BNUMBER:  B-270268.2
DATE:  April 15, 1996
TITLE:  DATEX, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
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:DATEX, Inc.

File:     B-270268.2

Date:April 15, 1996

Jonathan T. Cain, Esq., Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and J. Russell 
Morrissey, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, for the protester.
Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Mark H. Neblett, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 
for Mendez England & Associates, the intervenor.
Gary M. Winter, U.S. Agency for International Development, for the 
agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency could reasonably consider the costs incurred under two 
similar predecessor contracts performed by the awardee and its 
proposed subcontractor in performing its cost realism analysis of the 
awardee's proposal, which was based upon a technical approach similar 
to that taken in the prior contracts.

2.  Protest that the award of a contract to an offeror submitting the 
proposal with the second-highest combined technical and cost score was 
improper is denied; where solicitation sets forth detailed 
point-scoring scheme but does not state that award will be based on 
high score, award may be made to the offeror submitting the 
lower-cost, lower-scored proposal where the agency reasonably 
determines that there is no significant difference in technical merit 
that justifies the payment of a cost premium.

DECISION

DATEX, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Mendez England & 
Associates (MEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
OP/A/FAO-95-P-002, issued by the U.S. Agency for International 
Development for administrative, technical, and program support for the 
agency's Bureau of Humanitarian Response, Office of Food for Peace.  
DATEX challenges the evaluation of its and MEA's cost proposals, and 
the agency's selection of MEA's lower cost proposal for award.

We deny the protest.[1]

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 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base period of 3 years with 
two 1-year options.  The RFP
informed offerors that award would be made to the responsible offeror 
whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, 
cost and other factors considered.  The RFP listed seven technical 
evaluation criteria and their weighting, which totaled 100 points, and 
stated that the "cost evaluation would be given a total of 20 points."

The RFP requested the submission of technical and cost proposals, and 
provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals.  
Offerors were informed that technical proposals should be organized by 
the RFP's evaluation criteria, and should address how the offeror 
intends to carry out the RFP's statement of work (SOW).  In this 
regard, the RFP stated that technical proposals were to "set forth in 
detail [the offeror's] approach and schedule, technical resources, 
technical experience and background, unique or specialized skills, and 
physical facilities."  With regard to the cost proposals, the RFP 
required that each offeror provide a budget listing amounts for the 
following:  total salaries; overhead; consultants; travel; per diem; 
[general and administrative]; subcontractors; fixed fee; and total 
price.  Offerors were also to include "[s]upporting information in 
sufficient detail to allow a complete analysis [of] each of the costs 
proposed."    

The agency received three proposals, including MEA's and DATEX's, by 
the RFP's August 2, 1995, closing date.  The agency's technical 
evaluation committee (TEC) evaluated the offerors' technical 
proposals.  DATEX's initial proposal received 82.7 out of 100 total 
technical points, at a proposed cost of $9,496,694.  MEA's proposal 
received 80.7 technical points, at a proposed cost of $6,313,287.  

The cost proposals were evaluated by the cognizant contracting 
specialist.  In performing his evaluation, the contracting specialist 
considered the offerors' proposed costs relative to their technical 
approaches, and compared the offerors' proposed costs to the estimates 
set forth in the agency's illustrative budget.  Because the RFP 
reflected, in large part, the combination of services currently 
provided under two separate contracts (one performed by MEA and the 
other performed by MEA's proposed subcontractor under this 
RFP--Advanced Resources Technologies, Inc. (ARTI)), the agency also 
compared the proposed costs to the costs incurred under these 
predecessor contracts.  The cost proposals were also reviewed by the 
agency's contract audit management branch.

The proposals of DATEX and MEA were included in the competitive 
range.[2]  Discussions were conducted, during which, among other 
things, the offerors were asked questions regarding certain aspects of 
their cost proposals.  Best and final offers (BAFO) were requested, 
received, and evaluated.  

DATEX's BAFO received 89.7 technical points at a proposed cost of 
$8,994,315, and MEA's BAFO received 85.3 technical points at a 
proposed cost of $7,112,010.   The agency determined that both 
offerors' cost proposals were realistic, and thus made no adjustments 
to the offerors' proposed costs.  Because MEA's proposed the lowest 
overall total cost, it received 20 out of 20 points under the cost 
evaluation criterion, for a total technical and cost score of 105.3 
points.  DATEX's proposal received a score of 15 points under the cost 
evaluation criterion, which was calculated by dividing MEA's total 
cost by DATEX's and then multiplying the product by 20.  The agency 
calculated DATEX's total technical and cost score as 104.7 points.  
The agency determined that MEA's proposal represented the best value 
to the government and made award to that firm.  After being informed 
that MEA had received award, and being provided with a debriefing, 
DATEX filed this protest.

