BNUMBER:  B-275551; B-275551.2; B-275551.3
DATE:  March 13, 1997
TITLE:  Tomco Systems, Inc.

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

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:Tomco Systems, Inc.

File:     B-275551; B-275551.2; B-275551.3

Date:March 13, 1997

Paralee White, Esq., Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., and Gordon Brent Connor, 
Esq., 
Cohen & White, for the protester.
Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Matthew A. Anzaldi, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, 
Potts & Trowbridge, an intervenor.
Marleen J. Phillips, Esq., Department of the Navy, Fleet and 
Industrial Supply Center, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation announced that the Department of the Navy intended 
to evaluate proposals and make award on the basis of initial proposals 
without conducting discussions, and agency's evaluation of the 
protester's proposal as "marginal" (defined in the solicitation as 
"less than acceptable") was reasonable and in accordance with the 
solicitation's evaluation criteria, agency's award to technically 
acceptable offeror at slightly higher price was reasonable.

DECISION

Tomco Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Troy Systems, 
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-95-R-3384, issued by 
the Department of the Navy for information processing support services 
for the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Washington, 
D.C.  Tomco contends that the agency improperly evaluated its 
proposal.

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and 
award a contract without discussions with offerors; offerors were 
advised that their initial proposals should therefore contain the 
offerors' best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.  
Section M of the RFP provided the following technical evaluation 
factors for award listed in descending order of importance:  technical 
approach; key personnel; management plan; and corporate experience.  
Key personnel was to be evaluated on the extent to which personnel 
resumes submitted by the offeror "clearly as a minimum meet, or 
exceed" the education and experience required by the labor 
qualifications listed in sections C and L of the RFP.  Section C, 
among other things, provided that the stated qualification 
requirements were minimum requirements, and that the senior technical 
specialist was required to have a minimum of 9 years of "recent 
experience in the use of advanced information technology to develop 
and/or integrate complex [automated information systems]."  The RFP 
provided that:

     "[t]he term 'recent experience' means that the most recent 
     portion of the qualifying experience must have been acquired no 
     less recently than two (2) years prior to the date the 
     individual's resume is submitted to the government for review.  
     For proposal evaluation the two (2) years recent experience is 
     from closing date of solicitation."

Section L of the RFP further advised offerors of the agency's intent 
to make an award on the basis of initial proposals and that personnel 
resumes must demonstrate that the proposed personnel meet or exceed 
stated personnel qualifications.

Section M of the RFP provided that the agency's evaluators would rate 
technical proposals under each evaluation factor and "as a whole" 
using the following adjectival ratings:  outstanding; better; 
acceptable; marginal; and unacceptable.  Offerors were advised that a 
finding of unacceptable in one technical factor could result in the 
entire technical proposal being found to be unacceptable.  The rating 
of "marginal" was defined in the RFP as:

     "[l]ess than acceptable.  There are some deficiencies in the 
     [t]echnical proposal.  However, given the opportunity for 
     discussions, the technical proposal has a reasonable chance of 
     becoming at least acceptable . . . .  If award is made on initial 
     offers, there will not be an opportunity for discussions or a 
     chance to become at least acceptable."

Past performance also was to be evaluated; the RFP provided that past 
performance was less important than technical approach and more 
important than key personnel.  The cost proposals were to be evaluated 
for reasonableness and realism, and the technical proposals were to be 
significantly more important than cost.

The closing date for receipt of proposals was December 8, 1995.  
Tomco's proposal (at an evaluated price of [deleted]) and Troy's 
proposal (at an evaluated price of [deleted]) were among the 10 
proposals received by the closing date.  In its proposal, which 
included personnel resumes certified to be current, accurate, and 
complete as of December 5, Tomco reported that its senior technical 
specialists exceeded the 9-year minimum general experience requirement 
of the RFP.  The agency's evaluation of the proposals commenced 
shortly after submission of the proposals; the evaluation process was 
completed approximately 10 months later.  One of Tomco's proposed 
senior technical specialists was evaluated by the agency as having 
less than the required 9 years of experience; the agency determined 
that the individual's resume showed only [deleted] of the required 
general experience as of the closing date for the receipt of 
proposals.  Consequently, due to this deficiency, the proposal was 
rated as "marginal" (less than acceptable) under the key personnel 
evaluation factor.  Due to this deficiency, and since award was to be 
made on the basis of initial proposals, without the opportunity for 
discussions or for Tomco to make its key personnel proposal "at least 
acceptable," the protester's proposal was rated as marginal overall 
(less than acceptable) and rejected.  On November 12, 1996, an award 
was made to Troy, which firm was found to have submitted the only 
technically acceptable proposal.  This protest followed.

