BNUMBER:  B-271119
DATE:  June 17, 1996
TITLE:  All Star Maintenance, Inc.

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

Matter of:All Star Maintenance, Inc.

File:     B-271119

Date:     June 17, 1996  

David W. Croysdale, Esq., and Mitchell W. Quick, Esq., Michael, Best & 
Friedrich, for the protester.
Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Thompson & Godwin, for Eastern Maintenance 
& Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Stephen T. Orsino, Esq., Diane D. Hayden, Esq., and George N. Brezna, 
Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that contracting agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals 
was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation 
was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation 
criteria.

DECISION

All Star Maintenance, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Eastern 
Maintenance & Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N62477-95-R-0099, issued by the Department of the Navy for base family 
housing maintenance at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River, 
Maryland.  All Star argues that the Navy's evaluation of the offerors' 
proposals and its subsequent best value determination were 
unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued August 18, 1995, anticipated the award of a 
combination fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract to be performed 
over 1 base year, with up to 4 option years.  The maintenance and 
repair of the 790 family housing units and real property at issue 
includes change of occupancy work, service calls, janitorial services, 
painting, appliance replacement, grounds maintenance, and pest control 
services.  Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was the 
most advantageous to the government, considering three equally 
important evaluation criteria:  technical/management, past 
performance, and price.  

The technical/management criterion consisted of three equally 
important factors:  staffing, method of operation, and relevant 
experience.  The past performance criterion involved a review of the 
references for each project listed under the relevant experience 
factor; the Navy's conclusions here would be highly influential in 
determining the relative merits and risk associated with an offeror's 
overall proposal in a comparative assessment with all competitors to 
determine the offer considered most advantageous to the government.  
Price, not at issue here, would be evaluated for realism and 
reasonableness.

Five proposals were submitted by the October 3 closing date.  In 
evaluating the proposals, the Navy assigned both a subjective risk 
rating and an overall adjectival rating to each proposal,[1] and 
eliminated two proposals from the competitive range.  After conducting 
discussions and evaluating the discussion responses, the Navy narrowed 
the competitive range to two proposals, those of All Star and Eastern.  
Best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted on January 23, 1996, and 
the agency conducted its final evaluation.  Both offerors received 
identical low risk and exceptional overall ratings.  Eastern's price 
was $10,334,303 and All Star's price was  $10,760,488.

The source selection advisory board (SSAB) was presented with the 
evaluation results and determined that Eastern's proposal represented 
the best value to the government:

     "Both Eastern and All Star have several similar strengths.  They 
     have offered an experienced, empowered project manager, and an 
     automated management system.  The offerors possess the financial 
     capability to successfully perform the contract and they have a 
     reputation of satisfactory performance.  Eastern also offers the 
     government an extended warranty on all service call work and a 
     commitment to customer satisfaction by ensuring the project 
     manager will visit units that had after hours emergency or urgent 
     work performed to ensure customer satisfaction.  Although All 
     Star's status as the incumbent is considered a strength because 
     they will continue to operate from their currently leased 
     facility and they are already mobilized, these strengths are not 
     considered significant to offset the cost difference.  .  .  .  
     There is no quantifiable value which would support award to All 
     Star at $416,185.16 above that of the technically exceptional 
     lower priced offer submitted by Eastern."

After considering the findings of the SSAB and the technical 
evaluation reports, the source selection authority (SSA) concurred, 
and Eastern was awarded the contract on January 29.  This protest 
followed.

All Star argues that the Navy's assignment of identical ratings to 
both offerors was unreasonable.  All Star contends that Eastern's 
proposal was not equivalent to its own under any of the 
technical/management factors, and that its lack of experience in this 
type of work should have merited its proposal no better than a 
moderate risk rating associated with its past performance.   

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is 
not our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines the 
record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and 
in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria.  ESCO, Inc., 66 
Comp. Gen. 404 (1987), 87-1 CPD  para.  450.  A protester's mere 
disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.  Id.  Further, source selection officials in 
negotiated procurements have broad discretion in determining the 
manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and 
price evaluation results subject only to the tests of rationality and 
consistency with the RFP's evaluation criteria.  Bunker Ramo Corp., 56 
Comp. Gen. 712 (1977), 77-1 CPD  para.  427; Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 
Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325.  Our review of the record 
shows that the agency's actions here were reasonable.

