BNUMBER:  B-275896 
DATE:  April 16, 1997
TITLE: Matter of:Telford Aviation, Inc. 

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

Matter of:Telford Aviation, Inc.

File:     B-275896

Date:April 16, 1997

Howell Roger Riggs, Esq., for the protester.
Thomas G. Jeter, Esq., and Mark J. Meagher, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, 
L.L.P., for Doss Aviation, Inc., the intervenor.
Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Department of the Army, for the 
agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that the evaluation of protester's technical and price 
proposals was flawed is denied where agency reasonably followed the 
evaluation criteria in scoring proposals and the protester's argument 
essentially reflects its disagreement with the evaluators based on a 
view that its proposal should not have been downgraded merely because 
it complied with the solicitation's minimum technical requirements. 

2.  Record provides no basis to object to cost/technical tradeoff 
based on reasonable technical and price evaluations where protester's 
allegation is premised on its contrary view of the underlying 
evaluation.

DECISION

Telford Aviation, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Doss 
Aviation, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT51-95-R-0034, 
issued by the Department of the Army for aircraft maintenance and 
repair services at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Huachuca, Arizona.  
Telford alleges that the evaluation of its proposal was improper and 
also challenges the cost/technical tradeoff decision resulting in the 
selection of Doss.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract 
to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best 
value to the government based on price and other factors.  The 
solicitation provided that technical and management factors were more 
important than price, which was, in turn, more important than past 
performance.  The evaluation factors listed in section M of the RFP, 
together with the associated maximum scores that could be assigned by 
the evaluators, as listed in the source selection plan[1], were as 
follows:

Factor/ Subfactor            Maximum Possible Points

Technical                    60  

     Staffing                     20

     Policies and Procedures      33

     Personnel Qualifications       7

Management                   30

     Aviation Quality Management     10

     Aviation Logistics Support       9

     General Management             7

     Other Management Areas         4

Past Performance             Not Numerically Scored
Four initial proposals were received.  One was immediately rejected as 
unacceptable and another was withdrawn from the competition.  
Discussions were held with Doss and Telford and each was invited to 
submit a best and final offer (BAFO).  The final evaluation scores 
were as follows:

EVALUATION CATEGORY         DOSS     TELFORD

Technical                            

   Staffing                   19.00       5.60

   Policies and Procedures    20.10       7.00

   Personnel Qualification      7.00      6.25

Total Technical (60 Maximum)46.10    18.85

Management                           

   Aviation Quality Management    8.50    2.50

   Aviation Logistics Support    7.20    3.15

   General Management           5.60     0.00

   Other Management Areas       3.33     0.94

Total Management (30 Maximum)24.63    6.59

TOTAL OVERALL[2] (90 Maximum)70.73   25.44
Telford's BAFO price was $4,665,297 for a base year with three 1-year 
options as compared to Doss's price of $6,205,365.  Doss's price was 
determined to be realistic while Telford's was questioned because the 
firm proposed to pay experienced technical workers only the minimum 
wages required by law.  The past performance evaluation resulted in 
Doss being credited for more relevant aircraft experience than 
Telford.  While recognizing the substantial price differential, the 
contracting officer selected Doss stating that its higher 
technical/management score in the most important evaluation factor, 
better past performance, and realistic price represented the best 
value to the government in view of the agency's willingness to pay a 
reasonable premium for reliability and technical excellence.  The 
tradeoff analysis was performed despite the agency's assessment that 
Telford's proposal was technically unacceptable.  Following 
notification of the award and a written debriefing received on 
December 31, Telford filed this protest on January 6, 1997.
 
PROTEST AND ANALYSIS

The protester principally challenges the propriety of the 
technical/management evaluation, the price realism evaluation, and the 
cost/technical tradeoff.

Technical/Management Evaluation

The protester challenges four aspects of the technical/management 
evaluation, namely those involving minimum manning under the staffing 
subfactor, property control and nondestructive testing under the 
policies and procedures subfactor and aviation logistics support under 
the management factor.  

Because the evaluation of proposals is an inherently subjective 
process our Office will not substitute its judgment for that of the 
agency's evaluators.  In order for us to disagree with the agency, the 
record must show that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable; a 
protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not 
establish that it was unreasonable.  Scientific Management Assocs., 
Inc., B-238913, July 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  27 at 4. 

Minimum Manning Under the Staffing Subfactor                                                   
Two contract line items called for offerors to propose a minimum 
number of maintenance and repair personnel at Fort Bliss and Fort 
Huachuca respectively; these positions were described in the RFP and 
constituted the technical minimum manning necessary to perform the 
contract.  Two separate line items, one for each fort, called for 
offerors to propose "administrative personnel, office personnel, 
management, staff and supervisory personnel" which were, by the terms 
of the RFP, not to be duplicates of the minimum manning personnel.  
Telford was downgraded for proposing a number of personnel positions 
incorporating multiple functions which included both the minimum 
manning category and the supervisory/support category.  The most 
prominent of these was the offeror's proposal that its test pilot at 
each fort also function as the project manager at that location.

Telford objects to this downgrading on the basis that the RFP did not 
preclude assigning multiple functions to the same individual.  Telford 
also maintains that the Army is incorrect in believing that one 
individual cannot successfully perform in multiple roles.

