BNUMBER:  B-275060; B-275060.2
DATE:  January 21, 1997
TITLE:  DIGICON Corporation

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

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:DIGICON Corporation

File:     B-275060; B-275060.2

Date:January 21, 1997

Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, for the protester.
Alexander D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Matthew A. Anzaldi, Esq., Shaw 
Pittman 
Potts & Trowbridge, for Computech, Inc., the intervenor.
Arthur I. Rettinger, Esq., and William P. McGinnies, Esq., Department 
of the Treasury, 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

1.  Agency properly considered in its evaluation of proposals and 
source selection the risk associated with the unreasonably low labor 
rates contained in the protester's proposal where the solicitation 
advised offerors that among other things their compensation rates 
would be evaluated to assess their impact on the recruitment and 
retention of professional employees.       

2.  Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the 
awardee's proposal under an evaluation subcriterion relating to past 
performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was 
reasonable; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the 
agency's judgment unreasonable.

DECISION

DIGICON Corp. protests the award of a contract to Computech, Inc., 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-94-032, issued by the Customs 
Service, Department of the Treasury, for services in support of the 
agency's Automated Commercial System (ACS).  DIGICON contends that the 
award to Computech was not consistent with the RFP's stated evaluation 
criteria, and that the evaluation of its and Computech's proposals was 
unreasonable.  

We deny the protest.

The ACS is the central comprehensive tracking, controlling, and 
processing system that automates commercial applications and tasks 
required for import and duty collection, and is used for processing 
the import transactions of the international trade community, 
enforcing import and export laws, and generating trade statistics.  
The Customs Service, through the ACS, oversees the processing of $687 
billion worth of products imported into the United States each year.  
The successful contractor under the RFP will provide support services 
for the ACS, primarily involving the maintenance of the system and the 
development of new applications software.  

The RFP provided for the award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite 
delivery, indefinite quantity contract, for a base period of 1 year 
with four 1-year options.  The RFP stated that award would be made to 
the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best overall 
value to the government, price and other factors considered, and that 
technical merit was significantly more important than price.  The RFP 
listed the following technical evaluation criteria and subcriteria:

     1. Past Performance
        a.Personnel/Resumes 
        b.Project Descriptions/Abstracts
     
     2. Technical Approach
        a.Technical Approach
        b.Understanding the Requirements
     
     3. Management Approach
        a.Management Plan
        b.Staffing and Transition Plan 

The RFP informed offerors that the past performance criterion was 
significantly more important than the technical approach and 
management approach criteria, and that the technical approach 
evaluation criterion was slightly more important than the management 
approach evaluation criterion.

The RFP included the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
52.222-46 (FAC 90-41), "Evaluation of Compensation for Professional 
Employees."[1]   Among other things, FAR  sec.  52.222-46 advises offerors 
that the agency will evaluate the offerors' compensation plans for the 
professional employees covered by the solicitation in order to assess 
the impact of the plan on recruitment and retention of professional 
employees.  Consistent with this provision, the RFP added that while 
"[p]rice [would] not be a scored factor," proposals would be evaluated 
to determine if proposed prices "accurately and adequately portray[ed] 
the work . . . to be performed, and if they are reasonable and 
realistic."

The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of 
proposals, and requested that offerors submit separate technical and 
business/price proposals.  Offerors were required to complete the 
RFP's price schedules for the base and each of the option periods of 
the contract by inserting the burdened hourly rate for each of the 
nine listed labor categories (e.g., Technical Leader, Systems Analyst, 
etc.), and extended prices based upon the RFP's estimated number of 
hours for each of the labor categories.  Offerors were also instructed 
that their business/price proposals were to provide "a cost breakdown 
with supporting data, including a breakdown of direct labor cost 
estimates by each labor category including numbers of person-hours and 
applicable or average hourly rates, overhead rate and supporting 
schedules."  The cost breakdown was also to include direct labor 
rates, overhead and general and administrative (G&A) rates, and 
burdened labor rates for each of the labor categories provided by 
either the prime contractor and any proposed subcontractors. 

