BNUMBER:  B-274110.2 
DATE:  May 19, 1997
TITLE: The Leader Mortgage Company, B-274110.2, May 19, 1997
**********************************************************************

 Matter of:The Leader Mortgage Company

File:     B-274110.2

Date:May 19, 1997

Howard M. Metzenbaum, Esq., for the protester.
Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the 
agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., 
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protester was not entitled to award merely because it submitted 
lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer where solicitation did not 
provide for award on that basis.

2.  Selection of higher-rated, higher-priced offer was consistent with 
solicitation scoring scheme allocating only 10 percent of evaluation 
points to price.

3.  Protest of solicitation scoring scheme is untimely where scoring 
scheme was announced in solicitation, but protester did not object to 
it prior to closing time for receipt of proposals.

DECISION

The Leader Mortgage Company protests the award of a contract to 
Computer Data Systems, Inc. (CDSI) under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. 101-36-96, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
mortgage services.  Leader argues that it should have received the 
award because its price was considerably lower than CDSI's.

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of 
technical factors, past performance, and price, with award of a 
fixed-price, time-and-materials contract to be made to the offeror 
whose proposal was determined to be in the best interest of the 
government.  Technical evaluation factors included corporate 
experience and management approach; approach to performing the 
services; organizational qualifications; personnel; and facilities and 
equipment.  Price was to be scored by dividing the lowest offered 
price by the offeror's price and multiplying the resulting fraction by 
the maximum points available (i.e., 10).  Offerors were advised that 
the technical factors would be worth 65 percent of the evaluation 
points available; past performance, 25 percent; and price, 10 percent.  
The solicitation emphasized that since technical factors and past 
performance were of greater importance than price, award might be made 
to other than the lowest-priced offeror.

Sixteen firms submitted proposals by the November 5, 1996, closing 
date.  Eleven proposals were included in the competitive range.  The 
agency conducted discussions with each of the 11 firms and requested 
best and final offers (BAFO).  Overall scores on the BAFOs ranged from 
61.7 to 82.4; technical scores ranged from 33.4 to 51.7; and prices 
ranged from $11,660,000 to $71,451,600.  CDSI's proposal  received 
both the highest overall and the highest technical scores, and its 
price ($20,876,200) was third lowest.

Leader's overall score of 71.6 was fourth highest.  It received the 
maximum possible score of 25 for past performance (as did 8 of the 
other 10 competitive range offerors, including CDSI) and the maximum 
possible score of 10 for its price, which was lowest.  Leader's 
technical score of 36.6 was fourth lowest, however.  Among the 
weaknesses in the protester's proposal noted by the evaluators were 
Leader's failure to demonstrate a track record of handling portfolios 
comparable in size and complexity to the requirement here; its failure 
to demonstrate an understanding of program objectives and approach; 
its failure to address the implementation of nonloans; and its failure 
to demonstrate a good understanding of the VA accounting report 
requirements.

The contracting officer determined that CDSI's proposal represented 
the best value to the government and awarded a contract to CDSI on 
January 30, 1997.  Leader received a written debriefing identifying 
the weaknesses in its proposal on February 6 and protested to our 
Office the same day.

Leader argues that it should have received the award since it is 
qualified to perform the services and its price is significantly lower 
than CDSI's.

Leader's allegation that it is entitled to award because it submitted 
the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal is unfounded.  In a 
negotiated procurement, there is no requirement that award be made on 
the basis of the lowest price unless the RFP so specifies.  Tracor 
Flight Sys., Inc., B-245132, Dec. 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  549 at 4.  
Agency officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and 
extent to which they will make use of technical and price evaluation 
results.  Price/technical tradeoffs may be made; 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.  
The Pragma Corp., B-255236 et al., Feb. 18, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  124 at 5.  
Award may be made to an offeror with a higher-rated, higher-priced 
proposal where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors 
and the agency reasonably determines that the technical superiority of 
the higher-priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.  Sabreliner 
Corp., B-242023; B-242023.2, Mar. 25, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  326 at 11.

Here, the evaluators determined that the superiority of CDSI's 
proposal under the technical factors--CDSI having received a technical 
score 7 points (i.e., 11 percent) higher than that of any other 
offeror and 15 points (i.e., 23 percent) higher than Leader's 
score--outweighed its higher price.  This determination was consistent 
with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP, which provided that 
technical factors would be worth 65 percent of an offeror's overall 
score and price only 10 percent.[1]

The protester also objects to the allocation of only 10 percent of the 
evaluation points to price.  Its protest on this ground is untimely, 
however, and will not be considered.  The RFP clearly advised offerors 
of the relative weights of the evaluation factors; thus, to be timely, 
any objection to the weights would have had to be raised prior to the 
closing time for receipt of proposals, i.e., November 5, 1996.  Bid 
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1); PeopleWorks, Inc., 
B-257296, Sept. 2, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  89 at 5-6.  The protester argues 
that it should not have been expected to object to the terms of the 
solicitation prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals 
"because no bidder would want to jeopardize its assumed good working 
relationship with the government by raising questions about the 
government's specifications at the outset."  The reason for requiring 
protesters to file protests based upon apparent solicitation 
improprieties before closing is to permit our Office to consider the 
allegations while corrective action, if indicated, is most practicable 
and, thus, least burdensome on the conduct of the procurement.  Julie 
Research Corp., Inc.--Recon., B-219853.2, Sept. 27, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  
350 at 2.  The fact that a protester may decide that it is not in its 
best interest to file a protest at the relevant time does not provide 
a basis for waiving our timeliness regulations.  Custom Data Servs., 
B-271288.2, Oct. 9, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  140 at 4, n.3.

Leader also complains that CDSI's price is excessively high.  Leader 
is not an interested party to raise this argument because it would not 
be next in line for award--two other offerors having received higher 
overall scores--if its protest on this ground were sustained.  ASI 
Personnel Serv., Inc., B-258537.7, June 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  44 at 7.  
In any event, the record does not support the protester's assertion 
that CDSI's price was unreasonably high--it shows, instead, that 
CDSI's price was third lowest of the 11 received, and that it was 
lower than the agency estimate.

Finally, Leader objects to CDSI's representation that its 
subcontractor, Seasons Mortgage Group, Inc. (SMG), is minority and 
woman-owned.  The protester argues that SMG cannot possibly be 
woman-owned since, according to Dun and Bradstreet, at least 50 
percent of its stock is owned by men.  Whether or not SMG is woman 
and/or minority-owned is irrelevant since this procurement was not set 
aside for woman and minority-owned businesses and the solicitation did 
not provide for evaluation preference for such businesses.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The protester has not taken issue with the technical evaluation of 
CDSI's proposal  and did not raise a timely objection to the technical 
evaluation of its own proposal.  In the latter regard, our Bid Protest 
Regulations require that to be timely, a protest based on other than 
for alleged solicitation impropriety must be filed within 10 calendars 
days after the basis of protest is, or should have been, known.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)(1997).  The protester was informed of the 
significant weaknesses in its proposal and of its overall and 
technical scores on February 6, but waited until March 26, the date on 
which it filed its comments on the agency report, to object to the 
agency's technical findings.  Its protest of the technical evaluation 
of its proposal accordingly is untimely and will not be considered.