BNUMBER:  B-266246
DATE:  January 18, 1996
TITLE:  Holmes & Narver, Inc.

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

REDACTED DECISION
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.

Matter of:Holmes & Narver, Inc.

File:     B-266246

Date:     January 18, 1996

William A. Roberts  III, Esq., Lee Curtis, Esq., and Karen L. Manos, 
Esq., Howrey & Simon, for the protester.
Capt. Robert L. Ballenger, and Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., 
Department of the  Air Force, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Under a negotiated procurement for the design and construction of 
military family housing, the agency was not required to raise during 
discussions that an offeror's price exceeded the solicitation's stated 
cost objective, which was not an absolute limit, where the offeror's 
price was evaluated as realistic, reasonable, complete, and low risk.

2.  Under a solicitation for the design and construction of military 
family housing, which encouraged offerors to propose enhancements to 
the specifications as part of their offer to obtain additional 
technical credit, the agency was not required to advise an offeror 
during discussions of those enhancements evaluated as only marginally 
beneficial so that the offeror could delete those enhancements and 
lower its price, since those enhancements, which contributed to the 
offeror's high technical rating, were neither deficiencies, 
weaknesses, nor excesses.

DECISION

Holmes and Narver, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Harper/Nielsen-Dillingham under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F04684-94-R-0027, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the 
second phase of a military family housing construction project at 
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

We deny the protest.

The RFP sought offers to raze 128 units of existing military family 
housing, prepare the site for new construction, and design and build 
128 units of replacement single-family homes as well as common areas 
for family and community recreation.
As issued, the RFP's schedule contained a basic contract line item 
number (CLIN) 0001 for a lump-sum price to design and construct the 
housing development, a deductive line item, CLIN 0002, for the amount 
to be paid to the Air Force by the contractor to dispose of debris at 
the base's landfill, and a number of option CLINs for various upgrades 
of materials and features.

The RFP informed offerors that proposals would be evaluated in two 
areas:  technical/management and price.  The technical/management area 
was most important, although "cost was still significant and would be 
a substantial factor in determining the proposal most advantageous to 
the government."  The evaluation factors in the technical/management 
area were (1) design experience, (2) construction experience, (3) 
construction methodology/materials, (4) management approach, and (5) 
design/construction schedule.  The first three evaluation factors were 
equally weighted and of greatest importance, followed by management 
approach and then design/construction schedule.  Technical/management 
proposals were to be evaluated under a color/adjectival rating 
scheme,[1] as well as for proposal risk to assess the risk associated 
with an offeror's proposed approach and for performance risk to assess 
the probability of successful performance based on the offeror's past 
and present performance.[2]  

Under the design experience and construction experience factors, 
corporate experience and personnel experience, which had the same 
weight, were to be separately assessed.  Under the construction 
methodology/materials factor, offerors were encouraged to propose 
enhancements to the materials and methods of construction specified by 
the RFP, which would be evaluated to "determine the offeror's 
understanding of the requirement and compared to the specifications 
and drawings to determine the value added"; the CLIN 0001 price was to 
include the proposed enhancements, which could be incorporated into 
the contract by the government.  The management approach factor 
contained four equally weighted subfactors:  team organization, 
internal controls, quality control approach, and safety approach.

Price proposals were to be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, 
completeness, and risk.  The RFP stated that "[t]he government had 
budgeted $14,859,000 for the basic contract award; this amount is 
expected to cover contract line item 0001 and some but perhaps not all 
of the options."  Regarding the price evaluation, the RFP stated that:

     "The Government will evaluate the total price for the basic 
     requirement CLIN 0001, less the reduction proposed in CLIN 0002.  
     The Government will then consider how many of the option upgrade 
     features CLINS . . . can be purchased within the stated basic 
     contract cost objective.  For purposes of evaluation and 
     contractor selection, the Government will hold its basic contract 
     cost objectives fixed, and will consider how many, if any, 
     options an offeror proposes to perform within the cost objective.  
     However, after Contractor selection on this basis, the Government 
     reserves the right to award or not to award options causing the 
     contract price to be greater or lesser than the contract cost 
     objective."

Holmes, Harper, and a third offeror submitted proposals.[3]  Holmes 
priced the basic design and build item, CLIN 0001, at $[DELETED] and 
the deductive landfill item, CLIN 0002, at $[DELETED].  Harper priced 
CLIN 0001 at $[DELETED] and CLIN 0002 at $[DELETED].  Both offerors 
included enhancements in their initial evaluated prices (CLIN 0001 
less CLIN 0002), which were still below the government's cost 
objective. 

