BNUMBER:  B-274945, B-274945.2; B-274945.3
DATE:  January 15, 1997
TITLE:  Roy F. Weston, 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:Roy F. Weston, Inc.

File:     B-274945, B-274945.2; B-274945.3

Date:January 15, 1997

Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., and David F. Dowd, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, 
for the protester.
Paul Shnitzer, Esq., and Mark D. Taylor, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for 
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, an intervenor.
Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., and Paul A. Gervas, Esq., Department of Energy, 
for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is 
denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and 
consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's mere 
disagreement with the agency's conclusion does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.

2.  Protest that agency did not conduct meaningful discussions because 
it failed to advise the protester of two weaknesses in its proposal 
and failed to inform the protester that the agency did not obtain 
additional information on the protester's prior contracts is denied 
where the allegation concerning one weakness is factually incorrect,  
the protester fails to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by the 
agency's alleged failure to obtain additional information, and the 
protester was not adversely affected by one poorly worded discussion 
question regarding a minor weakness.

3.  Agency reasonably used a cost realism analysis approach based on 
revised labor estimates reflecting an average of proposed composite 
labor rates. 

4.  Under a solicitation in which technical factors were more 
important than price, a cost/technical tradeoff which resulted in 
selection of the awardee on the basis of its overall technical 
superiority, notwithstanding its higher price, is unobjectionable and 
consistent with the evaluation scheme where the agency reasonably 
determined that the awardee's higher-priced proposal, which offered 
superior key personnel, program management, and technical approach, 
was worth the associated additional cost.

DECISION

Roy F. Weston, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Booz-Allen & 
Hamilton under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP01-95RW00312, 
issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for management and technical 
services to support DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management (OCRWM).[1] Weston has raised a number of objections to the 
award.[2]  Most significantly, the protester challenges the agency's 
evaluation of technical and cost proposals, the conduct of 
discussions, and the source selection decision.[3]
  
The protests are denied.    

The RFP, issued August 3, 1995, provides for the award of a 
cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort, task assignment type contract 
for a 2-year base period with three 1-year options.  The successful 
offeror is to provide management and technical support services for 
OCRWM staff at DOE Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at the Yucca 
Mountain Site Characterization Office in Las Vegas, Nevada.[4]  The 
statement of work (SOW) informed offerors that the required total 
level of effort was 219,480 direct productive labor hours (DPLH) per 
year for a total of 1,097,400 hours in 41 labor categories.  Half of 
the DPLH were to be provided at DOE Headquarters and half at the Las 
Vegas office.  

The RFP called for the submissions of separate technical and 
cost/price proposals.  The technical proposal was of significantly 
greater importance than the cost proposal.  The RFP provided that 
award would be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the 
solicitation, was determined to be most advantageous to the 
government.  The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and 
subfactors:

     1.  Past Performance
     2.  Personnel
        a.  Key Personnel
        b.  Support Staff
     3.  Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work
     4.  Program Management and Responsiveness[5]

Offerors were also informed that proposals would be evaluated to 
determine the probable cost to the government.  The solicitation 
advised that the government would determine if the compensation plans 
and professional salary rates and benefits that offers were to submit 
reflected a sound management approach and understanding of the 
contract requirements.  

Three proposals were received, including those of Weston and 
Booz-Allen, by the September 15 closing date.  The proposals were 
reviewed individually by each of the four members of the technical 
evaluation committee (TEC).  Each TEC member prepared individual lists 
of significant and minor strengths and significant and minor 
weaknesses for each proposal.[6]  The evaluators then met, discussed 
their findings and created a consensus list of significant and minor 
strengths and significant and minor weaknesses for each proposal.  
Based on the consensus list,[7] the evaluators rated each factor and 
subfactor using adjectival ratings and corresponding point values on a 
scale of 0 to 10 (10 for outstanding; 8 for good; 5 for adequate; 2 
for poor; and 0 for unacceptable).[8]  The numerical rating was 
multiplied by the weight for the factor and the scores for each factor 
were totaled.  A proposal that received all outstanding ratings would 
receive a maximum point score of 1,000.

The cost evaluator performed a preliminary cost review and the initial 
TEC report and preliminary cost analysis were used to determine the 
competitive range.  Only the proposals submitted by Weston and 
Booz-Allen were included in the competitive range.  

