BNUMBER:  B-271065; B-271065.2
DATE:  June 12, 1996
TITLE:  Theta Engineering, Inc.

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

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:Theta Engineering, Inc.

File:     B-271065; B-271065.2

Date:June 12, 1996

Thomas B. Archbold, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., for the protester.
Gerald T. Nielsen, Esq., Thomas F. Williamson, Esq., and Marcia G. 
Madsen, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for Engineering/Documentation 
Systems, Inc., an intervenor.
Colonel Nicholas P. Retson and Major Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., 
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.  Protest that agency misevaluated cost proposals by upwardly 
adjusting protester's proposed costs and conversely failing to 
upwardly adjust awardee's proposed cost in certain cost elements, with 
result that the protester's cost was higher than the awardee's is 
denied, where upward adjustment of protester's cost was reasonable in 
two challenged areas, and other adjustments in the protester's or 
awardee's cost proposal would not displace awardee as the low offeror.

2.  Where protester fails to show that its proposal was technically 
superior to awardee's proposal--and even assuming the protester's 
argument to be valid that its technical proposal should have been 
rated technically equal to awardee's technical proposal--cost properly 
became the important factor for selection, and protester was not 
entitled to the award because its evaluated cost was not low.

DECISION

Theta Engineering, Inc., the incumbent contractor, protests the award 
of a cost-plus-base/award fee contract to Engineering/Documentation 
Systems, Inc. (EDSI) under request for proposal (RFP) No. 
DAKF36-95-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Fort Drum, New 
York for direct support and general support (DS/GS) maintenance 
services and repair of commercial and tactical equipment in various 
commodity groups at several military facilities.  Theta principally 
challenges the evaluation of cost and technical proposals.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, as amended, contemplated the award of the cost reimbursement 
contract for a base period with 5 option years.  The DS/GS maintenance 
services to be furnished by the successful contractor include planning 
and control, maintenance supply, quality control and associated 
services in the following major commodity groups, among others:  (1) 
automotive equipment; (2) combat vehicles;               (3) 
construction equipment; (4) electronic and communication equipment;           
(5) weapons/armaments; and (6) other general equipment.  The agency 
reports that because of the current "downsizing" of the Army--here, 
the inactivation of a separate infantry brigade--the RFP's estimated 
work load reflected a 25-percent reduction for calendar year 1996 from 
calendar year 1994 levels.

The RFP provided that award would be based on the best overall 
proposal considering the stated evaluation factors.  The RFP listed 
the following two major factors:  (1) quality; and (2) cost.  The RFP 
stated that "quality [was] significantly more important than cost."  
The subfactors of the quality factor, listed in order of importance, 
were technical, management, and past performance.  The subfactors of 
the cost factor, again listed in order of importance, were most 
probable cost/cost realism, cost tracking and control system, total 
estimated cost, and fee structure.

Although the RFP stated that technical ("quality") factors were more 
important than cost, offerors were advised that the importance of cost 
would increase "as relative differences between the overall quality of 
proposals decrease."  As relevant here, the RFP stated that under the 
subfactor, most probable cost/cost realism, the agency would assess 
the cost realism of each offer by developing a most probable cost 
estimate for the proposal based on the offeror's total overall 
approach.  The RFP required offerors to complete a cost data sheet 
matrix listing every labor classification required to accomplish the 
tasks, the quantities of each classification required, the labor rate, 
any overtime hours needed, as well as other financial information.  
The RFP contained wage rate determinations by the Department of Labor 
for each facility to be furnished.  Finally, the RFP, by amendment No. 
0001, "normalized" other direct costs (ODCs), such as travel and 
postage/shipping, by establishing a specified sum in the RFP that all 
offerors were required to use in their cost proposals for purposes of 
evaluation.

