BNUMBER:  B-275818
DATE:  March 31, 1997
TITLE:  EBA Engineering, Inc.

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

Matter of:EBA Engineering, Inc.

File:     B-275818

Date:March 31, 1997

Robert G. Fryling, Esq., and Edward J. Hoffman, Esq., Blank, Rome, 
Comisky & McCauley, for the protester.
J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., McMahon, David & 
Brody, for Soil and Land Use Technology, Inc., an intervenor.
Beverly M. Russell, Esq., Federal Highway Administration, Department 
of Transportation, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Composition of technical evaluation panel is within the discretion 
of the agency, and where protester has not shown actual bias on the 
part of particular evaluators there is no basis to question the 
composition of the panel. 

2.  Allegation of "bait and switch" of proposed key personnel is 
denied where there is no evidence of misrepresentation by awardee, 
solicitation provided for substitution of key personnel, and of ten 
proposed key personnel, all but two are available or performing.

3.  Contracting officer's determination that offeror's firm, 
fixed-price proposal is reasonable is unobjectionable where it is 
based on a price analysis that includes comparison of direct and 
indirect rates with other offerors and other agency contracts for 
similar services, which reasonably supports contracting officer's 
conclusion.

4.  Source selection official's (SSO) decision to raise offeror's 
technical standing is unobjectionable since SSO is not bound by the 
recommendations and conclusions of working level evaluators and SSO's 
decision is reasonable.

DECISION

EBA Engineering, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Soil and 
Land Use Technology, Inc. (SaLUT) under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. DTFH61-96-R-00050, issued by the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA), Department of Transportation, for laboratory support services.  
EBA contends that the evaluation was flawed and the award improper for 
a number of reasons including SaLUT's alleged use of bait and switch 
tactics and the failure of the source selection official (SSO) to 
follow the recommendations of the technical evaluation panel. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, contemplated award of 
a firm, fixed-price, time and materials contract for a base period of 
3 years with two 1-year options.  The successful offeror supplies 
non-personal services for several laboratories and testing facilities 
at the FHWA's Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, 
Virginia (hereinafter Research Center).  

The RFP identified 10 key personnel positions and 16 non-key 
categories.  Offerors were required to identify and provide resumes 
for the key personnel, but were not required to identify non-key 
personnel.  If an offeror intended to use subcontractors or 
consultants, it was required to submit a letter or other statement 
indicating that the consultant/subcontractor was willing to work on 
the contract.  Offerors were not required to provide assurances or 
commitment statements for any other proposed personnel. 

Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors of equal 
importance:  technical, past performance, and price 
reasonableness/realism.  Evaluation under the technical factor was 
based on three subfactors: relative experience (weight 40), relative 
qualifications of key personnel (weight 40), and relative 
understanding of the requirements and nature of the work (weight 20).  
Proposals were scored on a scale of 0 (unacceptable) to 5 
(outstanding).  The raw score on each subfactor was multiplied by the 
applicable weight resulting in a potential maximum score of 500 
points.  The RFP also required offerors to make an oral presentation 
to the agency which was not to be "evaluated per se, but [would be] 
used to evaluate the offerors knowledge of the work as an indication 
of capability."  The evaluation of past performance was based on 
reference contacts and included an assessment of the offerors' 
reputation for quality, timeliness, cost control, and business 
relationships.  Price was evaluated for reasonableness and realism 
through a price analysis.

Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was considered to 
represent the best value.  While the three evaluation factors were of 
equal importance, the RFP advised that if competing offers were 
essentially equivalent in any of the three areas, the remaining areas 
would become more important.  

EBA, the incumbent contractor, and SaLUT were the only offerors to 
submit proposals by the August 2, 1996, closing date.  The agency's 
technical evaluation panel, comprised of a chairman and three 
evaluators, reviewed the proposals and arrived at initial scores.  The 
chairman also selected three contracts for each offeror for use in the 
past performance evaluation.  After the offerors made their oral 
presentations on August 22 and 23, the agency conducted discussions 
and requested best and final offers (BAFO).  

