BNUMBER:  B-276506 
DATE:  May 21, 1997
TITLE: Technology Services International, Inc., B-276506, May 21,
1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Technology Services International, Inc.

File:     B-276506

Date:May 21, 1997

Nancy O. Dix, Esq., and Mary E. Shallman, Esq., Gray, Cary, Ware, and 
Freidenrich, for the protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's technical evaluation, and source selection based upon that 
evaluation, are unreasonable where the agency evaluated the awardee's 
proposal with the highest rating under a significant quality control 
technical subfactor, even though the awardee's proposal did not submit 
a detailed work scheduling system as contemplated by this subfactor.

DECISION

Technology Services International, Inc. protests the award of a 
contract to Oahu Tree Experts under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F64605-96-R-0046, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for 
grounds maintenance services, at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.  
Technology Services challenges the evaluation of proposals and the 
best value award decision.

We sustain the protest.

The RFP, issued October 18, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
fixed-price contract for grounds maintenance services at Hickam Air 
Force Base for a 6-month base period with 5 option years.  The RFP 
included a performance work statement (PWS), which detailed the work 
requirements.  The RFP advised offerors that this was a "performance 
based contract," and that the agency "will no longer tell the 
contractor how to do the job," but will provide performance standards 
while the contractor will provide the "how to."  In this regard, the 
PWS stated that the contractor's technical proposal, and any 
subsequent negotiated changes thereto, would be incorporated into the 
contract upon award, and the commitments made thereto shall be binding 
upon the offeror.

The RFP set forth a best value award evaluation scheme and stated that 
the government was more concerned with obtaining superior technical 
features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost, but 
that the government would not make an award at a significantly higher 
overall cost for slightly superior technical features.  The RFP listed 
four evaluation areas:  Technical (Grounds Maintenance), Management 
(Manpower Planning), Past Performance, and Price.  The first three 
areas were equally weighted, and in combination, were said to be more 
important than price.  The RFP further stated that in order to be 
eligible for award, the proposal must meet all solicitation 
requirements.

For the technical area, the RFP listed the following equally weighted 
subfactors:  (a) Quality Control, (b) Equipment, Material and Supplies 
and Work Procedures, and (c) Customer Service.  For the management 
area, the equally weighted subfactors were:  (a) Start-up and 
Mobilization Procedures, and (b) Adequate Manning of Quality 
Personnel.  For the technical and management areas, the RFP stated 
that additional consideration would be given when the "offeror 
includes value-added enhancements  to the government's requirements."  
Past Performance was to be assessed from the offeror's past 
performance record and the proposed prices were to be evaluated for 
completeness, realism and reasonableness.  

With respect to the quality control subfactor, the RFP stated that the 
offeror will be evaluated to assess whether its quality control plan 
included, among other things, "a work scheduling system which shows by 
area the day and time when all requirements covered in the PWS will be 
accomplished."  The RFP required the quality control plan to include 
"a work scheduling system based upon the contractor's technical 
proposal," the schedule to "show by area, the day and time when all 
requirements covered under the PWS will be accomplished," and the 
contractor shall comply with the submitted schedule as incorporated 
into the contract. 

For purposes of rating the proposals under the various factors and 
subfactors, the RFP designated the following color-coded rating 
system:

     Color   Rating      Definition

     Blue    Exceptional Exceeds specified performance or capability 
     in a beneficial way to the Air Force; and has no significant 
     weaknesses.

     Green     AcceptableMeets evaluation standards and any weaknesses 
     are readily correctable.

     Yellow  Marginal    Fails to meet evaluation standards; however, 
     any significant deficiencies are correctable.

     Red     UnacceptableFails to meet minimum requirement of the RFP 
     and the deficiency is uncorrectable without a major revision of 
     the proposal.

In addition, each factor and subfactor was to be rated with regard to 
proposal risk.

The Air Force received 11 proposals, including Oahu's and Technology 
Services's, by the November 29 closing date.  The Air Force evaluated 
initial proposals.  Oahu's proposal received red ratings in a number 
of the evaluation areas.  One red rating was in the area of quality 
control because Oahu's quality control plan failed to include a work 
scheduling system.  During discussions, the Air Force advised Oahu of 
a deficiency report because it "failed to provide a work scheduling 
system" and further advised Oahu that "failure to satisfactorily 
respond [could] result in elimination from the competitive range and 
render the proposal ineligible for award."  Oahu responded by advising 
that the required "work schedule will be developed" and provided to 
the government. 

