BNUMBER:  B-270208
DATE:  February 16, 1996
TITLE:  Mil Colores, S.A.

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

Matter of:Mil Colores, S.A.

File:     B-270208

Date:     February 16, 1996

Carlos A. De Obaldia for the protester.
Philip T. McCaffrey, Esq., and Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
John A. Carter, Esq., and John G. Brosnan, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the decision. 

DIGEST

1.  Protest that the Army conducted a prohibited auction is denied 
where there is no evidence that the Army engaged in any activity that 
would constitute an auction, such as indicating to an offeror a price 
it must meet in order to receive further consideration, advising an 
offeror of its relative standing or furnishing information about other 
offerors' prices.  

2.  Protest that agency awarded contract on basis of low price without 
evaluating awardee's capability to comply with solicitation 
requirements is denied.  Where a solicitation provides for award to 
the lowest-priced offeror and does not provide for a technical 
evaluation or require a technical proposal, award to the lowest-priced 
responsible offeror is proper. 

DECISION

Mil Colores, S.A. protests the award of a contract to CBH 
Construcciones, S.A. (CBH) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAHC92-95-R-0099 issued by the United States Army Garrison-Panama.   

We deny the protest.

The Army issued the RFP to consolidate current requirements for 
custodial, refuse and grounds services for Fort Sherman, Panama, for 
5.5 months, with an option for  another 6 months.  The RFP stated that 
the Army intended to award a single contract to the responsible 
offeror "whose total aggregate price is determined to be in the best 
interests of the United States Government."  The solicitation provided 
a price schedule to be filled in by the offeror.  No technical 
proposal was solicited and the RFP contained no technical evaluation 
criteria by which a proposal might be evaluated.  The RFP also stated 
that the Army intended to award on the basis of initial proposals 
without discussions.  

Mil Colores submitted the initial proposal with the lowest aggregate 
price.  Based upon this proposal, the Army initiated a pre-award 
survey of Mil Colores.  Before award, however, the Army concluded that 
some of the work estimates in the RFP were incorrect, and issued a 
request for best and final offers (BAFO) to all of the participating 
offerors, with revised estimates.  This time, CBH submitted the lowest 
aggregate price.  The contracting officer, relying primarily on a 
recent pre-award survey of CBH conducted in another procurement for 
similar services, and on CBH's record of successful past performance 
of government contracts, determined CBH to be responsible and awarded 
the contract to the firm.   

Mil Colores contends that the Army conducted a prohibited auction for 
this contract.  It argues that the use of auction techniques can be 
inferred from the Army's actions.[1]   

Prohibited auction techniques include such actions as (1) indicating 
to an offeror a price it must meet in order to receive further 
consideration; (2) advising an offeror of its relative standing; and 
(3) furnishing information about other offerors' prices.  Federal 
Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.610(e)(2).  There is no evidence in the 
record, and Mil Colores has provided none, that the Army engaged in 
any of these activities.  The mere fact that CBH's price was the 
lowest in response to the request for BAFOs or that BAFOs had to be 
solicited to fix a problem in the initial solicitation do not indicate 
that the agency engaged in a prohibited auction.  Since the record 
does not support Mil Colores's allegations, this ground of protest is 
denied.  See Behavioral Science Consulting, B-258777; B-258777.2 , 
Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  72.

Mil Colores also contends that the Army deviated from the evaluation 
criteria set forth in the solicitation by conducting an extensive 
"examination" of Mil Colores's ability to comply with the statement of 
work in section C of the RFP, while awarding the contract to CBH 
solely on the basis of price without conducting a similar examination 
of that firm's capabilities.  Mil Colores argues that an examination 
of CBH's ability to perform was required by the RFP and was not merely 
a matter of responsibility.  In support of its argument, Mil Colores 
relies on a statement in the RFP executive summary that:  
"Additionally, in order to be considered for an award, offeror shall 
comply with section C, and other terms/conditions contained in the 
solicitation."  Section C of the RFP consists of post-award quality 
control requirements and a general requirement for compliance with 
other terms and conditions of the RFP.  
 
We find no merit in this contention.  As we observed above, the RFP 
provided that award would be made to the firm offering the lowest 
aggregate price and neither required a technical proposal, in which an 
offeror might demonstrate how it intended to comply with section C of 
the RFP, nor provided evaluation criteria by which a technical 
proposal or an offeror's capabilities might be measured.  In these 
circumstances, the submission of a proposal amounts to an offer to 
perform in accordance with the specifications, and no additional 
assessment of the offeror's capabilities is required beyond that 
necessary to establish responsibility.  Louisville Cooler Mfg. Co., 
B-243546, June 13, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  568; Berema, Inc.--Recon., 
B-239212.2, Nov. 1, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  356.  Where a solicitation 
provides for award to the lowest-priced offeror and does not provide 
for a technical evaluation or require a technical proposal, award to 
the lowest-priced responsible offeror is proper.  Colt Indus., Inc., 
B-231213.2, Jan 23. 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  49.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In its initial protest to our Office, Mil Colores also contended 
that CBH lacked the capability to perform this contract and that CBH's 
lower price was unbalanced and unsupported.  The Army addressed these 
allegations in its report on the protest, and Mil Colores did not 
respond to the Army's position on these issues.  We therefore consider 
Mil Colores to have abandoned these allegations.  See D & M Gen. 
Contracting, Inc., B-259995; B-259995.2, May 8, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  235.