BNUMBER:  B-270645.2
DATE:  May 24, 1996
TITLE:  Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc.

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

Matter of:Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc.

File:     B-270645.2

Date:May 24, 1996

Ronald Draughon for the protester.
William R. Purdy, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for American Service Contractors, 
L.P., an intervenor.
Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., and Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., 
Department of the Army, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO,
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly excluded proposal from competitive range which had no 
reasonable chance of receiving award because it contained significant 
technical weaknesses and was scored substantially below the 
higher-rated competitive range proposals.

DECISION

Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc. (ACCI) protests the elimination of 
its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. DAKF29-94-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for 
full food services at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  ACCI contends that the 
agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and that its proposal 
should have been included in the competitive range.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation is for the provision of full food service and dining 
facility attendant service at various Fort Dix dining facilities.  
Proposals were to include:  a general management summary; information 
on organization and staffing; evidence of the offeror's past 
experience in food service and related support service; a detailed 
phase-in plan; detailed quality control plan; and a complete cost 
proposal addressing cost realism and other factors.  The RFP 
contemplated award of cost-plus-award- fee contract for a base period 
with 4 option years.  

Section M advised offerors of the following technical evaluation 
subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  organization 
and staffing (considerably more important than any other subfactor); 
quality control and general management (of approximately equal 
importance); and phase-in (considerably less important).  Cost was to 
be evaluated on the basis of realism and most probable cost (MPC).  
The technical factor was identified as most important and slightly 
more important than cost.  Award was to be made to the responsible 
offeror whose proposal was evaluated as most advantageous to the 
government. 

Fifteen offerors including ACCI and American Service Contractors, L.P. 
(ASC) submitted proposals by the December 14, 1994, closing date for 
receipt of proposals.  In late January 1995, the agency conducted a 
pre-award survey of ACCI.  The agency conducted a technical, cost 
realism, and most probable cost evaluation on each proposal in April 
1995.  ASC's proposal received the highest score (725 points out of a 
possible 1,000 points).  ACCI's proposal received the sixth highest 
score (260 points).  Eleven of the offerors' proposals, including 
ACCI's, were rated  "unsatisfactory" in at least three of the four 
evaluation subfactors and all were rated "unsatisfactory" on the most 
important subfactor, organization and staffing.  The contracting 
officer determined that these 11 proposals failed to demonstrate an 
adequate understanding of the government's requirements.  She found 
that the likelihood of failure was high and that only extensive 
discussions and proposal revisions could overcome the probability of 
failure.  Accordingly, on September 13, the contracting officer 
determined that these 11 proposals did not have a reasonable chance of 
award and eliminated them from the competitive range.  The agency 
notified ACCI of its elimination by letter dated November 20.[1]  ACCI 
filed a protest with our Office, which we dismissed as premature on 
December 8.  After receiving a debriefing in February 1996, ACCI filed 
this protest.[2]

ACCI contends that the agency's evaluation was flawed because ACCI's 
proposal was technically acceptable as submitted.  We find ACCI's 
contentions without merit.

The evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a 
proposal is in the competitive range are principally matters within 
the contracting agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible 
for defining their needs and for deciding the best method of meeting 
them.  Advanced Sys. Technology, Inc.; Eng'g and Professional Servs., 
Inc., B-241530; B-241530.2, Feb. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  153.  Thus, it 
is not the function of our Office to evaluate proposals de novo and we 
will not disturb that determination absent a showing that it was 
unreasonable or in violation of procurement laws or regulations.  
Institute for Int'l Research, B-232103.2, Mar. 15, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  
273.  

The purpose of a competitive range determination is to select those 
offerors with which the agency will hold written or oral discussions.  
Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.609(a); Everpure, Inc., 
B-226395.2; B-226395.3, Sept. 20, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  264.  The 
competitive range consists of all proposals that have a "reasonable 
chance" of being selected for award, usually including those proposals 
which are technically acceptable as submitted or which are reasonably 
susceptible of being made acceptable through discussions.  Information 
Sys. & Networks Corp., 
69 Comp. Gen. 284 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  203.  In determining the 
competitive range, it is an acceptable practice to compare the 
evaluation scores and consider an offeror's relative standing among 
its competitors and to exclude a proposal that is capable of being 
made technically acceptable when, relative to other offers, it is 
determined to have no reasonable chance of being selected for award.  
Id.  

Here, with regard to the most important subfactor, organization and 
staffing, the RFP required a detailed explanation, by organizational 
element, of the mix of skill levels and skill types proposed to meet 
the specifications.  The proposal was also to include productive 
man-hour matrices to demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed hours to 
meet the contract requirements.  In addition, the proposal was to 
explain in detail how the offeror intended to accomplish each job 
described in the performance work statement.   