Best and final offers (BAFO) were received on February 7, 1997.  The 
final evaluation of the BAFOs resulted in Oahu's and Technology 
Services's proposals being rated with similar color-code ratings.  
Oahu's BAFO received green/low risk ratings under every factor and 
subfactor, except quality control where it received a blue/low risk 
rating; the record evidences that the blue rating was based on Oahu's 
proposal of a value added enhancement of an "integrated pest 
management plan."  Technology Services's BAFO received green/low risk 
ratings under every factor and subfactor, except customer service 
where it received a blue/low risk rating; Technology Services's blue 
rating was based on its proposal of a value added enhancement for its 
customer service procedure.  Technology Services received a "good" 
performance rating, while Oahu received a "neutral" performance rating 
because it had no experience.  Oahu submitted a BAFO priced at 
$4,827,522 and Technology Services's BAFO was priced at $6,550,368; 
both offerors' prices were determined to be reasonable, realistic, and 
complete.   

Based upon the foregoing evaluation, the source selection authority 
(SSA) determined Oahu and Technology Services's proposals to be  
technically equal and, because Oahu proposed the lowest price, 
concluded that Oahu's BAFO represented the best value.  Award was made 
to Oahu on February 18.  This protest followed.

The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the 
contracting agency.  Our Office will only question the agency's 
evaluation where it lacks a reasonable basis or conflicts with the 
stated evaluation criteria for award.  Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc., 
B-274689, Dec. 26, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  241 at 3.

Technology Services argues that the agency's evaluation of Oahu's 
technical proposal was unreasonable, particularly with regard to the 
quality control subfactor because Oahu's BAFO failed to include a work 
scheduling system which shows by day and time when all requirements in 
the PWS would be accomplished.  We agree.

Our review of the record confirms that Oahu's proposal failed to 
provide a work scheduling system showing the day and time work was to 
be done as was required by the RFP.  The record indicates that instead 
of providing such a work scheduling system (which was expressly 
requested during discussions), Oahu promised to develop and provide 
the work schedule after the contract was awarded, generally described 
what this schedule would contain, and generally agreed to perform 
various requirements under the PWS on certain days.  The schedule 
included in the BAFO did not address each area to be maintained or 
specify the frequencies of the tasks necessary to fulfill each PWS 
requirement.  In contrast, Technology Services provided a work 
schedule, which reflected the day and time by area for the performance 
of each type of service in each area under the PWS and specified the 
frequencies of each service.

The Air Force argues that notwithstanding the lack of day and time 
breakdown in Oahu's proposal, Oahu's mere promise to provide such a 
schedule was sufficient to support its rating.  The record does not 
support this argument.  First, the RFP language specifically and 
unambiguously calls for the work scheduling system to show by area the 
day and time when all requirements covered under the PWS would be met, 
and it is not disputed that Oahu's proposal does not contain such a 
system.  Second, as indicated above, the "performance based" RFP 
intended that offerors provide the precise details of how the work was 
to be accomplished, and that the work schedule developed by the 
offerors would be the subject of the agency's evaluation and would be 
incorporated into the terms of the contract and reflect the 
contractor's binding commitment.  

We therefore do not believe that the Air Force evaluators could have 
reasonably rated Oahu's proposal "blue" under the quality control 
factor, notwithstanding its one recognized value-added enhancement, 
because the quality control plan did not contain a required element.  
As noted, a blue rating was reserved for proposals that exceeded the 
specified performance and had no significant weaknesses, and Oahu's 
proposal not containing the requisite work schedule cannot reasonably 
be said to contain no weaknesses.   Since the record does not support 
the agency's evaluation of Oahu's proposal under the quality control 
subfactor, we cannot conclude that the SSA's determination, based 
solely upon the evaluators' color ratings, that Oahu's and Technology 
Services's proposals were technically equal overall is reasonably 
supported.[1]   See Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270012.2, Mar. 19, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  177 at 6; Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270012.4, 
Oct. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  137 at 4.  
We recommend that the Air Force reevaluate the proposals, conduct 
discussions if necessary, and make a new source selection.  If the Air 
Force determines that award should be made to Technology Services, the 
Air Force should terminate Oahu's contract and make award to 
Technology Services.  In addition, we recommend that the protester be 
reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including 
reasonable attorneys' fees.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)(1) (1997).  The 
protester should submit its certified claim for costs to the 
contracting agency within 60 days of receiving this decision.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States  

1. Technology Services also protests the agency's technical evaluation 
of its proposal and the agency's price evaluation of Oahu's proposal.  
We have reviewed the protester's allegations in these respects and 
find them to be without merit.  For example, while Technology Services 
contends that Oahu's price should have been assessed as unreasonably 
low because it was premised on a much lower staffing level than that 
proposed by Technology Services, the record shows that the agency 
reasonably determined that Oahu's price reflected its proposed 
technical approach that the agency considered to be acceptable.