BNUMBER:  B-275395.2 
DATE:  April 2, 1997
TITLE: Trend Western Technical Corporation, B-275395.2, April 2,
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:Trend Western Technical Corporation

File:     B-275395.2

Date:April 2, 1997

Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Andrew D. Fallon, Esq., Department of 
the Air Force, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency selection of a higher-priced, higher technically rated offer 
instead of the low-priced, lower-rated offer was reasonable and 
consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria which provided 
that all factors, when combined, were significantly more important 
than price, where the protester's proposed staffing levels were 
reasonably found to be low and insufficient. 

DECISION

Trend Western Technical Corporation protests the award of a contract 
to TECOM, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F05604-96-R-9006, 
issued by the Department of the Air Force, for base supply and vehicle 
operation and maintenance in support of Peterson Air Force Base, 
Colorado Springs, Colorado.  Trend Western objects to the evaluation 
of its proposal and the agency's best-value award determination.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued April 23, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
fixed-price contract on a best value basis to the offeror whose 
proposal best satisfied the specified requirements in light of the 
RFP's evaluation criteria.  To this effect, the RFP stated:

     "Three evaluation areas will be considered:  technical, 
     management and price.  Technical and Management Areas are 
     considered equal in importance and are significantly more 
     important than cost or price.  All evaluation factors other than 
     cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important 
     than cost or price.  Even though cost is less important, it will 
     by necessity bear considerable effect on the source selection 
     decision."

Under the Technical area, the listed evaluation factors were Computer 
Support and Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, Supply Fuels Management, 
and Vehicle Operations; the first two technical factors were said to 
be equal in importance, while the other technical factors were equally 
important but less important than the first two factors.  Under the 
Management area, the factors, listed in descending order of 
importance, were Functional Management, Personnel, and Quality Control 
Program.  Regarding the personnel factor, the RFP advised offerors 
that "[t]he [g]overnment would assess the offeror's soundness of 
approach and understanding of the requirement to satisfying the 
staffing and key personnel qualification requirements necessary for 
performance" of the contract.  The RFP also provided that offerors' 
proposals would be evaluated for proposal risk and performance risk 
under the technical and management evaluation areas and factors.[1]  
Cost/Price was to be evaluated for completeness, realism, and 
reasonableness.  

The Air Force received six proposals by the June 10 closing date for 
receipt of proposals.  Three proposals, including TECOM's and Trend 
Western's, were included in the competitive range.  Discussions were 
conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received on September 
6.  Trend Western submitted the lowest- priced BAFO of $28,505,240, 
which the agency rated green/acceptable with low proposal risk for all 
of the technical and management factors except Personnel, which 
received a yellow/marginal rating with a moderate proposal risk 
because the proposed staffing was found to be "low" in all areas with 
"insufficient manning to perform some supply functions."  Trend 
Western's performance risk for both the technical and management areas 
was rated low.   TECOM submitted the second low-priced BAFO of 
$31,565,631, which was rated green/acceptable with low proposal risk 
for all of the technical and management factors, and with low 
performance risk for the technical and management areas.  The third 
proposal received identical ratings to those received by TECOM, but 
was higher priced.

In making the best value award determination, the agency found no 
significant strengths/weaknesses distinguishing the three proposals 
under the technical and management factors, except under the personnel 
factor.  The agency rated Trend Western's BAFO yellow/marginal with a 
moderate proposal risk under the personnel factor because, even after 
the agency raised its concern about Trend Western's low staffing 
during discussions, Trend Western's BAFO reflected "low staffing in 
all areas and insufficient manning to adequately perform the supply 
function."  Specifically, the agency noted:

     "Trend Western proposed [DELETED] personnel below the government 
     estimate in computer support and operations (based on workload 
     provided).  They did not demonstrate clear evidence of their 
     ability to perform the required tasks with the manning proposed.  
     [DELETED]  No advanced technology or methods were proposed to 
     alleviate [g]overnment concerns.  Worldwide support . . . could 
     be seriously jeopardized, leading to mission degradation and 
     possible work stoppages.  The recent change in shopper 
     authorization procedures will mean the average number of 
     customers will actually increase, generating even more issues.  
     The proposed manning by Trend Western failed to meet the 
     personnel standard of providing staffing adequate to meet 
     necessary performance throughout the contract period."

Since successful timely performance of the contract was considered 
more important than price, the agency found that the price advantage 
associated with Trend Western's proposal was offset by the concern for 
"potential non-performance of required services, increases in required 
government surveillance, and risk associated with low manning in a 
critical function."  In contrast, the agency found that there was 
little doubt that TECOM (or the highest-priced offeror) could 
successfully perform the contract, as indicated by its higher 
technical ratings.  Consequently, TECOM's proposal was determined to 
be the best overall value.  Award was made to TECOM on December 11 and 
this protest followed.[2]

Trend Western first argues that the agency unreasonably determined its 
level of staffing to be inadequate because the government's manning 
estimate was faulty and because the agency did not reasonably consider 
Trend Western's innovative staffing approach to meeting the RFP 
requirements, [DELETED].  

In reviewing an agency's evaluation conclusion, we examine the record 
to determine whether the judgment was reasonable and in accord with 
the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation.  A  protester's 
mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation determination does not 
demonstrate that the evaluation was unreasonable.  Research Analysis 
and Maintenance, Inc., B-272261; B-272261.2, Sept. 18, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  
131 at 6.  

