BNUMBER:  B-277042 
DATE:  August 21, 1997
TITLE: Command Enterprises, Inc., B-277042, August 21, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Command Enterprises, Inc.

File:     B-277042

Date:August 21, 1997

Leslie C. Hall for the protester.
Mark H. Alexander, Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that proposal was improperly rejected as technically 
unacceptable for proposing insufficient staff-hours to perform the 
requirement is denied where: 
(1) proposed staff-hours in two out of three major service categories 
were substantially below the government estimate range; (2) the agency 
has provided a methodology for calculating its estimate which appears 
reasonable on its face; and (3) proposal failed to include required 
narrative explaining work performance methodology or any other 
justification for reduced proposed staff-hours.

DECISION

Command Enterprises, Inc. (CEI) protests the rejection of its proposal 
as technically unacceptable, and the award of a contract to ServCor, 
Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DECA01-97-R-0015, issued 
by the Defense Commissary Agency (DCA) for shelf-stocking, custodial, 
and inventory-preparation services at the Fort Knox Commissary in 
Radcliff, Kentucky. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for 1 base year, 
with four   1-year options.  Award was to be made on a best value 
basis, with technical proposals to be evaluated based on the following 
equally weighted factors:  (1) past performance; (2) adequate 
shelf-stocking staffing and man-hours; (3) adequate custodial staffing 
and man-hours; and (4) adequate project manager/supervisory man-hours 
for each function.[1]  Nineteen offers were received by the closing 
date.    After the evaluation was completed, CEI was notified that its 
proposal had been found technically unacceptable as a result of 
insufficient staffing and staff-hours proposed for custodial services 
and supervision.  Award was made to ServCor based on initial 
proposals.

CEI asserts that its proposed staff-hours for custodial services and 
supervision exceeded industry standards and were adequate to perform 
the contract, and that its offer therefore should not have been deemed 
unacceptable on this basis.  
  
Our Office does not make an independent determination of the merits of 
technical proposals; rather, we examine the agency's evaluation to 
ensure that it is reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation 
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  Mark Dunning 
Indus., Inc., B-230058, Apr. 13, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  364    at 3-4.

DCA had a reasonable basis for rejecting CEI's proposal.  For the 
custodial function, CEI's proposed staff-hours were about 30 percent 
below the lower end of the government estimate range.  This gross 
disparity led the agency--reasonably, we think--to find CEI's proposal 
unacceptable under the custodial staff-hour evaluation factor, which 
was worth 25 percent of the evaluation.  As for the supervisory 
function, the RFP required a full-time project manager for a total of 
2,080 hours.  CEI proposed less than one-half of those staff-hours; as 
a result, the agency also rated the proposal unacceptable under the 
supervisory staff-hour factor, which also was worth 25 percent of the 
evaluation.  Further, CEI's proposal was downgraded for failing to 
provide a narrative explanation of its methodology for performing the 
requirements, as required by section L.17 of the RFP, and the proposal 
did not otherwise explain how CEI intended to perform with the number 
of staff-hours proposed.  Given CEI's substantially understated 
proposed staff-hours and its failure to explain how it would perform 
the contract, the agency reasonably found CEI's proposal technically 
unacceptable.  See Intelcom Support Servs., Inc., B-257037, Aug. 23, 
1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  77 at 5.  

CEI's assertion that its proposed staff-hours are consistent with 
industry standards does not establish that the agency's evaluation was 
unreasonable.  Agencies properly may develop their staff-hour 
requirements based on a determination of their minimum needs, 
irrespective of inconsistency with industry standards.  See generally 
T&S Prods., Inc., B-261852, Oct. 4, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  161 at 2-4.  DCA 
has provided the methodology behind its estimate, which appears 
reasonable, and CEI has not attempted to show that the estimate is 
flawed.  Moreover, CEI has not provided any specific information 
substantiating its general assertion that its proposed staff-hours are 
consistent with industry standards.  We will not disturb an agency's 
determination of its needs based solely on a protester's disagreement 
with that determination.  See Mark Dunning Indus., Inc., supra, at 4. 

CEI asserts that the solicitation form on which offerors were to set 
forth proposed staff-hours was defective in various respects.  
However, as these alleged defects were apparent on the face of the 
RFP, CEI was required to file any protest challenging them prior to 
the time set for receipt of initial proposals.  Because it did not do 
so, this aspect of the protest is untimely and will not be considered.  
Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1997).

CEI maintains that, since its offered price was lower than the award 
price, its offer should have been within the competitive range.  
However, a technically unacceptable offer can be excluded irrespective 
of its low price.  Federal Servs., Inc., B-235661, Aug. 28, 1989, 89-2 
CPD  para.  182 at 4.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFP also indicated that award would be made based on the 
lowest-cost technically acceptable proposal.  However, the record 
indicates that the procurement was conducted under a best value 
approach.  This solicitation discrepancy is not in issue.