The solicitation contract line item format, which indicated separate 
categories for maintenance/repair personnel and 
supervisory/administrative personnel and included the proviso that the 
latter should not duplicate the former, clearly conveyed to offerors 
that proposing multiple functions for a single person was a less than 
acceptable method of staffing.  Given the clarity of the RFP in this 
regard and Telford's election to disregard it, we find that the agency 
had a reasonable basis to downgrade the protester's proposal because 
less-than full-time key management positions were proposed.  See 
Scientific Management Assocs., Inc., supra at 4-5, Lincoln Property 
Co., B-247664, May 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  469.  Finally, as to Telford's 
generalized disagreement with the evaluators about whether individuals 
can successfully perform more than one role, we note that such a 
disagreement alone does not render the agency's position unreasonable.  
Scientific Management Assocs., Inc., supra at 4,7.

Property Control and NonDestructive Testing Under the Policies and 
Procedures Subfactor

With respect to the downgrading of its proposal based on inadequate 
understanding of property control systems, the protester principally 
alleges that the scoring was improperly based on Telford's failure to 
submit a detailed supply procedural manual which was not required by 
the RFP.  The record, however, indicates that Telford was downgraded 
in this area because the discussion it did include on the subject of 
managing government furnished property was inadequate.  For example, 
the agency found that Telford's proposal to conduct a joint inventory 
with the incumbent was impermissible as was the protester's proposal 
to use hand receipts for the transfer of property from the incumbent.  
Telford's comments on these, and other, specific findings merely 
establish its disagreement with the agency's assessment of its 
proposal, which does not afford a legal basis for sustaining the 
protest.  Id. 

With regard to the downgrading of its proposal in the area of 
nondestructive testing, Telford asserts in its protest that it 
currently operates nondestructive inspections under another government 
contract for which it should be credited.  The technical evaluators, 
however, properly considered only information contained in Telford's 
proposal.  Intelcom Support Servs., Inc., B-225600, May 7, 1987, 87-1 
CPD  para.  487 at 6.  The record shows that those evaluators found that 
Telford's proposal did not adequately establish that the firm had a 
thorough understanding of procedures for nondestructive testing; all 
Telford has presented for our review is its general disagreement with 
this finding.  We therefore find no merit to this aspect of the 
protest.  Scientific Management Assocs., Inc., supra at 4,7.

Aviation Logistics Support Under the Management Factor                  

The aspect of the evaluation in this area on which Telford focuses is 
the agency's finding that its proposal did not adequately address the 
need for separate treatment of logistics at each of the forts covered 
by the contract.  Telford objects to the fact that no discussions were 
held on this specific point.  The allegation is untimely because it 
was first raised in the comments filed by the protester in this matter 
on March 13.  The issue was made known to Telford on December 31 when 
it received the debriefing which described this specific logistics 
concern of the Army.  A protester may not introduce a new issue in its 
comments that it could have raised in its initial submission to our 
Office.  Our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the 
unwarranted piecemeal presentation of protest issues.  Concrete Sys., 
Inc., B-259283, Mar. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  158 at 4 n. 2.

Finally, we note that the areas challenged by Telford were worth a 
maximum of 20.2 points out of the possible total of 90.  Telford's 
score in these areas was 5.6.  Thus, even if we were to conclude that 
the protester was completely correct in its position with regard to 
each of the areas and should have been awarded the maximum number of 
points possible, its score would only increase by 14.6 points from 
25.44 to a total of 40.04 points out of the possible 90.  Even in this 
circumstance it appears highly unlikely that the selection decision 
would have been different.  See Naho Constr., Inc., B-244226, Sept. 
12, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  241 at 4.

Price Realism Evaluation

Telford objects to the agency determination that its price was less 
realistic than the awardee's based on the Army's concern about whether 
the protester would be able to secure and retain a reliable work force 
in view of its proposal to pay its experienced personnel only the 
minimum required by law.  

The manner in which a price realism analysis is conducted is a matter 
subject to a contracting agency's sound discretion which we will not 
disturb unless it lacks a reasonable basis.  See Research Management 
Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 368 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  352.  Compensation rates 
properly may be considered as part of a realism analysis.  PHP 
Healthcare Corp.; Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 
et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  366; see also Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 
B-255781.3, July 10, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  6 at 5-6.  Telford has presented 
nothing which causes us to question the Army's price analysis.  
Moreover, Telford has not responded at all to the agency's specific 
concerns that its proposed health and welfare benefits, general and 
administrative expense, and profit rates were all understated.  
Accordingly, we find this aspect of the protest to be without merit.

Cost/Technical Tradeoff Decision

The objections raised by Telford to the cost/technical tradeoff are 
predicated on the assumption that it was defective because it resulted 
from defective underlying technical and price evaluations.  Because 
the above analysis shows that the underlying evaluations were 
reasonably based, this aspect of the protest is without merit.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The factors and subfactors listed below were further subdivided and 
the subdivisions were weighted.  In our comparative analysis of 
section M and the source selection plan the record indicated some 
slight differences in emphasis in certain areas, none of which is 
material to the resolution of the protest.

2. These totals differ slightly, and inconsequentially, from those 
reported in the narrative in the agency report (75 for Doss and 22 for 
Telford) because of minor methodological and arithmetic anomalies in 
the manner in which the evaluators assigned and totaled the scores.  
These figures are based on the original individual evaluators' scoring 
sheets using the methodology and weights contemplated by the source 
selection plan and assigning the maximum points possible to each 
offeror for two sub-subfactors which were, for some reason, overlooked 
in the scoring.  It is clear from the record that these anomalies are 
inconsequential with respect to the resolution of the protest.