DATEX first protests that the agency failed to perform a proper cost 
realism analysis of its and MEA's proposals.  When an agency evaluates 
a proposal for the award of a cost reimbursement contract, an 
offeror's proposed estimated costs are not dispositive because, 
regardless of the costs proposed, the government is bound to pay the 
contractor its actual and allowable costs.  Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  sec.  15.605(c).  Consequently, a cost realism analysis must be 
performed by the agency to determine the extent to which an offeror's 
proposed costs represents what the contract should cost, assuming 
reasonable economy and efficiency.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., 
B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51.  That is, the 
purpose of a cost realism analysis is to determine what, in the 
government's view, it would realistically cost the offeror to perform 
given the offeror's technical approach.  Hager Sharp, Inc., B-258812, 
Feb. 17, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  93.  An agency is not required, however, to 
perform an in-depth analysis or to verify each item in conducting its 
cost realism analysis.  GTE Gov't Sys. Corp., B-260022; B-260022.2, 
May 16, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  245.  Because the contracting agency is in 
the best position to make this cost realism determination, our review 
of an agency's judgment in this area is limited to determining whether 
the agency's cost evaluation was reasonably based and not arbitrary.  
Infotec Dev., Inc., B-258198 et al., Dec. 27, 1994, 95-1 CPD  para.  52. 

The protester objects to the agency's reliance during its cost realism 
analysis of MEA's proposal on the costs incurred under the predecessor 
contracts.  DATEX claims that the statements of work contained in the 
predecessor contracts and the RFP at issue are too dissimilar to allow 
for such an analysis to be valid.  The protester specifically contends 
that MEA's proposed costs for consultants
[DELETED], travel [DELETED], and meetings [DELETED], were unreasonably 
low and should have been adjusted upwards by the agency for evaluation 
purposes.[3]  
In our view, the predecessor contracts, which were performed by MEA 
and its subcontractor, are substantially similar to the RFP in scope 
such that we see nothing unreasonable in the agency's reference to 
their costs in performing its cost realism analysis of MEA's proposal 
which, according to the agency, relied upon a technical approach 
similar to that used in the predecessor contracts.  Hearing Transcript 
(Tr.) at 158.  Although the protester notes that the RFP includes 
three analyst positions not provided for under either of the 
predecessor contracts, we do not see, nor has the protester explained, 
why this difference renders the contracts useless as a tool for the 
performance of the agency's cost realism analysis with regard to the 
proposed costs for meetings, travel, and the use of consultants, that 
is, for those aspects of MEA's cost proposal that the protester 
contends are understated.[4]

With regard to the consultant costs, the contracting specialist 
determined that under the predecessor contracts the costs for 
consultants over a 4-1/2-year period totaled $219,176, from which he 
deducted the costs associated with contract modifications for tasks 
not set forth in the SOWs of either of the predecessor RFPs or this 
RFP.   For example, the contracting specialist deducted the consultant 
costs associated with a conference held in 1994 commemorating the 40th 
anniversary of the Food for Peace program.  The contract specialist 
concluded that the predecessor contract consultant costs that should 
be used for comparison purposes was $171,389.[5]  Tr. at 123.  Based 
on this information, and the agency's conclusion that MEA's proposed 
consultant costs were consistent with its technical approach, the 
contracting specialist determined that MEA's proposed costs of 
[DELETED] for consultants were reasonable.  The protester's view 
notwithstanding, we find reasonable the contracting specialist's 
calculation of consultant costs used for comparison purposes to assess 
the realism of MEA's proposed costs (for example, it is reasonable to 
conclude that another decennial commemorative conference would not 
occur during the 5-year contract period contemplated by this RFP).  

The contracting specialist employed the same methods using the 
predecessor contract costs in determining that MEA's proposed costs 
for travel and meetings were realistic, which DATEX also has not shown 
were unreasonable.  The protester argues that the RFP's SOW differs 
from that in the prior contracts in that the RFP requires greater 
contractor participation in site visits, which, according to the 
protester, relates to increased travel and meeting costs.  However, 
neither the RFP's SOW nor those set forth in the contracts mandate any 
particular number of site visits or meetings to be held.  Rather, the 
RFP and predecessor contracts mention these responsibilities in very 
general and, in our view, similar terms.  Because of the similarity of 
the references in the RFP and predecessor contracts to site visits and 
meetings, the general terms used, as well as the agency's testimony at 
the hearing (which was not challenged by the protester) that the 
amount of travel and meetings required by the RFP's SOW is similar to 
the requirements of the predecessor contracts, the agency could 
reasonably refer to the costs incurred under the predecessor contracts 
for travel and meetings in performing its cost realism analysis of 
MEA's proposal.

Although DATEX specifically argues that MEA's proposed costs for 
consultants, travel, and meetings are understated, it offers no 
explanation as to why this is the case.[6]  That is, despite DATEX's 
access to MEA's entire proposal and all of the evaluation 
documentation under a protective order issued by our Office, there is 
no reference in any of DATEX's submissions as to why the protester 
believes that MEA's proposed costs are unrealistic in view of MEA's 
technical approach.  The protester merely continues to argue that the 
methodology employed by the agency in the conduct of its cost realism 
analysis was flawed.  In the absence of any showing by the protester 
that MEA's proposed costs were inconsistent with its proposed 
technical approach or otherwise unreasonable, we find that the 
methodology employed by the agency, in which it primarily relied upon 
relevant historical costs in performing it cost realism analysis, was 
adequate to determine that MEA's proposed costs were reasonable.  See 
United Int'l Eng'g, Inc. et al., 71 Comp. Gen. 177 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  
122.

