BNUMBER:  B-277738 
DATE:  October 20, 1997
TITLE: ECG, Inc., B-277738, October 20, 1997
**********************************************************************

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:ECG, Inc.

File:     B-277738

Date:October 20, 1997

Robert E. Gregg, Esq., Hazel & Thomas, for the protester.
Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., and Joel P. Fuerstenberg, Esq., Department of 
Energy, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is denied 
where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and 
consistent with the stated evaluation factors. 

DECISION

ECG, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Global Technologies, 
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP02-97EW40465, issued 
by the Department of Energy (DOE) for advisory services for the 
evaluation of environmental restoration activities.  ECG challenges 
the propriety of the agency's evaluation of ECG's proposal and asserts 
that DOE failed to determine whether Global's proposed personnel were 
current employees as required by the solicitation.  

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued February 13, 1997, stated that the government 
anticipated making multiple awards with at least one award going to a 
small business concern under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
section 8(a) Program.[1]  The RFP contemplated the award of cost 
reimbursement, level-of-effort, task order contracts (with 
performance-based award fees) for a 1-year base period with four 
1-year options.  DOE anticipated that, in total, 133,920 labor-hours 
of effort (more than 70 full-time employees) would be required per 
year for all awards made.  The successful offerors are to provide 
advisory support services requiring highly technical, scientific and 
professional personnel in science, engineering, program and budget 
analysis, cost estimation and validation, regulatory analysis, 
computer science and technical writing/editing.

The RFP provided for award to the offerors whose conforming proposals 
were determined to be most advantageous to the government and advised 
that DOE intended to award on the basis of initial offers without 
discussions.  The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and 
subfactors, in descending order of importance:

     1.  Technical Capability
        a.  Personnel
          1.  Project Manager
          2.  Other Personnel
        b.  Past Performance
        c.  Corporate Experience
        d.  Technical Approach
        e.  Project Management

     2.  Business Management Capability
        a.  Compensation System
        b.  Transition Plan

     3.  Price

Offerors were advised that technical capability would be point scored 
and that business management capability would be adjectivally rated.  
Price proposals would be evaluated as to reasonableness and realism.

Seventeen written proposals, including those of ECG and Global, were 
received by the April 14, 1997, closing date.  Each offeror submitted 
written capability information concerning its proposed project 
manager, other personnel, corporate experience, and past performance.  
Additionally, as required by the RFP, oral presentations concerning 
offerors' technical approach, project management approach, and 
business management capability took place between May 5 and 
May 20.  The proposals were evaluated by a source evaluation panel, 
comprised of a technical evaluation team (TET), which reviewed the 
written capability statements and the business evaluation team (BET), 
which reviewed the financial capability information.  The evaluation 
teams followed a detailed rating plan in reviewing and evaluating the 
proposals.  Because DOE anticipated awarding at least one contract to 
an 8(a) concern, offers submitted by 8(a) concerns were rated 
separately from offers submitted by non-8(a) concerns.  However, all 
evaluations were performed using the same evaluation criteria set 
forth in the solicitation. 

Evaluators documented and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of 
each proposal and, in internal discussions, reached a consensus 
regarding final evaluation ratings.  Based on the consensus, the 
evaluators rated each technical capability factor and subfactor using 
adjectival ratings and corresponding point values on a scale of 1 to 
10 (10 for outstanding, 8 for above average, 5 for satisfactory, 3 for 
below average, and 1 for marginal).  The numerical ratings were 
multiplied by the weight for the factors and the scores for each 
factor were totaled.[2]  A proposal that received all outstanding 
ratings could receive a maximum point score of 1,000.  Business 
management capability was adjectivally rated using the ratings of 
outstanding (O), satisfactory (S), and marginal (M).  The agency also 
performed a cost review and analysis.  

The source selection official determined that two non-8(a) concerns, 
Booz-Allen & Hamilton and Systematic Management Services, Inc. and one 
8(a) concern, Global, represented the best value to the government.  
While ECG received a higher composite technical score than Global, the 
agency determined that this higher composite score reflected 
insignificant differences in technical capabilities and, therefore, 
award to ECG was not worth the associated significantly higher 
price.[3]  
The technical ratings for the awardees' and protester's proposals were 
as follows:

                          8(a) Concerns

         Project
         Manager  Other
                  Pers.    Corp.
                           Exper.   Past
                                    Perform. Technical
                                             Approach Project
                                                      Mgmt.

ECG          S[4]     AA       BA        S         S      AA

Global       BA      O  
                               M         S         S      O

                        Non-8(a) Concerns

Booz-Allen 
                AA  
                           O  
                                 S   
                                         AA    
                                                   AA   
                                                             O

Systematic      S          O    BA      AA         S         O
The composite technical scores, business management ratings and prices 
for the awardees' and the protester's proposals were as follows:

                           8(a) Concerns

                Technical Score Business Mgmt. RatingPrice

ECG             547.75          S               $36,871,260

Global          523.25          S               $28,252,819
                         Non-8(a) Concerns

Booz-Allen      808.25          S               $37,555,624

Systematic      719.00          O               $29,519,661
On July 16, DOE notified ECG that it had not been selected for award 
and, after a debriefing, ECG protested to our Office.

