BNUMBER:  B-266060.2
DATE:  February 7, 1996
TITLE:  Conrex, Inc.

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

Matter of:Conrex, Inc.

File:     B-266060.2

Date:     February 7, 1996

Robert S. Marconi, Esq., Stanislaw, Ashbaugh, Riper, Trachtenberg, 
Peters & Beal, for the protester.
Brian Kennedy, Esq., Department of the Army, 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

In a best value procurement where the solicitation stated that 
technical considerations were more important than cost, agency 
reasonably evaluated protester's technical proposal as containing 
numerous weaknesses and deficiencies and reasonably concluded that 
award should be made to a significantly technically superior, higher 
priced offeror.

DECISION

Conrex, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract 
to Prezant Associates, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DACA67-95-R0023, for asbestos and lead-based paint surveying services.  
Conrex argues that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal and 
unreasonably selected Prezant for award despite Prezant's higher 
price.
  
We deny the protest.  

The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside on May 3, 1995, 
contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract 
for a base year, with 4 option years.  The RFP set forth a 1,000-point 
technical evaluation scheme and provided that technical factors were 
more important than price in the award selection.  The RFP provided 
that proposals would be evaluated under the following technical 
evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance:  (1) Technical 
Capability and Knowledge of Applicable Regulations; (2) Professional 
Qualifications of Key Personnel; (3) Equipment and Facilities; and (4) 
Documentation of Survey Results.  The RFP advised that the Army 
intended to award a contract based on initial proposals without 
conducting discussions, and encouraged offerors to submit their best 
offers in their initial proposals.  

Twenty-nine proposals were submitted by the June 6 closing date, 
including those of Prezant and Conrex.  A technical evaluation panel 
(TEP) evaluated technical proposals and assigned a numerical rating to 
each factor listed in the RFP.  After the TEP totaled the scores for 
the various factors, the TEP discussed the actual total point score 
warranted by each proposal, and in certain instances, adjusted the 
final total point scores.  Price proposals were evaluated separately 
for completeness, reasonableness, and realism.  

Prezant's proposal received the highest technical score of 947 points 
and its price was $9,586,984.40.  Conrex's proposal was ranked 18th 
technically, with a technical score of 360 points, and its price of 
$8,775,610, was the lowest of these 18 offers.  Among other things, 
the TEP found that Conrex's proposal did not meet the minimum 
requirements for the "Professional Qualifications of Key Personnel," 
and the "Equipment and Facilities" factors.  While the agency 
determined that Conrex's price was complete and realistic, it was 
unable to determine the reasonableness of Conrex's price because the 
portion of its proposal that was found deficient, concerning key 
personnel, constituted the largest price component under the RFP.

The agency concluded that discussions were not necessary and that 
Prezant's proposal represented the best overall value to the 
government.  Award was made to Prezant on August 11, and Conrex filed 
an agency-level protest on September 7.  This protest to our Office 
was filed shortly thereafter.  

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Conrex challenges the evaluation of its own proposal on various 
grounds.  In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office 
will only question the agency's evaluation where it lacks a reasonable 
basis or is inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria for 
award.  DeLima Assocs., B-258278.2, Dec. 20, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  253.  

The agency concluded that Conrex's proposal contained numerous 
weaknesses and deficiencies that led to its low score.  While Conrex 
argues that it is a well-qualified offeror and basically objects to 
any downgrading of its proposal, the record provides no basis to find 
the evaluation of Conrex's proposal unfair or unreasonable; to the 
contrary, the record shows that the agency performed a reasonable 
technical evaluation consistent with the evaluation criteria.  For 
illustrative purposes, we discuss three of the weaknesses/deficiencies 
identified by the TEP to which the protester objects.  

Professional Qualifications of Key Personnel

Under this evaluation criterion, the RFP instructed offerors to 
provide information concerning the personnel it was proposing for each 
of the 15 positions, such as industrial hygiene technician, certified 
lead inspector, and computer programmer, listed in Schedule Items 0001 
through 0015.  The TEP noted that Conrex's 
11 proposed key personnel were insufficient to cover the 15 positions 
listed in the RFP.  Conrex also failed to specify which individual was 
to perform tasks within each of the 15 positions listed in the RFP; 
for example, 5 of Conrex's proposed personnel had the title "Project 
Manager."  Conrex's proposal received only 75 out of a possible 300 
points under this evaluation factor.  In view of the paucity of the 
information provided by Conrex, making it impossible for the TEP to 
determine from Conrex's proposal which of the 15 positions listed in 
the RFP Conrex's personnel covered, we see no basis to object to the 
agency's evaluation.   

In contrast, Prezant's proposal, which received 274 out of a maximum 
of 300 points, under this evaluation factor, proposed 30 key personnel 
specifically covering each of the 15 positions listed in the RFP.

