BNUMBER:  B-274346
DATE:  November 5, 1996
TITLE:  Hadley Exhibits, Inc.

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

Matter of:Hadley Exhibits, Inc.

File:     B-274346

Date:November 5, 1996

David I. Johnson for the protester.
James L. Weiner, Esq., and Justin P. Patterson, Esq., Department of 
the Interior, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

A proposal submitted in response to a solicitation for the fabrication 
and installation of exhibits was reasonably downgraded by the agency 
where the proposal did not demonstrate that certain proposed equipment 
met the specification requirements and where certain proposed 
personnel lacked sufficient relevant experience.

DECISION

Hadley Exhibits, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Universal 
Exhibits under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1443-CX-1500-96-001, 
issued by the Department of the Interior, for the fabrication and 
installation of exhibits at the Mount Rushmore National Memorial, 
Keystone, South Dakota.  Hadley argues that the agency's evaluation of 
its proposal was unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award 
of a firm, fixed-price contract.  The RFP listed the following 
technical evaluation factors to be evaluated on a 100-point scale:

     A. Technical Approach  (50 points)
     B. Personnel  (20 points)
     C. Samples of Work  (20 points)
     D. Physical Plant, Equipment and Major Tools  (10 points)

The RFP provided for the award of a contract to the responsible 
offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the 
government, cost or price and other factors considered, and stated 
that "[t]echnical expertise is considerably more important than cost 
in a ratio of approximately 70/30."

The agency received five proposals, including Hadley's and 
Universal's.  The proposals were evaluated, and four proposals, 
including Hadley's and Universal's, were included in the competitive 
range.  Discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) 
submitted.  Hadley's BAFO received an overall technical score of 84.33 
points with a price of $1,198,107, while Universal's BAFO received a 
score of 87.33 points with a price of $1,292,297.  

The agency determined that Universal's technically superior, 
higher-priced proposal represented the best value based on technical 
and price considerations.  In making this determination, the agency 
identified two particular weaknesses in Hadley's BAFO that rendered it 
technically inferior to Universal's BAFO:  (1) under the technical 
approach factor, Hadley's BAFO did not sufficiently describe certain 
proposed equipment to assure its compatibility with other agency 
equipment and (2) a member of Hadley's conservationist team lacked 
sufficient relevant experience.

Hadley protests that the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the 
technical approach and personnel evaluation factors was unreasonable.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency because the agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
16.  In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate 
technical proposals but instead will review the agency's evaluation to 
ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's 
stated evaluation criteria.  MAR Inc., B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  367.  An offeror's mere disagreement with the agency does not 
render the evaluation unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., 
B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51.

The RFP contained detailed specifications for each piece of 
audio-visual (AV) hardware required, and specified brand-name items 
which could be furnished to meet these requirements.  The RFP provided 
that should an offeror propose to furnish an "'equal' product," the 
product must be identified by brand name, if any, and information must 
be furnished to enable the agency to determine if the proposed "equal" 
equipment meets the specifications set forth in the RFP.  The RFP also 
stated that any "equal" equipment proposed had to be compatible with 
certain other identified agency equipment.

In evaluating Hadley's proposal under the technical approach 
evaluation factor, the agency found that Hadley's proposed AV 
subcontractor had identified in its BAFO for the first time certain 
"equal products" to fulfill the AV equipment requirements, but had 
provided only minimal information as to the proposed products' 
technical specifications.  For example, although the RFP contained 
detailed specifications regarding audio power amplifiers to be used in 
the exhibits and listed brand name products, Hadley's BAFO, which 
offered different products, identified only manufacturers of the 
products (and not the model numbers), and stated only that the 
proposed amplifiers had "higher power than specified," [were] "equal 
in audio quality, cost less and . . . are made in the U.S.A."  Because 
Hadley had not provided any information to show that its proposed 
"equal" products were in fact "equal" to those specified in the RFP, 
and had not indicated whether the products were compatible with 
certain of the agency's existing equipment as required, the agency 
downgraded Hadley's proposal under the technical approach evaluation 
factor.  The agency also expressed concern in its evaluation of this 
portion of Hadley's proposal regarding the AV subcontractor's request 
that any software to be provided to it for use in its performance of 
the contract arrive at the subcontractor's facility 4 weeks prior to 
the scheduled delivery date.  

In its comments on the agency report, Hadley did not respond to the 
agency's position that it reasonably downgraded Hadley's BAFO under 
the technical approach factor because it had not provided sufficient 
information concerning the proposed AV equipment.  With regard to the 
agency's expressed concern over the 4-week advance delivery requested 
by Hadley's AV subcontractor, Hadley commented only "that this request 
was not unreasonable," and that it "question[s] the technical 
competence of anybody who can do such a job without requesting the 
necessary information in advance of installation."  These comments 
constitute, at best, Hadley's disagreement with the evaluation 
results, and do not demonstrate that the agency's evaluation of its 
proposal was unreasonable.

With regard to the evaluation of Hadley's proposal under the personnel 
factor, the agency found that Hadley, in its initial proposal, had 
proposed to subcontract the required work regarding the conservation 
of artifacts.  Hadley explained in its proposal that because its 
proposed conservationist had not visited the site and as such was only 
able to estimate the amount of work involved, the proposed price for 
this work "may be subject to adjustment."  During discussions, the 
agency informed Hadley that, in accordance with the RFP, it was 
required to provide a fixed price for artifact conservation, and that 
a site visit could be arranged should Hadley need to do so to finalize 
its price.  Rather than visiting the site and submitting a firm price 
for the conservation work, Hadley proposed a new conservation team in 
its BAFO, comprised in part by an individual who had interned at the 
Mount Rushmore National Memorial from January through May 1996.

The agency found the conservation team proposed in Hadley's BAFO to be 
of particular concern, and downgraded Hadley's proposal accordingly.  
Specifically, the agency evaluators noted that although the individual 
who had interned at the memorial had assisted the staff "with research 
into photographs and objects that would be used in the exhibits," he 
had not done "conservation work at the park" and did not appear to 
have adequate experience in conservation. 

Hadley's only response to this evaluated problem is to say that "[i]t 
is curious that while the [agency] found [the individual proposed by 
Hadley in its BAFO] competent to prepare the data from which we were 
to bid, he was not deemed adequately competent to contribute to the 
bidding process itself."  Again, Hadley's comments in response to the 
agency's evaluation represent, at best, Hadley's disagreement with the 
agency, and provide no basis to find the agency's evaluation 
unreasonable.

Based on our review of the record, we have no basis on which to find 
the agency's evaluation of Hadley's proposal unreasonable.  Metrica, 
Inc., B-270086; B-270086.2, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  135.[1]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

-

1. Hadley also argued in its protest that the agency unreasonably 
evaluated certain other portions of Hadley's proposal, and challenged 
the agency's selection of Universal's higher-priced proposal for 
award.  In its report on Universal's protest, the agency responded to 
Hadley's contentions, explaining the bases of its evaluation and why 
it chose Universal's higher-priced proposal for award.  Because Hadley 
did not respond to the agency's position on these issues in its 
comments on the agency report, we consider Hadley to have abandoned 
these issues.  Decision Sys. Technologies, Inc.; NCI Information Sys., 
Inc., B-257186 et al., Sept. 7, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  167.