BNUMBER:  B-276750 
DATE:  July 23, 1997
TITLE: Quality Elevator Company, Inc., B-276750, July 23, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Quality Elevator Company, Inc.

File:     B-276750

Date:July 23, 1997

William H. Carroll, Esq., and George W. Ash, Esq., Dykema Gossett, for 
the protester.
James A. Hughes, Esq., Patton Boggs, L.L.P., for Maryland Elevator 
Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Terrence J. Tychan and Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human 
Services, 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 of proposals was 
unreasonable because it was inadequately documented is denied; even 
though the contemporaneous record contained nothing more than the 
maximum point scores assigned to both offerors' proposals, the 
post-protest narrative explanations provided by the agency provide 
sufficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the evaluation, 
considering the similarity between the two proposals.

2.  In the award of a firm, fixed-price contract, agency's price 
realism evaluation which compared the awardee's proposed price to that 
of the other offeror, the current contract pricing, and the government 
estimate is unobjectionable; that the award price was 14 percent below 
the government estimate does not show that the awardee's price was 
unreasonably low or that the price realism evaluation was inadequate. 

DECISION

Quality Elevator Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Maryland Elevator Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
RFP-36-96-HHS-OS, issued by the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) for elevator maintenance and repair services at the 
agency's Hubert H. Humphrey Building in Washington, D.C.  Quality 
argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable.
  
We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued January 27, 1997, anticipated the award of a 
fixed-price contract for the maintenance and repair of all elevator 
equipment and systems in the Humphrey Building for 1 base year, with 
up to 4 option years.  The Building is 7 stories high, with an 
additional penthouse and mechanical floors, and is served by 16 
elevators, all of which were manufactured by the U.S. Elevator 
Company.  Quality is the incumbent contractor.

Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most 
advantageous to the government, considering technical and price 
factors.  Technical factors would be more important than price, but 
proposals had to be fair and reasonably priced to be selected for 
award.  The technical aspect of the evaluation would consider written 
proposals and oral presentations, both of which would be pointscored, 
with a total maximum possible score of 100 points.  Business proposals 
would not be scored but would be evaluated to assess the realism of 
the proposed price.

Written technical proposals would be evaluated under two factors:  
understanding of the scope of work (5 points) and qualifications of 
the offeror (40 points).  This latter factor was broken down into 
three subfactors:  qualifications and experience of the firm's 
management staff (20 points); qualifications and experience of key 
mechanical personnel to be assigned to the contract (10 points); and 
past performance (10 points).  Oral presentations would be evaluated 
under one factor, operating plan and quality control plan (55 points), 
which was broken down into numerous subfactors.    

HHS received two proposals by the March 6 closing date, and the 
agency's three-member evaluation team evaluated both the written 
technical proposals and the oral presentations.  Their individual 
rating sheets show that each team member assigned each proposal 100 
points--the maximum points available under each factor and 
subfactor[1]--but made no substantive narrative comments pertaining to 
strengths, weaknesses, or distinctions between the two offers.  The 
evaluation team's recommendation that award be made to Maryland, whose 
proposed price of $825,120 was lower than Quality's price of 
$1,002,420, was equally bereft of narrative comment.  The contract 
specialist concurred with this recommendation, stating that 
"[t]echnical considerations were of more importance than cost, and 
both firms had been ranked equal technically and it had been 
determined by the contracting office that Maryland's price was more 
competitive."  Award was made to Maryland on April 8.  Quality filed 
this protest after its debriefing.  

Quality primarily argues that the agency's failure to document its 
evaluation of proposals renders that evaluation unreasonable.  Quality 
asserts that differences between the two proposals merited, at a 
minimum, an explanation for the identical ratings.

