BNUMBER:  B-270693
DATE:  March 15, 1996
TITLE:  The Hines-Ike Company

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

Matter of:The Hines-Ike Company

File:     B-270693

Date:March 15, 1996

Donald L. Beran, Esq., for the protester.
Dorothy Crow-Willard, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, for the agency.
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency's determination that protester's initial proposal was 
technically unacceptable and outside the competitive range was 
reasonable where the proposal would require major revisions in order 
to become acceptable.

2.  Protester whose proposal was properly found technically 
unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range is not an 
interested party to challenge the award where there is another 
technically acceptable proposal within the competitive range, since 
the protester would not be in line for award if its protest were 
sustained.

DECISION

The Hines-Ike Company (HI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from 
the competitive range, and the subsequent award of a contract to North 
American Title Company, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
4-95-045, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) for real estate closing services.  The protester contends that 
HUD's decision to exclude HI's proposal was unreasonable, and that the 
award to North American at a higher price than HI proposed was 
improper.

We deny the protest.

The RFP sought proposals for a fixed-price, indefinite quantity 
contract for a base period of performance, with up to four 1-year 
option periods.  For each contract period, an offeror was required to 
submit a fixed unit price per closing.  Offerors were required to 
submit proposals in two parts--part I was to consist of the 
technical/management proposal; part II was the business (price) 
proposal.  Section L of the RFP instructed offerors to address three 
separate sections under part I of their proposals:  (1) technical and 
management ability; (2) experience; and (3) conflicting or multiple 
use of contractor resources.  Each section was further subdivided into 
several subsections.  The RFP specifically instructed offerors on the 
type of evidence and documentation required to be submitted with the 
proposal in support of each subsection requirement.

Section M of the RFP explained that technical proposals would be 
point-scored, and set out the evaluation factors with their 
corresponding point values.  The RFP stated that the 
technical/management area was more important than price (which was not 
point-scored), and that the government might award a contract to an 
offeror submitting other than the lowest-priced proposal.  Award was 
to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the 
government.

Three firms, including the protester, responded to the RFP.  A 
technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated proposals in accordance 
with the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation.  Of the 
maximum number of points available (145), North American and a second 
offeror's proposal earned 123 points each following the initial 
evaluation; both proposals were found technically acceptable.  The 
protester's proposal received a total of 53 points, and was found 
technically unacceptable.  Based on the results of the initial 
evaluation, the contracting officer eliminated HI's proposal from 
further consideration.  The agency then conducted discussions with the 
two offerors whose proposals remained in the competitive range; 
requested best and final offers (BAFO) from those two firms; and 
reevaluated proposals based on BAFOs.  The agency determined that 
North American submitted the proposal most advantageous to the 
government and awarded the contract to that firm.  This protest to our 
Office followed a debriefing by the agency.

The protester contends that the exclusion of its proposal from the 
competitive range was based on a flawed evaluation.  HI also contends 
that the agency should have discussed the TEP's initial findings with 
the firm.

An offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written 
and that affirmatively establishes its merits or run the risk of 
having the proposal rejected as technically unacceptable.  Source AV, 
Inc., B-234521, June 20, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  578.  Offers that are 
technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major 
revisions to become acceptable are not required to be included in the 
competitive range for discussion purposes.  W.N. Hunter & Assocs.; 
Cajar Defense Support Co., B-237259; B-237259.2, Jan. 12, 1990, 90-1 
CPD  para.  52.  In reviewing whether a proposal was properly rejected as 
technically unacceptable for informational deficiencies, we examine 
the record to determine, among other things, whether the RFP called 
for detailed information and the nature of the informational 
deficiencies, for example, whether they tended to show that the 
offeror did not understand what it would be required to do under the 
contract.  BioClean Medical Sys., Inc., B-239906, Aug. 17, 1990, 90-2 
CPD  para.  142; DRT Assocs., Inc., B-237070, Jan. 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  47.  
We will not reevaluate a proposal but, rather, will consider whether 
the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 
evaluation scheme in the RFP.  Communications Int'l, Inc., 69 Comp. 
Gen. 553 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  3.  In this case, we have reviewed the 
evaluators' worksheets and the TEP's narrative explanation and find 
that the agency reasonably concluded that the protester's initial 
proposal was technically unacceptable.