The agency received 11 proposals, and included the proposals of 
DIGICON, Computech, and six other offerors in the competitive range.  
Written discussions were held regarding the offerors' technical 
proposals, and revisions were received and evaluated.  Face-to-face 
discussions were held with each of the competitive range offerors 
concerning their business/price proposals.  Prior to the conduct of 
these discussions, the agency sent each offeror a letter setting the 
time, date, and agenda for the discussions, and requesting salary 
histories for certain of the offerors' employees if the information 
had not already been furnished.  According to the record, DIGICON was 
the only offeror that did not provide the requested salary histories 
prior to the conduct of discussions.  The agency informed DIGICON 
during discussions that its labor rates appeared low when compared 
with the market place, the prior contract for similar services, and 
historical cost data.

In its BAFO request, the agency again informed DIGICON, which still 
had not submitted the requested salary histories, that its "[p]roposed 
direct labor rates appear low in comparison to historical data for 
similar services, market surveys, and [the] most recent contract 
award."  The request informed DIGICON that it should employ its 
"normal practice in developing hourly labor rates," and that "[t]he 
basis for determining hourly labor rates should include direct and 
indirect labor hours."  The request further provided an "example 
development of fully loaded labor rate," which set forth a number of 
assumptions, and demonstrated how to calculate from the assumptions an 
unburdened direct labor rate, burden factor, and fully burdened labor 
rate. 

BAFOs were received and evaluated by the agency.  Computech's proposal 
received the highest technical rating of 79 out of 80 points, at a 
proposed price of $25,778,934.  DIGICON's proposal received the 
second-highest rating of 78.5 points, at a proposed price of 
$23,524,793.  The technical score difference was under the project 
description/abstracts subcriterion, where Computech's proposal 
received 8 of 9 points and DIGICON's proposal received 7.5 points.

The agency found that Computech's proposed prices "accurately and 
adequately" portrayed the work to be performed, and were "mostly 
reasonable and realistic."  In contrast, the agency found that 
DIGICON's proposed prices were "extremely low" and that DIGICON's 
proposal was "a risk" because its labor rates for the labor categories 
with the most hours--Senior Programmer/Analyst, Programmer Analyst, 
and Programmer--were "unreasonable and unrealistic."  The agency thus 
concluded that DIGICON's ability to attract and retain qualified 
personnel and maintain a stable workforce would be severely limited by 
its "extremely low" labor rates for certain labor categories, which 
made its "offer a risk."

The contracting officer (CO) concluded that Computech's proposal 
represented the best value to the government.  The CO found that the 
"substantial operational and financial risk introduced by DIGICON's 
unreasonably low and unrealistic prices" justified the $2,554,141, or 
9 percent, price premium associated with the selection of Computech's 
proposal for award.  The CO also determined that the price premium 
associated with Computech's proposal was justified based upon 
Computech's superior demonstrated experience as evaluated under the 
projects descriptions/abstracts evaluation subcriterion.  Computech 
was awarded the contract, and this protest followed.

DIGICON contends that the agency imposed an evaluation factor not 
weighted in or consistent with the RFP where it determined that 
DIGICON's relatively low labor rates represented a risk, inasmuch as 
"risk" was not set forth in the RFP as a specific evaluation 
criterion.  We disagree.

The consideration of the risk involved in an offeror's proposed 
approach is inherent in the evaluation of proposals.  Communications 
Int'l Inc., B-246076, Feb. 18, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  194.  Further, the RFP 
here specifically informed offerors that the risk associated with 
their proposals would be evaluated, and, as noted above, included the 
standard "Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees" 
clause, FAR  sec.  52.222-46, which provides in part that the agency will 
evaluate proposed compensation plans to assess "the offeror's ability 
to provide uninterrupted high-quality work," and that the 
"compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon 
recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a 
total plan for compensation."  The RFP also provided that proposals 
would be evaluated to determine if proposed prices were "reasonable 
and realistic."  Thus, the agency's consideration of risk in 
connection with its determination not to award the contract to DIGICON 
because of its "extremely low" labor rates for certain categories was 
not improper.  Information Spectrum, Inc., B-256609.3; B-256609.5, 
Sept. 1, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  251, aff'd, B-256609.6, Sept. 28, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  150.

DIGICON argues that the agency's evaluation of the risk associated 
with its proposal was flawed because, according to the protester, the 
agency referred only to "burdened labor rates to judge this risk."  
The protester contends that because burdened labor rates include 
overhead, G&A, and fringe rates, the "analysis involves many 
suppositions."