While judgments concerning the evaluation of proposals are by their 
nature subjective, they must be reasonable; such judgments must bear a 
rational relationship to the announced criteria upon which proposals 
were to be evaluated.  Management Technology, Inc., B-257269.2, Nov. 
8, 1994, 95-1 CPD  para.  248  at 6-7.  Implicit in the foregoing is that 
the rationale for these judgments must be documented in sufficient 
detail to show that they are not arbitrary and that there was a 
reasonable basis for the selection decision.  Id.  Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.608(a)(3) requires documentation to support the 
evaluation of proposals, including the basis for evaluation and an 
analysis of the technically acceptable and unacceptable proposals, an 
assessment of each offeror's ability to accomplish the technical 
requirement, and a summary of findings.  FAR  sec.  15.612(d)(2) requires 
supporting documentation for the source selection decision, stating 
the basis and reasons for the decision and showing the relative 
differences among proposals and their strengths, weaknesses, and risks 
in terms of the evaluation criteria.  Numerical point scores, while 
useful as guides to decision-making, do not of themselves supply the 
basis and reason for the award decision.  U.S. Defense Sys., Inc., 
B-245563, Jan. 17, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  89 at 3; S&M Property Management, 
B-243051, June 28, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  615 at 4.  Where there is 
inadequate supporting documentation for an award decision, we cannot 
conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for the decision.  
Hattal & Assocs., 70 Comp. Gen. 632, 637 (1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  90 at 7.  

The contract specialist states that she "does not dispute the fact 
that the agency failed to comply with FAR  sec.  15.608."  She asserts, 
however, that the proposals were properly evaluated, and HHS has 
provided post-protest narrative explanations as to why the proposals 
were considered to be technically equal, including rebuttals of the 
distinctions that Quality alleges exist between the two proposals.  
Where explanations in agency reports justifying a source selection 
provide sufficient detail by which the rationality of the agency's 
evaluation decision can be judged, it is possible to conclude that the 
agency had a reasonable basis for the decision.  Management 
Technology, Inc., supra; Champion-Alliance, Inc., B-249504, Dec. 1, 
1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  386 at 6-7; Hydraudyne Sys. and Eng'g B.V., B-241236; 
B-241236.2, Jan. 30, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  88 at 4-5.  In our view, the 
record here contains sufficient information to show that the 
evaluation was reasonable.[2]

Quality's protest focuses on the evaluation of written technical 
proposals under the qualifications factor.  Quality asserts that its 
proposed management and mechanical personnel have significantly more 
experience working with elevators manufactured by U.S. Elevator than 
do Maryland's and, therefore, should have received higher ratings than 
Maryland under each qualifications subfactor.

The first subfactor, qualifications and experience of the firm's 
management staff, required each offeror to:

     "[a]ddress corporate experience in its ability to provide 
     elevator maintenance and repairs required to be performed in a 
     large office buildings similar in size to the Humphrey Building.  
     There are 13 passenger and 3 freight elevators within the 
     building.  Firm must demonstrate at least five years experience 
     in elevator maintenance and repair in a like environment.  
     Provide information on individual management officials and 
     capabilities in assuring compliance with all elements on this 
     solicitation. . . .  Include at least one corporate official, a 
     Project Manager, and any other on-site supervisor.  Define 
     corporate ability generally in elevator maintenance and repairs."

HHS disputes Quality's contention that specific experience with 
elevators manufactured by U.S. Elevator was to be a discriminator 
here.  The agency contends that the "like environment" described in 
this provision refers to the size of the building and the number of 
elevators to be serviced.[3]  We agree.

Where a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a solicitation 
requirement, we will resolve the dispute by reading the solicitation 
as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all provisions of the 
solicitation.  Insituform East, Inc., B-272399, Oct. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  
134 at 2.  This provision requires offerors to discuss their corporate 
experience with buildings "similar in size" to the Humphrey Building 
and lists the number--but not the type--of elevators within the 
Building; these statements are immediately followed by a request that 
firms demonstrate their experience in a "like environment."  Hence, 
the term "like environment" plainly refers to the immediately 
preceding description of the size of the building and the number of 
its elevators.  That experience with U.S. Elevator-manufactured 
elevators is not a discriminator here is underscored by the absence of 
any reference to such experience here, and the presence of this 
specific requirement in the second subfactor, discussed below.  While 
Quality evidently disagrees, HHS was not bound to give preference to a 
firm with a type of experience not required under the solicitation.[4]    

