BNUMBER:  B-271879.2
DATE:  October 31, 1996
TITLE:  Trataros Construction, Inc.

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

Matter of:Trataros Construction, Inc.

File:     B-271879.2

Date:October 31, 1996

Costas N. Trataros for the protester.
Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the 
agency.
Robert Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Proposal that received less than acceptable ratings in 13 of 17 
evaluation areas was properly eliminated from the competitive range 
where the agency reasonably determined that in order to be rated 
acceptable, the proposal would have to be substantially rewritten.

DECISION

Trataros Construction, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of 
the Air Force to eliminate its proposal from the competitive range 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. F28609-95-R0004 for a Simplified 
Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract at 
McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.[1]

We deny the protest.
 
The RFP was issued on February 14, 1996.  Award was to be made to the 
offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to 
the government considering technical/management factors and cost, with 
technical/management factors identified as more important.  Five 
technical management factors, which were subdivided into subfactors, 
were listed in descending order of importance:  project 
development/planning and minimal design; project management ability; 
subcontracting and support capability; project execution and technical 
capability; and experience and past and present performance.  Each 
subfactor was to be rated on a color-coded scale[2] and given a risk 
rating.  Technical/management proposals were limited to 75 pages and 
the RFP cautioned offerors that incomplete submissions could be 
rejected without evaluation.  Offerors were also cautioned that 
unrealistically low cost proposals could be rejected without further 
evaluation.

Eleven offerors responded by the March 27 closing date.  Trataros's 
proposal was rated as followed:

Factor/Subfactor      Rating    Risk      Necessary Revisions

1.  Development, Planning,         Design
       a.  Minimal Design
       b.  Development/Planning
                      
                      Red
                      Red       
                                
                                High
                                High      
                                          
                                          Major
                                          Complete

2.  Management Ability
       a.  Startup/Contingencies
       b.  Key Management Staff
       c.  Quality Control (QC)     Plan
       d.  Support/Interface/Staff
       e.  Financial Resources
       f.  Warranty and Punchlist  Resources
                      Red
                      Yellow
                      
                      Yellow
                      Green
                      Green
                      
                      Red       
                                High
                                Low
                                
                                High
                                Low
                                Low
                                
                                High      
                                          Complete
                                          Minor
                                          
                                          Moderate
                                          None
                                          None
                                          
                                          Major

3.  Subcontracting Support         Capability
      a.  Purchasing System/        Support Level
      b.  Subcontract                  Management
      c.  I.D. of Key Subs and       Suppliers
                      
                      Red
                      
                      Yellow
                      
                      Red       
                                
                                High
                                
                                Moderate
                                
                                Moderate  
                                          
                                          Major
                                          
                                          Moderate
                                          
                                          Major4.  Execution and Tech.             
Capability
       a.  Key Support Staff
       b.  Demonstration Level-     of-Effort
       c.  Demonstration             Alternatives
       d.  (No offers were            evaluated under this     
subfactor.)
       e.  Demonstration Price      Completeness
                      
                      Yellow
                      
                      Red
                      
                      Red
                      
                      Red       
                                
                                Low
                                
                                High
                                
                                High
                                
                                High      
                                          
                                          Major
                                          
                                          Major
                                          
                                          Major
                                          
                                          Major

5.  Experience/Performance
        a.  Recent Construction     Experience
        b.  Recent Construction     Management                
Experience            
                      
                      Green
                      
                      Green     
                                
                                Low
                                
                                Low       
                                          
                                          None
                                          
                                          None
In addition, Trataros's cost proposal was found to be unacceptable 
because it did not provide sufficient information regarding 
mobilization and demobilization expenses, bond premiums or a 
proportional share of home office overhead.  The agency also found 
that Trataros failed to adequately explain and support the price 
coefficients set forth in its proposal; the Air Force states that 
these deficiencies were particularly troublesome because Trataros's 
estimate of demonstration project costs was 60-percent lower than the 
government's estimate and substantially below the estimates of other 
offerors.  Based on the technical/management review and the cost 
proposal review, the Air Force concluded that major revisions were 
required to make Trataros's offer acceptable and consequently 
eliminated the offer from the competitive range.[3]  The competitive 
range determination was documented in summary fashion on April 15, and 
by letter of April 18, Trataros was informed of the general reasons 
for the decision.  This protest followed.

Trataros takes exception, in whole or in part, to all of the 
deficiencies noted by the agency.  Further, Trataros asserts that only 
the reasons set forth in the April 15 determination document may be 
considered in our analysis of the agency's evaluation, notwithstanding 
the fact that the agency presented its full rationale for the 
exclusion of the protester's proposal in its report on the protest.  
Trataros also argues that, notwithstanding deficiencies in its 
proposal, the agency should have included the proposal in the 
competitive range because of Trataros's successful past performance on 
similar contracts with other Air Force bases and the United States 
Military Academy.

Prior to considering the challenges to the Air Force's evaluation, we 
note that Trataros is incorrect in its assertion that the agency may 
not be permitted an opportunity to present all of the reasons for its 
competitive range determination during the protest process.  While 
agencies must document the basis for their evaluation and award 
decisions, the fact that the documentation was not contained in the 
contemporaneous procurement file but is furnished as part of the 
record in response to a protest does not preclude our consideration of 
it in determining the reasonableness of the agency's actions.  
Criterion Corp., B-266050, Jan. 23, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  217.  Here, the details of the agency's analysis were 
clearly spelled out in the report submitted for our review in response 
to the protester's allegations; in such circumstances, we will review 
the entire record to determine whether the agency acted reasonably in 
its evaluation of offers.

