BNUMBER:  B-277029.3 
DATE:  February 18, 1998
TITLE: [Letter], B-277029.3, February 18, 1998
**********************************************************************

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:McAllister & Associates, Inc.

File:     B-277029.3

Date:February 18, 1998

Paulette Cross-Castle, Esq., for the protester.
Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Exclusion of protester's proposal from competitive range was 
reasonable where agency reasonably concluded that proposal contained 
informational deficiencies so pervasive that it did not demonstrate 
protester's understanding of solicitation requirements and thus had no 
reasonable chance of being selected for award.

DECISION

McAllister & Associates, Inc. protests the Department of Education's 
(DOE) elimination of its proposal from the competitive range, and the 
award of multiple contracts to other offerors, under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. 96-011, for debt collection services.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of one or more contracts for collection 
and administrative resolution activities on debts resulting from 
nonpayment of student loans.  Award was to be based on a best value 
evaluation, with technical merit and past performance combined 
significantly more important than cost or price.  Under the technical 
factor, the RFP included the following subfactors (with possible 
ratings out of 450 available points):  (1) executive summary (25 
points); (2) strategic collections approach (75 points); (3) 
administrative resolutions (30 points); (4) litigation/administrative 
wage garnishment (AWG) preparation (45 points); (5) quality control 
(QC) plan (75 points); (6) training plan (40 points); (7) computer 
system resources (60 points); and (8) project personnel experience 
(100 points).  Under the price factor, the RFP requested 
commissions/fees for certain work categories and provided target 
maximum rates above which a proposal could be considered unacceptable 
for award.  The RFP specifically provided that "[a] detailed work plan 
must be submitted indicating how each aspect of the [SOW] is to be 
accomplished" and that "[t]he technical proposal should reflect a 
clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken."     

Sixty-five proposals were received, 21 of which ultimately were 
included in the revised competitive range.  McAllister's proposal, 
which was rated deficient in all technical areas, received a final 
composite technical score (the average of the scores from the five 
evaluators) of 131.6, or 29.2 percent of the 450 possible points,[1] 
and was excluded from the competitive range.[2]  In its rejection 
letter to the protester, the agency stated that its proposal "d[id] 
not provide sufficient information to demonstrate [the] ability to 
fulfill the general requirements of the RFP," and specifically failed 
to (1) "demonstrate that [its] system can handle the volume of 
accounts [DOE] expects to transfer within a reasonable time frame,"         
(2) "demonstrate an understanding of the procedures [for] identifying 
and preparing accounts for litigation and AWG," (3) "discuss [QC] 
measures," (4) "include [DOE] specific training," and (5) "contain an 
adequate staffing plan."  The agency concluded that these 
informational deficiencies were so severe that the proposal did not 
demonstrate an understanding of DOE's requirements and would require 
"extensive and exhaustive discussions to correct its information 
deficiencies."  The agency proceeded with awards to 18 other offerors.  

McAllister maintains that the information contained in its proposal 
was sufficiently detailed to show compliance with the RFP requirements 
and to warrant retaining it in the competitive range.  The protester 
asserts that any deficiencies were of a type that could have been 
corrected during discussions.  

An offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal 
for the  agency to evaluate, Premier Cleaning Sys., Inc., B-255815, 
Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  241 at 5, and agencies may exclude proposals 
with significant informational deficiencies from further 
consideration.  HITCO, 68 Comp. Gen. 10, 12 (1988), 88-2 CPD  para.  337 at 
3.  This is true whether the deficiencies are attributable to either 
omitted or merely inadequate information addressing fundamental 
factors.  Id.  In reviewing an agency's determination to exclude a 
proposal from the competitive range, we apply the standard used in 
reviewing all aspects of an agency's technical evaluation of 
proposals--we review the record to determine whether the agency's 
judgment, including the judgment that a particular proposal did not 
have a reasonable chance of award, was reasonable, supported by the 
record, and consistent with the applicable evaluation criteria.  Pedus 
Bldg. Servs., Inc., B-257271.3 et al., Mar. 8, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  135 at 
2-3.    

Based on our review of the record, including the narrative and point 
score sheets completed by each of the five evaluators and the summary 
narrative prepared by the evaluation panel chair, we conclude that the 
agency reasonably determined that McAllister's proposal had 
significant informational deficiencies such that the firm lacked a 
reasonable chance for award.  We discuss some key areas of the 
evaluation below.

