BNUMBER:  B-271899
DATE:  August 28, 1996
TITLE:  Quality Elevator Company, Inc.

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

Matter of:Quality Elevator Company, Inc.

File:     B-271899

Date:August 28, 1996

George W. Ash, Esq., William J. Lewandowski, Esq., and William H. 
Carroll, Esq., Dykema Gossett, for the protester.
Gerald F. Ivey, Esq., Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, for 
Elevator Control Service, an intervenor.
Cecelia R. Jones, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Allegation that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal 
is denied where  evaluation documentation shows that the ratings 
assigned to the proposal were reasonable and reflected the 
solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.  

2.  Allegation that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions 
with protester is denied where discussion questions directly led 
protester into areas of its technical proposal that required 
amplification.

DECISION

Quality Elevator Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Elevator Control Service (Elcon), under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. 52-SAAA-6-00011, issued by the Department of Commerce.  Quality 
argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and 
that the proposals were improperly evaluated.  

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on November 30, 1995, requested proposals for a 
fixed-price contract for a base year with 3 option years to provide 
labor, equipment, tools, and materials to perform inspection, testing, 
maintenance, and repairs services on elevators in the Herbert C. 
Hoover Building in Washington, D.C.  Technical factors were stated to 
be more important than price.  The RFP contained the following 
technical evaluation factors and associated points:  (1) preventative 
maintenance plan (150 points); (2) management plan (200 points); (3) 
organization and control (100 points); (4) level of effort (50 
points); (5) continuity of service (150 points); 
(6) personnel (150 points); and (7) past performance (200 points), for 
a maximum possible total of 1,000 points.  

The agency received five proposals and after evaluation of initial 
proposals, established a competitive range of four proposals, 
including those of Quality and Elcon.  Written discussions were 
conducted with all competitive range offerors, and all four submitted 
best and final offers (BAFO) by the March 13, 1996, closing date.  The 
BAFOs were evaluated as follows:[1]

     Offeror              Technical Score         Life Cycle Price

     Elcon                      852.5                $840,128.13

    Offeror "A"                 637.5                $776,130.00

    Offeror "B"               630                    $803,600.00

    Quality                     467.5                $645,750.00
The agency concluded that Elcon's proposal represented the best 
overall value to the government and made award to Elcon on April 19.  
This protest followed.  

TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Quality raises numerous arguments to the effect that the technical 
evaluation was improper, and that the resulting source selection 
therefore was invalid.  We have reviewed the record and conclude that 
these arguments are without merit.  

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best methods of accommodating them.  
Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
16.  In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate 
technical proposals but instead will examine the agency's evaluation 
to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.  MAR Inc., B-246889, Apr. 
14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  367.  

Past Performance

The RFP requested that each offeror submit a minimum of four 
references knowledgeable about its past performance, but the RFP did 
not state any number of references that the agency would contact as 
part of the evaluation.  The technical evaluation panel (TEP) 
contacted one reference from each offeror's proposal, visited the 
associated site and interviewed the contract administrator.  In 
evaluating Quality's past performance, the agency received input from 
the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) for 
Quality's current contract, who was also on the TEP, concerning 
Quality's maintenance of the elevators at the Department of Commerce's 
Herbert C. Hoover Building.  Quality received a "very good" score of 
120 out of a possible 200 points to reflect the agency's conclusion 
that Quality, the incumbent contractor, was currently operating at an 
acceptable level but, citing the COTR's comment that Quality's level 
of service over the past 3 months had deteriorated, the TEP concluded 
that Quality's performance in servicing the elevators to be maintained 
under this contract warranted a score of only "very good."  

In our view, this assessment of the protester was reasonable.  
Agencies evaluating proposals may properly consider their own past 
experience with an offeror's performance where the solicitation 
contains past performance as an evaluation factor.  George A. and 
Peter A. Palivos, B-245878.2; B-245878.3, Mar. 16, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  
286.  Here, while taking cognizance of Quality's experience in 
performing as the incumbent, the agency also took into consideration 
its direct knowledge of Quality's recent performance problems.  We 
find without merit the protester's argument that the agency's 
evaluation of its past performance was improper because the agency 
only contacted one of its references.  There is no legal requirement 
that all references listed in a proposal be checked.  Questech, Inc., 
B-236028, Nov. 1, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  407.   

