BNUMBER:  B-271075; B-271076; B-271117
DATE:  May 22, 1996
TITLE:  Bannum, Inc.

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

Matter of:Bannum, Inc.

File:     B-271075; B-271076; B-271117

Date:May 22, 1996

Kenneth A. Guckenberger, Esq., Rahdert & Anderson, P.A., for the 
protester.
Elizabeth A. Nagy, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Christine Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposals from the 
competitive range under three solicitations, where the proposals 
essentially paraphrased the statement of work requirements and did not 
demonstrate whether the protester independently understood those 
requirements.

DECISION

Bannum, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposals from the 
competitive range under three requests for proposals (RFP), issued by 
the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for the operation 
of halfway houses for male and female federal offenders in Knoxville, 
Tennessee (RFP No. 200-295-MA or "Knoxville RFP"), Nashville, 
Tennessee (RFP No. 200-297-MA or "Nashville RFP"), and The Bronx, New 
York region (200-296-NE or "Bronx RFP").

We deny the protests.

Each of the subject RFPs requested offers on a firm, fixed-price basis 
for estimated requirements for a 2-year base period with three 1-year 
options.  The contractor under each RFP was to furnish the necessary 
facilities, equipment, and personnel to provide for the safekeeping 
and program needs of federal offenders ordered to be detained at the 
particular halfway house.  Offerors were to propose a facility to 
serve as the halfway house, which would satisfy the requirements 
stated in the particular RFP statement of work (SOW).  Offerors were 
to substantiate their right to use the proposed facility through 
"deeds, leases, bills of sale, options to lease, options to buy, 
contingency leases or contingency deeds."

Estimated requirements varied between the RFPs; for example, 
requirements under the Bronx RFP were nearly double those under the 
Knoxville RFP.  Also, the Bronx RFP required the contractor to operate 
a type of halfway house known as a community corrections center, while 
the Nashville and Knoxville RFPs required the contractor to operate a 
comprehensive sanction center, which is a more restrictive and 
supervised environment in which BOP corrections officials take part in 
overseeing offenders.

Whether a comprehensive sanction center or a community corrections 
center was specified, each SOW required the contractor to offer 
certain baseline programs for its residents, such as employment 
counseling and placement services; academic, vocational, and job 
training; substance abuse and family counseling; community adjustment 
training; and post-release relocation services.  The contractor was to 
develop a network of community resources and services, including 
referrals to other federal, state, and community agencies, in an 
effort to fulfill each resident's specific program needs.  Each SOW 
charged the contractor with numerous oversight responsibilities to 
ensure that residents met disciplinary requirements, curfews, and 
various financial and programmatic responsibilities; for example, the 
contractor was responsible for monitoring each resident's whereabouts; 
monitoring each resident's employment and attendance; and performing 
random drug and alcohol tests and contraband searches.  The contractor 
was required to assist with the development and enforcement of 
disciplinary policies and procedures, consistent with BOP's prohibited 
acts policy.

Each RFP stated four equally important evaluation factors:  Past 
Performance, Technical (including reports/policy/procedures, facility, 
and overall programs approach), Management, and Price.  Under the 
technical and management factors, the agency was to evaluate the 
offeror's approach to performing the SOW requirements.  The technical 
factor focused on the offeror's ability to achieve SOW requirements 
based upon its proposed facility, documentation, and operational 
procedures.  The management factor focused on the offeror's ability to 
achieve SOW requirements based upon its management capability, 
corporate experience, and staffing approach.  The solicitations 
advised that proposals which merely repeated, paraphrased or affirmed 
the SOW requirements were not acceptable and might be rejected.

Bannum submitted proposals in response to the three solicitations.  In 
each instance, the contracting officer eliminated Bannum's proposal 
from the competitive range before the Source Selection Evaluation 
Board was convened and before evaluation documentation was generated.

BOP reports that Bannum's proposals were excluded because they did not 
contain acceptable evidence of Bannan's right to use its proposed 
performance facilities and because they parroted the SOW requirements 
to such an extent that the agency could not discern Bannum's technical 
or management approach or understanding of the contract requirements.  
BOP states that the protester basically submitted the same technical 
proposal in all three procurements, even though the solicitations had 
different estimated requirements, different performance locations, and 
different penal purposes as between the solicited community 
corrections center and the comprehensive sanction centers.  BOP also 
cites specific informational omissions in the protester's proposals, 
such as Bannum's failure to mention performance problems in prior BOP 
contracts, Bannum's omission of required documentation on its proposed 
food service subcontractors, and Bannum's submission of unacceptable 
evidence of its right to use its proposed facilities. Bannum protests 
each proposal's rejection.

