BNUMBER:  B-270988
DATE:  May 7, 1996
TITLE:  R&A Technical Services

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:R&A Technical Services

File:     B-270988

Date:May 7, 1996

J. William Bennett for the protester.
Matthew D. Thomason III, Esq., and Charles Frew, Esq., Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where contracting agency reasonably rated protester's and 
awardee's proposals as technically equal, contracting officer properly 
made award of a fixed-price contract to the lower-priced offeror.

2.  Agency performed appropriate price analysis under solicitation 
which contemplated award of a fixed-price contract where the agency 
determined that the awardee's price was reasonable on the basis of a 
comparison to the other prices offered and the independent government 
price estimate.

DECISION

R&A Technical Services protests the award of a contract to Mellor 
Engineering Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DACA87-95-R-0101, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside by 
the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, Alabama for 
general analysis, detection and monitoring services of a chemical 
stockpile located at Tooele Army Depot.  The protester principally 
contends that the Army failed to make a proper price/technical 
tradeoff in selecting the lower priced, lower technically rated 
offeror for award.

We deny the protest.

The RFP stated the agency would award a contract that would represent 
the best value to the government, based on the evaluation of technical 
and price factors.[1]  The RFP, contemplating the award of a fixed 
price contract for a base year and       4 option years, required the 
submission of technical and price proposals by each offeror.  The RFP 
listed the following technical evaluation criteria:  (1) experience; 
(2) personnel; (3) management; (4) past performance; and (5) technical 
approach.  The RFP stated that technical approach was the most 
important factor, followed by, in descending order of importance, 
experience, personnel, management and past performance.[2]   The RFP 
contained a list of 10 recommended staffing categories of skilled 
personnel, including, for example, chemist, gas chromatograph 
specialist, and technical editor.  For each category, the RFP 
contained a description of staffing duties.

Concerning price, the RFP stated that price would not be a scored 
factor, but would be evaluated as to reasonableness and 
affordability.[3]   The RFP advised offerors that the total price for 
the base and option years would be evaluated.  The RFP also required 
offerors to submit a contract pricing proposal which showed the 
"rationale followed in development of direct labor, overhead, G&A and 
profit."  The RFP contained a Service Contract Act (SCA) Wage 
Determination and cautioned offerors that their employee base rates 
had to conform with this wage determination.

Six firms submitted initial proposals by the closing date of November 
16, 1995.  The agency's Technical/Management Evaluation Board 
evaluated initial proposals.  On December 6, the evaluators reported 
their findings to the contracting officer.[4]  The numerical rankings 
and prices were as follows:

Offeror              Technical/Management ScorePrice[5]

R&A          [DELETED]                  [DELETED]

Offeror A    [DELETED]                  [DELETED]

Mellor       [DELETED]                  [DELETED]

The evaluators' narrative report noted as follows:

     "[R&A's] proposal was complete and addressed [all] technical and 
     management criteria required by the RFP [and was the best overall 
     proposal].  [Mellor and Offeror A] were scored lower than R&A 
     because they did not fully address or demonstrate their abilities 
     to satisfy all the requirements of the RFP. . . . Recommendation:  
     R&A has the highest Technical/Management score and is ranked 
     first.  [R&A] submitted a proposal with no deficiencies, or 
     weaknesses/disadvantages.  [Its] proposal was best overall 
     because [it] provided more detailed information than the other 
     offerors.  [Offeror A] submitted an excellent proposal and had no 
     deficiencies with a few weakness/disadvantages. . . . [Mellor] 
     provided an excellent proposal [and] provided a proposal with no 
     deficiencies and only a couple of weakness or disadvantages.  The 
     board felt that any one of these three highly qualified firms 
     could satisfactorily perform all technical and management work 
     required by this contract without further discussions, 
     information or submission[s]."

Based upon the findings of the evaluators, the contracting officer 
included the offers of these three firms in the competitive range.  
The contracting officer requested best and final offers (BAFO) from 
these firms in a letter which also stated that "[t]here were no 
deficiencies or discrepancies noted in your technical or price 
proposal."  BAFOs were received and evaluated.  None of the offerors 
made changes in their technical proposals; prices proposed by the 
three offerors also remained the same except for a minimal price 
adjustment by Offeror A.  

Based on the evaluation of BAFOs, the agency's evaluators found that 
all three firms were "highly qualified and technically acceptable to 
perform the work."  Further, although R&A had provided "more detailed 
information," the evaluators found that Offeror A's and Mellor's 
proposals were "excellent with few weaknesses/disadvantages" and that 
all three firms were "technically equal."  The evaluators also noted 
that all three firms proposed to use many of the same personnel.  The 
evaluators concluded as follows:

        "Mellor has perfect scores in personnel and management and a 
        nearly perfect score in experience.  Mellor scored excellent 
        in the criteria for past performance.  All sources stated they 
        would hire [Mellor] for future projects if the occasion arose.  
        [Mellor] is the most advantageous to the government [as the 
        lowest priced offeror]."

Based on the evaluators' technical determination that the three firms 
were technically equal, the contracting officer proceeded to award the 
contract to Mellor, the low offeror.  This protest followed.