Equipment and Facilities

Under this evaluation criterion, offerors were to provide a 
description of the following:  data collection and sampling equipment, 
certified laboratory facilities and analysis expertise, and computer 
equipment and capabilities.  Conrex's proposal  received 65 out of a 
possible 180 points.  The TEP determined that Conrex stated, but 
failed to adequately demonstrate, that it possessed the necessary 
facilities and equipment for collection and sampling of asbestos.  The 
TEP also determined that Conrex's proposal failed to demonstrate 
whether it had the capability to provide several items that are 
required by the RFP, such as preparation management plans, report 
preparation, location drawing, and computerized data management.  In 
our view, the failure of Conrex's proposal to describe its facilities 
and equipment for sampling asbestos, and its failure to describe its 
capability to generate the items  listed in the RFP, provided a 
reasonable basis for significantly downgrading the protester's 
proposal in this area.  

In contrast, Prezant received 170 out of the maximum score of 180 
points for this evaluation factor.  The TEP determined that Prezant 
possessed good equipment, demonstrated good database management, and 
possessed the necessary computers to perform the tasks required by the 
RFP.    

Technical Capability

Under this evaluation factor, offerors were to describe their 
technical capability and their knowledge of applicable federal, state, 
and local regulations regarding asbestos and lead-based paint surveys.  
Conrex received 235 points out of a possible 400 points for this 
evaluation factor.  While Conrex demonstrated above average technical 
capability, expertise, and knowledge of applicable federal and state 
regulations, Conrex's proposal failed to demonstrate the firm's use of 
local regulations in asbestos work.  According to the TEP, the Puget 
Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) is the local agency 
chartered by the Environmental Protection Agency whose regulations 
stipulate the minimum requirements for asbestos work in the Puget 
Sound area; the TEP downgraded Conrex's proposal because it failed to 
demonstrate use of the PSAPCA regulations for its asbestos work.  

Conrex responds that its proposal was unfairly downgraded because it 
demonstrated a tremendous experience with certain other local 
regulations, which, according to Conrex, governs the counties south of 
the PSAPCA region and which are assertedly identical to the PSAPCA 
regulations.  However, a review of Conrex's proposal reveals that it 
failed to demonstrate its use of either the PSAPCA or the other 
regulations with regard to its asbestos work.  Regardless of the 
regulatory experience that Conrex may possess in this area, a 
technical evaluation must be based on information in or submitted with 
its proposal.  Watson Indus., Inc.,        B-238309, Apr. 5, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  371.  

In contrast, Prezant received 398 points out of a total of 400 points 
for this evaluation factor.  The TEP noted that Prezant demonstrated 
great regulatory knowledge, especially concerning PSAPCA.  The TEP 
also noted that the TEP had extensive local experience with large 
clients.  

COST/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

The protester also challenges the agency's cost/technical tradeoff, 
asserting that insufficient weight was given to its significantly 
lower price.  In addition, Conrex protests the selection of Prezant's 
higher-priced proposal for award, asserting that the agency did not 
specifically determine that the price premium associated with 
Prezant's proposal was justified.[1]  

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 determinative.  General Servs. Eng'g, 
Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  44.  Source selection 
officials (SSO) 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  para.  325.  Cost/technical 
tradeoffs may be made in selecting an awardee, subject only to the 
tests of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation 
factors.  Varian Assocs., Inc., B-238452.4, Dec. 11, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
478.  Here, under an RFP in which technical merit was more important 
than price, Conrex's low priced proposal received an extremely low 
technical score of 360 points (18th rated), and was found not to meet 
the minimum requirements for the "Professional Qualifications of Key 
Personnel," and the "Equipment and Facilities" factors.  In contrast, 
Prezant's technical proposal received 947 points and the agency noted 
that it presented numerous advantages.  For example, the agency 
determined that the proposed personnel in Prezant's proposal had 
excellent qualifications, its laboratory facilities and analysis 
expertise were excellent, and the proposal offered good database 
management as well as the necessary computers to perform the tasks 
required by the RFP.  Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the 
price advantage presented by Conrex's marginal proposal, the agency 
reasonably determined that as between these two proposals Prezant's 
technically superior proposal constituted the best value.  See The 
Hotel San Diego, B-260971, July 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  4.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Conrex also complains of the agency's failure to establish a 
competitive range prior to award.  Competitive ranges are established 
for the purpose of conducting discussions.  Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.609(a); see Avondale Technical Servs., Inc., 
B-243330, July 18, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  72.  Here, where the RFP stated 
the agency's intent to make award on the basis of initial offers 
without conducting discussions, and it in fact did so, the agency was 
not required to establish a competitive range.  See Associates 
Relocation Management Co., Inc.,     B-242437, Apr. 19, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  
390.