With its BAFO, SaLUT included (for the purpose of criticizing as 
improper and inappropriate) a copy of a July 31, 1996, letter from a 
number of EBA employees addressed to the contracting officer's 
technical representative (COTR).  The COTR was the chairman of the 
evaluation panel and the members of his panel were among those 
included in a list of additional letter recipients.[1]  In the letter, 
the employees expressed concerns about the potential for a new 
contractor to be selected instead of EBA.  Although the COTR had not 
responded to the letter, in reviewing the matter the agency determined 
that contact of this type was inappropriate.  In order to avoid any 
appearance of impropriety, the agency appointed a replacement chairman 
and had the COTR step down.  At the same time, the agency removed one 
panel member and replaced him with two new evaluators.  The 
reconstituted panel was briefed on the procurement and they conducted 
the evaluation of the BAFOs.  

While both proposals were evaluated as "above average" under the past 
performance factor, there was a substantial difference in their 
technical scores.  Out of a possible 500 points, EBA's proposal 
received a score of 456 points while SaLUT's received a score of 248 
points.  With regard to price realism, the evaluators found the 
offerors' direct rates to be comparable, but questioned SaLUT's 
decision to lower its overhead rate in its BAFO.  Even though EBA's 
price was more than $1 million higher than SaLUT's, the panel 
recommended award to EBA on the basis that it offered the best value. 

The contracting officer, as SSO, reviewed the evaluations and their 
bases and concluded that the scores significantly overstated the 
actual difference in the offerors' proposals.  In his view, since both 
offerors proposed comparable personnel, the two proposals were 
essentially equal technically and since the two offeror's past 
performance records were also substantially equal, price became the 
determining factor.  After satisfying himself that SaLUT's direct and 
indirect rates were realistic and reasonable, he awarded the contract 
to SaLUT.  After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, EBA 
filed this protest challenging the evaluation, including the 
composition of the evaluation panel and the contracting officer's 
failure to follow the panel's recommendation.[2]  

COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL

EBA argues that the agency's staffing of the evaluation panels was 
illogical and arbitrary.  EBA disagrees that there was any impropriety 
associated with EBA's employee's sending the letter and contends that 
it was arbitrary to remove some of the letter recipients from the 
panel, but not others.  The agency explains that it removed the COTR 
as chairman and replaced him to avoid the appearance of any 
impropriety.  At the same time, the agency determined that the panel 
should be adjusted to reflect a wider cross-section of technical 
offices to provide a variety of technical expertise and perspective; 
the initial panel was comprised solely of personnel from a single 
section.  Consequently, one of the three evaluators was removed and 
two replacements were added to the panel.  

The composition of a technical evaluation panel is within the 
discretion of the contracting agency.  In the absence of evidence of 
bad faith or actual bias, we have no reason to question the 
composition of the panel.  Delta Ventures, B-238655, June 25, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  588; Johns Hopkins Univ., B-233384, Mar. 6, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  
240.  Here, a number of employees of the incumbent contractor, many of 
whom SaLUT identified in its own proposal, submitted a letter to the 
chairman of the evaluation panel, expressing their loyalty to the 
Research Center, their great satisfaction with the incumbent, and 
their concerns about salaries, benefits, and transition issues if a 
new contractor received the award.  The employees went on to advise 
that the Research Center's mission would be benefited by a group of 
employees who felt that they already were working for a company that 
gave them a "feeling of job stability."  While there is no evidence 
that the employees knew that they were communicating with the actual 
evaluation panel, we believe that receipt of such a letter by the 
panel chairman provided a basis for the agency to be concerned about 
the appearance of an impropriety.  With regard to replacement of the 
other panel members, it is not clear that they actually received the 
letter, notwithstanding the inclusion of their names among the 
courtesy copy recipients.  However, the agency reconfigured the 
balance of the panel for another rational reason:  to ensure a broader 
technical representation.  Thus, we see no inconsistency in FHWA's 
decision to remove only one of the remaining three evaluators.  
Further, it is plain that EBA was not prejudiced by the panel's 
reconfiguration and the retention of two possible letter recipients.  
EBA received virtually identical scores from both panels and the two 
retained original panel members continued to give SaLUT the lowest 
scores of all.  While SaLUT's average score increased over the 
preliminary evaluation, it remained significantly lower than EBA's 
average score and the new panel recommended award to EBA.

THE EVALUATION

EBA next challenges the conduct of the evaluation of SaLUT's proposal 
including past performance, personnel, and price realism.  In 
reviewing the evaluation, it is not the function of our Office to 
evaluate the proposals de novo.  Rather, we will examine an agency's 
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations, 
since the relative merit of competing proposals is primarily a matter 
of administrative discretion.  Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 
Comp. Gen. 284 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  203; Advanced Tech. and Research 
Corp., B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  230.  From our review of 
the record, we see no basis to object to the agency's evaluation.