ECG protests the agency's evaluation of its program manager, other 
personnel, corporate experience, and past performance[5] and asserts 
that the agency failed to ascertain that Global proposed personnel who 
were currently employed by the firm, as required by the RFP, or to 
ascertain that Global could perform 50 percent of the work under the 
contract, as required by the SBA.  

PROGRAM MANAGER
 
The RFP instructed offerors to submit detailed information concerning 
their proposed project managers.  The RFP stated that the project 
manager would be evaluated on the basis of education, professional 
background, and work experience similar to the mission and activities 
of DOE's Office of Environmental Management as described in the scope 
of work (SOW).  The project manager would also be evaluated on his/her 
commitment and availability to the project.

As noted above, DOE prepared a rating plan (not included in the RFP) 
which established detailed objective standards for the evaluation of 
offers.  For project managers, the rating plan set forth levels of 
experience and education necessary to obtain a "satisfactory" rating 
and an "outstanding" rating.  To obtain an "outstanding" rating, a 
candidate had to (1) possess an advanced degree or multiple degrees; 
(2) have 8 or more years experience on multiple projects averaging $8 
million in expenditures per year; (3) have experience directly related 
to the mission and activities of DOE's Office of Environmental 
Management; (4) have experience managing the majority of tasks similar 
to those set forth in the SOW; and (5) have experience managing a 
technical/scientific staff of 70 or more individuals.    

In its evaluation, the agency rated ECG's proposed project manager as 
"satisfactory," because he possessed a B.S. degree, had managed more 
than 100 staff with a multiplicity of skills/experience, and had 
managed a budget averaging $40 million per year.  DOE also found that 
the proposed project manager had experience managing projects similar 
to those in the SOW, which provided the candidate with relevant 
experience in budget analysis, environmental regulatory support, and 
engineering/scientific support.  The agency summarized the candidate 
as possessing an adequate education and professional background with 
work experience on projects similar to the one at issue.  The agency 
found no major weaknesses.  At the debriefing, ECG states that it was 
told that its proposed project manager could not be rated 
"outstanding" because he did not have an advanced degree or directly 
related experience.  

ECG argues that the agency misevaluated its proposed project manager 
and applied unstated evaluation criteria.  Specifically, ECG contends 
that the solicitation gave no exact requirement for education or years 
of experience and that "[w]ork experience clearly can be as, or even 
more, valuable as an advanced degree."  ECG argues that DOE's position 
that no amount of experience can substitute for an advanced or 
additional degree is irrational.  ECG contends that because its 
proposed project manager had more than 35 years of experience, he 
should have been rated "outstanding."  ECG also argues that it is 
irrational and inconsistent with the RFP for the agency to require 
that a proposed project manager meet all of the criteria listed for 
"maximum credit" to obtain an outstanding rating.  Finally, the 
protester claims that its proposed project manager, contrary to the 
agency's assessment, has directly related experience and that this 
experience, coupled with the length of that experience, should have 
resulted in an "outstanding" or, at least, an "above average" rating.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
contracting agency's discretion since the agency is responsible for 
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Loral 
Sys. Co., B-270755, Apr. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD   para.  241 at 5.  In reviewing 
an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposal, 
but will examine the record of the evaluation to ensure that it was 
reasonable and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria, and not 
in violation of procurement laws and regulations.  Id.  

The record does not indicate that the agency improperly evaluated 
ECG's proposed project manager or applied unstated evaluation 
criteria.  As noted above, an agency has wide discretion in how it 
will structure its evaluation and our Office will not question an 
agency's evaluation so long as it is reasonable and follows the 
criteria outlined in the RFP.  Pathology Assocs., Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 
269, 271 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  292 at 3.  Here, the RFP set forth the 
factors that it would use in evaluating an offeror's proposed project 
manager, including, as noted above, education, professional background 
and work experience.  The agency rating plan merely set out specifics 
for the evaluators to use in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of 
each candidate relative to the stated factors by setting out 
educational levels and experience needed to obtain satisfactory or 
outstanding ratings.  While the protester believes it is irrational to 
require candidates to meet all the criteria listed in order to obtain 
the highest rating and objects that the agency should have accepted 
years of experience in lieu of an advanced degree, nothing in the 
rating plan conflicts with the evaluation factors listed in the RFP 
and we do not find the agency's position irrational.  Therefore, 
notwithstanding ECG's disagreement, we see no reason to object to the 
agency's methodology in this regard.  ECG's assertion that its 
proposed project manager should have been rated outstanding is 
therefore without merit since he possessed neither an advanced degree 
nor multiple degrees.[6]

OTHER PERSONNEL

ECG next argues that DOE misevaluated its proposed other personnel.  
The RFP required that offerors provide, for each labor category 
identified in the RFP, the number and names of individuals the 
offeror's team currently employs, the educational degree possessed by 
each individual and the availability of these personnel during the 
first year of contract performance.  The RFP advised that other 
personnel would be evaluated on the "overall depth of experience, 
balance of skills, and availability of the offeror's current staff . . 
. ."  The rating plan established objective criteria for the various 
ratings and provided that to receive an "outstanding" rating, a 
proposal must not contain any weaknesses.  A proposal with a minor 
weakness could receive a rating no higher than "above average."  

