BNUMBER:  B-271079; B-271079.2
DATE:  May 20, 1996
TITLE:  Resource Applications, Inc.

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

Matter of:Resource Applications, Inc.

File:     B-271079; B-271079.2

Date:May 20, 1996

Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., and Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Ruffner & 
Werfel, for the protester.
J. Michael Slocum, Esq., Slocum, Boddie & Murry, for RAO Enterprises, 
Inc. d/b/a/ Integrated Laboratory Systems, an intervenor.
Anthony G. Beyer, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the 
agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where contracting officer clearly based competitive range 
recommendation on the proposal evaluation performed by the technical 
evaluation panel, protest that contracting officer misrepresented to 
source selection official protester's ability to perform the contract 
is without merit.

2.  Protester's proposal was properly eliminated from the competitive 
range where proposal was evaluated as having numerous serious 
deficiencies, such that it would have to be substantially rewritten to 
be considered for award, and protester fails to show that evaluation 
conclusions were unreasonable.

DECISION

Resource Applications, Inc. (RAI) protests the elimination of its 
proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. D500055R1, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
performance of Environmental Service Assistance Team (ESAT) support 
services for various EPA programs.  

We deny the protest.

The solicitation was issued on May 1, 1995, for ESAT support services 
for four separate geographical areas.  This protest concerns region 
IV, which was set aside for small business concerns.  Award was to be 
based on a best value analysis using the following evaluation factors 
(with relative weight, out of 1,000 points): management (300), 
personnel (300), technical (200), corporate experience (100), and 
sample situation scenarios (100).  Technical merit was more important 
than cost in the award decision.

Two offerors, RAI and RAO, responded to the solicitation.  The 
technical evaluation panel (TEP) assigned RAO's proposal 865 points, 
with ratings of superior for five subfactors, good for six, and 
adequate for one.  The TEP found no major weaknesses in RAO's proposal 
and concluded that RAO was fully qualified to satisfy all requirements 
of the RFP.  RAI's proposal was assigned 550 points, with ratings of 
good for four subfactors, adequate for four, and less than adequate 
for four.  The TEP concluded that, based on the number of major 
weaknesses in its proposal, RAI would have great difficulty satisfying 
all solicitation requirements.  After reviewing the TEP report and an 
evaluation of the offerors' proposed costs and business 
considerations, the contracting officer recommended to the source 
selection official (SSO) that only RAO's proposal be included in the 
competitive range.  The SSO agreed and awarded the contract to RAO on 
January 31, 1996, following discussions and submission by RAO of a 
best and final offer (BAFO).  

RAI challenges the award decision on numerous grounds.  We find all of 
RAI's arguments to be without merit.  We discuss several below.  

CONTRACTING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

RAI protests that, in recommending to the SSO that RAI's proposal be 
eliminated from the competitive range, the contracting officer 
misrepresented the TEP's conclusions regarding the proposal.  
Specifically, RAI states that, while the TEP report's conclusion that 
RAI would have difficulty performing was based "on the information 
submitted in [RAI's] proposal," the contracting officer's competitive 
range recommendation expressed this conclusion without indicating that 
it was based on the proposal information.  RAI maintains that the 
contracting officer thereby falsely represented to the SSO that RAI 
would not be able to perform even if discussions were held and RAI 
modified its proposal.

This argument is clearly without merit.  First, given that the 
proposal evaluation process is based on the information in the 
proposals, there simply is no reason to believe that the SSO might 
misunderstand that the contracting officer's competitive range 
recommendation was based on the proposal information; the premise of 
RAI's argument therefore is flawed.  Moreover, RAI's argument is based 
on a selective reading of the contracting officer's competitive range 
recommendation.  The sentence cited by RAI, in its entirety, reads as 
follows:  

     "The TEP found numerous major weaknesses in the proposal and 
     indicated that RAI would be likely to have difficulty in 
     satisfying all the requirements specified in the solicitation."  
     (Underlining added.)

Further, the contracting officer stated in her recommendation summary 
that:

     ''[t]he deficiencies in RAI's initial proposal indicate that this 
     firm does not appear to have sufficient understanding of the 
     effort to perform successfully.  The breadth of revisions 
     required for RAI to become technically acceptable in the criteria 
     where they scored less than 'adequate' would be tantamount to 
     rewriting its proposal as detailed above. . . .  Without a major 
     rewrite, RAI's proposal cannot become technically competitive 
     with that of ILS."  

