BNUMBER:  B-266026
DATE:  December 18, 1995
TITLE:  EOD Technology, Inc.

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

Matter of:EOD Technology, Inc.

File:     B-266026

Date:     December 18, 1995

J.W. Sharp for the protester.
Mary Beyers, Esq., and Steven W. Feldman, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, for the agency.
Christine Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably found that the protester's low-priced proposal was 
deficient because it omitted an important required sample report and 
contained inadequate sample maps, such that it was properly not 
selected for award, given the awardee's highly rated, reasonably 
priced proposal which contained no deficiencies. 

DECISION

EOD Technology, Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal, and the 
award of a contract to Human Factors Applications, Inc., under request 
for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-94-R-0051, issued by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, for ordnance and explosive waste (OEW) remediation 
services on a time-and-materials basis at various military 
installations.

We deny the protest.

The remediation services contemplated by the RFP included site 
analysis; location surveys and mapping; geophysical surveys; sampling; 
and interim and permanent removal services.  The RFP stated that the 
contractor might encounter the following types of OEW in performing 
its services:  conventional and chemical munitions; hazardous, toxic 
and radiological waste; and chemical warfare material.  

The RFP advised offerors that the government intended to make award on 
the basis of initial proposals, unless the contracting officer 
determined that discussions were necessary.  See Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  52.215-16, Alternate III.  Under the RFP's "best value" 
evaluation scheme, the technical proposal was two times more important 
than the management proposal, which in turn was more important than 
the cost proposal.  There were three technical factors listed in 
descending order of importance:  (i) Scope of Work, (ii) Technical 
Approach, and (iii) Safety.  There were four management factors listed 
in descending order of importance:  (i) Corporate Experience, (ii) 
Qualifications and Allocation of Personnel, (iii) Management Planning 
and Controls, and (iv) Organizational Structure.

The most important technical factor, Scope of Work, contained three 
subfactors listed in descending order of importance:  (i) OEW 
Remediation Program, (ii) Work Plan, and (iii) Final Removal Report 
for OEW Removal Action.  For the Work Plan subfactor, offerors were to 
demonstrate their level of understanding by providing "an example of a 
customer accepted Work Plan for an OEW removal action."  The sample 
Work Plan was to include a customer-accepted Work, Data, and Cost 
Management Plan or similar document.[1]     

For the Final Removal Report subfactor, the RFP requested a 
customer-accepted Final Removal Report demonstrating how the 
contractor removed OEW from a given site.  The sample Final Removal 
Report was to include "planimetric or topographic maps which show all 
significant ground surface features and ordnance removal sites."

Of the nine proposals received, the proposal submitted by Human 
Factors Applications, Inc. was the only one that contained no 
evaluated deficiencies.  The Human Factors proposal also earned the 
highest technical rating, with 895 of 1,000 points, and the highest 
management rating, with 499 of 500 points, for a composite score of 
1,394 points.  In contrast, EOD's proposal earned 869 technical points 
(the second highest score) and 449 management points (the sixth 
highest score), for a composite score of 1,318 points (the second 
highest score).  EOD's technical proposal contained evaluated 
disadvantages or deficiencies in 10 of the 12 subfactors.[2]  The 
three evaluated deficiencies in EOD's technical proposal were (1) its 
failure to provide the required Work, Data, and Cost Management Plan 
under the Work Plan subfactor; (2) its submission of inadequate 
planimetric maps under the Final Removal Report subfactor; and (3) its 
failure to address the safety record of its proposed subcontractors 
under the Safety factor.  EOD's management proposal contained eight 
evaluated disadvantages and one deficiency.[3]  The management 
proposal deficiency was EOD's inadequate response regarding its use of 
"Reserve Funds," a subfactor of the "Management Planning and Controls" 
factor of the Management Proposal. 

Human Factors submitted the third-low-priced offer at $6,840,815, 
which was lower than the government estimate of $8,501,316, though 
above the protester's low-priced offer of $5,500,924.  However, EOD's 
proposal deficiencies and disadvantages caused the agency to doubt 
EOD's ability to perform the contract at its proposed price.  The 
agency determined that an award to Human Factors represented the best 
value to the government in that "superior management and technical 
findings [regarding Human Factor's proposal are] sufficiently 
significant to outweigh any potentially perceived cost advantages of 
other offerors."  Although the agency found that certain offerors 
(including the protester) might be able to correct their proposal 
deficiencies through discussions, the agency predicted that Human 
Factors would maintain its competitive advantage.  Consequently, the 
agency made award to Human Factors without conducting discussions.

