BNUMBER:  B-275999.4; B-275999.5 
DATE:  October 6, 1997
TITLE: Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture, B-275999.4;
B-275999.5, October 6, 1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture

File:     B-275999.4; B-275999.5

Date:October 6, 1997

Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., and Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., East & Barnhill, 
for the protester.
Laura J. Mann, Esq., and Alan M. Grayson, Esq., Alan M. Grayson and 
Associates, for Syska & Hennessy, Inc., and Robert J. Symon, Esq., and 
Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for John J. Kirlin, 
Inc., intervenors.
Steven Feldman, Esq., and Craig R. Schmauder, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that contracting agency's evaluation and subsequent 
exclusion from the competitive range of protester's proposal were 
improper is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was 
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation 
factors; protester's allegations that the agency misunderstood certain 
aspects of its proposal to its detriment are not supported by the 
record. 

2.  Supplemental protest that contracting agency improperly solicited 
for construction services but, in its evaluation, improperly converted 
the solicitation into one for design services is dismissed as untimely 
where the protester was provided sufficient information in its written 
debriefing document to include this specific allegation in its initial 
protest, but failed to raise the matter until nearly 1 month later.

DECISION

Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture protests the exclusion 
of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. DACA87-96-R-0025, issued by the Department of the Army, 
Corps of Engineers, for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of 
equipment and systems at government medical and other facilities 
nationwide.  Global contends that the evaluation and subsequent 
exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range were improper.

We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.

BACKGROUND

The Army issued this solicitation to satisfy its need for quick 
response in cases where government medical and other facilities 
require repair or renewal relating to mechanical, electrical, 
instrumentation, security, safety, architectural, structural, and 
civil efforts.  The RFP anticipated the award of multiple indefinite 
delivery, indefinite quantity contracts under a mixed restricted/full 
and open competition procedure.  The non-set-aside awards, at issue 
here, were valued at $50 million for the base year and for each of 
four option years.    

Offerors were required to submit proposals consisting of separate 
technical, management, past performance, contract pricing data, and 
subcontracting plan volumes.  Awards would be made to the offerors 
whose proposals were most advantageous to the government, considering 
five evaluation factors corresponding to the separate proposal 
volumes.  The equally important technical, management, and past 
performance factors were to be point-scored, with a maximum score of 
60 points for each factor.  The contract pricing data factor, which 
was less important than the first three factors, was to be evaluated 
as to reasonableness and affordability.  The subcontracting plan 
factor, the least important of the five, was to be point-scored, with 
a maximum score of 20 points.

Nine offerors submitted proposals by the October 30, 1996, closing 
date.  After the individual evaluation board members evaluated each 
proposal, the board arrived at a consensus evaluation which formed the 
basis of the contracting officer's competitive range determination.  
Global's proposal was one of three excluded from the competitive range 
on January 2, 1997.  The firm's proposal received 83.8 of the 200 
available points, the next-to-lowest score received, and the 
contracting officer deemed the proposal unacceptable and not 
susceptible of being made acceptable absent major revisions.  On June 
16, the Army awarded four contracts under this solicitation and 
provided Global with a written debriefing on June 23.[1]  Global filed 
its initial protest on June 26, and a supplemental protest a month 
later.

Global, which proposed to perform this contract as a joint venture 
with one design subcontractor, challenges numerous aspects of the 
Army's evaluation of its proposal.  An overarching theme of Global's 
protest is its allegation that the Army misunderstood the joint 
venture partners' and the subcontractor's relationships with the 
offeror, and improperly failed to credit the offeror with the 
experience afforded by these relationships.  Global's supplemental 
protest contends that the agency issued this solicitation calling for 
award of a construction contract but improperly evaluated the offers 
received as if a design contract were to be awarded.

DISCUSSION

The evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a 
proposal is in the competitive range are principally matters within 
the contracting agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible 
for defining their needs and for deciding the best method of meeting 
them.  Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc., B-270645.2, May 24, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  252 at 2-3.  Thus, it is not the function of our Office to 
evaluate proposals de novo and we will not disturb that determination 
absent a showing that it was unreasonable or in violation of 
procurement laws or regulations.  Id.

An offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written 
and that affirmatively states its merits, or run the risk of having 
its proposal rejected as technically unacceptable.  Defense Group, 
Inc., B-253795, Oct. 25, 1993, 94-1 CPD  para.  196 at 5.  Agencies may 
exclude proposals with significant informational deficiencies from 
further consideration whether the deficiencies are attributable to 
omitted or merely inadequate information addressing fundamental 
factors.  Premier Cleaning Sys., Inc., B-255815, Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 
CPD  para.  241 at 5.  Generally, offers that are technically unacceptable 
as submitted and would require major revisions to become acceptable 
are not required to be included in the competitive range for 
discussion purposes.  Engineering & Computation, Inc., B-258728, Jan. 
31, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  155 at 3. 

We cannot conclude that the Army unreasonably excluded Global's 
proposal from the competitive range.  The RFP cautioned that 
"parroting" of the requirements with a statement of intent to perform 
would not reveal the firm's understanding of the problem or its 
capability to solve it, and imposed upon offerors the responsibility 
to include sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate 
evaluation--the agency would not make assumptions concerning an 
offeror's intent, capabilities, facilities, or experiences.  Global's 
proposal was downgraded in large part because the information it 
provided lacked sufficient detail for the agency to determine that it 
met or understood the RFP's requirements.  Further, Global's 
allegation that the Army misunderstood its joint venture and 
subcontractor relationships is not borne out by the record.  Finally, 
we dismiss Global's supplemental protest as untimely.

Technical 

Offerors' technical volumes were required to address the items in the 
statement of work, being sure to include the nature of the requirement 
as understood by the offeror; a recognition of critical areas of the 
requirement; and proposed methods of accomplishing the requirement.  
In conjunction with these general requirements, the RFP established 
two equally important specific subfactors:  technical approach and 
experience and capabilities.    

We will not review Global's allegations concerning the evaluation of 
its proposal under the technical approach subfactor.  In its June 23 
written debriefing, the Army advised Global of three extremely 
detailed reasons for its low technical approach rating.  Despite its 
knowledge of these specific criticisms, Global's June 26 protest 
essentially consisted of a disagreement with the agency's conclusions.  
Given the detail available to Global at the time it filed its protest, 
its broad allegation is insufficiently specific to constitute a valid 
basis of protest.  Cornet, Inc.; Datacomm Management Servs., Inc., 
B-270330, B-270330.2, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  189 at 4; Ebon 
Research Sys., B-253833.2, B-253833.3, Nov. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  270 at 
7 n.5.  Moreover, Global's specific challenges to these criticisms, 
raised for the first time in its comments, are untimely.  Under our 
Bid Protest Regulations, protests based on other than solicitation 
improprieties must be filed no later than 10 days after the protester 
knew or should have known their bases.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1997).  
These regulations do not contemplate the piecemeal presentation or 
development of protest issues; where a protester raises a broad ground 
of protest in its initial submission but fails to provide details 
within its knowledge until later, so that a further response from the 
agency is needed for an objective review of the matter, these later 
issues will not be considered.[2]  Litton Sys., Inc., Data Sys. Div., 
B-262099, Oct. 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  215 at 2-3.

Under the experience and capabilities subfactor, offerors were 
required to provide three sets of information.  First, offerors were 
to provide a list of the principle types of contract work performed in 
enumerated categories, among them civil, structural, and mechanical.  
Civil was defined as medical facility site planning and layout, roads, 
parking area, drainage, and master planning; structural was defined as 
structural engineering for medical and conventional construction, 
construction materials, computer usage, loading, structural systems, 
and miscellaneous structural features; and the definition of 
mechanical included plumbing systems involving medical gas systems.  
Second, offerors were to provide a list of contracts directly related 
to remediation of medical facilities and medical facilities systems.  
Third, offerors were to discuss their capability to do the same or 
similar work during the contract period, including the proposed use of 
subcontractors.[3]

Global's proposal was downgraded because it did not demonstrate 
medical gas, asbestos, or elevator or escalator experience, and did 
not show expertise in civil and structural disciplines.  Global's 
protest argued that its proposal did fully address medical gas 
distribution, as well as civil and structural disciplines.[4]  Our 
review of Global's proposal provides us no basis to disagree with the 
agency's evaluation.

