BNUMBER:  B-276424; B-276424.2 
DATE:  June 13, 1997
TITLE: Management Resources, Inc., B-276424; B-276424.2, June 13,
1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Management Resources, Inc.

File:     B-276424; B-276424.2

Date:June 13, 1997

Robert M. Cambridge, Esq., for the protester.
James D. Bachman, Esq., and Michael F. Mason, Esq., Doyle & Bachman, 
for Strategic Analysis, Inc., an intervenor.
Robert Swennes, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Evaluation using adjectival ratings supported by narrative assessments 
which detail the strengths and weaknesses in each proposal is 
sufficient to provide the source selection official with a clear 
understanding of the relative merits of proposals so that an 
appropriate source selection decision can be made.

DECISION

Management Resources, Inc. (MRI) protests the award of a contract to 
Strategic Analysis, Inc. (SAI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N00014-95-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy for technical 
and administrative support for the Joint Director of Laboratories.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued in 1995, provided for award on a best value 
basis and set forth three evaluation factors (in descending order of 
importance):  technical approach, qualifications (comprised of three 
subfactors:  personnel, corporate experience and corporate resources), 
and cost.  Award initially was made to MRI.   SAI challenged that 
award in a complaint filed in United States District Court, which 
ultimately found the award improper.  As a result, the Navy reopened 
the competition, requesting and receiving best and final offers (BAFO) 
from MRI and SAI.  Individual evaluators initially rated the proposals 
under each factor with one of four adjectival ratings--exceptional, 
fully qualified, marginal or unacceptable; the evaluators then 
assigned a consensus rating for each noncost factor.  The Navy found 
the proposals equal with respect to the noncost factors, and awarded a 
contract to SAI based on its lower proposed cost ($1.5 million versus 
$2.2 million). 

MRI asserts that the three available ratings in the acceptable range 
were insufficient to reflect the differences between proposals; two 
proposals--one with more superior features than the other--could 
receive the same acceptable rating, making the proposals appear to be 
equal in quality.  MRI concludes that this had the improper effect of 
precluding award to it as an offeror submitting a higher-cost but 
higher technically rated proposal, as permitted under the 
solicitation.[1]

This argument is without merit.  Even if MRI were correct that three 
acceptable rating categories were insufficient (in fact, there is no 
requirement that agencies use rating schemes with a greater number of 
available ratings), it ignores the fact that the evaluation here also 
included detailed narrative comments regarding the strengths and 
weaknesses of each proposal under each noncost factor.  These 
narrative comments, in conjunction with the adjectival ratings, put 
the selection official on notice of the relative merits of the 
proposals, and thus provided a reasonable basis for his conclusion 
that the proposals were essentially equal.  See Cardinal Scientific, 
Inc., B-270309, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  70 at 3-4.

MRI argues that the assigning of consensus evaluation ratings 
improperly operated to make the proposals appear equal in quality, by 
obliterating the distinctions found by individual evaluators between 
the proposals.  MRI again concludes that this evaluation scheme 
precluded the selection authority from balancing technical superiority 
against cost to determine whether a price premium was warranted for a 
superior technical proposal.   

This argument is also without merit.  At least where, as here, a 
selection decision is made with full knowledge of the proposals' 
relative strengths and weaknesses, there simply is no basis for 
concluding that a consensus rating deprived the selection official of 
information necessary to determine whether one of the proposals was 
technically superior or, ultimately, which proposal represented the 
best value.[2]  Again, it is clear from the record that, 
notwithstanding the adjectival ratings and the manner in which they 
were developed, the selection official was fully aware of the various 
strengths and weaknesses of the proposals when he concluded that the 
proposals were essentially technically equal.  As MRI has not 
challenged the specific evaluation conclusions, there is no basis to 
question the award to SAI based on its lower price.

MRI maintains that the evaluation failed to comply with the agency's 
source selection plan.  However, alleged deficiencies in the 
application of a source selection plan do not provide a basis for 
questioning the validity of the award selection; these plans are 
internal agency instructions and as such do not give outside parties 
any rights.  Management Plus, Inc., B-265852, Dec. 29, 1995,          
95-2 CPD  para.  290 at 2-3.  Rather, the agency is required to follow the 
evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP and to conduct its evaluation 
in a manner that will reach a rational result.  Id.  MRI has 
established no basis for the conclusion that the Navy's proposal 
evaluation was inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In its initial protest MRI argued that the agency did not conduct a 
meaningful cost realism analysis and that the agency did not properly 
consider the past performance of SAI in evaluating that company's 
offer.  The agency specifically addressed these contentions in the 
agency report.  MRI's comments did not specifically rebut the agency's 
position on these issues.  Under such circumstances, we consider these 
issues abandoned.  Cornet, Inc; Datacomm Management Servs., Inc., 
B-270330; B-270330.2, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  189 at 5-6.

2. In any case, we fail to see how the use of a consensus rating among 
several evaluators resulted in an unreasonable evaluation.  There is 
nothing objectionable in evaluators meeting to discuss the relative 
strengths and weaknesses of proposals in order to reach a consensus 
rating, which often differs from the ratings given by the individual 
evaluators.  General Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992,  92-1 
CPD   para.  44 at 9.