BNUMBER:  B-275855 
DATE:  April 4, 1997
TITLE: Matter of:Telestar Corp. 

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

Matter of:Telestar Corp.

File:     B-275855

Date:April 4, 1997

Frank Liu for the protester.
Donald F. Hassell, Esq., Brian T. Kildee, Esq., and Robin B. Teichman, 
Esq., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for the agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., 
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest challenging agency's conclusion that protester's proposal 
is technically unacceptable is denied where record demonstrates that 
agency's evaluation of the proposal was reasonable.

2.  Agency was not required to conduct discussions with offeror whose 
proposal reasonably had been determined technically unacceptable and 
excluded from the competitive range.

DECISION

Telestar Corp. protests the rejection of its proposal under request 
for proposals (RFP) No. RS-IRM-96-177, issued by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the acquisition of microcomputer 
hardware and software, laser printers, and microcomputer support 
services.  The protester takes issue with the technical evaluation of 
its proposal and objects to the agency's failure to hold discussions 
with it.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP sought a contractor to furnish computer software and hardware 
and laser printers and to provide computer support services, including 
hardware moves, upgrades, and maintenance and software installation 
and deinstallation.[1]  Competition under the solicitation was limited 
to socially and economically disadvantaged firms in the transitional 
stage of the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program.

The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented 
the most advantageous technical/cost relationship, with technical 
merit a more significant factor than cost in the selection process.  
The solicitation identified the technical evaluation factors (and 
subfactors) and their corresponding weights as follows:

I. Technical Competence                      45
     A. Key Personnel                        20
     B. Technical Approach                   20
     C. Technical Documentation               5
II. Corporate Experience and Contractor Past Performance45
III. Program Management and Project Reporting 5
IV. Vendor Relationships                      5

Offerors were advised that in addition to submitting a written 
proposal, they would be required to make an oral technical 
presentation and to participate in an interview conducted by 
government representatives.  The sole purpose of the oral presentation 
and the interview, the RFP explained, was to permit the agency to test 
and evaluate the offeror's knowledge and competence with regard to the 
government's requirements and program objectives, the relevant 
technology, and program challenges and risks.  The solicitation 
further advised that the oral presentation and interview answers were 
not part of the offers and could not include changes to the offers; 
that neither the presentation nor the interview would constitute 
discussions within the meaning of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
15.601 FAC (90-40) and 15.610 FAC (90-31), nor would they obligate the 
government to entertain revisions to the offers or to solicit best and 
final offers; and that the NRC intended to award without discussions.

Five offerors submitted timely written proposals.  The proposals were 
reviewed by members of the source evaluation panel (SEP), who noted 
areas requiring clarification.  Each of the offerors was then 
scheduled for an oral presentation/ interview.  After each oral 
presentation, the SEP convened and decided on interview questions to 
ask the presenters.  The questions were intended to clarify written 
materials, to amplify areas not adequately explained and to probe the 
qualifications and abilities of the key personnel proposed.  Upon 
completion of each interview, the panel reconvened to score the 
proposal in question.

The five proposals received scores ranging from 95.99 (Sylvest 
Management Systems Corp.) to 16.99; Telestar's score of 27.65 was 
second low.[2]  The SEP concluded that Telestar's proposal was 
technically unacceptable due to the deficiencies in the technical and 
management proposals as well as its corporate experience.  The SEP 
determined that since Sylvest's score so far exceeded any of the 
others, and since its evaluated costs were lower than those of the 
only other proposal that could possibly have been made acceptable 
through negotiations, it was the only firm that stood a reasonable 
chance of receiving the award; accordingly, the SEP recommended a 
competitive range of one, i.e., Sylvest.  The contracting officer 
accepted the panel's recommendation and notified the four firms other 
than Sylvest that their proposals had not been included in the 
competitive range.  Telestar responded by protesting first to the 
agency and then to our Office.

Telestar's proposal received a score of 9.66 (of a possible 45) under 
the technical competence evaluation factor; a score of 11.66 (of 45) 
under the corporate experience and past performance evaluation factor; 
a score of 3 (of 5) under the program management and project reporting 
factor; and a score of 3.33 (of 5) under vendor relationships.  
Proposal weaknesses identified by the evaluators included:

     --emphasis on network installation and support services, an area 
of work not required under the solicitation, in combination with lack 
of information pertaining to the installation or maintenance of 
workstation platforms, an area that was required, indicated that 
Telestar did not understand the nature of the work to be performed;
     --failure to adequately address maintenance support and services;
     --failure to adequately address integration with existing NRC 
project management and tracking systems;
     --lack of experience on the part of proposed personnel in work 
related to the work to be performed under the solicitation;
     --lack of corporate experience in work of a similar size, scope, 
or nature to that required here.  

DISCUSSION

The protester takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its 
proposal, arguing that it is technically qualified to perform the work 
required and that the evaluators wrongly concluded that it 
misunderstood the nature of the work to be performed.  The protester 
further argues that to the extent that there were deficiencies in its 
technical approach, the contracting officer should have pointed them 
out during discussions and given it an opportunity to correct them.

The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility 
of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining 
its needs and the best method of accommodating them and must bear the 
burden of any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation.  
Young Enters., Inc., B-256851.2, Aug. 11, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  159 at 3.  
In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, 
we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding 
the merits of proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's 
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  
Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-250135.4, May 24, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  398 
at 9.  The fact that a protester does not agree with the evaluation 
does not render the evaluation unreasonable.  Newport News 
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. et al., B-261244.2 et al., Sept. 11, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  192 at 8.

