BNUMBER:  B-272524
DATE:  October 21, 1996
TITLE:  Intown Properties, Inc.

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

Matter of:Intown Properties, Inc.

File:     B-272524

Date:October 21, 1996

Melton Harrell for the protester.
Mary C. Merchant, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the 
competitive range where the proposal was considered technically 
inferior to all of the competitive range proposals, and its price was 
substantially higher than two of the four competitive range proposals.

DECISION

Intown Properties, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from 
the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
H06R95006700000, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) for real estate asset manager (REAM) services.  
Intown challenges a number of alleged weaknesses listed by agency 
technical evaluators in the firm's proposal and argues that the 
evaluation process was "superficial" and included numerous other 
flaws.  

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite 
quantity contract for 1 year and 3 option years.  Award was to be made 
to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the 
solicitation and was most advantageous to the government, price and 
other factors considered.  The RFP listed as technical evaluation 
factors (1) staff; (2) management plan; and (3) past/current contract 
performance and prior experience, and stated that the combined merit 
of these factors would be more significant than price in the selection 
decision.  

The agency received 15 proposals in response to the RFP.  The 
contracting officer established a competitive range of four proposals, 
with the following technical scores and prices for the base and option 
years:

Technical scores  Prices

100               $10,102,800

100               $12,559,400

 95               $29,294,080

 87               $24,252,580
Intown's proposal, priced at $23,250,240 and assigned a technical 
score of 76, was considered unacceptable.  The agency ultimately 
awarded a contract to Golden Feather Realty Services, Inc. at a price 
of $9,310,800.

The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination of whether 
a particular offer is in the competitive range are matters within the 
discretion of the contracting agency, since it is responsible for 
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Crown 
Logistics Servs., B-253740, Oct. 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  228.  In 
reviewing challenges to an agency's competitive range determination, 
our Office does not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we 
examine the evaluation to determine whether it was reasonable and in 
accordance with the solicitation criteria.  Id.

Intown's challenge to the evaluation focuses on a number of criticisms 
by agency evaluators concerning the firm's proposal.  For instance, 
under the staff evaluation factor, on which Intown was assigned 50 out 
of 60 possible points, the evaluators commented that "[s]ome of the 
key personnel will only be assigned to this contract for one month."  
Intown argues that this comment, while true, ignores the permanent 
assignment of several key personnel to the contract.  Intown also 
argues that no firm, except the incumbent, can have staff standing by 
and available for this contract.

The agency explains that the evaluators were concerned with Intown's 
plan to assign some key personnel to the contract for 1 month and then 
replace them.  The evaluators believed this arrangement could create a 
lack of continuity, that there would be insufficient time to establish 
a working relationship with HUD, and that the replacement staff would 
not have appropriate knowledge and experience.  

We have no basis to conclude that the evaluators' concerns were 
unreasonable.  First, although Intown states that the evaluators 
ignored the permanent assignment of several key personnel to the 
contract, since the criticism focused on "some" key personnel, we 
think it is implicit that the evaluators recognized that other key 
personnel would be permanently assigned.  Moreover, Intown concedes 
that it proposed to assign staff to the contract and then to replace 
those personnel a month later.  While Intown maintains that this is 
the only arrangement available to it, this does not respond to the 
concerns of the evaluators about continuity and the experience and 
knowledge of the replacement staff.  We agree with the evaluators that 
these are legitimate concerns that justify the decision to assign the 
firm less than the full points available under the staffing evaluation 
factor.

Under the management plan evaluation factor, the evaluators commented 
on Intown's proposal:

     "The offeror's plan just repeats the solicitation without giving 
     specifics.

               .    .    .    .    .    

     "Offeror does not understand the full scope of the solicitation 
     because they do not give details of their plan of action."

The agency explains that the evaluators were concerned that Intown's 
management plan was generic and it did not accurately reflect the 
solicitation requirements for Texas, where the work is to be 
performed.  For these reasons, and others, the evaluators assigned 
Intown's proposal a score of 12 of a possible 25 points for this 
factor.

