BNUMBER:  B-274615
DATE:  December 18, 1996
TITLE:  Northport Handling, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Northport Handling, Inc.

File:     B-274615

Date:December 18, 1996

Kenneth M. Bruntel, Esq., and Paul Shnitzer, Esq., Crowell & Moring, 
for the protester.
R. E. Overton, Jr. for R.O. White & Co., Inc., an intervenor.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson and Maj. Richard J. Anderson, Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester was not prejudiced by any errors that may have occurred 
during the evaluation of its performance under prior contracts where 
the record shows that even if the agency had assigned the highest 
possible numerical rating to protester's performance as the incumbent, 
that rating would have no impact on the protester's proposal's already 
low risk past performance rating or on the selection decision.

DECISION

Northport Handling, Inc., the incumbent, protests the award of a 
contract to R.O. White & Company, Inc. under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. DAHC24-95-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army, 
Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), Cape Canaveral Detachment, 
Florida, for stevedoring and related services.  Northport contends 
that the agency's evaluation of its past performance and the source 
selection decision are unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued February 12, 1996, as a total small business 
set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite 
quantity contract for a 2-year base period of performance, with up to 
three option periods.  The contract is for handling Department of 
Defense cargo, including hazardous materials such as explosives, bulk 
and general cargo, refrigerated cargo, and various types of military 
and privately-owned vehicles of different size and weight.  Section M 
of the RFP stated that price and past performance were the only areas 
the agency would consider in evaluating proposals; price was "slightly 
more important" than past performance.

The RFP stated that for each offeror the agency would conduct a risk 
assessment based on the offeror's past performance.  In so doing, the 
agency would send questionnaires to references offerors were to 
provide with their proposals.  In evaluating past performance, the 
agency was to focus on those areas of performance "most relevant to 
the solicitation requirements, such as quality of service, customer 
satisfaction, timeliness of performance, and cost control."  Award was 
to be made to the offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous 
to the government.

Northport and White submitted the only two proposals received by the 
agency by the time set on March 26 for receipt of initial proposals.  
The contracting officer forwarded a past performance questionnaire to 
each of the references Northport and White listed in their proposals.  
Respondents were to rate the contractor's performance on each of 15 
items on a scale ranging from 0 (unacceptable) to 4 (superior).  The 
contracting officer did not receive a completed questionnaire 
evaluating Northport's performance as the incumbent on the stevedoring 
contract at the MTMC Cape Canaveral Detachment.

Based on the completed questionnaires that were returned to the 
agency, the contract specialist calculated an average numerical rating 
for each questionnaire item and an overall average past performance 
rating for each offeror.  Under that approach, White earned an overall 
past performance rating of 3 points (out of a maximum possible score 
of 4 points), while Northport earned an overall rating of 3.4 points.  
Based on those results, the contract specialist determined with 
respect to both Northport and White that "little or essentially no 
doubt exists that [both offerors] would successfully perform the 
required effort and/or meet contract requirements" and assigned both 
proposals a past performance risk rating of low.

White's total evaluated price was $1,785,621; Northport's total 
evaluated price was $1,838,216.  The contracting officer proposed 
award to White based on that firm's lower price; MTMC's Board of 
Contract Awards concurred in that recommendation; and on September 4, 
following a pre-award survey, the agency awarded the contract to 
White.  This protest followed.

PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS

Northport argues that the agency's evaluation of its past performance 
was flawed because the agency ignored its performance as the 
incumbent.  Specifically, Northport maintains that in concluding that 
the awardee and the protester had essentially equivalent experience 
which resulted in both offerors receiving identical low risk ratings, 
the agency unreasonably failed to take into account fundamental 
differences in the offerors' actual experience.  The protester states 
that the RFP's requirements are virtually identical to the 
requirements of its current stevedoring contract at MTMC; that it 
referenced that contract in its proposal; and that it submitted 
information to the agency showing that it had been consistently rated 
as outstanding on that contract.  Northport asserts that the agency 
improperly ignored that information.

Northport further argues that, by contrast, White has no experience 
handling military cargo (especially hazardous materials such as 
explosives), as contemplated by the RFP, and that the nature of the 
commercial cargo White has handled differs materially from the 
military cargo listed in the RFP.  Northport concludes that by failing 
to properly consider the qualitative differences between Northport's 
and White's experience, the agency improperly changed the competition 
from a "best value" procurement to one where award was based on the 
technically acceptable, low-priced proposal.

ANALYSIS

Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest.  
Lithos Restoration Ltd., 71 Comp. Gen. 367 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  379.  
Where no prejudice is shown, or is otherwise evident, our Office will 
not disturb an award, even if some technical deficiency in the award 
process arguably may have occurred.  Merrick Eng'g, Inc., B-238706.3, 
Aug. 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  130, recon. denied, B-238706.4, Dec. 3, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  444.

For the agency's actions to be prejudicial here, there must be some 
showing that had the agency in the evaluation of proposals considered 
Northport's specific performance as the incumbent, Northport's 
proposal would have received a better overall past performance risk 
assessment.  As explained in greater detail below, there is no such 
indication in the record.

Assuming that Northport were to have received the highest numerical 
rating possible from the MTMC respondent (i.e., four points on all 15 
questionnaire items), Northport's average numerical rating would have 
increased only slightly from 3.4 to 3.5 points.  That numerical rating 
would not have affected the already low risk rating assigned 
Northport's proposal.  Since Northport's proposal could not have 
achieved a better risk rating, the agency's failure to include a 
completed questionnaire on Northport's performance as the incumbent 
was not prejudicial.

With regard to the practical effect on the evaluation, Northport in 
essence argues that, despite the equivalent "low risk" ratings 
assigned to the two proposals, consideration of the "qualitative" 
differences between Northport's and White's past performance would 
have revealed that the risk associated with Northport's proposal was 
lower relative to White's.  The record does not support this 
assertion.

The business clearance memorandum for this procurement shows that the 
contract specialist, the contracting officer, and at least two other 
agency officials at higher levels involved in the selection process 
were aware that "[Northport] is the incumbent . . . with a 
satisfactory record of performance," and that "[White] is new to the 
MTMC environment. . . ."  Thus, contrary to the protester's 
suggestions, the record shows that procurement personnel, including 
the contracting specialist who was primarily responsible for assigning 
the risk ratings, were all aware of White's status as a relatively new 
firm to MTMC stevedoring services, and that Northport's performance as 
the incumbent had consistently been rated as "satisfactory" overall.  
Nevertheless, they regarded both as presenting the same degree of 
risk.

Accordingly, even if the agency had included a completed questionnaire 
on Northport's performance in the evaluation, or had translated its 
interim performance evaluations as the incumbent that Northport 
submitted with its proposal to a numerical past performance rating, 
there is no basis in the record to conclude that Northport's 
proposal's risk assessment would have been viewed as meaningfully 
better than White's.  In short, it does not appear that Northport was 
prejudiced by the agency's failure to consider its performance as the 
incumbent to any greater  extent than it did.

The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General
of the United States