Under the civil category, Global's proposal lists one contract which 
involved planning a project with investigation into unit and agency 
identifications, facility utilization surveys, and siting analysis.  
As the Army notes, there is no mention of the other required elements 
of this discipline such as roads, parking area, and drainage.   
Similarly, under the structural category, Global's proposal lists one 
contract under which it performed structural analysis to replace an 
outdoor air handling unit.  There is no mention of other required 
elements of this discipline such as computer usage, loading, 
structural systems, and miscellaneous structural features.  Global's 
flat assertion that the jobs it listed in its work history--its list 
of relevant contracts--"more than embrace experience" in the civil and 
structural disciplines does not specifically identify any such 
contracts and we are unable to do so.    

Under the mechanical category, Global's proposal lists no contracts 
under which it performed medical gas systems work despite its 
recognition that this is a critical area.  While its work history 
lists two contracts indicating that one of the joint venture firms 
performed services which included medical gas piping work, there is no 
further detail concerning this experience, such as how much of the 
contract medical gas systems comprised and precisely what the work 
involved.  Moreover, since each page of the work history states that 
100 percent of the work was performed by the team members as 
subcontractors,[5] the question arises whether the work was merely an 
installation project or whether the firms had a hand in designing the 
medical gas systems.  Given the lack of detail in the proposal in this 
regard, we cannot fault the agency's evaluation.  

Global's proposal was also downgraded because there was no evidence in 
the proposal that the contractor had design experience or exactly who 
would do the design; the proposal did not address design/construction 
management capabilities; and most of the projects listed were "install 
only" type work with no design requirements.  Global argues that since 
it proposed an architectural/engineering (A/E) firm as its design 
subcontractor the Army's comments reflect its failure to impute the 
subcontractor's experience to the offeror.  We disagree.

It is indeed unclear from the technical proposal exactly who will do 
Global's A/E design work.  The proposal does name the subcontractor 
but does not identify what that firm will do under the contract.  The 
appended work history does not identify the firm that performed any of 
the listed design contracts save for one case, which contains a 
reference to [DELETED].  However, this reference is made ambiguous by 
the notation at the bottom of the page which states that 100 percent 
of the work was performed by "team members" acting as subcontractors.  
Notwithstanding Global's failure to clarify this matter, the 
evaluators turned to other volumes of the proposal identifying the 
subcontractor's proposed role and duly credited the offeror with its 
experience.  

As the Army states, however, the proposal contains little detail about 
this subcontractor's experience.  The descriptions of its contracts 
are extremely brief and give little indication of the exact nature of 
its experience.  Moreover, the proposal's statements that it did not 
anticipate the need for many architectural services compelled the Army 
to question whether Global understood the RFP's requirements 
regarding, in particular, the civil and architectural areas.  

The Army was also concerned that most of the projects listed by the 
joint venture partners were "install only" type work with no design 
requirements.  In this regard, the RFP's anticipated work in the 
safety, instrumentation, security, electrical, and mechanical 
categories includes not only the installation of these systems, but 
their design, as confirmed by, among other things, references to 
various design publications to which this work is subject.  Global's 
own proposal acknowledges that design of these systems is expected 
under the contract, as its narrative discusses experience with the 
design of electrical systems, plumbing systems, heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning systems, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, and 
security systems.  The offeror's work history confirms, however, that 
most of the projects involved installation and contains little detail 
on the design of these systems.[6]

In its initial protest, Global cited the disadvantages listed in the 
debriefing document as evidence that the Army's evaluation unduly 
elevated design as an evaluation factor.  We disagree.  As the Army 
points out, and as the RFP and Global's proposal confirm, there is an 
element of design in each of the enumerated categories of work to be 
performed and Global's proposal did not provide sufficient detail to 
address these elements.  As a result, it was not improper for the Army 
to consider Global's shortcomings in this respect and to downgrade its 
proposal accordingly.

