BNUMBER:  B-270640
DATE:  March 27, 1996
TITLE:  Bannum, Inc.

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

Matter of:Bannum, Inc.

File:     B-270640

Date:March 27, 1996

David A. Lowry for the protester.
Granette Trent, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the 
competitive range as technically unacceptable under solicitation, 
which gave primary weight to technical factors, including facility, 
where, in addition to the numerous deficiencies in the protester's 
technical proposal, the facility proposed by the protester would 
require major renovations to meet the solicitation requirements and 
these renovations could not be completed within the required 60-day 
commencement time frame.

DECISION

Bannum, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the 
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-278-SC, 
issued by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Department of Justice, for 
residential comprehensive sanction center services for male and female 
federal offenders in the New Orleans, Louisiana area.  Bannum asserts 
that BOP improperly evaluated and eliminated its proposal from the 
competitive range without conducting discussions with the protester, 
and that BOP has de facto debarred Bannum from competing for 
government contracts.    

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued May 22, 1995, requested offers on a firm, fixed-price 
basis for estimated requirements, for a base year with three 1-year 
options.  The statement of work (SOW) required offerors to furnish the 
necessary facilities, equipment, and personnel to provide for the 
safekeeping and program needs of federal offenders residing at a New 
Orleans, Louisiana, facility to be furnished by the contractor, known 
as a community corrections center, or halfway house.  The RFP required 
that the facility be in a suitable area, have access to public 
transportation, be equipped to handle the handicapped, and meet 
life/safety standards as provided by the National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA).  Among other things, the solicitation required 
that the offeror's proposed facility have, at a minimum, "one operable 
toilet for every ten residents, one shower (or bathing area) for every 
eight residents, and one wash basin for every six residents."  The RFP 
also required the contractor to "deter and detect introduction or use 
of alcohol in the facility" and to administer guidelines to prevent 
substance abuse and to support existing abusers in their recovery 
within the facility.  The solicitation required that the offeror's 
facility be fully operational and ready for use within 60 days after 
the date of contract award.    

Section M.5 of the RFP listed the following evaluation criteria, in 
descending order of importance:  technical (including 
reports/policy/procedures, facility, and overall programs approach), 
cost, and management (including personnel/staffing and 
experience/structure).  The RFP indicated that the technical 
evaluation would focus on the proposed facility's suitability, age, 
condition, location, and compliance with NFPA life/safety standards; 
documentation and procedures; and how well the offeror's technical 
proposal described the offeror's operational procedures in achieving 
the SOW requirements.  Under the management factor, the RFP advised 
that proposals would be evaluated on such things as the capability of 
the offeror's management; qualifications and past experience; 
standards, job descriptions and position responsibilities; and 
employment policies and practices, and personnel and conduct 
standards.  

Three offerors, including Bannum, submitted proposals in response to 
the solicitation.  After evaluating the proposals, the source 
selection evaluation board (SSEB) made a competitive range 
determination and eliminated two of the proposals--including 
Bannum's--from further consideration.  The agency excluded Bannum 
primarily on its determination that Bannum's proposed facility was 
unacceptable and could not be appropriately renovated within the 
required 60 days after award.  The contracting officer notified Bannum 
of its proposal's elimination from the competitive range and this 
protest followed.   

Bannum protests that BOP did not adhere to the RFP's evaluation scheme 
and improperly excluded its proposal from the competitive range.  In 
reviewing protests against an agency's technical evaluation and 
decision to eliminate a proposal from consideration for award, we 
review the record to determine whether the agency's judgments were 
reasonable and in accordance with the listed evaluation criteria and 
whether there were any violations of procurement statutes or 
regulation.  SoBran, Inc., B-258983, Feb. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  115.  
For the reasons set forth below, we find that the agency's technical 
evaluation in this case was reasonable and consistent with the 
evaluation criteria, and that the agency's determination to eliminate 
the protester's proposal from further consideration was 
unobjectionable.

Based on our review of the record, the evaluators reasonably 
downgraded the protester's proposal under both the technical and the 
management factors because of Bannum's failure to address numerous 
matters called for by the RFP.  For example, as to the technical 
factor, the SSEB found that Bannum did not provide written personnel 
policies, adequately address sign-in/sign-out procedures, or indicate 
that it would properly collect a required percentage of employed 
residents' weekly gross income.  Bannum did not provide a copy of a 
food service contract for the food services to be provided under the 
RFP or evidence that its proposed catering contractor had a valid 
state or local license or that the catering contractor met state 
and/or local health and sanitation codes.  Bannum also did not provide 
a written policy for receipt, recording, and safeguarding of funds.  
Regarding management, Bannum's staffing patterns did not reflect an 
adequate staff-to-resident ratio and its staffing was inappropriate 
for a facility with both male and female residents.  Based on 
telephonic contacts concerning Bannum's past experience on similar 
projects, the agency was advised that as to two previous contracts, 
Bannum's performance was rated average to poor.  

