BNUMBER:  B-270702
DATE:  February 15, 1996
TITLE:  Carter Industries, Inc.

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

Matter of:Carter Industries, Inc.

File:     B-270702

Date:     February 15, 1996

Marc Lamer, Esq., Kostos and Lamer, for the protester.
James G. Birnbaum, Esq., and Dawn Marie Piselli, Esq., Davis, 
Birnbaum, Marcou, Seymour & Colgan, for ORC Industries, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Gweyn Colaberdino, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where the protester fails to timely protest a defect in the 
solicitation's initial proposal award provision, that is, the failure 
of the solicitation to include one of two mandatory alternate clauses 
which indicate either the agency's intention to conduct discussions 
prior to making an award or the agency's intention to award without 
discussions, the agency's decision to award a contract on the basis of 
initial proposals without discussions to an offeror which submitted a 
higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal was reasonable and 
consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

Carter Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to ORC 
Industries, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
SPO100-95-R-0148, issued by the Defense Personnel Support Center, 
Defense Logistics Agency, for quantities of parkas and trousers.  
Carter argues that the agency improperly awarded the contract on the 
basis of initial proposals without discussions.

We dismiss the protest.

The RFP, issued on June 16, 1995, contemplated the award of a firm, 
fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract for a base period with 2 
option periods.  The RFP stated that the award would be made to the 
responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed to represent the most 
advantageous proposal to the government, technical evaluation factors 
and price considered.  The RFP contained the following technical 
evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) 
experience/past performance; (2) manufacturing plan; (3) quick 
response; (4) electronic data interchange; and (5) quality assurance 
plan.  With respect to experience/past performance, the RFP stated 
that "[i]f discussions are conducted, offeror's [sic] will be given an 
opportunity to address especially unfavorable reports of past 
performance and the offeror's response, or lack thereof, will be taken 
into consideration."  The RFP stated that technical evaluation factors 
were considered more important than price.

As reflected in the source selection plan for this procurement, the 
agency intended to award the contract on the basis of initial 
proposals without discussions.  However, the agency failed to 
incorporate in the RFP, by marking the appropriate box, the clause at 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  52.215-16, captioned "Contract 
Award (Jul 1990) Alternate III (Aug 1991)," which states that "[t]he 
Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without 
discussions with offerors.  Therefore, each initial offer should 
contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical 
standpoint.  However, the Government reserves the right to conduct 
discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be 
necessary."[1]

Five firms, including Carter and ORC, submitted technical and price 
proposals by the July 24 amended closing date for receipt of initial 
proposals.  Technical proposals were evaluated by assigning an 
adjectival rating of highly acceptable (HA), acceptable (A), 
marginally acceptable (MA), or unacceptable (UA) to each technical 
evaluation factor.  An offeror's technical proposal was also assigned 
an overall adjectival rating.  The technical proposals of Carter and 
ORC were evaluated as follows:

                                   Carter    ORC
Experience/Past Performance           UA        A
Manufacturing Plan               MA        A
Quick Response                        MA        A
Electronic Data Interchange           MA       HA
Quality Assurance Plan                 A        A
Overall Rating                        MA        A

Carter's price was approximately 1.6 percent less than ORC's price.

On November 27, the agency, on the basis of initial proposals without 
discussions, awarded the contract to ORC whose higher technically 
rated, higher-priced proposal was determined to represent the most 
advantageous offer to the government.  This protest followed.

Carter argues that since the agency did not incorporate in the RFP the 
clause at FAR  sec.  52.215-16 Alternate III, thereby failing to notify 
offerors of its intention to award on the basis of initial proposals 
without discussions, discussions were required prior to making an 
award.  See FAR  sec.  15.610.  Carter particularly focuses on the agency's 
failure to conduct discussions with respect to the experience/past 
performance evaluation factor.  In this regard, Carter, a newly formed 
company with no prior clothing manufacturing experience, was in the 
process of acquiring the assets (including, according to its proposal, 
the workforce, plant management, and supervisory personnel) of 
Isratex, Inc., a clothing manufacturer which had been awarded numerous 
contracts by the agency, but which had filed for bankruptcy.  Because 
Carter did not have any clothing manufacturing experience of its own 
and because Carter would be the successor-in-interest to Isratex after 
acquiring the firm's facility, equipment, and personnel, the agency 
evaluated Carter's proposal for the experience/past performance 
evaluation factor in light of Isratex's experience/past performance.  
For this evaluation factor, Carter was rated unacceptable in light of 
Isratex's inability to meet required delivery schedules, its 
delinquency on 85 percent of its contracts, and its failure to 
manufacture quality products.  Carter maintains that had the agency 
conducted discussions, it could have explained why Isratex's negative 
performance history should not have been attributed to Carter.[2]

Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2305(a)(2)(B)(ii) (1994), solicitations for competitive proposals must 
contain:

     "either a statement that the proposals are intended to be 
     evaluated with, and award made after, discussions with the 
     offerors, or a statement that the proposals are intended to be 
     evaluated, and award made, without discussions with the offerors 
     (other than discussions conducted for the purpose of minor 
     clarification) unless discussions are determined to be 
     necessary."

This provision, as implemented by FAR  sec.  15.407(d)(4), requires that 
all solicitations for competitive proposals issued by the Department 
of Defense include the clause at FAR  sec.  52.215-16 Alternate II if the 
agency intends to conduct discussions prior to making an award or the 
clause at FAR  sec.  52.215-16 Alternate III if the agency intends to award 
without discussions.[3]

While the agency intended to award the contract on the basis of 
initial proposals without discussions, it concedes that it failed to 
incorporate in the RFP the mandatory clause at FAR  sec.  52.215-16 
Alternate III.  Nevertheless, with respect to the experience/past 
performance evaluation factor, the RFP did not guarantee that 
discussions in this area would be conducted as evidenced by the 
statement in the RFP that "if discussions are conducted" offerors 
would be able to address unfavorable reports of past performance.  
(Emphasis added).  In addition, Carter acknowledged in its proposal 
the possibility, but not the guarantee, of discussions.  Specifically, 
in addressing the quick response and electronic data interchange 
requirements, Carter expressed its intention to be capable of having 
these requirements immediately operational and that "[t]his will be 
documented to the Government if and when discussions on this proposal 
are opened."  (Emphasis added).

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests based upon alleged 
improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to the 
closing time for receipt of initial proposals must be filed prior to 
that closing time.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1995); Engelhard Corp., 
B-237824, Mar. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  324.  In this case, it was 
apparent from the RFP that the agency had not incorporated either of 
the two mandatory alternate clauses indicating either the agency's 
intention to conduct discussions prior to making an award or the 
agency's intention to award without discussions.  In addition, the RFP 
simply provided for the possibility of, but did not guarantee, 
discussions regarding the experience/past performance evaluation 
factor.  Under these circumstances, where the RFP did not state that 
discussions would be conducted prior to award, a fact acknowledged by 
Carter in its proposal, we think it was incumbent upon Carter, if it 
wanted to ensure that discussions would be conducted, to protest the 
agency's failure to explicitly state its intention in this regard 
prior to the amended closing date for receipt of initial proposals.  
We conclude that Carter's post-award protest that the agency, by 
failing to incorporate in the RFP the clause at FAR  sec.  52.215-16 
Alternate III, was required to conduct discussions is untimely.  See 
ADT Sec. Sys., Inc., B-249932.2, Feb. 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  100.

Since the RFP did not guarantee discussions regarding the 
experience/past performance evaluation factor, we cannot conclude that 
the agency unreasonably determined not to conduct discussions with 
Carter regarding the attribution of Isratex's negative performance 
history to Carter.  Accordingly, we have no basis to object to the 
award to ORC on the basis of initial proposals without discussions as 
ORC's higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal was determined 
to represent the most advantageous offer to the government, consistent 
with the terms of the RFP.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency also had the option of incorporating, by marking the 
appropriate box, the clause at FAR  sec.  52.215-16, captioned "Contract 
Award (Jul 1990) Alternate II (Nov 1992)," which states that "[t]he 
Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after 
written or oral discussions with all responsible offerors who submit 
proposals within the competitive range.  However, each initial offer 
should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and 
technical standpoint."  Again, the agency failed to incorporate this 
clause by marking the appropriate box.

2. We point out that Carter does not argue that the agency should have 
conducted discussions regarding the manufacturing plan, quick 
response, and electronic data interchange evaluation factors for which 
Carter received marginally acceptable ratings.

3. These clauses have subsequently been redesignated.  See FAR  sec.  
52.215-16 (FAC 90-31).