PROJECT PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE

Project personnel experience (or staffing plan, as the agency 
describes it), was the most heavily weighted subfactor, worth 100 
points.[3]  McAllister's proposal received an average score of 30.2 
points in this area.  The summary evaluation narrative lists 10 
evaluated weaknesses, including:  (1) "[o]fferor does not discuss the 
use of an [a]dministrative [s]upport staff," (2) "[s]ystems [m]anager 
is offeror's president[; i]t would be necessary to have some idea of 
his other workload, number of clients, and such to determine 
adequacy," (3) "[q]ualifications of key personnel are fair[; p]ast 
experience with [DOE] and [DOE] contractors is not recent,"
(4) "[t]here appears to be conflicts concerning the duties and the 
time commitments indicated[; f]or example, it appears that the QC 
manager will be doing ALL the reviews, however the time commitment is 
only 50 [percent]???," and (5) "[t]here is no information on the 
offeror's commitment to high quality service[; t]hey only list four 
(4) clients and give the placement per year but there is no indication 
of length of the contracts or how long they have been doing business 
with offeror[; t]here are no letters of commendation, etc."

McAllister does not rebut any of the specific evaluated deficiencies 
in this area and does not dispute that they are material.  Instead, 
the protester contends that, based on the past successful experience 
of its chief executive officer (CEO) and other management staff with 
similar contracts, including a DOE contract, the agency could not have 
reasonably concluded that the firm's staffing capacity, 
qualifications, and understanding of the requirements in this area 
were deficient.  

McAllister's reliance on the past experience of its staff without 
regard to the specific information required by the RFP is misplaced.  
A procuring agency's technical evaluation is dependent upon the 
information furnished in the offeror's proposal.  Computerized Project 
Management Plus, B-247063, Apr. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  401 at 3.  An 
agency is not required to overlook a flawed proposal on the basis of 
the offeror's prior performance; on the contrary, all offerors are 
expected to demonstrate their capabilities in their proposals.  Pedus 
Bldg. Servs., Inc., supra,   at 4.  Consequently, the agency's 
reliance on McAllister's proposal in determining the adequacy and 
qualifications of the firm's staffing was proper, and since McAllister 
has not shown that the evaluated deficiencies are unfounded based on 
information contained in its proposal, we have no basis to object to 
this aspect of the evaluation.  See Premier Cleaning Sys., Inc., 
supra, at 6.  

QUALITY CONTROL

Under QC, one of two subfactors weighted second highest, worth 75 
points, the RFP advised that "[t]he offeror must provide its proposed 
[QC] plan outlining its corporate commitment to effective, economical 
[QC] measures and specific descriptions of [QC] functions to be 
included in the [QC] plan deliverable."[4]   The evaluation of this 
subfactor encompassed the following:  (1) "[o]fferor's corporate 
commitment to effective, economical [QC] measures"--30 points; (2) 
"[s]pecific descriptions of QC functions to be included in QC plan 
deliverable"--25 points; and (3) "[n]ature of reporting mechanisms, 
both internal to the offeror and to [DOE], that will be developed to 
report problems identified in QC reviews"--20 points.

McAllister's proposal received an average of 19.2 points, or 25.6 
percent, for QC.  The summary evaluation narrative identifies 10 
weakesses in McAllister's proposal under QC, including the following:  
(1) "[t]he offeror briefly mentions that they are committed to QC 
measures, but they don't state what they plan on measuring," 
(2) "[t]his proposal does not tell . . . how problems will be 
prevented and does not indicate the number (frequency or amount) of 
samplings for the few proposed audits," (3) "[t]he offeror does not 
talk about QC functions to be included in the QC plan deliverable," 
(4) "[n]o reporting mechanisms are discussed other than the Management 
and Fiscal Report, Offeror's bi-annual audits, and statements of 
awareness of [DOE]'s reviews of contractors," and (5) "[p]ages 43 
through page 52 [i.e., last 10 pages of the 20 pages devoted to QC] of 
this section are a reiteration of the SOW."  
  
McAllister disputes that its proposal was informationally deficient in 
the QC area.  It maintains that the 20-page QC section of its proposal 
was a "lengthy discussion" of "the actions that take place in the 
process of monitoring, fostering and facilitating [QC] . . . by [the 
protester]" with "the first 12 pages [i.e., pages 32 through 43] . . . 
procedurally specific" to the protester in terms of "software 
facilitation and telephonic system" and was "in no way a restatement 
of the SOW."  The protester asserts that this section of its proposal 
also "includes a detailed account of the procedures for handling 
correspondence, the handling/processing of payments, the 
receipt/posting of daily fund transactions, [and] the policies and 
maintenance of reverse entries for payments." 