HHS states that it gave the full point value to both proposals here 
because all of the management personnel proposed, by both offerors, 
were certified elevator mechanics with numerous years of experience in 
the elevator trade.  Since Quality does not specifically address the 
general experience of these individuals, and since our review of the 
proposals shows virtually no distinction between the two proposals in 
this regard, we find the evaluation to be reasonable.
 
The second subfactor, qualifications and experience of key mechanical 
personnel, required offerors to "demonstrate experience including 
specific experience on US Elevator systems and the operations of these 
specific type elevators."

While HHS agrees with Quality that specific experience with U.S. 
Elevator-manufactured elevators was to be considered here, the agency 
notes that it was not the sole consideration.  Quality's view to the 
contrary notwithstanding, we agree with the agency, given the 
provision's specific requirement to demonstrate experience "including" 
that with elevators manufactured by U.S. Elevator.  

HHS states that both proposals were given full point value here 
because the mechanic and back-up mechanics proposed by both firms were 
all certified elevator mechanics and each mechanic had specific 
experience with U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevators.  

The record shows that Maryland's proposed mechanic once worked for 
U.S. Elevator installing and adjusting elevators and is currently 
responsible for servicing a building containing at least one U.S. 
Elevator-manufactured elevator.  One of Maryland's two back-up 
mechanics is currently responsible for servicing a building containing 
at least one U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevator, and the other 
back-up mechanic has maintained U.S. Elevator equipment in the past.  
The resumes of all three men show that each has extensive additional 
elevator maintenance experience.  The record further shows that 
Quality's proposed mechanic once worked for U.S. Elevator installing 
and adjusting elevators, attended U.S. Elevator training school, and 
is the current mechanic for this contract.  None of the resumes of 
Quality's three "first echelon" field engineers proposed as back-up 
mechanics makes reference to U.S. Elevator experience.  Like the 
mechanics proposed by Maryland, the resumes of all of these 
individuals show that each has extensive additional elevator 
maintenance experience.

While Quality appears to argue that the fact its proposed mechanic has 
been maintaining the U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevators at issue 
here dictates a higher rating, the agency has reviewed the totality of 
experience presented in these proposals, in accordance with the 
solicitation, and concluded otherwise.  In the absence of any specific 
argument concerning the overall experience of these mechanics, 
Quality's disagreement with this conclusion does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.[5]

With respect to the evaluation of oral presentations, Quality simply 
argues that its operating plan and quality control plan, the subjects 
of the oral presentation, were longer and more detailed than 
Maryland's and, as a result, deserved a higher rating.  Our review of 
these plans, which, pursuant to the solicitation, are contained in the 
written technical proposals and as an extensive outline appended to 
these proposals, shows no substantive distinctions between the two.  
Accordingly, and in the absence of any specific objection to the 
evaluation, we have no basis to dispute the agency's claim that both 
presentations were judged to be superior because both described their 
plans in detail and "it was obvious that both offerors had long 
experience in the field and were prepared to handle both routine 
maintenance and correction of deficiencies with a high degree of 
efficiency."[6]

Quality finally argues that HHS conducted an unduly cursory price 
realism analysis of Maryland's proposal.  The protester asserts that 
Maryland's price, 14 percent below the government estimate, was 
unreasonably low.

