BNUMBER:  B-272458
DATE:  October 10, 1996
TITLE:  Pro Construction, Inc.

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

Matter of:Pro Construction, Inc.

File:     B-272458

Date:October 10, 1996

Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., and Andrew N. Cook, Esq., Bell, Boyd & 
Lloyd, for the protester.
Scott R. Schoenfeld, Esq., Leonard, Hurt & Parvin, for Texas-Capital 
Contractors, Inc., an intervenor.
George Brezna, Esq., Diane D. Hayden, Esq., and Billie Spencer, Esq., 
Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Solicitation evaluation scheme which states that technical merit is to 
be evaluated on the basis of four factors, three of equal importance 
and one of lesser importance, that technical merit and cost are to be 
weighed equally, and that award will not necessarily be made to 
low-priced offeror cannot plausibly be construed to require that award 
be made to the low-priced, technically acceptable offeror.

DECISION

Pro Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Texas-Capital Contractors, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N62470-94-R-4701, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command for house repairs and improvements to 
Capehart Housing at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North 
Carolina.  Pro Construction argues that the award determination was 
inconsistent with the RFP evaluation criteria.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued March 6, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
firm, fixed-price/indefinite quantity contract for housing repairs and 
improvements.  The solicitation stated that award would be made to the 
responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, would 
be the most advantageous to the government, price and other factors 
specified in the solicitation considered, and that the government may 
accept other than the lowest offer.  Section 00160 of the RFP set 
forth the evaluation scheme, specifying that price and technical 
factors would be weighted equally, and that among the listed technical 
factors, corporate experience, timely completion and management team 
would be of equal importance, while a fourth factor would be of less 
importance.  Finally, the same section of the RFP provided that:

        "PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA:  The required proposal 
        submittals shall address all requirements of the RFP.  Each 
        proposal will be reviewed and evaluated on its own merits by 
        qualified personnel to ensure its acceptability.  The 
        evaluation will be based strictly on the content of the 
        proposal and any subsequent communications, if necessary, to 
        clarify the proposals.  The proposals shall be determined 
        acceptable or not acceptable by the [c]ontracting [o]fficer 
        based upon evaluation of the proposals." 

Six proposals were received by the April 6 closing date, including 
those of Pro Construction and Texas-Capital.  The technical evaluation 
board reviewed the initial proposals using the following adjectival 
rating scheme:  (1) superior; (2) acceptable; (3) unacceptable but 
susceptible to correction; and (4) unacceptable.  After discussions 
and the eventual submission of best and final offers (BAFO), Pro 
Construction's BAFO received an overall "acceptable" rating and 
Texas-Capital's BAFO received a "superior" rating.  The evaluation 
board determined that the proposal offered by Texas-Capital was a 
better value for the government and worth the approximately $272,000 
additional cost based on Texas-Capital's excellent and extensive 
corporate experience and its early completion schedule.   Award was 
made to Texas-Capital on June 25 and this protest followed.  

Pro Construction contends that the RFP evaluation scheme requires that 
the award be made to the low-priced technically acceptable offeror.  
Pro Construction relies on the above-quoted sentence that the 
proposals shall be determined acceptable or not acceptable by the 
contracting officer.  The protester argues that this sentence requires 
a "go/no go" technical evaluation, and that the agency improperly 
evaluated the proposals on the basis of relative technical merit under 
the four criteria listed above, instead of simply determining whether 
the proposal was "acceptable" or "unacceptable".[1]

Evaluation and award in negotiated procurements are required to be 
made in accordance with the terms of the RFP.  Industrial Data Link 
Corp., B-248477.2, Sept. 14, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  176.  Where a dispute 
exists as to the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the 
matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that 
gives effect to all provisions of the solicitation.  See Lithos 
Restoration, Ltd., 71 Comp. Gen. 367 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  379.  To be 
reasonable, an interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation 
when read as a whole and in a reasonable manner.  Id.  Applying this 
standard here, we conclude that the evaluation conducted by the 
Navy--which involved a relative scoring of the evaluation factors set 
forth in the solicitation and the weighing of price and technical 
scores--is consistent with the only reasonable reading of the RFP 
evaluation scheme. 

Notwithstanding the sentence relied on by the protester, which merely 
calls for the contracting officer to ascertain the technical 
acceptability of the proposals, by listing the evaluation factors, 
assigning weights to the evaluation factors and providing that cost 
and technical factors were of equal importance, the RFP evaluation 
scheme clearly and explicitly provided for a comparative technical 
evaluation balanced against price to determine the most advantageous 
proposal.  See State Technical Institute at Memphis, B-250195.2; 
B-250195.3, Jan. 15, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  47; Lithos Restoration, Ltd., 
supra.  Further, contrary to Pro Construction's assertion that price 
must be the determinative award consideration, the RFP specifically 
stated that award would not be made on the basis of lowest price.   
Accordingly, offerors reasonably should have expected their technical 
proposals to be evaluated and ranked to reflect relative technical 
superiority, and for award selection to be based on an appropriate 
tradeoff between technical and price considerations.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. In its initial protest submission, Pro Construction posited without 
any reasoning that its proposal was technically equal or superior to 
Texas-Capital's proposal.  The agency provided explanation and support 
for its relative technical assessment in its report.  Since the 
protester did not address the issue in its comments, if we assume for 
the sake of argument that the issue was actually raised initially, we 
consider it abandoned.  GS Edwards, B-255202, Jan. 31, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
54.