BNUMBER:  B-276576 
DATE:  July 1, 1997
TITLE: Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics, B-276576, July 1, 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:Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics

File:     B-276576

Date:July 1, 1997

Michael J. Moran, Esq., for the protester.
Gary M. Henningsen, Esq., and Catherine Barnum, Esq., Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency used an unstated evaluation factor by considering 
the substantive contents of letters of recommendation concerning work 
performed by the offeror on prior contracts is denied where the 
solicitation required letters in order to assess offeror past 
performance.

DECISION

Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics protests the award of contracts to Dale 
Schnackel Company, C.J. Schneider Engineering, and Dhillon Engineers, 
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA45-96-R-0031, issued by 
the Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, 
for drafting services.  Mid-Atlantic contends that the agency used 
unstated evaluation criteria in evaluating its letters of 
recommendation and that the proposal evaluation was biased.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued July 26, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
maximum of three indefinite delivery contracts for a base year with a 
1-year option.  Delivery orders issued under the contracts were to 
include drafting services associated with architectural, sanitary, 
mechanical, electrical, and structural disciplines and required 
conventional and computer-aided drafting and design (CADD) 
technologies, including AutoCAD and Microstation requirements.  

Offerors were to submit their proposals in three volumes.  Volume I, 
the technical proposal, was to provide 10 samples of projects for 
architectural, civil, electrical, mechanical, sanitary and structural 
drafting completed within the last 5 years.  Offerors were required to 
describe the nature of their responsibilities, the type of contract, 
the firms' role as prime or subcontractor, the scope of work, and the 
extent to which CADD and conventional drafting services were utilized.  
Offerors were to list personnel and to provide personnel resumes, 
including experience in the different types and disciplines of 
drafting.  Offerors were also to list the number of CADD workstations 
available, both AutoCAD and Microstation, and provide a description of 
their salient characteristics.  Volume II was to contain past 
performance information.  The RFP directed offerors to "provide at 
least three (3) performance evaluations and/or letters of 
recommendation on quality of work and compliance with schedules from 
previous clients.  Work for which evaluation or letter is submitted 
must have been completed in the past ten (10) years."  Volume III was 
for prices.

The RFP provided for awards to the responsible offerors whose offers 
were found most advantageous to the government considering, in 
descending order of importance, technical factors, past performance, 
and cost.  The solicitation set forth three technical evaluation 
factors and listed various subfactors, with point ranges from 
acceptable to high, with a maximum possible technical point score of 
1,020.
Past performance, including the quality of work and compliance with 
performance schedules on past drafting services contracts as indicated 
by performance evaluations and/or letters of recommendation from 
previous clients, was also scored on an acceptable/high range of from 
150 to 200 points.

The Army received 25 offers by the August 30 closing date.  Volumes I 
and II of each proposal were point scored by the source selection 
board (SSB).  Nineteen proposals, including Schnackel's, Schneider's, 
Dhillon's and Mid-Atlantic's, were considered technically acceptable 
and, after obtaining answers to certain questions from these offerors, 
the Army, by letter dated December 9, requested best and final offers 
(BAFO), of which 17 were received.

The scores of the four top-rated proposals, including Schnackel's and 
Schneider's, ranged from 94 percent to 96 percent of the maximum 
possible score, and these proposals were therefore judged essentially 
equal in technical ability and past performance.  On the basis of 
their high scores and relatively low prices, Schnackel's and 
Schneider's proposals were selected for two of the three awards.  
Dhillon's proposal was the fifth highest technically rated at 91 
percent of the maximum score.  Dhillon offered the second lowest 
price, which was 23 percent lower than the highest technically rated 
offeror's.  Because the highest technically rated proposal was 
significantly higher priced than the next three, the agency determined 
that its slightly greater technical ability and past performance did 
not warrant payment of the extra cost.

