BNUMBER:  B-272936
DATE:  November 7, 1996
TITLE:  ValueCAD

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

Matter of:ValueCAD

File:     B-272936

Date:November 7, 1996

Sal Kadri for the protester.
Alan D. Groesbeck, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Agency's decision to narrow consideration for award to 6 
highest-rated, of 11, proposals and selection of lowest-priced 
proposal of the 6 was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation 
criteria, which provided for a price/technical tradeoff, where after 
the evaluation of best and final offers, evaluators reasonably 
concluded that the 6 highest-rated proposals were significantly 
superior to the 5 other proposals in the competitive range.

DECISION

ValueCAD protests the award of a contract to Eagle Mapping Inc. under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. 51-96-023, issued by the Forest 
Service for conversion and digitizing services.  ValueCAD essentially 
argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to make award to 
another offeror given that it offered an acceptable level of 
competence at a lower price.

We deny the protest.

On May 16, 1996, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-price 
requirements contract for conversion and digitizing services to 
produce digital data for forest resource information and automated 
cartographic applications.  The RFP provided for award based on a 
price/technical tradeoff to the offeror whose proposal's 
price/technical relationship was most advantageous to the government, 
considering past performance, capacity, key personnel, and the 
offeror's experience, in that order of importance.  The RFP stated 
that under past performance, the agency would consider the offeror's 
quality control system, the amount of work passed on initial 
inspection, and turn around time on projects, among other things.  
Under capacity, the agency would look at the number of employees 
available for the contract, and the type of equipment and software to 
be used.  The agency also would evaluate the education and experience 
of key personnel, as well as the company's experience.

The agency received 15 proposals, one of which was rejected 
immediately because it contained no technical proposal.  The agency 
referred the remaining 14 proposals to an evaluation panel.  Upon 
reviewing the results of the evaluation, the agency eliminated the 
three lowest-rated proposals from the competitive range, since the 
prices of those proposals were also higher than those of several other 
offerors.  The agency conducted discussions with the remaining 11 
offerors, including ValueCAD.  The evaluators had found the 
protester's proposal acceptable in all areas except capacity, and the 
agency requested that the protester provide more information on its 
capacity with its best and final offer (BAFO).

The 11 offerors submitted BAFOs on June 21.  After review of BAFOs, 
the panel considered ValueCAD's proposal acceptable in all areas, 
although the proposal received a relatively low technical score.  The 
panel concluded that, overall, the six highest-rated proposals were 
significantly superior to the remaining five, including the 
protester's proposal.  The panel members advised the contracting 
officer that they found no significant difference in technical quality 
among those six proposals and recommended selection of the 
lowest-priced proposal of the six, the Eagle Mapping proposal, as 
representing the best value to the government.

By letters of July 5, the agency notified the other offerors of its 
selection of Eagle Mapping.  The notice incorrectly stated that price 
had been the determining factor in the selection of a contractor.  
ValueCAD, which had submitted the lowest price of any offeror, 
protested to the agency.  The contracting officer advised ValueCAD 
that the notice of award was incorrect, and that in fact price had 
become the determinative factor only after the agency concluded, after 
review of the BAFOs, that the six highest-rated proposals--which did 
not include ValueCAD's proposal--were technically equal.  ValueCAD 
then filed this protest with our Office challenging the rejection of 
its proposal.

ValueCAD argues that, in narrowing consideration to the six proposals 
with the highest technical scores, the agency effectively and 
improperly eliminated the protester's proposal from the competitive 
range, even though it still retained a reasonable chance of award.  
ValueCAD notes that the evaluators found its proposal acceptable and 
contends that it was improper to select a higher-priced offer over a 
lower-priced one, such as the protester's, that can provide an 
acceptable level of competence.  Technical scores, the protester 
argues, are too sensitive to the subjective judgments of evaluators 
for an agency to ignore lower price simply for a higher technical 
point total.  ValueCAD essentially argues that there was no advantage 
to the Eagle Mapping proposal to warrant the payment of a higher 
price.

Initially, we note that the agency now denies that in narrowing its 
consideration to the six highest-rated proposals, it made a 
competitive range determination.  However, whether one views the 
agency's actions as narrowing the competitive range, or simply as 
selecting one offeror, Eagle Mapping, over another, ValueCAD, our 
review is chiefly concerned with whether the agency's judgments were 
reasonable and consistent with the listed evaluation criteria.  See 
Bay Tankers, Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 403 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  389 
(competitive range determination inconsistent with provisions calling 
for award to low, technically acceptable offeror); Advanced Envtl. 
Technology Corp., B-259252, Mar. 20, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  149 (selection 
of higher-priced offeror consistent with provisions calling for 
price/technical tradeoff).  As explained below, the record here 
supports the reasonableness of the agency's decision to reject 
ValueCAD's proposal and select Eagle Mapping's proposal.

The evaluators found that overall the six highest-rated proposals, 
including Eagle Mapping's, were superior to the remaining five 
proposals in their detail and completeness, the relevancy of past 
projects, and the experience of key personnel.  Specifically, Eagle 
Mapping submitted a monthly submission schedule that met the 
evaluation criteria of 800 sheets per year; past performance 
information indicated a 99-percent accuracy level for initial 
submissions, with a 100-percent acceptance level.  Eagle provided a 
complete list of the hardware and software proposed for use, a full 
description of its work flow and quality assurance procedures, and a 
sample of the proposed in-house project tracking form for the 
solicited effort.  Key personnel had more than 35 years of experience 
in forestry and data collection, in both public and private sectors, 
directly related to the required effort.

