4).  Here, as noted, section L of the RFP incorporated 
by reference FAR  52.215-16, Alternate III, which specifically 
advised offerors that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and 
award a contract without discussions, and warned offerors to submit 
their best terms in their initial proposals.  Moreover, the RFP cover 
letter drew offerors' attention to this clause and emphasized that 
initial proposals should contain the most favorable terms the firms 
were prepared to offer.  As discussed above, the evaluation of ECI's 
proposal as technically marginal was reasonable.  In addition, the 
evaluation team considered Tetra/F2's proposal technically superior to 
the other proposals  received (an evaluation conclusion that ECI does 
not challenge), and there was no significant cost difference between 
the four proposals that were assigned higher technical ratings than 
ECI's proposal.  Under these circumstances, the agency was not 
required to conduct discussions with ECI; it properly could make award 
on the basis of initial proposals.  See Honolulu Marine, Inc., 
B-245329, Dec. 27, 1991,     91-2 CPD  586.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States