The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  The proposal areas the 
protester cites are essentially procedural discussions of various 
contract activities, and do not appear to address the evaluated QC 
deficiencies.  For example, while the cited proposal discussion does 
lay out procedures for handling correspondence, it does not address QC 
measurements, functions, or reporting mechanisms, as required by the 
RFP and evaluated by the agency as lacking.  Similarly, although the 
proposal discusses a quality control report, it simply repeats 
verbatim the SOW, stating that it will be "[b]roken down by category, 
state size of sample, state numbers and types of problems found . . . 
," and also merely repeats the SOW-required categories for the QC 
report.  Our review confirms the agency's determination that the 
protester failed to describe what will be measured (within a 
category), the number of samplings, or how problems will be 
prevented.[5]  We conclude that, notwithstanding McAllister's position 
that it provided substantial QC information in its proposal, 
substantial information still was omitted.  As the protester has not 
alleged or shown that the omitted information was not material, there 
is no basis to object to the evaluation in this area.[6]      

Training Plan

In this area, worth 40 points, the RFP notified offerors that 
proposals would be evaluated for corresponding SOW requirements as 
follows:  (1) completeness of offeror's approach to train new staff in 
the treatment of student loan accounts placed for collection--15 
points, (2) details of procedures for identifying ongoing training 
needs and accomplishing the required training--10 points, and (3) 
specifics on anticipated course content, length of training, and 
training coordinator's qualifications--15 points.  McAllister's 
proposal received an average of 7.4 points, or 18.5 percent, in this 
area.  The summary evaluation narrative lists four evaluated 
weaknesses as follows:  (1) "[t]here was no discussion of the 
offeror's approach to train new staff in the treatment of student loan 
accounts placed for collection," 
(2) "[n]o discussion of procedures for identifying ongoing training 
needs," 
(3) "[t]raining outline does not . . . appear to relate specifically 
to this contract," and (4) "[d]id not address training coordinator(s), 
nor the qualifications."         
 
McAllister neither rebuts the specific evaluated deficiencies, nor 
disputes that they are material.  Instead, McAllister relies on its 
past training experience and contends that the agency could not have 
reasonably concluded that the firm lacked an adequate training plan.  
In particular, the protester contends that its CEO, who is identified 
in the training plan section of the proposal as the "Assistant 
Training Manager," "has over five years experience in managing the 
[DOE] contract and training hundreds of individuals in the collections 
of defaulted student loans," and "has been responsible for the 
placement of the executive staff at [another offeror]," who received 
an award under the RFP here.  

This argument is without merit.  As discussed above, an agency's 
technical evaluation generally is dependent upon the information 
furnished within the four corners of the proposal; the agency properly 
may rely on this information in reaching its evaluation conclusions.  
Our review confirms the agency's finding that the proposal omitted 
required information.  For example, in the proposal's training plan 
section, there is no discussion of a training coordinator's 
qualifications, as called for by the RFP.  The submitted resume for 
the firm's CEO lists his current position as "CEO/training & project 
director," but does not specify his training responsibilities and 
activities in his current position, or his training experience at 
three other listed firms.  In a separate section of the proposal 
(project personnel experience), the protester's vice-president is 
identified as the "[t]raining [m]anager."  (There is no mention of 
this individual in the training plan section of the proposal.)  The 
submitted resume for this individual reveals that he is a medical 
doctor with a specialty in psychiatry and addictions, but there is no 
indication of his training qualifications relevant to the requirements 
here.  (In a separate "Executive Summary Flow Chart" this individual 
is listed as having 10 years of "collection agency experience on [DOE] 
contracts," but no specific experience is listed.)  While the proposal 
states that this individual "implements a 'pre-employment' 
psychological testing program," which "provides a measurement of an 
applicant's character, degree of discipline, credibility and 
reliability," experience with this type of testing clearly does not 
equate to training qualifications specific to the collections work to 
be performed under the contract, as was sought here.  Based on this 
confusion in the proposal as to who would be the training coordinator 
(for the training specific to the RFP) and the lack of discussion of 
the relevant qualifications of a training coordinator, we have no 
basis to question the agency's determination that the proposal was 
informationally deficient in this area.

