BNUMBER:  B-271619
DATE:  July 15, 1996
TITLE:  Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc.

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

Matter of:Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc.

File:     B-271619

Date:July 15, 1996

Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., and Antonio R. 
Franco, Esq., Pilero, Mazza & Pargament, for the protester.
Thomas Duffy, Esq., Department of the Army, 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

Protester's proposal was properly eliminated from the competitive 
range where the proposal did not adequately respond to request for 
statement of work and approach to performing statement of work for 
unit conversion such that this aspect of proposal would have to be 
completely rewritten to be considered for award.

DECISION

Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc. (ESCI) protests the elimination 
from the competitive range of the proposal it submitted in response to 
request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA90-95-R-0024, issued by the 
National Guard Bureau for technical support and management assistance.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation included statements of work (SOW) for long range 
planning support, acquisition technical support and management 
assistance, and Air Force Test Center test and evaluation support.[1]  
It also required offerors to develop a SOW for Unit Conversion Support 
pursuant to instructions which were provided.  Offerors were required 
to submit a technical proposal which addressed each SOW (including the 
unit conversion SOW), a management proposal, a past performance 
proposal, and a cost proposal.  The technical proposal was to be 
evaluated against the following criteria:

     Technical Approach
        PWS Approach
        Manhour Estimates

     Staff Technical Expertise
        Depth of Knowledge
        Staff Experience

     Demonstrated Corporate Experience
        Areas of Experience
        Quantity and Level of Experience
        Performance

The technical proposals were assigned a color-coded rating for each 
factor for each SOW, for the factor overall and for the technical 
proposal overall.[2]  The evaluators also assigned proposal and 
performance risk ratings under each factor.  The solicitation provided 
that the government would make up to three contract awards on a best 
value basis with technical factors considered most important in the 
award decision.

Four proposals, including the protester's, were received.  Following 
the initial evaluation, ESCI's proposal was rated orange overall with 
high performance and proposal risk.  In the technical area, ESCI's 
proposal was rated orange overall, with a yellow rating under 
technical approach and orange ratings under staff technical expertise 
and corporate experience.  The agency concluded that ESCI's proposal 
could only be made acceptable with a major rewrite and therefore 
excluded it from the competitive range.

ESCI argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal, and that any 
deficiencies the agency did find could have been corrected during 
discussions had it been included in the competitive range.

In reviewing challenges to the exclusion of a proposal from the 
competitive range, we will not reevaluate the proposal; rather, our 
review is limited to determining whether the evaluation 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 the 
proposal would require major revision to become acceptable.  W.N. 
Hunter & Assocs.; Cajar Defense Support Co., B-237259; B-237259.2, 
Jan. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  52.

The agency found a number of deficiencies in ESCI's response to the 
different tasks.  Its proposal was eliminated from the competitive 
range, however, primarily based on its response to the unit conversion 
task.  

As a result of the defense downsizing and reconsideration of its role 
and mission, the Air National Guard (ANG) is changing the functions of 
several operational and support units.  This solicitation required 
offerors to provide a SOW to support the ANG's conversion of an F-16 
unit into a  KC-135 unit.  The instructions outlined the key tasks 
that offerors were expected to incorporate in the proposed SOW.  In 
evaluating ESCI's proposal with respect to the unit conversion task, 
the agency found (1) ESCI's proposal did not include all required 
tasks; (2) ESCI had no corporate experience performing unit 
conversions, and had personnel with limited (generally as government 
employees) experience with aircraft conversions; and (3) ESCI's 
experience did not include tracking conversion programs or planning 
and supporting site activation task forces at the converting 
locations, tasks which were contemplated by the solicitation.  The 
agency's biggest concern, however, was ESCI's approach to performing 
the unit conversion.  Specifically, the agency found that ESCI's 
approach to performing the SOW it prepared for the unit conversion 
failed to address items that it included in the SOW as items it would 
perform.  Instead, most of ESCI's approach discussed tasks that the 
government would be performing during the unit conversion.  This led 
the agency to conclude that ESCI did not understand the requirement.

