BNUMBER:  B-271050
DATE:  June 7, 1996
TITLE:  Systems Integration & Development, Inc.

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

Matter of:Systems Integration & Development, Inc.

File:     B-271050

Date:June 7, 1996

E. W. Smith, Jr. for the protester.
William L. Ensign, Acting Architect of the Capitol, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency properly evaluated under the solicitation's generally 
worded experience criterion the qualifications of an offeror's 
proposed personnel and the experience of the firm itself with computer 
aided design systems, the primary functional computer architecture to 
be supported under the contract, since the agency may evaluate the 
extent to which offerors have experience directly related to the work 
required by the solicitation.

2.  Agency reasonably selected the incumbent contractor's technically 
superior, higher-priced proposal for award where it was reasonably 
determined that the proposal's technical advantages justified the 
payment of a price premium and the stated evaluation methodology 
provided that technical evaluation factors were more important than 
price in selecting the proposal most advantageous to the government.

DECISION

Systems Integration & Development, Inc. (SID) protests the award of a 
contract to Independent Network Consultants, Inc. (INC) under request 
for proposals (RFP) No. 9607, issued by the Architect of the Capitol 
(AOC) for comprehensive computer support services in the Capitol 
Complex of Buildings, Washington, D.C.  SID challenges the evaluation 
of its proposal and the award to INC, a higher technically rated, 
higher-priced offeror.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a 
base period with a 1-year option period.  The RFP described the 
equipment and systems currently in use in the Capitol and various 
congressional office buildings.  The RFP required an offeror to 
propose four individuals and to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, 
and abilities in several areas, including "[i]n depth knowledge of 
network operating systems, network protocols and network management 
schemes"; "[e]xpert skill in developing and implementing methodologies 
to seamlessly implement highly complex heterogenous network (LAN) 
[local area network] services"; and "[e]xpert skill in assessing new 
technologies and their applicability to specific AOC requirements 
[and] the ability to adapt these technologies to specific 
applications."  The RFP also required an offeror to identify at least 
three projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to the 
requirements of the RFP which were performed by the offeror within the 
previous 3 years, specifically detailing the types of hardware and 
software systems serviced.  Finally, the RFP required an offeror to 
describe its management approach.

The RFP stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror 
whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government, price 
and technical evaluation factors considered.  The technical evaluation 
factors tracked the RFP requirements and were weighted as follows:  
(1) technical personnel (40 points); (2) corporate experience and past 
performance (40 points); and (3) management approach (20 points).  The 
RFP provided that higher scores would be assigned to offerors which 
demonstrated in their proposals more extensive personnel 
qualifications and experience in performing the RFP requirements.  The 
RFP also provided that the technical evaluation factors were 
considered more important than price, and that an offeror's proposed 
price would only become more important as the technical merit of 
proposals became more equal.

Of the 23 firms which submitted initial proposals, the proposals of 10 
firms, including SID and INC, the incumbent contractor, were 
determined to be in the competitive range.  Following oral discussions 
with each competitive range offeror and interviews with proposed 
personnel, the agency requested best and final offers from each 
offeror.  The final technical evaluation scores for SID and INC (the 
only offerors whose proposals were ultimately considered eligible for 
award) were as follows:

                         SID       INC
Technical personnel       32        36
Corporate experience/
  past performance        30        38
Management Approach       20        17
Total                     82        91

SID's proposed price was $420,502, and INC's proposed price was 
$486,720.

Since INC scored higher than SID in the two most important technical 
evaluation areas--technical personnel and corporate experience/past 
performance--and since INC had a higher total technical evaluation 
score, the agency determined that INC's proposal was technically 
superior to SID's proposal and that this technical superiority 
justified the payment of a price premium.  Accordingly, the agency 
awarded the contract to INC.

SID argues that its proposal was improperly downgraded for the 
technical personnel and corporate experience/past performance 
technical evaluation factors based on the agency's use of an unstated 
evaluation factor, namely, consideration of whether an offeror's 
proposed personnel were qualified to support computer aided design 
(CAD)[1] hardware and software systems and whether the firm itself had 
experience in providing CAD support services.  Moreover, SID complains 
that INC, as the incumbent contractor, received an unfair competitive 
advantage.

In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency's evaluation 
of proposals, we will examine an agency's evaluation to ensure that it 
was fair and reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria 
stated in the RFP.  Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., B-239223, 
Aug. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  129; Institute of Modern Procedures, Inc., 
B-236964, Jan. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  93.  Based on our review of the 
record, we conclude that in evaluating SID's proposal, the agency 
reasonably evaluated the qualifications of SID's proposed personnel 
and its own corporate experience/past performance and did not utilize 
an unstated evaluation factor.  Further, we conclude that INC did not 
receive an unfair competitive advantage.