Quality argues that Elcon could not properly receive a higher rating 
for past performance since it lacked experience in maintaining the 
elevators to be maintained under this contract.  Elcon received an 
"excellent" score of 180 points under this factor largely due to the 
excellent report that the TEP received from one of Elcon's references 
at the State Department.  This person stated that he would recommend 
Elcon as a possible contractor for elevator maintenance without 
reservation.[2]  In our view, the agency could reasonably rate Elcon 
as it did in light of this unreserved positive recommendation since 
nothing in the RFP indicated that specific experience with the 
elevators to be maintained was to be a consideration under this 
evaluation factor.

Continuity of Service

Under this evaluation factor, offerors were to discuss all actions 
that would be taken to mobilize for performance along with other 
plans, such as its strike contingency plan, phase out plan, and an 
emergency disaster plan.  Quality's proposal received an "acceptable" 
score of 60 points for this factor.  The TEP noted that Quality's 
revised proposal was lacking in specifics and failed to include an 
emergency disaster plan.  Quality responds that its revised proposal 
contained three pages devoted to this factor and that the copy of its 
revised proposal that it submitted to the agency was missing a page 
that described its emergency disaster plan.  Quality maintains that 
had the agency properly evaluated its proposal, it would have 
discovered that Quality's revised proposal was missing a page.  

The agency responds that the pages of Quality's revised proposal were 
not numbered and that there were no apparent breaks in the material; 
therefore, according to the agency, it had no way of knowing that a 
page was missing from Quality's revised proposal.  We find that the 
agency reasonably evaluated Quality's proposal under this factor.  
From our review of the record it appears that not only did Quality's 
proposal fail to include an emergency disaster plan but that the two 
pages that Quality submitted for this factor were lacking in detail.  
The offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written 
proposal, see MAR Inc., supra, and on this record we see no basis for 
faulting the agency for not realizing that Quality's revised proposal 
was missing a page or for not evaluating the proposal higher than it 
did under this factor.    

Organization and Control

With respect to this evaluation factor, offerors were asked to 
provide:  (1) a quality control program (75 points), which included a 
description of the contractor's inspection system covering all 
services to be provided under the contract and the contractor's 
methods of identifying and correcting deficiencies in the quality of 
services performed, and (2) a detailed approach for managing 
day-to-day operations performed by the on-site work force (25 points).  

Quality's proposal received 15 out of 75 points for the quality 
control program subfactor and received 7.5 out of 25 points for the 
day-to-day operations subfactor, for a total score of 22.5 points for 
this factor.  The TEP noted that Quality's proposal "lacked substance 
and provided only a 'general' mention of the requirements."  The 
evaluators found, and our review confirms, that Quality's proposal did 
not address all of the requirements that were to be addressed.  For 
example, Quality's proposal contained no discussion of the sampling 
techniques that would be used to identify deficiencies.  In addition, 
Quality's proposal did not describe the procedures it would utilize to 
report deficiencies to the agency that were discovered during quality 
control inspections.  The agency's concerns about the brevity and the 
omissions in Quality's proposal and its evaluation of Quality's 
organization and control appear reasonable and consistent with the 
solicitation criteria.[3] 

Elcon's proposal received 60 out of 75 points for its quality control 
program, and 17.5 out of 25 points for its day-to-day operations plan 
for a low "excellent" total score of 77.5 points for this factor.  The 
TEP viewed favorably the fact that Elcon intended to use a quality 
control inspector to monitor Elcon's performance under this contract, 
but it reduced Elcon's score from 67.5 to 60 points due to the reduced 
amount of time that the inspector would spend monitoring the contract 
after the first quarter.  Regarding Elcon's day-to-day operations 
plan, the TEP raised Elcon's score from 15 to 17.5 points because, in 
response to a question asked during discussions, Elcon provided 
additional details concerning the supervision of its on-site 
employees.  We see no basis to object to this assessment.    

Management Plan

Under this evaluation factor, offerors were to submit a management 
plan which described in detail the methods and procedures that they 
plan to employ in performing the seven work tasks described in the 
SOW.  Quality received a score of 40 out of 200 points for this 
evaluation factor.  The TEP noted that Quality's proposal failed to 
address in detail the management of the following three work tasks:  
routine service calls, maintenance repairs, and reimbursable repairs.  
Regarding maintenance repairs, Quality stated only that "[d]ay to day 
maintenance activities and repair work will be handled in accordance 
with good maintenance practices by the personnel assigned to this 
project."  The only reference in Quality's management plan to 
reimbursable repairs was the following:  "[i]n the event that it 
appears that the repair will exceed the specified dollar limitation 
the Project Manager will provide the COTR with a cost and time 
estimate as required."  The agency concluded that Quality's proposal 
failed to describe the differing management needs of the various work 
tasks and stated that Quality's proposal overall lacked substantive 
information.  

