BNUMBER:  B-270496
DATE:  March 13, 1996
TITLE:  EBA Ernest Bland Associates

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

Matter of:EBA Ernest Bland Associates

File:     B-270496

Date:March 13, 1996 

Ernest Bland, EBA Ernest Bland Associates, for the protester.
Paula J. Barton, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.  

DIGEST

Agency properly excluded protester from further consideration in 
procurement of architect-engineering services where agency reasonably 
downgraded the protester's submission consistent with the solicitation 
evaluation criteria and rated it tenth of the eighteen submissions.

DECISION

EBA Ernest Bland Associates protests the Department of State's 
decision to exclude that firm for further consideration for award of 
an architect-engineering (A-E) contract under solicitation No. 
S-FBOAD-95-R-0213.  The procurement, conducted as a set-aside for 
small disadvantaged businesses (SDB) under section 8(a) of the Small 
Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  637(a) (1994), contemplated the award of two 
or three indefinite quantity contracts for computer assisted design 
and drafting (CADD) services.  EBA contends that the agency improperly 
evaluated its qualifications and those of the offerors selected for 
further consideration.   

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

Generally, in acquiring A-E services, a contracting agency must 
publicly announce its requirements, evaluate the A-E performance data 
and qualification statements on file as well as those submitted in 
response to the announcement, and select at least three firms for 
discussions.  Negotiations are first conducted with the highest- 
ranked firm.  If the agency is unable to agree with that firm as to a 
fair and reasonable fee, negotiations are terminated and the 
second-ranked firm is invited to 

submit its proposed fee, and so on.  See 40 U.S.C.  sec.  541 et seq. 
(1994); Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6; ARTEL, 
Inc., B-248478, Aug. 21, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  120; James W. Hudson & 
Assocs., B-243277, July 5, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  29.

Here, the agency issued the solicitation on June 28, 1995, requesting 
submission of standard forms (SF) 254 and 255 from interested SDB 
concerns.[1]  The solicitation advised that the agency intended to 
acquire "engineering CADD drafting" for various projects and stated 
that the drafting requirements contemplated under this procurement 
included preparation of architectural, civil, landscape, structural, 
mechanical, plumbing and electrical drawings.  The solicitation 
further required that firms have personnel "with a minimum of two 
years AutoCADD experience."[2] 

Regarding evaluation of offerors' submissions, the solicitation 
stated:

     "Firms responding will be considered for selection using the 
     following criteria which is listed in descending order of 
     importance--100 points maximum:  a) specialized experience and 
     technical competence in AutoCADD working in metric measurements - 
     40 points; b) specialized experience and technical competence in 
     facilities documentation, involving multiple disciplines in 
     office buildings, single and multifamily residences, warehouses 
     and other support facilities - 30 points; c) previous record, 
     within the last three (3) years, of performing work on schedule 
     and with effective cost and quality control - 15 points."  

Eighteen firms, including EBA, provided submissions by the July 31 
deadline.[3]  The agency convened a three-member panel for purposes of 
evaluating the submissions.  Following that panel's review, the 
submissions were evaluated and the firms were scored as follows: 

             Offeror               Score
             Firm A                 98.0
             Firm B                 93.3
             Firm C                 87.6
             Firm D                 88.6
             Firm E                 86.0
             Firm F                 83.0
             Firm G                 77.6
             Firm H                 73.0
             Firm I                 67.8
             EBA                    65.0
             Firm J                 60.0
             Firm K                 58.2
             Firm L                 48.3
             Firm M                 45.5
             Firm N                 39.8
             Firm O                 38.6
             Firm P                 37.5
             Firm Q                 23.3

Based on this ranking, the agency selected Firms A through F for 
discussions and further consideration.  

DISCUSSION

EBA first protests its exclusion from the list of firms being further 
considered, arguing that the agency failed to accord its submission 
appropriate credit.  EBA generally challenges the agency's evaluation 
under each of the evaluation factors. 

