BNUMBER:  B-277250 
DATE:  September 18, 1997
TITLE: Shel-Ken Properties, Inc., B-277250, September 18, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Shel-Ken Properties, Inc.

File:     B-277250

Date:September 18, 1997

Charlotte C. Jenkins for the protester.
Virginia Kelly Stephens, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban 
Development, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of elimination of proposal from the competitive range based on 
disagreement with agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal is 
denied where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the 
criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record supports the 
evaluators' conclusions.

DECISION

Shel-Ken Properties, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from 
the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
H03R96015600000, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) for real estate asset management (REAM) services for 
single-family properties owned by HUD in its District of Columbia 
Office jurisdiction.  Shel-Ken alleges that its proposal was 
improperly evaluated, that the contracting officer was biased against 
the firm, and that HUD was required to make a referral to the Small 
Business Administration for certificate of competency consideration 
before the agency could exclude Shel-Ken's proposal from the 
competitive range. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on July 24, 1996, as a total small business 
set-aside for the acquisition of management and other related 
services.  The RFP listed the following evaluation factors, with their 
relative weights, to be scored on a 100-point scale:  prior management 
experience (30 points); past performance (25 points); office 
location(s) (20 points); and management capability (25 points).  Award 
was to be made to the offeror submitting "the proposal that best 
conforms to the solicitation, and is most advantageous to the 
Government (that proposal which represents the best value.)"

The agency received 17 timely submitted proposals, including the 
protester's.  After the proposals had been scored by individual 
technical evaluation panel (TEP) members, the TEP developed a 
consensus score for each proposal.  Five offers were rated as 
technically acceptable, and seven offers, including Shel-Ken's, were 
deemed technically unacceptable in their current form but capable of 
being made acceptable through clarifications/discussions.  These 12 
proposals were included in the competitive range.  

On February 3, the contracting officer notified Shel-Ken by letter 
that its proposal was considered to be within the competitive range 
for further negotiations, and identified areas in the proposal that 
required additional information and/or clarification.  The letter 
requested further detail or specific information regarding Shel-Ken's 
experience, especially the property management experience of proposed 
employees; past performance (such as complete mailing addresses for 
references); proposed satellite offices; equipment to be provided; and 
responsibilities of the various proposed employees.  The letter also 
transmitted an amendment to the RFP.  HUD instructed Shel-Ken to 
submit an amended proposal and to complete a pricing schedule that was 
included in the solicitation amendment.  

Shel-Ken submitted an amended proposal which was evaluated with the 
result that the protester's overall score improved by a total of 9 
points.  Nonetheless, the TEP  concluded that the additional 
information and changes that Shel-Ken had provided were not sufficient 
to make its proposal acceptable.  For example, the TEP continued to 
have concerns regarding the level of the firm's relevant experience 
and to question whether Shel-Ken proposed to provide fully equipped 
main and satellite offices.  

Five amended technical proposals were considered superior to 
Shel-Ken's.  Among these five, three offered a lower price.  The 
contracting officer concluded that Shel-Ken's proposal did not have a 
reasonable chance of being selected for award and excluded it from the 
competitive range.  Shel-Ken was notified of its exclusion, and this 
protest followed.  The contract award has been stayed pending 
resolution of the protest.

Shel-Ken alleges that its proposal was excluded from the competitive 
range as the result of an improper evaluation.  First, Shel-Ken 
essentially argues that its prior experience was not given the credit 
to which it was entitled under the evaluation criterion.  

The RFP lists "prior management experience" as the most 
heavily-weighted single technical evaluation factor, and states:

     The offeror shall provide evidence of the offeror's experience in 
     the management of single family properties similar to the type of 
     inventory covered by this solicitation.  Prior management 
     experience must demonstrate the offeror's ability to perform the 
     duties required under this RFP.  If the offeror's property 
     management experience is in areas other than single family 
     property management, the offeror's proposal must demonstrate, to 
     the satisfaction of HUD, that the experience relates to the 
     duties required by this RFP.  Include a description of work 
     currently in progress and/or completed within the last three to 
     five years that is relevant to this procurement.  Include names, 
     addresses, and telephone numbers of contact points for these 
     clients.  The government reserves the right to request 
     information from any source so named.  The government also 
     reserves the right to obtain information from sources not named 
     in the proposal.

In Shel-Ken's initial proposal, under the caption of "corporate 
history," Shel-Ken lists the dates, inventories, and references for 
its past and current contracts.  The previously completed contracts 
consist of three HUD contracts that Shel-Ken performed between 1987 
and 1993, including 600 single-family homes between 1987 and 1989, 150 
homes between 1989 and 1990, and a range of 18 to 100 homes between 
1990 and 1993.  The list of current contracts is comprised of four 
private-sector contracts, with inventories ranging from 1 townhouse to 
58 townhouses.  Although the lists  include references for these 
contracts, as well as a list of each property that was covered under 
the HUD contracts, Shel-Ken's initial proposal provided no narrative 
or other information concerning the type of contract or the nature of 
the work that was actually performed.  

