BNUMBER:  B-265793
DATE:  December 29, 1995
TITLE:  Pressure Technology, Inc.

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

Matter of:Pressure Technology, Inc.

File:     B-265793

Date:     December 29, 1995

Michael H. Higgins for the protester.
Robert S. Chichester, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the 
agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency conducted meaningful discussions by apprising the protester 
of the significant evaluated weaknesses in its technically acceptable 
proposal; agency is not obligated to discuss every aspect of a 
technically acceptable proposal that receives less than the maximum 
score.  

2.  Protest that agency improperly applied unstated evaluation 
criterion by considering offerors' availability of key personnel is 
denied where proposal was not downgraded in this regard. 

3.  Agency reasonably concluded that award should be made to the 
technically superior offeror in a best value procurement, 
notwithstanding the cost premium involved, where the solicitation 
stated that technical considerations were more important than cost and 
awardee's proposal was considered technically superior to a less 
costly proposal. 

DECISION

Pressure Technology, Inc. (PTI) protests the award of a contract to 
EDO Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. C500071T1, 
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for improved 
specific energy pressure vessels for hybrid vehicle applications.  PTI 
contends that the EPA conducted inadequate discussions and 
misevaluated PTI's proposal.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on December 9, 1994, contemplated the award of a 
cost-plus-fixed- fee contract for a base year, with a 1-year option.  
Offerors were instructed to submit separate technical and cost 
proposals.  The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible 
offeror whose offer conforming to the RFP would be the most 
advantageous to the government, cost and other factors considered.  
Cost was of lesser importance than technical, but the RFP stated that 
"[a]s proposals become more equal in their technical merit, the 
evaluated cost or price becomes more important."  The second most 
important technical factor was "corporate capability," which included 
key personnel experience as one of its subfactors.   

Four offerors submitted initial proposals.  After evaluation, three of 
the four proposals were included in the competitive range.  EDO's 
technical proposal was ranked first with an overall excellent rating 
and PTI's was ranked second with an acceptable rating.  On April 5, 
the EPA conducted discussions with each offeror, posing written 
questions concerning the weaknesses in each offeror's proposal.  The 
EPA received revised proposals on April 18.  The agency then conducted 
a detailed evaluation of cost proposals and held oral discussions on 
cost issues.  

The EPA received best and final offers (BAFO) on June 9.  PTI's BAFO 
received  
73 points out of a possible total of 100 points, and its total cost 
(with options) was $158,166.  EDO's BAFO received a technical score of 
94 points and its total cost was $287,677.  The agency determined that 
EDO's proposal offered the best value to the government and made award 
to that company on August 7.  

The protester first argues that the agency failed to conduct 
meaningful discussions.   PTI argues that the EPA downgraded its BAFO 
based on weaknesses which should have been apparent in its initial 
proposal, but which were not pointed out to PTI during discussions.  
As a result, PTI argues,  it was improperly denied the opportunity to 
cure these weaknesses.  

Contracting officers must balance a number of competing interests in 
selecting matters for discussion based on the facts of each 
acquisition.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  15.610; Matrix 
Int'l Logistics, Inc., B-249285.2, Dec. 30, 1992, 92-2 CPD  452.  
They must point out weaknesses that, unless corrected, would prevent 
an offeror from having a reasonable chance for award.  Department of 
the Navy--Recon., B-250158.4, May 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD  422.  On the 
other hand, agencies are admonished by the FAR to protect the 
integrity of the procurement process by balancing the need for 
meaningful discussions against actions that result in technical 
leveling (FAR  15.610(d)), technical transfusion (FAR  
15.610(e)(1)), or auction (FAR  15.610(e)(2)).  Thus, agencies are 
not required to afford offerors  all-encompassing discussions.  They 
need only lead offerors generally into the areas of their proposals 
that require amplification.  TM Sys., Inc., B-228220, Dec. 10, 1987, 
87-2 CPD  573.  Where a proposal is considered to be acceptable and 
in the competitive range, an agency is not required to discuss every 
aspect of the proposal that receives less than the maximum score.  
Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767,
B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD  530. 

PTI principally objects to the discussions because at the debriefing, 
the EPA identified several alleged weaknesses in its proposal that 
were not the subject of discussions, which PTI argues deprived it of 
the opportunity to submit a revised proposal that could have been 
technically superior to EDO's. 