Contrary to the protester's assertions, the record demonstrates that 
the agency's evaluation of DIGICON's proposal included the review of 
both DIGICON's proposed burdened and unburdened labor rates.  In this 
regard, the price negotiation memorandum and report to the contracting 
officer from the source evaluation board include detailed breakdowns 
and analyses of the offerors' price proposals on individual and 
comparative bases, and demonstrates that DIGICON's proposed burdened 
and unburdened labor rates were significantly lower than those 
proposed by any of the other seven offerors under five of the nine 
listed labor categories.  For example, DIGICON's burdened and 
unburdened labor rates for the labor category with the most hours, 
Senior Programmer/Analyst, were [DELETED] and [DELETED] percent lower, 
respectively, than average of the labor rates proposed by the other 
offerors, and its burdened and unburdened rates for the labor category 
with the next most hours, Programmer, were [DELETED] and [DELETED] 
percent lower, respectively, than the average of the rates proposed.  
Based upon our review of the record, the agency's conclusions that the 
protester's proposed labor rates for certain of the labor categories 
were "extremely low" and thus represented substantial financial and 
operational risk were reasonably based.  Information Spectrum Inc., 
supra.

DIGICON protests that it was unreasonable for the agency to find that 
DIGICON's proposed labor rates represented a significant risk while 
concluding that Computech's proposed rates represented only a minimal 
risk, when, according to the record, a greater percentage of 
Computech's proposed rates are below the average rates proposed than 
DIGICON's.

The agency found that Computech's proposed price reflected some risk 
because of Computech's relatively low labor rates for certain labor 
categories.  The agency determined that the risk was minimized because 
Computech's composite rates showed that a significant percentage of 
the personnel within the labor categories at issue would be 
compensated at "mid-to-senior-level rates."  For example, although 
Computech's blended burdened rate for its Senior Programmer/Analysts 
in the base period was only $[DELETED] per hour, Computech's price 
proposal provided that [DELETED] percent of the hours worked by Senior 
Programmer Analysts would be compensated at $[DELETED] per hour and 
[DELETED] percent at $[DELETED] per hour.[2]  This approach was used 
by Computech with regard to all but one of the nine labor categories, 
and Computech's proposed burdened and unburdened labor rates for this 
category--EDI Programmer/Analyst--were [DELETED] and [DELETED] percent 
higher than the average rate proposed.  Further, although it is true 
that a greater percentage of Computech's proposed rates are below the 
average of the rates proposed than DIGICON's, the difference between 
Computech's proposed rates and the average rates is, in a number of 
instances, relatively slight; for example, Computech's proposed 
average rates for its Technical Leaders and Systems Analysts are less 
than [DELETED] percent lower than the average rate proposed.   

Accordingly, the agency's determination that Computech's proposed 
rates presented only "some risk" because its composite rates 
demonstrated that it would compensate a significant percentage of its 
personnel "at the mid to senior level scale," and that DIGICON's rates 
represented significant risk because certain of its "composite rates . 
. . indicate [that] they intend to staff these positions with mostly 
entry level and some mid level compensation rates," was reasonable and 
consistent with the evaluation criteria.

The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals under 
the project descriptions/abstracts evaluation subcriterion to the past 
performance evaluation criterion was unreasonable.[3]  

The RFP required that each offeror submit three recent project 
abstracts describing past performance managing software and 
applications development projects in an IBM or IBM compatible 
mainframe environment.  The RFP provided detailed instructions as to 
the format for the abstracts and what information should be included 
in each abstract.  As indicated, Computech's and DIGICON's proposals 
received 8 and 7.5 out of 9 available points, respectively, under this 
evaluation subcriterion.  Computech's abstracts numbers one and three 
received perfect scores of 3 points, and its abstract number two 
received a score of 2 points.  The agency found that Computech's 
abstract number two "failed to demonstrate experience in [customer 
information control system] CICS programming and a level of effort 
similar to ACS to warrant full credit."  The protester challenges the 
agency's evaluation of Computech's second and third abstracts.

