BNUMBER:  B-271756
DATE:  June 24, 1996
TITLE:  TESCO

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

Matter of:TESCO

File:     B-271756

Date:June 24, 1996

H.B. Burton, Jr. for the protester.
Mary P. Farris for STTAR Corps, an intervenor.
Dennis J. Kelleher, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly considered protester's limited experience and past 
performance with instructional training on vessels covered by the 
solicitation where the stated technical evaluation factors reasonably 
encompassed such matters, and protester was asked to provide 
information regarding this experience and past performance during 
discussions.

DECISION

TESCO protests the award of a contract to STTAR Corps, Inc. (a/k/a 
Systems Technical Training and Research Corps, Inc.) under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. N62383-96-R-2000, issued by the Military Sealift 
Command (MSC), Department of the Navy to provide onboard training 
courses for equipment and systems on three classes of Navy 
ships--T-AFS, T-AO, and T-AE.[1]  The protester argues that the Navy 
improperly downgraded its technical proposal using undisclosed 
evaluation criteria.

We deny the protest.

The award decision was to be made on a best value basis, with price 
and technical factors receiving equal weight.  There were two 
technical criteria, of equal weight--(1) personnel/qualifications and 
experience and (2) past performance.  The Navy received three offers, 
two of which--those from TESCO and STTAR--were determined to be in the 
competitive range after initial evaluation.  Written and oral 
discussions were held and best and final offers (BAFO) requested. 

STTAR's BAFO received an excellent composite technical score of 91.5 
points, comprised of 45.5 personnel points and 46 past performance 
points.[2]  STTAR was determined to have demonstrated a "thorough 
understanding" of the requirements and "extensive experience" with 
T-AFS, T-AO, and T-AE ship training, which led to a finding of no 
performance risk.  In contrast, TESCO's proposal received a  
satisfactory technical composite score of 77 points, comprised of 39 
personnel points and 38 past performance points.  TESCO was determined 
to have a weakness in "[not] demonstrat[ing] training experience 
onboard T-AFS and T-AE ships," which resulted in a moderate 
performance risk rating.  STTAR's total evaluated price was  $881,421, 
after being increased by a 10-percent small disadvantaged business 
concern preference factor, and TESCO's $788,968.  

In its best value analysis, the Navy weighed TESCO's lower price 
against STTAR's extensive training experience and history of 
performance with all three classes of ships under the solicitation 
(versus TESCO's limited training experience and past performance with 
only one of the relevant classes of ships); STTAR's satisfactory 
performance on the current contract for similar services; and STTAR's 
"no performance risk" rating, compared to TESCO's moderate risk 
rating.  The agency determined that STTAR's technical advantages 
offset TESCO's lower price, noting STTAR's $9,633 price per point 
compared to TESCO's price per point of $10,246.  The Navy concluded 
that STTAR's proposal offered the best value to the government and 
made award to the firm.

TESCO maintains that since the RFP did not expressly provide that 
training experience and past performance on the three classes of ships 
were required or would be evaluated, it was improper for the agency to 
downgrade its proposal, and to rate STTAR's proposal technically 
superior, based on TESCO's relative weakness in this area.

Where, as here, detailed technical proposals are sought and technical 
evaluation criteria are used to enable the agency to make comparative 
judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals, offerors 
are on notice that qualitative distinctions among the technical 
proposals will be made under the various evaluation factors.  Fidelity 
Technologies Corp., B-258944, Feb. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD   para.  112; AWD 
Technologies, Inc., B-250081.2; B-250081.3, Feb. 1, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
83.  In making such distinctions, moreover, an agency properly may 
take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters 
that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation 
criteria.  Id.  

The firms' training experience and past performance on the three ships 
under the RFP clearly were encompassed by the evaluation factors.  
First, given that the RFP is for training pertinent to the equipment 
and systems on those classes of ships, we think it would be only 
logical for offerors to assume that evaluation factors entitled 
"personnel/qualifications and experience" and "past performance" would 
extend to consideration of experience and performance on those ships.  
Further, the RFP did expressly provide that experience in technical 
instruction of civilian and military shipboard systems and equipment, 
technical knowledge of the operations and maintenance of equipment and 
systems of T-AFS, T-AO, and T-AE classes of ships,  and teaching and 
training would be considered in the evaluation; experience on the 
ships is consistent with this emphasis on thorough knowledge of the 
ships.  Finally, even if the RFP were not adequate to put offerors on 
notice of the agency's intent to consider experience and past 
performance on the ships, TESCO was specifically requested during 
discussions to provide information on training experience with and 
past performance on the T-AFS and T-AE classes of ships (the two 
classes of ships on which it lacked experience).  Based on the RFP's 
requirements and evaluation criteria, as amplified during discussions, 
we conclude that TESCO was reasonably on notice that the evaluation 
would take into consideration specific training experience with and 
past performance on all three classes of ships.  Therefore, the agency 
properly considered such experience and past performance in 
downgrading TESCO's proposal.[3]

TESCO complains that the evaluation of STTAR's past performance as 
excellent was inconsistent with the notation in the business clearance 
memorandum that STTAR had performed "satisfactorily" on the incumbent 
contract.  However, the record shows that STTAR's excellent rating 
took into account other considerations, such as knowledge of customer 
requirements and expectations, schedule adherence, reasonable and 
cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. All three classes are resupply ships; the T-AFS is for fuel, the 
T-AO is for spare parts and food, and the T-AE is for ammunition.  The 
ships are operated by MSC using civil service mariners, who will form 
the student population for the courses.

2. Scoring was accomplished by rating each technical criterion on a 0 
to 100 percentage basis, with the ranges of excellent (90-100 
percent), good                 (80-89 percent), satisfactory (70-79 
percent), marginal (60-69 percent), or unsatisfactory (0-59 percent), 
and then multiplying by .5 to reach a point score.

3. Similarly, the agency properly could assign higher scores to 
STTAR's proposal in these areas; it is not objectionable for an agency 
to rate a firm that has previously performed the exact work called for 
under the RFP, as here, higher than a firm with more general 
experience.  See Counter Technology, Inc., B-260853, July 20, 1995, 
95-2 CPD  para.  39.