BNUMBER:  B-275078 
DATE:  January 23, 1997
TITLE: MiTech, Inc., B-275078, January 23, 1997
**********************************************************************

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:MiTech, Inc.

File:     B-275078

Date:January 23, 1997

Maria F. Glinsmann, Esq., and Matthew R. Glinsmann, Esq., Glinsmann & 
Glinsmann, for the protester.
Richard J. Conway, Esq., and William M. Rosen, Esq., Dickstein, 
Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, for Signal Corporation, an intervenor.
Beverly M. Russell, Esq., U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 
Highway Administration, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where record provides ample support for the agency's conclusion that 
awardee's technical proposal was substantially superior to that of the 
protester, agency reasonably concluded that award should be made on 
the basis of the technically superior proposal notwithstanding the 
associated cost premium.

DECISION

MiTech, Inc. protests the award of a contract by the U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to Signal 
Corporation under request for proposals No. DTFH61-96-R-00046 for 
information technology services supporting the FHWA's Office of 
Information and Management Services.  MiTech asserts that the agency 
failed to properly evaluate various portions of its proposal and 
performed an unreasonable cost/technical tradeoff.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On April 26, 1996, the FHWA issued RFP No. DTFH61-96-R-00046 as a 
competitive section 8(a) set-aside, seeking proposals to provide 
information technology services supporting the FHWA's Office of 
Information and Management Services.  The RFP required offerors to 
propose the necessary personnel to perform various services including 
data communications support, computer applications development and 
maintenance, and systems integration and contemplated award of a 
cost-plus-award-fee for a base period with four 1-year option periods.  

Regarding the basis for award, the RFP stated 

     "The Government will accept the offer that is considered the best 
     value to the Government.  The three evaluation factors, 
     Technical, Past Performance, and Cost are considered equal in 
     importance.  As competing Offerors approach being essentially 
     equivalent in any of the three areas, the remaining areas will 
     become more important in the selection decision."

Regarding the technical evaluation factor, the RFP established the 
following subfactors: 

     "a.  Experience.  The Government will evaluate each Offeror's 
     experience on the basis of the relevance of that experience to 
     the work to be performed under the prospective contract and on 
     its depth and breadth.

     "b.  Qualifications of key personnel.  The Government will 
     evaluate the qualifications of the Offeror's key personnel on the 
     basis of their formal education; the relevance and relative depth 
     and breadth of their experience; and, on their reputation for 
     honesty, competence, cooperativeness, and effectiveness.

     "c.  Approach/Management.  The Government will evaluate the 
     Offeror's proposed approach and management capability to perform 
     the prospective contract, to include contract and Task Order 
     management, staffing (depth and breadth), and staying abreast of 
     current applicable technology (hardware and software). 

     "d.  Understanding of the Government's requirements and of the 
     nature of the work to be performed.  The Government will evaluate 
     the Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements 
     including transition between contracts, and its relative 
     understanding of the nature of the work to be performed under the 
     prospective contract on the basis of its oral presentation of its 
     responses during the question and answer session."

On or before the June 10 closing date, 10 offerors, including MiTech 
and Signal, submitted initial proposals.  The agency evaluated the 
proposals, determined that five, including MiTech's and Signal's, were 
in the competitive range and, subsequently, conducted both written and 
oral discussions with each competitive range offeror.  In the written 
discussion questions sent to MiTech, the agency requested that MiTech: 

     "1.  Elaborate on [deleted].

     "2.  Elaborate on [deleted].

     "3.  Elaborate on [deleted]

     "4.  Elaborate on [deleted]"

Subsequently, best and final offers (BAFOs) were requested and 
submitted.  MiTech's BAFO stated that it was not making any changes to 
its technical proposal.  The agency's evaluation of BAFOs resulted in 
the following ratings and evaluated prices.  

                         Technical
               Past      Score
             Performance (80 pts poss)      Price

     MiTech    Excellent 60.20     $[deleted]

     Signal  Excellent   72.80      32,225,360

On September 26, the source selection official (SSO) determined that 
Signal's proposal offered the best value to the government on the 
basis that its technical superiority, reflected in a score that was 
roughly 20 percent higher than that of Mitech's proposal, outweighed 
the associated [deleted] percent price premium.  MiTech was notified 
of the source selection on October 4.  This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

MiTech protests that the agency failed to properly evaluate its 
proposal and, therefore, that the agency did not have a reasonable 
basis for concluding that Signal's proposal offered the best value to 
the government.  MiTech first challenges the agency's evaluation of 
its proposal regarding each of the technical subfactors. 

For the first subfactor, experience, MiTech's proposal received a 
score of 
15 out of a possible 20 points.[1]  The technical evaluation panel 
identified the following weaknesses:  "[deleted]."

MiTech does not dispute the agency's conclusion that it has [deleted].  
Similarly, regarding its wide area network experience, MiTech 
acknowledged that [deleted].  Nonetheless, MiTech protests that it 
should have received more than 15 of the 20 points possible under this 
subfactor due to the experience of [deleted], one of its proposed 
subcontractors.  Specifically, MiTech maintains that its proposal "was 
not given credit for [deleted] experience," and argues that the agency 
should not have considered MiTech's own limited experience as a basis 
for downgrading its proposal.

