BNUMBER:  B-271051
DATE:  May 30, 1996
TITLE:  Interactive Communication Technology, Inc.

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

Matter of:Interactive Communication Technology, Inc.

File:     B-271051

Date:May 30, 1996

Victor Lim, Jr. for the protester.
Richard A. Marchese, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, 
for the  agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Incumbent's proposal, which lacked detailed information concerning 
technical approach and staffing, was properly excluded from the 
competitive range as not having a reasonable chance of being selected 
for award in light of other, more highly rated proposals received. 

DECISION

Interactive Communication Technology, Inc. (ICT) protests the 
exclusion of its   proposal from the competitive range under request 
for proposals (RFP) No. DU100C000018418, issued by the Department of 
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) for audio/video production services.  
The agency excluded ICT's proposal from the competitive range because 
it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award due to 
numerous weaknesses identified in the proposal.  ICT contends that the 
agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and its proposal was 
improperly excluded from the competitive range.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite quantity 
contract for a base year with 2 options years.  The RFP set forth a 
best value evaluation scheme with technical factors significantly more 
important than price in the source selection decision.  It advised 
offerors that technical proposals would be numerically rated under 
four evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance:  
qualification and experience, technical approach, quality control, and 
creative and technical quality of sample productions.  

Thirteen firms submitted initial proposals.  An evaluation panel 
evaluated the technical proposals and prepared a composite score for 
each proposal.  Following the initial technical evaluation, 10 
proposals were evaluated as technically acceptable.  Of these, ICT's 
proposal was the lowest priced and lowest ranked with a technical 
score of 62.  The contracting officer established a competitive range 
consisting of 6 of the 10 technically acceptable proposals, with 
composite technical scores ranging from 95 to 82.  ICT's proposal was 
among four technically acceptable proposals excluded.

ICT's proposal was excluded from the competitive range because the 
contracting officer concluded it did not have a reasonable chance of 
being selected for award due to numerous weaknesses in the proposal 
and its unrealistically low price.  Among the weaknesses identified 
was ICT's failure to demonstrate either through experience, discussion 
or submission of sample videos the capability to perform two-way 
broadcast productions for television and radio or live multi-site 
video teleconferencing via satellite transmission, as contemplated by 
the RFP.  In addition, the evaluators found ICT's technical approach 
discussion lacked details (such as its logistical approach to 
achieving live two-way audio and video communications or the logistics 
required for audio/video broadcasts from multiple sites) and failed to 
address the specifics of the solicitation requirements concerning 
project management, scheduling, equipment and personnel.  The 
evaluators also were concerned with ICT's failure to include a 
detailed discussion in its quality control plan for providing and 
assuring an adequate and qualified work force or the availability of 
all necessary supplies and equipment.  As to the video sample 
submitted by ICT, the evaluators noted that it was an example of only 
a single production, which precluded them from evaluating the firm's 
diversity of audiovisual productions.  Finally, the agency considered 
ICT's price unrealistic and questioned whether that price indicated a 
lack of understanding of the RFP's requirements.

ICT, the incumbent contractor, argues that because it is successfully 
performing under a similar contract for HUD it possesses the "unique 
advantage" of being familiar with the type of services required by 
this solicitation.  On this basis, the protester insists that the 
agency could not reasonably conclude that the weaknesses in its 
proposal demonstrated ICT's lack of understanding of the solicitation 
requirements.  However, ICT's reliance on its status as an incumbent 
is misplaced;  an agency is not required to overlook a flawed proposal 
on the basis of the offeror's prior performance.  To the contrary, all 
offerors are expected to demonstrate their capabilities in their 
proposals rather than simply rely on what they believe is known about 
them by contracting officials; those who do not furnish detailed, 
comprehensive proposals in reliance on their incumbent status do so at 
their own risk.  See Computerized Project Management Plus, B-247063, 
Apr. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  401.    

ICT also challenges the numerous criticisms of its proposal.  
Concerning the discussion of video conferencing via satellite 
transmission and two-way audio/video productions in its proposal, the 
protester states that these areas were discussed in a "cursory manner" 
because it believed these services cannot be ordered under the 
contract since they were not listed as line items on the RFP's pricing 
schedule.  In addition, ICT explains that it did not provide the 
qualifications and experience of its additional potential staff 
("freelancers") because the firm could not predict which "freelancers" 
would be available.  ICT also states that it did provide resumes for 
key personnel on its staff and contests the criticism of its proposal 
for not identifying the firm's "technical team," since the RFP did not 
require proposals to identify technical teams.  The protester also 
challenges the evaluators' judgment that its proposed quality control 
plan lacked specifics regarding all necessary equipment and 
supplies--stating that its proposal included an inventory of equipment 
necessary to field four production teams--and reiterates that it could 
not provide more details regarding its potential "freelance" staff as 
their availability was uncertain.  Further, ICT maintains that its 
sample video is comprised of several types of production and, contrary 
to the evaluators' findings, depicts a diversity of productions and 
technical creativity.

