BNUMBER:  B-272978; B-272978.2
DATE:  December 5, 1996
TITLE:  Agriculture Technology Partners

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

Matter of:Agriculture Technology Partners

File:     B-272978; B-272978.2

Date:December 5, 1996

Richard J. Conway, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P., 
for the protester.
L. Benjamin Young, Jr., Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the 
agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Glenn Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency determination to exclude protester's proposal from the 
competitive range is unobjectionable where the agency properly 
concluded, on the basis of an evaluation which was reasonable and 
consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria and in light of 
the receipt of several superior proposals, that the proposal had no 
reasonable chance of being selected for award.

DECISION

Agriculture Technology Partners (ATP) protests the exclusion of its 
proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. FSA-R-001-96DC, issued by the Department of Agriculture for 
information resource management development and support services.  The 
agency excluded ATP's proposal from the competitive range on the basis 
that it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award 
due to numerous weaknesses and deficiencies in the proposal.[1]  ATP 
contends that its proposal was misevaluated and that the consequent 
elimination of its proposal from the competitive range was improper.  

We deny the protest.

The agency issued the RFP on February 5, 1996, to obtain a wide range 
of information resource management development and support services 
for the offices of the Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service located across the United States.  
The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite delivery, 
indefinite quantity contracts for the base year with four 1-year 
options.  The RFP stated that technical criteria would be more 
important than price in the source selection decision.  The RFP set 
forth a 19,800-point technical evaluation scheme and provided that 
proposals would be evaluated under the following technical criteria, 
listed in descending order of importance:  corporate experience, past 
performance, and staff.  The solicitation also listed subfactors for 
each of the evaluation factors.  The subfactors for corporate 
experience are the 15 support service requirements described in 
section C of the RFP, such as system analysis, geographic information 
systems, and imaging.  In evaluating corporate experience, the TEP 
evaluated the complexity, relevancy, and the time frame of each 
offeror's experience in performing each of the support service 
requirements.   

Eleven proposals were received in response to the solicitation, and 
the agency, after considering both cost and technical factors, 
included the seven highest technically ranked proposals in the 
competitive range.  ATP's proposal was ranked 
10th technically out of the 11 proposals received, at a price higher 
than that offered by 4 of the 7 proposals that were included in the 
competitive range.  The technical evaluation panel (TEP) determined 
that ATP's proposal had three deficiencies and four weaknesses and 
therefore had no reasonable chance of receiving an award.  This 
protest followed with the protester arguing that the agency improperly 
excluded its proposal from the competitive range.

The determination of which proposals to include in the competitive 
range is a decision largely committed to the discretion of the 
contracting officer.  National Sys. Management Corp., 70 Comp. Gen. 
443 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  408.  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
directs contracting officers to include within the competitive range 
"all proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for 
award" and provides that, "[w]hen there is doubt as to whether a 
proposal is in the competitive range, the proposal should be 
included."  FAR  sec.  15.609(a).  However, even where a proposal is fully 
acceptable technically (or could be rendered so through discussions), 
it may properly be excluded from the competitive range if, in light of 
the competing proposals, the contracting officer determines that the 
proposal has no reasonable chance of award.  Curry Contracting Co., 
Inc., B-254355, Dec. 13, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  334.  

In reviewing the agency's determination to exclude a proposal from the 
competitive range, we apply the standard used in reviewing all aspects 
of an agency's technical evaluation of proposals:  we review the 
record to determine whether the agency's judgment, including the 
judgment that a particular proposal did not have a reasonable chance 
of award was reasonable, supported by the record, and consistent with 
the applicable evaluation criteria.  Tri-Services, Inc., B-256196.4, 
Sept. 30, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  121.  

Here, under the most heavily weighted evaluation criterion, corporate 
experience, the agency found ATP's proposal to be deficient in the 
areas of geographic information systems (GIS) and distributed and open 
systems computing, and weak with regard to software maintenance.  We 
will discuss these in turn.   

Under the GIS subfactor, offerors were to describe their experience in 
providing GIS and system integration and support for implementation 
and integration of applications that used geoprocessing technologies.  
The support is to result in information systems that interface users, 
data (spatial and non-spatial), GIS capabilities, and existing 
information systems.  ATP received an "unacceptable" score of 238 out 
of 500 points for this evaluation subfactor.  The TEP noted that ATP 
lacked corporate experience in developing systems that manage 
information for large geographic areas and managing large spatial 
databases.  At a hearing held in connection with this protest, an 
agency evaluator noted that because this contract was national in 
scope, the RFP sought offerors with GIS support experience in 
multi-state, multi-county geographic areas, and that ATP received an 
unacceptable score in this area because it had only provided support 
to users in a single city or a single Air Force base.  Videotape 
Transcript (VT) at 12:44-12:45.  The evaluator further noted that this 
contract called for the planning, implementation and management of a 
GIS system, and that ATP's primary GIS contract with the City of Falls 
Church involved only planning a GIS system and covered a period of 
only 2 months.  VT at 12:51.

ATP also received an "unacceptable" score of 262 out of 500 points for 
its distributed and open systems computing corporate experience.  
Distributed and open systems computing refers to the process of moving 
information from one platform through a combination of networks to 
another platform.  Under this evaluation subfactor, offerors were to 
state their experience in providing systems analysis and support in 
the development and implementation of systems that interoperate over 
networks.  The evaluators found that while ATP demonstrated experience 
in implementing client/server systems that communicate over networks, 
they noted that it referred only to the POSIX standard, and therefore 
it was not clear to the TEP whether the system that ATP had provided 
involved a single operating system or a distributed system, which 
involves multiple operating systems.[2]  An evaluator noted that POSIX 
compliance may be a reference to a single operating system, and that 
without a more complete description of the systems that ATP had 
provided the agency was unable to determine whether ATP provided a 
distributed system.  VT at 10:57-11:02.  Another evaluator noted that 
ATP's proposal was downgraded because it contained conclusory 
statements regarding its distributed and open systems computing 
experience, rather than a complete description of the components of 
the system that ATP had provided.  
VT at 13:00.  