Past Performance

EBA contends that the past performance evaluation was flawed because 
the agency did not consider the size and complexity of the contracts 
submitted as references by the offerors and because it considered an 
"unrelated" contract in its evaluation of SaLUT.  The RFP required 
offerors to submit information on "all contracts" up to a maximum of 
15, involving similar or related services over the past 3 years.[3]  
EBA notes that the RFP also advised that the agency would "focus on 
information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the 
size and complexity of the procurement under consideration."  

While size and complexity were a matter of "focus" in the evaluation, 
the RFP called for consideration of the relative merits of an 
offeror's past performance on the basis of its reputation with its 
former customers and others for quality of product/service, timeliness 
of performance, cost control, and business relationship.  Contrary to 
EBA's understanding, the agency did consider size and complexity in 
identifying the contracts to review.  The record reflects that the 
original evaluation panel chairman used size and complexity as the 
criteria for selecting the contracts for evaluation; he chose them on 
the basis of those which either most closely resembled the subject 
requirement or were of comparable size.  The evaluation narrative 
itself acknowledges that SaLUT's references concerned projects that 
were significantly smaller than the subject requirement.  
Notwithstanding this determination, the evaluators concluded that the 
contracts were sufficiently relevant to this requirement to form the 
basis of the past performance evaluation.  In this regard, while 
contract size may be relevant to contract complexity, the fact that 
the contract to be awarded is larger in size does not necessarily mean 
that the contract is more complex.  See PMT Servs., Inc., B-270538.2, 
Apr. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  98.  

Here, while one of SaLUT's contracts was identified by the evaluation 
as "not related," the RFP did not limit the evaluation solely to 
"related" contracts.  Instead, it provided for evaluation of contracts 
that were related or "similar."  Accordingly, in assessing SaLUT's 
proposal, the evaluators recognized that even though one contract was 
in an "unrelated technical field," all three SaLUT contracts were for 
the provision of technical non-personal support services and reflected 
the offeror's management capability to meet the needs of a customer in 
a service situation.  Further, the evaluation narrative correctly 
notes that this evaluation was not intended to encompass the relevancy 
of the technical experience; rather, that was a matter to be 
considered under the technical evaluation factor.  

In short, we find nothing objectionable in the past performance 
evaluation.  

Key Personnel Qualifications

Offerors were required to identify ten employees as key personnel.  
There was no requirement for the submission of letters of intent or 
commitment.  SaLUT proposed eight incumbent employees and two new 
hires for these key positions.  Offerors were not required to identify 
non-key personnel, but SaLUT proposed incumbent employees to fill 15 
of the 22 non-key positions.  In discussions, the agency expressed 
concern over SaLUT's ability to obtain the services of the incumbent 
personnel and requested it to provide letters of commitment or other 
indications that the proposed key personnel were willing to work for 
SaLUT.  In response, SaLUT provided letters of commitment, signed by 
seven of its proposed key personnel including five incumbent 
personnel.  For the remaining three personnel, SaLUT submitted 
"letters of conversation."[4]  These letters, signed by SaLUT's 
president, were to "record and confirm" SaLUT's understanding that the 
individual had verbally agreed to work for SaLUT, but was unwilling to 
sign any acceptance letter.  The letter requested the recipient to 
respond in writing if there were questions or disagreement with the 
letter.  There is nothing in the record to indicate that prior to 
award, any recipients of these letters advised SaLUT of their 
disagreement with the letters. 

The evaluation of SaLUT's BAFO under the key personnel subfactor 
ranged from 
0 to 160 points out of a possible 200 points.  The discrepancy in 
scores is attributable to some evaluators' belief that the letters of 
conversation were insufficient.[5]  EBA states that even though SaLUT 
orally represented that all incumbent employees would work for it, 
some key and non-key personnel continue to work for EBA.[6]  Since not 
all of the personnel proposed by SaLUT are working on the contract, 
EBA contends that SaLUT deliberately misled the agency by engaging in 
bait and switch tactics.  

Offeror "bait and switch" practices, whereby an offeror's proposal is 
favorably evaluated on the basis of personnel that it does not expect 
to use during contract performance, have an adverse effect on the 
integrity of the competitive procurement system and provide a basis 
for rejection of that offeror's proposal.  Meridian Management Corp., 
Inc.; NAA Servs. Corp., B-254797; B-254797.2, Jan. 21, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
167.  This does not mean that substitution of employees after award is 
prohibited;  such substitution is unobjectionable where the offeror 
acted reasonably and in good faith.  Unisys Corp., B-242897, June 18, 
1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  577.