Staffing

All Star's proposal was evaluated as having five strengths under the 
staffing factor:  an empowered project manager; simplified 
mobilization and minimized start-up risk due to its incumbency; 
outstanding financial capability with respect to mobilization and 
start-up; a highly experienced program manager; and the use of 
subcontractors currently performing these requirements.  Eastern's 
proposal was evaluated as having two strengths:  an empowered project 
manager and the use of a subcontractor currently performing these 
requirements.[2]  No weaknesses or deficiencies were detected in 
either proposal. 

All Star argues that it should have been rated superior to Eastern 
because its proposal had five identified strengths while Eastern's had 
two under the staffing factor.

As a preliminary matter, as explained above, the agency did not assign 
ratings to the proposals under each evaluation factor.  Thus, in the 
context of the evaluation methodology used here, in essence All Star 
is arguing that its asserted superiority in the staffing area--as 
reflected in its greater number of assigned strengths--should have 
been reflected in a higher overall adjectival rating relative to 
Eastern's proposal.  We find this argument unpersuasive.  As the 
agency correctly notes, proposals were evaluated against the 
evaluation factors in the RFP, not relative to each other.  Thus, 
there is nothing per se unreasonable about assigning the same 
adjectival rating to proposals with different numbers of identified 
strengths.  Moreover, with respect to the ultimate selection decision, 
the record shows that the decision was based not on a mechanical 
application of the adjectival ratings, but on an assessment of the 
relative merits of the proposals as reflected in the underlying 
narrative assessments.  The SSA considered the different strengths 
identified in the proposals--for example, the SSA recognized that a 
number of All Star's strengths derived from its incumbency--and 
ultimately concluded that the additional strengths identified in All 
Star's proposal did not represent a significant difference overall 
between the proposals.  

In sum, the record shows that the differences between the proposals 
were recognized, explained, and considered; the protester's 
disagreement with the SSA's judgment as to the value to the agency of 
its additional strengths identified in its proposal simply is not 
sufficient to show that the decision was unreasonable.

Method of Operation

All Star's proposal was evaluated as having three strengths under the 
method of operation factor:  it would not have to establish a new 
facility; it had well-established relationships with local suppliers; 
and its computer database had proven to be an asset.  Eastern's 
proposal was evaluated as having four strengths:  it proposed to use 
an automated inventory management system; its list of suppliers showed 
that it had thought through its operations; it proposed a 60-day 
warranty on all service call work; and it showed a desire to ensure 
customer satisfaction in proposing to have its project manager visit 
units that had after-hours emergency or urgent work and its quality 
control representative follow up on at least some service calls.  No 
weaknesses or deficiencies were detected in either proposal.

All Star argues that the Navy improperly determined that Eastern's 
proposal of a warranty on service calls was a strength.  The protester 
contends that the RFP requires rework of service calls which have been 
unsatisfactorily completed and have poor workmanship at the 
contractor's expense, with no time limit, and that Eastern's proposal 
merely meets those requirements.

However, the Navy interpreted Eastern's proposal of a warranty on 
"all" service calls to encompass not only those service calls defined 
as "rework"--those which had been unsatisfactorily completed--but also 
those that had been satisfactorily completed but subsequently failed.  
In such cases, the warranty would entitle the government to have the 
repair made during the warranty period notwithstanding acceptance of 
the work.  While All Star argues that Eastern's proposed warranty only 
applies to "rework," the proposal clearly states that "[a]ll . . . 
service call work will be guaranteed for 60 days . . . ."  Under the 
circumstances, we cannot find the agency's interpretation, or its 
conclusion, unreasonable.[3] 

Relevant Experience
   
The relevant experience factor addressed the adequacy of an offeror's 
experience in performing work of the same or similar scope.  According 
to the RFP, "[r]eferences provided for this factor should be the same 
or similar to the scope of work contained herein (e.g. Housing or 
Residential Maintenance) including similar staffing requirements, 
complexity, contract duration, contract type and dollar range."

All Star's proposal was evaluated as having a strength for its 
extensive experience in base housing maintenance, particularly as the 
incumbent contractor here.  Each of the five projects evaluated was 
for more units than required here, with a similar scope of work 
(service calls, change of occupancy, appliance repair, project 
management, grounds, and pest control).  The Navy concluded that All 
Star was unquestionably qualified to perform the work here, and that 
its experience greatly reduced the risk it might fail.  