Also as a preliminary matter, we note that Trataros's argument that 
the competitive range determination should have been based on its 
successful performance history on other contracts is without merit.  
No matter how competent a contractor may be, an agency properly may 
base its technical evaluation on the information provided in an 
offeror's proposal in response to the requirements set forth in the 
solicitation.  Eastern Technical Enters., Inc., B-259844, May 8, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  para.  232.

The evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a 
proposal is in the competitive range are principally matters within 
the contracting agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible 
for defining their needs and for deciding the best method of meeting 
them.  Thus, it is not the function of this Office to evaluate 
proposals de novo and we will not disturb a determination absent a 
showing that it was unreasonable.  Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc., 
B-270645.2, May 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  252.  A protester's mere 
disagreement with an agency's evaluation does not, without more, 
establish that the evaluation was unreasonable.  Keco Indus., Inc.,    
B-261159, Aug. 25, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  85.

Our review of the record of the evaluation and the protester's 
arguments discloses no basis for disturbing the competitive range 
determination.  As the following examples reveal, the protester has at 
best shown mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation of its 
proposal.

The proposal instructions for subfactor 2c instructed offerors to 
provide a summary  QC plan which would later be incorporated into a 
formal QC plan.  Specifically, the RFP stated that the "summary plan 
should be broad enough to address all aspects of quality control to 
include responsibility for surveillance of work, number of active 
projects assigned to each quality control technician, acceptance, 
rejection, documentation, trend analysis and corrective action, and 
interface with Government inspectors."  The agency rated the 
protester's QC plan as marginal requiring moderate revision because it 
failed to discuss trend analysis and the number of delivery orders per 
inspector and did not adequately discuss government interface except 
to say that daily logs would be provided to the contracting officer's 
representative.

Trataros does not dispute the specific findings.  Rather, the 
protester asserts that all that was required was a "summary" plan and 
that its plan was sufficient.  Trataros also states that it was 
precluded from providing any more detail because of the     75-page 
limitation on the length of technical proposals.  The protester's 
reading of the word "summary," however, ignores the detailed 
description of what was required, and since it does not dispute the 
evaluation findings, we have no basis to question the evaluation.  
Moreover, as other offerors were able to submit adequate proposals 
within the RFP's page limitation, we are unpersuaded that the 
protester was hindered by that limitation.  See Telemechanics, Inc., 
B-229748, Mar. 24, 1988,  88-1 CPD  para.  304.

The proposal instructions for subfactor 3c required offerors to 
"provide specific identification of proposed key subcontractors and 
suppliers for each major function/discipline in accordance with R.S. 
MEANS.  Provide a brief resume of each  . . . including experience. . 
. ."  The agency rated Trataros's proposal as unacceptable for this 
subfactor, with major revisions required, because Trataros did not 
identify the subcontractors' and suppliers' functions and did not 
describe their experience.  Trataros states that it did not include 
experience in its proposal because of the page limitation and argues 
that the firms' functions should be evident from their trade names.  
Thus, all the record reflects is the protester's disagreement with the 
evaluators and a misplaced reliance on the page limitation rather than 
any impropriety in the evaluation.

Under the Project Execution and Technical Capability factor (Factor 
4), offerors were to submit, inter alia, one or more design concepts, 
a list of assumptions used to develop those design concepts, a list of 
priced items, simple design drawings, material submittals, an 
estimated time frame necessary to start and finish the demonstration 
project, and an overall proposal of project execution.  Under 
subfactors 4b and 4c Trataros's proposal was rated unacceptable and in 
need of major revision because it failed to provide any mathematical 
support for its proposed solution, failed to list assumptions and 
failed to identify alternative solutions.  Trataros concedes that it 
failed to list assumptions and again refers to the RFP page 
limitation; Trataros does not comment on the other findings.  Again, 
we see no basis to disturb the evaluation.

The RFP instructions regarding cost proposals required offerors to 
provide detailed financial information in support of proposed cost 
coefficients including,  mobilization and demobilization expenses, 
bond premiums and a proportional share of home office overhead.  The 
agency found the cost proposal submitted by the protester to be 
unacceptable for a failure to provide the above-listed information.  
Trataros does not address these specific findings and merely asserts 
that it has supplied adequate cost information to the Air Force which, 
again, provides no basis to disturb the evaluation.  

As the foregoing examples reflect, the Air Force had a reasonable 
basis for excluding Trataros's proposal from the competitive range on 
the grounds that it received unacceptable ratings for a majority of 
the listed evaluation subfactors and required major revision to become 
acceptable.  Trataros argues that the Air Force should have, 
nonetheless, kept the proposal in the competitive range in view of its 
"fair and reasonable price."  This contention is misplaced since an 
agency may properly exclude a technically unacceptable proposal from 
the competitive range irrespective of the price offered.  Systems 
Planning & Analysis, Inc., B-261857.2, Nov. 9, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  218.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
Of the United States

1. We previously dismissed Trataros's protest for failure to file 
comments on the agency report or request an extension within 14 
calendar days after receipt of the report as required by our Bid 
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.3(h) (1996).  At Trataros's request 
we subsequently investigated our Office mail logs and confirmed that 
the protester had in fact filed timely comments with our Office which 
inadvertently had not been forwarded to the cognizant location.  Under 
these circumstances, we will consider the merits of the protest.

2. Blue (exceptional); green (acceptable); yellow (marginal); red 
(unacceptable).

3. Trataros's offer was one of five eliminated from the competitive 
range.