Tomco does not dispute the accuracy of the agency's determination 
that, as of the closing date, one of the protester's proposed key 
personnel did not meet the RFP's required (9-year) minimum experience 
requirement.  Rather, the protester states that the agency should have 
considered the additional experience gained by the individual prior to 
the conclusion of the proposal evaluation process.  In this regard, 
Tomco states that the individual's resume advised the agency that he 
was a current employee of Tomco, and that the individual's letter of 
commitment stated that he would remain employed by Tomco if Tomco 
received the award.  Tomco contends that the agency therefore was 
required to consider the individual's ongoing experience acquired 
after the closing date, but during the proposal evaluation process.

The agency responds that all offerors were on notice from the RFP's 
terms that all required minimum personnel qualifications had to be met 
by the closing date for the receipt of initial proposals, and that the 
agency intended to make an award on the basis of initial proposals 
which would not allow an opportunity for an offeror to meet the RFP's 
stated minimum requirements after the closing date.

We will review an agency's technical evaluation of proposals to 
determine whether it was fair, reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation criteria.  Sandaire, B-242301, Apr. 12, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  370.  Here, we find that the agency's evaluation of the 
protester's proposal was proper.

As stated above, the RFP explained that for evaluation purposes, 
recent experience was to be measured from the closing date of the 
solicitation.  This RFP provision reasonably put all offerors on 
notice that the RFP's personnel experience requirements were to be met 
by the announced closing date.[1]  In fact, the protester's proposal 
itself demonstrates Tomco's understanding that proposed personnel 
qualifications would be measured from the closing date since in its 
proposal the protester specifically calculated the individual's 
experience from the closing date in determining, unfortunately 
incorrectly, that the individual met the stated minimum experience 
requirement.  The error in Tomco's calculation of the individual's 
total general experience appears to be the result of inaccurate 
arithmetic--the duration of a [deleted] work period was calculated and 
proposed by the protester on the individual's resume as a [deleted] 
period.[2]

Tomco next contends that, even if the marginal rating for its key 
personnel proposal is warranted, given the stated descending order of 
importance of the listed evaluation factors (with technical approach 
and past performance being more important than key personnel), the 
high proposal ratings received by Tomco under these factors should 
have been considered and given more weight by the agency in 
determining the protester's overall proposal rating.  Tomco contends 
that the RFP only allowed the agency, in its discretion, to "carry 
forward" a rating of unacceptable in any technical evaluation area to 
render the entire proposal unacceptable.  Tomco, however, fails to 
consider the balance of the RFP's definition of "marginal" in its 
protest submissions--the RFP clearly states that a rating of 
"marginal" in any technical evaluation area means that the proposal 
was "less than acceptable" in that technical area and that without 
discussions an offeror would not have an opportunity to make such a 
proposal acceptable.[3]  Since the RFP provided that a technically 
unacceptable rating in one evaluation area could render the entire 
proposal unacceptable, under the RFP's stated evaluation terms, the 
key personnel deficiency provided a sufficient basis for the agency to 
find the protester's overall proposal technically unacceptable.[4]  
Jacob Caspi Ltd., B-257740, Nov. 4, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  174.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although the RFP defines "recent experience" as experience acquired 
"no less recently" than 2 years prior to submission of the proposal, 
we believe the RFP qualification that recent experience was to be 
measured for evaluation purposes from the "closing date of 
solicitation" provided a common cutoff basis for all offerors to 
reasonably rely on in the preparation of their proposals to comply 
with the stated experience requirements.

2. We note that the record shows that one technical evaluator 
[deleted].

3. In deciding to award based on initial offers, the agency found that 
given the technical strengths of the Troy initial proposal, the 
reasonable and realistic cost of that proposal--which was only 
slightly higher than that proposed by Tomco and well within the range 
of the proposals received by the agency, the need for commencement of 
performance of the services under the contract, and the additional 
cost to the agency to hold discussions and evaluate another round of 
proposals, reasonable bases existed, and it was in the government's 
best interest, to make an award on the basis of initial proposals.

4. Although the protester amended its protest to include a contention 
that the agency failed to evaluate past performance (on the basis of 
certain evaluation documents given to the protester which omitted 
information detailing the agency's past performance evaluation), since 
the agency has reported that past performance was in fact evaluated 
[deleted] this protest basis is factually incorrect.  To the extent 
the protester is challenging the agency's consideration of the past 
performance rating in the evaluation of its overall proposal rating, 
the matter is rendered academic by our decision above that Tomco could 
not receive the award because its proposal was otherwise unacceptable.