BNUMBER:  B-277503 
DATE:  October 20, 1997
TITLE: Northwest Management, Inc., B-277503, October 20, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Northwest Management, Inc.

File:     B-277503

Date:October 20, 1997

Vincent P. Corrao and James W. Garrett for the protester.
Richard Salazar, Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office 
of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably determined that (1) protester's quotation presented 
some performance risk where protester had not clearly identified its 
work force as required by the solicitation and had no experience using 
the particular methodology to be applied under the solicitation; and 
(2) given this risk, protester's quotation did not offer the best 
value to the government despite its slightly lower price. 

DECISION

Northwest Management, Inc. protests the issuance, by the Forest 
Service, Department of Agriculture, of a purchase order for stream 
surveys on the Lolo Creek Drainage in Clearwater National Forest, 
Idaho to Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. under request for quotations 
(RFQ) No. R1-5-97-21.   The protester argues that it should have 
received the purchase order because its quotation represented a better 
value to the government than Clearwater's.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ sought a contractor (or contractors) to collect, and compile 
into a report, stream stability and fish habitat data on streams 
within the Clearwater National Forest.  The streams to be surveyed 
were grouped under three items:  Lolo Creek Drainage, Pete King Creek 
Drainage, and Canyon Creek Drainage.  Vendors were advised that more 
than one purchase order might be issued.  Vendors were further advised 
that selection of a contractor (or contractors) would be based on the 
following criteria, and that a narrative response to the criteria was 
to be submitted with the quotation:

     qualifications and credentials of personnel who will be assigned 
     to supervise and perform the work;

     past performance, including ability to produce a final report 
     detailing existing conditions, limiting factors, population 
     statistics, and recommended habitat improvement actions;[1]  

     experience of personnel in the project area or similar geographic 
     areas; and

     firm's ability to undertake and complete this project on time.

The RFQ also indicated that firms' prices would be evaluated.[2]

Northwest submitted a quotation totaling $20,996.10 for item No. 1 
(Lolo Creek Drainage) only.  Clearwater submitted prices for all three 
items; its price for item No. 1 was $21,023.70 (i.e., $27.60 more than 
Northwest's).  On July 1, the contracting officer notified Clearwater 
that it had been selected to perform the work under all three item 
numbers.  Northwest was notified of the selection of Clearwater on 
July 7 and protested to our Office on July 14.[3]  

Northwest objects to the award of item No. 1 to Clearwater.  The 
protester alleges that the agency failed to consider its quotation 
because it was for one item only and the agency wished to avoid making 
multiple awards, despite the fact that the RFQ provided for them.  In 
this regard, the protester states that one of the evaluators told its 
representative that the contracting officer stated that "he saw no 
reason to award to more than one contractor."  Protester's Comments, 
Sept. 2, 1997, at 2.  In the alternative, the protester argues that 
the agency lacked a reasonable basis for passing over its quotation in 
favor of Clearwater's higher-priced one.

The contracting officer denies that Northwest's quotation was excluded 
from consideration because the protester had quoted a price for the 
item No. 1 work only.  The contracting officer explains that the 
quotation was evaluated--a claim which is supported by the existence 
of evaluator worksheets assessing the strengths and weaknesses of 
Northwest's narrative response to the evaluation criteria--but that it 
was not selected, because, in the contracting officer's judgment, it 
did not represent the best value to the government.

Given the worksheets, we see no reason to question the contracting 
officer's explanation.  Moreover, even if, as the protester alleges, 
the contracting officer did state, prior to the selection, that he saw 
no reason to select more than one vendor, we do not think that this 
statement implies that any vendor not quoting on all three items had 
been excluded from consideration.  Rather, the more reasonable 
interpretation of the statement is that the contracting officer had 
concluded, based upon his review of the quotations, that the same firm 
represented the best value under all three items and that it had the 
capability to perform all three.

In response to the protester's second allegation, the contracting 
officer explains that he selected Clearwater over Northwest because he 
saw some risk of the agency's not receiving timely, accurate data from 
the latter firm, and decided that this risk was not worth Northwest's 
$27.60 price advantage.  The contracting officer's conclusion was 
based on Northwest's omission of information called for by the RFQ, 
specifically, its failure to identify all of the individuals on its 
data collection team and its failure to furnish evidence that its team 
has previously performed a study using the methodology prescribed by 
the solicitation here.  With regard to the study requirement, the 
contracting officer notes that the reports furnished by the protester 
in response to the solicitation requirement for "two reports from 
similar projects completed by the team to be assigned to this project" 
were coauthored by an individual not proposed by Northwest as a team 
member for this project; that none of the proposed team members, other 
than the principal investigator, was involved in the data collection 
or writing of the reports; that the reports did not reflect the use of 
the technique required under this RFQ; and that the reports were not 
produced by Northwest.[4]

Northwest takes issue with the contracting officer's conclusion.  The 
protester maintains that it did identify all members of its team, and 
that the contracting officer therefore had no reason to be concerned 
about its ability to recruit and train qualified personnel.  Northwest 
further argues that the contracting officer should have accepted the 
reports that it furnished as evidence of its ability to perform 
despite the fact that they used different methodologies than the 
methodology required here and the fact that most of the team members 
proposed here had no involvement in producing them.  In the latter 
regard, the protester contends that any potential contractor is likely 
to experience some staff turnover, and, thus, that none is likely to 
be able to furnish a report worked on by the entire team that it 
proposes here. 