ATP received 675 out of 900 points for its corporate experience in 
providing software maintenance.  ATP's proposal was determined to be 
"acceptable" but weak in this area.  The TEP noted that the systems 
that ATP supported were distributed, at most, to 250 sites, whereas 
this contract requires maintenance of far more sites across the 
nation.  

While ATP contends that its proposal fully met the requirements under 
corporate experience for GIS, distributed and open systems computing, 
and software maintenance, ATP has not credibly established that its 
proposal meets those requirements.  Rather, the record shows that the 
evaluators could reasonably view ATP's proposal as they did and 
reasonably downgraded ATP's proposal as a result.  While ATP disagrees 
with the agency's evaluation, that disagreement does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.  Litton Sys. Inc., B-237596.3, Aug. 8, 1990, 
90-2 CPD  para.  115.[3]   

ATP also objects to the composition of the TEP on the basis that two 
of the four evaluators were not sufficiently knowledgeable about GIS 
and distributed and open systems computing.  The composition of 
technical evaluation teams is a matter within the discretion of the 
agency which we will not review without a showing of possible abuse of 
that discretion in light of a conflict of interest or actual bias on 
the part of evaluators.  Herndon Science and Software, Inc., B-245505, 
Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  46.  ATP alleges neither. 

ATP also complains that the members of the TEP lacked any knowledge, 
outside of what was included in ATP's proposal, of the GIS and 
distributed and open systems computing capabilities regarding the four 
systems that ATP had provided to Agriculture.  Offerors are expected 
to demonstrate their capabilities in their proposals rather than 
simply relying on what they believe is known about them by contracting 
officials; those who do not furnish detailed, comprehensive proposals 
do so at their own risk.  See Computerized Project Management Plus, 
B-247063, 
Apr. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  401.  Consequently, this assertion provides 
no basis to object to the evaluation of ATP's proposal.   

Finally, ATP argues that the RFP failed to define the term 
"complexity," that was used to evaluate each offeror's corporate 
experience with the various support requirements.  Specifically, ATP 
argues that it was never told that the agency was viewing "complexity" 
in terms of quantitative, rather than qualitative items.  "Complexity" 
is not a precise term; if ATP did not understand what might be 
encompasssed by the term, it should have sought amendment of (or 
protested) the RFP on this basis prior to the closing time.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(1) (1996).  In any case, we note that ATP has not pointed to 
any information in its proposal that relates to the complexity of 
ATP's distributed and open systems computing and GIS systems that was 
ignored by the TEP.[4]     

In the factual context here, these two deficiencies and one weakness 
concerning corporate experience are sufficient to justify the 
elimination of ATP's proposal from the competitive range.[5]  Where an 
agency received several proposals that are superior in terms of 
technical merit or price (or both), it may eliminate other proposals 
from the competitive range, even where those proposals are fully 
acceptable or even considered good, if the agency reasonably concludes 
that those proposals do not have a realistic chance of award.  
Coe-Truman Technologies, Inc., B-257480, Sept. 12, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  
136.  Here, ATP's proposal failed to demonstrate GIS experience and 
software maintenance experience on the national scope contemplated by 
this contract and failed to demonstrate that it had provided 
distributed and open systems computing experience involving multiple 
operating systems.  In light of the receipt of several superior 
proposals, the agency reasonably determined that ATP's proposal did 
not have a reasonable chance of award.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. ATP, a joint venture by I-Net, Inc. and Vitro Corporation, was 
formed to submit a proposal on this procurement.  

2. POSIX has provided operating system interface standards which allow 
programs to be written for a target environment in which they could 
run unchanged in a variety of systems.  The scope of the POSIX family 
of standards includes operating systems, data base management, data 
interchange/document processing, network services, user interfaces, 
and programming services.  POSIX is comprised of at least 11 different 
levels of distributed open systems.  For example, POSIX.1 is comprised 
of part of the open systems standards listed above.  

3. ATP also contends that in evaluating its past performance the 
agency improperly downgraded ATP's proposal due to its joint venture 
status.  The agency has specifically denied this allegation.  Based on 
our review of the record, we find no support for this allegation.  

4. While ATP also argues that it should have been provided with an 
opportunity to correct its deficiencies and weakness in discussions, 
it was not entitled to discussions because its proposal was properly 
eliminated from the competitive range.  Drytech, Inc., B-246276.2, 
Apr. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  398.

5. ATP also contends that the TEP improperly evaluated its proposal 
under the staff evaluation factor.  Even if we were to conclude that 
the agency's evaluation under this factor was flawed, we would not 
consider this protest ground further.  Prejudice is an essential 
element of a viable protest; consequently, we will not sustain a 
protest against an alleged evaluation error unless the protester was 
somehow prejudiced.  See Square 537 Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 
B-249403.2, Apr. 21, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  272.  Even if ATP's proposal 
received the 1,600 points that were deducted under this evaluation 
factor, and its total score increased from 15,258 to 16,858 points, 
ATP's technical score would still remain lower than the score of the 
lowest rated proposal in the competitive range, and its price is 
higher than four of the seven proposals that were included in the 
competitive range.  Under these circumstances, we see no basis to 
conclude that ATP was prejudiced by this alleged evaluation error, and 
therefore deny this protest ground.  AEC-ABLE Eng'g Co., Inc., 
B-257798.2, Jan. 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  37.