DOE held written discussions with Weston and Booz-Allen and on July 12 
requested best and final offers (BAFO).  The TEC reviewed the BAFOs 
and the contract specialist performed a cost evaluation, which 
included the results of audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
(DCAA) of offerors and their proposed subcontractors.  The TEC awarded 
the following scores for the proposals:

                 Maximum          Weston           Booz-Allen

Past Performance 350              280              280

Personnel                                          

a. key personnel 200              100              160

b. support staff 150              150              150

Technical approach
Understanding    
                 150              
                                  120              
                                                   150

Program Mgmt.
Responsiveness   
                 150              
                                  120              
                                                   150

Total            1,000            770              890
Weston proposed a total cost plus fixed fee of [deleted] while 
Booz-Allen proposed a total cost plus fixed fee of $65,605,862.  As a 
result of the agency cost realism evaluation, the agency estimated 
Weston's cost plus fixed fee to be [deleted] and Booz-Allen's to be 
$68,784,147.  Based on the evaluation and cost analysis, the source 
selection official awarded the contract to Booz-Allen on September 20.  

Weston challenges the evaluation of its proposal under each of the 
evaluation factors, the cost analysis and the cost technical tradeoff 
resulting in the selection of Booz-Allen.  

TECHNICAL EVALUATION
 
Past Performance

The RFP instructed each offeror to submit for itself and for each of 
its proposed major subcontractors[9] a list of its five most recent 
contracts and/or subcontracts completed within the last 3 years that 
were similar in size, scope and complexity to that required by the 
statement of work (SOW) and all contracts and subcontracts that were 
currently in process that are similar in size, scope and complexity to 
that required by the SOW.  The offeror was also to provide information 
on any problems encountered on the contracts and subcontracts 
identified and corrective actions taken and to describe any quality 
awards or certifications that indicate high-quality products or 
services.  The RFP informed offerors that the agency might send past 
performance questionnaires to some or all of the references identified 
by the offeror.  

The RFP stated at section M that offerors would be evaluated on their 
performance on prior or in-process contracts and subcontracts for 
similar services in the following areas:  (1) quality of product or 
service; (2) timeliness of performance; 
(3) cost control; and (4) customer satisfaction.  The evaluation would 
focus on demonstrated quality of performance relative to the size, 
scope and complexity of the procurement under consideration, the 
number and severity of problems and the effectiveness of the offeror's 
corrective actions.  

For the purposes of evaluation, definitions of size, scope and 
complexity were given to the TEC.  Size was defined as performance 
analogous to the dollar amount of costs incurred.  In practice, the 
agency states that although there was not a "bright line cutoff" 
concerning size, a contract cost of approximately $9 to $10 million 
per year was considered equivalent.  Scope meant the type of work 
similar to the work described in the SOW.  The TEC evaluated 
similarity of scope by comparing the identified contract or 
subcontract with the seven work areas identified in the SOW:  (1) 
management and planning; (2) policy development and coordination; (3) 
product development; (4) analysis and review; (5) human resource 
management; (6) financial management; and, (7) general management 
support.  Complexity meant the extent and degree that contracts or 
subcontracts demonstrated a similar myriad of tasks involving similar 
degrees of difficulty in the performance of the work.  

Each contract or subcontract listed by an offeror was evaluated in six 
areas:  (1) quality of product/service, including timeliness, cost 
control, and customer satisfaction; (2) problems encountered and 
corrective actions taken; (3) awards; (4) size; (5) scope; and (6) 
complexity.  

In its proposal, Booz-Allen listed six past contracts[10] and five 
in-process contracts; Weston listed 10 past contracts[11] and eight 
in-process contracts.  The TEC noted that Weston is the current 
contractor to OCRWM Headquarters and thus has experience in almost all 
areas of the SOW.  The TEC noted that Booz-Allen had an Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) contract in which it provided support to EPA 
Headquarters and 10 regional offices--a work requirement similar to 
the requirement under this solicitation.  Also, Booz-Allen had 
received two "Hammer" awards and numerous other awards.  The TEC found 
that both offerors met all and exceeded some of the past performance 
evaluation criteria.  Both were rated "good," with weighted point 
scores of 280 under this factor.

Weston argues that DOE misevaluated past performance and applied 
unstated evaluation criteria.  Specifically, Weston argues that the 
RFP required that DOE first determine whether an identified contract 
was similar in size, scope and complexity and then, assuming the 
identified contract was similar in all three respects, to evaluate the 
offeror's performance on that contract.  Because DOE considered each 
identified contract performed within the requisite time frame with 
respect to each of the six areas set forth above individually, 
including size, scope and complexity, the protester argues that DOE 
evaluated experience in addition to past performance, which was not 
contemplated by the solicitation.  

Weston also argues that the factors of quality of product or service, 
timeliness of performance, cost control and customer satisfaction were 
improperly grouped into one factor for the purposes of evaluation and 
thus not accorded their proper weight.  

