BNUMBER:  B-276215; B-276215.2 
DATE:  May 22, 1997
TITLE: Jet Investments, Inc., B-276215; B-276215.2, May 22, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Jet Investments, Inc.

File:     B-276215; B-276215.2

Date:May 22, 1997

Phillip B. Allen, Esq., for the protester.
Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq. and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation required offerors to submit specific information 
setting forth their transportation and quality control plans, proposal 
was properly found  unacceptable because of protester's failure to 
submit the required information regarding these plans.  

DECISION

Jet Investments, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Command 
Management Services, Inc. (CMS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAKF57-96-R-0016, issued by the Department of the Army for meals, 
lodging, and transportation for the Military Entrance Processing 
Station, in Oakland, California.  Jet primarily contends that its 
proposal was unfairly evaluated.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued on October 11, 1996, contemplated the award 
of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base year with four 
1-year options.  The RFP's evaluation scheme provided that proposals 
would be evaluated under the following criteria, in descending order 
of importance:  quality, past performance, and price.  Award was to be 
made, without discussions, to the offeror whose proposal was most 
advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered.  
The solicitation also instructed offerors as to information required 
to be included in technical proposals to permit technical evaluations, 
including a transportation plan with certain specified information 
(including the routes to be used to transport the military personnel 
and the frequency of departure), and a quality control plan detailing 
policies and procedures regarding customer service and corrective 
action taken to rectify identified deficiencies.    

The agency received three proposals by the November 19 closing date.  
The proposals of CMS and another offeror both received overall 
technical ratings of "excellent," while Jet's proposal received an 
overall rating of "unacceptable."   Jet's proposal was found 
unacceptable because it did not include a quality control plan, and 
because overall the proposal lacked sufficient detail to convey Jet's 
approach to the evaluators.  The agency determined that CMS offered 
the best value to the government and made award to that company on 
January 29, 1997.  This protest followed.  

Jet argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal.  Jet 
contends that the agency did not adequately take into account the fact 
that it operates the proposed hotel and owns its proposed 
transportation fleet.  Jet complains that the agency discounted its 
proposal for lacking a quality control plan, when its proposal did, in 
fact, contain a section entitled "quality control plan."  Finally, Jet 
contends that the agency improperly rated its past performance with 
the Military Sealift Command as "satisfactory," rather than 
"excellent."  Jet contends that the agency improperly downgraded its 
proposal for "technical" reasons, based on the "words on the page," 
when "what really matters is performance."       

The agency points out that Jet's proposal failed to include much of 
the information required by the solicitation.  While the agency 
recognized that Jet owned and managed the proposed hotel and viewed 
Jet's on-site management as a plus, it also noted that Jet's 
transportation plan failed to include any information on the 
maintenance or safety inspection plans for its vehicles or to identify 
the routes that  would be used, as required by the RFP.  In this 
regard, Jet's proposal stated only that "routes will depend on weather 
and traffic."  The agency also noted that while Jet's proposal did 
include a section entitled "quality control plan," this section only 
restated Jet's small disadvantaged business status, and included no 
information about or references to methods it would employ to identify 
and correct deficiencies.  
An offeror in a negotiated procurement disregards at its peril a 
solicitation's instructions to provide specific information with its 
written proposal.  Allenhurst Indus., Inc., B-256836; B-256836.2, July 
8, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  14 at 4.  Based on our review of the record, we 
find that Jet failed to follow the RFP's clear, specific instructions 
and that the agency reasonably concluded that the information the firm 
did provide was insufficient to show that Jet understood or would 
satisfy the requirements of the contemplated contract.  
Notwithstanding Jet's contrary assertion, its proposal does not 
contain any quality control plan whatsoever, its transportation plan 
is sparse, lacking all of the required information, and its proposal 
is cryptic and nonspecific throughout.  Accordingly, we have no basis 
to question the agency's determination that Jet's proposal was 
unacceptable.[1]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Because Jet's proposal properly was rejected as technically 
unacceptable, Jet's objections to the evaluation of CMS' proposal are 
not for consideration on the merits.  Jet is not an interested party 
to raise this challenge because there is another technically 
acceptable proposal that would be in line for award if CMS' proposal 
were not selected.  Hughes Technical Servs. Co., B-245546.3, Feb. 12, 
1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  179 at 8.  Also, while Jet contends that the agency 
held discussions with CMS and therefore should have held discussions 
with the remaining offerors, since Jet's proposal was properly viewed 
as technically unacceptable, the agency was under no obligation to 
conduct discussions with it even if discussions were held with the 
other offerors.  International Resources Corp., B-259992, Apr. 14, 
1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  200 at 5.