Here, there is no evidence that SaLUT engaged in bait and switch 
practices.  Rather, the record shows that virtually all of the 
personnel, key and non-key, proposed by SaLUT are available and 
working on the contract.  Of SaLUT's ten proposed key personnel, seven 
are currently working on the contract.  Of the three who are not, only 
two were former EBA personnel.  One of the two has signed a letter of 
commitment to work for SaLUT as soon as an immigration procedure is 
completed and the other, after signing a letter of commitment, 
accepted another position outside the United States.  In accordance 
with the contract, substitute personnel have been proposed for the two 
vacant positions.  With regard to non-key personnel, SaLUT proposed 15 
EBA personnel and has 13 former EBA personnel working on the contract.  
Of the EBA employees proposed, but not currently working on SaLUT's 
contract, one moved away, one died, one decided to stay with EBA, and 
another is in India, but is expected to work for SaLUT.  In addition, 
two non-key positions for which no personnel were identified are to be 
filled by two former EBA consultants.  Thus, the record makes plain 
that, contrary to the belief of some evaluators and EBA, SaLUT was 
successful in hiring virtually all of the incumbent personnel it 
proposed.[7]  The planned substitution, after contract award, of two 
key employees out of ten proposed, provides no basis to conclude that 
SaLUT intentionally misled the agency. 

Price Realism 

With regard to the price evaluation, the RFP advised that the 
submission of cost or pricing data was unnecessary, but requested that 
offerors submit budget summary information.  In addition, offerors 
were required to indicate whether the proposed indirect cost rate 
(overhead) had been audited and accepted by any federal audit agency.  
Evaluation of price included an analysis of the relative 
reasonableness and realism of proposed prices.

In evaluating SaLUT's price proposal, the evaluators noted that the 
direct costs proposed were reasonable and similar to those proposed by 
EBA.  The agency attributed SaLUT's more than $1 million price 
advantage to SaLUT's lower overhead rate, which was some 18 percent 
less than SaLUT initially proposed.  The evaluation panel chairman 
questioned SaLUT's lowering of its overhead rate and expressed concern 
that it could adversely impact salaries and benefits and could result 
in high employee turnover.  The contracting officer disagreed and 
found that SaLUT's price proposal was realistic and reasonable.  EBA 
contends that the contracting officer erred in his evaluation.

Generally, cost realism (a measurement of the likely cost of 
performance in a cost reimbursement contract) is not a factor in the 
evaluation of proposals when a fixed-price contract is to be awarded, 
since the government's liability is fixed, and the risk of cost 
escalation is borne by the contractor.  PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters 
of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  366.  However, since the risk of poor performance when a 
contractor is forced to provide services at little or no profit is a 
legitimate concern in evaluating proposals, an agency in its 
discretion may, as it did here, provide for a price realism analysis 
in the solicitation of fixed-priced proposals.  Id.  The depth of an 
agency's price realism analysis is a matter within the sound exercise 
of the agency's discretion.   Family Realty, B-247772, July 6, 1992, 
92-2 CPD  para.  6.

Here, the contracting officer, who is responsible for determining 
whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable (Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  sec.  15.805-2), was satisfied that SaLUT's price proposal, 
including its overhead rate, was realistic and reasonable.  The 
evaluation included a comparison of the proposed direct labor rates 
and the total indirect loading factor offered by SaLUT.  With regard 
to direct rates, the analysis consisted of comparing proposed rates 
with regional wage surveys and other agency contracts for similar 
requirements.  The evaluation verified that SaLUT's wage rates were 
nearly identical with EBA's in most labor categories.  With regard to 
indirect rates, a comparison was made to other FHWA contracts 
providing non-personal support services at the Research Center and 
Department of Transportation headquarters.  Many of the firms were 
similarly situated 8(a) firms.  The comparative analysis revealed that 
both offerors' proposed rates were well within the range currently 
being paid for other non-personal services contracts at FHWA (49.5 
percent to 138 percent).  While SaLUT's rate was at the lower end of 
the range and EBA's at the higher end, SaLUT's overhead rate was just 
slightly below the modified average rate paid on other FHWA support 
service contracts.  It also was higher than that on a contract 
recently awarded to EBA for similar services.  The contracting officer 
noted that the risk lay with SaLUT, not the government, but that 
SaLUT's financial condition reflected a positive financial standing 
with little risk of future financial problems.  He also found that it 
was not unexpected that SaLUT would use a lower loading factor given 
the size of this contract compared to other efforts and the presence 
of price competition.  Our own review of this information discloses 
nothing objectionable or unreasonable.  While the protester disagrees 
with the agency's conclusion, there is nothing in the record to 
indicate that the contracting officer's analysis or conclusions about 
SaLUT's price proposal were erroneous.