Finally, Weston argues that DOE failed to consider whether the 
contract evaluated encompassed hazardous material and/or radioactive 
waste.  The protester argues that the term "similar services" used in 
section M of the solicitation can only mean contracts dealing with 
hazardous materials and/or radioactive waste.  The protester complains 
that by ignoring this relevancy requirement and by merely counting the 
number of strengths and weaknesses assigned to size, scope, and 
complexity, DOE failed to consider the interrelationship between these 
factors and "similar services," as required by the RFP and thus 
improperly credited Booz-Allen on this factor, citing, as an example, 
a Booz-Allen contract for the construction of railroads.  

Weston's insistence that the term "size, scope and complexity" used in 
the RFP required that an offeror's past performance on a contract not 
be evaluated unless the contract was equivalent based on all three 
factors is not supported by the RFP language.  The RFP does not state, 
as the protester suggests, that a contract would not be considered if 
it were not equivalent to the anticipated contract under all three 
factors.  Rather, the language in section M states that the quality of 
performance on prior contracts would be measured relative to the size, 
scope, and complexity of the prior procurements.  The more general 
requirement that offerors furnish a list of contracts similar in size, 
scope and complexity must be read in conjunction with the provision 
setting forth how the agency would evaluate past performance.  When 
the two provisions are read together,[12] the only reasonable reading 
of them is that the past performance evaluation would take into 
account the size, the scope, and the complexity of each prior 
contract.  Indeed, if the RFP meant what Weston alleges, there would 
be no need for the provision stating that the agency would evaluate 
past performance relative to size, scope and complexity.  Accordingly, 
the protester's allegation that the agency, by using this evaluation 
methodology, has improperly evaluated experience with past performance 
is without merit.  

We disagree with the protester that the agency improperly weighted 
quality of product/service, timeliness, cost control and customer 
satisfaction.  As noted above, the RFP listed these four areas as 
considerations in its evaluation of past performance.  Contrary to 
Weston's assertions, there is nothing in the RFP to support its claim 
that these considerations are subfactors or to indicate the importance 
assigned to these considerations by the agency.  An agency has wide 
discretion in how it will structure its evaluation and our Office will 
not question an agency's evaluation so long as it is reasonable and 
follows the stated evaluation criteria.  Pathology Assocs., Inc., 69 
Comp. Gen. 269 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  292.  Here, the TEC considered 
product/service quality, timeliness, cost control and customer 
satisfaction, noting significant/minor strengths and weaknesses for 
each, and then consolidated the ratings into a collective rating.  
This approach is not contrary to anything in the RFP.  Therefore, 
notwithstanding Weston's disagreement, we find no reason to object to 
the agency's methodology in this regard.   

As to Weston's allegation that DOE failed to evaluate past and current 
contracts for their relevance to hazardous material and radioactive 
waste, the agency takes the position that the solicitation did not 
require that offerors provide evidence of contracts in hazardous 
materials and radioactive waste.  We agree.  When the instructions in 
section L of the solicitation and the evaluation criteria in section M 
are considered together, it is plain that the agency intended to 
consider all experiences related to the work requirements of the SOW.  
The SOW listed the seven work areas noted above.  Thus, offerors could 
submit, as did Booz-Allen, and the agency could properly credit, 
contracts concerning "similar" work, for example, in management and 
planning, human resources management, and financial management.  Since 
the RFP allowed for consideration of "similar" work and the agency 
defined "similar" work as the seven work areas outlined in the SOW, 
Booz-Allen's experience is relevant, and the agency's evaluation is 
unobjectionable.  Weston's contentions to the contrary merely reflect 
disagreement with the agency's evaluation, which does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.[13]  Cardinal Scientific, Inc., B-270309, 
Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  70.

Finally, we do not agree with Weston's contention that the agency 
merely counted the number of strengths and weaknesses assigned to 
size, scope and complexity and failed to consider the 
interrelationship between these factors and "similar services."  
Indeed, there is no comprehensive computation of Weston's or 
Booz-Allen's past performance strengths and weaknesses in the 
evaluation documents.  Contrary to the protester's assertion, the 
evaluation was not merely a mechanical assessment of each offerors' 
strengths and weaknesses on the various factors, but an assessment of 
quality relative to the seven work areas listed in the SOW and to 
size, scope and complexity.  Moreover, the protester complains about 
DOE's alleged failure to evaluate the interrelationship between size, 
scope and complexity in terms of relevancy to experience with 
hazardous material and/or radioactive waste.  As discussed above, 
experience with hazardous material and radioactive waste was not 
specifically evaluated under this factor.
   
