BNUMBER:  B-272989
DATE:  November 4, 1996
TITLE:  Ameriko, Inc.

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

Matter of:Ameriko, Inc.

File:     B-272989

Date:November 4, 1996

Lynn Hawkins Patton, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for the protester.
Ross L. Crown, Esq., and Dennis E. Jontz, Esq., Kemp, Smith, Duncan & 
Hammond, P.C., for Phillips National, Inc., an intervenor.
Diane D. Hayden, Esq., and V. Paul Clay, Esq., Department of the Navy, 
for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST

Protest that agency misevaluated awardee's proposal as superior to 
protester's under experience factor is denied where record shows that 
agency's conclusion reasonably was based on the fact that awardee 
performed (and received "strong" reference ratings for) significantly 
greater number of similar contracts than protester.  

DECISION

Ameriko, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Phillips National, 
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N63387-95-R-0069, issued by 
the Department of the Navy for military family housing and maintenance 
services.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, for the award of a fixed-price/indefinite quantity contract, 
provided that proposals would be evaluated under three factors:  (1) 
management/administration plan (with four subfactors), (2) contractor 
experience (two subfactors), and (3) price.  Each of the technical 
factors and subfactors was to be given an adjectival rating of strong, 
average, marginal, or unacceptable.  The technical factors were 
significantly more important than price.

Of the eight proposals received, Phillips's and Ameriko's were ranked 
first and second, respectively, in technical merit, both receiving 
strong ratings overall and for each subfactor.  The agency ranked 
Phillips's proposal first based on a superior quality control plan 
(the second subfactor under management/administration plan), and more 
extensive experience performing military family housing maintenance 
contracts (the first subfactor under contractor experience).  Since 
Phillips's proposal also was $1.1 million lower priced than Ameriko's 
($7.9 million vs $9.0 million), the agency selected Phillips for 
award.

Ameriko challenges the agency's evaluation of Phillips's experience on 
military family housing maintenance contracts as superior to its own.  
Ameriko asserts that Phillips provided only three contract references 
regarding past performance and that the agency was unable to contact 
any of those references, and therefore questions how Phillips's 
proposal could have been rated strong under this subfactor.  Ameriko 
also argues that the agency failed to give its proposal sufficient 
credit for the firm's performance as the incumbent contractor for the 
requested services.  

Ameriko's arguments are based on incorrect facts.  First, Phillips 
provided references for 19 prior military family housing maintenance 
contracts, not 3 as Ameriko asserts; the agency was able to contact 12 
of these references; 9 rated Phillips's performance as strong and 3 
average.  We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's conclusion that 
the high number of strong references warranted a strong rating for 
Phillips's proposal under the experience factor.  By the same token, 
while Ameriko received strong ratings from all three references 
contacted (of the five provided by Ameriko), it clearly was reasonable 
for the agency to conclude that the significantly greater number of 
housing maintenance contracts performed by Phillips (as well as the 
greater number of strong ratings) warranted regarding Phillips's 
proposal as somewhat superior to Ameriko's under the experience 
factor.  Finally, there is no basis for finding that Ameriko's 
proposal rating improperly failed to reflect its performance as the 
incumbent.  The record shows that the agency contacted the reference 
provided by Ameriko for its current contract, and that this was 
factored into Ameriko's strong rating under corporate experience and 
past performance.[1]

Ameriko also challenges the evaluation of Phillips's quality assurance 
plan as superior to its own.  However, even if Ameriko were correct 
that its plan should have been rated equal to Phillips's, the award 
decision would not change in light of our conclusion that the agency 
reasonably rated Phillips's experience superior to Ameriko's, and 
Phillips's lower proposed price.  Indeed, even if the proposals were 
rated technically equal, Phillips would remain entitled to the award 
based on its lower price.[2]  See PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters of 
Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
366.[3]
    
The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency also points out--in response to Ameriko's argument that 
as the incumbent for identical services it is uniquely qualified to 
perform this contract--that Ameriko's current contract in fact covers 
only 66 percent of the requirements under the current RFP.

2. Ameriko also argues that the agency did not perform a proper cost 
analysis because it did not consider the transition costs associated 
with having Phillips perform the contract.  As transition costs were 
not a stated evaluation factor, the agency was under no obligation to 
consider them.  See DDD Co., B-250213, Jan. 15, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  48.  
Further, to the extent Ameriko argues that the agency did not consider 
cost realism, the agency was not required to do so since it was 
awarding a fixed-price contract.  See Olin Corp., B-258113.2; 
B-258113.3, Nov. 13, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  221.

3. Ameriko also complains that the agency deviated from the source 
selection plan.  This is not a sustainable basis of protest.  See EG&G 
Team, B-259917.2, July 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  138.