BNUMBER:  B-275209.3 
DATE:  July 22, 1997
TITLE: JW Associates Inc., B-275209.3, July 22, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:JW Associates Inc.

File:     B-275209.3

Date:July 22, 1997

Brad Piehl for the protester.
Gary C. Rynearson for Natural Resources Management Corporation, an 
intervenor.
Allen W. Smith, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the 
agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Contracting agency's reevaluation of technical proposals--pursuant 
to General Accounting Office recommendation in prior decision to do 
so--is reasonable where the record shows that the evaluation was 
consistent with the evaluation criteria established in the 
solicitation;  protester's mere disagreement with the agency's 
conclusions does not render the reevaluation unreasonable.

2.  Where contracting agency reevaluates proposals pursuant to a 
General Accounting Office recommendation after contract has been 
awarded, contracting officials may properly consider awardee's 
performance on contract in period between award and reevaluation where 
request for proposals incorporated prior experience and contract 
performance into evaluation factors.

DECISION

JW Associates Inc. protests the award decision of the Forest Service 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. RM-96-37 following the Forest 
Service's reevaluation of proposals under that solicitation.  JW had 
earlier protested the Forest Service's award of a contract to Natural 
Resources Management Corporation (NRMC) under this RFP.  In JW Assocs. 
Inc., B-275209, Jan. 30, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  57, we sustained JW's 
protest because we concluded that the Forest Service's technical 
evaluation and award decision were not adequately supported, and we 
recommended that the Forest Service reevaluate the proposals, 
conducting discussions and requesting best and final offers, if 
necessary.  The Forest Service reevaluated and affirmed its original 
determination that NRMC's offer represented the best value to the 
government.  JW now challenges various aspects of the Forest Service's 
reevaluation and the subsequent award decision.  We deny the protest.

The RFP sought offers for services to complete an environmental impact 
statement for the Cold Springs Analysis Area on the Medicine Bow 
National Forest in Wyoming.  The RFP provided detailed instructions in 
section L establishing the format for proposals and describing the 
type of information that should be provided under each criterion, and 
advised offerors to include their most favorable terms in their 
initial proposals because of the possibility that award could be made 
without further negotiations.  The RFP at M3 listed the following five 
evaluation criteria in descending order of importance:  qualifications 
of the firm; qualifications of the personnel assigned to the project; 
past experience of the firm and its employees assigned to the project; 
geographic location; and price.  The RFP characterized the first three 
criteria as "very important" and the remaining two as "important," and 
stated that award would be made to "that offeror (1) whose proposal is 
technically acceptable and (2) whose technical/cost relationship is 
the most advantageous to the Government."  

Nine firms, including JW and NRMC, submitted proposals.  A 
three-member evaluation board reviewed and scored the proposals.  The 
board prepared a "Memorandum for Record" that consisted of a 
one-paragraph narrative summary of each proposal's evaluation.  The 
contracting officer concluded that NRMC's proposal was most 
advantageous to the government, and awarded the contract to that firm.  
After receiving a written debriefing, JW filed a protest in our 
Office, alleging that the Forest Service's evaluation of proposals was 
inconsistent with the terms established in the RFP, and that the 
awardee's proposal did not conform with the RFP's requirements.  
Although the agency initially stayed the performance of the contract 
pending resolution of the protest, as required under 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3553 
(1994), the head of the contracting activity later approved a request 
by the forest supervisor to override the stay and proceed with 
performance.  

We sustained JW's protest, based on our conclusion that the Forest 
Service had failed to support its technical evaluation in any 
meaningful way.  We also pointed out that the record suggests that the 
source selection decision was based primarily on price, in spite of 
the fact that this factor was the least important one under the 
evaluation scheme established by the RFP.

In response to our recommendations, the Forest Service reconvened its 
three-member evaluation board and reevaluated the proposals.  Each 
board member independently evaluated each technical proposal, using a 
form on which narrative comments and numerical scores were recorded.  
Using a 100-point scale, the evaluators could assign a maximum of 26 
points for each of the first three evaluation factors and a maximum of 
11 points for each of the remaining two factors.  After the individual 
evaluations were completed, the board members discussed the 
evaluations, calculated the average point values assigned to each 
evaluation factor and the average point scores overall, and ranked the 
proposals according to their relative standing.  The contracting 
officer reviewed the price proposals for compliance with the RFP's 
terms and ranked them by price.  