Mid-Atlantic's proposal, the sixth highest technically rated, received 
technical and past performance scores equal to 87 percent of the 
maximum score possible,         9 percent lower than the top-scoring 
firm and 4 percent lower than Dhillon's.  Mid-Atlantic's price was 
only slightly lower than Dhillon's.  The agency noted that half of the 
point difference in the technical scores between the Dhillon and 
Mid-Atlantic proposals (30 out of 55 points) was in the most important 
area of experience.  In addition, Mid-Atlantic's proposal received 
only an acceptable score--150 points--under past performance because 
Mid-Atlantic's letters of recommendation were generally silent 
regarding the type of drafting services the company had performed and 
the technologies it had employed.[1]  The SSB determined that the 
greater technical ability and better past performance scores of 
Dhillon were worth the slightly higher associated cost.  After the 
agency awarded contracts to Schnackel, Schneider and Dhillon, this 
protest followed.

Mid-Atlantic protests that the agency employed unstated evaluation 
criteria in the way it used the letters of recommendation to evaluate 
past performance, and contends that its proposal was improperly 
downgraded for lack of detail in its recommendation letters.  
Specifically, Mid-Atlantic argues that, contrary to the agency's 
evaluation criteria, nothing in the RFP required that the letters 
describe the nature of the contractual services for which the 
recommendation was written.  The protester argues that if the agency 
intended to evaluate the letters with respect to the nature of the 
contractual services in them, the RFP requirement did not make what 
Mid-Atlantic calls this "subtle interpretation" clear and the agency 
should resolicit.  The protester also takes the position that, because 
it submitted the required three recommendation letters, it is entitled 
to the maximum possible score under the past performance factor.  We 
disagree.

Solicitations must identify all significant factors and any 
significant subfactors that will be considered in awarding the 
contract, and the evaluation of proposals must be based on the factors 
set forth in the solicitation.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  
15.406-5(c), 15.605(d).  While agencies are required to identify the 
major evaluation factors, they are not required to identify all areas 
of each factor which might be taken into account, provided that the 
unidentified areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the 
stated criteria.  Cobra Technologies, Inc.,          B-272041; 
B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  73 at 3; Avogadro Energy Sys.,     
B-244106, Sept. 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  229 at 4.  Here, the agency's 
consideration of whether or not the recommendation letters indicated 
the nature of the services provided and the types of technologies used 
on prior contracts is consistent with the past performance evaluation 
criterion, under which the reference letters were considered.

The RFP makes clear that the agency sought a drafting firm with 
sufficient specialized experience in three types and five disciplines 
of drafting services.  While the solicitation did not explicitly 
outline the specific information that should be included in the 
recommendation letters, we view a clear statement as to the nature of 
services provided as intrinsically related to and encompassed by the 
past performance solicitation criterion, for which the letters were 
provided.  See ORI Servs. Corp., B-261225, July 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  
55 at 2-4; Bioqual, Inc., B-259732.2; B-259732.3, May 15, 1995, 95-1 
CPD  para.  243 at 4.  

Here, Mid-Atlantic provided five letters of recommendation,[2] but 
only one letter referred to either the type of drafting work performed 
by Mid-Atlantic or the technology used by the firm.[3]  None of the 
other letters indicated the type of drafting services performed or the 
technologies used.  One letter simply stated that Mid-Atlantic had 
supplied scanning services, while another referenced "the preparation 
of electronic files from original drawings."  One of the letters 
simply stated that the writer was pleased to recommend Mid-Atlantic 
and that he had been satisfied with Mid-Atlantic's work, without any 
explanation as to the type of work performed, the technologies used, 
or the performance timeframe.

