BNUMBER:  B-272820
DATE:  October 30, 1996
TITLE:  Professional Software Engineering, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Professional Software Engineering, Inc.

File:     B-272820

Date:October 30, 1996

Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., and Howard W. Roth III, Esq., Vandeventer, 
Black, Meredith & Martin, LLP, for the protester.
William A. Roberts III, Esq., Lee P. Curtis, Esq., and Brian A. Darst, 
Esq., Howrey & Simon, for Information Management Consultants, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Dennis Foley, Esq., and Philip Kauffman, 
Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest alleging that agency failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions with protester is denied where discussion question 
reasonably led protester into area of its technical proposal that 
needed amplification.

2.  Protest against award to other than the low-cost offeror is denied 
where award to higher-rated, higher-cost offeror was permissible under 
solicitation and agency reasonably determined overall technical 
superiority and lower risk of awardee's proposal justified payment of 
cost premium.

DECISION

Professional Software Engineering, Inc. (Prosoft) protests the award 
of a contract to Information Management Consultants, Inc. (IMC) under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. 101-53-95, issued by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) for software 
development, systems maintenance, and related support services to 
assist VBA in modernizing its computerized systems for administering 
monetary benefits to veterans and their families.  Prosoft protests 
the agency's evaluation of its proposal, the agency's alleged failure 
to conduct meaningful discussions, and the agency's cost/technical 
trade-off decision.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued in September 1995, contemplated the award of two 
indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, one through full 
and open competition and one through competitive negotiations with 
firms in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program; this 
protest concerns the latter award.  The contract is for 1 base year 
and 4 option years; contract performance is to be accomplished through 
the issuance of task orders during the contract term.

Section L and section M of the RFP advised offerors that they must 
demonstrate in their technical proposals an understanding of all 
requirements and a capability to provide the required services.  
Offerors were informed by the RFP that the information in their 
technical proposals would the basis for the technical evaluation, were 
instructed of the importance of proposal clarity and completeness, and 
informed of the requirement for a detailed description of how each 
offeror would fulfill each requirement.  

Section M (incorporating section L) of the RFP set forth the following 
technical evaluation factors for award, listed in descending order of 
importance:  technical excellence; personnel qualifications; and 
management strength.  Subfactors for each evaluation factor were also 
set out in the RFP.  A management strength subfactor was project 
management, which encompassed an offeror's proposed quality assurance 
program; offerors were instructed to provide "proof of adequate 
quality assurance capability as required during performance of the 
[c]ontract."[1]  

The RFP provided that technical factors were more important than cost 
and that the agency could award a contract to other than the 
lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror if the technical merit 
of the offeror's proposal justifies the additional cost; the RFP 
advised offerors that the degree of the importance of cost would 
increase as proposals became more equal in technical merit.  A color 
code rating system (including, in descending order, blue, green, 
yellow, and red) was to be used by the technical evaluators for each 
factor; the evaluators were also to provide accompanying narrative 
rationale.[2]  Each proposal was also to be assessed for its perceived 
implementation risk (high, medium or low).  Under the RFP's "best 
value" terms, award was to be made to the offeror determined to have 
submitted the proposal considered most advantageous to the government, 
all factors considered.

Seven proposals were received for the competitive 8(a) award and were 
evaluated.  Four proposals, including those submitted by Prosoft and 
IMC, were included in the competitive range for discussions.  After 
discussions, revised proposals and best and final offers were received 
and evaluated.  Prosoft's proposal (evaluated at 
$ [DELETED]) was rated green overall (with a rating of blue for 
technical capability, yellow for personnel, and yellow for management 
strength); Prosoft's proposal was assessed as having a moderate to 
high implementation risk.  IMC's proposal (evaluated at $ [DELETED]) 
was the only proposal rated blue overall (with a rating of blue for 
technical capability, green for personnel, and blue for management 
strength); the IMC proposal was assessed as having a low 
implementation risk.

