BNUMBER:  B-277061.2 
DATE:  September 5, 1997
TITLE: Ecology and Environment, Inc., B-277061.2, September 5, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Ecology and Environment, Inc.

File:     B-277061.2

Date:September 5, 1997

Michael S. Betrus for the protester.
Gary M. Winter, Esq., Agency for International Development, 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

1.  Agency's evaluation of proposals was reasonable despite its 
decision not to rescore best and final offers (BAFO); agencies are not 
required to rescore BAFOs, and the record establishes that agency 
considered all changes contained in BAFOs and reasonably determined 
that changes did not affect relative ranking of proposals.

2.  Agency had a reasonable basis for finding that protester's and 
awardee's proposals were technically equal, despite protester's 
alleged greater direct experience performing the type of work required 
under the solicitation, where (1) awardee's experience as a general 
contractor which had managed technical subcontractors was suited to 
the work under the solicitation, and (2) record shows that agency 
favorably considered awardee's proposed subcontractors' experience.

DECISION

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) protests the award of a contract 
to Chemonics International, Inc. under Agency for International 
Development (AID) request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-95-P-074, for 
technical services and program management in support of Egypt's Cairo 
Air Improvement Project (CAIP).  The protester primarily argues that 
the evaluation of proposals was improper.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on April 11, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for 5 years, with a 2-year option.  The 
evaluation was to be on a best value basis, with consideration being 
given to technical superiority (greatest weight) and cost.  The 
technical factors consisted of the following:  (1) Vehicle Emissions 
Testing (VET)--200 points; (2) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)--200 
points; (3) Lead Smelter--0 points;[1] (4) Air Quality Monitoring--100 
points; (5) Public Awareness--150 points; (6) Commodity/New 
Initiatives--50 points; and (7) CAIP Management--300 points.

With regard to cost, the RFP stated that the proposed total estimated 
cost-plus-fixed-fee would be evaluated for reasonableness, 
completeness, credibility, and realism; the cost proposal also was to 
be evaluated as to the ability of the offeror to control cost.  Eleven 
proposals were received and six, including Chemonics's and E&E's, were 
included in the competitive range.  After written discussions, the 
agency requested and received revised proposals.  Following the second 
evaluation, Chemonics's and E&E's proposals remained in the 
competitive range.  Following further written discussions with the 
firms, the technical evaluation committee (TEC) requested and received 
best and final offers (BAFO).  During the BAFO evaluation, each TEC 
member performed an individual evaluation to assess any additional 
information, changes in strategies, and other revisions, and to 
determine whether the weaknesses discussed during the second 
evaluation had been addressed.  The TEC, together with the contracting 
officer, thereafter decided that there were not enough significant 
changes in the scores to warrant rescoring the BAFOs.  The total 
weighted scores from the second evaluation ultimately were used for 
the final ranking, which resulted in a determination that all 
proposals were essentially technically equal.  The contracting officer 
therefore focused on the cost proposals in making the best value 
determination.  Although E&E's evaluated cost was essentially the same 
as Chemonics's, the contracting officer determined that Chemonics's 
proposal represented the best value because E&E's proposed fees and 
ceilings on indirect cost rates were significantly higher than 
Chemonics's, and E&E's cost management plan showed lower cost savings 
than Chemonics's.  The agency made award to Chemonics on this basis.

E&E challenges the evaluation on numerous bases.  In considering a 
protest against an evaluation of proposals, we will examine the record 
to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and 
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  ESCO, Inc., 66 Comp. 
Gen. 404, 410 (1987), 87-1 CPD  para.  450 at 7.  We find that the 
evaluation was proper.  We discuss E&E's principal arguments below.

FAILURE TO RESCORE BAFOS

E&E maintains that AID improperly failed to rescore the BAFOs and that 
as a result, the evaluation did not encompass E&E's change in the 
number of performance-based project milestones and three allegedly 
significant new initiatives in achieving the contract's objectives.
 
There generally is no requirement that an agency formally rescore 
BAFOs; rather, all that is required is that the agency consider the 
effect on proposals of any changes contained in the BAFOs.  University 
of Dayton Research Inst., B-245431, Jan. 2, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  6 at 4.  
AID met this standard.  The evaluation documentation shows that the 
TEC considered the changes in E&E's technical BAFO, and concluded that 
the changes  had no effect on the overall rankings.

TECHNICALLY EQUAL DETERMINATION

E&E argues that the agency's determination that its and Chemonics's 
BAFOs were technically equal failed to reflect the fact that E&E has 
substantial direct experience managing complex environmental 
engineering programs, while Chemonics has experience only as a 
"general contractor, brokering a stable of technical subcontractors."

This argument is without merit.  First, as the agency points out, the 
RFP nowhere indicated that an offeror's direct experience providing 
environmental technical and program management services would be 
assigned greater weight in the evaluation than experience managing the 
subcontractors providing the actual technical and management services.  
Moreover, there was nothing unreasonable in the agency's conclusion 
that E&E's experience did not warrant rating E&E's proposal superior 
to Chemonics's.  In this regard, while it is undisputed that E&E 
possesses greater experience directly performing environmental 
services contracts, the effort under this RFP expressly allowed the 
use of subcontractors, and both E&E and Chemonics proposed to do so.  
This being the case, we think the agency reasonably could view 
Chemonics's subcontractor management experience positively in 
considering the relative merits of the proposals.  Further, 
Chemonics's experience ratings reflected to some extent the agency's 
determination that Chemonics's subcontractors had significant direct 
experience performing similar work in Egypt.  See Premier Cleaning 
Sys., Inc., B-249179.2, Nov. 2, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  298 at 4 (agency 
properly may consider proposed subcontractor experience where 
solicitation permits use of subcontractors in performance, and does 
not prohibit consideration of their experience).  It follows that 
there is no basis for concluding that E&E's experience should have 
been deemed superior to Chemonics's such that E&E's proposal should 
have been rated overall superior to Chemonics's.

FEES

E&E argues that AID improperly determined that its BAFO base and 
option fees were too high compared to the other offerors', since the 
agency erroneously included procurement services costs in evaluating 
its fees.

This argument is without merit.  AID found it unclear whether E&E's 
procurement services costs were reflected in its fees, and therefore 
evaluated the fees both including and excluding those costs.  Even 
excluding the costs, E&E's total base and option fees were 
significantly higher than the range of the other offerors' fees.  We 
therefore find nothing improper in the agency's conclusion that E&E's 
fees were higher than any offeror's, or in its ultimate determination 
that Chemonics's proposal therefore represented the best value.

BIAS

E&E maintains that the agency was predisposed to make award to 
Chemonics because it has contracted with that firm previously.  
However, given that we find no error in the evaluation, and that E&E 
has presented no evidence showing that AID acted with a specific 
intent to injure E&E, there is no basis for finding that the award was 
the result of bias.  See Hill's Capitol Sec., Inc., B-250983, Mar. 2, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  190 at 4.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although the original RFP assigned 150 points to the lead smelter 
factor, an amendment to the RFP stated that, while offerors had the 
option of providing information under this factor, no technical 
evaluation points would be applied.