BNUMBER:  B-270700
DATE:  April 11, 1996
TITLE:  Bollam, Sheedy, Torani & Co.

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

Matter of:Bollam, Sheedy, Torani & Co.

File:     B-270700

Date:April 11, 1996

Willard G. Reynolds for the protester.
Jesse E. Lasken, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and John Van Schaik, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably excluded the protester's proposal from the 
competitive range where solicitation placed heavy emphasis on 
technical factors, protester's proposal ranked tenth in technical 
merit of 34 proposals, and protester's initial price was higher than 
seven of the eight proposals with higher technical scores that were 
included in the competitive range (the higher-priced proposal that was 
included in the competitive range received a significantly higher 
technical score than the protester's proposal), and the evaluation 
record supports the agency's determination that, based on initial 
proposals received, the protester had no reasonable chance for award.

DECISION

Bollam, Sheedy, Torani & Co., LLP, CPA protests the exclusion of its 
proposal from the competitive range under solicitation No. OIG-95016, 
issued by the National Science Foundation for financial audits and 
related services.  Bollam generally contends that since it has not had 
performance problems under its current contract with the agency for 
similar services, the exclusion of its proposal was improper.  

We deny the protest.

Thirty-four proposals were received in response to the solicitation 
and the agency, after considering both technical and cost, included 
the eight highest technically ranked proposals in the competitive 
range.  Bollam's proposal was ranked tenth technically out of the 34 
proposals received, offered a higher price than that offered by seven 
of the eight proposals included in the competitive range, and received 
a significantly lower technical score than the only higher-priced 
competitive range proposal.

The evaluation of proposals and resulting determination of whether a 
particular offer is in the competitive range are matters within the 
discretion of the contracting agency, since it is responsible for 
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Crown 
Logistics Servs., B-253740, Oct. 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  228.  In 
reviewing challenges to an agency's competitive range determination, 
our Office does not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we 
examine the evaluation to determine whether it was reasonable and in 
accordance with the solicitation criteria.  Id.  A proposal that is 
technically acceptable as submitted need not be included in the 
competitive range when, relative to other acceptable offers, it is 
determined to have no reasonable chance of being selected for award, 
based on price or other factors.  Radio Sys., Inc., B-255080, Jan. 10, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  9; Institute for Int'l Research, B-232103.2, Mar. 15, 
1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  273.

Bollam, which did not receive the agency's evaluation record but 
instead has requested an in camera review of the documents by our 
Office, does not challenge specific aspects of its proposal's 
evaluation or its technical score, but rather generally states that 
since the firm's performance on its similar prior contract with the 
agency was acceptable, the agency must have erred in excluding the 
firm's proposal from the competitive range on technical grounds.[1]  
We have reviewed the agency's evaluation record and competitive range 
determination and find it reasonable and proper.[2]  Although Bollam's 
proposal was given substantial credit for the firm's performance under 
its current contract for similar services and was found to be 
technically acceptable, it did not receive as high a technical score 
as the proposals included in the competitive range because of numerous 
informational omissions.  For example, detailed information was 
lacking as to the firm's (and its staff's) experience and proposed 
approach regarding pre-award proposal reviews and quality control 
reviews of workpapers, field work and reporting, specific use of and 
audit experience with various Office of Management and Budget 
Circulars, indirect cost experience, and proposed staffing, job 
duties, and level of effort.  Comparatively, the proposals included in 
the competitive range were commended and received higher technical 
scores, for their detailed, informative technical presentations.

In negotiated procurements, since the agency's technical evaluation of 
proposal quality is based upon information submitted with the 
proposal, the burden is on the offeror to submit an adequately written 
proposal.  See Communications and Data Sys. Assocs., B-223988, Oct. 
29, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  491.  Bollam simply did not provide a 
sufficiently detailed proposal to warrant the conclusion, in light of 
the firm's proposed high price, that it would have a reasonable chance 
of receiving the award in light of the other proposals that were 
received and included in the competitive range.  See Radio Sys., Inc., 
supra.  Accordingly, the agency's exclusion of Bollam's proposal from 
the competitive range is not legally objectionable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The protester asserts that the agency failed to consider price in 
making its competitive range determination.  Although the notice of 
exclusion sent to the protester states that the proposal was excluded 
on technical grounds, the agency reports, and the record confirms, 
that price was a secondary factor in the comparative evaluation of 
proposals for purposes of determining the competitive range.

2. Since this is an on-going procurement, and the technical evaluation 
scores and prices of the competitive range proposals are considered 
source selection sensitive, our discussion of the evaluation of 
proposals is necessarily limited.