The technical evaluation panel (TEP) concluded, after an initial 
review of PTI's proposal, that it met or exceeded all but one of the 
minimum requirements.  Therefore, while it conducted discussions with 
PTI, the TEP did not discuss every item that was not flawlessly 
addressed in PTI's proposal.  For example, while the TEP noted that 
PTI's proposal offered an adequate tracking system for monitoring 
technical progress and expenditures but only briefly discussed 
reporting requirements and failed to provide details as to the 
contents of these reports, the TEP asked PTI to demonstrate its 
ability to comply with the RFP's reporting requirements during 
discussions, but did not ask for details on the contents of the 
reports.  Since the record indicates that neither this lack of detail 
or any of the other weaknesses were viewed as significant by the TEP 
and had a minimal impact on the proposal's technical rating, we do not 
believe that the agency was required   to raise these matters in 
discussions.  See Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc., B-249236.4;
B-249236.5, Mar. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  209.  Discussions are not 
required to ensure ultimate award by identifying every single weakness 
in a technically acceptable proposal, see DynCorp et al., B-257037.2 
et al., Dec. 15, 1994, 95-1 CPD  34, and the record provides no basis 
to conclude that the discussions conducted with PTI were in any way 
inadequate.      

Next, PTI contends that the agency improperly considered the 
availability of key personnel.  PTI argues that this represents use of 
an undisclosed evaluation criterion.  

The solicitation did not explicitly provide that the proposals would 
be reviewed for availability of key personnel, but did provide that 
proposals would be reviewed for the experience of  proposed key 
personnel.  During discussions PTI was asked to identify the 
experience and availability of all key personnel that would be 
assigned to the project.  In response, PTI provided three additional 
resumes of key personnel that it proposed to be assigned to the 
project, but failed to specifically address availability.  The TEP 
increased PTI's score for this criterion as a result of the 
information included in the revised proposal.  The TEP specifically 
noted that "PTI did not specifically address availability, but does 
not indicate any restriction on availability."  Thus, in fact PTI's 
proposal was not downgraded regarding availability of proposed key 
personnel. 
   
Finally, the protester challenges the agency's cost/technical 
tradeoff, asserting that insufficient weight was given to its 
significantly lower cost.  In addition, PTI protests the selection of 
EDO's much higher cost proposal for award, asserting that the agency 
did not specifically determine that the cost premium associated with 
EDO's proposal was justified.  

In a negotiated procurement, the government is not required to make 
award to the lowest-cost, technically acceptable offeror unless the 
RFP specified that cost will be the determinative factor.  General 
Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD  44.  Source 
selection officials have broad discretion to determine the manner and 
extent to which they will make use of the technical and cost 
evaluation results in negotiated procurements.  Grey Advertising, 
Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD  325.  Cost/technical 
tradeoffs may be made in selecting an awardee, subject only to the 
test of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation 
factors.  Varian Assocs., Inc., B-238452.4, Dec. 11, 1990, 90-2 CPD  
478.  FAR 
15.612(d)(2) requires that documentation supporting the selection 
decision show the relative differences among proposals; their 
strengths, weaknesses and risks; and the basis and reasons for the 
decision.  Even where a selection official does not specifically 
discuss the cost/technical tradeoff in the selection decision 
document, we will not object to the tradeoff if it is clearly 
supported by the record.  Maytag Aircraft Corp., B-237068, Apr. 26, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  430. 

 The record in this case clearly supports the propriety and 
reasonableness of the agency's cost/technical tradeoff.  As indicated 
above, under the RFP, technical merit was more important than cost. 
The protester increased its technical score, after discussions, to an 
overall good rating.  The agency determined that PTI's proposal was 
fairly innovative and that its proposed key personnel had adequate 
experience.   However, EDO's technical proposal received a superior 
rating under most of the evaluation factors and received a 
significantly higher overall technical score.   In particular, the 
agency determined that EDO's BAFO was superior under "innovation of 
design," the subfactor with which the agency was most concerned--as 
reflected by its being the most heavily weighted--and found that its 
proposed key personnel were highly qualified in terms of engineering 
and management experience.  The agency viewed these aspects of EDO's 
proposal as presenting clear advantages over PTI's proposal.  Although 
the SSO's written determination did not refer to a cost/technical 
tradeoff per se, it is implicit in this determination that the SSO 
considered the awardee's technical superiority worth the associated 
cost premium.  The source selection statement specifically notes that 
technical and cost factors were considered, that cost was of lesser 
importance, that EDO submitted the technically superior proposal, and 
that EDO was therefore the best qualified firm to perform the 
contract.  See Avanco Int'l, Inc., B-241007.2, Mar. 13, 1991, 91-1 CPD  
276.    

Given this record, and the fact that technical merit was identified as 
being of greater importance than cost, we have no basis for concluding 
that the agency did not give cost its appropriate weight or otherwise 
did not perform a reasonable cost/technical tradeoff.  Picker Int'l, 
Inc., B-249699.3, Mar. 30, 1993, 93-1 CPD  275.[1] 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. PTI also protests that its status as a small business was not 
considered by the agency, as provided in the RFP.  The solicitation 
provided that as technical merit and the evaluated cost became 
essentially equal, other factors, such as small business status, would 
become more important.  We find that the agency properly made its 
award decision based on technical and cost considerations due to the 
significant disparity between EDO's technical score and cost, and that 
of PTI's.  The agency did not properly consider the protester's small 
business status because EDO's technical score and cost were not 
"essentially equal" with that of PTI.