In its July 25 supplemental protest, Global cited various comments 
made on the individual evaluator rating sheets--which it received in 
the agency report--to argue that the agency solicited for construction 
services but, in its evaluation, improperly converted the solicitation 
into one for design services in contravention of the Brooks 
Architect-Engineers Act, 40 U.S.C.  sec.  541-544 (1994).  This argument 
is untimely.

The debriefing document provided to Global on June 23 contained each 
disadvantage cited in the consensus evaluation document, which was the 
basis of the competitive range determination.  Each of the individual 
evaluator comments relied upon by Global to establish the timeliness 
of this protest was found, in slightly different form, in the 
debriefing document.[7]  Hence, Global knew when it filed its protest 
that [DELETED] of the [DELETED] disadvantages identified in its 
technical proposal referenced its shortcomings in the area of design, 
but did not raise this specific challenge until after it received the 
agency report.  Since this later-raised contention was based on 
information in its possession sufficient to put it on notice of the 
issue prior to the filing of its initial protest, this supplemental 
protest was filed in a piecemeal fashion and will not now be reviewed 
on its merits.  Litton Sys., Inc., Data Sys. Div., supra.   The 
protest also does not fall under the significant issue exception to 
our timeliness rules, see 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(c), which is limited to 
untimely protests that raise issues of widespread interest to the 
procurement community and that have not been considered on the merits 
in a previous decision.  DynCorp, 70 Comp. Gen. 38, 40-41 (1990), 90-2 
CPD  para.  310 at 2-4.  While there do not appear to be other decisions 
considering this issue, there is no evidence that it is of widespread 
interest to the procurement community.[8]

Global's proposal was also downgraded because the "[s]ubcontractor has 
medical experience but Global (Prime) has shown no evidence of medical 
work causing the Evaluation Board to question its capability to assure 
a professional product."  Global argues that this comment demonstrates 
the agency's failure to recognize the nature of a joint venture and 
asserts that all of the joint venture partners had medical experience 
that was improperly ignored.

The use of the term "subcontractor" aside,[9] the individual evaluator 
rating sheets show that the Army credited the offeror with the joint 
venture partners' medical experience.  Their concern was that Global, 
which identified itself as the "managing prime," appeared to have no 
documented experience in this area, a concern borne out by the record.  
We do not think it unreasonable for the agency to be concerned that 
the managing prime contractor had no experience in the subject matter 
of the contract to be managed, or for it to downgrade the proposal 
accordingly.

Finally, Global's proposal was downgraded because the individuals 
listed had less than the required experience.  Even assuming Global's 
challenge to the evaluation in this area is valid, there is no basis 
to conclude that the agency's actions here were prejudicial to Global 
given our conclusions as to the remainder of Global's allegations, and 
its low standing after the initial evaluation.  Our Office will not 
sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable 
possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions, which in 
this case means that, but for the Army's actions, Global's proposal 
would have had a substantial chance of being included in the 
competitive range.  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 
(Fed. Cir. 1996).  Due to the clear lack of prejudice associated with 
the lack-of-experience issue, we need not address it here.  

Management

Offerors' management proposals were to describe their proposed 
organizations.  Among other things, they were to submit a company 
resource chart with the number of personnel on board committed by 
defined labor category; related experience to include description and 
resumes; and a detailed plan of what work would be subcontracted out 
and how that work would be managed.  In conjunction with these general 
requirements, the RFP set forth five specific subfactors:  corporate 
experience, personnel qualifications, organization, proposal 
preparation plan, and cost control.  We address the first three 
subfactors in detail.[10]  

First, offerors were required to demonstrate related corporate 
experience and knowledge in medical facilities remediation programs.  
Global's proposal was downgraded because the joint venture partners 
had minimal experience working together and limited medical 
experience; the joint venture had no continuity in management; and the 
proposal indicated no management controls.