After the source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated the 
technical and price proposals, it conducted written and oral 
discussions with each offeror.  In addition, the Air Force issued 
amendment 0005 to the RFP to redesignate the basic design and build 
item, CLIN 0001, as SubCLIN 0001AA, and to add SubCLINs 0001AB through 
0001AF to the schedule for the removal of underground storage tanks, 
soil remediation, and the removal and mitigation of asbestos coated 
pipes and contaminated soil discovered at the site.[4]  The amended 
schedule requested a total dollar amount for CLIN 0001, which now 
encompassed SubCLINs 0001AA through 0001AF.  In amendment 0006, 
offerors were requested to complete all sections of the schedule as 
revised by amendment 0005.[5]  

Holmes in its revised proposal included prices only for the added 
environmental remediation SubCLINs 0001AB through 0001AF, totaling 
$[DELETED], and left blank the spaces for the prices for SubCLIN 
0001AA (formerly CLIN 0001) and the option upgrade CLINs priced in its 
initial proposal.  Harper's revised proposal separately priced the new 
SubCLINs for a total of $[DELETED] and significantly increased the 
$[DELETED] lump-sum price it had initially proposed for CLIN 0001 to 
$[DELETED] for SubCLIN 0001AA.  With the additional pricing, both 
Holmes's and Harper's evaluated prices apparently exceeded the 
government's cost objective.  
In requesting best and final offers (BAFO), the Air Force 
"reiterate[d] that the Government's cost [objective] is $14,859,000 
for CLIN 0001." (Emphasis in original.)  Just before BAFOs were due, 
in response to a request to clarify how the revised schedule should be 
completed, the Air Force discovered that Harper's revised pricing for 
CLIN 0001 had double-counted the environmental remediation SubCLINs. 
Thus, the Air Force verbally requested both Holmes and Harper to

     "transfer the amounts from the proposal worksheet for SubCLINs 
     0001AB through 0001AF to the SubCLIN blanks in [the schedule].  
     The rest of the cost of the worksheet, which would be the cost 
     excluding the environmental SubCLINs, would be inserted in the 
     blank for SubCLIN 0001AA at the top.  [Offerors] were then to 
     total the SubCLINs 0001AA through 0001AF and insert the total in 
     the blank at the bottom of the CLIN 0001 portion.  After that, 
     they were to complete [the schedule] by inserting the amount for 
     the deductive credit (CLIN 0002) and also the upgrade options."

The agency states that, as a result of the telephone clarification, 
Holmes "said they . . . understood how to fill out [the schedule] from 
the revised cost proposal worksheet."

Holmes's BAFO included the same prices for the environmental 
remediation SubCLINs and the landfill deductive item, CLIN 0002, as 
earlier proposed.  The BAFO also reduced the price previously offered 
for CLIN 0001 from $[DELETED] to $[DELETED] for SubCLIN 0001AA to 
account for the deletion of three proposed enhancements, which the 
SSET had previously advised Holmes were unacceptable.  Holmes's 
evaluated BAFO price (CLIN 0001 less CLIN 0002) of $[DELETED] was 
evaluated as realistic, reasonable, complete, and low risk; however, 
it exceeded the stated $14,859,000 cost objective, which in turn would 
not allow for the exercise of any of the option upgrades within the 
cost objective.

Although Harper's BAFO also included the same prices for the 
environmental remediation SubCLINs and landfill deductive item, it 
significantly decreased the revised price offered for SubCLIN 0001AA 
from $[DELETED] to $[DELETED] by deleting the double-counted 
environmental remediation items.  Harper's BAFO price of $[DELETED] 
was evaluated as realistic, reasonable, complete, and low risk, and 
was sufficiently below the stated cost objective to allow the Air 
Force to exercise six of the option upgrades within the cost 
objective.

The final technical ratings were

EVALUATION FACTOR    HOLMES               HARPER

Design Experience:
     Corporate
     Personnel                                          Green                           
                     Blue                                                   
                                          Blue                            
                                          Blue

Construction Experience:
     Corporate
     Personnel                                          Green                            
                     Green                                                  
                                          Blue                             
                                          Green 

Construction Methods/Materials                                   Blue                                  
                                          Blue 

Management Approach:    Team Organization
     Internal Control
     Quality Control
     Safety Approach                                    Blue                              
                     Green
                     Green
                     Green                                                  
                                          Green                          
                                          Green
                                          Green
                                          Green 

Schedule             Green                Green
Both Holmes's and Harper's proposals received low performance risk and 
low proposal risk ratings in all relevant factors.  

