BNUMBER:  B-270364; B-270364.2
DATE:  March 4, 1996
TITLE:  Volmar Construction, Inc.

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

Matter of:Volmar Construction, Inc.

File:     B-270364; B-270364.2

Date:     March 4, 1996       

V. James Adduci II, Esq., and Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Adduci, 
Mastriani & Schaumberg, for the protester.
J. Kevin Bridston, Esq., Holland & Hart, for MCC Construction Corp., 
an intervenor.
Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., and Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., 
Department of the Army, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency conducted meaningful discussions where questions posed were 
sufficient to direct the protester to the agency's primary areas of 
concern about its proposal; all-encompassing discussions are not 
required.

2.  Under a solicitation in which technical factors were more 
important than price, the selection of the awardee on the basis of its 
overall technical superiority, notwithstanding its higher price, is 
unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the 
awardee's higher-priced proposal, which evidenced in particular 
superior relevant contract experience and past performance, was worth 
the additional cost, and the cost/technical tradeoff was consistent 
with the evaluation scheme.

DECISION

Volmar Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to MCC 
Construction Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAKF29-95-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army for small to 
medium repair and minor construction projects at Fort Dix, New Jersey 
and at various other installations throughout New Jersey and New York.  
The protester contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions and that the award determination reflects an improper 
cost/technical tradeoff.  

The protests are denied. 

The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite 
quantity job order contract (JOC) for a base year with 2 option years, 
dividing the work to be completed into six geographic zones.  Offerors 
were requested to submit a technical proposal addressing the 
technical/management evaluation areas and a pricing proposal.  The RFP 
advised that award would be made on the basis of the best overall 
value in terms of management, technical, quality control, and price.  
Technical excellence was slightly more important than price, and 
consisted of a management factor, including eight subfactors; a 
technical factor, including five subfactors; and, a quality control 
factor, including five subfactors.  Within the technical excellence 
area, management was slightly more important than technical or quality 
control, which were of equal importance. 

Ten firms, including Volmar and MCC, submitted initial proposals by 
the closing date.  After the initial evaluation, the source selection 
evaluation board (SSEB) concluded that all 10 firms were within the 
competitive range.  In its evaluation, the SSEB provided numerical 
scores and corresponding adjectival ratings to express the merit of 
the technical proposals, as follows:

     Percentage Point    Score Adjectival Rating
        90 to 100             Excellent
        70 to 89              Satisfactory
        50 to 69              Marginal

The ratings were supported by detailed narrative technical findings by 
the SSEB of the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror's proposal in 
each evaluation area.  

Following its initial proposal evaluation, the SSEB assigned Volmar's 
technical proposal the following percentage scores under the 
management factor:  93 for subcontractor coordination; 95 for general 
management; 93 for purchasing system; 91 for management staff list; 91 
for management plan; 30 for payroll/labor plan; 94 for response time; 
and 50 for subcontracting plan.  The summary narrative for this factor 
listed no strengths but six weaknesses for Volmar's payroll/labor 
plan.  The evaluation of its subcontracting plan indicated that Volmar 
was judged deficient on one factor.  

Under the technical factor, the SSEB assigned Volmar's proposal a 
percentage score of 93 for its ability to deal with a number of small 
construction projects simultaneously; 78 for experience; 94 for 
technical staff; 97 for project managers; and, 96 for its 
subcontractors.  No specific strengths or weaknesses were listed in 
the narrative concerning Volmar's experience/past performance.  

Finally, under quality control, the SSEB assigned Volmar's initial 
proposal 87 percent for its inspection techniques; 87 percent for its 
corrective action program; 72 percent for its customer complaint 
program; 97 percent for its accident prevention program; and, 87 
percent for documentation and reports.  The summary narrative listed 
one weakness in Volmar's inspection techniques. 

Volmar's overall technical score on its initial proposal was 86 
percent. 

Written discussions were initiated with all offerors in the 
competitive range.  The agency addressed eight questions to Volmar 
concerning its proposal:  two questions concerning price and six 
questions concerning management, including Volmar's proposed plan to 
administer payroll and labor relations functions and its proposed 
subcontracting plan.  Specifically, as to its payroll/labor plan, the 
protester was advised that its proposal (1) did not contain a plan for 
compliance with equal opportunity provisions; (2) did not contain a 
plan for compliance with Affirmative Action for Handicapped Workers; 
(3) did not address Special Disabled and Vietnam Era Veterans 
provisions; (4) did not address a Special Employee program; and (5) 
did not provide procedures for reporting, investigating, and resolving 
Equal Employment Opportunity complaints.  As to Volmar's 
subcontracting plan, the protester was informed that its plan did not 
contain a policy statement or evidence of internal guidance to company 
buyers recognizing commitment to specified public laws.  In response, 
in its best and final offer (BAFO), the protester described its plans 
for each of these special employee programs and addressed the weakness 
cited in its subcontracting plan.  