Global's protest did not specifically challenge the substance of this 
criticism, which appears to be well-founded.  Contrary to Global's 
claims, the individual evaluator rating sheets make it clear that 
Global was credited with the experience of both the joint venture 
partners and the subcontractor.  It is evident, however, that the Army 
was concerned that this experience, particular in terms of management, 
was insufficient.  The medical experience of the joint venture firms 
was primarily limited to discrete projects and often performed in 
their capacities as subcontractors, leading the Army to question their 
ability--and by extension, the joint venture's ability--to manage 
large projects.  While an agency may consider the separate 
qualifications of joint venture partners in evaluating the 
qualifications of the joint venture, Dynamic Isolation Sys., Inc., 
B-247047, Apr. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  399 at 7 n.7, and the Army did so 
here, there is no requirement that a corporate experience evaluation 
disregard a lack of experience by the joint venture itself.  MR&S/AME, 
An MSC Joint Venture, B-250313.2, Mar. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  245 at 9. 

Second, offerors were required to identify the principal program 
personnel with their areas of responsibility and relationship with the 
management structure.  Section L.f.2.(b) of the RFP stated that the 
personnel qualifications were to include their general experience and 
their medical facilities remediation experience.  Offerors were 
instructed to have personnel of suitable background and experience to 
ensure that all the anticipated disciplines required on the contract 
were represented.  Global's proposal was downgraded because adequate 
personnel qualifications were not submitted for the quality control, 
safety, or architect personnel; no medical experience was listed in 
individual resumes; and the resumes submitted did not list engineers 
or show their minimum qualifications.

In its protest, Global argued that the resumes it submitted reflected 
more than adequate personnel qualifications and a wealth of medical 
experience citing, for example, the resume of its proposed vice 
president/treasurer as reflecting the firm's engineer and his 
qualifications.[11]  This individual is not proposed as Global's 
engineer, but as its vice president/treasurer who happens to be an 
engineer and who will [DELETED].  More important, his resume shows no 
medical facilities remediation experience as required by the RFP.  As 
for Global's argument that the Army should have imputed to this 
individual the work history of his employer, the Army had no legal or 
factual basis to speculate as to what his responsibilities might have 
been under these contracts.  See SC&A, Inc., B-270160.2, Apr. 10, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  197 at 6.

Third, under the organization subfactor, offerors were required to 
provide their proposed management structure and management techniques 
and controls that would be implemented to assure a rationale for and 
control of subcontracting.  Global's proposal was downgraded because 
it did not submit a clear management structure; no subcontractor was 
proposed to do design work and therefore management of design was not 
covered; and it was not clear who would provide engineering services.

Global's flat assertion that its management structure meets the 
requirements of the RFP is belied by the general and, as the Army puts 
it, philosophical nature of its proposal when contrasted with the 
RFP's specific requirements.[12]  The Army concedes that it erred in 
stating that Global did not propose a subcontractor to do design 
work--indeed, the evaluators acknowledged this fact and credited 
Global's proposal with the subcontractor's experience--but asserts 
that the thrust of its comment was that the proposal did not address 
the management of design work as required by the RFP.  Global has 
given us no reason to dispute this assertion.   Finally, Global's 
contention that two of its joint venture partners would provide 
engineering services overlooks the fact that these two firms will 
provide only [DELETED] engineering services, leaving the question open 
as to who will provide the [DELETED] engineering services called for 
in the solicitation.

Past Performance

The RFP required the submission of past performance data from the 
offeror as well as from any significant subcontractors.  Offerors with 
no relevant past performance history "as an entity" could substitute 
that of key personnel and significant subcontractors; otherwise they 
would receive a neutral rating.  Global's proposal received [DELETED] 
of the 60 available points, with the following consensus evaluation 
comment:  "Showed satisfied customers.  No Project Management track 
record for JV.  No Prime past performance.  Only one rating for Prime 
on a job that lasted three weeks.  Past performance evaluations are 
mostly for subs who did work for [DELETED] and generally had very good 
ratings."