Here, the protester has failed to demonstrate that the agency's 
evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable.  The protester's argument 
that it should not have been found "technically unqualified" is 
misdirected--Telestar itself was not found to be technically 
unqualified, its proposal was determined to be technically 
unacceptable.   Even the most well-qualified firm may be rejected as 
technically unacceptable if it fails to contain information 
demonstrating compliance with the solicitation requirements.  See 
Sunbelt Properties, Inc., B-245729.3, Mar. 12, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  278 at 
2.

Further, there is no evidence in the record to show that it was 
unreasonable for the evaluators to conclude that the emphasis in 
Telestar's proposal on network installation and support, in 
combination with its failure to discuss other required areas of work, 
indicated a lack of understanding of the solicitation's requirements.  
The protester contends that its emphasis on network installation and 
support was not misplaced since the RFP stated that 3 years of 
experience in "network connectivity" was desirable for the senior 
microcomputer technicians and that 2 years "exposure" to such was 
desirable for the microcomputer technicians.  As the agency points 
out, however, "network connectivity" (i.e., assuring that computers 
function properly when connected to a network) is not the same thing 
as installing and maintaining a network; the former was encompassed 
within the work to be performed under this solicitation, while the 
latter was not.  Also, it was apparent from the solicitation that 
experience in network connectivity was far less significant than 
experience in other areas relating to the integration and installation 
of computer systems hardware and software; for the senior computer 
technicians, for example, 7 years of experience with the latter was 
required, while only 3 years of experience with the former was 
"desired."

Regarding the protester's argument that its proposal should have 
received a higher score under the corporate experience/past 
performance criterion, the solicitation clearly provided that in 
evaluating proposals under this factor, the evaluators would consider 
the extent to which the offeror has successfully performed on past or 
current contracts "of similar size and scope related to this effort."  
The evaluators determined that only one of the protester's references 
was for related work (i.e., both the acquisition and support of 
computers); the others were limited to work in Telestar's factory 
manufacturing, upgrading, and installing peripherals in microcomputers 
and working with telecommunications network and other nonrelevant 
equipment.  The protester insists that all of these contracts did 
involve support services since it furnishes warranties on all of its 
delivered equipment.  The agency points out in response, however, that 
warranty work is only a limited part of the broad spectrum of support 
services called for in this solicitation.  Since the protester's 
proposal did not demonstrate that it has experience performing the 
type of support services required here, the record supports the 
evaluators' scoring of the proposal under the corporate 
experience/past performance criterion.

The protester has not attempted to rebut other aspects of the agency's 
technical evaluation.[3]  For example, it has not argued that the 
resumes submitted for its key employees demonstrated compliance with 
all of the solicitation's experience requirements, nor has it argued 
that its proposal adequately addressed integration with existing NRC 
project management and tracking systems or maintenance support and 
services.  Absent any attempt by the protester to rebut the agency's 
findings, and given that the record supports the agency's findings, we 
see no basis upon which to conclude that the agency's evaluation was 
unreasonable.  See Amcare Medical Servs., Inc., B-271595, July 11, 
1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  10 at 2.

The protester also argues that the agency improperly failed to conduct 
discussions with it.  The FAR requires agencies to conduct discussions 
only with responsible offerors submitting proposals within the 
competitive range, i.e., offerors whose proposals stand a reasonable 
chance of being selected for award.  FAR  sec.  15.609(a),(b); 15.610(b).  
Since the evaluators reasonably concluded that Telestar's proposal was 
technically unacceptable and thus properly excluded it from the 
competitive range, the agency was under no obligation to hold 
discussions with Telestar.[4]  Cobra Tech., Inc., B-272041; 
B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  73 at 6.
  
Telestar also objects to the agency's failure to evaluate its price.  
We fail to see any impropriety in this since Telestar's technical 
proposal had been determined to be unacceptable, it would have been 
ineligible for award, no matter what its price.   Data Resources, 
B-228494, Feb. 1, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  94 at 5.

In its initial protest, Telestar also complained that a company 
associated with Tri-Cor, the incumbent contractor for the services 
sought here, had been accorded favored treatment by the agency in the 
evaluation process.  When it was revealed that Sylvest, and not the 
company associated with Tri-Cor (which was never identified by name by 
either the agency or the protester), had been selected for award, the 
protester changed its argument to a complaint that Sylvest had 
received favored treatment.  The protester has offered no evidence to 
substantiate its allegations, and we found none during our review of 
the record.  We will not attribute prejudicial motives to contracting 
officials on the basis of unsupported allegations, inference or 
supposition.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 
16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51 at 28.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Network services were not included in the services sought since NRC 
contracts for them separately.

2. The other two scores were 66.6 and 58.66.

3. In commenting on the agency report, the protester raised for the 
first time the argument that the agency evaluators did not have the 
technical qualifications to evaluate proposals. We will not review 
allegations concerning the qualifications of evaluators absent a 
showing of fraud, conflict of interest, or actual bias on the part of 
the evaluators.  American CASA/National Air, B-271274; B-271274.3, May 
23, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  251 at 4.  No such showing has been made here; in 
fact, the protester offers no evidence in support of its allegation.

4. To the extent that the protester may have misconstrued the 
interview phase of the proposal process as oral discussions, the RFP 
explicitly advised that the interviews were not intended to be 
discussions and that offerors would not be entitled to submit revised 
offers upon their conclusion.