The CAD system is the primary functional computer architecture which 
AOC uses to satisfy its facility management requirements.  For one 
building, the RFP stated that "[s]ervices currently supplie[d] for 
networked PCs [personal computers] are heavily configured for . . . 
[CAD].  The CAD system is an Intergraph 6400 Series Unix Server which 
utilizes the TCP/IP [Transmission Control Protocol/Internet 
Protocol]."  The RFP also specified that the current CAD software was 
Intergraph's Microstation 4.0.  According to the RFP, other buildings 
must use the specified CAD software to access the CAD server.

In evaluating proposals, the agency did not limit its consideration to 
whether an offeror's proposed personnel were generally qualified in 
working with computer hardware and software systems and whether a firm 
had corporate experience/past performance with computer systems in 
general.  Rather, the agency specifically considered whether the 
proposed personnel had CAD qualifications and whether an offeror had 
CAD corporate experience/past performance.  While CAD qualifications 
and experience were not specifically described in the evaluation 
criteria, the RFP evaluation criteria section stated that proposed 
employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities would be assessed, with 
higher ratings given for those with "more extensive qualifications, 
knowledge, skills and abilities when measured against" RFP 
requirements.  A similar statement was set forth regarding the 
evaluation of corporate experience/past performance.  In addition, the 
RFP's technical instructions required submissions to reflect an 
offeror's proposed personnel's "[i]n depth knowledge of network 
operating systems . . . " and their "expert skills in assessing new 
technologies and their applicability to specific AOC requirements 
[and] the ability to adapt these technologies to specific 
applications."  The offerors also were to discuss hardware and 
software systems previously serviced in connection with projects of 
"similar size, scope and complexity to that required by" the RFP.  
Given that the CAD system is AOC's primary functional computer 
architecture, offeror and proposed personnel experience with CAD was 
obviously important to AOC and properly considered under the technical 
personnel and corporate experience/past performance evaluation 
criteria.  In this regard, we have long recognized that an agency, 
under generally-worded experience criteria, properly may evaluate the 
extent to which offerors have experience directly related to the work 
required by the RFP.  See Human Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers, 
Inc., B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 21, 1995, 96-1 CPD  para.  35; FMS Corp., 
B-255191, Feb. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  182.  Thus, we do not agree with 
SID that the agency relied upon an unstated evaluation factor.

We also find the actual evaluation of SID's proposal to be reasonable.  
In evaluating SID's proposed personnel, the agency considered the 
resumes furnished for each of the proposed individuals and the 
interviews with two of these individuals.  In evaluating SID's 
corporate experience/past performance, the agency contacted references 
and considered SID's description of its relevant experience, including 
a detailed list of its systems integration expertise which was broken 
down into numerous categories (e.g., operating systems, communication 
protocols and architectures, languages, graphical user interfaces, 
multimedia, imaging software, "CASE" engineering software, database 
management systems, hardware, desk top publishing, and mailing 
system).  While the agency determined that SID's proposed personnel 
were "technically experienced" and "appeared to have the depth of 
personnel experience to easily meet the technological requirements of 
[AOC]," and SID's references reported that the firm satisfactorily 
performed required services and SID personnel were technically 
qualified, competent, and conducted themselves in a professional 
manner, the record supports the agency's conclusions that none of 
SID's proposed personnel described experience with CAD systems,[2] and 
SID itself did not reference any CAD experience.  In particular, the 
agency noted that although SID had experience with communication 
protocols that CAD systems use, SID neither had general CAD experience 
nor specific Intergraph CAD experience as described in the RFP.

In contrast, one of INC's proposed personnel, as evidenced by the 
resume furnished with INC's proposal, expressly listed experience with 
the "installation, integration, and configuration of Microstation CAD 
system, with the goal of optimization of performance" and INC, as the 
incumbent contractor, had direct experience with all AOC equipment and 
systems, including the CAD system.  In fact, INC's proposed personnel 
developed the current system configuration.  The agency determined 
that INC's proposed personnel were "very strong and ha[d] substantial 
experience" and INC's references, particularly the one from AOC 
commenting on INC's performance as the incumbent contractor, reported 
that the firm fulfilled its contract "above and beyond" the 
reference's satisfaction and that INC personnel were "outstanding . . 
. ready to go above and beyond" in terms of technical qualifications, 
competence, and professional conduct.  In evaluating INC's proposal, 
we think the agency reasonably considered INC's relevant incumbent 
experience.  Incumbency carries with it certain advantages; 
consideration of an incumbent's experience does not result in an 
unfair competitive advantage.  See Dayron, B-265875.2, Jan. 11, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  10.