Global's assertion that the Army improperly failed to credit the 
offeror with the experience of its organizational members, the joint 
venture partner firms' key personnel, and its [DELETED] is unfounded.  
The individual evaluator rating sheets show that the joint venture was 
given credit for the experience of the joint venture partners despite 
the fact that the initial solicitation's provision for consideration 
of the experience of "organizational members" was deleted by later 
amendment, raising the question whether Global was actually entitled 
to credit for any of this experience.  These same rating sheets also 
show that the joint venture was credited with the subcontractor's 
experience.  Since Global's past performance proposal does not 
identify any key personnel for the agency's consideration, it is 
difficult to imagine how their experience could have been credited to 
the offeror.

Global cites two phrases from the consensus evaluation document to 
support its allegation that the Army was confused about its joint 
venture and subcontractor relationships.  Global is wrong on both 
counts.

The comment, "No Prime past performance.  Only one rating for Prime on 
a job that lasted three weeks," refers not to a misunderstanding 
between Global as the managing prime contractor and the joint venture 
as the prime contractor, but to facts in the record.  There is no past 
performance information regarding the joint venture as an entity--the 
prime--but only a reference to the joint venture's holding of a 
medical remediation contract for which little detail was supplied.  
The proposal does contain a narrative account of a 3-week long medical 
renovation project performed by four of the five joint venture 
partners, and the Army duly credited Global with this experience.

The phrase, "[p]ast performance evaluations are mostly for subs who 
did work for [DELETED] and generally had very good ratings," is also 
an accurate reflection of the record.  Most of the past performance 
evaluations submitted by the joint venture's listed contacts do 
reflect that the work performed by the joint venture partners was 
performed in their capacities as subcontractors to [DELETED], and that 
their performance was generally very good.  Contrary to Global's 
allegations, the Army's understanding of its proposal appears 
reasonable in this matter.
   
Subcontracting Plan

Large business offerors such as Global were required to submit a 
subcontracting plan as described in FAR  sec.  52.219-9, "Small, Small 
Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan."  
The RFP supplied offerors with specific guidance as to what should be 
included in these plans and how they would be evaluated.  Global's 
subcontracting plan received [DELETED] of the 20 available points, 
with a disadvantage cited under each of the eight evaluation areas.  
Global's protest specifically challenged three of these.

Offerors had to identify the efforts undertaken to broaden their small 
business (SB) and small disadvantaged business (SDB) active vendor 
bases, and Global's proposal was downgraded because its proposal did 
not clearly demonstrate how it planned to expand or broaden this base.  
Global's citation to specific portions of its proposal in response to 
this criticism does not render the Army's conclusion unreasonable, 
since the contents of the proposal appear to justify the Army's 
concern.  The proposal generally asserts that the firm will [DELETED] 
but provides no specific detail and no listing of prospective small 
business vendors.

Offerors were also required to meet a past performance 
requirement--the extent to which the prime has historically been 
successful in establishing realistic yet challenging goals and 
evidences ability to achieve them.  Global's proposal was downgraded 
because the historical experience of only one firm was identified and 
this information was not specific.  Contrary to Global's assertions, 
its proposal was credited with the experience of the one joint venture 
partner mentioned here, but this firm's past performance in 
establishing realistic yet challenging goals and ability to achieve 
them was not specified and the downgrading of the proposal was 
justified.    

Finally, offerors had to provide the name of the company employee 
responsible for administration of the plan and his or her duties.  
Global's proposal was downgraded because its proposal listed [DELETED] 
and it was not clear precisely [DELETED] was to be held accountable 
for administering the plan.  Global's argument that the person who 
signed the plan--[DELETED]--was responsible for its administration is 
not persuasive given the proposal's failure to make this clear.  

CONCLUSION

As demonstrated above, the record shows that the Army's evaluation of 
Global's proposal as technically unacceptable was reasonable and 
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  Since a firm whose 
proposal has been properly determined technically unacceptable has no 
chance of being selected for award no matter how low its price, Custom 
Data Servs., B-271288.2, Oct. 9, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  140 at 3, we need 
not consider Global's allegations concerning the cost/price 
evaluation, and conclude that its exclusion from the competitive range 
was proper.  Id. 