Personnel

Weston next argues that DOE improperly evaluated the skills and 
experience of seven of its proposed key personnel and that DOE did not 
evaluate its and Booz-Allen's proposed key personnel in a fair and 
even-handed manner.  We have reviewed the evaluation record and the 
proposals, including the resumes submitted with each proposal, and we 
conclude that the evaluation under the personnel factor, with the 
exceptions noted below, was reasonable and consistent with the RFP.

The solicitation required that each offeror submit resumes for four 
senior management positions and 15 task leaders (one task leader for 
each of 15 job areas).  The offeror was to identify the labor category 
for each task leader.  Specific education and experience requirements 
were set forth in the solicitation for each labor category.  
Additionally, "preferences" as to education and experience were listed 
for some labor categories.  

The agency used the same rating plan and definitions in evaluating 
personnel as it used in evaluating past performance; that is, proposed 
personnel were evaluated as  demonstrating significant/minor strengths 
or weaknesses in relation to the evaluation criteria.  To determine a 
final rating for a candidate, the agency used a complex evaluation 
plan, pegged to the identified strengths, weaknesses, requirements and 
preferences.  The plan included five categories:  outstanding, good, 
adequate, poor and unacceptable.[14]  The TEC rated Weston's proposal 
"adequate" for key personnel, with a weighted point score of 100.  
Booz-Allen's proposal received a "good" rating, with a weighted point 
score of 160.

Weston alleges that for three of its proposed key personnel DOE, among 
other things, improperly treated preferences in educational background 
and experience as if they were requirements and therefore assigned 
Weston's proposed personnel weaknesses for meeting but not exceeding 
the requirements specified in the RFP.  

As noted above, for several labor categories, the RFP listed 
preferences in educational background or experience.  For example, the 
RFP states, for assistant manager, waste acceptance, storage and 
transportation, that DOE "requires a Bachelors degree from an 
accredited college or university, preferably in a technical field."  
Although DOE would accept a candidate with a Bachelor's degree in any 
field, the RFP makes clear that the agency would rather have someone 
with a Bachelor's degree in a technical field.  Similarly, for human 
resource management specialist, the RFP specifies that DOE requires a 
Bachelor's degree, preferably in a business-related field; for 
strategic planning/policy analyst, the RFP states that DOE requires a 
Bachelor's degree but that a scientific or engineering degree is 
preferred.  Obviously, while a candidate meeting the minimum 
requirement would be acceptable, the agency would reasonably consider 
such a candidate relatively weak when compared to a candidate with the 
preferred credentials.  Regardless, however, of whether Weston's 
proposed personnel should have been formally assigned weaknesses, the 
overall evaluation for its key personnel would not change.  Under the 
agency's evaluation approach, if Weston's three minor weaknesses in 
the area were replaced with the higher, neutral ratings, Weston's 
overall adequate rating would not increase.  

Weston also challenges other aspects of the evaluation of its 
personnel.  Based on our review of the record, including the resumes 
submitted, we find that, with two exceptions,[15] the evaluation was 
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  For 
example, Weston challenges the evaluation of its proposed assistant 
manager for waste acceptance, storage, and transportation.  DOE found 
that Weston's proposed assistant manager did not demonstrate that he 
met the 
3-year management experience requirement for a project of similar 
magnitude and complexity.  Weston argues that its candidate is serving 
in this position under its current contract and his position is 
"nearly identical" to the position proposed.  DOE apparently believes 
that, because the work under the solicitation includes the Las Vegas 
site, the assistant manager's current position is not of the same 
magnitude or complexity as the position under the solicitation.  
Since, presumably, inclusion of the Las Vegas site will result in 
responsibility for managing additional personnel, a significantly  
increased work load, and the need for increased coordination, DOE's 
position appears to be reasonable.

Weston also alleges that DOE evaluated Booz-Allen's proposed personnel 
more favorably than it evaluated Weston's proposed personnel.  To 
support its position, Weston compares the evaluations of each of the 
offerors on three positions.  For example, Weston challenges the 
evaluation of its and Booz-Allen's proposed task leader for 
administration.  Weston alleges that, while its proposed candidate was 
required to have extensive experience with budgeting, Booz-Allen's 
proposed candidate has no budgeting experience.  

The agency explains that Booz-Allen's task leader for administration 
was proposed in the labor category of information management 
specialist.  The RFP for this labor category did not require budgeting 
experience.  Rather, the requirements for this labor category focused 
on information resource management experience and skills.  The 
protester alleges that these "fine distinctions" between task leader 
and position descriptions for labor categories do not justify the 
different evaluations.     