The agency received six proposals by the closing date, including 
proposals from Theta and EDSI.  The agency's source selection 
evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the proposals with a numerical 
rating scheme.[1]  Based on the evaluation results, the contracting 
officer included the proposals of five firms in the competitive range, 
including the proposals of Theta and EDSI.  Face-to-face and 
telephonic discussions were then conducted with each firm.  The agency 
received and evaluated five best and final offers (BAFO).[2]  The 
results of the final evaluation were as follows:

EVALUATION FACTORS     THETA               EDSI

Quality (70 percent)
   Technical
   Management
   Total Quality Points
   Past Performance    
                       [Deleted]                     [Deleted]                     
                       [Deleted]
                       [Deleted]           
                                           [Deleted]
                                           [Deleted]
                                           [Deleted]
                                           [Deleted]  

Cost (30 percent)
   Proposed Cost
   Evaluated Most Probable
       Cost (MPC)      
                       [Deleted]
                       
                       [Deleted]           
                                           [Deleted]
                                           
                                           [Deleted]                     
The agency's source selection authority (SSA) made the following 
determination:

        "[EDSI] received the highest Technical score . . . and a 
        Management score second only to [Theta].  One significant 
        aspect of [EDSI's] Management approach was the complete 
        authority and autonomy that will be given to the site Project 
        Manager.  The degree of autonomy is reflected in the cost 
        proposal in the extremely low corporate overhead/G&A pools. . 
        . . [My decision to select EDSI] is based on the overall 
        superior quality of [EDSI's] proposal as compared to all other 
        Offerors and considers the cost of achieving this quality to 
        include the risk of a cost overrun. . . .  I believe there is 
        a great probability that [Theta] would require resources above 
        those identified in [its] proposal in order to perform the 
        requirement of the RFP [and that] the cost of these additional 
        resources would be approximately [deleted] over the five year 
        life of the contract, thereby negating any apparent proposed 
        cost advantage [Theta] had over [EDSI]."

The agency awarded the contract to EDSI; this protest followed.

COST REALISM ANALYSIS

When a cost reimbursement contract is to be awarded, a cost realism 
analysis must be performed by the agency; however, an agency is not 
required to conduct an in-depth cost analysis or to verify each and 
every item in conducting its analysis.  The Warner/Osborn/G&T Joint 
Venture, B-256641.2, Aug. 23, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  76.  The evaluation of 
competing cost proposals requires the exercise of informed judgment by 
the contracting agency involved, since it is in the best position to 
assess what the contract should cost, assuming reasonable economy and 
efficiency, and must bear the difficulties or additional expenses 
resulting from a defective cost analysis.  Id.  Consequently, our 
review is limited to a determination of whether an agency's cost 
evaluation was reasonably based and not arbitrary.  General Research 
Corp., 70 Comp. Gen. 279 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  183; Science Applications 
Int'l Corp., B-238136.2, June 1, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  517.  We find the 
agency's determination that Theta was other than the low cost offeror 
to be reasonable.

Theta argues that the agency's cost realism analysis which resulted in 
adjustments to both offerors' proposed costs was faulty and resulted 
in the agency "award[ing] the contract to a higher cost offeror."  
Theta believes that it had the "lower most probable cost" and should 
have been awarded the contract since its proposal "should have been 
evaluated, at a minimum, as essentially equal to EDSI's technical 
proposal."  Because of the difference in MPC between the two offerors, 
we need only decide two issues to determine that the agency properly 
evaluated EDSI's cost proposal as low.

As shown above, Theta proposed a total cost of [deleted]; after cost 
evaluation by the agency, Theta's MPC was upwardly adjusted to 
[deleted].  EDSI's proposed a total cost of [deleted], which was 
downwardly adjusted by the agency during cost evaluation to an MPC of 
[deleted].[3]  First, the protester challenges the agency's upward 
adjustment of its proposed costs by [deleted] in ODCs.  As amended 
prior to receipt of initial proposals, the RFP specifically required 
all offerors to propose a total of $525,000 for ODCs (this amount was 
printed in the amended RFP).  The RFP was amended to "normalize" these 
costs after offerors submitted questions to the agency expressing 
their lack of knowledge of historical ODCs and requesting the agency 
to specify an ODC amount for proposal evaluation.  This the agency 
did.  Theta's initial proposal contained [deleted] for ODCs.  During 
discussions, the agency specifically advised Theta to use the 
normalized ODC cost figures contained in the RFP.  Nevertheless, in 
its BAFO, Theta again proposed only [deleted] because the firm 
believed that its figures were "more valid."  The agency made an 
upward adjustment of [deleted] (which includes an amount for 
associated fee pools).