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Global's request for a debriefing immediately after it was notified 
of its exclusion from the competitive range was denied by the Army as 
not being in the government's best interest.  We declined to review 
Global's protest of the Army's decision.  Global Eng'g & Constr. Joint 
Venture, B-275999.3, Feb. 19, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  77.

2. Global's failure to fully utilize the specific information provided 
in the debriefing  in drafting its initial protest renders a number of 
its later-raised allegations untimely.  An offeror who receives 
specific information in its debriefing but ignores it when drafting 
its initial protest does so at its peril.  See, e.g., Cornet Inc.; 
Datacomm Management Servs., Inc., supra. 

3. The RFP stated that subcontractor experience/credentials in medical 
facility remediation would be imputed to and evaluated as part of 
proposals.

4. Global was aware of the Army's opinion with respect to its asbestos 
and elevator or escalator experience when it filed its protest, but 
did not challenge that opinion until it filed its comments.  Since 
these later-raised contentions were based on information in its 
possession sufficient to put it on notice of these issues prior to the 
filing of its protest, these issues were filed in a piecemeal fashion 
and we will not now review their merits.  Litton Sys., Inc., Data Sys. 
Div., supra. 

5. This notation, and the work history's failure to identify any of 
the firms that performed these contracts, led one individual evaluator 
to comment that "work presented [in the work history] is by subs that 
are not identified by charts presented."  

6. Our review of Global's proposal also confirms the Army's assertion 
that it did not adequately address design and construction management 
capabilities; in fact, the entire section on capabilities consists of 
generalities.

7. Global's argument that the debriefing disadvantages were more 
"terse" than the  individual rating comments does not disguise the 
fact that they contain the same information and were typically 
conveyed in the debriefing document in nearly verbatim form.  It is 
not clear what bearing Global's assertion that the debriefing 
disadvantages were "inaccurate" has on the matter, as the protester 
maintains that the individual evaluator comments are inaccurate as 
well.

8. In any event, our review of the record shows that the protest is 
without merit.  Where, as here, the statement of work does not 
substantially or to a dominant extent specify performance or approval 
by a registered or licensed architect or engineer, it is proper for 
the contracting officer to follow the contracting procedures found in 
Part 15 of the FAR, as happened here.  FAR  sec.  36.601-3(c).

9. Again, the use of this term here is entirely consistent with the 
language in Global's proposal which states that the listed contracts 
were 100-percent performed by the joint venture partners as 
subcontractors.

10. Global's argument that the Army improperly considered its rapid 
response time under the proposal preparation plan subfactor, as well 
as under the technical factor, ignores the RFP's explicit advice that 
it would do so.  Global's protest of the Army's evaluation of its 
proposal under the cost control subfactor did not address the most 
serious of the noted disadvantages, but focused on the Army's concern 
that the offeror's plan to [DELETED] would increase costs.  The Army 
was not persuaded by Global's unsubstantiated claim that this approach 
would result in substantial cost savings, and Global has given us no 
basis to consider the Army's evaluation unreasonable.

11. Since Global did not specifically rebut the agency's evaluation of 
its proposal with respect to its quality control, safety, and 
architect personnel, Global's later-raised allegations in this regard 
are untimely.  Litton Sys., Inc., Data Sys. Div., supra.  Global's 
second supplemental protest raised the question whether the statement 
of work's minimum qualifications for key personnel applied to the 
principal program personnel.  We dismissed that protest as untimely 
and did not reach the merits of this question, and need not reach it 
here since the sole individual whose qualifications are in question 
clearly does not meet the requirements set forth in section L.f.2.(b) 
of the RFP.

12. Global asserts that its joint venture agreement further described 
its management structure but was improperly overlooked.  The record 
shows that the joint venture agreement was appended to the cost 
proposal, which was evaluated by different individuals than those who 
evaluated the remainder of the proposal.  The management proposal did 
not cross-reference the joint venture agreement.  Offerors bear the 
burden for failing to submit an adequately written proposal and 
contracting agencies are not obligated to go in search of needed 
information which the offeror has omitted or failed adequately to 
present.  Fluor Daniel, Inc., B-262051, B-262051.2, Nov. 21, 1995, 
95-2 CPD  para.  241 at 8.