DATEX also protests that the agency's evaluation of its own proposed 
costs was unreasonable.  In addition to again arguing that the 
agency's method of performing its cost realism analysis was flawed, 
DATEX argues, for example, that a proper evaluation of its proposed 
costs would have resulted in a downward adjustment to its proposed 
direct costs because, according to DATEX, [DELETED].  

This argument is without merit.  Based upon our review, and as 
conceded by the protester, Tr. at 358, it was not readily apparent 
that [DELETED].  Since an agency's evaluation is dependent upon 
information furnished in a proposal, it is the offeror's burden to 
submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate, 
Infotec Dev., Inc., supra, and DATEX's failure to fulfill its 
obligation in this regard does not render the agency's evaluation 
unreasonable.

DATEX finally challenges the agency's determination that MEA's 
proposal represented the best value to the government based upon the 
evaluation criteria and their relative weighting.  DATEX points out, 
and the agency concedes, that its score under the cost evaluation 
criterion should have been calculated as 15.8 points rather than 15 
points, and that its combined technical and cost score should have 
been 105.5 points.  DATEX concludes here that because its properly 
calculated total cost/technical score of 105.5 points is higher than 
MEA's total score of 105.3 points, the terms of the RFP required that 
it be awarded the contract.

Contrary to the protester's assertion, the solicitation, while 
containing a precise evaluation formula, did not state that the award 
would be made to the offeror with the highest-scored proposal.  It 
provided instead that award would be made to the offeror whose 
proposal was most advantageous to the government based on the cost and 
technical factors set forth in the RFP.  Under such circumstances, if 
the contracting officer determines that there is no significant 
difference in the technical merit of the competing proposals, award 
may be made to the lower-cost offeror, even though its total point 
score is lower.  Telecommunications Management Corp., 57 Comp. Gen. 
251 (1978), 78-1 CPD  para.  80.

Here, the contracting officer found that the proposals of MEA and 
DATEX, as evidenced by the difference of only four points in their 
relative technical scores, were substantially equal technically.  Tr. 
at 308, 326-328.  The contracting officer explained that in reaching 
this conclusion, she considered, among other things, the narratives 
prepared by the TEC, and determined that the slight difference in 
technical scores did not justify an additional $1.9 million in costs.  
Tr. at 310, 327.  The contracting officer thus concluded, consistent 
with the RFP's statement that "[t]he proposed price between 
substantially equal technical proposals shall be a major factor in 
selection of a proposal for award," that MEA's substantially 
technically equal but considerably lower cost proposal represented the 
best value to the government.  Nothing in this record establishes that 
the contracting officer's determination was unreasonable.  

Accordingly, the protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. A hearing was held in this protest pursuant to our Bid Protest 
Regulations, section 21.7, 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,742 (Aug. 10, 1995) 
(to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.7), at which certain of the issues 
raised were addressed by the parties.  Our conclusions are based on 
the testimony at the hearing as well as the written submissions of the 
parties.

2. The third proposal received a much lower technical score and was 
eliminated from the competitive range.

3. The protester argues for the first time in its comments on the 
hearing, submitted on March 14, 1996, that MEA's proposed salaries are 
unreasonably low.  Because the protester knew or should have known of 
this basis of protest on November 21, 1995, when it received the 
agency report in response to its initial protest to our Office of the 
award to MEA, this argument is untimely and will not be considered.  
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));  GE 
Gov't Servs., B-235101, Aug. 11, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  128.

4. The agency's Chief of Programs Operations Division, who prepared 
the RFP's SOW and who was the contracting officer's technical 
representative for the predecessor contracts held by MEA and ARTI, 
testified that during the budgetary process the agency decided to 
combine the predecessor contracts into one contract, and that she 
prepared the RFP's SOW by combining the SOWs from the two predecessor 
contracts.  Tr. at 12-13.  She added that after further review within 
the agency, three new analyst positions were added, but that the 
contract to be awarded under the RFP is "pretty much the same as the 
combined two contracts,"  Tr. at 14, 15, and would not require more 
travel, meetings, or the use of consultants.  Tr. at 64, 65.

5. The contracting specialist also verified that the consultant costs 
incurred under the predecessor contract were consistent with those 
proposed by MEA for the predecessor contract.  Tr. at 117, 118.

6. DATEX initially based this contention upon the differences between 
MEA's proposed costs and the costs set forth in the agency's 
illustrative budget.  However, as evident from the record, the 
illustrative budget was not prepared as a cost estimate but rather as 
a funding request.  Tr. at 26.  Indeed, as now conceded by the 
protester, the illustrative budget was not a valid basis to determine 
the reasonableness of MEA's proposed costs in these areas.  Tr. at 
336-338.  Although we fail to understand why the agency referenced 
this budget in its discussion of its cost realism analysis, this alone 
does not render unreasonable the cost realism analysis of MEA's 
proposal.