The contracting officer, in comparing the relative merits of the two 
proposals, determined that IMC's proposal offered the best value, and 
thus was most advantageous, to the government despite its [DELETED] 
percent higher cost.  In his source selection decision, the 
contracting officer focused on the IMC proposal's higher-rated 
personnel and management strength.  The agency awarded the contract to 
IMC on June 13.  Following its receipt of two written debriefing 
responses from the agency, in which the agency mentioned, among other 
things, a lack of detail in the quality assurance portions of the 
protester's proposal, as well as a perceived lack of attention to 
project quality assurance (due to several typographical, grammatical, 
and graphical errors in the protester's proposal), Prosoft filed this 
protest.

Technical Evaluation

Prosoft principally complains that the agency improperly downgraded 
its proposal for project management.  The protester contests the 
finding of a lack of detail and contends that the agency's 
consideration of typographical errors in the proposal as being 
illustrative of the firm's quality assurance capabilities was improper 
because the RFP did not identify typographical errors as an evaluation 
criterion.[3]

Where an evaluation is challenged, we will examine the agency's 
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
evaluation criteria.  Teledyne Brown Eng'g, B-258078; B-258078.2, Dec. 
6, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  223.  Evaluating the relative merits of competing 
proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency 
since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best 
method of accommodating them, and it must bear the burden resulting 
from a defective evaluation.  Advanced Technology and Research Corp., 
B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  230.  Consequently, we will not 
reevaluate proposals, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation 
to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated 
evaluation factors and applicable statutes and regulations.  See Orion 
Research, Inc., B-253786, Oct. 21, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  242.  The fact 
that the protester disagrees with the agency's conclusion does not 
itself establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  Global Assocs., 
Ltd., B-256277, June 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  347.

The quality assurance sections of Prosoft's proposal were criticized 
for making "no reference to Federal/Commercial ADP standards nor how 
they would go about correcting errors" and several sections were found 
to merely reiterate the RFP requirements without any information as to 
"how they would do an activity."  The evaluators, noting several 
typographical errors and inaccurate graphic presentations, also 
pointed out that "[t]he [o]fferor talks about their TQM [total quality 
management] program and their emphasis on quality, yet their proposal 
presentation doesn't support that."  The evaluators concluded that the 
"overall quality control issues significantly weakens [Prosoft's] 
presentation."  Based upon the lack of detail in this part of the 
proposal, coupled with the noticeable textual errors in the proposal 
which gave the agency further doubt as to the adequacy of the proposed 
quality assurances, Prosoft's proposal was rated marginal for 
management strength and as having a moderate to high implementation 
risk.

In its comments on the agency report, the protester states its 
disagreement with the evaluators' findings and asserts that its 
proposal provided sufficient detail.  Our review of the record, 
however, including a comparative review of the proposals, confirms the 
reasonableness of the evaluators' findings of a significant lack of 
detail regarding the proposed quality assurance procedures.  Much of 
the management strength portion of the protester's proposal, 
especially regarding quality assurance, simply restates portions of 
the RFP's detailed description of the contractor's responsibilities.  
Additionally, our review of the proposal confirms the fundamental lack 
of specificity in proposed approach; for instance, the proposal 
repeatedly provides, only in general terms, that the firm will 
"identify," "plan," and "review" in the "most efficient manner" 
without describing (such as through the use of examples, lists of the 
exact quality assurance activities to be performed, or otherwise) what 
procedures will be followed in performance of the contract's quality 
assurance requirements.  Thus, we think the agency could reasonably 
view Prosoft's proposal as it did.

We also are not persuaded by Prosoft's contention that the evaluators' 
consideration of typographical/textual errors in the firm's proposal 
was improper.  The record does not show, as the protester contends, 
that the firm failed to receive the award solely because of 
typographical errors in its proposal; as discussed above, the primary 
concern was Prosoft's failure to provide sufficient detail in 
describing its proposed quality assurance procedures.  We believe the 
errors here were reasonably considered in light of the agency's 
concerns with the adequacy of the firm's quality assurance proposal; 
the RFP specifically requires the preparation of high-quality written 
report deliverables necessitating skills not readily apparent from 
Prosoft's own proposal documentation.  In sum, given the agency's 
concerns about Prosoft's proposed approach to quality assurance, and 
the contract requirements to prevent document errors, we believe 
consideration of the errors here in terms of quality assurance was 
reasonably related to the stated evaluation criteria.  See General 
Exhibits, Inc., B-258979, Feb. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  113.