Under the reevaluation of technical and business (price) proposals, 
NRMC's proposal received the highest overall score, while JW's 
proposal was given the fourth highest score.  Although JW's technical 
proposal was scored nearly as high as NRMC's proposal, NRMC's price 
was significantly lower than JW's price.  The contracting officer 
again concluded that NRMC's proposal was the most advantageous to the 
government, and determined that the firm's contract should not be 
disturbed.  After the contracting officer informed the remaining 
offerors of this decision, JW requested and received a written 
debriefing.  This protest followed.

JW protests that NRMC's proposal was not technically acceptable, 
alleging that NRMC's proposal did not conform with the proposal format 
and content requirements established in section L.9 of the RFP; and 
that the agency's technical evaluation was unreasonable because NRMC's 
technical proposal could not reasonably receive a higher score than 
JW's own proposal.[1]  

JW initially alleges that NRMC failed to include sufficient detail to 
explain its technical approach for many of the tasks required for 
completion of the environmental impact statement.  Instructions in 
section L of the RFP state that a "detailed work plan must be 
submitted indicating how each aspect of the statement of work is to be 
accomplished.  The technical approach should be in as much detail as 
the offeror considers necessary to fully explain the proposed 
technical approach or method."  JW contends that NRMC's proposal does 
not meet this standard because "it does not identify its technical 
approach for most technical areas."

Here, the standard established in the RFP included a certain 
subjective latitude, instructing offerors in essence to use their 
business judgment to determine how much information was necessary to 
describe and explain the approach they planned to use.  We note, in 
this regard, that information requirements provided in section L of an 
RFP are not the same as evaluation criteria established in section M; 
rather than establishing minimum acceptability standards, the 
instructions generally provide guidance intended to assist offerors in 
preparing effective proposals.  In section M, the RFP stated that 
"[p]roposals shall be prepared in accordance with the preparation 
instructions listed in Section L and above and will be evaluated and 
ranked on the basis of the following criteria . . . ."  Although 
section L required certain information to be included in the RFP, the 
evaluation criteria listed in section M do not directly correspond 
with those requirements.  For example, although offerors were 
instructed to provide a detailed work plan, there was no "work plan" 
or "technical approach" evaluation criterion.  Section L, reasonably 
read with section M, required offerors to provide sufficiently 
detailed information to permit the agency to determine how each 
offeror's proposal satisfied each technical criterion.  For example, 
under the "qualifications of the firm" criterion, offerors were to 
provide information related to the firm's specialized experience and 
competence related to this project and to address the firm's ability 
to accomplish the work within the period set forth in the 
specifications.  Under the RFP, it was left to the offeror to 
determine the information necessary to persuade the agency that it met 
this criterion.

Although NRMC may not have included the same level of detail in 
certain technical areas that JW included in its proposal, this does 
not lead to the conclusion that NRMC's proposal was technically 
unacceptable.  The evaluation narratives in the record show that the 
evaluators considered the information in NRMC's proposal adequate to 
demonstrate the firm's understanding of the requirement.  For example, 
although JW alleges that NRMC's proposal failed to satisfy section L's 
requirement for a list of names and proposed duties of the 
professional personnel, consultants, and key subcontractor employees 
assigned to the project and the proposed staff hours for each of these 
individuals, allocated against each task or subtask, our review of the 
awardee's proposal shows that this information was, in fact, provided.  
JW also protests that the evaluation was improper, alleging that 
NRMC's proposal could not reasonably have received a higher technical 
score than JW's.  JW compares aspects of the two proposals and uses 
particular examples to support its assertion of JW's superior 
proposal, such as the education or experience of its proposed 
personnel, the firm's past experience and the firm's geographic 
location.  

