BNUMBER:  B-270374
DATE:  March 1, 1996
TITLE:  McWane and Company, Inc.

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

Matter of:McWane and Company, Inc.

File:     B-270374

Date:March 1, 1996

Gilbert J. McWane for the protester.
John Donaldson, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

The procuring agency properly determined that the protester's low 
priced proposal was technically unacceptable where the protester 
failed to provide sufficient information, as required by the 
solicitation, to allow the agency to evaluate a required key person 
and the protester's proposal demonstrated a lack of understanding of 
the contract requirements.

DECISION

McWane and Company, Inc. (MACI) protests the award of a contract to 
Consulting and Program Management Services, Inc. (CPMS) by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DTNH22-95-R-04122 for inventory and property control support services.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the 
award of a firm, fixed-priced contract for 1 base with 4 option years.  
The RFP's statement of work described the agency's need for a 
full-time inventory clerk, with supervision as necessary, to support 
the overall maintenance of an existing automated property control 
system for approximately 10,000 items of non-expendable personal 
property located at headquarters, field facilities, and contractor 
sites.  The contractor is to provide qualified personnel on-site 
during normal office hours, not to exceed 40 hours per week.  The 
solicitation included the agency's standard operating procedures for 
property management, and requires the contractor to process incoming 
property, excess property, and transfers of property, and to perform 
an annual inventory in accordance with these standard operating 
procedures.  The RFP also stated that contractor personnel will be 
supplied with the necessary equipment and supplies to perform the 
property management task.

A best value basis for award was stated, and the following technical 
evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance:  
qualifications of project personnel; program management; and 
experience of the organization.  Offerors were informed that technical 
considerations were of primary importance and that a higher-priced 
proposal could be accepted if technical considerations made the offer 
most advantageous to the government.  Offerors were also informed that 
the government intended to make award on initial proposals without 
conducting discussions and, accordingly, offerors were cautioned to 
submit proposals on the most favorable basis.

The agency received proposals from six offerors, including MACI and 
the awardee.  Three proposals, including the awardee's, were 
determined to be technically acceptable.  MACI's proposal and another 
offeror's proposal was found to be technically unacceptable but with 
correction potential, and another offeror's proposal was found to be 
technically unacceptable and not correctable.  Regarding MACI's 
proposal, the agency found that MACI had provided insufficient 
information to allow the agency to evaluate the qualifications of its 
proposed inventory clerk.  Also, MACI's proposal was "geared toward 
the implementation, start-up, and management of a new property 
system," rather than on-site support for the agency's existing system; 
in the agency's judgment, this demonstrated a lack of understanding of 
the solicitation requirements.  

The contracting officer determined that given the adequate price 
competition obtained from the technically acceptable offerors, 
discussions were not necessary.  Award was made to CPMS, the firm 
submitting the lowest-priced and highest-rated offer.  MACI requested 
and received a debriefing, and this protest followed.

MACI challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and asserts 
that it is entitled to award as the offeror submitting the lowest 
price.[1] 

In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency's evaluation 
of proposals, it is not the function of our Office to independently 
weigh the merits of the offers.  Microeconomic Applications, Inc., 
B-258633.2, Feb. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  82.  Rather, the evaluation of 
proposals is a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency 
since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best 
method of accommodating them.  Ascom Hasler Mailing Sys., Inc., 
B-257327, Sept. 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  137.  Consequently, we will 
question an agency's evaluation only where the record clearly shows 
that the evaluation does not have a reasonable basis or is 
inconsistent with the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP.  
Engineering Inc., B-257822.5, Aug. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  130.  A 
protester's mere disagreement with the agency does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.  Id.  Here, we find that the agency 
reasonably determined that MACI's proposal was technically 
unacceptable.[2]

