BNUMBER:  B-275068; B-275068.2
DATE:  January 21, 1997
TITLE:  URS Consultants

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

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:URS Consultants

File:     B-275068; B-275068.2

Date:January 21, 1997

James S. Hostetler, Esq., and Susan K. Fitch, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, 
for the protester.
Frank S. Swain, Esq., Baker & Daniels, for Schmidt Associates, Inc., 
an intervenor.
Marcy A. Sherrill, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest alleging that the agency's evaluation of the protester's past 
performance in a procurement for architect-engineering services 
relating to renovation of a building was unreasonable because the 
agency did not recognize the relevance and outstanding nature of the 
protester's previous design work on the same building under a contract 
with a different agency is denied where the agency reasonably 
considered the protester's previous design work on the same building, 
as well as the recommendations and criticisms from references listed 
by the protester regarding the quality of the protester's performance 
on other prior architect-engineering work, as part of its past 
performance evaluation. 

DECISION

URS Consultants protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) 
evaluation of offerors' qualifications and selection of Schmidt 
Associates for negotiation of an architect/engineering (A/E) services 
contract pursuant to request for qualifications (RFQ) No. 
GS05P96GBC0013 for performing various A/E services related to 
modernization and renovation of a building at Fort Benjamin Harrison 
in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Fort Benjamin Harrision was closed in 1996 
pursuant to the Base Closure and Realignment Act, 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2687 
(1994), and GSA assumed ownership and control of Building One.   

We deny the protest.

This A/E procurement was conducted pursuant to the Brooks 
Architect-Engineers Act, 40 U.S.C.  sec.  541-544 (1994) and Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6, which provides that 
agencies shall announce their A/E requirements and list general and 
project-specific evaluation criteria, appoint expert evaluation boards 
to review qualification statements submitted in response to the 
synopsis by prospective offerors together with in-house data 
concerning the offerors' capabilities and past performance, and 
evaluate and rank at least three offerors on a short list for further 
contract negotiations in order of ranking.

On May 16, 1995, GSA synopsized the requirements of the solicitation 
in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) and requested qualifications 
statements from firms interested in performing various A/E services 
related to the general rehabilitation and renovation of Building One, 
at Fort Benjamin Harrison.  The synopsis indicated that modernization 
efforts were to include pre-design programming, surveying of existing 
conditions, studies, developing concepts, presentations for client 
agencies, energy conservation analysis, development of housing plans 
and support for the relocation of tenants into swing space, 
development of phasing plans, completion of architectural and 
engineering design, preparation of specifications and 
computer-assisted design and drafting drawings for construction 
documents, value engineering, cost estimating, space planning, 
interior design, and post-construction services (including shop 
drawing review, photography, record drawings and construction 
inspection).  The synopsis stated that each firm's qualifications 
would be evaluated on four evaluation criteria, listed in descending 
order of importance as follows:  past performance on design; 
philosophy and design intent; key designers' portfolio; and designers' 
profile.

The CBD synopsis indicated that GSA would select a contractor through 
a two-stage process.  Stage I would establish the architectural, 
mechanical and electrical engineering, and industrial hygienist design 
capabilities of interested A/E firms and their key designers.  During  
Stage I, interested firms were to submit standard forms (SF) 254 and 
255[1] for the A/E design firm only and additional information 
including:  8"X10" graphics and written descriptions of relevant prior 
completed projects; a statement from their key designers regarding the 
firm's design philosophy and the parameters that apply specifically to 
the modernization of buildings; their key designers' portfolios; and 
biographical profiles of their key designers.  After the 
qualifications statements and related materials were evaluated, a 
short list of at least three firms would be selected for participation 
in Stage II.  The synopsis stated that, during Stage II, each 
short-list offeror's entire project team--including the A/E design 
firm, its key designers, and all the consultants that will work on the 
project--would be evaluated.  This evaluation was to be based upon 
submission of SFs 254 and 255 which reflected the entire project team 
and would include a face-to-face interview with each project team.    