THE AWARD DETERMINATION

EBA challenges the SSO's determination to award the contract to SaLUT 
notwithstanding the recommendation of the evaluators.  EBA argues that 
the evaluation panel was better qualified to make its recommendation 
for the award and the SSO failed to justify his award decision. 

Source selection officials in negotiated procurements are not bound by 
the recommendations or evaluation judgments of lower-level evaluators, 
even though the working level evaluators may normally be expected to 
have the technical expertise required for such evaluations.  Grey 
Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111, 1120 (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 
p. 11; Calspan Corp., B-258441, Jan. 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  28; 
Benchmark Sec., Inc., B-247655.2, Feb. 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  133.  Thus, 
SSOs have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to 
which they will make use of the technical and cost evaluation results, 
and their technical judgments are governed only by the tests of 
rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria. Grey 
Advertising, Inc., supra; Calspan Corp., supra.  

Based upon our review of the record, including the evaluation panel's 
report and the SSO's detailed source selection statement, we find the 
SSO's determinations regarding SaLUT's technical score to be 
reasonable and rational.  The SSO was faced with an award 
recommendation from a panel which was "severely divided" over SaLUT's 
score and could not come to a consensus.  For example, the two 
original members of the panel gave SaLUT's proposal very low scores, 
averaging 
70 total points, while the remaining members scored SaLUT's proposal 
at an average of 366 total points.  Some panel members expressed 
concern in all three evaluation areas.  In this regard, they noted 
that SaLUT lacked certain experience in the areas of corrosion, paint, 
and chemistry, had only performed smaller efforts before, and had not 
managed as many scientists as would be required for this effort.  Some 
evaluators were concerned about salary and benefit levels and the 
commitment of the proposed personnel.  In his source selection 
statement, the SSO addressed these concerns, relying primarily on his 
finding that SaLUT's proposed personnel and its experience were 
significant considerations under all the evaluation subfactors.

In the area of relative experience, the SSO acknowledged that SaLUT, 
as a corporate entity, did not possess relevant experience in some of 
the technical subject areas.  However, he noted that SaLUT had 
adequate corporate experience in many of the technical subject areas 
and that the evaluation panel had overlooked the experience of SaLUT's 
program manager and the key personnel, most of whom were currently 
performing for the incumbent and were responsible for the day to day 
operation of the various laboratories for several years.  The program 
manager, who would be responsible for overall management of the 
project, had nearly 40 years of experience in engineering, laboratory 
research, construction management, transportation engineering, 
technology transfer, planning, and logistics.  His experience included 
the command of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers research laboratory of 
comparable if not larger size than the Research Center.  In addition, 
SaLUT's subcontractor, Advanced Asphalt Technologies, had experience 
with asphalt and superpave research and had performed on FHWA 
contracts.  While the SSO recognized that SaLUT had not performed 
contracts as large as this, he concluded that the experience of the 
proposed incumbent key personnel and the experience of the program 
manager, coupled with SaLUT's and its subcontractor's experience, 
should all be included in the evaluation of SaLUT's experience.  Given 
the depth of this experience, we believe the SSO was warranted in 
concluding that the actual difference in proposal scores (EBA 176 
points, SaLUT 100 points) under this subfactor was significantly 
overstated. 