Weston's argument that DOE improperly relies on distinctions between 
labor categories is without merit.  Proposed personnel were evaluated 
on their qualifications within their specific labor category, not on 
task leadership per se.[16]  This is consistent with the RFP 
evaluation scheme.  Accordingly, the fact that the two task leaders, 
proposed in different labor categories, were not evaluated against the 
same specific requirements provides no basis to object to the agency's 
evaluation.

Technical Approach and Program Management

Under this factor, offerors were to provide a description of their 
technical approach that would demonstrate their understanding of the 
SOW and to respond to two representative problems.[17]  

While Weston's and Booz-Allen's evaluations on their technical 
approaches were equal, Booz-Allen's responses to the two 
representative problems received higher scores.  Booz-Allen's proposal 
was rated "outstanding," under this factor, with a weighted score of 
150; Weston's proposal was rated "good" under this factor, with a 
weighted score of 120.

Weston argues that DOE evaluated the offerors unequally with regard to 
these representative problems.  Specifically, the protester alleges 
that, although both offerors' proposals were similar in language and 
approach, only its proposal was downgraded.  For example, Weston notes 
that, for the first problem, each offeror recommended the 
establishment of [deleted] and that in their proposed methodology, 
each addressed [deleted].  Weston also complains that, although both 
offerors stated that [deleted], only it was downgraded for [deleted].  
For the second problem, Weston complains that while it was downgraded 
for [deleted], Booz-Allen was highly rated even though it did not 
[deleted].

The agency found that while Weston's response to the first problem was 
clear and orderly and provided a listing of critical factors, Weston 
did not integrate the factors into a comprehensive, cohesive plan.  
DOE felt that Weston provided only an unintegrated list or "bill of 
materials" for a plan and that, in contrast, Booz-Allen merged the 
technical, regulatory and political considerations.  The record does 
not support DOE's position.  Weston's response specifically stated 
that development of a plan should be [deleted].  Booz-Allen similarly 
recommended the establishment of a [deleted].  Weston also listed 
[deleted] specific steps necessary to implement a plan and provided an 
exhibit listing [deleted] alternatives and various possible impacts of 
an [deleted].  While Booz-Allen provided an exhibit outlining the 
contingency plan development process, it did not list specific steps.  
Finally, contrary to DOE's findings, Weston identified the relevant 
parties with as much specificity as did Booz-Allen.  Notwithstanding 
this evaluation discrepancy, we cannot conclude that it had an impact 
on the selection decision.  Under the RFP evaluation scheme, Weston 
would be entitled to an additional 15 points in this area.  Given the 
large scoring differential overall, we do not believe the additional 
points would alter the technical rankings of the offeror or affect the 
selection decision.

As to Weston's concerns relating to the second problem, the record 
shows that, contrary to Weston's assertion, Booz-Allen did provide a 
[deleted] for meeting the January 1998 implementation date established 
in the problem.  As to Weston's failure to demonstrate a [deleted] we 
note that its [deleted] exhibit merely divided the time frame 
available [deleted].  Weston provided little explanation for the 
[deleted].  Moreover, Weston's narrative did not [deleted].  In 
contrast, Booz-Allen demonstrated its awareness and concern about the 
short time frame by repeatedly [deleted].  While Weston disagrees with 
the agency's assessment of this aspect of its proposal, we find no 
basis to question it. 

Program Management and Responsiveness

Under this factor, each offeror was to address organization, corporate 
responsiveness and management, and control systems.  Offerors were to 
provide, among other things, an organizational chart, describe the 
lines of authority and explain how the organization would address the 
requirements of the SOW, show their ability to provide quick 
response--within 4 hours--to OCRWM requests for meetings and 
briefings, and describe their overall project management system.   
Weston's proposal was evaluated as "good" on this factor; Booz-Allen's 
was evaluated as "outstanding."

Again, Weston complains that DOE evaluated offerors unequally on this 
factor, noting that while Booz-Allen proposed a response time of 
between [deleted] with a draft to OCRWM within [deleted], Weston has 
demonstrated on the current DOE contract a response time of [deleted].  
Weston also argues that, since it did not receive any weaknesses on 
this factor, it should have been rated "outstanding."  

DOE reasonably rated Booz-Allen's proposal higher because Booz-Allen, 
while proposing a [deleted] response time, extensively described its 
plans for corporate responsiveness, [deleted].  Weston, in contrast, 
provided little detail concerning the tasks to be accomplished to meet 
the deadline.  

In response to Weston's argument that it should have received an 
"outstanding" rating on this factor, DOE correctly points out that 
Weston ignores its standard for an "outstanding" rating.  As noted 
above, to receive an outstanding rating on a factor, the offeror's 
proposal must meet all and clearly exceed most performance 
requirements.  Thus, while Weston received no weaknesses on its 
evaluation, this does not translate into an "outstanding" rating and, 
other than the protester's [deleted] response time, the protester has 
not provided any specific areas where it believes its evaluation 
should be elevated.

MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS

Weston also argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions because DOE never disclosed that "government experience 
did not qualify as experience under the RFP" and that it had not 
obtained additional information regarding prior and in-progress 
contracts, as required by the RFP.[18]  

We find nothing in the agency report to support Weston's assertion 
that government experience was discounted.  Indeed, in our review of 
the evaluation of Weston's key personnel, we found only one reference 
to government experience where the candidate was not given credit for 
the experience.  However, the record shows that it was not the 
government experience that the agency downgraded, but the failure of 
that particular experience to match DOE's requirement.  

As to DOE's alleged obligation to obtain information about prior 
contracts, the protester does not provide any specifics as to what 
information it believes the agency failed to obtain.  While Weston 
asserts generally that its past performance rating would have improved 
had DOE obtained "information regarding Weston's performance," the 
protester provides no examples or any other information to 
substantiate this claim.  Under these circumstances, we see no basis 
to support Weston's contentions that the agency was obligated to raise 
this issue in discussions.

COST REALISM ANALYSIS

Weston contends that DOE failed to conduct a reasonable cost realism 
analysis of Booz-Allen's proposal.  According to Weston, although DOE 
recognized that Booz-Allen's proposed labor rates were "extremely 
low," DOE averaged the proposed rates of both offerors and their 
subcontractors to adjust the rates to the market price for each 
position.  Weston contends that this methodology permits Booz-Allen to 
continue to take advantage of its unrealistically low rates in the 
cost analysis because Booz-Allen's own low rates lower the average.

Where, as here, a cost reimbursement contract is to be awarded, the 
offerors' estimated costs of contract performance should not be 
considered as controlling since the estimates may not provide valid 
indications of the final actual costs which the government is required 
to pay.  See FAR  sec.  15.605(c).  Consequently, the contracting agency 
must perform a cost realism analysis to determine the realism of an 
offeror's proposed costs and to determine what the costs are likely to 
be under the offeror's technical approach, assuming reasonable economy 
and efficiency.  CACI, Inc.-Fed., 64 Comp. Gen. 71 (1984), 84-2 CPD  para.  
542.

An agency is not required, however, to conduct an in-depth analysis or 
to verify each item in conducting a cost realism analysis.  Hattal & 
Assocs., 70 Comp. Gen. 632 (1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  90.  A cost realism 
assessment necessarily involves the exercise of informed judgment and 
the agency is clearly in the best position to make that assessment; 
therefore, our Office will review such a determination only to 
ascertain whether it had a reasonable basis.  Id.

Here, the record shows that the agency, after considering the proposed 
base year composite rates of the offerors and their 
subcontractors,[19] revised its estimates based on an average of these 
rates, and then adjusted the offerors' proposed rates where 
appropriate based upon the revised estimates.  Booz-Allen's proposed 
costs were upwardly adjusted by $3,178,285, Weston's by [deleted].  
The protester has not shown that the agency's revised estimates are 
unsound; accordingly, we have no reason to question the agency's 
approach, which actually adversely impacted 
Booz-Allen's evaluated costs significantly more than it did Weston's.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Weston also argues that DOE did not perform a proper cost/technical 
tradeoff.  The protester argues that DOE relied almost exclusively on 
the technical ratings given to the offerors and failed to 
qualitatively distinguish between Booz-Allen's and Weston's proposals.

Source selections officials in negotiated procurements have broad 
discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will 
make use of technical and cost evaluation results.  Grey Advertising, 
Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325; Mevatec Corp., 
B-260419, May 26, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  33.  Agencies may make 
cost/technical tradeoffs in deciding between competing proposals and 
the propriety of such tradeoffs turns not on the difference in 
technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection 
official's judgment concerning the significance of that difference was 
reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP evaluation 
scheme.  See Wyle Labs., Inc.; Latecoere Int'l, Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 
648 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  107.  

Contrary to the protester's allegation, the record shows that the 
source selection official reviewed the full technical evaluation 
record (including strengths, weaknesses, and concerns cited for the 
proposals), as well as the resulting point scores, adjectival ratings, 
and cost evaluation results.  The award determination statement 
concluding that Booz-Allen offered the most advantageous proposal to 
the government points out, for example, that Booz-Allen offered many 
key personnel who meet or exceed the requirements and demonstrated 
superior experience in the management and execution of activities 
similar in size, scope, and complexity to the activities required by 
the SOW.  The award determination also notes Booz-Allen's outstanding 
technical approach, its in-depth understanding of the work, its 
organizational structure, and its outstanding management and control 
systems.  The determination states that the superiority of Booz-Allen 
in these critical factors "represents meritorious differences of 
significance to OCRWM." 