In reviewing a protest of an agency's selection of a contractor for 
A-E services, our Office will not substitute its judgment for that of 
the agency evaluators.  Rather, procuring officials enjoy a reasonable 
degree of discretion in evaluating the submissions, and our review 
examines whether the agency's selection was reasonable and in 
accordance with the published criteria.  ARTEL, Inc., supra; James W. 
Hudson & Assocs., supra; Ward/Hall Assocs. AIA, B-226714, June 17, 
1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  605.  A protester's mere disagreement with the 
agency's evaluation does not show that it is unreasonable.  IDG 
Architects, 68 Comp. Gen. 683 (1989), 89-2 CPD  para.  236.  

We have reviewed the record here and, for the reasons discussed below, 
we find the agency's evaluation reasonable.  Overall, the agency 
reasonably determined that, while EBA's submission was acceptable and 
reflected certain strengths of that firm, the submissions of other 
offerors more effectively demonstrated the skills and qualifications 
sought by the agency.  

Under the first, most important evaluation factor--"specialized 
experience and technical competence in AutoCADD working in metric 
measurements"--EBA received 20.7 out of a possible 40 points.  The 
agency explains that EBA's submission did not demonstrate significant 
CADD experience.  EBA's submission identified only one project in 
which CADD and AutoCADD drafting had been used and in response to the 
SF 255 request to list prior projects which "best illustrate current 
qualifications relevant to this project," EBA failed to discuss any 
use of the AutoCADD system.  Further, in responding to the SF 255 
request to provide resumes for the personnel intended to be used on 
this project, EBA identified only one individual whose qualifications 
referenced any experience with AutoCADD.  Finally, EBA's submission 
failed to state whether any of its prior projects had been performed 
using metric measurements.     

EBA has not rebutted the agency's conclusion that its submission 
demonstrated limited CADD and AutoCADD experience.  Rather, EBA 
complains that it "was particularly struck by [the agency's] constant 
emphasis on items tangential to the project requirements such as 
whether the principals of consultant firms 'know CADD.'"  As the 
agency correctly points out, rather than being "tangential" to this 
procurement, an offeror's experience with CADD was critical to the 
most important evaluation factor.  On this record, the agency's 
assessment of EBA's CADD and AutoCADD experience was reasonable.  

While EBA acknowledges that its submission did not expressly advise 
the agency as to which, if any, of the projects had been performed 
using metric measurement, EBA maintains that the agency should have 
been able to verify on its own that some of the projects had been 
performed in metric.  However, offerors are responsible for preparing 
adequately written proposals, Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767; 
B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  530, and agencies are not 
obligated to search out information or qualifications that an offeror 
may have omitted from its proposal.  Sunbelt Properties, Inc., 
B-245729.3, Mar. 12, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  278.  EBA's complaints regarding 
the agency's assessment of its experience with metric measurements 
falsely assumes the agency was required to seek and obtain information 
regarding EBA's qualifications beyond that provided by EBA.

Under the second evaluation factor--"specialized experience and 
technical competence in facilities documentation involving multiple 
disciplines"--EBA received 25 out of a possible 30 points.  In 
evaluating this aspect of EBA's submission, the agency noted that the 
drawings submitted by EBA documented only architectural work; the 
agency assessed a weakness regarding the requirement to submit 
documentation "involving multiple disciplines."  

Again, EBA does not dispute that the drawings it submitted 
demonstrated only architectural work.  However, EBA points out that 
one of the six offerors being further considered similarly failed to 
document its experience in multiple disciplines.  On this basis, EBA 
argues that its submission was not evaluated in a manner consistent 
with the other offerors' submissions.

Our Office has reviewed the agency's entire evaluation record in this 
procurement.[4]  Regarding the particular offeror identified by EBA as 
having similarly failed to provide documentation of experience in 
multiple disciplines, our review shows that the agency's evaluation of 
that offeror properly reflected that weakness in its submission.  
Nonetheless, that offeror received a higher overall score because its 
submission contained other strengths in areas where EBA's submission 
did not.