MiTech's assertion that its proposal "was not given credit for 
[deleted] experience" is directly contrary to the agency's documented 
basis for scoring MiTech's proposal, quoted above, in which [deleted] 
experience was expressly recognized and credited.  Clearly, it was the 
agency's favorable consideration of [deleted] experience which formed 
the basis for awarding MiTech's proposal 15 of a possible 20 points 
under this subfactor.  Further, the agency explains that, in its view, 
MiTech's own limited experience would negatively affect MiTech's 
ability to manage its subcontractors, thereby negatively affecting 
contract performance.  We find no basis to question that assessment.  

For the second technical subfactor, qualifications of key personnel, 
the agency again awarded MiTech's proposal 15 out of a possible 20 
points.  In evaluating this aspect of the proposal, the technical 
evaluation panel identified the following weaknesses:

     "[deleted]."

MiTech's challenge to the agency's evaluation under this subfactor 
essentially expresses disagreement with the agency's judgment 
regarding the qualifications of its key personnel, specifically, the 
[deleted].

In responding to this issue, the agency explains that the [deleted] 
appeared to be at a senior management level rather than "at a more 
involved 'hands-on' level."  Despite the agency's specific written 
request during discussions that MiTech "elaborate on [deleted]," 
MiTech provided virtually no additional information regarding the 
[deleted].

The agency also explains that MiTech's proposal was downgraded under 
the [deleted].  During oral discussions, MiTech stated, 
"[u]nfortunately, we don't have any [deleted]."  Accordingly, the 
agency evaluation in this regard is supported by the record, and in 
its comments responding to the agency report, MiTech does not dispute 
the agency's conclusion regarding its [deleted].

Under the third technical subfactor, technical approach and 
management, the agency awarded MiTech's proposal a score of 16 out of 
a possible 20 points, identifying the following weaknesses:  
[deleted].

In responding to this protest, the agency referenced the specific 
portion of the RFP requiring that personnel with these skills be 
proposed and explained that MiTech's proposal failed to reflect the 
required expertise.  MiTech's comments responding to the agency report 
did not address this matter; hence, we have no basis to question the 
agency's reasonably supported assessment.  

The agency awarded MiTech's proposal a score of 16 out of a possible 
20 points for the fourth technical subfactor, understanding the 
government's requirements.  The agency concluded that MiTech's 
proposed transition plan demonstrated a failure to clearly comprehend 
the agency's requirements in that certain activities which MiTech 
listed in "step 2" of its transition plan should have preceded 
activities listed in "step 1."  For example, in "step 2" of its plan, 
MiTech listed the activity "establishing FHWA 
coordination/communication points."  The agency explains that this 
activity should have been one of the very first, preceding various 
"step 1" activities, and that failure to recognize this reflected a 
lack of understanding of the agency's requirements.

In responding to the agency report MiTech does not dispute the basis 
for the agency's criticism of its transition plan, but argues that its 
inversion of various required activities should have resulted in a 
smaller reduction in its score for this subfactor.  

The evaluation and scoring of proposals is a matter primarily within 
the discretion of the contracting activity since it is responsible for 
defining its needs and for determining the best methods of 
accommodating those needs, and technical evaluators have considerable 
latitude in assigning ratings which reflect their subjective judgments 
of a proposal's relative merits.  Bunker Ramo Corp., 56 Comp. Gen. 712 
(1977), 77-1 CPD  para.  427;  Met-Pro Corp., B-250706.2, Mar. 24, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  263; Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  
223.   In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not 
rescore proposals but rather will review the agency's evaluation to 
ensure that it was reasonable and in accordance with the RFP criteria.  
Abt Assocs., Inc., supra.  A protester's mere disagreement with the 
particular point scores awarded to its proposal does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.  DBA Sys., Inc., B-241048, Jan. 15, 1991, 
91-1 CPD  para.  36.  

We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's determination that 
MiTech's failure to fully understand the government's requirements, 
demonstrated by its inversion of various required transition 
activities, was properly reflected in a score 4 points lower than the 
maximum 20 points possible.  We see nothing inconsistent between the 
magnitude of the reduction and  the agency's determination that MiTech 
did not fully comprehend the relative priorities of the activities to 
be performed, and the protester does not provide any factual basis for 
a conclusion that it should have received a higher score in this area.        

Overall, the record here, which includes MiTech's proposal, the 
evaluation documentation, MiTech's protest, the agency's report, and 
Mitech's comments on the report, demonstrates that the agency 
evaluation of MiTech's proposal was reasonable.  MiTech's objection to 
the agency's evaluation constitutes no more than its disagreement with 
the evaluation results, which does not demonstrate that the agency's 
technical evaluation was unreasonable.  See DBA Sys., Inc., supra; 
Atmospheric Research Sys., Inc., B-240187, Oct. 26, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
338.