Noting that the management plan included in its proposal was 59-pages 
long, Intown argues it is not true that its plan just repeats the 
solicitation.  According to the protester, its management plan covers 
all aspects of the duties outlined in the RFP and is based on the 
firm's experience as an REAM contractor in Texas and other states.  
Intown also challenges the criticism that its management plan is not 
detailed and argues that, even if the plan lacked details, it is 
unreasonable to assume that the firm does not understand the work 
since Intown has many years of REAM experience managing many thousands 
of houses.  In addition, Intown argues that the evaluators deducted an 
unreasonable number of points from the total available points to it 
under the management plan evaluation factor.

Although Intown's management plan appears to us to address many, if 
not all, of the duties required under the contract, in some areas, 
such as the initial inspection of assigned properties, the plan is not 
even as detailed as the RFP statement of work.  In addition, our 
review reveals that the plan is generic and was not prepared 
specifically for this solicitation.  For instance, although Intown's 
proposal stated that initial pest control inspections would be at the 
contractor's expense, the agency points out that this was the 
procedure under a previous contract, but not under this solicitation.  
We think that, based on this proposal statement, the evaluators could 
reasonably question the offeror's understanding of the requirements of 
this contract.

Also, to the extent Intown expected to rely on its performance of 
previous contracts to demonstrate its capability, it did so at its own 
risk.  In negotiated procurements, since the agency's technical 
evaluation of proposal quality generally is based upon information 
submitted with the proposal, the burden is on the offeror to submit an 
adequately written proposal.  See Will-Burt Co., B-250626.2, Jan. 25, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  61.  Under the circumstances, while the protester 
disagrees with the evaluators' conclusions regarding its management 
plan and asserts that its proposal should have received a higher score 
on that factor, Intown has not provided any basis to establish that 
its evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the 
solicitation's evaluation criteria.

Under the past performance evaluation factor, Intown notes that one of 
the individual evaluator score sheets for its proposal includes no 
points and questions whether its proposal was assigned any points by 
that evaluator for that factor.  Although one evaluator's score sheet 
included no points for Intown's proposal under the past performance 
evaluation factor, the other three evaluators did assign individual 
scores and the overall, "consensus" score assigned to Intown's 
proposal for that factor is essentially an average of those three 
individual scores.  This procedure is consistent with that used 
throughout the evaluation and the missing score resulted in no penalty 
to Intown.

Although Intown raises various other matters concerning the technical 
evaluation of its proposal, we find nothing in the evaluation that is 
arbitrary, improper or inconsistent with the RFP.  As a result, we 
conclude that the evaluation and scoring of Intown's proposal was 
reasonable.  

We also conclude that the contracting officer reasonably excluded 
Intown's proposal from the competitive range.  The competitive range 
consists of all proposals that have a reasonable chance of being 
selected for award, and generally includes proposals that are 
technically acceptable or reasonably susceptible of being made 
acceptable through discussions.  American Envtl. Servs., Inc., 
B-257297, Sept. 8, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  97.  However, even a technically 
acceptable proposal may be excluded from the competitive range if, 
based upon the array of technical ratings actually obtained by the 
offerors and consideration of proposed prices, the proposal does not 
stand a real chance of being selected for award.  The Cadmus Group, 
Inc., B-241372.3, Sept. 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  271.  We will not disturb 
a determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive range 
unless the record indicates that the determination was unreasonable.  
Motorola, Inc., B-247937.2, Sept. 9, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  334.  

Intown's proposal, which was considered unacceptable, was assigned a 
score of 76, compared to the four competitive range proposals which 
received scores of 87, 95, 100, and 100.  In addition, in the view of 
agency officials, Intown's proposal would require substantial 
rewriting to become acceptable.  Moreover, Intown's price was 
considerably higher than those of the two proposals with technical 
scores of 100.  Since Intown's proposal was considered technically 
inferior to all of the competitive range proposals, and in light of 
the firm's high price, there was no reason to believe that the firm 
had a reasonable chance for award.  Under the circumstances, the 
agency's exclusion of Intown's proposal from the competitive range is 
not legally objectionable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States