The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination of whether 
a proposal is within the competitive range is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Shelby's Gourmet Foods, B-270585, Mar. 22, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  166.  Our 
Office will only question the agency's evaluation where it lacks a 
reasonable basis or conflicts with the stated evaluation criteria for 
award.  General Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  
44.  The offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written 
proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's 
judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to 
establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  Premier Cleaning Sys., 
Inc., B-255815, Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  241.

We agree with BOP that Bannum's proposals basically repeat substantial 
portions of the SOW nearly verbatim and, as such, do not evidence 
whether the protester independently understands the requirements 
applicable to each solicitation.  For example, where the SOW requires 
that "one operable washer and dryer for every sixteen residents shall 
be provided in-house or through a community establishment within one 
mile of the facility," the protester's proposal states, "Bannum will 
provide one operable washer and one operable dryer on the premises for 
every sixteen residents or through a community establishment within 
one mile of the facility."  Despite the RFP's admonition of the 
possible consequences of such mimicry, the protester's proposals rely 
so heavily upon repetition and provide so little specificity that it 
is not apparent, for example, whether Bannum has ever seen its 
proposed facilities or investigated any services or resources within 
the communities to be served.  Such repetition of the SOW requirements 
allowed for little or no insight as to Bannum's approach to performing 
the contract work, such as the methods Bannum will use to monitor and 
discipline residents; the content of any training or educational 
courses it might offer; and the penal and rehabilitative goals that 
will instruct its approach to the contract work.  In sum, Bannum's 
proposals simply do not present an independent technical and 
management approach for the agency to evaluate and were properly 
rejected as technically unacceptable.

Bannum argues that there is no contemporaneous documentation showing 
that BOP evaluated its proposals in the manner now claimed, noting 
that BOP cited only one deficiency in rejecting the three proposals, 
namely, Bannum's alleged failure to substantiate its right to use the 
proposed facilities.  Bannum argues that the contracting officer could 
not have looked at anything other than its right-to-use documentation, 
given the haste with which its proposals were rejected--e.g., two 
proposals were rejected within a day of their submission.  The 
protester claims that BOP manufactured a new reason for rejecting its 
proposals because the first stated  reason was improper.

While there is no contemporaneous documentation regarding BOP's 
evaluation of its proposals, our review must consider the entire 
record, including statements and arguments made in response to the 
protest.  See ROH, Inc., B-261132, Aug. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  169.  The 
fact that the agency's explanation was not contained in the 
contemporaneous record does not provide a basis to disregard it in our 
review.  See Sociometrics, Inc., B-261367.2, B-261367.3, Nov. 1, 1995, 
95-2 CPD  para.  201.  Furthermore, even if the reasons initially advanced 
by BOP to reject Bannum's proposals were improper, an agency may 
justify its actions on new grounds so long as those grounds would have 
provided proper support at the time the action was taken.  See 71-72 
Corp., B-213424, Apr. 10, 1984  84-1 CPD  para.  407; NonPublic Educ. Serv., 
Inc. B-207751, Mar. 8, 1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  232.  Because the record 
reasonably supports that Bannum's proposals were seriously deficient 
in addressing the SOW requirements, we would not sustain its protest, 
even accepting Bannum's assertion that the initial reason for 
rejecting its proposals was insufficient or otherwise improper.

Admitting that it "repeated certain language or paraphrased other 
language in the SOW," Bannum nevertheless argues that BOP has accepted 
similar Bannum proposals in other procurements.  However, each 
procurement is a separate transaction and the action taken on one 
procurement does not govern the conduct of all similar procurements; 
the simple assertion of inconsistency, without more, does not satisfy 
the protester's burden of affirmatively proving its case.  EOD 
Technology, Inc. B-266026, Dec. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  273.

The protester finally contends that there is a history of bias against 
Bannum at BOP and that BOP officials have de facto debarred Bannum 
from competing for government contracts.  Bannum's arguments have no 
merit in the present case, inasmuch as the record establishes that the 
agency properly eliminated Bannum's proposals from consideration under 
these solicitations pursuant to the evaluation criteria rather than 
because of a de facto debarment.[1]  See Bannum, Inc., B-270640, Mar. 
27, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  167.

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. We note that Bannum has filed suit in the United States District 
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking, among other 
things, a permanent injunction against BOP from conducting a 
debarment, de facto or otherwise, of Bannum.  We also note that in 
Bannum, Inc., B-249758, Nov. 24, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  373, the protester 
made basically the same allegation and cited the same evidence to show 
a de facto debarment; we did not find that the evidence supported 
Bannum's allegation of de facto debarment in that case.