BNUMBER:  B-270168
DATE:  February 13, 1996
TITLE:  AAA Painting and Janitorial Contractors, Inc.

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

Matter of:AAA Painting and Janitorial Contractors, Inc.

File:     B-270168

Date:     February 13, 1996

Robert V. Borrero and Roland L. Harris, for the protester.
Cynthia S. Guill, Esq., and Vicki E. O'Keefe, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Allegation that agency improperly downgraded the protester's 
proposal under the experience subfactor based on an inadequate resume 
for its executive housekeeper is without merit where the record shows 
agency in fact determined that the resume met the solicitation 
requirements and that the downgrading was properly based on the 
protester's failure to provide required information on the firm's 
corporate experience. 

2.  Allegation that downgrading of the protester's proposal under 
understanding of solicitation requirements subfactor improperly 
ignored proposal's excellent rating for proposed work schedule and 
procedures for scheduling work is without merit where the protester 
failed to submit with its proposal the technical manuals that were 
also to be evaluated under this subfactor. 

3.  Selection of the awardee on the basis of its overall technical 
superiority, notwithstanding its higher price, was proper where the 
agency reasonably determined that the awardee's higher-priced proposal 
was worth the additional cost. 
DECISION

AAA Painting and Janitorial Contractors, Inc. protests the Department 
of the Navy's award of a contract to Makro Janitorial Services, Inc. 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68925-93-R-A808, for custodial 
services at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.  
The protester primarily argues that its proposal was not properly 
evaluated.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price/indefinite quantity 
contract on a best value basis, with consideration of two factors of 
equal weight, technical and price.  The technical factor was divided 
into management capability and technical capability, each of which 
contained several subfactors.  The RFP stated that award may be made 
without discussions and that initial proposals thus should contain the 
offeror's most favorable terms.

Twelve proposals were received.  AAA's proposal, priced at $1,258,142, 
received a rating of marginal, and Makro's, priced at $1,632,737, 
received a rating of exceptional.  Makro's price was considered 
reasonable, and the Navy determined that Makro's proposal was most 
advantageous to the government and made award to that firm without 
discussions.

EXPERIENCE SUBFACTOR

AAA argues that its technical proposal was improperly downgraded under 
the experience subfactor under management capability on the erroneous 
basis that the resume AAA submitted for its proposed executive 
housekeeper failed to include information (required by the RFP) 
concerning the individual's experience on prior contracts, such as 
contract time frames, dollar values, and locations; AAA claims that 
the resume clearly contained this information.

AAA's argument is based on the incorrect assumption that its proposal 
was downgraded in this area due to a resume deficiency.  This was not 
the case.  The record shows that AAA's proposal failed to list any 
specific contracts performed by the firm within the past 5 years with 
dollar values, customers, durations, locations, and type of work 
performed, and how the work related to the work requirements here; 
this information was specifically called for under the experience 
subfactor description.  The Navy downgraded AAA's proposal on the 
basis that "[t]he contractor has not identified all of the required 
information pertaining to relevant experience[,]" and that the 
"[c]ontractor has not demonstrated a clear explanation of how any past 
or previous experience relates to this contract."  We find that the 
downgrading of AAA's proposal in this area was reasonable.

UNDERSTANDING THE RFP REQUIREMENTS SUBFACTOR

AAA maintains its proposal was improperly evaluated as marginal under 
the understanding of the RFP requirements subfactor under technical 
capability.  Specifically, AAA maintains that this rating was 
inconsistent with the Navy's determination that AAA's proposed daily 
work schedules and procedures for scheduling work were excellent; AAA 
claims that an offeror cannot develop excellent work schedules and 
procedures without having a substantial understanding of the RFP 
requirements.

The evaluation in this area was proper.  This subfactor required 
offerors to exhibit an understanding of the work requirements in the 
RFP by providing:  (1) a daily schedule of work for 1 month and an 
explanation of the procedures for scheduling the required work; and 
(2) technical manuals, including those used by the firm for burnishing 
(stripping and waxing floors), safety, and infection control.  
Although AAA's proposal contained explanations on the firm's daily 
work schedule, procedures for scheduling work and burnishing, which 
the Navy considered excellent, the proposal was downgraded for failing 
to include the required manuals on burnishing, safety, and infection 
control procedures.  AAA's proposal was properly rated marginal in 
this area for furnishing only half of the information specifically 
called for by the RFP.

PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

AAA argues that the Navy did not perform a reasonable price/technical 
tradeoff in selecting Makro for award.  AAA specifically maintains 
that it should have received award primarily because its proposal 
offered a lower price, and because AAA has both a proven record of 
providing quality custodial services and a "rock solid" financial 
standing.

In a negotiated procurement, award to an offeror with a higher 
proposal technical ranking and higher price is proper so long as the 
result is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the procuring 
agency has reasonably determined that the technical difference is 
sufficiently significant to outweigh the price difference.  Simms 
Indus., Inc., B-252827.2, Oct. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  206.  

The tradeoff here was reasonable.  In making the award decision, the 
Navy determined that AAA's approximately $375,000 price advantage was 
offset by Makro's proposal's acceptable or exceptional ratings for all 
subfactors, and the significant weaknesses in AAA's marginal technical 
proposal.  Specifically, the Navy found that AAA's proposal did not 
set forth an adequate staffing plan for the fixed-price portion of the 
contract and did not explain any proposed staffing or labor 
distribution for the indefinite quantity portion of the contract; 
failed to provide the required organizational chart identifying the 
numbers, types, and relative skill levels of its proposed personnel; 
failed to present training or lesson plans; and did not provide a list 
of equipment and supplies and the annual quantities required of each.  
As it is clear that the agency weighed the technical advantages of 
Makro's proposal against the price advantage of AAA's, and concluded 
that the technical advantages were worth Makro's additional cost, 
there is no basis for objecting to the tradeoff; it was in no way 
inconsistent with the evaluation scheme.[1]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. AAA argues for the first time in its comments on the agency report 
that the agency should have held discussions.  New and independent 
grounds of protest, which are raised after the initial protest, must 
independently satisfy our timeliness requirements.  Palomar Grading 
and Paving, Inc., B-255382, Feb. 7, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  85.  Under our 
Regulations, a protest concerning other than an apparent solicitation 
impropriety must be filed within 14 days after the basis of protest is 
or should be known.  Bid Protest Regulations, 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)); Labat-Anderson Inc., B-246071.5, Aug. 31, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
136.  Since AAA knew the Navy had not held discussions when it filed 
its October 11 protest, its subsequent challenge on this basis in its 
November 30 comments is untimely.