Eastern's proposal was not awarded any strengths under the relevant 
experience factor.  Two of the seven contracts evaluated were for 
military family housing maintenance, and the Navy believed that both 
included work similar to that required here--service calls, project 
management, change of occupancy, grounds, and janitorial.  The Navy 
concluded that, "[a]lthough smaller, the experience gained on these 
jobs should help ensure success on this contract."  The Navy also 
reviewed three contracts for janitorial services and two contracts for 
asbestos abatement and noted that both types of work were required as 
part of this contract.  The Navy considered this to be relevant 
experience, but insufficient to merit a strength.

All Star has given us no reason to agree with its position that the 
Navy improperly considered all of these contracts in assessing 
Eastern's relevant experience.  The two military family housing 
maintenance contracts are obviously similar to this one, and the 
remaining contracts consisted of work that will be done on this 
contract and are, thus, similar.  Since the Navy specifically noted 
the limitations of Eastern's experience, and clearly considered All 
Star to be superior here, we have no basis to question the evaluation.

Risk Rating

All Star argues that Eastern's lack of experience with military family 
housing maintenance contracts should have merited its proposal no more 
than a moderate risk rating associated with its past performance.  

As an initial matter, the risk rating is not strictly associated with 
the offeror's past performance.  As noted above, the Navy based the 
risk rating on an overview of the quantity or severity of weaknesses 
or deficiencies in the proposal, whether they were balanced by any 
strengths, and the strength of the offeror's past performance.  
Moreover, the protester's argument is largely based upon its belief 
that the only Eastern contracts that could have been considered were 
its military family housing contracts, a belief that, as discussed 
above, we do not share.  In our view, the evaluators properly 
contacted Eastern's references for both the military family housing 
maintenance contract and one of the janitorial contracts to assess its 
past performance, and used their documented findings to assess 
Eastern's past performance.  The references indicated that Eastern had 
provided very responsive service, praised the quality of its work, and 
spoke highly of Eastern's commitment to customer satisfaction.  To the 
extent that All Star argues that it was improper for the agency to 
give its proposal and Eastern's the same low risk rating in light of 
All Star's more extensive experience, the fact that both offerors 
received the same risk rating does not mean that the agency viewed 
them as being of equal quality.  See A & W Maintenance Servs., Inc., 
B-255711, Mar. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  214, recon. denied, B-255711.2, 
Jan. 17, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  24.  In fact, the SSA states that she 
considered the minimal decreased risk associated with awarding to All 
Star, but determined that it did not justify the additional cost.  
Under the circumstances, we see no basis to question the low risk 
rating given Eastern's proposal. 

All Star finally alleges that the Navy's failure to rate each 
individual factor and criterion is evidence that it did not give equal 
weight to the evaluation criteria as required by the RFP, and that the 
agency improperly overlooked the strengths associated with its 
incumbency and experience.  The mere fact that the Navy did not rate 
each individual factor and criterion prior to arriving at an overall 
rating does not show that the criteria were not equally weighted.  
Moreover, we see no indication in the narrative assessments underlying 
the overall ratings that the factors were not equally weighted, and, 
in a sworn statement submitted in response to the protest, the TEP 
Chairperson confirms that the factors were given equal weight.  There 
is also no evidence that the SSA overlooked the additional strengths 
presented by All Star's proposal; in fact, the source selection 
decision specifically acknowledged the strength associated with All 
Star's incumbency.  All Star's disagreement with the weight accorded 
these strengths does not mean that they were overlooked.  See MGM Land 
Co.; Tony Western, B-241169; B-241169.2, Jan. 17, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  50.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The risk rating was based on the quantity or severity of weaknesses 
or deficiencies, whether they were balanced by any strengths, and the 
strength of the offeror's past performance.  The agency used this risk 
assessment, the list of strengths and weaknesses or deficiencies, and 
the results of past performance interviews to arrive at an overall 
adjectival rating (exceptional, acceptable, marginal, or 
unacceptable).  Adjectival ratings were not assigned to each criterion 
or factor.

2. We are not persuaded by All Star's argument that the source 
selection decision incorrectly characterized Eastern's financial 
capability as an additional strength.  The decision, quoted above, 
merely acknowledges that both firms were financially capable, a factor 
of concern to the agency with respect to the firms' ability to 
mobilize.

3. All Star's argument that urgent or emergency service calls amount 
to only a small portion of the contract and that Eastern should not 
have been given a strength for proposing to have its project manager 
follow up on these calls misses the Navy's point--that this proposal 
indicated Eastern's desire to ensure customer satisfaction.