BNUMBER:  B-272041; B-272041.2
DATE:  August 20, 1996
TITLE:  Cobra Technologies, Inc.

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

Matter of:Cobra Technologies, Inc.

File:     B-272041; B-272041.2

Date:August 20, 1996

Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., and Neil H. Ruttenberg, 
Esq., Pompan, Ruffner & Werfel, for the protester.
Ronald B. Vogt, Esq., and Stuart Young, Esq., DynCorp, and Paul 
Shnitzer, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for DynCorp, an intervenor.
Terrence J. Tychan, Department of Health and Human Services, 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

Protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range 
where the agency reasonably concluded that there were a multitude of 
significant deficiencies in the proposal which made it technically 
unacceptable as submitted and major revisions would have been required 
to make it acceptable.

DECISION

Cobra Technologies, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from 
the competitive range and the subsequent award of a contract to 
DynCorp under request for proposals (RFP) No. 223-96-9616, issued by 
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for operational maintenance and 
support services at federal buildings in Washington, D.C.  Cobra 
primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal.

We deny the protest.

The successful offeror will provide operational and maintenance 
support services at a federal building containing laboratory and 
office space.  This building is unique in that it has a one-pass 
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system; glass plumbing; and 
various independent air conditioning, compressed air, vacuum, and a 
variety of other laboratory delivery systems.  Toxicology, 
pharmacology, microbiology, and nutritional studies that have a direct 
impact on the food, drug, and cosmetic chain in the country are 
performed on a daily basis in this building.  The contractor will also 
perform construction and utility work at another nearby federal 
building.  

Under the RFP, technical proposals were to be of primary consideration 
in the evaluation, but price could become primary if the offerors' 
technical competence were considered approximately the same.  Offerors 
were required to meet three minimum mandatory requirements:

     1. Experience in the operation and maintenance of support 
        equipment that sustains acceptable temperature and humidity 
        levels in a laboratory research facility;
     2. Experience in operating and maintaining a "one-pass" (100% 
        outside air) air distribution system, and the need to maintain 
        positive/negative balance relationships in a laboratory 
        research environment; and
     3. Experience in operating and maintaining a research facility 
        through the use of automated data processing management 
        systems.

Proposals meeting these requirements would be evaluated under four 
technical merit factors and their subfactors:  ability to operate and 
maintain a research facility (30 percent); corporate experience and 
qualifications (25 percent); past performance (25 percent); and key 
personnel experience (20 percent).

Three firms submitted timely offers, which were subject to a 
preliminary evaluation by each member of the agency's Project Advisory 
Group (PAG).  The PAG subsequently convened to discuss and finalize 
the technical evaluation results.[1]  The record reflects that all 
three offerors satisfied the minimum mandatory requirements and 
received final technical evaluation scores.  DynCorp's proposal 
received a rating of 86.25, and Cobra's proposal received a rating of 
61.[2]

In its memorandum to the contracting officer, the PAG listed each 
proposal's strengths and weaknesses and stated that the proposals of 
Cobra and the third offeror were so inferior and deficient in relation 
to the evaluation criteria that they would have to be rewritten to be 
considered technically acceptable.  After reviewing the individual 
evaluation rating forms, the score summary, and the PAG's narrative, 
the contract specialist recommended the exclusion of both proposals 
from the competitive range, and the contracting officer concurred.  
DynCorp was awarded the contract, and Cobra filed this protest. 

In reviewing competitive range determinations, our Office will not 
independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record 
to ensure that the evaluation is reasonable and in accordance with the 
solicitation's evaluation criteria.  Mobility Sys. and Equip. Co., 
B-261072, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  66.  A protester's disagreement 
with the agency's technical judgment does not show that such judgment 
was unreasonable.  Id.; Mictronics, Inc., B-228404, Feb. 23, 1988, 
88-1 CPD  para.  185.  Even where a competitive range is reduced to one, as 
here, we will not disturb the determination absent a clear showing 
that it was unreasonable.  Engineering & Computation, Inc., B-258728, 
Jan. 31, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  155.  As discussed below, our review of the 
record confirms that the evaluation here was reasonable. 