Discussions

Prosoft next protests that the agency failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions with the firm since it was not told of the agency's 
concerns regarding the typographical errors in its proposal.

In negotiated procurements, 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.  While this generally 
requires agencies to advise offerors of proposal deficiencies and to 
afford them an opportunity to submit a revised proposal, it does not 
mean that agencies must conduct all-encompassing discussions; rather, 
agencies are only required to lead offerors into those areas of their 
proposals needing amplification, given the context of the procurement.  
Id.; Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.610(c); Creative Management 
Technology, Inc., B-266299, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  61.  It is not, 
however, the agency's responsibility to point out weaknesses in a 
technically acceptable proposal that result from a lack of diligence, 
competence, or inventiveness.  Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., supra.

Despite the RFP's requirement for a detailed description of the 
proposed approaches, methods, and procedures, Prosoft, in its 
proposal, basically repeated the RFP requirements and provided a 
general response describing quality assurance principles rather than 
providing a detailed description of the procedures the firm would put 
in place during contract performance.  During discussions, the agency 
requested "information about [Prosoft's] quality assurance process to 
include references to Federal/Commercial ADP standards and how 
[Prosoft] correct[s] errors."  The record thus shows that the 
protester was specifically told during discussions of the need for 
amplification in this area of its proposal; discussions with the firm 
in this regard were proper.

Although the agency did not raise its quality assurance concerns 
regarding the typographical errors in the protester's proposal, we 
cannot find that the agency acted improperly.  First, an agency simply 
is not required to pinpoint during discussions matters such as this 
that result from the offeror's own lack of diligence.  Second, the 
errors, independent of the lack of detailed information regarding 
quality assurance, were not a significant weakness--they mattered 
because of the vague and otherwise inadequate quality assurance 
sections of the proposal.  Thus, they themselves did not preclude 
Prosoft from having a reasonable chance of receiving the award and 
therefore were not required to be the subject of discussions.  See 
Department of the Navy--Recon., 72 Comp. Gen. 221 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  
422.

Cost/technical Trade-off

Finally, Prosoft contends that the contracting officer's 
cost/technical trade-off was flawed since, according to Prosoft, the 
agency is paying [DELETED] percent cost premium simply because the 
protester's proposal contained some typographical errors.

In a negotiated procurement, the government is not required to make 
award to the lowest-cost, technically acceptable offeror unless the 
RFP specifies that cost will be the determinative factor for award.  
General Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  44.  
Agency officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and 
extent to which they will make use of technical and cost evaluation 
results.  Cost/technical trade-offs may be made; the extent to which 
one may be sacrificed for the other is governed by the test of 
rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.  
Id.  Where, as here, the RFP indicates that technical considerations 
are more important than cost considerations, selection of a 
technically superior, higher-cost proposal is proper where the record 
shows that the cost premium was justified in light of the proposal's 
technical superiority.  Dynamics Research Corp., B-240809, Dec. 10, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  471.  In this case, the record supports the 
contracting officer's decision to award to IMC as the technically 
superior offeror, even though IMC proposed a higher cost than Prosoft.

In reaching his decision to award the contract to IMC, the contracting 
officer noted that both the IMC and Prosoft proposals received the 
highest rating (blue) for technical capability.  Recognizing that the 
RFP requirements necessitated a "very high level of competence of 
personnel and a great deal of management support to be successful," 
the contracting officer concluded that IMC's higher proposal ratings 
in personnel and management support "add value which justifies the 18 
[percent] difference" in cost and that IMC's proposal provided the 
best overall value to the government; each of the technical evaluators 
agreed with this determination.  Specifically, the contracting officer 
noted the following in his source selection decision:

     "IMC has consistently provided detail about how they approach 
     issues.  IMC practices staffing by qualifications.  IMC provided 
     an example to illustrate their task order process including 
     [DELETED].   IMC dissected the RFP and responded thoroughly to 
     nearly every item referenced.  Their proposal clearly 
     demonstrates their understanding of project management which 
     offers the [agency] sound practices to apply for successful 
     completion of [contract] tasks.  The Prosoft proposal lacked 
     detail and demonstrated a less than effective quality assurance 
     program with errors in textual and graphical information."