In contrast, the recommendation letters supplied by the awardees were 
significantly more specific and detailed.  For example, one 
recommendation letter on behalf of Schnackel states that the 
evaluation "reflects the Computer-Aided Drafting Design services" 
provided, another states that Schnackel had provided mechanical and 
electrical design services for the past 4 years, including CADD 
drafting services.  Schnackel also provided an evaluation of its 
performance on one contract.  Similarly, a letter of recommendation 
for Schneider references mechanical, electrical, architectural and 
structural design and engineering work, and another references 
mechanical and electrical engineering services.  Dhillon's letters 
were  not as detailed as Schnackel's or Schneider's and its score was 
therefore reduced, but its proposal did receive 175 points under past 
performance, reflecting the fact that its recommendation letters 
referenced electrical engineering work and that Dhillon provided a 
performance evaluation and a copy of an award for outstanding 
architect-engineering services.

In our view, the agency properly considered the types/technologies of 
drafting services referenced in the recommendation letters and, 
because specifics were not provided in the protester's letters of 
recommendation concerning the services provided by Mid-Atlantic, the 
agency properly downgraded Mid-Atlantic's proposal under the past 
performance factor.  Contrary to the protester's allegation, we find 
no ambiguity in the solicitation; a prudent offeror should have 
expected that the letters would be examined and evaluated with respect 
to the relevancy of the offerors' past performance to the services 
required.  Mid-Atlantic's position that its mere submission of the 
required number of reference letters, irrespective of their content, 
required the agency to award its proposal the maximum possible score 
is, in our view, unreasonable.

The protester also argues that the awards were motivated by a 
geographical bias in favor of firms in or near Omaha.  The protester 
asserts that Schnackel and Schneider are both located in Omaha and 
that Dhillon is located "across the river in Iowa."  Mid-Atlantic also 
challenges a small number of points awarded to Schnackel's and 
Schneider's proposals as evidence of bias.  

Because government officials are presumed to act in good faith, we do 
not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to them on the basis of 
inference or supposition.  Ameriko Maintenance Co., B-253274; 
B-253274.2, Aug. 25, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  121 at 5.  Thus, where a 
protester alleges bias on the part of government officials, the 
protester must provide credible evidence clearly demonstrating a bias 
against the protester or for the awardee and that the agency's bias 
translated into action that unfairly affected the protester's 
competitive position.  Dynamic Aviation--Helicopters, B-274122, Nov. 
1, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  166 at 4.

Here, there is no credible evidence of bias.  Contrary to the 
protester's assertions, not all three awardees are located in or near 
Omaha.  While Schnackel and Schneider are Omaha firms, Dhillon is 
located in Portland, Oregon.  Moreover, the record shows that other 
firms located in or near Omaha did not receive awards.  Two of these 
firms submitted proposals that received higher technical scores than 
those of the successful offerors but were not selected for award 
because of their high prices.  If the agency were biased in favor of 
Omaha firms, one would expect it to have selected either of these 
firms rather than Dhillon, the firm from Oregon.  Moreover, the 
limited number of contested points that Mid-Atlantic views as evidence 
of bias are insignificant in relation to the overall evaluated point 
difference between Mid-Atlantic's proposal and the proposals whose 
scores it challenges.  Even if Schnackel's and Schneider's scores were 
lowered to correct for any impropriety in the areas challenged (and 
Mid-Atlantic has not, in fact, established that any such impropriety 
occurred), it would have no impact on the relative technical rankings 
of the offerors.  In any event, Mid-Atlantic has provided no credible 
evidence that any scoring errors, even if such occurred, resulted from 
bias.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
 
1. The technical scores for the four relevant proposals were as 
follows:

                       Schnackel Schneider Dhillon   Mid-Atlantic

       Technical Score    970       960       945       915

       Past Performance Score   190   190     175       150

       TOTAL           1,160     1,150     1,120     1,065

2. One of the letters stated that it was the policy of the agency not 
to write letters of recommendation.  Instead, the letter merely 
provided the name of a reference who could be contacted concerning 
Mid-Atlantic's abilities and past history.

3. This one letter referred to Mid-Atlantic's successful performance 
in providing computer-aided drafting support services.