BNUMBER:  B-270491; B-270590
DATE:  March 13, 1996
TITLE:  Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc.

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

Matter of:Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc.

File:     B-270491; B-270590

Date:March 13, 1996

Ronald Draughon for the protester.
Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., and Bryant S. Banes, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency reasonably decided not to attribute a proposed key 
employee's experience to the protester for purposes of a hospital 
housekeeping solicitation's contractor-experience requirement where 
the requirement was designed to ensure that the offeror's performance 
of the services in healthcare/patient care environments demonstrated 
compliance with federal regulations and hospital accreditation 
requirements. 

2.  Where agency reasonably excluded the protester's proposal from the 
competitive range as technically unacceptable and thus ineligible for 
award, it is irrelevant that agency did not address the protester's 
proposed price during discussions. 

DECISION

Atlantic Coast Contracting (ACC) protests its exclusion from the 
competitive ranges established in two Department of the Army 
procurements for hospital housekeeping services, one for services at 
Reynolds Army Community Hospital, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and the other 
for services at Weed Army Community Hospital, Fort Irwin, California 
(request for proposals (RFP) nos. DADA10-95-R-0032 and -0040, 
respectively).  ACC principally contends that the Army in each case 
improperly failed to attribute the experience of ACC's proposed 
Executive Housekeeper, who would be the key person under each 
contract, to the company for purposes of meeting the RFP's 
contractor-experience requirement.  

We deny the protests.

The Fort Sill RFP required that the contractor have "experience in 
providing housekeeping services in healthcare/patient care 
environments (e.g. clinical, laboratory, etc. settings)"; the Fort 
Irwin RFP requirement was almost the same. The minimum level of 
acceptable experience required by each RFP was 24 months within the 
previous 36 months from the initial proposal due date.  Each RFP also 
required the contractor to provide a contract manager, called an 
"Executive Housekeeper," who would be responsible for the performance 
of the work.  The minimum requirement for the Executive Housekeeper 
was at least 1 year of experience as a hospital Executive Housekeeper 
or at least 2 years of experience as an assistant Executive 
Housekeeper within the last 3 years.

The Army excluded ACC's proposals from the competitive ranges 
established in the procurements in part because the company did not 
meet the contractor-experience requirement.  ACC, conceding that it 
does not, as a company, have 24 months experience within the previous 
36 months, argues that the Army in each procurement should have 
accepted the company's proposed Executive Housekeeper as fulfilling 
the contractor-experience requirement.  ACC points out that because it 
is a relatively new business the only way it can meet the 
contractor-experience requirement is through the proposed Executive 
Housekeeper's experience, unless the Army were to accept for purposes 
of the requirement ACC's experience in providing hospital food 
services.

We find nothing unreasonable in the Army's decision that ACC does not 
meet the contractor-experience requirement, which, the record shows, 
led to a low score for ACC for technical experience under each RFP's 
technical approach evaluation factor.[1]

We considered essentially the same contractor-experience requirement 
in our decision in Industrial Maintenance Servs., Inc., B-261671 et 
al., Oct. 3, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  157, which concerned three other Army 
procurements of hospital housekeeping services.  The Army there 
reported that the requirement that offerors have performed 
housekeeping services in a healthcare or patient care environment for 
2 years within the past 3 years was needed to provide reasonable 
assurance that prospective contractors performing cleaning services in 
the hospitals had demonstrated experience in maintaining aseptic 
conditions in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) regulations implemented 3 years earlier.  The 
OSHA regulations require employers to establish procedures to protect 
employees who stand a reasonable risk of occupational exposure to 
blood and infectious materials, and to protect employees against 
hazardous chemicals in the workplace.  The Army further reported that 
the recent experience requirement was needed to show that the 
contractor had an effective track record performing housekeeping 
services, consistent with the requirements established in 1995 by the 
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, since failure to 
perform in accordance with these requirements could result in costly 
fines, citations, and loss of hospital accreditation.  We concluded 
that the requirement was a reasonable means of assuring compliance 
with the regulations concerning the safety and welfare of hospital 
personnel and patients.  

The issue in Industrial Maintenance concerned the inclusion of the 
contractor-experience requirement in the first instance, as opposed to 
the actual application of the requirement in a technical evaluation, 
which is the issue in the instant case.  Nevertheless, as the Army 
points out, the contractor-experience requirement in the two RFPs in 
issue here is driven by the same justification as it was in Industrial 
Maintenance.   The record indicates that individuals who perform 
housekeeping duties, particularly in patient care and laboratory 
areas, clean blood spills and handle regulated waste, and are 
potentially at risk of occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens 
and hazardous chemicals.  In our view, it is entirely consistent with 
the contractor-experience requirement, its justification, and our 
decision in the cited case for the Army to conclude here that the 
requirement is not met by either ACC's food service experience or the 
fact that the Executive Housekeeper ACC proposed may have had 24 
months of the necessary experience within the previous 36 months.  In 
this last respect, although our Office has recognized that an agency 
properly may consider the experience of supervisory personnel in 
evaluating the experience of a new business, see Technical Resources, 
Inc., B-253506, Sept. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  176, an agency certainly is 
not compelled to attribute personnel experience to the contractor 
especially where, as here, that would thwart the purpose of a 
company-experience requirement. 

As we stated in Industrial Maintenance with regard to solicitation 
provisions relating to human safety, an agency has the discretion to 
set its minimum needs so as to achieve not just reasonable results, 
but the highest possible reliability and effectiveness.  Tucson 
Mobilephone, Inc., B-250389, Jan. 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  79, aff'd, 
B-250389.2, June 21, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  472.  Moreover, in reviewing a 
challenge to an agency's technical evaluation, we examine the record 
to ensure that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent 
with the stated evaluation criteria.  Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, 
Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  223.  The fact that a protester does not 
agree with an evaluation does not mean the evaluation was 
unreasonable.  Logistics Servs. Int'l, Inc., B-218570, Aug. 15, 1985, 
85-2 CPD  para.  173. 

ACC also complains that the Army, in conducting discussions with the 
company, never addressed ACC's proposed prices.  The record, however, 
shows that ACC's technical proposals were unsatisfactory, and the 
deficiencies were not cured after discussions.  (The Army did not 
reject the offers based only on the company-experience deficiency, but 
rather on their overall technical deficiencies.)  Since we have no 
basis to object to the Army's technical evaluations, which eliminated 
ACC from the competitive range and thus from the possibility of 
receiving the award, see Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.610, ACC 
was not prejudiced in the competition even if it in fact did not 
receive a full opportunity to address its prices during discussions.  
See Aid Maintenance Co., Inc.; TEAM Inc., B-255552; B-255552.2, Mar. 
9, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  188.  

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFPs listed five evaluation factors: technical approach, 
management plan, quality control, past performance, and cost/price.  
The first three evaluation factors comprised the technical proposal, 
and are listed in descending order of importance; the fourth was 
approximately half as important as the first two combined.  Technical 
considerations were to be more important than price.