Next, MiTech protests the agency's evaluation of proposals under the 
past performance evaluation factor.  MiTech complains that its 
proposal should have been rated higher than "excellent,"[2] arguing 
that the agency didn't obtain past performance information from all of 
the references MiTech submitted with its proposal.  However, MiTech 
does not identify any particular reference that provided inaccurate 
information regarding its past performance.[3]  

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no basis to question 
the agency's evaluation of past performance.  Specifically, the RFP 
advised offerors that, "[t]he Government may use random sampling from 
the [past performance] references provided and also use any other 
information obtained by the Government through its own research."  
Thus, under the terms of the solicitation, the agency was not bound to 
contact all references submitted by an offeror with its proposal.  
Moreover, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.608(a)(2)(ii) 
provides that "[t]he source and type of past performance information 
to be included in the evaluation is within the broad discretion of 
agency acquisition officials and should be tailored to the 
circumstances of each acquisition."  

Here, the record shows that the agency contacted certain references 
regarding MiTech's and [deleted] past performance, obtaining uniformly 
positive responses.  In addition, the agency considered information 
from a Dun and Bradstreet report which concluded that MiTech's past 
performance "meets or exceeds expectations.  Overall, Mitech's 
proposal was rated "excellent" under the past performance evaluation 
factor.  On this record, we find without merit MiTech's assertion that 
the agency's evaluation was improper.  We also note that even if 
MiTech's proposal had received the highest possible past performance 
rating ("exceptional"), the record indicates that the source selection 
decision would not have changed. 

Finally, MiTech objects to the reasonableness of the SSO's 
cost/technical tradeoff decision, asserting that "the large price 
difference [between the two proposals]" was not reasonably offset by 
the "relatively small difference under [t]echnical merit."  

In choosing between a higher-cost, higher-rated proposal and a 
lower-cost, lower-rated proposal, agency officials have broad 
discretion, and our review is limited to a determination of whether 
the cost/technical tradeoff is reasonable and consistent with the 
solicitation's evaluation criteria.  Grey Advertising, Inc., 
55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325; SDA Inc., B-248528.2, Apr. 
14, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  320.

Here, we first note the inaccuracy of MiTech's factual 
characterizations of "the large price difference [between the two 
proposals]" and "the relatively small difference under [t]echnical 
merit."  As discussed above,  Signal's technical score was 
approximately 20 percent higher than MiTech's, while its price was 
only about 
[deleted] percent higher.  Further, MiTech's and Signal's proposals 
were considered essentially equal with respect to past performance 
and, as noted above, the RFP specifically advised offerors that where 
proposals were evaluated as being "essentially equivalent in any of 
the three [evaluation] areas, the remaining areas will become more 
important in the selection decision."  Accordingly, consistent with 
the RFP direction, the SSO reasonably compared MiTech's and Signal's 
prices and technical ratings in performing his cost/technical 
tradeoff.  In selecting Signal's proposal for award, the SSO provided 
ample, documented support for his decision, stating:

     "1.  Signal's proposal was rated 72.8 points (out of a maximum of 
     80) or 91.0 % while MiTech's score was 60.2 points or 75.3%, a 
     differential of 20.9 percent."

     "2.  The superior technical ability of Signal Corporation, as 
     reflected in the technical rating scores and detailed in the 
     attached comparative analysis of strengths and weaknesses, 
     suggests a much higher chance of success in accomplishing the 
     objective of the solicitation.

     "3.  The difference in cost in the best and final offer of Signal 
     Corporation and MiTech, Inc. is $[deleted] or approximately 
     [deleted] percent.  The cost differential does not outweigh the 
     technical advantage.  The lower rates of MiTech proposed reflect 
     less experienced personnel.     

     "4.  Signal has the highest overall average hourly rate.  This is 
     supported and justified by the magnitude of their technical score 
     compared to all other offerors.

     "5.  Signal has the lowest indirect rates of all offerors, which 
     also includes indirect ceiling rates as the proposed rates.

     "6.  Signal proposed a fee structure that provides the greatest 
     incentive for them to perform.

     "7.  Signal's price-per-technical-point is $442,656 while 
     MiTech's is $[deleted], a differential of $[deleted] per 
     technical point or [deleted].

     "8.  Signal proposed the most realistic transition plan."

As these assessments are consistent with and supported by the record, 
we see no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's 
determination that Signal's substantially higher technical rating more 
than offset MiTech's somewhat lower price.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
  
1. In the technical evaluation report, the scores of each offeror were 
rounded to the nearest whole point.  Due to this rounding, the sum of 
the scores for each subfactor is slightly different from the total 
technical score reported by the technical evaluation panel, listed 
above.

2. In evaluating past performance, the agency used an adjectival 
rating scheme under which proposals were rated as "marginal," 
"acceptable," "good," "excellent," or "exceptional."

3. MiTech also asserts generally that Signal's past performance rating 
should have been lower, but has not identified any specific 
information regarding Signal's past performance on which this 
allegation is based.  To the extent MiTech's protest reflects 
unsupported speculation regarding the agency's evaluation of Signal's 
proposal, we do not view the allegation as forming a valid basis for 
protest.