BNUMBER:  B-270086; B-270086.2
DATE:  February 8, 1996
TITLE:  Metrica, 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:Metrica, Inc.

File:     B-270086; B-270086.2

Date:February 8, 1996

Joseph D. Gebhardt, Esq., and Steven B. Schwartzman, Esq., for the 
protester.
James S. Phillips, Esq., and Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., for Kajax 
Engineering, Inc., the intervenor.
Jane H. Talley, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Award to the offeror submitting the more technically advantageous, 
higher-priced proposal was reasonable where it was consistent with the 
solicitation's evaluation scheme and the agency reasonably determined 
that the documented technical advantages of the awardee's 
higher-priced proposal outweighed the price advantage of the 
protester's proposal. 

DECISION

Metrica, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kajax Engineering, 
Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 00-95-1015BB, issued by 
the Department of Agriculture for on-site automated data processing 
support services at the National Computer Center in Kansas City, 
Missouri, the National Finance Center in New Orleans, Louisiana and 
the Washington Service Center in Washington, D.C.  Metrica challenges 
the agency's evaluation of its and Kajax's proposals, and the agency's 
selection of Kajax's higher-priced proposal for award.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a competitive set-aside under section 8(a) of the 
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  637(a) (1994), provided for the award 
of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 1 
year with four 1-year options.  The RFP informed offerors that 
proposals would be evaluated for compliance with certain "mandatory 
standards" contained in the solicitation, such as "qualify[ing] as a 
firm participating in the 8(a) program" under the relevant standard 
industrial code, and compliance with applicable Department of Labor 
wage determinations.  The RFP also listed the following technical 
evaluation factors and subfactors:

 Factor 1.Corporate Experience

     Subfactor A.Recent Past Experience
     Subfactor B.Corporate Background, Organization, and Stability
     Subfactor C.Recruitment, Employee Development, and Stability
 
 Factor 2. Technical Approach

     Subfactor A.Understanding the requirements of the solicitation
     Subfactor B.Management Coordination and the Authority Delegated 
               to the Lead Operators
     Subfactor C.Problem Resolution
     Subfactor D.Staffing and Operational Plan
     Subfactor E.Transition Plan
     Subfactor F.Quality Assurance

The solicitation informed offerors that factors 1 and 2 were equal in 
importance, and that within factor 1, subfactor A was equal in 
importance to subfactors B and C combined.  The RFP further provided 
that within factor 2, subfactors A and B were equal to each other, 
subfactors C and F were equal to each other, and subfactors D and E 
were equal to each other, and that subfactors A and B combined were 
slightly more important than subfactors C through F combined.  The RFP 
provided for the award of a contract to the offeror whose proposal 
offered the greatest value to the agency, cost and other factors 
considered, and stated that "[t]echnical factors will have a slightly 
higher weight than cost and other factors in making the award 
decision."  The RFP requested the submission of a technical proposal, 
and a cost and business proposal, and provided detailed instructions 
for the submission of proposals.  

The agency received five proposals, including Metrica's and Kajax's, 
by the RFP's closing date of June 30, 1995.  The proposals of Metrica 
and Kajax were included in the competitive range, discussions 
conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) received.  Kajax's BAFO 
received an overall score of 1,597.5 out of 1,800 total points at a 
price of $8,233,133.[1]  Metrica's BAFO received an overall score of 
1,370.5 points at a price of $7,279,713.  The agency determined that 
Kajax's proposal represented the best value based on technical and 
price considerations, and made award to that firm.  After being 
informed that Kajax had received the award, and being provided with 
written and oral debriefings, Metrica filed this protest.

Metrica protests that the agency's evaluation of its and Kajax's 
proposals under the Staffing and Operational Plan evaluation subfactor 
was unreasonable.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency because the agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
16.  In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate an 
agency's evaluation, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation 
to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.  Decision Sys. 
Technologies, Inc.; NCI Information Sys., Inc., B-251786 et al., Sept. 
7, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  167.  An offeror's mere disagreement with the 
agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas 
Corp., B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51.  Based 
upon our review of the record, and as discussed more fully below, we 
find that the agency's evaluation of Metrica's and Kajax's proposals 
under the Staffing and Operational Plan evaluation subfactor was 
reasonable and in accordance with the RFP.

The RFP informed offerors that their technical proposals were to 
include an "organization chart" and to "[p]rovide the name, title, and 
length of time employed by the offeror of each person included in the 
chart."  Offerors were also instructed to provide, for the Staffing 
and Operational Plan subfactor, a resume for each individual listed on 
the organization chart, to provide a staffing plan for each facility, 
resumes for designated key employees, and to "[s]pecifically identify 
proposed staff who are not current employees of the offeror(s)."  

