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.