These statements and others in the competitive range determination 
clearly conveyed to the SSO that the contracting officer's 
recommendation was based on RAI's proposal, not on a belief that RAI 
would not be able to perform satisfactorily under any circumstances.

EPA ACQUISITION REGULATION

RAI maintains that the TEP improperly failed to evaluate the proposals 
in accordance with the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR), 48 C.F.R.  sec.  
1515.608(a)(1) (1995), which requires the TEP to rate each subfactor 
on a 5-point scale.  RAI asserts that the regulation requires 
discussions where 2 points are assigned, and that since RAI's proposal 
received at least 2 points for each subfactor, the agency should have 
included RAI's proposal in the competitive range for discussion 
purposes.

Again, RAI's argument is based on a selective reading of the relevant 
language it cites.  While EPAAR  sec.  1515.608 does state that for a score 
of 2 points "[c]larification is required," the language RAI ignors 
states that "[f]inal scoring of the element will be made following 
limited discussions or full negotiations, if discussions or 
negotiations are held with the offeror."  (Underlining added.)  Thus, 
the regulation clearly does not require clarification/discussion of 
subfactors receiving a score of 2 unless discussions are otherwise 
held with the offeror.  As RAI's proposal was excluded from the 
competitive range, and therefore was not included in discussions, 
clarification of its proposal was not required.

EVALUATION OF RAI'S PROPOSAL

RAI protests that its proposal should not have been eliminated from 
the competitive range because the weaknesses cited by the contracting 
officer either did not exist or could have been corrected during 
discussions.

In reviewing challenges to an agency's competitive range 
determination, we will not independently reevaluate the proposal; 
rather, we will examine the evaluation to determine whether it was 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.  
International Resources Corp., B-259992, Apr. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
200. Agencies properly may eliminate a proposal from the competitive 
range where, in order to be acceptable, the proposal would have to be 
revised to such an extent that it would be tantamount to submission of 
a new proposal.  Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc., B-261857.2, Nov. 
9, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  218.

RAI's proposal was eliminated from the competitive range based on 
serious perceived deficiencies under the management, personnel, and 
technical factors.  We find that the evaluation conclusions are 
reasonable, and that the number and extent of the weaknesses warranted 
eliminating RAI's proposal from the competitive range.  We discuss 
some of the deficiencies below.

Management Factor 

The management factor was comprised of two subfactors, under both of 
which RAI's proposal was found to be deficient.  Under the first 
subfactor, management plan, the TEP evaluated two areas, contract 
mobilization/start up plan and management structure.  In her 
competitive range recommendation, the contracting officer noted that 
while the TEP rated RAI overall adequate in each of these areas, it 
also listed a number of weaknesses in each area.  With respect to 
mobilization/start up plan, RAI's proposal was predicated on a 60-day 
period of time between the contract award date and the start up date 
for performance, during which RAI would obtain office space--the 
proposal did not identify office space leasing arrangements--and hire 
12 new employees and relocate 2; the proposal  indicated that RAI 
would consider hiring incumbent staff, but presented no definite plans 
to obtain the necessary personnel.  The contracting officer therefore 
was concerned that, despite its proposal to do so, RAI would be unable 
to have at least 80 percent of its staff in place within 30 days after 
the effective date of the contract, and 100 percent in place within 45 
days after the effective date, as required by the RFP.  With respect 
to the management structure area, the contracting officer noted that 
RAI's proposal failed to identify the chain of command between RAI and 
the proposed subcontractor, and did not otherwise provide details 
concerning the relationship between RAI and the subcontractor, despite 
instructions in the RFP to do so.  In addition, RAI failed to specify 
leaders for five of six proposed work groups.

RAI argues that the contracting officer improperly ignored the TEP's 
findings that its proposal was adequate in these areas.  RAI believes 
the contracting officer's concerns in the mobilization/start up plan 
area were unwarranted in light of its proposal to mobilize all 
personnel the day after the contract start up date and to be  fully 
operational 30 days later.  Likewise, with respect to the management 
structure area, RAI maintains that it provided clear-cut management 
policies and procedures, as well as a clearly defined management 
structure at the team level, and that it clearly outlined the 
authorities and responsibilities at the team level.