Twenty-five interested firms submitted qualifications statements in 
Stage I.  The GSA evaluation board, consisting of 3 voting members and 
10 non-voting members, evaluated each firm's qualifications statement 
on the 4 evaluation criteria that were set forth in the CBD synopsis.  
At the close of Stage I, URS and Schmidt were included among the four 
short-listed firms selected for participation in Stage II.  
During Stage II, each project team was interviewed by the evaluation 
board.  Each project team made a 45-minute presentation which was 
followed by a question and answer period.  The evaluation board next 
selected three projects that the board thought were similar in size 
and scope to the proposed project from each offerors' list of previous 
projects included in their qualifications statements.  The board then 
contacted the three references selected for each project team and 
asked them a series of questions concerning prior performance of that 
project team member.[2]  After reviewing all of the materials 
submitted by offerors during Stage I and Stage II, the interview 
results, and the reference questionnaires, the evaluation board met 
again to discuss their individual ratings of each firm and to prepare 
a consensus report and recommendation.  After discussing the 
evaluations among themselves,  the evaluation board ranked Schmidt 
first and URS second on its short list of most highly qualified firms.  
Therefore, GSA first intends to negotiate a contract with Schmidt, the 
highest qualified firm.

The protester contends that the agency's past performance evaluation 
was unreasonable because GSA failed to recognize the relevance and 
"outstanding nature" of URS' past performance.  URS asserts that it 
has already successfully completed a significant portion of the exact 
same work now being sought by GSA under a previous contract for A/E 
services on the exact same building awarded it by the Army Corps of 
Engineers in 1988.  Therefore, URS contends that since it has the most 
relevant past performance for this contract, it should have been 
ranked first on the short list.

Basically, GSA responds that, because its planned use of Building One 
differs in significant ways from the Army's use of the building, it 
has different needs and goals regarding this renovation project.  In 
fact, GSA states that one of the first tasks its new A/E contractor 
will be required to perform is to evaluate the property and to 
describe exactly how GSA's goals and plans for renovation should 
differ from the earlier goals and plans contemplated by the Army.  

In reviewing a protest of an agency's selection of a contractor for 
A/E services, our function is not to reevaluate the offeror's 
capabilities or to make our own determination of the relative merits 
of competing firms.  Rather, the procuring officials enjoy a 
reasonable degree of discretion in evaluating the submissions, and our 
review examines whether the agency's selection was reasonable and in 
accord with the published criteria.  Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., 
B-258281, Jan. 5, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  1.  A protester's mere disagreement 
with the agency's evaluation does not show that it is unreasonable.  
Id.  Under this standard, after reviewing the entire record in light 
of URS' contentions, we find no basis upon which to disturb the 
agency's ranking of potential A/E contractors.

First, the record does not support the protester's assertion that the 
present procurement is for services that are identical to those that 
URS has already substantially performed under the 1988 A/E contract.  
Originally, Building One was a warehouse, but, by 1988, it was owned 
and controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD) which used it to 
house the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS).  In 1988, the 
Corps awarded an A/E contract to URS in preparation for a planned 
modernization of the building that would bring the building up to 
then-current military standards.  Now, however, GSA wants to renovate 
the building so that it will be attractive in a competitive commercial 
market.  There is also a need to design and build a new heating 
facility since Fort Benjamin Harrison's central steam plant, which 
provided heat for the building, will be closed in the near future.  
The electrical system also needs to be updated since GSA anticipates 
the widespread use of computers by future tenants.  GSA's security 
concerns are also different from those of DOD 8 years ago.  For one 
thing, Building One is no longer part of a military installation and 
therefore is no longer protected by military police and firefighting 
personnel.  Additionally, GSA reports that its security concerns have 
been heightened since government buildings have been blown up in 
Oklahoma City and elsewhere in recent times.  Moreover, GSA wants its 
A/E contractor to redesign Building One so that it is accessible to 
disabled people in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990, 42 U.S.C.  sec.  12101-12213 (1994); the Act was not in effect 
when the Corps awarded a contract to URS.  Thus, it is obvious that 
the actual A/E services to be rendered in the new contract will differ 
in a number of significant ways from the services URS performed for 
the Corps of Engineers.

Second while it is clear from the record[3] that the evaluation board 
considered URS' previous experience on that project, it also 
considered other URS projects, and that while the Corps of Engineers's 
project manager for Building One gave URS a very good recommendation, 
the other references contacted by the board gave less positive 
appraisals of URS' work.  