In response to the discussion request to provide additional 
information concerning its experience, Shel-Ken responded with a 
narrative account of the services provided.  The TEP considered this 
response to be a "better, more detailed explanation of the company's 
experience," and increased Shel-Ken's score in this area from 16 to 21 
points (out of a possible 30 points).  The agency noted that the level 
of inventory that Shel-Ken has managed in the past is significantly 
lower than required under the current procurement, which is projected 
to be approximately 
100 new homes per month, and questioned whether the protester's 
experience is comparable to this requirement.  In addition, the RFP 
sought information regarding offerors' experience during the past 3 to 
5 years, and Shel-Ken's only comparable-volume contract was performed 
8 to 10 years ago.  

Shel-Ken contends that its experience under Area Management Broker 
contracts involved more difficult management responsibilities than 
would be the case under the REAM contract at issue here, and therefore 
should have received more credit.  The protester takes the position 
that its expertise would allow it to "manage the entire inventory 
Nationwide of approximately 29,000 with the same precision and speed 
as 200."

The evaluation of proposals is primarily a matter within the agency's 
discretion since it is responsible for defining its needs and for 
deciding on the best methods for accommodating them.  Seair Transport 
Servs., Inc., B-252266, June 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  458 at 4.  Thus, we 
question the evaluation only if the record demonstrates that it was 
unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria.  Id.

Here, the record establishes that HUD's evaluation was reasonable.  
The RFP instructed offerors to provide evidence of their experience in 
the management of single family properties "similar to the type of 
inventory covered by this solicitation."  (Emphasis added.)  The 
volume of houses managed by Shel-Ken under its current contracts does 
not approach the volume involved in this procurement.  Further, the 
solicitation calls for a description of relevant work completed within 
the last 3 to 5 years; Shel-Ken's proposal described experience with 
comparable-volume contracts which occurred 8 to 10 years ago.  The 
TEP's downgrading of Shel-Ken's proposal in this area was consistent 
with the RFP evaluation criterion.  The evaluation factor at issue 
here pertains to the value of the offeror's actual past experience.  
Thus, the protester's mere assertion that it is capable of managing a 
significantly higher volume of properties than it has in the past does 
not entitle its technical proposal to receive an enhanced score under 
an evaluation factor  intended to assess a firm's actual experience.  
While the additional information elicited from Shel-Ken during 
discussions permitted the evaluators to increase the protester's score 
in this area, the agency properly discounted Shel-Ken's most relevant 
experience as stale and downgraded the more recent experience because 
of the lack of comparable volume.  Shel-Ken's mere disagreement with 
the agency does not in itself render the evaluation unreasonable.  
Seair Transport Servs., supra.

Shel-Ken also objects to the agency's evaluation of its proposal under 
each of the remaining evaluation factors.  For example, under the 
"past performance" evaluation factor, the RFP required offerors to 
provide evidence of their past similar performance, including points 
of contact and references that the agency could contact.  When the 
agency attempted to contact the protester's listed references, only 
one firm responded.  Shel-Ken alleges, in essence, that the agency did 
not make a sufficient effort to contact the references.  However, 
Shel-Ken's score for this factor was in the "excellent" range, 
notwithstanding the paucity of information available to the agency, 
and Shel-Ken does not allege any deviation from the evaluation 
criteria or otherwise show why it believes this factor was improperly 
scored.  In these circumstances, there is no basis to object to the 
agency's evaluation in this area.

Under the "office location" evaluation factor, the RFP required 
offerors to "provide evidence of an adequately staffed and equipped 
office (or offices) - or the ability to establish such an office in a 
timely manner -  reasonably located to provide convenient service to 
HUD and its clients in the geographical area to be served, and to 
efficiently perform all contractual requirements."  Shel-Ken stated in 
its initial proposal that it would establish a main office and two 
satellite offices.  In written discussions, the contracting officer 
requested additional details concerning the offices and the specific 
property management experience of the proposed staff.  Shel-Ken 
provided some additional information, and its score in this area was 
increased by 4 points.  Shel-Ken takes the position that because the 
RFP referred to "office (or offices)," and Shel-Ken's proposed main 
office satisfied the minimum of one office, its proposal was entitled 
to essentially a maximum score without taking the satellite offices 
into consideration.  The premise that satisfaction of a minimum 
requirement entitles a proposal to a perfect score is meritless on its 
face, and we conclude that the agency's evaluation was consistent with 
the terms of the RFP. 