First, MACI's proposal was evaluated as providing insufficient 
information concerning its proposed inventory clerk.  The agency 
considered this a significant deficiency under the qualifications of 
project personnel factor, the most heavily weighted evaluation factor.  
Under this factor, offerors were required to provide information 
regarding the education, experience and availability of the key 
personnel (the inventory clerk and property manager) that would be 
assigned to this contract.  The instructions stated that this may be 
in the form of a recruiting announcement (including a position 
description) or resumes of existing personnel.  The statement of work 
required that on-site contractor personnel, such as the on-site 
inventory clerk, have relevant experience "in property management data 
entry and filing, and shall be thoroughly familiar with data entry 
using a keyboard and CRT type screen, and filing of documentation."  
MACI provided the following information regarding the inventory clerk 
in its proposal:

     "On-site Person:  MACI's policy is to not necessarily commit to a 
     new hire when an incumbent contractor has people in place.  
     However, we have a number of candidates who are well qualified 
     for this position.  Accordingly, upon notification of award, we 
     will be in a better position to determinate whether to retain the 
     existing on-site person or bring in one of our candidates.  As a 
     successful offeror, our access to the information needed to make 
     this critical decision would be more readily available.

     "The MACI qualifications for this position are:  property 
     management/supply clerk with solid data entry skills.  Must be a 
     self starter, customer oriented and able to work independently.  
     Previous bar coding experience a plus." 

While MACI correctly notes that it was not required to identify a 
specific individual to fill the inventory clerk position, the 
solicitation required offerors to provide sufficient information to 
allow the agency to evaluate the quality and acceptability of the 
inventory clerk the agency could expect to receive.  Specifically, the 
RFP required that offerors, at a minimum, identify the educational and 
experience qualifications that would be required of potential 
inventory clerks and the availability of such candidates.  Here, MACI 
merely informed the agency that it had candidates in mind, and that 
the qualifications for these candidates included "solid data entry 
skills," being a "self starter," and "customer oriented."  We agree 
with the agency that this information does not demonstrate the 
education or experience that the agency could expect to receive in the 
inventory clerk position during contract performance.  MACI also did 
not provide information regarding the availability of any proposed 
candidates, other than to state that such candidates exist.  In this 
regard, MACI's statement that it might consider hiring the incumbent 
inventory clerk also does not indicate availability of an inventory 
clerk because MACI does not state whether it has approached this 
individual to inquire of his availability or interest in employment 
with MACI.  We think that the agency properly downgraded MACI for the 
qualifications of project personnel factor.

The record also supports the agency's downgrading of MACI's proposal 
under the next most important evaluation factor, program management.  
The agency found that MACI's proposal evidenced a lack of 
understanding of the limited role of the contractor in supporting the 
property management function; that MACI essentially proposed to "take 
over," rather than merely support, the existing property management 
function.  For example, MACI purposed to analyze the existing system 
for possible improvements; to perform random spot checks; and to 
develop a standard bar code placement guide for each type of 
equipment, "a pre-inventory plan" for an initial inventory, and 
"better ways of providing responsible inventory and customer service 
through the use of reasonably available technology."  The RFP here did 
not seek development of, or changes to, the existing property 
management process and system.  While MACI argues that it has offered 
the agency more than what was required by the RFP, the fact is its 
proposal did not indicate its understanding that the contractor is 
merely to support the agency's day-to-day operational service of an 
existing system and not remake the system.  We find the agency's 
evaluation of this aspect of MACI's proposal to be reasonable.  See 
Hill's Capitol Sec., Inc., B-233411, Mar. 15, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  274.  

In sum, we find that the agency properly determined that MACI's 
proposal was technically unacceptable as submitted, based on the two 
deficiencies discussed above, and that given the agency's 
determination to make award on initial proposals, a determination 
which MACI has not protested, the agency properly did not consider 
MACI's proposal for award.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Initially, MACI complained that it did not receive a debriefing 
within 5 days of its request.  Because the agency addressed this issue 
in its report, and the protester did not respond in its comments, we 
consider this protest ground to be abandoned.  See CSR, Inc., 
B-260955, Aug. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  59. 

2. Although MACI asserts that it was informed in its debriefing that 
its proposal was found to be technically acceptable, the record shows 
that the technical evaluators and contracting officer evaluated MACI's 
proposal as technically unacceptable.