An agency may properly determine whether to include a proposal within 
the competitive range by comparing the proposal evaluation scores and 
the proposal's  relative standing.  A proposal that is technically 
acceptable 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.  Coe-Truman 
Technologies, Inc., B-257480, Sept. 12, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  136; Curry 
Contracting Co., Inc., B-254355, Dec. 13, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  334.  We 
will not disturb a determination to exclude a proposal from the 
competitive range unless the record indicates the determination was 
unreasonable.  Intown Properties, Inc., B-250392, Jan. 28, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  73.

Based on our review of the RFP, ICT's proposal, and the evaluation, we 
find nothing objectionable in the evaluation or the resulting 
competitive range determination.  We address two representative 
evaluation areas which demonstrate the reasonableness of the agency's 
judgment.  According to the RFP, an offeror's qualification and 
experience was to be the most important and heavily weighted factor in 
the evaluation.  The RFP required offerors to describe their corporate 
experience and qualifications in all elements of the statement of work 
and to discuss the firm's experience in live, multi-site video 
teleconferencing by satellite transmission and two-way audio/video 
live communications.  Offerors also were advised to discuss the 
qualifications and experience of the individual management officials 
and other key personnel and to furnish resumes for individual staffers 
to demonstrate each individual's training and work experience.

In reviewing ICT's proposal, the evaluators noted that the firm simply 
described its corporate experience in terms of the audiovisual and 
video services provided to the agency and failed to demonstrate the 
firm's experience in multi-site video teleconferencing and two-way 
audio/video live communications.  Further, while ICT submitted resumes 
for five individuals, it did not indicate which of the eight labor 
categories listed in the solicitation each of these individuals would 
fill.  Moreover, the proposal failed to identify any "freelancers" ICT 
proposed to use, their qualifications, or which "freelancer" would be 
responsible for various projects, as required by the RFP.  Overall, 
the evaluators concluded that ICT's proposal response was inadequate 
and did not have the detail required to enable the evaluators to 
perform a complete evaluation with respect to this evaluation factor.  
ICT's proposal received a score of 38 of the 50 points allotted to 
this evaluation factor.

Under the second most important evaluation factor, technical approach, 
the RFP required, among other things, that offerors discuss their 
plans for accomplishing video teleconferencing via satellite 
transmission and their logistical approach in achieving live two-way 
audio/video communications.  According to the RFP, offerors were to 
address their capability to perform these services including, their 
ability to provide experienced/qualified personnel to perform 
pre-production, production and post-production elements of video 
projects.  The evaluators were concerned with the lack of information 
in ICT's technical approach for accomplishing video teleconferencing 
via satellite transmission to multiple receiving sites and its failure 
to address the logistics required for performing these services from 
multiple sites.  In this regard, the evaluators noted that ICT's 
technical approach lacked information concerning who would be 
responsible for each element of the project as well as the production 
equipment and personnel ICT considered essential to perform these 
projects.  The evaluators assigned a score of 10 out of a possible 
20 points for this factor. 
  
We find nothing in the proposal which shows the evaluators' 
conclusions were unreasonable.  While the protester has attempted to 
show that its proposal deserved additional technical points under each 
of the technical areas and has offered an explanation as to why 
certain information was not included in its proposal, it does not 
dispute that the RFP required specific information in each of the 
areas in which the firm's proposal was found lacking.  It is an 
offeror's responsibility to furnish all of the information required by 
the solicitation, and an agency therefore properly may exclude from 
the competitive range an offer with significant informational 
deficiencies.  Cook Travel, B-238527, June 13, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  571.  
Here, whether or not ICT possesses the capability and experience to 
perform all the required tasks (including live, multi-site video 
teleconferencing), its proposal failed to present such information in 
the detail necessary for the evaluators to rate the proposal higher in 
any of the four technical areas.  In short, it appears ICT placed an 
inappropriate emphasis on its incumbency status without regard to the 
specific requirements of this solicitation which included tasks not 
included in previous contracts.  Its experience as the incumbent does 
not prove that the evaluators' judgment in evaluating ICT's proposal 
was unreasonable or otherwise improper.  Realty Executives, B-237537, 
Feb. 16, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  288.

Finally, ICT's reliance on the fact that it submitted the lowest price 
of the 
10 technically acceptable offerors is misplaced.  In view of the ICT's 
relatively low technical score in the areas of management/key 
personnel and technical approach, the agency concluded that the 
protester's significantly low price was unrealistic.  Specifically, 
the agency was concerned that the protester's failure to provide 
information on its proposed staffing (other than the five individuals 
for whom it submitted resumes) and its failure to address the 
logistics and manpower required to accomplish live, multi-site video 
teleconferencing via satellite and two-way audio/video productions, 
reflected its lack of understanding of the staffing, video 
teleconferencing and audio/video requirements.  The agency concluded 
that if ICT were permitted to correct these weaknesses in its 
proposal, the revisions would result in a significant increase in the 
protester's offered price.  We think that conclusion was reasonable 
since every other higher-rated proposal was significantly higher 
priced.  In any event, given the solicitation's emphasis on technical 
merit over price, and the agency's receipt of several superior 
technical proposals (the evaluation of which the protester has not 
challenged), we think that notwithstanding ICT's price, the agency 
reasonably determined that ICT's proposal did not have a reasonable 
chance of award and properly excluded the proposal from the 
competitive range.  Paragon Imaging, Inc., B-249632, Nov. 18, 1992, 
92-2 CPD  para.  356.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States