EOD protests that the agency engaged in "hypertechnical, 
form-over-substance" faultfinding in ascribing four deficiencies to 
its proposal.  EOD claims that the alleged deficiencies were not 
material to its capability to perform the contract or to the agency's 
ability to evaluate its proposal.  EOD therefore concludes that an 
award based on the significantly more expensive Human Factors proposal 
was unreasonable.[4]  

In reviewing protests against an agency's technical evaluation, we 
will review the record to determine whether the agency's judgments 
were reasonable and consistent with the listed evaluation criteria and 
procurement statutes and regulations.   Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 
B-255343.2; B-255343.4, Mar. 14, 1994, 94-1 CPD  325; CTA, Inc., 
B-244475.2, Oct. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD  360.   

The evaluation here was reasonable.  The most important deficiency was 
the omission from EOD's sample Work Plan of the required 
customer-accepted Work, Data, and Cost Management Plan or similar 
document, which was an important element of the second most important 
subfactor of the most important technical factor.[5]  The protester 
states that it meant to submit a Work, Data, and Cost Management 
Plan--one which the Corps accepted in another project--but 
inadvertently forgot to do so.  The protester states that the agency 
should have overlooked this failure, since the proposal elsewhere 
mentioned the Corps-accepted plan and described the procedures for 
developing such a plan.  This argument is without merit.  The offeror 
has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal for the 
agency to evaluate, Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767; B-242767.2, 
June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD  530, and must demonstrate its qualifications 
within the four corners of the proposal.  Here, the RFP required a 
documentary demonstration of the offeror's ability to produce an 
actual customer-accepted Work, Data, and Cost Management Plan, not a 
description of how the offeror would develop such a plan.  
Accordingly, the agency could reasonably find EOD's proposal deficient 
for failing to comply with this express, significant requirement.

The second most significant deficiency was EOD's submission of 
deficient planimetric maps in response to the "Final Removal Report" 
subfactor, under the most important technical factor.  A planimetric 
map is one which shows the natural or man-made features existing on 
the land, such as rivers, roads, buildings, or utilities.  In the 
context of an OEW removal project, the map must contain sufficient 
detail to pinpoint the location of buried ordnance.  In response to 
the subfactor, the protester submitted its Raritan Arsenal Final 
Removal Report, which included three sample planimetric maps.  The 
agency concluded that the protester's maps were unacceptable because 
they were so lacking in ground surface detail that it would be 
impossible to determine the location of ordnance in relation to any 
particular land feature.  Having reviewed the protester's maps, we 
find the agency's judgment reasonable.  The "maps" are more properly 
described as diagrams, or grids, and in fact do not appear to contain 
ground surface detail, which would have demonstrated the protester's 
understanding of the RFP mapping requirements.  Although the protester 
argues that the government accepted the Raritan Final Removal Report, 
including the maps, each procurement is a separate transaction and the 
action taken on one procurement does not govern the conduct of all 
similar procurements; the simple assertion of inconsistency, without 
more, does not satisfy the protester's burden of affirmatively proving 
its case.[6]  See Martin Marietta Data Sys.; National Data Corp.; 
Technicon Data Sys. Corp. B-216310, et al., Aug. 26, 1985, 85-2 CPD  
228.

We need only discuss these two most significant protested 
deficiencies, since either of these deficiencies, in combination with 
the protester's undisputed disadvantages, clearly was sufficient to 
justify making award to Human Factors based on its  highly rated, 
reasonably priced proposal which contained no deficiencies.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The Work, Data, and Cost Management Plan was to provide a timetable 
and cost schedule for each phase of the project, delineate management 
and labor assignments for the project, and explain how costs will be 
controlled.

2. Among the disadvantages found in EOD's technical proposal were its 
superficial and incomplete discussion of past OEW programs, a sample 
Work Plan that excluded various requested items, and "skimpy" quality 
control documentation that suggested a weak quality control program.

3. Among the disadvantages found in EOD's management proposal were its 
proposal of the same person to serve as the quality control manager, 
director of engineering services, and project manager, and its failure 
to adequately address several RFP requirements, such as how the 
protester would implement multiple task orders, whether the protester 
had met its cost and scheduling milestones in other projects, and what 
procedures the protester would use to evaluate the progress of ongoing 
projects.    

4. EOD does not protest the validity of the numerous disadvantages 
found in its proposal, which the agency also documented and revealed 
to EOD at its debriefing.  

5. In addition to the missing Cost, Data and Management Plan, other 
documents in EOD's sample Work Plan were incomplete and were the basis 
of other technical disadvantages.

6. The protester notes that its sample Work Plan contains a map for 
the Spring Valley Removal Project.  This map, which was not prepared 
for a Final Removal Report, displays evacuation routes, not ordnance 
removal sites.  It does not satisfy the plain requirements of the 
Final Removal Report subfactor, nor was it submitted for that purpose.