Under the "management capability" evaluation factor, offerors were to 
describe their organization and, among other things, "provide the 
names, position descriptions and resumes to support the 
qualifications, including relevant experience, specialized training 
and education, of all proposed key personnel."  The agency report 
shows that throughout the evaluation process, and as indicated to 
Shel-Ken during discussion, the TEP had concerns regarding the 
property management experience of the proposed staff.  Further, the 
TEP considered the protester's plan to have required weekly 
inspections performed by subcontractors to be a weakness.  Shel-Ken 
objects, pointing out that its amended proposal stated that three of 
its staff members "have more than eight (8) years experience in the 
field of property management."  However, the information provided in 
Shel-Ken's proposal did not disclose the nature of the experience and 
was too vague to permit favorable evaluation.  For example, for one 
employee, the proposal stated that an employee had worked for Shel-Ken 
"on a part-time basis, for the past several years."  It neither 
described the type of work performed nor the actual length of 
experience.  For the proposed field operations director, the proposal 
described only the duties that the proposed employee would perform, 
and listed no experience at all.  We see no basis to object to the 
agency's downgrading of Shel-Ken's proposal in this area.  The 
technical evaluation of a proposal is based on information submitted 
in it and an offeror runs the risk of having its proposal rejected or 
downgraded if the proposal submitted is inadequately written.  See 
Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., B-242836.4, Oct. 29, 1991, 
91-2 CPD  para.  387 at 5.

In its summary of its protest comments, Shel-Ken also lists a number 
of instances in which the agency allegedly applied evaluation factors 
that were not disclosed in the solicitation.  For example, the 
protester alleges that the TEP required the entire proposed staff to 
have more than 10 years property management experience rather than the 
key personnel only; that offerors had to be currently managing a 
particular number of properties; that staff experience had to date 
from no earlier than 1993; and that the CEO had to have extensive 
experience in the operation of computers.  In each instance, Shel-Ken 
is either mistaken with respect to the requirements as they appeared 
in the RFP, or mistaken as to the basis for the evaluation 
conclusions.  The TEP questioned the exact length and type of 
experience of the proposed personnel, which was not discernible from 
Shel-Ken's proposal; the evaluation scheme in the RFP required 
experience in the management of an inventory (i.e., number and type of 
properties) similar to the requirement here; the RFP asked for 
relevant experience completed within the last 3 to 5 years; and the 
CEO's qualifications were questioned because of the type of work for 
which she was proposed to have responsibility in the proposal.  In 
short, these allegations are refuted by the record.

Shel-Ken mistakenly asserts that its proposal cannot be eliminated 
from the competitive range without referral of the matter to the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) for consideration under that agency's 
certificate of competency (COC) proceedings.  Where an agency finds 
that a small business is nonresponsible, the agency is required to 
refer the matter to the SBA for consideration under the COC 
procedures.  Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 19.6.  In a 
negotiated procurement, SBA referral is mandatory where the 
solicitation includes for evaluation on a pass/fail basis a criterion 
that is traditionally a responsibility-type factor, and the 
contracting agency  determines that a small business's proposal should 
be rejected for failing that criterion.  This is so because, in these 
circumstances, the agency is viewed as having made a nonresponsibility 
determination notwithstanding its use of and reliance on a technical 
evaluation criterion.  Docusort, Inc., B-254852, Jan. 25, 1994, 94-1 
CPD  para.  38 at 5-7.  However, the requirement for referral does not apply 
where, as here, proposals are comparatively evaluated and assigned a 
comparative adjectival rating.  In these circumstances, the agency 
does not make a responsibility determination, but simply integrates 
its relative assessment of past performance into the overall 
determination of which proposal is most advantageous to the 
government, and there is no requirement for referral to the SBA.  
Tri-Servs., Inc., B-256196.4, Sept. 30, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  121 at 3-4.

Shel-Ken also makes various allegations of agency bias against the 
protester and dishonesty on the part of HUD personnel.  Government 
officials are presumed to act in good faith; we will not attribute 
unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of 
inference or supposition.  Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 
23, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  171 at 6.  In addition to producing credible 
evidence showing bias, the protester must demonstrate that the agency 
bias translated into action that unfairly affected the protester's 
competitive position.  Id.  Shel-Ken has furnished no credible 
evidence to support its allegation; moreover, since the record 
supports HUD's evaluation of Shel-Ken's proposal (and its consequent 
exclusion from the competition), it provides no basis upon which to 
question the motives of the evaluators.[1]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Shel-Ken also alleges in its protest comments that the agency 
"tampered" with documents.  Shel-Ken received two copies of the agency 
report and contracting officer's statement from which source-selection 
sensitive materials had been redacted.  Because the two copies 
differed slightly from each other, Shel-Ken accuses the agency of 
malice and deception.  The agency explains that when the protester 
complained that it had not received a legible copy of these documents, 
the agency took that opportunity to revise its previous redactions 
slightly.  We have reviewed the documents; the variations are minor 
and insignificant, and they provide no basis for protest.