BNUMBER:  B-276802.3 
DATE:  August 13, 1997
TITLE: Forestry, Surveys & Data, B-276802.3, August 13, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Forestry, Surveys & Data

File:     B-276802.3

Date:     August 13, 1997

Jim Miller for the protester.
Wilhelmina Bratton, Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester was not prejudiced and there is no basis to sustain the 
protest where agency improperly considered evaluation factors--such as 
experience generally and prior experience in same timber district--not 
delineated in request for quotations (RFQ), because protester was on 
notice that experience would be evaluated based on experience 
questionnaire required by RFQ, and awardees' quotations clearly were 
more advantageous than protester's due to significantly greater 
experience providing timber stand examination services.

DECISION

Forestry, Surveys & Data (FS&D) protests its failure to receive an 
award under  Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, request 
for quotations (RFQ) No. 14-97-018, for timber stand examination 
services in the Three Rivers Ranger District of the Kootenai National 
Forest in Lincoln County, Montana.  FS&D primarily argues that the 
agency improperly applied undisclosed evaluation factors in evaluating 
the quotations. 

We deny the protest.

The RFQ, issued on January 29, 1997, under simplified acquisition 
procedures, required quoters to submit unit and extended prices for 
four items, and provided that one or more purchase orders would be 
issued to the responsible quoter whose quotation is "most advantageous 
to the Government, cost or price and other factors considered."  The 
RFQ did not specifically identify any nonprice evaluation factors, but 
did require quoters to complete and submit with their quotations an 
experience questionnaire covering such information as the number of 
years the quoter has provided timber stand examination services, and 
the number of years the quoter has operated as a prime contractor or 
subcontractor.

The agency received 19 quotations, which it evaluated for price and 
experience (based on the questionnaires),[1] and the agency issued 
purchase orders for the 4 items to 4 firms whose quotations were 
determined most advantageous to the government.  FS&D did not receive 
a purchase order; its prices were lower than the awardees' for item 
numbers 1, 3, and 4, but FS&D's questionnaire showed significantly 
less experience than the awardees', and did not include the required 
information as to amount of timber stand examination experience and 
experience as a prime or subcontractor.  FS&D challenged the awards in 
an agency-level protest (which ultimately was denied), and then filed 
this protest in our Office.

FS&D maintains that the Forest Service improperly evaluated quotations 
based on factors--the firms' prior experience performing the work in 
the Three Rivers Ranger District and the proximity of a firm's 
location to the worksite--not specified in the RFQ.  FS&D maintains 
that, had it known that experience in the Three Rivers Ranger District 
would be evaluated, FS&D would have listed four or five of its stand 
examiners' experience in this location and therefore would have been 
in line for an award based on its low price.

The record indicates that the agency did consider undisclosed factors, 
both experience generally and the specific matters cited by FS&D.  
This was improper.  While Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
13.106-2 affords contracting officers some discretion in determining 
how to conduct a procurement and in fashioning suitable evaluation 
procedures under simplified acquisition procedures, this discretion 
does not extend to a failure to identify significant evaluation 
factors and to evaluating quotes on the basis of factors not announced 
in the RFQ.  Rather, the regulation specifically requires that  
evaluations be based on the factors set forth in the solicitation.  
FAR  sec.  13.106-2(b); Vocational Resources, Inc., B-242396, Apr. 29, 
1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  414 at 2.  

However, FS&D was not prejudiced by the evaluation conducted here.  
First, although the RFQ did not explicitly identify experience as an 
evaluation factor, the required experience questionnaire, together 
with the RFQ statement that the evaluation would encompass cost or 
price "and other factors," was sufficient to put FS&D on notice that 
experience would be evaluated.  The protester does not assert that it 
was unaware that experience (generally) would be evaluated; and, in 
fact, its protest submission recognized that past experience would be 
evaluated, taking exception specifically to the evaluation of 
experience performing work in the Three Rivers Ranger District.  
Second, the record shows that the agency conducted a proper 
comparative evaluation of firms' experience.

In this latter regard, the Forest Service properly determined that 
FS&D's quotation showed significantly less experience than the 
awardees'.  Specifically, the awardees' total years of experience 
performing the work contemplated by the solicitation as prime 
contractors and/or subcontractors ranged from 11 to 16 years.  In 
contrast, FS&D's questionnaire listed only two projects, both within 
the past 2 years, and did not otherwise indicate years of relevant 
prime and subcontract experience (the relevant spaces on the 
questionnaire were left blank); it thus appeared that FS&D had no more 
than 2 years of relevant experience (FS&D does not assert 
otherwise).[2]  The omission of this information also prevented the 
agency from determining whether FS&D had performed the listed 
projects, or whether the firm's principals had performed the work as 
individuals employed by another contractor.  (The agency deemed this 
distinction relevant because it considered it beneficial to deal with 
a firm that previously had dealt with the government as a prime 
contractor.)  

Since the awardees' quotations reasonably were found more advantageous 
to the government than FS&D's based on the experience evaluation, the 
agency's  improper consideration of undisclosed factors did not 
competitively prejudice FS&D, and therefore does not provide a basis 
for disturbing the awards.  See McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F. 3d 
1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Where, as here, the RFQ does not assign relative weights to 
technical factors and cost, it must be presumed that technical and 
cost considerations will be given approximately equal weight.  See 
T.H. Taylor, Inc., B-227143, Sept. 15, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  252 at 3.    

2. FS&D's listing of its employees' specific experience would not have 
improved the firm's relative standing, since its experience rating was 
based on the company's lack of experience as a prime or subcontractor; 
employee experience is not a substitute for company experience under 
these circumstances.  See Cobra Techs., Inc.,
B-272041, B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  73 at 6.