To the extent that the protester is arguing that the ODC amounts 
specified in the RFP were invalid and constituted an impropriety in 
the solicitation, its protest is untimely.  Protests based upon 
alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed prior to the 
time set for the closing time for receipt of initial proposals.  See          
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1996).  To the extent that the protester is 
challenging the upward adjustment by the agency during its evaluation, 
contracting agencies are required to adhere to the evaluation 
methodology contained in an RFP--which is exactly what the agency did 
here.  See Olympic Container Corp., B-219424, July 24, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  
83.  This protest ground is denied.

Second, Theta questions the agency's decision to increase Theta's MPC 
by [deleted] for understaffing a facility at Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG) 
by [deleted].  Theta argues that as the incumbent, it submitted 
proposed manning based on its extensive experience; the experience of 
its employees; the cross-training of its employees; and innovative and 
proven techniques.  Theta argues that the agency's 25-percent 
reduction in the RFP work load data shows that the inclusion of 
[deleted] in its cost proposal was unreasonable.  Theta also argues 
that the Army simply "formulated its estimate of the required staff 
hours and used that estimate to adjust each offeror's proposed costs 
[without any effort] to independently analyze the realism of the 
offeror's proposed costs based on each offeror's [approach]."  Theta 
concludes that the agency used a "flawed mechanical approach which 
improperly raised Theta's cost."  We disagree.

The agency determined in its Independent Government Estimate (IGE) 
that [deleted] of effort would be required to perform the work at FIG.  
The basis of the estimate was an automated maintenance management 
system named "GARSMMS."  This system records the actual labor and 
inspection (quality control) man-hours expended by the incumbent 
contractor in performing work orders issued under the current 
maintenance contract.  Further, the agency's IGE projections for 1996 
reflected the 25-percent reduction in work load from 1994 levels.  The 
IGE showed that [deleted] of labor were required to perform the work 
in six commodity groups during 1996.  Additionally, based on 
historical data, the IGE showed that [deleted] were required to 
perform the associated work in the four functional areas of Planning 
Production and Control, Supply, and Project Management.  This overall 
estimated staffing level of [deleted] is consistent with the current 
staffing of Theta, the incumbent.[4]  (Theta currently employs 
[deleted] people to perform the direct labor in the commodity groups, 
as compared to [deleted] contained in its proposal.  Additionally, 
Theta currently employs [deleted] at FIG, as compared to the [deleted] 
contained in its proposal for quality control.  The record shows that 
Theta recently attempted to further reduce the number of quality 
control personnel at FIG to [deleted], as proposed in its offer, but 
this manning was found to be insufficient to do the work.)
  
We think that a contracting agency may properly rely in a cost realism 
analysis on an incumbent's actual performance and actual staffing 
levels in currently performing the work rather than unsubstantiated 
proposed staffing in evaluating the realism of proposed costs.  See 
Marine Design Technologies, Inc., B-221897, May 29, 1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  
502.  Here, the agency considered the actual cost history of the 
program, the current staffing levels of the incumbent contractor, and 
the inability of Theta to perform the level of work with fewer than 
[deleted] employees in the commodity groups and [deleted] in quality 
control personnel, and, in our view, reasonably determined that an 
evaluation adjustment of [deleted] was necessary.  (During 
discussions, the agency specifically advised Theta to review its labor 
hours proposal for FIG.  Nevertheless, Theta did not increase its 
manning levels at FIG in its BAFO.)  Further, the protester, in its 
proposal, did not reflect any new "innovative" technical approach 
suggesting that the work could be done with fewer people or provide 
additional explanation as to why its previous experience in performing 
the work was not indicative of the actual staffing required for 
successful performance of the contract.  In the absence of a 
persuasive explanation by the protester to support its staffing level, 
we think the agency could reasonably rely on the actual performance 
staffing levels to upwardly adjust the protesters' proposed cost.

The record clearly shows that these two cost adjustments by the 
agency, which we find to be reasonable, render the protester's 
proposal other than low even assuming the validity of all of its other 
arguments concerning its own and EDSI's cost proposal adjustments.  
Therefore, for Theta to prevail, it must show that its technical 
proposal was significantly superior to EDSI's technical proposal. 