When an agency evaluation is challenged, we will examine that 
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation criteria.  Carol Solomon & Assocs., B-271713, July 
19, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  28 at 2.  Based on our review of the record here, 
we think that the agency's criticisms of the protester's proposal were 
valid, and that they furnished it with a reasonable basis for 
concluding that selection of Northwest would entail greater 
performance risk than selection of Clearwater.

First, although the protester claims that it did identify all members 
of its team, our review of its quotation shows that this is simply not 
true.  While Northwest identified 10 individuals whom it was 
considering for positions as stream survey crew leaders, it  
identified none of the crew members who were to assist the crew 
leaders in collecting data.   

Northwest attempts to discount the omission of this information, 
arguing that it is fully qualified to perform the work based on its 
years of experience in the field, and asserting that its 
qualifications could have been confirmed had the agency contacted its 
prior clients.  The RFQ put firms on notice that they had to furnish 
specific information regarding their team composition.  It was the 
firms' responsibility to submit adequately written quotations which 
could be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the 
solicitation.  It is well established that, no matter how competent a 
firm may be, it runs the risk of not being selected for award if its 
fails to submit an adequately written offer (or quotation, as in this 
case).  INFOCUS Communications, B-256244, May 31, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  330 
at 5-6.

We think that the contracting officer reasonably concluded, based on 
Northwest's failure to identify a team of individuals committed to 
this particular project, that it was possible that the protester would 
need to recruit additional personnel to complete the project, and that 
this introduced an element of risk into its chances of completing the 
project on schedule.

Regarding the protester's second argument, we think that the 
contracting officer reasonably concluded that the reports furnished by 
Northwest, which had not been completed by the team to be assigned to 
this project and which did not reflect the use of the technique 
required here, did not demonstrate that the protester had the ability 
to produce a satisfactory final report under the RFQ here.  Northwest 
did not propose a team that was slightly different from the team that 
had worked on those reports, as its argument regarding staff turnover 
implies; it proposed a team that was, with the exception of its 
principal investigator, completely different.

In comparison, with respect to the quotation submitted by the awardee, 
the contracting officer concluded that the firm had demonstrated "a 
proven track record of providing the [agency] with accurate and timely 
data, responsive and cooperative behavior, a thorough understanding of 
the biological and logistical variables which may be encountered, and 
experienced and competent people."  Contracting Officer's Statement at 
p. F-3.  The protester does not challenge these conclusions, and we 
see no basis in the record to question them.

In sum, we see no basis in the record to find unreasonable the 
contracting officer's conclusion that there was greater performance 
risk associated with an award to Northwest than with an award to 
Clearwater and that this risk was not compensated for by Northwest's 
de minimis price advantage of $27.60.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, offerors were 
instructed to cite contracts for similar work with the Forest Service 
and other agencies, and to include two reports from similar projects 
completed by the team to be assigned to this project.

2. Although the RFQ specified the criteria to be used in evaluating 
quotations, it did not state the basis for source selection--that is, 
whether a purchase order would be issued to the lowest-priced, 
qualified firm or to the firm whose quotation represented the best 
value to the government.  The agency states that it made its selection 
on a "best value" basis, however, and the protester appears to have 
understood the RFQ as providing for selection on that basis.  In this 
regard, the protester does not argue that it was entitled to selection 
as the lowest-priced qualified firm, but rather that its quotation 
represented the best value to the government.  Moreover, even assuming 
that Northwest did understand the solicitation as providing for 
selection of the lowest-priced, qualified firm, it was not prejudiced 
by the agency's action since it was not the lowest-priced, qualified 
firm on item No. 1; a third qualified firm, not a party to this 
protest, quoted a price lower than either Northwest's or Clearwater's 
for item No. 1.

3. In commenting on the agency report, the protester objects to the 
agency's failure to suspend performance pending resolution of its 
protest before our Office.  Northwest contends that performance should 
have been suspended because it filed its protest within 7 days after 
learning that it had not received the award.

An agency is required to suspend contract performance only if it 
receives notice of a protest from our Office within 10 calendar days 
after the date of contract award,  31 U.S.C.  sec.  3553(d)(3) (1994).  
Here, the purchase order was issued on July 1, but Northwest did not 
file its protest with our Office until July 14 (and the agency was not 
notified of the protest until July 15).  The protester explains that 
it did not file its protest sooner because it was not notified of the 
award until July 7.  Delay by an agency in notifying a protester of an 
award does not provide a basis for extending the time period for 
obtaining a suspension of contract performance, however.  See United 
States Pollution Control, Inc., B-225372, Jan. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  96 
at 4 n.3.

4. The contemporaneous evaluation record consists of the worksheets 
prepared by the two evaluators, addressing the strengths and 
weaknesses of each proposal.  In response to the protest, the 
contracting officer prepared a statement discussing in more detail the 
specific findings that led to the selection decision.  While we give 
greater weight to contemporaneous evidence, DynCorp, 71 Comp. Gen. 
129, 134 n.12 (1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  575 at 7 n.13, here we view the 
agency's post-protest documentation as simply filling in previously 
unrecorded details, rather than creating a new, post hoc rationale.  
Moreover, this procurement was conducted using simplified acquisition 
procedures, and the applicable regulatory provision, Federal 
Acquisition Regulation  sec.  13.106-2(d)(4), specifically provides that 
documentation should be kept to a minimum in such procurements.  
Accordingly, we will consider all the information provided by the 
agency in reviewing the reasonableness of its decision.