The evaluation was reasonable.  First, contrary to RAI's assertion, 
the contracting officer did not ignore the findings of the TEP 
regarding RAI's proposal in these two areas; she specifically 
recognized that the TEP rated RAI's proposal adequate in these areas.  
However, she also considered the specific findings of the TEP 
regarding RAI's proposal, and the weaknesses the contracting officer 
found were the same weaknesses the TEP identified.  Moreover, 
regarding the specifics of the evaluation, RAI's mere assertion that 
the agency should have found its rapid mobilization proposal 
sufficient totally ignores the contracting officer's concern in this 
area--that RAI would not be able to mobilize promptly because of the 
absence from the proposal of detailed hiring and office leasing plans.  
Similarly, with respect to the management structure area, while RAI 
points to some of the positive points in its proposal, it does not 
dispute the TEP's and contracting officer's findings that it did not 
provide the details of its subcontractor arrangement as requested by 
the solicitation.  The agency's concerns clearly were encompassed by 
the evaluation areas in question, and are reasonable on their face.  
As RAI has not shown otherwise, there is no basis to object to the 
evaluation in this area.

Personnel Factor

The personnel factor was comprised of two subfactors, under one of 
which, ESAT Key Team Personnel, offerors were to demonstrate the 
skills and qualifications of personnel proposed for the key team 
positions.  The solicitation provided a list of the education and 
experience requirements for each position.  In her competitive range 
determination, the contracting officer viewed as a serious deficiency 
the TEP's conclusion that five of RAI's seven key personnel did not 
meet the RFP's combined minimum academic and technical experience 
requirements.  RAI's arguments concerning two of these personnel are 
discussed below.  

The Senior Organic Analytical Chemist, Supervisor was required to have 
a Masters of Science (M.S.) degree in chemistry and at least 6 years 
of experience in all facets of organic chemistry.  The TEP found that 
while RAI's proposed individual had an M.S. in chemistry and 6 years 
of experience working in organic chemistry, he did not have experience 
in several facets of organic chemistry--including pesticides, 
herbicides, dioxin, drinking water, ground water, and sediments other 
than ash--that would be relevant to contract performance.  The TEP 
considered this lack of experience particularly significant because 
the supervisor would be the final person to review data and would have 
to solve technical problems in all areas as the problems arose. 

RAI essentially argues that, since the RFP did not identify the 
various facets of organic chemistry in which experience was required, 
the finding that the proposed individual does not possess this 
experience improperly was based on unstated RFP requirements.   

We disagree.  First, we see nothing unreasonable in the agency's 
expecting experienced offerors to be aware of the various aspects of 
organic chemistry relevant to performance of this contract, such that 
they did not have to be spelled out in the solicitation.  Second, if 
RAI did not understand what was encompassed by "all facets" of organic 
chemistry, it should have sought amendment of (or protested) the RFP 
on this basis prior to the closing time.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) 
(1996).  In any case, while the solicitation did not list all the 
facets of organic chemistry, the statement of work did make reference 
to several of them; it stated on page A7 that samples referenced in 
this task area may consist of, but are not limited to, water, waste 
water, soil, sediment, waste, air, and biological matrices.  It also 
stated (under "Organic Chemistry") that performance could include 
"qualitative and quantitative analysis of tetra-through octa-dioxin."  
We conclude that RAI was on sufficient notice of the experience 
requirements, and that the evaluation of this individual was 
reasonable.

Another of the key personnel was a Toxicologist.  Although the agency 
found that RAI's proposed individual had the requisite degree and 
years of experience, it was concerned that she obtained her degree and 
most of her experience in China, rather than in the U.S.  The TEP also 
was concerned that the individual did not have a great deal of 
experience dealing with the toxic compound characteristics in the 
environmental matrices which would be encountered during performance 
of the contract; specifically, the TEP noted that Ms. Lu did not have 
a site assessment or leaching study background, that her only dioxin 
work had been during her Ph.D thesis, and that she had no field 
experience at hazardous waste sites.

RAI asserts that it was unreasonable for the agency to question the 
individual's qualifications merely because she obtained her degree and 
experience in a foreign country.  However, this was not the only basis 
for the TEP's concern with the individual's qualifications.  We find 
nothing unreasonable in the agency's questioning the individual's 
qualifications based on her lack of experience in areas encompassed by 
the contract, aspects of the evaluation RAI does not contest.

We conclude that the deficiencies identified by the agency are 
supported by the record, and that the agency reasonably determined, 
based on these deficiencies,  that a substantial rewrite of the 
proposal would be required before RAI could become eligible for award.  
The agency therefore properly eliminated RAI's proposal from the 
competitive range.[1]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. In a supplemental protest RAI argued that the agency improperly 
failed to notify RAI that it had been eliminated from the competitive 
range and that the award had been made to RAO.  Since we have found 
that RAI was properly eliminated from the competitive range, we do not 
reach these issues since they would not affect the award decision.