The evaluators found that ACCI's proposal failed to demonstrate an 
understanding of proper skill mix and manpower utilization.  ACCI's 
proposal contained only four sentences in its manpower utilization 
section which also referred to its staffing charts.  This section 
included a statement that personnel could move from function to 
function to allow them to work the maximum number of hours per day, 
but the proposal contained no explanation of how this was to be 
accomplished.  In reviewing the staffing matrices, the evaluators 
found that they consisted of a series of daily work schedules for each 
facility by contract period.  While these showed a variety of 
generally appropriate skill types and tied each type to contract 
functions, they did not clearly identify how many workers would be 
required to perform any  specific function.  They also found that the 
proposed hours per day were "woefully" inadequate to operate the 
individual facilities.  The inadequacy of the proposed hours was 
verified by review of the cost proposal.  The evaluators found there 
was no way to identify employees who may work in more than one 
facility or even the total number of employees.

The RFP also required the submission of a detailed quality control 
plan addressing how the offeror would ensure the identification and 
correction of deficiencies.  The evaluators rated ACCI's quality 
control proposal "unsatisfactory" because it lacked any meaningful 
detail and referred to a plan elsewhere in the proposal which was to 
be updated and provided after contract award.  The evaluators noted 
that the plan was obviously designed for a different and larger 
location, and that only one of the individuals listed in the plan was 
costed in the proposal.  As written, the plan was incapable of meeting 
the Fort Dix requirements and would need a significant revision to 
make it acceptable.

The RFP also required a detailed phase-in plan covering mobilization 
of personnel, identification of key personnel, and the offeror's 
approach to development and dissemination of operational instructions, 
procedures, and control directives.  This portion of ACCI's proposal 
also was rated "unsatisfactory."  As with the quality control plan, 
the agency observed that ACCI used poorly edited portions of a 
previous proposal (Fort Bragg) and failed to address all the required 
actions in the Fort Dix requirement. 

Overall, the evaluators found that while ACCI had an excellent 
understanding of dining facility attendant tasks, it failed to 
demonstrate an adequate understanding of how to perform full food 
service tasks.[3]  The contracting officer had no confidence that ACCI 
had a minimal understanding of the requirement or that there was a 
convincing quality control mechanism to ensure improvement in 
performance.  While the proposed cost was the third lowest proposed 
and had the lowest MPC, the technical deficiencies cast doubt on the 
accuracy of the MPC.  The contracting officer concluded that ACCI's 
proposed cost advantages could not overcome the unsatisfactory aspects 
of its technical proposal. 

ACCI contends that its staffing plan was adequate and maintains that 
the agency simply did not read its proposal in its entirety.  In 
ACCI's view, its organization and staffing section is extensive and 
detailed, and its staffing charts are clear, not contradictory.  
However, it provides no specific arguments regarding the agency's 
evaluation of its quality control and phase-in plans.  Apart from 
arguing that its proposal does meet the RFP's requirements, ACCI does 
not explain how its proposal meets those requirements.  ACCI simply 
fails to provide any meaningful rebuttal to the agency's evaluation.  
Rather, ACCI's arguments merely reflect its disagreement with the 
agency's evaluation, which does not by itself render the evaluation 
unreasonable.  Litton Sys., Inc., B-237596.3, Aug. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
115.[4]   From our own review, it is plain, for example, that portions 
of ACCI's proposal are detailed, but its staffing matrices are 
difficult to understand and do not appear to cover all RFP 
requirements.  In view of ACCI's substantially lower score and the 
number of "unsatisfactory" areas of its proposal, the contracting 
officer reasonably determined to eliminate ACCI's proposal from the 
competitive range.  

ACCI also protests that the agency gave ASC improper credit for its 
experience as the incumbent contractor.  An incumbent's competitive 
advantage provides a basis for legal objection only where that 
advantage results from unfair action or preference by the government.  
An agency is not required to equalize the offerors' competitive 
positions.  Reach All, Inc., B-229772, Mar. 15, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  267.  
Here, there is no evidence of any unfair action or preference on 
behalf of ASC.  In a related argument, ACCI contends that there were 
unspecified flaws in the evaluation system.  To be timely, any 
challenge to the evaluation system had to be raised prior to the 
closing time for receipt of proposals.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1996).   
ACCI's failure to protest this matter until well after that time makes 
this protest ground untimely. 

The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. During the lengthy evaluation period, the agency asked ACCI to 
extend its offer on several occasions, the latest on September 25.  
The protester complains that it had to extend its offer after the 
agency had decided to eliminate its proposal from the competitive 
range, but before notifying it of the elimination.  We fail to see how 
this meaningfully prejudiced ACCI.

2. ACCI contends that its debriefing was not meaningful since it did 
not contain sufficient detail.  The adequacy of the debriefing, 
however, has no relevance to the propriety of the evaluation of the 
protester's proposal, the only substantive issue raised by this 
protest. 

3. In this regard, the evaluators found that ACCI's general management 
proposal was "good" overall, with ratings of "excellent" on some 
subfactors.  However, even under this factor, they found that the 
subcontract administration, strike and contingency plan subfactors 
were "unsatisfactory."   

4. While ACCI argues that it should have been provided with an 
opportunity to correct its deficiencies in discussions, it was not 
entitled to discussions because its proposal was properly eliminated 
from the competitive range.  Drytech, Inc., B-246276.2, Apr. 28, 1992, 
92-1 CPD  para.  398.