Kajax's proposal received a score of 132 out of the 150 total points 
available under the Staffing and Operational Plan subfactor.  The 
agency found in evaluating Kajax's proposal that Kajax had submitted 
detailed staffing plans for each of the three sites, and had 
identified and supplied the resume of each person proposed to staff 
the contract.  Although certain of the individuals proposed to staff 
the National Finance Center in New Orleans were identified as 
contingency hires, Kajax supplied letters of commitment for each of 
these individuals.

Metrica's proposal received a score of 90 points under the Staffing 
and Operational Plan subfactor.  In contrast to Kajax's detailed 
staffing plan, which identified individuals to staff every position 
required to perform the contract, Metrica's plan caused the agency 
concern because it included 23 vacant positions.  Metrica's staffing 
and operational plan also caused the agency additional concern because 
each of the individuals specifically identified by Metrica to staff 
the contract were located in Washington, D.C., and would thus have to 
relocate to Kansas City or New Orleans to perform the contract, and 
because Metrica had not identified any contingency hires or newly 
recruited personnel.  The agency concluded that because of Metrica's 
lack of either current, newly recruited, or contingency hires local to 
the Kansas City or New Orleans sites, the staffing plan was "high 
risk." 

Despite having access under the General Accounting Office protective 
order to, among other things, Kajax's proposal and the agency's 
evaluation documentation, Metrica, in its comments on the agency 
report, does not substantively respond to the propriety of the 
agency's evaluation of Kajax's and Metrica's proposals under the 
Staffing and Operational Plan subfactor.  Because of this, and based 
upon our review of the record, we conclude that Metrica's objection to 
this aspect of the agency's evaluation constitutes, at best, its mere 
disagreement with the evaluation results, and does not demonstrate 
that the agency's evaluation of the proposals under the Staffing and 
Operational Plan evaluation subfactor was unreasonable.  Medland 
Controls, Inc., B-255204; B-255204.2, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  260.

Metrica argues in its comments on the agency report that the agency's 
evaluation of Metrica's proposal under the "Recent Past Experience" 
evaluation subfactor was unreasonable.  The agency contends that this 
aspect of Metrica's protest is untimely because the protest basis--the 
propriety of the agency's evaluation of Metrica's proposal under the 
Recent Past Experience subfactor--is new and substantively different 
from those raised by Metrica in its initial protest, and was not filed 
until 16 calendar days after Metrica's receipt of the agency report.

Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests not based upon 
solicitation improprieties be filed not later than 14 calendar days 
after the basis of protest is known, or should have been known, 
whichever is earlier.  Section 21.2(a)(2), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,740 
(Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).  The 
timeliness of a specific basis of protest raised after the filing of a 
timely protest depends upon the relationship the later-raised basis 
bears to the initial protest.  GE Gov't Servs., B-235101, August 11, 
1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  128.  Where the later basis presents a new and 
independent ground for protest, it must independently satisfy our 
timeliness requirements.  Conversely, where the later basis merely 
provides additional support for an earlier, timely raised protest 
basis, we will consider the later-raised arguments.  Id.  

In our view, the argument raised in Metrica's comments constitutes a 
new and independent basis of protest, rather than additional 
supporting material for either of its earlier protest contentions.[2]  
In this regard, Metrica's later-raised argument challenges the 
agency's evaluation of its proposal under the Recent Past Experience 
evaluation subfactor, and provides no support and is distinct from 
Metrica's argument that its and Kajax's proposals were improperly 
evaluated under the Staffing and Operational Plan evaluation 
subfactor.  Additionally, and despite the protester's view to the 
contrary, a challenge to an agency's evaluation of proposals under a 
specific evaluation subfactor is distinct from a challenge to the 
agency's best value determination.  Although the propriety of the 
agency's evaluation of proposals under the criteria set forth in the 
RFP may be relevant to the reasonableness of the agency's best value 
determination, that relevance in itself does not permit a protester, 
who has protested in general the agency's best value determination, to 
later present a specific, and otherwise untimely argument concerning 
the evaluation of proposals.  GE Gov't Servs., supra.  As such, 
Metrica's argument that the agency's evaluation of its proposal under 
the Recent Past Experience subfactor is untimely because it was raised 
more than 14 days after the protester received the agency report and 
thus knew or should have known of this basis for protest.  Id.    

Metrica also challenges the agency's selection of Kajax's 
higher-priced proposal for award.  Metrica argues in general that the 
agency, in selecting Kajax for award, gave undue weight to Kajax's 
evaluated technical superiority, and specifically contends that the 
agency gave undue weight in its selection decision to Kajax's 
evaluated superiority under the Staffing and Operational Plan 
subfactor.