The most important evaluation factor assessed the offerors' 
demonstrated "ability to operate and maintain a research facility."  
Cobra's proposal was downgraded under the first subfactor, "ability to 
implement, maintain, and update all necessary maintenance and repair 
programs," because the PAG believed that its tool and equipment 
listing was insufficiently detailed to show that it understood the 
performance work statement (PWS) requirements.  The firm's proposal 
included the general statement that the firm would furnish "all 
necessary equipment," and proposed to supply a van outfitted with 
tools.  The PAG was unpersuaded that one van would be able to furnish 
enough tools and equipment needed for 
12 maintenance workers to maintain a research facility.  In addition, 
the PAG was concerned because Cobra's proposal did not mention such 
items as a torch set, electrical testing devices, power tools for 
field use, or drain cleaning equipment, all of which are needed to 
execute certain PWS requirements.  

Cobra contends that "provision of a comprehensive tool list" is not an 
evaluation criterion here, and that the FDA's evaluation thus was 
improper.  We disagree.

Solicitations must identify all significant factors and any 
significant subfactors that will be considered in awarding the 
contract, and the evaluation of proposals must be based on the factors 
set forth in the solicitation.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  
 sec. 15.605(d) (FAC 90-31).  In performing the evaluation, however, the 
agency may take into account specific, albeit not expressly 
identified, matters that are logically encompassed by the stated 
evaluation criteria.  See Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (GS), Inc., B-271903, 
Aug. 6, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.     .  Here, not only is the assessment of a 
tool and equipment list logically encompassed in the review of an 
offeror's ability to implement, maintain, and update maintenance and 
repair programs, but section L of the solicitation explicitly 
instructs offerors to describe the facilities and equipment available 
for the conduct of the proposed work.  Thus, we view the tool list as 
encompassed by the criterion, see Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., 
B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  16, and the agency's downgrading 
of Cobra's proposal for its negligible discussion of this matter was 
proper.  Bioqual, Inc., B-259732.2; B-259732.3, May 15, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
243.[3]

Cobra's proposal also was downgraded under the second and final 
subfactor, which required offerors to "provide all steps and 
procedures required" to respond to three specified emergency 
situations.  The FDA believed that Cobra's descriptions as to two of 
these situations lacked the steps and procedures requested.  While 
Cobra's initial protest asserted that its proposal contained 
sufficient such information, the agency's rebuttal of this claim is 
fully supported by a reading of the firm's proposal, and Cobra, in its 
comments, provides us no basis to disagree with the agency.  
Accordingly, we see no basis to question the evaluation in this area.

The second evaluation factor required offerors to demonstrate 
"[c]orporate ability indicated by corporate resources, background, and 
experience in performing similar work."  Offerors were to provide at 
least three references, including a contact and a description of the 
work performed.

Cobra's proposal listed more than 70 projects and contacts for each.  
Instead of describing the work it had performed under these projects, 
as required by the solicitation, Cobra simply "invited" the agency to 
call its customers, leaving an open question whether the firm had 
performed "similar work."  Notwithstanding this omission, the agency 
ascertained from other parts of the proposal that Cobra's experience 
included one contract to maintain a research laboratory facility, 
which it had been performing for 5 months.  The evaluators contacted 
several individuals at that facility and received generally favorable 
recommendations.  While the evaluators gave Cobra's proposal a 
strength for having some experience with maintaining a research 
laboratory facility and for having received favorable references, they 
viewed the limited nature of this experience as a weakness and 
downgraded Cobra's proposal accordingly.

In her statement filed in response to the protest, the contracting 
officer stated that "[t]he minimum mandatory requirements [in the RFP] 
. . . define the term 'performing similar work.'"  Seizing upon this 
statement, Cobra argues that this definition is unreasonably narrow 
since the work requirements are primarily those found in any large 
building and are not specifically related to those at issue in the 
minimum mandatory requirements.[4]  

In our view, the contracting officer's statement does not equate 
"similar work" to any specific components of the minimum mandatory 
requirements, but to the operation and maintenance of a research 
laboratory facility, the work at issue here.  That statement is 
immediately followed by the clarifying statement, "[t]he only 
laboratory experience set forth in the Cobra proposal was the Brooklyn 
lab."  More important, the contemporaneous evaluation documents, which 
evidence no participation by the contracting officer, show that the 
evaluators' concern was with Cobra's lack of experience in operating 
and maintaining a research laboratory facility--the "similar work."