One of the other references, associated with URS' work on the 
[deleted] gave a generally positive recommendation and stated that he 
would hire the firm again.  However, this same person also cautioned 
that [deleted] and that URS [deleted]. 

The third reference contacted by the board, who was knowledgeable 
about URS' design work on a prior renovation project at the [deleted], 
gave a very mixed appraisal containing both positive and negative 
comments.[4]  This project manager  stated that URS was cooperative 
and that he would hire the firm again for architectural and electrical 
work, but [deleted].  He stated further that URS had no capability for 
[deleted].  The project manager also noted that there were [deleted] 
associated with URS' prior work and stated, in response to a question 
about change orders, that the [deleted].

Third, with respect to Building One, while it is clear that the 
evaluators gave URS generally high ratings for past performance in 
large measure because of its work on this building,[5] it is also 
clear that the evaluators did not believe that URS' work for the Corps 
on the redesign of Building One warranted the highest rating.  Among 
other things, the board noted that because Fort Benjamin Harrison was 
closed, URS had completed only about 60-65 percent of the design work 
and had not done any work on implementation and phasing through actual 
construction.  Thus, GSA reports that the evaluators could not 
ascertain from URS' previous work on that project what the ultimate 
success of the Corps's renovation project would have been. 

Furthermore, the final consensus rankings included consideration of 
the face-to-face interviews.  While the board noted that URS made an 
excellent presentation and that URS' previous work on Building One 
might possibly result in a shorter start-up time if URS were selected, 
the evaluators also noted some negative aspects of selecting URS, 
including:  (1) URS [deleted] and (2) though asked twice, URS did not 
answer a question about [deleted].  

On the other hand, Schmidt received favorable references from each of 
the three individuals GSA contacted.  Schmidt's team also included a 
subcontractor who had relevant, recent experience in Building One.  
Based on these references and the experience of Schmidt's team, 
Schmidt was ranked higher than URS.  URS does not challenge the 
agency's evaluation of Schmidt's experience.  Given that Schmidt's 
references were all positive while URS' references did note some 
problems, and the evaluators were reasonably concerned that URS might 
[deleted], we think the agency reasonably could rank Schmidt higher 
than URS for past performance. 

The protester also contends that the evaluation was unreasonable 
because Schmidt's Stage II evaluation score (i.e., final evaluation 
score) was [deleted] points more than in its Stage I evaluation score 
(i.e., initial evaluation score) and the evaluation board provided no 
explanation or rationale for such a large increase in Schmidt's 
rating.   There is no merit to this argument.  

The evaluation board used different scoring systems for each stage of 
the procurement.  In Stage I, a perfect evaluation would have resulted 
in a total score of total 75 points; in Stage II, the scoring was 
revised so that a perfect evaluation would have resulted in a total 
score of total 100 points.  Schmidt received a total score of 
[deleted] points for its Stage I submissions; Schmidt received a total 
score of [deleted] points in the Stage II evaluation.  Changing these 
scores to percentages, shows that Schmidt received scores of [deleted] 
percent in the Stage I evaluation and [deleted] percent in the Stage 
II evaluation.  Thus, the actual increase in Schmidt's score was very 
small.  

Additionally, as noted above, the Stage I evaluation was based upon 
qualifications statements (SFs 254 and 255) and other submissions 
relating to Schmidt alone.  However, the Stage II evaluation was based 
upon all of the Stage I submissions plus:  Sfs 254 and 255 
representing the entire project team (including consultants); the 
project team's presentation and answers to questions asked during the 
face-to-face interview with the evaluation board; and the 
recommendations, criticisms, and comments received from an offeror's 
references.  