Following receipt of BAFOs, the SSEB completed its final technical 
evaluation of proposals.  The SSEB rescored Volmar's payroll/labor 
plan, giving Volmar's revised proposal a percentage score of 95 on 
this subfactor and raising its overall technical score to 89.  
Volmar's subcontractor's plan, however, was not reevaluated or 
rescored and Volmar's percentage score of 50 on this subfactor was 
left unchanged.  The overall scores, adjectival ratings and BAFO 
prices for the 5 highest-ranked proposals were as follows:

                         BAFO
Offeror   Technical ScoreAdjectival Rating   Price
MCC          93          Excellent           $5,705,580
Offeror A    93          Excellent           $7,912,786
Offeror B    90          Excellent           $6,822,573
Offeror C    90          Excellent           $6,780,000
Volmar       89          Satisfactory        $5,094,710

Of these five proposals, the agency determined that MCC, with the 
highest rated technical proposal (scoring in the excellent range for 
all 3 technical excellence factors) and the second-lowest price 
represented the best value to the government and MCC was awarded the 
contract.  Volmar was given a written debriefing, dated October 25, 
and this protest followed.

Volmar argues that the Army failed to conduct meaningful discussions.  
Specifically, Volmar contends that the Army should have raised 
concerns regarding its quality control--customer complaint plan and 
its quality control--inspection system.  To support its position, 
Volmar points to its percentage score of 72 for its customer complaint 
plan and the Army's statement in its cost/technical tradeoff 
determination that Volmar's low rating for its customer complaint 
program was one reason for selecting MCC's higher-priced proposal for 
award.  As to its inspection system, Volmar argues that the weakness 
cited by the agency, its failure to specify acceptable quality levels 
of performance for each major element, was easily correctable and 
would have undoubtedly raised its overall rating.  The protester 
alleges that "it is clear that the quality control plan weaknesses had 
a significant adverse impact on Volmar's technical rating" and 
therefore the Army was obligated to discuss these weaknesses with 
Volmar.  Again, Volmar points to its overall rating of 86 percent 
(compared to MCC's overall rating of 94 percent on this factor) to 
support its position.  The protester alleges that had the Army 
discussed its quality control weaknesses, its subfactor scores and its 
overall rating score would have increased.

Agencies are not required to afford offerors all-encompassing 
discussions.  They must point out weaknesses that, unless corrected, 
would prevent an offeror from having a reasonable chance for award, 
Department of the Navy--Recon., 72 Comp. Gen. 221 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  
422, and need only lead offerors generally into the areas of their 
proposals that require amplification.  TM Sys., Inc., B-228220, Dec. 
10, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  573.  Where a proposal is considered to be 
acceptable and in the competitive range, an agency is not required to 
discuss every aspect of the proposal that offers a relatively less 
desirable approach or more limited experience than other proposals.  
Data Sys. Analysts, Inc., B-255684; B-255684.2, Mar. 22, 1994, 94-1 
CPD  para.  209; Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767; B-242767.2, June 5, 
1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  530.    

The record indicates that the Army had no significant concerns with 
the protester's customer complaint program or its inspection system.  
As noted, the primary flaws in Volmar's initial proposal related to 
its payroll/labor and its subcontracting plans.  Indeed, while 
Volmar's proposal received a score of 30 percent for its payroll/labor 
plan and a score of 50 percent for its subcontracting plan, it 
received scores of 72 percent and 87 percent for the customer 
complaint and inspection system, respectively.  Moreover, the agency's 
evaluation narrative listed no weaknesses for Volmar's customer 
complaint program and one weakness for Volmar's inspection system, 
which the agency found fully acceptable.  

An agency is not required during discussions to discuss elements of a 
proposal that are not deficient and need not conduct discussions in an 
area where an offeror is acceptable in order to bring the proposal up 
to the level of other proposals.  See Biloxi-D'Iberville Press, 
B-243975.2, Sept. 27, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  301; Martin Advertising Agency, 
Inc., B-225347, Mar. 13, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  285.  Nor is an agency 
required to advise an offeror of a minor weakness that is not 
considered significant, even where it subsequently becomes the 
determinative factor when two closely-ranked proposals are compared.  
Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., B-249236.2 et al., Mar. 5, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  209; Training and Management Resources, Inc., B-220965, Mar. 12, 
1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  244.  Here, the Army's discussion questions, noted 
above, led Volmar into the areas of its proposal that the Army 
considered weak, specifically, its payroll/labor program and its 
subcontracting plan.  Since the protester's customer complaint plan 
and its inspection system were never considered meaningful weaknesses, 
the Army was not obligated to discuss them, and the Army's conduct of 
discussions with Volmar was unobjectionable.     

Volmar also argues that the Army did not perform a proper 
cost/technical tradeoff.  The protester argues that the Army relied 
almost exclusively on the adjectival ratings given to the offerors and 
failed to qualitatively distinguish between Volmar's and MCC's 
proposals.

Source selection officials in negotiated procurements have broad 
discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will 
make use of technical and cost evaluation results.  Grey Advertising, 
Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325; Mevatec Corp., 
B-260419, May 26, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  33.  Agencies may make 
cost/technical tradeoffs in deciding between competing proposals and 
the propriety of such tradeoffs turns not on the difference in 
technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection 
official's judgment concerning the significance of that difference was 
reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP evaluation 
scheme.  See Wyle Labs., Inc.; Latecoere Int'l, Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 
648 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  107.  