TECHNICAL (QUALITY) EVALUATION

In its initial protest, in its supplemental protest, in its comments 
on the agency report, as well as its surrebuttal to the agency's 
rebuttal of its comments, the protester did not expressly state that 
it should have been awarded the contract at a premium cost.  While the 
protester did generally argue that EDSI's technical proposal should 
have been downgraded in certain areas (such as excessive reliance on 
subcontracting with a large business) and that its proposal should 
have received higher technical scores because it submitted a superior 
technical proposal (such as in staffing), the protester's arguments 
concerning the agency's evaluation of cost and the weight to be given 
cost in the selection decision were limited to its contention that its 
proposal offered the lower cost as compared with the proposal of EDSI.  
For example, in its comments, the protester argues as follows:

        "[Based on] the quality of Theta's proposal, any determination 
        that EDSI's technical proposal was materially superior to 
        Theta's would be unreasonable, unsupported by the proposal 
        record, inconsistent with the RFP evaluation criteria, and 
        arbitrary.  Accordingly, Theta's technical proposal was or 
        should have been evaluated, at a minimum, as essentially equal 
        to EDSI's technical proposal.  Therefore, based on the 
        preceding cost analysis in which Theta has a lower most 
        probable cost than EDSI, Theta should be awarded the contract 
        under established Government procurement law which [provides 
        for award to the low, technically equal offeror]."[5]

Nevertheless, the protester, in a later submission, argues that its 
previous protest submissions contained sufficient assertions that its 
proposal was "excessively downgraded" and that EDSI's proposal was not 
appropriately downgraded to have reasonably raised the issue of 
whether "its technical rating should have been [technically] superior 
to EDSI's technical rating."  Theta argues that its supplemental 
protest "discussed factors which support Theta's proposal as being 
significantly technically superior to EDSI's proposal."  We will 
examine the protester's major arguments as to why it believes that its 
technical proposal was allegedly superior.

First, Theta, while acknowledging that the RFP did not contain any 
prohibition against subcontracting, states that EDSI proposed to use 
Dynamic Sciences, Inc. (DSI), an "ineligible" firm,[6] to perform 47 
percent of the work, including almost all the work to be performed at 
one of the two central sites covered by the contract.[7]  Theta 
essentially argues that the agency failed to evaluate the risks 
associated with such a significant amount of subcontracting and to 
appropriately downgrade EDSI's proposal.  Theta believes that "[t]o 
permit EDSI to subcontract the work of one of two central sites to DSI 
is unconscionable [and unfair]."  Theta also believes that its 
technical proposal was superior because it proposed to perform the 
work in-house without subcontracting.

The agency responds by stating that both EDSI and DSI are experienced 
maintenance contractors.  Specifically, EDSI currently holds the cost 
contract for vehicle and equipment maintenance at Aberdeen Proving 
Grounds, Maryland in the estimated amount of [deleted] for 5 years of 
work.  Similarly, DSI performed the same work under a past cost 
contract at Aberdeen in the amount of [deleted] for more than 5 years.  
The agency further states as follows:

        "The SSEB considered the risk to the Government with EDSI's 
        proposed subcontracting arrangement with DSI, and in a 
        reasonable exercise of discretion, determined that there was 
        no undue risk to the Government with this arrangement, and 
        that there was no reason to downgrade EDSI's proposal in this 
        area.  There could actually be some advantage to the 
        Government, rather than a disadvantage, in having all 
        subcontracting centrally located at one site.  Consolidation 
        of subcontracting activity at one centrally located site could 
        make it easier for the prime contractor to exercise 
        supervision and control over its subcontractor, rather than 
        having subcontracting activity spread out over several, 
        geographically separate, locations."

Based on this record, we cannot conclude that the agency should have 
downgraded EDSI for its subcontracting plans, especially since both 
firms (the prime contractor and its subcontractor) were highly 
experienced and were assigned discrete areas of responsibility to 
perform the work at different locations under EDSI's proposed 
technical approach.  The record shows the agency considered the risk 
of EDSI's approach, but found that the subcontracting approach posed 
no significant risk.  We have no basis to disturb this determination.

