BNUMBER:  B-275185
DATE:  January 29, 1997
TITLE:  JoaQuin Manufacturing Corporation

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

Matter of:JoaQuin Manufacturing Corporation

File:     B-275185

Date:January 29, 1997

D. Bargas for the protester.
Albert J. Joyce, Esq., Panama Canal Commission, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that agency improperly used unstated evaluation factors 
(weight, number of footings, and visibility) in evaluating protester's 
proposal for construction of a signal station cab is denied where 
these factors were encompassed by the factors stated in that 
solicitation.

2.  Where no protective order was issued during a protest because 
protester was not represented by counsel, protester was not entitled 
to receive and review protected information. 

DECISION

JoaQuin Manufacturing Corporation protests the award of a contract for 
a prefabricated signal station cab to Raiser Construction Company, 
Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. CNC-80151-HB-29, issued by 
the Panama Canal Commission.

We deny the protest.

Proposals were evaluated against two technical factors and price, with 
award to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal most 
advantageous to the government.  Technical factors were significantly 
more important than price in the award decision.  After receiving and 
evaluating proposals, holding discussions, and receiving and 
evaluating best and final offers, the agency awarded a contract to 
Raiser.

JoaQuin protests that the Commission improperly added new requirements 
to the specifications--such as weight restrictions, footing 
quantities, and changes to the windows[1]--after initial offers had 
been submitted.  However, the record shows that the agency did not 
issue an amendment adding any such requirements.  We thus interpret 
JoaQuin's protest as asserting that, in performing its technical 
evaluation of JoaQuin's proposal, the agency improperly considered 
factors not specified in the RFP.

Solicitations must inform offerors of the basis for proposal 
evaluation, and the evaluation must be based on the factors set forth 
in the solicitation.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.605(d) and 
15.608 (FAC 90-31).  While agencies thus must identify all major 
evaluation factors, they are not required to identify all areas of 
each factor which might be taken into account, provided that the 
unidentified areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the 
stated criteria.  Bioqual, Inc.,  B-259732.2; B-279732.3, May 15, 
1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  243.

Here, one of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP was 
suitability of design, which the RFP described as encompassing layout, 
size, materials, construction, coating, and finishes.  Weight of the 
cabin, support structure and visibility difficulties are design 
features which reasonably fall within several of these elements, 
including construction, the element under which the record shows the 
agency considered these areas of JoaQuin's proposal.  Accordingly, we 
find nothing improper in the agency's evaluation of JoaQuin's 
proposal.

In the comments JoaQuin submitted in response to the agency's 
administrative report, JoaQuin complains that the agency did not 
provide it with certain documents that it requested during the 
protest.  The agency did not provide these documents to JoaQuin 
because the agency considered them proprietary or source selection 
sensitive, and no JoaQuin representative was admitted under a 
protective order.

Where a protest record will contain protected (proprietary or source 
selection sensitive) information, our Office will issue a protective 
order; only individuals admitted to the order may have access to the 
protected information.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.4(a),(c), 61 
Fed. Reg. 39,039, 39,044 (1996) (to be codified at         4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.4(a),(c)), and only attorneys or consultants retained by attorneys 
may be admitted under the protective order.  Section 21.4(c), 61 Fed. 
Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.4(c)).  Our Office did not 
issue a protective order in this case because the protester was not 
represented by an attorney.  The protester therefore was not entitled 
to receive or review the protected information.  Section  sec.  21.4(b), 61 
Fed. Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.4(b)).  In any case, 
the protest concerns only whether the agency used evaluation factors 
other than those provided in the solicitation to evaluate JoaQuin's 
technical proposal.  The technical factors were stated in the 
solicitation, and the protester was informed during a debriefing of 
the reasons its proposal was downgraded.  The protest thus did not 
depend upon protected information, and the absence of protected 
information did not diminish JoaQuin's ability to fully argue the 
matter.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Specifically, the Commission considered the number of footings 
JoaQuin planned to use to support the structure, the weight of this 
structure, and how JoaQuin's proposal to place mullion posts every 4 
feet along the glass window section of the cab would affect 
visibility.