Contrary to the protester's allegation, the record shows that the 
contracting officer reviewed the full technical evaluation record 
(including the strengths, weaknesses, and concerns cited for the 
proposals), as well as the resulting point scores, adjectival ratings, 
and cost evaluation results.  While the contracting officer's award 
determination statement concluding that MCC offered the best value to 
the government focuses on the adjectival ratings, the determination 
provides a reasoned analysis for the selection.  The determination 
points out, for example, that, although the contractors were 
technically capable of performing the work, MCC was the only 
contractor receiving excellent ratings in every technical factor.  The 
award determination statement also notes Volmar's less satisfactory 
subcontracting and customer complaint programs.  

Because its subcontracting plan was not reevaluated or rescored after 
BAFOs, as noted above, Volmar argues that the agency's reliance on its 
allegedly less satisfactory subcontracting plan is improper.[1]  
However, the record shows that the protester's score on its proposed 
subcontracting plan was inconsequential in the overall scoring scheme 
and the cost/technical tradeoff.  While Volmar's overall percentage 
score could have increased to as much as 90 percent had Volmar's 
subcontracting plan been properly evaluated, the source selection 
official, in the agency's supplemental report filed after Volmar 
raised this issue, makes it clear that this differential had no impact 
on her cost/technical tradeoff, stating explicitly that relevant 
contract experience and past performance were the important 
discriminators in comparing MCC's proposal with Volmar's lower-priced 
proposal.  In this regard, the record shows that MCC had completed 17 
JOC contracts with past performance quality ratings from its four 
references of primarily 8 to 10 on a scale of 10; Volmar had completed 
only one JOC contract with a past performance quality rating from its 
reference of 3 to 6 on this 10-point scale.  MCC's JOC experience and 
its high performance ratings from references were regarded by the 
agency as determinative, since the most important subfactors under 
both the management and the technical factors related to the 
contractor's ability to manage and coordinate multiple projects, as 
required by JOC contracts.[2]  The agency indicates that the 
difference in JOC experience alone would warrant award to MCC at its 
slightly higher--approximately 12 percent--price.  

Finally, the award determination statement specifically states that 
while Volmar offered the lowest price, the cost savings were not 
significant given the technical advantages of MCC's proposal.  The 
Army states that this is the most important contract at Fort Dix 
because the base must complete various construction and renovation 
jobs to meet its changed mission under the Base Realignment and 
Closure Commission's 1991 recommendations and still be prepared to 
meet its reserve training and special training obligations.  In order 
to meet these requirements with its reduced work force, the Army 
cannot as carefully oversee the contracts but must rely on the quality 
performances of its contractors.  The Army reasonably assessed MCC's 
proposal as establishing that MCC is the more proven, reliable 
contractor for this critical requirement.  Under these circumstances 
and given that technical factors are more important than price, we 
have no basis to object to the award selection.
  
The protests are denied. 

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Volmar first argued that the agency improperly failed to reevaluate 
and rescore its subcontracting plan after submission of BAFOs in a 
supplemental protest to our Office.  Additionally, in this 
supplemental protest, the protester also argued for the first time 
that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and that the 
cost/technical tradeoff was based upon a flawed technical evaluation.  
Specifically, Volmar argues that the Army improperly evaluated its 
subcontracting plan and customer complaint program, improperly 
evaluated MCC's past performance, and was biased in favor of MCC.  As 
noted above, however, the protester was debriefed by letter dated 
October 25.  In that debriefing, the protester was advised that its 
proposal was less adequate than the awardee's in terms of its 
subcontracting plan and its quality control plan, which includes the 
customer complaint program, and that it had less extensive experience 
than the awardee.  If the protester believed that it or MCC had been 
improperly evaluated on these factors or on subfactors within these 
factors, to be timely it was required to protest to our Office within 
14 days of receipt of the debriefing letter.  Bid Protest Regulations  sec.  
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)) (protests not based upon alleged 
improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 14 
calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the 
basis of protest, whichever is earlier).  Since Volmar did not raise 
these issues until December 20, its protest on these issues is 
untimely.

2. Volmar argues that the agency is placing improper emphasis on JOC 
experience since the RFP did not state that JOC experience was 
required or would be rated more favorably than performance of other 
maintenance/repair contracts. Although the RFP did not expressly 
require previous JOC experience, the Army's consideration of whether 
an offeror had substantially similar experience was proper.  The 
consideration of such relevant experience was directly encompassed by 
the RFP's technical evaluation subfactors for subcontractor 
coordination, the ability to manage multiple projects simultaneously, 
and past performance history.    These evaluation subfactors, and the 
importance assigned to them by the RFP, clearly put offerors on notice 
that the agency intended to consider factors--such as the degree of 
relevance and similarity in the projects--that would demonstrate the 
offeror's understanding of and ability to perform the current 
requirement.  See AWD Technologies, Inc., B-250081.2; B-250081.3, Feb. 
1, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  83.