With regard to the key personnel subfactor, the SSO relied on SaLUT's 
proposal of many of the incumbent key and non-key personnel.  He 
specifically noted that SaLUT had proposed eight incumbents and two 
new hires for the key personnel positions.  Seven of the ten submitted 
letters of commitment and the other three were covered by "letters of 
conversation."  As to the 19 non-key personnel named in the proposal, 
15 were incumbent personnel, seven of whom signed letters of 
commitment and eight of whom were represented as orally agreeing to 
work for SaLUT.  The SSO also considered SaLUT's proposal 
representations of its intent to retain incumbent employees in 
accordance with its transition plan; its assurances and retention 
strategy presented in the oral presentation; its price proposal which 
supported an intent to retain them; and the past performance review 
which indicated no problem with bait and switch tactics.  The SSO 
found that the low scores given by two evaluators (0 points) were 
based on the evaluators' imposing of additional standards in excess of 
those required under the RFP.  The SSO concluded that SaLUT had 
provided a sufficient level of assurance that it would be able to 
provide the proposed personnel.  This conclusion was reasonable since 
there was no requirement in the RFP for commitment letters and the 
agency requested in discussions such letters or other indications of 
the personnel's willingness to work for SaLUT.  Under these 
circumstances, we find the SSO has adequately supported his conclusion 
that there was very little difference in the substance of the two 
offerors' key personnel proposals.  It thus was reasonable for him to 
conclude that some of the SaLUT scores were unreasonably low and that 
the average scores (EBA 192 points, SaLUT 92 points) significantly 
overstated the difference in the proposals.  His conclusion is 
validated by the fact that virtually all of the key and non-key 
personnel proposed have been hired by SaLUT and are working on the 
contract.[8]  

Concerning understanding the requirement, the SSO noted that some of 
the evaluators based their low scores on their finding that SaLUT had 
not provided any specific discussion of ongoing research projects in 
individual laboratories or specifics about laboratory operations.  The 
SSO, however, agreed with most of the panel members that such an 
in-depth discussion was not required by the RFP and that SaLUT had 
demonstrated an adequate understanding of the nature of the work to be 
performed.  The SSO based his assessment on SaLUT's discussions and 
acknowledgment of the specific issues and potential problems 
associated with the research laboratory environment, along with its 
discussion of the importance of retaining key and non-key personnel 
from the incumbent contract.  While he recognized that EBA had current 
hands-on experience, he found little difference in the substance of 
the two offerors' understanding of the government's requirements and 
nature of the work to be performed.  Again, he concluded that the 
scores (EBA 88 points, SaLUT 56 points) significantly overstated the 
actual difference in the two offerors' understanding.  In light of the 
RFP requirements and the findings of the majority of the evaluators, 
the SSO's conclusions are reasonably supported by the record. 

EBA argues that it was improper for the SSO to use SaLUT's personnel 
strengths to effectively raise its score under the other technical 
subfactors.  Where an RFP lists a number of evaluation factors of 
stated importance, a single one cannot be accorded more than the 
weight prescribed in the RFP's evaluation methodology by the repeated 
consideration of the same factor in conjunction with the other major 
factors, i.e., it is improper to double or triple count the importance 
of a single listed factor.  J.A. Jones Management Servs., Inc., 
B-254941.2, Mar. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  244; accord United Ammunition 
Container, Inc., B-275213, Jan. 30, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  58.

Here, however, the fact that the offeror's proposed personnel was 
considered in the SSO's evaluation of the other technical subfactors 
does not mean there was an improper, multiple counting of that matter; 
the experience of the proposed staff was a legitimate consideration 
under each of the other subfactors.  Teledyne Brown Eng'g, B-258078; 
B-258078.2, Dec. 6, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  223.  In this regard, the RFP 
contemplated that offerors lacking relevant experience would use the 
qualifications of individual personnel or team members.  This is a 
contract for non-personal services.  Thus, the experience of the 
offeror's proposed personnel who will be performing those services is 
reasonably related to the evaluation of the offeror's experience.  ASR 
Management & Technical Servs, B-252611, July 15, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  22.  
Here, the majority of the key and non-key proposed personnel were 
incumbents who had direct, relevant experience in performing the 
subject contract, and the proposed program manager had relevant 
experience in managing a large laboratory like the Research Center.  
Likewise, their experience and expertise in performing the contract 
was a legitimate consideration in evaluating SaLUT's understanding of 
the government's requirements.  Teledyne Brown Eng'g, supra.  
Accordingly, we find nothing objectionable in the SSO's consideration 
of the proposed personnel's experience under all three evaluation 
subfactors.