In its comments to the agency report, SID maintains that two of its 
proposed personnel, as well as the firm, have experience with imaging 
systems, experience which SID suggests is comparable to CAD 
experience, that is, "[t]he CAD system behave[s] similar to imaging 
systems".[3]  According to SID's proposal, it has developed for 
corporate information providers a large image storage system which 
"helps information providers store their information on the network 
and allows their subscribers to download the information on demand to 
their workstation."  SID states it has "designed and developed [this] 
imaging system to handle large images including [very complex] CAD 
drawings."

While SID may have expertise and experience in storing and retrieving 
CAD drawings, drawing storage and retrieval processes and techniques 
appear to be distinct from the processes and techniques involved in 
originally generating these drawings.  Thus, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we cannot conclude that AOC should have 
considered SID's expertise and experience with image storage and 
retrieval systems as comparable to expertise and experience with using 
CAD systems to generate original CAD drawings.  

SID also challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff which 
resulted in the award to INC, a higher technically rated, 
higher-priced offeror.  SID maintains that with such a slight 
difference in total technical evaluation scores, as the lower-priced 
offeror, it should have received the award as the offeror submitting 
the most advantageous proposal.[4]

In a negotiated procurement, where the solicitation does not provide 
for award on the basis of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable 
proposal, an agency has the discretion to make award to an offeror 
with a higher technical score and a higher price where it reasonably 
determines that the price premium is justified and the result is 
consistent with the evaluation criteria.  See LSS Leasing Corp., 
B-259551, Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  179.

While INC's price was approximately 14 percent higher than SID's 
price, INC's proposal was, as discussed, reasonably determined by AOC 
to be technically superior to SID's proposal in the areas of technical 
personnel and corporate experience/past performance, the two most 
heavily weighted technical evaluation factors.  Moreover, INC had a 
good performance record, particularly with AOC, which, the agency 
states, has led it to develop substantial confidence in INC's ability 
to isolate and correct network failures.  (For example, in the source 
selection document, the agency explains that during an early phase in 
network implementation, there was a network failure which resulted in 
the failure of the agency's accounting staff to process vendor 
payments and to provide accounting information to management.  Because 
of the inability of the contractor at that time to isolate and correct 
the failure, the agency replaced that contractor with INC which 
expeditiously restored full network service.)  Under the 
circumstances, we have no basis to question the agency's decision to 
award to INC at a higher price than offered by SID.[5]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. CAD is a technique in which the computer is used for drawing and 
problem solving in technical fields, such as architecture and 
engineering systems.  The agency's architectural, engineering, and 
facility management staff use the CAD system to change congressional 
room assignments and to make structural changes within a building.  
The agency states that any failure in the CAD system would result in 
its inability to provide necessary congressional services, a result 
which would be seriously disruptive and unacceptable.

2. In its comments to the agency report, SID simply states that one of 
its proposed technicians "has extensive experience with CAD system."  
SID, however, does not even identify the individual in its proposal to 
whom it refers.  We have reviewed the resumes for each of SID's 
proposed personnel and are unable to confirm that any of SID's 
proposed personnel had relevant CAD experience.

3. Unlike SID's previous reference to one proposed technician having 
CAD experience, we were able to confirm, based on our review of the 
resumes, that SID's proposed team leader and another proposed employee 
had experience with imaging systems.

4. SID states that after award, it was told that the total point 
differential between its proposal and INC's proposal was 6 points, not 
9 points.  In its report, the agency explains that there was a 
clerical error in the evaluation documents, but that the 9-point 
differential is correct.  Regardless of the point differential, we do 
not place much weight on the differential since the scores themselves 
are not controlling as to the significance of actual proposal 
differences; point scores are useful only as guides to intelligent 
decision-making.  See Earle Palmer Brown Cos., Inc., B-243544; 
B-243544.2, Aug. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  134.  In this case, putting aside 
the relative closeness of the point differential, the agency 
determined that INC's proposal was technically superior to SID's 
proposal in the areas of technical personnel and corporate 
experience/past performance and that INC offered real advantages as 
the incumbent contractor.  The agency did not rely on the point 
differential as the basis for making the selection decision.  Even 
assuming a closer point differential, the record clearly shows that 
the reasons for selecting INC for award would remain.

5. We note that the agency calculated that if SID were awarded the 
contract, it would incur approximately $44,000 in various transition 
costs, thus significantly diminishing the price savings associated 
with SID's proposal.