The award determination goes on to describe the differences in 
Weston's proposal, citing, for example, the determination that a 
number of Weston's key personnel did not demonstrate extensive 
managerial experience and Weston's weaknesses in its technical 
approach, understanding of the SOW and program management.  Finally, 
the award determination specifically states that while Weston offered 
the lower cost, the cost savings were not significant given the 
technical advantages of Booz-Allen's proposal.  

We see nothing improper in the selection decision.  It reflects an 
appropriate comparison of the competing proposals and includes a 
reasoned determination for selection of the higher-cost offer.  Under 
these circumstances, and given that technical factors were more 
important than price, we have no basis to object to the award 
selection.

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. OCRWM is charged with the disposal of high-level radioactive waste 
and is responsible for the development of repositories for the 
permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear 
fuel, including development of interim storage and transportation 
capabilities in a manner that fully protects public health and safety 
and the quality of the environment.  

2. In its several submissions to this Office, Weston raised a wide 
range of arguments and examples to support its allegations that the 
evaluation and award decision were unreasonable and unfair; DOE 
responded to each argument, justifying its actions during each phase 
of the procurement; the awardee responded as well.  We have reviewed 
the entire record, including all evaluation and award decision 
documents, and find no basis for sustaining the protest.  However, we 
will discuss only the more significant arguments in this decision.

3. As a preliminary matter, Weston also alleges that DOE's evaluation 
was not solely based on the RFP and the content of the proposals 
submitted, but was impermissibly influenced by the hostile atmosphere 
toward Weston at OCRWM.  To support its allegation of a hostile 
atmosphere, Weston alleges that the agency's Inspector General (IG) is 
conducting an investigation into alleged derogatory or pejorative 
statements made by high level OCRWM officials within the last 2 years. 
Weston submitted an affidavit to our Office in which one of its 
employees states that she was informed of the investigation by a DOE 
employee. 

The procuring agency, which indicates that it is not aware of any 
pending IG investigation, points out that the protester's allegations 
are vague, indefinite and unsupported and has submitted a rebuttal 
affidavit in which the DOE employee alleged to have informed the 
Weston employee about the investigation states that he merely told the 
Weston employee that he "had heard hallway talk" about an 
investigation and that he was only passing on a "rumor."

There is nothing in the record to support Weston's allegations that 
the evaluation was not based on the RFP and the proposals.  In any 
event, our decision is not based on an investigation, and our Office 
is not privy to whatever information may be before DOE's IG.  Our 
decision is based on a review of the written record presented to our 
Office by the parties.  Complere Inc., B-257946, Nov. 23, 1994, 94-2 
CPD  para.  207.   

4. The protester is the incumbent contractor providing support to 
OCRWM at DOE Headquarters.  TRW Environmental Safety Services, Inc. is 
currently providing support services at the Las Vegas office.  

5. Past performance and personnel were each weighted 35 percent of the 
evaluation.  Within personnel, key personnel was weighted 20 percent 
and support staff was weighted 15 percent of the evaluation.  
Technical approach/understanding of the work and program management 
and responsiveness were each weighted 15 percent. 

6. A strength was defined as an aspect of a proposal that, when 
compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to positively 
affect the probability of successful performance of the contract.  A 
significant strength is likely to have other than only a minor effect 
on performance; a minor strength is likely to have little or no impact 
on performance.  A weakness was defined as an aspect of a proposal 
that, when compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to 
negatively affect the probability of successful performance on the 
contract.  A significant weakness is likely to have more than only a 
minor effect on performance and may be correctable with difficulty; a 
minor weakness is likely to have little or no impact on performance 
and is easily correctable.  Several minor weaknesses within a 
criterion may create a significant weakness. 

7. Weston argues that DOE's consensus evaluation is inconsistent with 
the evaluation of individual members.  Weston bases this allegation on 
the individual evaluation records of the one TEC member who retained 
his individual records.  Because this individual's scores are 
sometimes more favorable toward Weston than the consensus scores, 
Weston argues that the consensus evaluation is "unfounded and 
unreasonable."

There is nothing in the record to support this allegation; individual 
evaluators may have evaluation results inconsistent with those of 
other evaluation team members.  Such inconsistencies do not provide a 
basis to challenge the validity of the evaluation.  Stat-a-Matrix, 
Inc. et al., B-234141 et al., May 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  472.

