BNUMBER:  B-265631
DATE:  December 12, 1995
TITLE:  The Fantozzi Company

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

Matter of:The Fantozzi Company

File:     B-265631

Date:     December 12, 1995

Mark W. Fantozzi for the protester.
Linda A. Leonard, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that the contracting agency improperly evaluated the 
submissions of the protester under a procurement for 
architect-engineer services is denied where the record shows that the 
agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the 
published evaluation factors.

DECISION

The Fantozzi Company protests the exclusion of its firm from further 
consideration under solicitation No. DTCG88-95-R-623A78, issued by the 
United States Coast Guard, Department of Transportation, for 
inspection and maintenance work on LORAN towers and antennae located 
in the states of Washington, Montana, California, and Nevada.

We deny the protest.

The tower/antenna inspection and maintenance work which is the subject 
of this procurement is classified as architect-engineer (A-E) 
services, and as such, is acquired under the selection procedures set 
forth in the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C.  541 et seq. (1988), and its 
implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 
36.6.
  
In accordance with these regulations, on May 11, 1995, the Coast Guard 
synopsized this requirement in the Commerce Business Daily.  The 
synopsis invited interested A-E firms to submit a completed standard 
form (SF) 254 (A-E and Related Services Questionnaire, see FAR  
53.301-254) and an SF 255 (A-E and Related Services for Specific 
Project Questionnaire, see FAR  53.301-255), which are the standard 
forms on which interested firms provide and detail their 
qualifications.  The synopsis further provided that each firm would be 
evaluated under six technical evaluation criteria, which were listed 
in descending order of importance; of significance to this protest, 
the two most important criteria were (1) specialized experience in 
climbing, inspecting, surveying and analyzing tower systems; and (2) 
professional qualifications of the firm and proposed staff.

Eight A-E firms, including the protester, responded to the synopsis.  
After completing its evaluation of each firm's qualifications, the 
contracting agency selected the three highest-rated firms for further 
negotiations.  The protester received the lowest technical rating.

By letter dated July 14, the Coast Guard notified Fantozzi of its 
exclusion from the competition; on August 7, after receiving a denial 
of its agency-level protest, Fantozzi filed this protest at our 
Office.  Fantozzi argues that the exclusion of its firm from this 
competition was improper because the Coast Guard did not give the 
protester "fair and equal consideration" and because the agency has 
failed in its obligation to provide "equitable distribution of work" 
to other qualified firms.

The record contains no support for Fantozzi's contentions.  We have 
carefully reviewed the SF 254 and SF 255 questionnaires submitted by 
each firm for this competition; our review shows that the technical 
evaluators reasonably concluded that Fantozzi's submission failed to 
demonstrate the specialized tower experience and qualified personnel 
sought for this requirement.  Specifically, although Fantozzi's 
submission demonstrated that the firm had some design and structural 
analysis experience related to towers, the submission showed no 
experience in tower inspection services or tower maintenance.  
Additionally, Fantozzi's claimed "tower specialists" were not 
identified as registered professional engineers.

In contrast, the three firms selected for the negotiation short list 
each demonstrated substantial experience in all aspects of the tower 
work required under this contract, as well as numerous engineer 
employees who hold specialized experience in performing the exact 
services required for this contract.

To the extent Fantozzi contends that the Coast Guard was required to 
use "equitable distribution of work" as a factor in its selection 
decision, the protest is without merit.  Unless an A-E synopsis 
expressly provides that equitable distribution is to be an evaluation 
criterion, contracting agencies are prohibited from considering this 
factor in their selection decisions.  See ABB Envtl. Servs., Inc., 
B-258258.2, Mar. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  126.  In any event, there is 
absolutely no suggestion in this record that the Coast Guard has 
improperly overlooked a qualified firm in its selection process, 
improperly favored certain firms because they have a "previous 
history" with the agency, or that these services will not be equitably 
distributed by means of contract awards to qualified A-E contractors.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States