The protester argues that it scored higher than Mellor and contends 
that, contrary to the agency's view, its higher scores reflect actual 
technical superiority and that the agency did not have a valid basis 
for its decision to make award to a lower rated offeror at an 
insignificant price savings.  The protester also argues that the award 
decision is improper because the record does not adequately document 
the basis for the agency's evaluation and selection decision.  
Specifically, the protester notes that the evaluators found "specific 
and apparently quantifiable differences between the offerors" but 
concluded, without any detailed reasoned analysis, that the proposals 
were technically equal.  According to the protester, there was "[n]o 
analysis of the actual point differential, or anything else pertinent 
to the solicitation requirements and the offers received."  The 
protester concludes that the agency's finding of "technical equality" 
among the three proposals was defective.

A contracting agency properly may award a contract to a lower priced, 
lower technically scored offeror if it decides that the price premium 
involved in awarding to a higher rated, higher priced offeror is not 
justified given the acceptable level of technical competence available 
at the lower cost.  Dayton T. Brown, Inc., B-229664, Mar. 30, 1988, 
88-1 CPD  para.  321.  Evaluation scores are merely guides for the selection 
official, who must use his judgment to determine what the technical 
difference between competing proposals might mean to contract 
performance, and who must consider what it would cost to take 
advantage of it.  Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 
76-1 CPD  para.  325.  The relevant considerations in such a case are 
whether the award decision was reasonable in light of the RFP 
evaluation scheme, and whether the selection official adequately 
documented the basis for his selection.  Dayton T. Brown, Inc., supra; 
DynCorp, 71 Comp. Gen. 129 (1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  575.

Our review of the record shows that the agency reasonably found the 
proposals technically equal and selected the lower priced offeror.  As 
shown by the technical point scores [DELETED], both Mellor's and the 
protester's proposals were considered excellent with minor evaluated 
differences between them.  The contracting officer states that the 
major difference between the protester's and Mellor's technical 
proposals was that in the technical approach area the protester 
"provided more detailed information concerning activities it would 
conduct within specific time frames."  He further states that Mellor's 
technical proposal reflected similar activities but "tended to be more 
general in its approach."  The contracting officer also states that 
both firms proposed to employ the same personnel in many positions; 
consequently, many of the same personnel would be performing the work 
regardless of which firm was awarded the contract.  The contracting 
officer concludes that it was therefore reasonable for him to select 
the lower priced offeror.

The protester, in its comments on the agency report, notes only one 
allegedly superior feature of its technical approach which resulted in 
a "perfect" score under the technical approach factor--"this 
difference was because the contract activities were more specifically 
detailed and more specific performance time was set out in [the 
protester's proposal]."  However, we think that the agency reasonably 
could decide that the protester's furnishing of more specifics and 
details under the technical approach factor did not necessarily 
reflect a superior technical advantage relative to Mellor's proposal 
which contained a similar approach.  Further, the protester has failed 
to identify any deficiency or weakness in Mellor's proposal to show 
that Mellor's proposal was other than technically equal from a 
substantive standpoint.  We have also confirmed the contracting 
officer's statement that both offerors proposed to use many of the 
same personnel to perform the work.  Accordingly, we have no basis to 
object to the contracting officer's conclusion that the proposals were 
essentially equal technically.

The protester also argues that the contracting officer failed to make 
an adequate price reasonableness determination.[6]  We find no merit 
to this argument.
Where, as here, the RFP contemplates award of a fixed-price contract, 
the contracting agency is not required to conduct a detailed cost or 
cost realism analysis.  See PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters of Charity 
of the Incarnate Word,       B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
366.  An agency may properly make a determination on the 
reasonableness of prices based upon a comparison of such prices with 
the government estimate and other offered prices.  See Astro Pak 
Corp., B-256345, June 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  352.  Here, the agency 
conducted a price analysis which consisted of a comparison of the 
awardee's price with the other prices proposed and a comparison of the 
awardee's price with the independent government estimate.  Based on 
these comparisons, the agency concluded that Mellor's price was 
realistic and reasonable.  We have no reason to question the agency's 
determination.  
  
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency states that while there was no statement in the RFP 
concerning the relative importance of technical and price 
considerations, offerors should have known that technical and price 
considerations would "be approximately equal in weight."  The 
protester agrees with the agency's position.  In any event, even if 
technical considerations were stated by the RFP to be more important 
than price, this would not affect in any way our decision here.

2. The RFP advised offerors that an "ideal proposal" would achieve a 
maximum total score of 100 points.  The RFP did not further break down 
the scoring weights among each technical evaluation factor.

3. The RFP's schedule requested monthly unit prices for the services; 
equipment costs, operating supplies and travel were not separately 
priced.

4. We limit our discussion to the top three firms as found by the 
evaluators.

5. The independent government price estimate was approximately $9.1 
million.

6. In this regard, the protester argues that the contracting officer 
failed to make an adequate analysis of Mellor's price proposal which 
allegedly did not contain sufficient information to show that Mellor's 
labor rates met SCA requirements.      The protester's argument is not 
that Mellor took exception to any SCA wage rate in its BAFO; rather, 
the protester argues Mellor should have provided more cost information 
to substantiate its compliance with the SCA wage rate.  In a 
fixed-price contract, we are unaware of any requirement to do so.  
There is nothing in Mellor's BAFO which would indicate any intent to 
modify its commitment to any SCA wage rates.   See Carolina 
Stevedoring Co., B-260006, May 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  3.