In any event, where a solicitation indicates that experience will be 
evaluated, the procuring agency properly may consider an offeror's 
specific experience with the subject matter of the procurement.  Human 
Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc., B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 
21, 1995, 96-1 CPD  para.  35; FMS Corp., B-255191, Feb. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
182.  As the solicitation indicates that the work here is for 
maintaining a building in which nearly half the space is categorized 
as laboratory space, and where that laboratory space is subject to 
particular requirements so important as to be encompassed in the 
minimum mandatory requirements, we do not find the agency's definition 
of "similar work" to be too narrow.  In fact, Cobra's own proposal 
states that its corporate experience in the performance of the types 
of services at issue was gained "primarily" through the efforts on its 
sole contract to operate and maintain a research laboratory facility.  
It is implicit in an experience evaluation that a proposal may be 
downgraded depending on the agency's assessment of the relevance and 
amount of an offeror's experience in relation to the experience it 
reasonably determines is necessary for successful performance.  Human 
Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc., supra.  

Cobra alternatively asserts that the FDA could have relied upon the 
experience of its proposed key personnel in evaluating its corporate 
experience, citing our decision in Energy and Resource Consultants, 
Inc., B-205636, Sept. 22, 1982, 82-2 CPD  para.  258.  In that case, 
however, the corporate experience requirement was phrased so broadly 
that it could encompass the experience of individual employees.  Here, 
the criterion was explicitly limited to corporate experience, 
experience which cannot be fulfilled by an individual or individuals.  
See Environmental Health Research & Testing, Inc., B-237208, Feb. 9, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  169.  As a result, the agency properly declined to 
consider such experience in its evaluation.  Precision Elevator, Inc., 
B-259375, Mar. 20, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  152.  

Finally, the past performance factor contemplated evaluating the 
contractor's performance on "completed and on-going projects that are 
similar to the requirements specified in the performance work 
statement."  As above, the evaluators believed that Cobra's experience 
in operating and maintaining a research laboratory facility was a 
strength, but downgraded the proposal because that experience was so 
limited.    

While Cobra complains that the agency improperly limited its 
consideration of its past performance to the firm's research 
laboratory contract, the evaluation factor specifically states that 
firms will be evaluated on the basis of their "performance on similar 
projects."  As discussed above, we do not think the agency's 
definition of "similar projects" was unreasonable, nor do we believe 
that the agency's decision to give Cobra a lower rating in light of 
its limited experience with "similar projects" was unreasonable.  In 
any event, the agency did contact several references with respect to 
Cobra's other contracts, and even an evaluator who stated that he 
"could not rate" the firm's past performance due to its lack of 
research laboratory experience gave the firm 20 of 25 possible points 
here, evidence that Cobra received credit for its related experience.

Where a proposal is technically unacceptable as submitted and would 
require major revisions to become acceptable, it may properly be 
excluded from the competitive range irrespective of its lower offered 
price.  See A.G. Crook Co., B-255230, Feb. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  118.  
There is no obligation for the agency to conduct discussions with an 
offeror whose proposal has been properly excluded from the competitive 
range.  Id.  Here, as discussed above, the agency reasonably 
determined Cobra's proposal to be technically unacceptable without 
major revisions.  Accordingly, the subsequent elimination of its 
proposal from the competitive range without conducting discussions was 
unobjectionable.  International Resources Corp., B-259992, Apr. 14, 
1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  200.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. While Cobra insinuates that this second evaluation was improper, 
both the PAG's instructions and the agency's acquisition manual 
provide for a preliminary evaluation followed by a consensus 
evaluation.  In any event, the overriding concern in these matters is 
whether the final scores assigned accurately reflect the relative 
merits of the proposals.  See Household Data Servs., Inc., B-259238.2, 
Apr. 26, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  281.

2. The third offeror's proposal, which received a rating of 62.75, is 
not at issue here.

3. We agree with Cobra that the agency appears to have misquoted a 
passage of its proposal which discusses the tool list but, in our 
view, the totality of the evaluation comments made with respect to 
this issue supports the rating Cobra received.  In a related matter, 
Cobra incorrectly contends that the FDA should have downgraded 
DynCorp's proposal because it also provided general statements as to 
its tool and equipment list.  DynCorp's proposal contains general 
statements in this regard, but also includes a figure in which it 
lists each and every tool and piece of equipment it anticipates using 
to perform this contract.   

4. Cobra also uses this statement as the basis for its supplemental 
protest, in which it argues that the agency improperly jettisoned the 
technical merit factors and established the minimum mandatory 
requirements as a "special standard of responsibility."  This argument 
is baseless.  The record is clear that the agency comparatively 
evaluated the proposals under the technical merit factors.  Moreover, 
as discussed below, we find that this reference to the minimum 
mandatory requirements is entirely proper.