In a negotiated procurement, award may be made to an offeror 
submitting a higher-rated, higher-priced offer, where the decision is 
consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and the agency 
reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the 
higher-priced offer outweighs the price difference.  D & M Gen. 
Contracting, Inc., B-259995; B-259995.2, May 8, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  235.

We find that the agency's selection of Kajax for award was reasonable 
and in accord with the RFP's evaluation scheme.  In selecting Kajax 
for award the agency noted that Kajax's proposal was technically 
superior to Metrica's overall, as evidenced by Kajax's overall higher 
point score of 1,597.5 as compared to Metrica's overall score 1,370.5.  
Indeed, Kajax's proposal was rated higher than Metrica's under each of 
the RFP's evaluation factors and subfactors.  In addition to the 
overall superiority of Kajax's proposal, the agency noted Kajax's 
clear technical superiority under four of the evaluation subfactors:  
Recent Past Experience; Management Coordination and Authority 
Delegated to Lead Operators; Problem Resolution; and Staffing and 
Operational Plan.  For example, with regard to the offerors' proposals 
under the most important evaluation subfactor, Recent Past Experience, 
wherein Kajax's proposal received a score of 405 out of 450 available 
points and Metrica's proposal received 337.5 points, the agency found 
that Kajax had significant experience in staffing and managing 
mainframe computer operations, such as those at the National Finance 
Center, National Computer Center, and Washington Service Center, which 
are in operation 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, and that Metrica 
did not.  The agency also found here that all of the references cited 
by Kajax in its proposal recommended Kajax highly, in contrast to 
Metrica's references, which were characterized by the agency as being 
"lukewarm" concerning Metrica's performance.

Regarding the Management Coordination and Authority Delegated to Lead 
Operators subfactor, the agency explains that delegating authority to 
on-site supervisors is essential to prompt problem resolution.  
Although both offerors proposed to delegate authority to their on-site 
supervisors, Kajax's proposal received a score of 178 and Metrica's 
proposal received a score of 140 under this subfactor because of 
problems, as reported by Metrica's references, concerning Metrica's 
actual delegation of authority during contract performance.

With regard to the merits of the proposals under the Problem 
Resolution evaluation subfactor, the agency found that Kajax had 
provided an "excellent plan" for problem resolution in its proposal, 
which included the use of electronic reporting of problems and a 
response team comprised of specialists who will be assigned to work on 
different aspects of any problems which arise.  The agency also noted 
that Kajax had provided specific examples of past success in problem 
resolution.  Kajax's proposal received a score of 142.5 points out of 
150 under the Problem Resolution subfactor.  In contrast, the agency 
determined that although Metrica's proposal contained a well-written 
problem resolution plan, the examples of past success were generic in 
nature rather than specific; Metrica's proposal received a score of 
112.5 under this evaluation subfactor.

As indicated by the discussion above, the record demonstrates that the 
agency's selection of Kajax for award was based upon the overall 
technical superiority of Kajax's proposal, and the proposal's 
significant superiority under certain of the evaluation subfactors.  
Although Kajax's superiority under the Staffing and Operational Plan 
evaluation subfactor was considered by the agency in its best value 
determination, the record does not evidence, as the protester 
suggests, that the agency gave undue weight to the merits of Kajax's 
proposal under this subfactor in selecting Kajax for award.

In sum, as evidenced by the examples above and the previous discussion 
of the agency's conclusions regarding the merits of the offerors' 
staffing and operational plans, the record shows that the agency found 
Kajax's proposal significantly better than Metrica's under the most 
important evaluation subfactor, and superior to Metrica's under every 
other evaluation subfactor and overall.  The record reflects that the 
contracting officer, in selecting Kajax for award, weighed Kajax's 
evaluated technical superiority against Metrica's lower price, and 
determined that Kajax's technical superiority more than offset the 
associated additional cost.  Although Metrica disagrees with this 
assessment, it has not demonstrated that the agency's judgment is 
unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The agency did not disclose in the RFP either its plan to point 
score the offerors' proposals on a 1,800-point scale or the specific 
point value of each evaluation factor or subfactor.

2. Although our Bid Protest Regulations require that comments be filed 
within 14 days after the report is received, Metrica requested and 
received an extension.  Bid Protest Regulations, section 21.3(h) 
supra.  The granting of such an extension does not waive the 
timeliness requirements for filing bid protests.  Keci Corp.--Recon., 
B-255193.2, May 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  323.