As indicated above, the Air Force downgraded Trend Western's proposal 
under the personnel factor because its proposed manning level was 
considered low, as compared with the government's estimates, 
particularly for certain critical supply functions where Trend 
Western's manning level was considered insufficient.  The Air Force 
reports that the manning estimate, developed as a means of measuring 
the sufficiency of the offerors' manning levels, was based upon the 
current contract manning levels, the work load estimates reflected in 
the RFP, and the agency's professional judgment.  While the protester 
generally disputes the agency's conclusions as to the proper manning 
levels, an agency may properly use a manning estimate as an aid in the 
evaluation of proposals, where, as here, the manning estimate is 
reasonably based on tasks in the solicitation and reflects the 
agency's business judgment, considering its own experience and current 
requirements, concerning the minimum number of personnel necessary to 
perform the work.  Aerostat Servs. Partnership, B-244939.2, Jan. 15, 
1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  71 at 4.  

The record reflects that the Air Force considered Trend Western's 
staffing approach, including [DELETED] but was not persuaded that the 
agency's mission requirements could be met with Trend Western's low 
staffing levels.  For example, the agency found that the [DELETED].  
Also, the agency found that given the number of requisitions processed 
by the agency per month, monitoring, performing follow-ups, and taking 
aggressive actions on overdue requisitions would require more than the 
few personnel proposed for this function by Trend Western, 
particularly since it was projected that the number of requisitions 
would increase in the future.  Moreover, the agency found that 
[DELETED] did not seem to be a satisfactory solution because Trend 
Western proposed significantly less personnel.

Trend Western argues that the agency's concerns are not valid and 
reflect that the agency did not understand Trend Western's staffing 
approach, and that the contract requirements could be successfully met 
with the quality and level of manning proposed by Trend Western.  As 
noted by the agency, Trend Western's now advanced explanations of the 
advantages of its staffing approach were not so clearly elucidated in 
its proposal.  Moreover, the agency still finds these explanations 
unpersuasive, given Trend Western's low staffing, particularly in some 
critical areas.  In any case, Trend Western's arguments in this regard 
merely represent the protester's disagreement with the agency's 
conclusions and thus do not show that the agency's evaluation of Trend 
Western's manning approach was unreasonable.  See Proteus Corp.; 
United Int'l Eng'g, Inc., B-270094; B-270094.2, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
165 at 4.

Trend Western also argues that the Air Force's best value 
determination to select TECOM's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal 
over Trend Western's lower-priced, slightly lower-rated proposal gave 
undue weight to the personnel factor, did not give the "considerable 
effect" to price contemplated by the RFP evaluation scheme, and did 
not adequately account for Trend Western's low performance risk.  

Where, as here, the RFP provides that the award is to be based upon 
the best value to the government with technical considerations 
considered more important than price, agency selection officials have 
broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they 
will make use of the technical and price evaluation results in making 
price/technical tradeoffs, subject only to the tests of rationality 
and consistency with the established evaluation factors.  Criterion 
Corp., B-266050, Jan. 23, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  217 at 4; Engineering and 
Professional Servs., Inc., B-262179, Dec. 6, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  266 at 
4.  

As indicated above, the record demonstrates that the Air Force 
reasonably found and documented that the cost advantage associated 
with Trend Western's proposal did not outweigh the noted disadvantages 
and risks associated with its low or insufficient manning levels, as 
compared to TECOM's proposal's satisfactory manning levels.  

Trend Western argues that the agency deviated from the RFP evaluation 
scheme by giving too much weight to the personnel factor.  The 
protester notes in this regard that the only technical/management 
discriminator among the proposals noted in the best value award 
determination was under the personnel factor, and the RFP evaluation 
scheme only stated that the combined weight of the technical and 
management factors was "significantly more important" than price.  We 
disagree.

In a best value procurement, particluarly where technical factors are 
more important than price, an agency may ultimately focus on a 
particular discriminator in deciding not to select the low-priced 
offeror.  Teledyne Brown Eng'g, B-258078; B-258078.2, Dec. 6, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  223 at 12-13.  Here, the agency found that Trend Western's 
low staffing rendered its proposal significantly inferior to the other 
competitive range proposals, which reflected adequate staffing, so as 
to offset Trend Western's $3 million price advantage.  Specifically, 
the record shows that the Air Force reasonably found that Trend 
Western's low price did not outweigh the risks of possible degradation 
in service associated with an undermanned proposal, particularly given 
that a delay in the delivery of parts could disrupt critical agency 
missions, increase costs, and jeopardize national security.  

Trend Western argues that its low performance risk rating was not 
considered in the best value award determination because its track 
record demonstrates that it could successfully perform the contract 
with fewer but higher quality staff.  This argument evidences some 
confusion between performance risk and proposal risk.  While Trend 
Western was credited for its quality past performance in the best 
value award determination, the agency's concern with Trend Western's 
proposal involved the staffing levels in its proposal in response to 
this RFP, that is, its proposal risk.  In other words, notwithstanding 
Trend Western's highly rated past performance, its proposal here was 
reasonably found to represent a moderate proposal risk because of the 
agency's reasonably based concerns that Trend Western may not be able 
to successfully accomplish the contract requirements with its proposed 
staffing.

In sum, the agency reasonably found in accord with the RFP evaluation 
scheme that TECOM's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal was worth the 
$3 million price premium, given the disadvantages and risks presented 
by the low-priced proposal.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States  

1. Proposal risk was to "assess the offeror's proposal risks inherent 
in a proposed approach [and] the economic impacts on cost and schedule 
associated with the approach."  Performance risk was to assess the 
quality of "relevant performance on contracts of a similar nature."  

2. The agency initially awarded the contract to TECOM on October 16, 
but this award was protested by Trend Western and later withdrawn 
after the agency undertook a new source selection because of an error.  
Trend Western filed this second protest after the agency again awarded 
the contract to TECOM.