The evaluation record contains ample information to support the slight 
increase in Schmidt's score.  Among other things, the board's 
consensus report states that Schmidt's team made an outstanding 
presentation during its interview, demonstrating "exceptional 
strengths in all key positions with no weaknesses noted" as well as "a 
clear understanding and respect for the complexities of a major 
renovation."  The evaluators were also favorably impressed with the 
experience of the consultants that Schmidt intended to use if awarded 
the contract.  Furthermore, the references contacted by GSA all gave 
very positive recommendations for the Schmidt team and all indicated 
that they would be pleased to work with the Schmidt team again.  In 
addition, the evaluators noted that the Schmidt team had a 
demonstrated track record of on-time performance on seven major 
projects.  Based upon consideration of these and other factors, the 
evaluation board reasonably increased its overall rating of the 
Schmidt team.

The protest is denied.[6]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. SF 254 is an Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire 
and SF 255 is an Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire 
for Specific Project.

2. A questionnaire which asked the exact same questions of each 
reference for each prior contract was used for this purpose.  As an 
example, each reference was asked, "Would you hire them again? Why or 
Why not?"

3. The evaluation board's original consensus report contained only a 
terse discussion of each offeror's qualifications and a brief 
statement as to why the board recommended the selection of Schmidt.  
The scoresheets of the board's three voting members that were attached 
to the report contained only numerical ratings of each offeror on the 
various evaluation factors/subfactors but no narrative discussions.  
The protester argues that the evaluation is inadequately documented.  
Subsequent to the filing of URS' protests, the board's voting members 
prepared narrative comments to show why they rated each offeror as 
they did on their original scoresheets; the board also revised its 
original discussion of each firm's qualifications in an attempt to 
amplify its original reasoning.  This new documentation is consistent 
with the original scores and consensus comments and provides narrative 
support for the scoring by each evaluator and the summary statements 
in the consensus report.  Supplementing the recording in this manner 
is not objectionable.  Bank Street College of Education, 63 Comp. Gen. 
393 (1984) 84-1 CPD  para.  607.  Accordingly, in resolving URS' protest, we 
considered the entire record, including the evaluators' narratives and 
the revised consensus report that were prepared subsequent to the 
filing of the initial protest, as well as the original consensus 
report and evaluators' scoresheets, the board's interview notes, and 
the reference questionnaires used by the board.

4. URS contends that the agency should have allowed it to rebut any 
negative comments made by its references during discussions.  However, 
GSA was not required to conduct discussions, as would normally be 
required under FAR  sec.  15.610, because this was an A/E procurement and 
was, therefore, governed by FAR subpart 36.6 which specifically states 
that FAR part 15 is inapplicable.  FAR  sec.  36.601-3(b).  Under the 
Brooks Architect-Engineers Act and implementing regulations, 
contracting agencies are only required to hold limited discussions 
with short-list firms concerning concepts, the relative utility of 
alternative methods, and feasible ways to prescribe the use of 
recovered materials and achieve waste reduction and energy-efficiency.  
40 U.S.C.  sec.  543; FAR  sec.   36.602-1(c).  Furthermore, URS was aware when 
it listed the references in its submissions that the agency might 
contact them to obtain their insight into the quality of URS' past 
work, and, as there is no indication in the record that the 
information received from the references was untrue, we see no reason 
why the agency had to investigate the veracity of the references' 
statements or allow URS to rebut them.

5. URS received ratings of [deleted] on each and every evaluation 
factor and subfactor.  Regarding evaluation of the past performance 
factor, URS received ratings of [deleted] from two of the three voting 
board members on each of the four evaluation subfactors (renovation 
projects, overall past performance, budget/on-time performance, and 
phasing experience), while the third voting member rated URS as 
[deleted] on two subfactors and [deleted] on two subfactors.

6. URS also argues that since it already performed a significant 
portion of the required work under its previous contract with the 
Corps of Engineers, if GSA does not award the contract to URS, GSA 
will necessarily pay a second time for work that has already been 
completed and paid for by the Corps.  This argument is not persuasive 
because, as discussed at length above, the work URS performed for the 
Corps differs significantly from the work that will be required under 
the present contract.  The services under this contract call for 
renovating to make the building attractive for commercial use, for 
designing and building a new heating system, upgrading of the 
electrical system and making the building accessible to the disabled, 
work not covered under the scope of the previous contract.  Moreover, 
GSA reports that it has all of the drawings and other data that URS 
delivered to the Corps under the prior contract and, to the extent 
that those materials are relevant to GSA's future work requirements, 
they will be made available to the new contractor.