Bannum's proposal was further severely downgraded as to its proposed 
facility based on a preliminary site visit on September 29, 1995, with 
a Bannum representative present.  Bannum proposed a two-story, vacant 
structure in a commercial/industrial/residential area approximately 6 
miles from downtown.  During the preliminary site visit, the 
evaluators found major deficiencies related to the condition and 
location of the facility, and significant contradictions between what 
Bannum had proposed and the current state of the facility.  For 
example, although Bannum's proposed floor plan shows male residents 
housed on the second floor and female residents on the first floor, 
with bathrooms with the required number of toilets, showers, and wash 
basins to be added, the existing structure was a "shell" with only one 
toilet and one wash basin available.  The hot water heater was too 
small for the anticipated number of residents and there were no 
washers, dryers, or telephones available.  The facility did not 
provide access to the handicapped and renovations would be required 
for group meeting, visiting, indoor recreation, and counseling spaces.  
The evaluators believed that although the required 83 beds could be 
accommodated by the facility, quarters would be cramped.  As to 
life/safety standards, the evaluators found that the facility did not 
conform to NFPA requirements for lack of a sprinkler system, "exit" 
and emergency lighting signs, fire-proof interior doors, protected 
electrical plugs, displayed fire-evacuation diagrams, and fire 
barriers for pipes, conduits, cables, wires, and air ducts.  

The evaluators also found major deficiencies concerning the location 
of Bannum's proposed facility.  Although the facility was only 6 miles 
from downtown, on a major thoroughfare, and near bus transportation 
routes, it was next to a night club, and within walking distance of 
several establishments selling beer, liquor, and wine.  There were few 
restaurants in the area and the evaluators saw neighborhood graffiti 
which they believed was indicative of gang activity.

Based on the number and scope of the deficiencies relating to the 
facility, the SSEB did not believe that the facility could be 
renovated to meet the specifications of the solicitation within the 
required 60 days of receipt of award.  The SSEB also believed the 
location was poor, given its close access to alcoholic beverages and 
possible gang activity.  Based on these findings, the SSEB reduced 
Bannum's facility score  to zero, and determined that, because of the 
location and condition of Bannum's proposed facility, its offer was 
technically unacceptable and incapable of being made acceptable.  

The record, including the agency's videotape of the preliminary site 
visit, clearly shows that the agency's evaluation of Bannum's proposal 
was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation evaluation scheme.  
Not only does Bannum's technical and management proposals contain the 
numerous deficiencies described above, but the facility Bannum 
proposed is, as the agency notes, a mere "shell," requiring complete 
interior renovation, extensive plumbing and wiring for the bath 
additions, the installation of bathroom fixtures and proper lighting, 
painting, the addition of appropriate fire protection and safety 
features and furnishings, including recreational equipment, and 
significant clean-up.  These deficiencies are of sufficient magnitude 
that the agency could reasonably conclude that major renovations would 
be required and that it was unlikely that such renovations could be 
timely accomplished.  Although Bannum disagrees with the agency's 
assessment of its proposed facility, it does not specifically dispute 
the deficiencies noted by the agency.  Rather, Bannum argues that it 
could have completed the required renovations in 60 days; that 
graffiti is not always indicative of gang activity; and that almost 
any neighborhood has access to alcoholic beverages.  The protester's 
mere disagreement with the evaluation and BOP's ultimate conclusion to 
exclude Bannum's proposal from the competitive range does not 
establish that the evaluation was unreasonable or that the exclusion 
was improper.  See Transportation Research Corp., B-231914, Sept. 27, 
1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  290.  Based on our review, Bannum's proposal was 
reasonably eliminated from the competitive range.

The protester also contends that there is a history of bias against 
Bannum at BOP and that BOP officials have de facto debarred Bannum 
from competing for government contracts.  Bannum alleges that 
approximately 6 years ago, a BOP program auditor stated that "[she] 
would do her best to see that [Bannum's] contracts in the Southeast 
are closed down," that she and her supervisor were "tired of 
[Bannum's] rhetoric" and that she was going to "nail [Bannum] to the 
wall."  Bannum also alleges that BOP improperly challenged Bannum's 
small business size status and its responsibility.  According to the 
protester, these actions evidence that BOP procurement officials are 
biased against Bannum and have de facto debarred or suspended the firm 
from competing for government contracts.  Bannum's arguments have no 
merit in the present case, inasmuch as the record establishes that the 
agency properly eliminated Bannum's proposal from consideration under 
this RFP pursuant to the evaluation criteria rather than because of a 
de facto debarment.[1]  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. We note that Bannum has filed suit in the United States District 
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking, among other 
things, a permanent injunction against BOP from conducting a 
debarment, de facto or otherwise, of Bannum.  We also note that in 
Bannum, Inc., B-249758, Nov. 24, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  373, the protester 
made basically the same allegation, citing identical comments 
allegedly made by the BOP program auditor and BOP's referral of Bannum 
to the Small Business Administration; we found no evidence to support 
Bannum's allegation of de facto debarment in that case.