Section L of the RFP specifically required offerors to provide 
evidence demonstrating their abilities in each of several areas that 
were to be point-scored under the announced evaluation scheme.  The 
RFP's instructions on proposal preparation and organization paralleled 
the evaluation factors announced under section M.  Offerors were 
instructed to respond to each of the evaluation areas with specific 
evidence demonstrating their abilities.  For example, under the 
technical/management area, an offeror was required to submit evidence 
and relevant documentation demonstrating the ability to prepare deeds 
and other closing documentation on single-family properties.  Offerors 
were also required to submit evidence demonstrating the ability to 
perform several tasks such as reviewing title information on 
single-family homes; handling and safeguarding large sums of money; 
staffing capabilities, including resumes detailing qualifications and 
relevant experience; and the timely processing of closings.  The RFP 
further required offerors to submit a list of current projects 
recently completed and relevant to the contemplated contract.  Section 
H of the RFP, as amended, also required the contractor to maintain a 
staffed office within the geographic region covered by the contract. 

The record shows that the TEP identified several informational 
deficiencies in HI's technical proposal, leading the evaluators to 
conclude that HI had not demonstrated its capability to successfully 
perform the contract in several of the evaluation areas.  As a result, 
the protester's proposal was severely downgraded under all evaluation 
factors, resulting in a total score of 53 points out of the 145 points 
available in the evaluation.  For example, the TEP found that HI had 
failed to submit sufficient evidence demonstrating its experience in 
closing sales of single-family or real estate owned (REO) properties, 
and had not submitted any evidence of having concluded any closings in 
three of the four counties covered by the RFP.  By contrast, North 
American submitted evidence of approximately 375 closings under a 
recent HUD contract within all areas covered by the RFP, and involving 
both single-family homes and REO properties.

The TEP found that HI had failed to submit evidence of adequately 
trained staff or of having a fully-equipped office within the areas to 
be served as required by the RFP.  The evaluators further found that, 
contrary to the specific RFP requirements for detailed resumes for key 
personnel, the resumes HI submitted for its key staff lacked detail, 
making it impossible for the TEP to evaluate whether HI's proposed 
staff had any relevant experience in conducting either single-family 
or REO closings.

In addition to the informational deficiencies with HI's proposal, the 
TEP was concerned about HI's proposed plan for internal controls for 
safeguarding large sums of HUD funds.  In this regard, the TEP 
concluded that HI's proposed approach for handling the transfer of 
funds after closing was inconsistent with the solicitation's 
prescribed procedures.  The TEP concluded that HI's proposed approach 
introduced an unacceptable level of risk of loss and abuse not 
contemplated by the RFP. 

Based on our review of the record, we think that the contracting 
officer reasonably concluded that HI failed to follow the RFP's 
detailed instructions and that the documentation that the protester 
did provide was insufficient to conclude that HI had demonstrated the 
firm's ability to successfully perform the contract.   Although in its 
comments on the agency report the protester lists a series of general 
objections to the evaluation, HI has not presented any argument or 
evidence showing that the evaluation of its initial proposal was 
unreasonable or inconsistent with the evaluation factors announced in 
the RFP.  While HI disagrees with the TEP's conclusions, that 
disagreement does not prove the TEP's evaluation unreasonable.  
Calspan Corp., B-258441, Jan. 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  28.  Accordingly, 
we have no basis to question the contracting officer's conclusion that 
HI's proposal was technically unacceptable as submitted.  Under these 
circumstances, the agency was not required to include HI's proposal in 
the competitive range for discussion purposes.[1]  See Engineering & 
Computation, Inc., B-258728, Jan. 31, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  155.

With respect to HI's challenge to the award to North American, under 
our Bid Protest Regulations, a party is not interested to maintain a 
protest if it would not be in line for award if the protest were 
sustained.  See Section 21.0(a), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,739 (Aug. 10, 
1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a)).  Since HUD reasonably 
found HI's proposal technically unacceptable and properly excluded the 
proposal from the competitive range, and since another offeror's 
acceptable proposal was placed in the competitive range, HI is not an 
interested party to challenge the award to North American.  See Dick 
Young Prods. Ltd., B-246837, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  336.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. HI also argues that it has submitted similar proposals to the 
agency in the past and that HUD has never rejected its proposal as 
technically unacceptable.  Each procurement action, however, is a 
separate transaction and the action taken in one procurement is not 
relevant to the propriety of the action taken under another 
procurement.  Komatsu Dresser Co., B-251944, May 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
369.