Regarding the third evaluation factor--"previous record . . . of 
performing work on schedule and with effective cost and quality 
control"--EBA received a score of 10.7 points out of a possible 15 
points.  The agency concluded that EBA's submission, while acceptable, 
did not contain sufficient information to demonstrate an outstanding 
record of cost and quality control.  In evaluating this aspect of 
EBA's submission, one agency evaluator noted that EBA had submitted 
only one letter of recommendation.  

EBA complains that the solicitation did not mandate the submission of 
letters of recommendation and argues that, to the extent the agency's 
evaluation incorporates that consideration, the evaluation is 
improper.  We disagree.  The solicitation specifically advised 
offerors they would be evaluated regarding their documentation of 
prior cost and quality control.  In its assessment, the agency found 
EBA's submission acceptable, but less than outstanding, with regard to 
this evaluation factor.  The evaluator's comment that EBA's submission 
included "[only] one letter of recommendation" is consistent with the 
agency's obligation to assess EBA's submission regarding documentation 
of its past performance.

Finally, under the fourth evaluation factor--"ability to provide and 
coordinate multi-discipline effort"--EBA received a score of 8.3 
points out of a possible 15 points.  EBA notes that the initial scores 
of two individual agency evaluators were widely divergent and argues 
that this divergency demonstrates the invalidity of the ultimate 
consensus score.

It is neither unusual nor improper for individual evaluators to reach 
different conclusions and assign different scores when evaluating 
proposals, since both objective and subjective judgments are involved.  
Cybernated Automation Corp., B-242511.3, Sept. 26, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  
293.  Here, the agency evaluators first scored proposals individually 
then, following discussions among themselves, arrived at a consensus 
score which was a midpoint between the high and low scores.  We have 
reviewed EBA's submission with regard to this evaluation factor and do 
not find the consensus score of 8.3 points to be unreasonable.  In any 
event, the record demonstrates there was no possible prejudice to EBA 
in this regard.  Even if EBA had received the maximum score of 15 
points for this evaluation factor, its overall score would have 
increased only to 72, elevating its rank to ninth out of eighteen 
firms evaluated.  On this record, even if this portion of the agency's 
evaluation were unreasonable, there would be no basis to sustain EBA's 
protest. See, e.g., Dynamic Isolation Sys., Inc., B-247047, Apr. 28, 
1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  399; OAO Corp., B-228599.2, July 13, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  
42.

EBA also protests the agency's evaluation of the other firms' 
submissions, asserting for various reasons that the agency erred in 
including them in the group for further consideration.  Under our Bid 
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737 (Aug. 10, 
1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a)), a protester must be an 
"interested party" before we will consider its protest.  An interested 
party for purposes of eligibility to protest must be an actual or 
prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be 
affected by the award of the contract or by the failure to award the 
contract.  A protester is not an interested party if it would not be 
in line for award if its protest were sustained.  See Hydroscience, 
Inc., B-227989; B-227989.2, Nov. 23, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  501.  Here, EBA 
was ranked tenth out of eighteen firms.  Three other firms excluded 
from consideration had point scores higher than EBA's.  Thus, on this 
record, EBA does not qualify as an interested party to further 
challenge this procurement. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. SF 254 is the standard government questionnaire for firms seeking 
to provide A-E and related services; SF 255 is the standard A-E 
questionnaire related to specific projects.

2. AutoCADD involves the use of specialized computer software in 
connection with performance of CADD services.

3. The submission of the firm identified in this decision as "Firm A" 
was timely received by the agency, but subsequently misplaced.  
Following the deadline for submission, Firm A produced a signed 
receipt from the U.S. Postal Service demonstrating that its submission 
had been timely received by the agency.  Based on this evidence, the 
agency properly evaluated the firm's submission.

4. The agency also provided the protester with the procurement record, 
excluding documents containing source selection information.