Quality contends that the evaluation of its proposal's management plan 
was unreasonable, and that its proposal met the solicitation 
requirements.  Quality argues that there is little need for management 
planning to assure adequate performance, because the RFP calls for 
on-site personnel to provide the necessary elevator servicing.  
Therefore, Quality argues, personnel is the critical important 
evaluation factor.  Quality points out that it received a high "very 
good" for the personnel factor and contends that somehow this score 
should be used to increase Quality's score under the management plan 
factor.  Quality also argues that the agency unfairly downgraded its 
proposal under this factor because the protester had followed the 
solicitation instruction to be "as concise and specific as is 
practicable."
  
Elcon's proposal received an "excellent" score of 180 points.  The TEP 
noted that Elcon's proposal contained a separate detailed description 
of each of the methods and procedures that it would use to manage each 
of the seven work tasks.  For example, regarding routine service 
calls, Elcon's management plan separately addressed service calls that 
would be placed verbally by stating that such calls should be directed 
to its home office, and providing the phone number, and service calls 
that were submitted in writing (Elcon specified that such orders 
should be placed at a predetermined location and that Elcon's on-site 
technicians would pick up these orders twice daily).  Additionally, 
the TEP noted that it particularly liked Elcon's plan for maintaining 
a stock of commonly used parts and supplies.  

The agency reasonably determined that Elcon's detailed eight-page 
management proposal was superior to the nonspecific three-page 
management proposal submitted by Quality.  Contrary to the protester's 
assertions, an offeror's blanket offer of compliance is not an 
adequate substitute for detailed and complete technical information in 
a proposal establishing what the firm proposes will meet the 
government's needs.  Whittaker Elec. Sys., B-246732.2, Sept. 10, 1992, 
92-2 CPD  para. 161.  An agency may downgrade a proposal for lack of detail 
pertaining to the requirements of an RFP, or consider a more detailed 
proposal superior.  See ICONCO/NATIONAL Joint Venture, B-240119, Oct. 
16, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  296. 

We find without merit the protester's argument that its qualified 
personnel made up for its otherwise deficient management plan because 
on-site personnel were the critical factor in the performance of this 
contract.  The RFP made the management plan one of the most heavily 
weighted factors, and specifically required that offerors include in 
their management plans a detailed description of the methods and 
procedures that it plans to employ in performing the work.  The fact 
that the RFP required on-site personnel, and that Quality's proposal 
received a high "very good" rating under the personnel factor does not 
have anything to do with the requirement for a management plan or the 
rating under the management plan factor.  Further, the provision of 
the RFP that encourages offerors to structure their proposals in a 
"concise and specific" manner cannot be read to obviate the clearly 
expressed requirements to submit specified information with the 
proposal.  TLC Sys., B-243220, July 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  37.  Based on 
our review of the record, we find that the agency reasonably concluded 
that Elcon's management plan was superior to Quality's management 
plan, in part because Elcon's management plan was significantly more 
detailed.  

MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS

Quality next argues that the agency failed to provide it with 
meaningful discussions with regard to its past performance, the 
organization and control, and the management plan sections of its 
proposal. 

Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all 
competitive range offerors.  Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., B-255286.2, 
Apr. 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  306.  In order for discussions to be 
meaningful, contracting officials must advise offerors of deficiencies 
in their proposals and afford offerors an opportunity to revise their 
proposals to satisfy the government's requirements.  Id.  This does 
not mean that offerors are entitled to all-encompassing discussions.  
Agencies are only required to lead offerors into areas of their 
proposals that require amplification.  Caldwell Consulting Assocs., 
B-242767; B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  530.  The degree of 
specificity required in conducting discussions is not constant and is 
primarily a matter for the procuring agency to determine.  JCI Envtl. 
Servs., B-250752.3, Apr. 7, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  299.  

Past Performance

Quality argues that it should have been offered an opportunity to 
rebut the perceived weaknesses during the past 3 months on the current 
contract.  We disagree.  Agencies must point out in discussions 
weaknesses that, unless corrected, would prevent an offeror from 
having a reasonable chance for award.  Department of the Navy--Recon., 
72 Comp. Gen. 221 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  422.  Where, as here, the 
evaluators rated the proposal as "very good" in this area, and the 
agency's decision not to award a contract to Quality was not based on 
Quality's past performance, there was no requirement that the matter 
be the subject of discussions.  See Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 
supra.  