The depth of an agency's price realism analysis is a matter within the 
sound exercise of the agency's discretion.  Cardinal Scientific, Inc., 
B-270309, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  70 at 4.  The FAR provides a 
number of price analysis techniques that may be used to determine 
whether prices are reasonable and realistic, including a comparison of 
the prices received with each other and comparison of proposed prices 
with an independent government estimate.  FAR  sec.  15.805-2.  HHS 
compared Maryland's pricing with Quality's proposed pricing, with the 
current pricing, and with the government estimate.  The agency found 
that Maryland's proposal showed that it would conform with the current 
wage determination, and that, though slightly below current pricing, 
the amounts proposed would be adequate to cover the required items 
(like stocking of additional parts) in addition to labor.  Given the 
agency's utilization of the techniques provided under the FAR, we have 
no basis to challenge its conclusion; the mere fact that Maryland's 
total price was 14 percent below the government estimate is not a 
basis for finding the price realism evaluation inadequate.  EC Corp., 
B-266165.2, Feb. 20, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  153 at 4 n.2, citing Birch & 
Davis Assocs., Inc.--Protest and Request for Recon., B-246120.3, 
B-246120.4, Apr. 20, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  372 at 6-7 (price realism 
evaluation adequate even though award price was 24 percent below 
government estimate). 

In conclusion, while HHS failed to adequately document its evaluation, 
the post-protest explanations were adequate under the circumstances of 
this procurement.  The record indicates that relatively little 
documentation was required because the proposals were very similar and 
the agency, therefore, reasonably found the proposals technically 
equal.  Champion-Alliance, Inc., supra, at 7.  In view of the 
undisputed indications in the record that the proposals were 
essentially the same, and in the absence of any specific evidence to 
the contrary, we find that HHS had a reasonable basis for its 
conclusions.  Id.  Since price can become the determining factor 
between proposals that have been evaluated as technically equal in a 
"best value" award decision, Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, supra, we have 
no basis to challenge the agency's award decision.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. While one of the three evaluators of Maryland's oral presentation 
assigned it slightly less than the maximum score, the subsequent 
contemporaneous documentation and post-protest agency filings show 
that HHS considered both proposals to have merited the maximum score.  
The overriding concern in these matters is not whether the final 
ratings are consistent with earlier, individual ratings, but whether 
they accurately reflect the relative merits of the proposals.  See 
Household Data Servs., Inc., B-259238.2, Apr. 26, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  281 
at 4 n.2. 

2. Quality also argues that proposals were improperly evaluated under 
the assumption that award was to be made to the lowest-priced, 
technically acceptable proposal, and not to the proposal offering the 
best value to the government.  This allegation is understandable, 
given various fragments of unrelated language contained in the agency 
report in combination with the paucity of contemporaneous narrative.  
However, as discussed below, our review of the record shows that the 
agency properly turned to price as a determinative factor after 
concluding that both proposals had equivalent technical merit.  See 
Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, B-246172.2, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  332 at 
5.   

3. Quality does not dispute that the two proposals are relatively 
equal with respect to corporate or individual experience in buildings 
similar in size and number of elevators to the Humphrey Building.

4. Quality's similar argument that the past performance factor 
required experience with U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevators fails 
for similar reasons--the solicitation did not include such a 
requirement.  As for the protester's argument that HHS improperly 
failed to give it full credit for its past performance, the record 
shows that it received the maximum score.

5. Quality also asserts that one evaluator's view was "tainted" by his 
discovery, during the course of the procurement, that Quality's 
mechanic would remain on the job if the contract were awarded to 
another firm.  Since the evaluator states that he did not evaluate 
Maryland's proposal based upon its hiring of the incumbent mechanic, 
but on the basis of the personnel it proposed, and since the record 
discloses no substantive distinction between the two proposals in this 
respect, we do not share Quality's view that the evaluation was 
"tainted."

6. Quality also complains that the oral presentations of the two 
offerors were not evaluated by the same three evaluators, allowing for 
"inconsistency."  The agency explains that the change in evaluators 
was due to scheduling conflicts that arose after the date for 
Quality's oral presentation--originally scheduled for the same date as 
Maryland's--was extended at Quality's request.  In the absence of any 
substantive argument to show that the evaluators' conclusions were 
unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation, we have no basis 
to object to the agency's use of different evaluators under these 
circumstances.  See Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc., B-275786.2, 
Apr. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  144 at 9.