Since both offerors received the same past performance score, and 
since the SSO reasonably concluded that the technical proposals were 
essentially equal, under the terms of the RFP, price properly became 
the deciding factor.  As we noted above, the SSO reasonably concluded 
that SaLUT's prices, including overhead rates, were realistic and 
reasonable.  Thus, we find it was reasonable for the SSO to determine 
that SaLUT's proposal, at a price approximately 10 percent less than 
proposed by EBA, represented the best value to the government.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States
f:\projects\pl\275818.wp5

1. While the letter appeared to be an attempt to encourage the 
agency's retention of EBA as contractor, there is no evidence that the 
employees knew that the addressees of their letter were evaluators for 
this procurement.  The addressees were agency officials with whom the 
contract employees regularly worked.  Likewise, there is no evidence 
to support the protester's speculation that SaLUT must have possessed 
inside knowledge that the letter recipients were contract evaluators.  
To the contrary, it appears that SaLUT logically deduced that the 
recipients comprised the evaluation team since four of the named 
recipients, including the COTR, were present at the oral presentation 
held days before the submission of the BAFO.

2. The protester submitted a number of arguments in support of these 
and other protest grounds; the agency responded to each argument, 
justifying its actions.  We have reviewed the entire record, 
considered all of the arguments, and find no basis for sustaining the 
protest.  However, we will discuss only the more significant arguments 
in this decision.

3. In a related argument, EBA contends that the agency improperly 
failed to consider all 15 of the contract references submitted by the 
offerors.  However, nothing in the evaluation scheme required the 
agency to consider all of the references.  Here, the agency selected 
what it perceived to be the three most relevant contracts for 
consideration.  EBA does not contend that the agency's choice of its 
contracts led to an undeserved low score, only that it would have had 
a higher score than SaLUT, if the agency had considered all contracts.  
Since EBA received an "outstanding" on its predecessor FHWA contract 
and an overall score of "above average," we find no reason to object 
to the evaluation on this basis.  

4. Based on one evaluator's expressed opinion that only letters of 
commitment would suffice, EBA argues that the contracting officer 
improperly accepted the letters of conversation as substitutes.  
However, notwithstanding the one evaluator's view, the record states 
that the agency did not require letters of commitment only.  Rather, 
it allowed SaLUT to provide "other indications" that the personnel 
were available.  Since the RFP did not require letters of commitment, 
we find nothing improper in the agency's acceptance of something less.

5. EBA agrees with these evaluators and has submitted statements from 
two of its employees disputing the contents of the letters of 
conversation.  However, the record established that one of those 
employees is currently working for SaLUT and the other has submitted a 
letter of commitment to work for SaLUT as soon as an immigration 
procedure is completed. 

6. In a related argument, EBA contends that some of its employees 
continue to perform the same work they performed under the incumbent 
contract, even though SaLUT is supposed to be performing the contract.  
The agency explains that these employees are working under a different 
FHWA contract with EBA which overlaps with the statement of work for 
SaLUT's current (EBA's former) contract.  In this regard, the current 
EBA contract is for heavy vehicle and pavement research and the 
current SaLUT contract statement of work includes pavement research 
and heavy vehicle road testing.  Further, two of the key employees 
identified by EBA as continuing to work for EBA, but performing 
SaLUT's work, are identified in EBA's proposal for the current EBA 
contract.  The other employee, having signed a letter of commitment to 
work for SaLUT, has decided to accept another position outside the 
United States.  On balance, the record does not indicate that FHWA is 
improperly having EBA perform work which should be performed by SaLUT. 

7. This conclusion is not changed by the fact that SaLUT indicated, at 
its oral presentation, that it would furnish all incumbent employees.  
Subsequent to the presentation, SaLUT's BAFO did not make the same 
representation.  Rather, SaLUT stated that it was confident it could 
hire all of the incumbent's staff, but that if it could not, it would 
provide equally qualified personnel for the agency's approval.  The 
proposal also identified the key and non-key personnel for whom SaLUT 
had obtained written or oral commitments, the majority of whom are 
working on the contract. 

8. EBA notes that the evaluation panel chair found SaLUT's proposal 
acceptable contingent on the obtaining of the proposed key personnel.  
While three of the proposed key personnel are not working on the 
contract, the agency explains that the SSO's award decision is 
unaffected by this situation.  Specifically, the agency notes that the 
SSO had concluded that SaLUT made reasonable efforts to obtain 
qualified people to staff the contract including the key positions.  
The SSO also noted that SaLUT had the capability to locate and obtain 
qualified staff for any positions not filled right away.  In this 
regard, one of the proposed key personnel, an incumbent employee, is 
committed to work for and will join SaLUT as soon as an immigration 
procedure is completed.  The other two signed letters of commitment 
and the agency is currently considering substitutes for both.