Based on its evaluation of the BAFOs, the SSET presented the source 
selection authority (SSA) with an evaluation briefing and a proposal 
analysis report summarizing the strengths, weaknesses, and proposal 
risks of each proposal as well as the performance risks and prices.  
Based on an integrated assessment of the findings of the SSET, the SSA 
determined that Harper's superior technical proposal and lower price 
was more advantageous to the government.  

Holmes first contends that the Air Force failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions because the Air Force must have known that Holmes's prices 
for the environmental remediation SubCLINs submitted in response to 
amendment 0006 resulted in a price exceeding the government's cost 
objective, but failed to inform Holmes of this problem during 
discussions.  Holmes also argues that it was misled by the Air Force 
during discussions because although the SSET advised Holmes that 
[DELETED] of Holmes's [DELETED] proposed enhancements were 
unacceptable under the construction methodology/material factor, only 
[DELETED] of Holmes's remaining [DELETED] enhancements were rated as 
beneficial to the Air Force, with the remaining rated as "neutral."  
Holmes alleges that had it been given the opportunity to delete these 
[DELETED] "neutral" enhancements from its proposal, it could have 
reduced its price accordingly, making it the low priced offeror.

Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all 
competitive range offerors.  Microeconomic Applications, Inc., 
B-258633.2, Feb. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  82.  In order for discussions to 
be meaningful, contracting officials must advise offerors of 
weaknesses, excesses or deficiencies in their proposals that require  
amplification or correction and afford offerors an opportunity to 
revise their proposals to satisfy the government's requirements.  
Miltope Corp.; Aydin Corp., B-258554.4 et al., June 6, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
285.  This does not mean that offerors are entitled to 
all-encompassing discussions or that an agency must "spoon-feed" an 
offeror as to each and every item that must be revised, added, 
deleted, or otherwise addressed to improve a proposal; rather, an 
agency must only lead offerors into the areas of their proposals 
considered deficient.  Id.  Additionally, an agency may not mislead an 
offeror during discussions into responding in a manner that does not 
address the agency's concerns.  Price Waterhouse, B-254492.2, Feb. 16, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  168. 

Here, the agency was not required to specifically mention to Holmes 
during discussions that its revised price exceeded the government's 
cost objective because this was not a deficiency, weakness, or excess.  
In this regard, the RFP expressly informed offerors that the cost 
objective, which was clearly stated in the RFP and repeated in the 
BAFO request,[6] was not an absolute limit and, given the relative 
importance of technical merit over price, "[a]n award higher than the 
cost objective is possible if the offeror is most advantageous to the 
government."  Moreover, Holmes's total price for CLIN 0001, proposed 
in response to the added environmental remediation SubCLINs, was 
determined by the Air Force to be reasonable, realistic, complete, low 
risk, and below the government estimate.    

In addition, contrary to Holmes's contention, the oral clarification 
given the two offerors to prevent double-counting of the environmental 
remediation SubCLINs in the BAFO prices should not have misled Holmes.  
Offerors were not instructed to simply add their prices for the 
environmental remediation SubCLINs to their initial price for CLIN 
0001 as Holmes implies, but rather were instructed to take their 
prices from their revised price proposal worksheets.  Given that the 
request for BAFOs reiterated that the government's cost objective 
remained at $14,859,000, Holmes, like Harper, could have adjusted its 
CLIN 0001AA price to compensate for the increase in price associated 
with the added environmental remediation SubCLINs, so that its BAFO 
would not exceed the government's cost objective.   

Moreover, the Air Force was not required to advise Holmes of the 
enhancements rated as "neutral" since those enhancements also were not 
considered deficiencies, weaknesses, or excesses.  To the contrary, 
the proposal analysis report prepared for the SSA shows that Holmes 
was rated blue/exceptional for the construction methods/materials 
factor specifically due to its extensive list of enhancements, and the 
Air Force explains that, although the [DELETED] enhancements were 
rated as "neutral" because their value was negligible, the SSET still 
considered these enhancements desirable.

Holmes next protests that the evaluation of the price proposals by the 
agency did not properly account for the significant enhancements 
included in its price, as compared to the "trivial" enhancements 
included in Harper's price, and that the agency only mechanically 
compared Holmes's price against the government's cost objective.  
However, the RFP contemplated that offerors, in their business 
judgment, would choose whether to include enhancements within their 
CLIN 0001 price to improve their technical evaluation.  Contrary to 
Holmes's contention, there was no mechanical comparison of Holmes's 
price, which included a variety of enhancements, to the government 
cost objective (although this was certainly considered as was 
specifically contemplated by the RFP); instead, the SSET, in 
evaluating Holmes's and Harper's price proposals, estimated the cost 
of the respective proposed enhancements and assessed the enhancements' 
relative value.  The SSA was advised of the government's estimate of 
Holmes's beneficial enhancements before he made his award decision.  
Thus, the evaluation of the price proposals with respect to the 
offerors's proposed enhancements was reasonable and consistent with 
the RFP evaluation scheme.[7]  