The record shows that although Prosoft submitted a technically 
acceptable proposal, receiving a high rating under the technical 
excellence criterion, IMC's proposal was reasonably determined to be 
superior to the protester's proposal under the remaining evaluation 
criteria.  For instance, under the personnel qualifications factor, 
the record shows that [DELETED].  Under the management strength 
factor, the record shows that IMC's proposal described in detail the 
specific procedures to be taken by the firm in fulfilling the 
contract's quality assurance and quality deliverable requirements.  In 
addition to providing a basis for IMC's proposal's higher rating,  
this greater detail also provided an appropriate basis for assessing 
the awardee's proposal as having a lower implementation risk than the 
protester's proposal.

An agency may consider a more detailed proposal technically superior.  
See ICONCO/NATIONAL Joint Venture, B-240119, Oct. 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
296.  Here, the RFP specifically instructed offerors to submit 
detailed proposals describing the proposed performance of the RFP 
requirements and offerors were specifically cautioned that the 
evaluators would consider the completeness of the proposals; the RFP 
required offerors to demonstrate their understanding of, and 
capabilities to perform, the requirements in their proposals.  
Prosoft's proposal fell short in light of these requirements.

Given that the record supports the evaluators' determination that 
IMC's proposal was technically superior overall with low risk, which, 
in the evaluators' view, provided a better guarantee that the agency 
would not suffer interruptions in performance of the contract, we 
think the source selection authority could reasonably conclude that 
IMC's proposal was worth the [DELETED] percent price premium, 
particularly since under the evaluation scheme in the RFP, price was 
less important than technical merit and the record shows a material 
difference in technical merit between the proposals.  See Creative 
Management Technology, Inc., supra.   Accordingly, we have no basis to 
question the reasonableness of the contracting officer's determination 
that IMC's proposal offered the best value to the government; the 
assertion that the agency is paying a price premium because of 
typographical errors is simply incorrect.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. For the project management subfactor, offerors were to describe the 
"proposed approach to assure quality control over work performed 
(e.g., workpapers, reports) and to assure compliance with any required 
Federal and Commercial ADP [automated data processing] Standards and 
GSA standards; and corrective measures for work that does not meet 
quality expectations."

2. The agency's source selection plan describes the following color 
code rating system.  Blue "[e]xceeds the evaluation standards and has 
high probability of satisfying the requirement; and has no significant 
weaknesses."  Green "[m]eets the evaluation standards and has good 
probability of satisfying the requirement; and any weaknesses are 
readily correctable."  Yellow is "[m]arginal" where the proposal 
"[f]ails to meet evaluation standards; or has a low probability of 
satisfying the requirement; or has significant weaknesses but they are 
correctable."  Red "[f]ails to meet a minimum requirement." 

3. In its comments responding to the agency report on the protest, 
Prosoft also challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the 
personnel qualifications factor.  Prosoft contends that the evaluation 
record supports a higher rating (green rather than yellow) for the 
firm's proposed personnel since IMC's proposal, which was rated green 
for personnel, received only a slightly higher, if not equal, rating 
when the "checks" and "pluses" are added for each proposal.  We have 
reviewed the agency's evaluation documents and the two firms' 
personnel proposals.  The evaluation narrative, which was required by 
the agency's source selection plan and which, we believe, is a more 
meaningful representation of the evaluators' findings since color 
ratings provide only a general description, reflects that Prosoft's 
personnel were considered acceptable, with no significant strengths or 
weaknesses; the evaluators had noted some concerns regarding a lack of 
or limited relevant experience for certain personnel.  Given the noted 
acceptability of Prosoft's proposed personnel, and the source 
selection plan's definitions, quoted above, for the evaluation color 
codes, we agree with the protester that the record reasonably supports 
a green rating for Prosoft's proposal under the personnel 
qualifications factor.  The record further shows, however, that IMC's 
personnel offered more overall relevant experience and educational 
qualifications and that the agency considered IMC's personnel superior 
to Prosoft's for this reason.  Having fully reviewed the evaluation 
documents, we have no basis to disagree with this assessment.