With regard to Computech's second abstract, the protester asserts that 
because the total value of the contract described was $3.8 million, 
the "abstract demonstrates Computech's lack of experience with 
contracts the size and complexity of ACS."  The record demonstrates 
that each of the evaluators carefully considered all of the relevant 
aspects of the contract described, and reasonably determined that it 
merited a score of two out of three points.  The evaluators found, for 
example, that while the abstract "demonstrates experience with 
applications programming in an IBM environment," it warranted a rating 
of 2 out of 3 points because, as pointed out by the protester, the 
size and effort described in the abstract, consistent with its total 
value, was not comparable to ACS.  Although the protester clearly 
disagrees with the agency's determination that Computech's abstract 
number two warranted a rating of two points, its mere disagreement 
with this aspect of the agency's evaluation does not provide any basis 
for our Office to question the propriety of the agency's evaluation.  
McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  51.

The protester argues that Computech's abstract number three should not 
have received a perfect score of 3 points because the contract 
described focuses only on application support for a communication 
system, which the protester asserts is not comparable to ACS, and 
because the abstract was unclear as to the total value of the contract 
involved.  Computech's abstract number three describes a contract 
supporting the Treasury Enforcement Communication Systems performed 
for the Customs Service by one of Computech's proposed subcontractors 
for this procurement.  The evaluators found that the contract 
described met the agency's requirements and "[d]emonstrated experience 
with applications programming in an IBM environment."  With regard to 
the size of the contract, the evaluators noted that although average 
number of personnel assigned to the contract totaled 22, the contract 
value was listed at only "$734,550 (to date)."  The evaluators 
concluded that because a contract involving 22 positions would be more 
likely to have a value of at least $7 million, and the abstract 
provided a contract award value of 
$10.5 million, the contract value provided on the abstract must have 
been an error.  The evaluators thus concluded, based upon the work 
described in Computech's abstract number three and their assumption 
that the actual value of the contract described was $7 million, that 
the abstract warranted a rating of 3 points.  The protester's 
assertions here again reflect its disagreement with the agency's 
evaluation, and do not show that the agency's conclusions were 
unreasonable.  The evaluation record here evidences that each of the 
evaluators carefully considered all of the relevant aspects of the 
contract described, and concluded that it warranted a perfect score of 
three points.  The record further demonstrates that the evaluators 
were correct in their assumptions concerning the actual value of the 
contract described in Computech's abstract number three, in that the 
contract had a total value of $14 million, and that the work performed 
by Computech's subcontractor totaled $7.7 million.

The protester argues the agency's evaluation of its project abstracts 
was unreasonable.  DIGICON asserts that its proposal "merited a 
superlative evaluation" under the project description/abstracts 
subcriterion, and that "[t]o the extent that the [agency] gave DIGICON 
less than full credit under this subfactor, its evaluations were 
unreasonable and contrary to fact."  We need not address this issue, 
because it is clear from the record that even if each of DIGICON's 
three project abstracts warranted perfect ratings, thus increasing 
DIGICON's total rating by one and one-half points, it still would not 
have been selected for award.  That is, as mentioned previously, the 
agency found that the price premium associated with Computech's 
proposal was justified because of the significant operational and 
financial risk introduced by DIGICON's extremely low labor rates 
alone.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. FAR  sec.  52.222-46 is to be included in solicitations for negotiated 
service contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed 
$500,000 and "the service to be provided will require meaningful 
numbers of professional employees."  FAR  sec.  22.1103 (FAC 90-40); 
Research Management Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 368 (1990),
90-1 CPD  para.  352. 

2. In contrast, DIGICON's blended burdened hourly labor rate for the 
Senior Programmer Analyst category in the base year was $[DELETED], 
and its price proposal provided that [DELETED] percent of the hours 
worked by its Senior Programmer/Analysts would be compensated at 
$[DELETED] per hour, and [DELETED] percent at $[DELETED] per hour. 

3. DIGICON also argued in its protest to our Office that the agency's 
evaluation of proposals under each of the remaining evaluation 
criteria was unreasonable and that DIGICON's proposal should have been 
evaluated higher than Computech's.  The agency responded to these 
arguments in its report on DIGICON's protest, and because DIGICON did 
not respond to the agency's position in its comments on the agency 
report, we consider DIGICON to have abandoned these arguments.  D & M 
General Contracting, Inc., B-259995; B-259995.2, May 8, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
235.