Here, the agency's evaluation plan emphasized that TEC members were to 
make a serious effort to reach a consensus; a shift in position by 
individual evaluators is inherent in the consensus process.  Moreover, 
the individual evaluator whose records were retained states in an 
affidavit to our Office that his "views . . . were taken into 
account."  The evaluator suggest that Weston has selectively 
highlighted portions of his evaluation and that this selectivity 
incorrectly conveys the idea that his evaluation is significantly 
different from the consensus.  He states that the TEC reached a common 
consensus on the strengths and weaknesses and on the rating to  be 
assigned.  

8. The adjectival ratings were also defined in detail.  For example, 
an "outstanding" rating indicated that the proposal meets all, and 
clearly exceeds most performance requirements for the evaluated 
criterion or subcriterion, demonstrates significant strengths, no 
significant weaknesses and few, if any, minor weaknesses that have no 
impact on performance.  A "good" rating indicates that the proposal 
meets all and exceeds several performance requirements, demonstrates 
significant strengths, few, if any, significant weaknesses that may be 
correctable and few, if any, minor weaknesses that may or may not be 
correctable.  An "adequate" rating indicates that the proposal meets 
all performance requirements, demonstrates few, if any, significant 
strengths, demonstrates significant weaknesses that can be corrected 
and minor weaknesses that may or may not be corrected.

9. A major subcontractor was defined as a subcontractor that would 
perform 
25 percent or more of the total DPLH for the contract.

10. One of Booz-Allen's completed contracts was not completed within 
the past 
3 years as required by the RFP and was not evaluated.

11. Initially, Weston listed five past contracts for itself and its 
major subcontractor, [deleted].  An additional five contracts were 
identified in Weston's BAFO.  Booz-Allen did not propose a major 
subcontractor for this contract.

12. To the extent Weston sees these provisions as inconsistent, Weston 
should have protested the inconsistency prior to the time set for 
receipt of initial proposals.  Bid Protest Regulations, section 
21.2(a)(1), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (July 26, 1996) (to be codified 
at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1)).  

13. In its objections to DOE's past performance evaluation, Weston 
also complains that the agency failed to obtain information from 
identified references as required by the RFP.  The solicitation, 
however, stated only that DOE "may" contact "some or all of the 
references identified by the offeror."  There was no obligation that 
the agency contact all, or any particular number of, references.  

14. To receive an outstanding rating, a candidate had to meet all and 
clearly exceed most performance requirements, demonstrate significant 
strengths and no significant weaknesses, and demonstrate few minor 
weaknesses that have no impact on performance.  To receive a good 
rating, a candidate had to meet all and exceed several performance 
requirements, demonstrate significant strengths and few, if any, 
significant weaknesses that may be correctable and demonstrate few, if 
any, minor weaknesses which may or may not be correctable.  To receive 
an adequate rating, a candidate had to meet all the performance 
requirements, demonstrate few, if any, significant strengths, 
demonstrate significant weaknesses that could be corrected and 
demonstrate minor weaknesses that may or may not be correctable.  

15. In our review, we found that the agency improperly downgraded 
Weston's proposed task leader for environmental and operational 
activities and its proposed task leader for regulatory integration.  
We found that the resumes for both of these individuals, contrary to 
DOE's assessment, demonstrated the required environmental-related 
experience.  Our assessment of these two key positions, however, would 
have no effect on the technical rankings of the two offerors.

16. While specific requirements for task leadership positions were not 
delineated in the RFP, the record shows that DOE expected that 
proposed personnel for task leadership positions would have some 
experience relevant to that position, for example, a proposed task 
leader for environmental and operational activities would have some 
environmental experience and a proposed task leader for administration 
would have some administrative experience.

17. The first problem asked offerors to discuss the factors to be 
considered in the development of a contingency plan in the event that 
the Yucca Mountain site proves to be inadequate.  The second problem 
asked offerors to assume that DOE has been directed to take title to 
and manage spent nuclear fuel at utility sites not later than January 
1998 and to discuss the factors to be considered and the necessary 
steps to implement this directive.

18. Weston also cites a discussion question that it argues was poorly 
written and did not inform Weston that the agency believed the 
experience of one of its proposed task leaders was irrelevant and 
unrelated to the required experience.  We have reviewed the question 
and agree that it was inartfully worded.  However, Weston concedes 
that this was the only question where it was difficult to discern the 
agency's concern.  Since it is clear from the record that a rating 
increase on only one key personnel position would not have affected 
Weston's overall personnel evaluation and therefore its overall 
technical evaluation, this matter is inconsequential.

19. Including subcontractors, there were more than 16 companies whose 
rates were used.