The protester's second major technical argument is that the agency 
should not have downgraded its technical proposal for offering 
[deleted] employees at FIG than the Army estimated were necessary.  As 
discussed above, the agency provided a reasonable analysis based on 
historical and current staffing levels for concluding that Theta's 
proposal of [deleted] employees at FIG constituted insufficient staff 
to perform the required work which raised questions about the firm's 
understanding of the work requirements.  Thus, we think the 
downgrading of Theta's technical proposal in this regard was 
reasonable.  Theta also argues that EDSI's technical proposal should 
have been downgraded for offering [deleted] employee at one location 
than the Army's estimate for that location.  We think that the agency 
was reasonable in finding that EDSI's offer of [deleted] more than the 
agency's estimate for servicing a single location was not indicative 
of a lack of understanding by EDSI of the work to be performed.  We 
find no merit to this protest issue and consider the matter 
insignificant.

We have reviewed other arguments advanced by the protester and find 
them to be without merit.  There is nothing in the record to show that 
the protester was technically superior so as to have been entitled to 
an award at its higher cost.  Further, even if, as the protester also 
argues, its proposal should have been rated technically equal to 
EDSI's, the solicitation provided that in the case of substantially 
equal technical proposals, cost would become the important factor.  
Since EDSI's proposal was reasonably found to offer a lower cost, 
Theta would not have been in line for award even if its proposal was 
rated technically equal to EDSI's.  See TDS, Inc., B-261827.3, Feb. 1, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  151.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency employed the following "grade scale":  outstanding (90 - 
100 points); excellent (80 - 89); satisfactory (70 - 79); poor (60 - 
69); and substandard (less than 60).

2. We limit our discussion to the evaluation of Theta's and EDSI's 
proposals.

3. Theta advances several arguments as to why the agency should not 
have downwardly adjusted EDSI's proposed costs during MPC evaluation.  
For purposes of our decision, we will assume the validity of the 
protester's arguments.  Additionally, the protester argues that EDSI's 
proposal should have been upwardly adjusted because three of numerous 
proposed employees were allegedly improperly "misclassified" under the 
applicable wage rates by EDSI.  For example, Theta allegedly proposed 
an "Electronics Technician, Maintenance [Level] II" with an hourly 
wage rate of [deleted] at one facility while EDSI proposed a 
"Photooptics Technician" for the same position at an hourly rate of 
[deleted].  The agency denies this and alleges that EDSI also proposed 
an Electronics Technician.  In any event, the amounts involved are so 
minimal that, in the absence of any showing by the protester 
otherwise, we conclude that these three allegedly erroneous wage 
classifications by EDSI had no significant impact on the cost 
evaluation.  The protester also argues that EDSI has proposed to hire 
its incumbent employees at unreasonable low rates as compared with 
their current salaries.  The protester identifies only two such 
employee positions:  quality control employee (paid [deleted] per hour 
by the protester and proposed at [deleted] per hour by EDSI), and 
heavy equipment mechanic (paid by the protester at [deleted] per hour 
and proposed at [deleted] per hour by EDSI).  Again, we believe these 
costs are de minimis and there has been no showing that they had any 
effect on the selection decision.

4. The agency states and the protester does not dispute that "[i]n the 
past, the incumbent contractor has had a significantly larger 
workforce, but this workforce has [already] undergone a significant 
reduction to match the corresponding reduction in workload."

5. The protester also argued that even if the point scores were not 
"statistically equal," there was no rational basis by which the agency 
could have determined that a higher point or adjectival score was 
indicative of real technical superiority to justify a "cost premium" 
to EDSI, a higher-cost offeror.  Indeed, Theta, citing Lockheed Corp., 
B-199741.2, July 31, 1981, 81-2 CPD  para.  71, argues essentially that the 
agency should have found "essential equality" between EDSI and Theta 
even if there were a 15 percent difference in technical scores.  
Consequently, the protester's submissions do not contain any 
significant argument or analysis in the context of Theta having been 
properly evaluated as the higher cost offeror. 

6. The record shows that the protester bases its argument of 
ineligibility on the fact that DSI is a large business.

7. Theta also raises a size issue (improper affiliation) between EDSI 
and DSI and their principals.  As the agency states, this matter is 
strictly for the Small Business Administration (SBA) to decide 
pursuant to a size protest and is not within our jurisdiction.  See 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(b)(1).