Our review confirms the agency's findings; ESCI did not address all 
requirements of the SOW.  Specifically, ESCI did not task the 
activities to update the ANG's Unit Type Code (UTC) Management 
Information Systems (UMIS) Database and Force Structure Database, or 
address the requirements to track all financial aspects of execution 
of the conversion plan and provide forewarning of potential problem 
areas.  Further, in providing its approach to performing the SOW it 
prepared, ESCI either failed to discuss tasks listed in its SOW, or 
mentioned the tasks without providing details as to how they would be 
performed and primarily focused on  tasks that the government would 
perform.  For example, in its SOW for the unit conversion, ESCI 
proposed to assist in determining petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) 
delivery capability shortfall/excesses and to track 
acquisition/disposition of assets required for the new mission, 
including determining vehicle spares and maintenance manpower.  In its 
approach to performing the SOW, however, ESCI's proposal did not 
discuss this task and provided no details regarding how ESCI would 
collect and track the data and report the information to the ANG.  

As another example, while ESCI's approach stated that it would provide 
a risk assessment, including a funding analysis, after each proposed 
phase of the unit conversion, the proposal did not include information 
as to what this risk assessment would include, how it would be 
performed, or what reports the agency would receive.  Instead, ESCI's 
proposed approach detailed the government's function at each step of 
the conversion process.  For example, ESCI's proposal stated that 
during the second phase of its four phase approach, ". . . [t]he unit 
will start to upgrade and enhance its facilities.  Unit leadership 
will identify key flying and maintenance personnel who will start 
formal training courses."  The proposal also states that this phase 
"[a]ffords that unit an opportunity to start training aircrew, 
maintenance, and support personnel without affecting the unit's 
operational status."  These are all government, rather than support 
contractor, tasks.  To the extent ESCI's proposal listed any tasks 
that it would perform as a support contractor, such as a funding 
analysis, as discussed above, the proposal did not provide any details 
about how the tasks would be performed.

ESCI does not dispute the agency's conclusion that it lacks corporate 
experience as a support contractor for unit conversions.  ESCI does 
dispute the agency's conclusions regarding the experience of the 
personnel it proposed to perform the unit conversion, but ESCI's 
proposal provided almost no detail showing that its personnel had more 
than minimal unit conversion experience.  ESCI argues that a chart 
included in its proposal showed the unit conversion experience of its 
team members.  However, this chart does no more than list the team 
members, a project (presumably a conversion project), the place where 
the project was performed and the date it was performed.[3]  The chart 
provides no information as to the named individual's function during 
the project.  Even where ESCI did attempt to provide information 
regarding the experience of its key personnel in performing unit 
conversions, it did so without providing any detail and did not show 
that the employee had extensive experience.  For example, the resume 
of one key team member provides simply, "[a]s Director of (a 
government unit) he negotiated acquisition and modification contracts 
for four unit conversions," and "[h]e tracked conversion programs for 
modifying budget allocations from the National Guard Bureau"; the 
resume does not provide any information about specific duties under 
the program, which is the kind of detail the agency required to 
evaluate personnel experience.  Accordingly, the agency had no basis 
to conclude that ESCI's proposed personnel had adequate experience.

Our review thus supports the agency's position that ESCI's proposal 
did not address or demonstrate an understanding of the unit conversion 
task.  For its proposal to become eligible for award, ESCI would have 
to revise its SOW for the unit conversion task to address the 
activities to update the UMIS Database and Force Structure Database 
and to track all financial aspects of execution of the conversion plan 
and provide forewarning of potential problem areas.  In addition, ESCI 
would have to completely rewrite the section of its proposal dealing 
with its approach to the unit conversion task to discuss tasks that 
the contractor would be required to perform and to provide details as 
to how those tasks would be carried out.  This would also require the 
protester to revise its proposed level of effort.  Even with those 
changes made, since ESCI does not have support contractor experience 
with unit conversions, ESCI would be unable to improve this aspect of 
its proposal.  We conclude that the deficiencies in ESCI's proposal 
were sufficiently substantial that the agency reasonably determined it 
would have to be substantially rewritten to be eligible for award.  
The agency thus was justified in eliminating ESCI's proposal from the 
competitive range.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The solicitation also included a SOW for general requirements which 
was not used for evaluation purposes.

2. The ratings were blue--exceeds expectations; green--fully 
acceptable; yellow--marginally acceptable; orange--could be made 
acceptable; and red--unacceptable.

3. The chart information was laid out as follows, with no explanation 
of the entries:

Name           Old    New  Place          Time Frame
xxxx           MH-53  HH-3 Hurlburt Field 1989