Organization and Control

Quality argues that the agency conducted unequal discussions because 
it posed two specific questions to Elcon regarding its "very good" 
day-to-day operations, and only one question to Quality regarding its 
"unacceptable" day-to-day plan.  

Contracting agencies have wide discretion in determining the nature 
and scope of negotiations.  While discussions must provide offerors 
with an equal opportunity to revise their proposals, the content and 
extent of discussions are within the discretion of the contracting 
officer.  See Tritech Field Eng'g, Inc., B-255336.2, 
Apr. 13, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  261.  Since the number and type of 
deficiencies, if any, will vary among proposals, there is no 
requirement that all offerors receive the same number or type of 
discussion questions.  Textron Marine Sys., B-255580.3, Aug. 2, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  63.  Rather, the agency should individualize the evaluated 
deficiencies of each offeror in its conduct of discussions.  Pan Am 
World Servs., Inc., et al., B-231840 et al., Nov. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  
446.  Because the degree of deficiencies in proposals will vary, the 
amount of specificity or detail of discussions will also vary among 
the offerors.  Pope Maintenance Corp., B-206143.3, Sept. 9, 1982, 82-2 
CPD  para.  218.  

The record clearly shows that Elcon and Quality were each presented 
with questions that were tailored to the specific deficiencies 
identified in their written day-to-day plans.  The TEP determined that 
Quality's quality control program did not address all of the 
requirements of Section C.140.1.  During discussions, the agency 
advised Quality, "[y]our Quality Control plan does not specifically 
address all of the requirements of Section C.140.1, please revise."  
This statement clearly conveys the agency's concerns about Quality's 
quality control program.  The fact that Quality was presented with one 
statement regarding this factor and Elcon was presented with two 
statements simply reflects particulars of the evaluation of the two 
proposals and does not betoken any inequality in the treatment of the 
two offerors.  All offerors, including Quality, were afforded the same 
opportunity to respond to the agency's concerns raised in discussions 
in revised proposals and BAFOs.  The fact that Quality's responses to 
the agency's discussion statement concerning its day-to-day operation 
did not overcome the agency's concerns sufficiently to raise its score 
does not establish that the discussions were inadequate.  

Management Plan

Quality argues that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions 
in that the agency question was a "mere paraphrasing" of the RFP and 
did not convey to Quality that the agency considered its management 
plan deficient because it did not deal with each work task separately 
and in detail.  

Again, we disagree.  The record reflects that the agency asked Quality 
to address the work tasks in detail and asked Quality to "[p]lease 
provide a detailed description of the methods and procedures you plan 
to employ to perform the work tasks in Section C.200."  This statement 
clearly conveys the agency's concerns with the fact that Quality's 
management proposal did not address each work task in detail, and 
afforded the protester a reasonable opportunity to satisfy the 
government's requirements through the submission of a revised 
proposal.  Quality failed to respond to this question with adequate 
detail and the agency reasonably concluded that Quality's management 
plan did not adequately specify the methods and procedures that it 
would employ to perform each of the seven work tasks in the SOW.   

COST/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

Quality contends that the agency conducted an improper and 
unreasonable cost/technical tradeoff.  Quality bases this argument on 
its allegation that the technical advantages cited by the agency in 
Elcon's proposal were not supported by the record, and that, 
therefore, there were no significant technical differences between its 
proposal and Elcon's higher-priced proposal.  However, as detailed 
above, the record supports both Elcon's "excellent" rating and 
Quality's substantially lower rating; hence, Quality's argument is 
based on a mistaken premise.  On this record, we have no reason to 
find the award determination unreasonable or inconsistent with the 
evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP.  See JSA Healthcare Corp., 
B-252724, July 26, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  54.   

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. In addition to the life-cycle prices, there are certain unit labor 
prices representing what the agency will have to pay for labor once 
the contractor reaches a designated threshold.  These prices are not 
relevant to the protest issues.  

2. This State Department employee also mentioned that Elcon had 
replaced Quality and corrected the problems that the agency had 
experienced with Quality.  The TEP noted that these comments did not 
affect Quality's score.  

3. Quality also contends that the agency downgraded its proposal for 
not addressing each of the seven minimum standards of performance 
listed in section C.300 of the statement of work (SOW), but did not 
downgrade Elcon's proposal for the same omission.  (The minimum 
standards of performance lay out the response time for each of the 
seven work tasks.)  Contrary to Quality's assertions, Elcon's proposal 
commits the offeror to responding to the various work tasks within the 
various time frames laid out in the minimum standards of performance 
in its management plan.