By contrast, and despite express solicitation language advising 
offerors to provide information on their quality control systems as 
well as records of the amount of work that passed on first inspection, 
the protester's proposal contained no information on its accuracy 
levels and no detail on its quality assurance procedures.  Although 
ValueCAD asserted that it had experience in projects involving natural 
resources, it provided no description of those projects with its 
written proposal.  Rather, the evaluators found that the projects to 
which ValueCAD's proposal made reference involved city and county 
infrastructure and tax parcel mapping, by comparison with the forestry 
experience cited by Eagle Mapping.  The sample of work submitted by 
ValueCAD contained no information as to what the sample represented or 
for whom the work had been done.  Although the evaluators considered 
the proposal acceptable, they did not consider it equal to most of the 
other proposals submitted, particularly the 6 top-rated proposals.  
The protester's BAFO received the second lowest rating among the 11 
BAFOs, and we find nothing in the evaluation either unreasonable or 
inconsistent with the factors listed in the RFP.[1]

An agency determines a competitive range by comparing all of the 
acceptable proposals in a particular procurement, and may eliminate 
even an acceptable proposal when, notwithstanding its lower price, it 
is determined that on a relative basis with respect to higher 
technically rated proposals it has no reasonable chance of award.  
Coe-Truman Technologies, Inc., B-257480, Sept. 12, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  
136. Moreover, in a negotiated procurement there is no requirement 
that the government make award to the lowest-priced, technically 
acceptable offeror unless the RFP specifies that price will be 
determinative.  Hornet Joint Venture, B-258430.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 
CPD  para.  55.  Price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to 
which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test 
of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation 
factors.  Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  
325.  Here, the RFP specifically provided for such a tradeoff and the 
evaluators concluded that the six highest-rated proposals presented a 
significant advantage, particularly in the area of past performance, 
the most heavily weighted factor in the evaluation.  Whether viewed as 
a competitive range determination, in which ValueCAD's low-rated 
proposal was not considered competitive with the six higher-rated 
proposals, or as a selection decision, in which ValueCAD's offer did 
not exhibit the advantages that the Eagle Mapping offer did, we find 
the evaluation and selection decision reasonable and consistent with 
the solicitation.

Because it did not receive the same high score for past performance as 
did the higher-rated offerors, ValueCAD asserts that the agency should 
have included its concerns about this area in discussions that were 
conducted with ValueCAD.  

Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all 
competitive range offerors, Price Waterhouse, B-254492.2, Feb. 16, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  168, and in order for discussions to be meaningful, 
agencies must generally point out weaknesses, excesses, or 
deficiencies in proposals, unless doing so would result in disclosure 
of one offeror's technical approach to another offeror or technical 
leveling.  See FAR  sec.  15.610; Comarco, Inc., B-258204.6, Oct. 26, 1995, 
96-1 CPD  para.  12; Lone Star Fleischwaren Im-Export GmbH, B-259588.2, May 
25, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  263.  Agencies are not required to conduct 
all-encompassing discussions, or to discuss acceptable aspects of a 
proposal merely because they receive lower than the maximum possible 
score, John Brown U.S. Servs., Inc., B-258158 et al., Dec. 21, 1994, 
95-1 CPD  para.  35; they need only reasonably lead offerors into areas of 
their proposals which require amplification or correction.  Medland 
Controls, Inc., B-255204; B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  260; 
Price Waterhouse, supra.

In its initial proposal, ValueCAD provided information on the types of 
services, products, and markets in which it had dealt, as well as a 
general discussion of its work in database development and digital 
conversion, including specific services performed for its clients.  
Based on that information, the agency found ValueCAD's proposal 
acceptable under the factor of past performance.  The agency was not 
required to conduct discussions on this aspect of the protester's 
proposal simply because others were rated higher.

ValueCAD also argues that the RFP did not advise offerors that the 
agency would consider experience in the natural resource field in its 
evaluation of experience; further, the protester asserts that if the 
agency had contacted the references listed in its proposal, these 
references could have provided information on ValueCAD's experience in 
the field of natural resources.  The handling of natural resource data 
was the central purpose of the contemplated effort; accordingly, the 
extent of an offeror's natural resource experience is a logical matter 
for evaluators to consider with the experience factor.  Matters 
logically encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria properly may 
be taken into account in proposal evaluation.  Cobra Technologies, 
Inc., B-272041; B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  73.  As for the 
references, there is no requirement for an agency to check all 
references in the proposal, Questech, Inc., B-236028, Nov. 1, 1989, 
89-2 CPD  para.  407.  It is the offeror's responsibility to provide 
appropriate information in its written proposal; an offeror cannot 
rely on the agency to independently obtain the information on the 
protester's behalf.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. While our Office has acknowledged that, as ValueCAD argues, the 
usefulness of numerical scores may be limited by their subjective 
nature, the numerical scoring is here supported by a narrative 
assessment sufficient to provide a selection official with a clear 
understanding of the differences and relative merit of proposals.  See 
Ferguson-Williams, Inc., 68 Comp. Gen. 25 (1988), 88-2 CPD  para.  344.