We conclude that the agency reasonably found that McAllister's 
proposal omitted substantial material information, that the protester 
thus failed to demonstrate its capabilities and understanding of the 
requirements, and that correction of these failures would necessitate 
a major revision of the proposal.  See Defense Group Inc., B-253795, 
Oct. 25, 1993, 94-1 CPD  para.  196 at 6.  Under these circumstances, the 
agency properly eliminated the proposal from the competitive range.[7]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The average evaluated scores of McAllister's proposal by subfactor 
were as follows:  (1) executive summary--4.4 out of 25 points or 17.6 
percent, (2) strategic collection approach--23.4 out of 75 points or 
31.2 percent, (3) administrative resolutions--7.6 out of 30 points or 
25.3 percent, (4) litigation/AWG preparation--19 out of 45 points or 
42.2 percent, (5) QC--19.2 out of 75 points or 25.6 percent, (6) 
training plan--7.4 out of 40 points or 18.5 percent, (7) computer 
system resources--20.4 out of 60 points or 34 percent, and (8) project 
personnel experience--30.2 out of 100 points or 30.2 percent.   

2. The average total score of the nearest offeror included in the 
revised competitive range was 215.2 points, or 47.8 percent of the 
possible points. 

3. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under this 
subfactor as follows:  (1) "[c]larity and completeness of the overall 
management approach to staff contract with capable personnel"--10 
points; (2) "[d]iscussion of offeror's approach to utilize 
administrative support staff necessary to interface with [DOE] and 
support the resolution of accounts under this contract"--15 points,
(3) "[q]ualifications of individuals proposed under key positions of 
contract, specifically:  Contract Administrator, Collections Manager, 
Administrative/Support Manager and Systems Manager"--35 points, (4) 
"[c]ompleteness of resumes for proposed staff"--5 points, (6) 
"[d]iscussion of offeror's approach to maintain personnel in an 
environment where retention and loyalty is generally very low"       
--10 points, and (7) "[e]vidence of the offeror's commitment to high 
quality service and performance, as demonstrated by prior 
experience"--25 points.  In this area, the RFP specifically required 
an "outline [of] all current contractual obligations in which key 
personnel are currently assigned, and the time currently devoted to 
those projects" and a matrix "that specifies the amount of time each 
staff member will be committed during the contract period."

4. The SOW further required a monthly QC report "[b]roken down by 
category, state size of sample, state numbers and type of problems 
found, corrective action taken and preventive action so that the same 
problem(s) do not happen in the future."  The RFP also listed 14 
required categories for the QC report, such as "[m]onitoring of 
collector/customer service calls" and "[c]orrespondence for proper 
handling/response." 

5. In this regard, we note that the RFP included a sample QC report 
format in Appendix VIII, which was filled in with specific examples of 
"QC sample [i.e., the required QC categories]," "sample size," "errors 
found," "types of errors," "corrective action taken," and "preventive 
measures," which should have provided ample guidance to the protester 
as to the type of information the agency sought.   

6. We also note that, of the 10 pages (i.e., pages 43 through 52) 
cited by the agency as being a reiteration of the RFP, the protester 
disputes the agency's position only as to 1 of those pages (page 43); 
it does not rebut the agency's position as to the other 9 pages (i.e., 
pages 44 through 52).  Our review indicates that page 43 in fact 
contains a substantial reiteration of the SOW.  For example, paragraph 
E.8, "Complaint Resolutions and [DOE] Monitoring," of the protester's 
proposal (which continues onto page 44) repeats almost verbatim a SOW 
paragraph under section 2.4, "Resolution of Complaints."  The main 
difference is that the protester's proposal combines two sentences 
into one by deleting portions of both sentences. 

7. The protester alleges unequal competition because another offeror 
with alleged significant proposal deficiencies was provided an 
opportunity to correct its deficiencies and subsequently was awarded a 
contract.  However, our review of the two proposals and the evaluation 
documentation does not indicate that the two offerors were treated 
disparately in either of the two areas cited by the protester--hiring 
programs and interface with DOE under the second and fourth evaluation 
subfactors.  Moreover, the other offeror's proposal clearly was 
situated differently than McAllister's, having received a composite 
technical score before discussions of 326.4 points, significantly 
higher than the protester's 131.6 points.