Holmes also objects that the SSET gave Harper's proposal, containing 
[DELETED] assertedly "trivial" enhancements, the same blue/exceptional 
rating under the construction methods/materials evaluation factor as 
Holmes's proposal, which contained [DELETED] enhancements, [DELETED] 
of which were considered beneficial.  While Holmes's proposal 
contained more enhancements than did Harper's proposal, the record 
does not indicate that the SSET underrated Holmes's proposal or 
overrated Harper's proposal.  Rather, both offerors were rated 
blue/exceptional for the construction methodology/material factor 
because the proposed enhancements of both offerors exceeded the 
specification in a manner beneficial to the Air Force with no 
significant weaknesses--which was the standard for a blue/exceptional 
rating under the RFP.  While Harper only proposed [DELETED] 
enhancements, the SSET considered these enhancements [DELETED]  to be 
of particular value to the Air Force.  Moreover, the record shows that 
the SSA was informed in the SSET briefing of the number and nature of 
the beneficial enhancements proposed by both offerors, and the SSA 
reached his own conclusions regarding the value of the enhancements.  
We see nothing unreasonable with the SSET's action.  

Holmes also objects to the green/acceptable rating for its proposal, 
as compared to Harper's proposal's blue/exceptional rating, under the 
corporate experience assessment criterion of the design experience 
factor, since Holmes's design team member, [DELETED], has more design 
experience than Harper's team member, [DELETED].  However, according 
to this evaluation criterion, "lack of experience on projects where 
the proposed design team and the proposed construction team worked 
together will be considered weaknesses unless the offeror submits an 
approach which can be expected to overcome or mitigate weakness or 
deficiencies in its experience."  Although the SSET recognized 
[DELETED] extensive housing design experience, the SSET also found 
that Holmes had not previously teamed with [DELETED].  In contrast, 
the SSET noted that Harper had successfully worked with [DELETED] on 
six similar family housing projects over the past 10 years.  Based on 
this evaluation, the SSET reasonably found that Harper's proposal 
warranted a higher blue/exceptional rating and Holmes's newly formed 
team only a green/acceptable rating.

Holmes also complains that the SSET, in rating corporate experience 
under the construction experience factor, improperly noted that Holmes 
had never previously teamed with [DELETED] (Holmes's subcontractor for 
the construction aspect of the project) in assigning Holmes's proposal 
a green/acceptable rating, as compared to Harper's proposal's 
blue/exceptional rating.  While Holmes claims that this consideration 
represented an unstated evaluation criterion, the RFP stated with 
regard to this evaluation consideration that experience demonstrating 
sufficient corporate knowledge to successfully complete the 
"construction team's" portion of the contract was to be evaluated, and 
we find that the agency could therefore consider Holmes's failure to 
have previously worked with [DELETED] under this factor.  See Marine 
Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  16.  
In contrast, Harper and its construction team member were responsible 
for six fast-track housing design/build projects of similar scope over 
10 years, which the SSET reasonably found warranted a blue/exceptional 
rating.

In sum, the Air Force reasonably determined that Harper's higher-rated 
and lower-priced proposal represented the best value to the 
government.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The color/adjectival ratings were blue/exceptional, 
green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and red/unacceptable.

2. The evaluation ratings for proposal risk and performance risk were 
high, moderate, and low.

3. The third offeror later withdrew from the competition.

4. Amendment 0005 also made corresponding changes to the price 
proposal worksheets and the specifications/drawings.

5. Neither amendment 0005, adding the environmental remediation 
SubCLINs, nor amendment 0006, requesting the revised schedule, changed 
the government's cost objective or the evaluation factors for award.

6. Holmes's contention that the Air Force's stated cost objective was 
unreasonable since it was not increased to account for the 
environmental remediation work is untimely under section 21.2(a)(1) of 
our Bid Protest Regulations.  Protests based on alleged improprieties 
in the solicitation, incorporated, as here, after the initial 
submission of offers, must be filed prior to the next closing date 
after the change was made to the solicitation.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) 
(1995); ASAP Serv., a div. of ACM, Inc., B-260803, July 18, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  36.    

7. Although Holmes also contends that it was disadvantaged by 
"absorbing" some of the costs for its option CLIN upgrades in its CLIN 
0001 price, the Air Force raised this issue with Holmes during 
discussions, and the record evidences that Holmes's underpricing of 
option upgrades was the result of its own business decision to make 
its proposal more attractive, which advantage was considered by the 
Air Force in evaluating Holmes's price.