The determination of the relative merits of proposals is primarily a 
matter of agency discretion, which we will not disturb unless it is 
shown to be without a reasonable basis or inconsistent with the 
evaluation criteria listed in the RFP.  Pemco Aeroplex Inc., 
B-239672.5, Apr. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  367 at 4.  Based on our review 
of the two firms' proposals, we think it is apparent that the 
proposals represent differing approaches to the work; based on our 
review of the evaluation record, it is apparent that agency reasonably 
concluded that NRMC's approach would satisfy its needs.  While JW 
argues that the level of effort that NRMC proposed for certain tasks 
was insufficient, and while NRMC has proposed to complete certain 
tasks in fewer hours than JW proposed, these arguments alone do not 
invalidate the evaluators' opinion concerning the NRMC proposal or 
establish that NRMC's proposal was technically unacceptable.  
Similarly, the fact that NRMC's approach may have been less rigorous 
and less expensive than JW's does not necessarily mean, as JW 
suggests, that it was unacceptable or even inferior; in the agency's 
judgment, it considered JW's proposed approach excessive in certain 
respects.  For example, the evaluation board believed that JW may have 
overestimated the number of management and staff hours needed to 
complete certain tasks.  Such an assessment was consistent with the 
RFP, which, in describing the basis for award, expressly stated that 
award would "not necessarily be made for technical capabilities that 
would appear to exceed those needed for fulfilling the requirements of 
this contract."   

The evaluation record shows that for the criterion of "Qualifications 
of the firm," the evaluators gave JW a slightly lower score than NRMC.  
However, the narrative portions of the score sheets do not indicate 
that the reevaluation was arbitrary or capricious, as the protester 
suggests, but rather, that the evaluators considered the information 
contained in the two proposals and, based on that information, valued 
NRMC's qualifications more highly.  For example, one evaluator noted 
the firm's size and long record of expertise in related (although not 
identical) projects, and valued the firm's experience and skills in 
areas such as silviculture, timber sale, and roads/transportation 
design.  Regarding the qualifications of personnel assigned to the 
project, the evaluators noted such factors as the level of documented 
education, certification, and experience when scoring NRMC's proposal.  

While JW has provided, in some instances, a person-by-person 
comparison to illustrate its general assertion that its own proposal 
should have received a higher score in this area, its arguments do not 
persuade us that the agency's evaluation conclusions were unreasonable 
or inconsistent with the terms of the RFP.  For example, in comparing 
persons proposed to work on silviculture-related tasks, JW argues that 
JW's employee "may not have the number of years of experience that 
[NRMC's employee] does; however, she does have a more advanced degree 
and recent experience that is nearly identical to that required for 
this project."  Here, and in many other similar examples that JW 
raises, we think JW's objection to the evaluation represents mere 
disagreement with the evaluators' opinions regarding the relative 
merits of the two proposals.  In another example, JW asserts that NRMC 
should have received a lower score for its proposed personnel because 
no technical writer is proposed.  Acknowledging that the RFP did not 
require the use of a technical writer, JW nonetheless asserts that 
"[t]his task is best completed by a technical writer," and concludes 
that its own proposal therefore should have been more highly scored 
than NRMC's in this area.  Similarly, JW refers repeatedly to its own 
experience completing an environmental impact statement; however, 
while the RFP required offerors to demonstrate their qualifications to 
perform this work, the RFP did not require this specific experience.  
Thus, the evaluators could reasonably conclude that NRMC's extensive 
experience in more than a dozen relevant disciplines demonstrated 
appropriate qualifications, while also concluding that JW, which had 
the specific experience of performing environmental impact studies, 
was weak because of a lack of extensive forest health and silviculture 
experience.  In short, we find adequate support in the record for the 
evaluation conclusions.

JW also challenges the evaluation based on its allegation that the 
evaluators were biased toward NRMC as a result of NRMC's performance 
of the contract during the pendency of the protest.  Because 
government officials are presumed to act in good faith, we do not 
attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to them on the basis of
inference or supposition.  Ameriko Maintenance Co., B-253274, 
B-253274.2, Aug. 25, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  121 at 5.  Thus, where a 
protester alleges bias on the part of government officials, the 
protester must provide credible evidence clearly demonstrating a bias 
against the protester or for the awardee and that the agency's bias 
translated into action that unfairly affected the protester's 
competitive position.  Advanced Sciences, Inc., B-259569.3, July 3, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  52 at 17.  

Here, where the agency was reevaluating proposals pursuant to a GAO 
recommendation and the RFP evaluation scheme sets forth prior 
experience and contract performance as evaluation factors, it was not 
improper for the agency to take into account performance by the 
awardee under a major, ongoing contract.  Consideration of the 
awardee's performance thus did not demonstrate bias, nor do we find 
other evidence in the record to support an allegation of bias.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States                                                                                               

1. JW initially also protested that the relative weight given to each 
of the evaluation criteria was inconsistent with the evaluation scheme 
that was announced in the RFP; however, in its comments on the agency 
report, this basis of protest was withdrawn.