The TET's consensus evaluation stated that, while ECG employed a 
large, generally well-balanced technical/scientific staff, only 44 of 
the individuals proposed were available 100 percent of their time, 38 
were available 50 percent of their time, and 52 were identified as 
being available on an "as needed" basis.  DOE determined that the 
designation "as needed" was vague and did not adequately address the 
individual's availability over the first year of the contract and 
downgraded the protester's proposal on this factor.  Because of this 
weakness, which the agency characterized as minor, ECG's proposal was 
rated "above average" on the other personnel subfactor.

ECG complains that there is nothing ambiguous about its use of the 
phrase "as needed."  The protester states that it meant exactly what 
the phrase says--that these personnel will be available to work on the 
contract as a need arises, and argues that its proposal should not 
have been downgraded on this subfactor.

An offeror is responsible for submitting an adequately written 
proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's 
judgment concerning the adequacy 
of the proposal is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted 
unreasonably.  SC&A, Inc., B-270160.2, Apr. 10, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  197 
at 5.  Here, the agency reasonably concluded that the protester's use 
of the term "as needed" lacked clarity and, therefore, ECG's proposal 
was properly downgraded.  The RFP clearly stated that the offerors 
were to state the availability for each individual proposed, which 
does not envision, as the protester suggests, a vague general 
commitment, such as "as needed."  In our view, the agency could 
reasonably have concern that such an imprecise commitment did not 
inform the agency of the availability or level of commitment of 
personnel so designated.  We therefore find that DOE reasonably 
concluded that ECG had failed to provide all the information needed to 
receive the maximum score under this factor.  

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE

ECG protests that the agency's evaluation of corporate experience and 
past performance is inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation 
and, therefore, that the agency's best value determination is flawed.  

The RFP specified that offerors would be evaluated on their work 
experience since January 1993, under existing and prior contracts of 
size, scope, and complexity similar to that described in the 
solicitation.  The RFP also advised that offerors would be evaluated 
on programs or projects which demonstrated experience similar to the 
range of activities and mission of DOE's Office of Environmental 
Management, as outlined in the SOW. 

Under the terms of the rating plan, an offeror would receive a 
"satisfactory" rating on corporate experience if it had performed one 
technical support project similar to the one at issue involving a 
technical/scientific staff of 30 individuals with 
$4 million in expenditures per year and had included such tasks as 
budget analysis, environmental regulatory support and 
scientific/engineering support.  To be rated "outstanding," the firm 
had to have, among other things, experience managing a project with a 
staff of more than 70 individuals and average annual expenditures of 
$8 million.  Offerors lacking relevant performance history (i.e., 
offerors which had not performed on contracts similar in size, scope, 
or complexity) would be given a "neutral" rating and would receive 
one-half of the available points on the past performance criterion.  

The agency determined that, although ECG had similar experience on one 
project, the project averaged only $720,000 in annual expenditures and 
involved only 10 employees.  Thus, ECG's experience was not judged 
similar in size, scope, or complexity to that described in the RFP.  
As to the protester's subcontractors, the agency determined that two 
of them did not have corporate experience on projects similar in size, 
scope, and complexity to that described in the RFP and one was 
determined to have above average corporate experience on a project 
that was similar in terms of size, scope, and complexity.  Therefore, 
ECG's overall rating under past performance was judged to be 
"satisfactory." 

The protester generally argues that the agency's evaluation of 
corporate experience and past performance was flawed.  Specifically, 
the protester argues that, although DOE sought proposals from 8(a) 
firms with average annual revenues of only 
$5 million over the immediate past 3 years, DOE penalized offerors 
that did not possess corporate experience on projects involving a 
technical/scientific staff of 
30 and averaging $4 million in annual expenditures.  The protester 
claims that no 8(a) firm that satisfies the size standard could have 
more than one such contract.  Moreover, based on the rating plan, an 
8(a) firm could never obtain an "outstanding" rating.  The protester 
contends that, because of the evaluation terms, an 8(a) firm would be 
awarded a contract only if there were multiple awards and, thus, an 
8(a) firm would never be expected to perform the entire scope of the 
contract.  Therefore, ECG argues that evaluating 8(a) firms on the 
basis of comparable prior experience "makes no sense."  The protester 
complains that because offerors which were judged to have no relevant 
corporate experience, based on the size, scope, and complexity of 
prior contracts, would receive a "neutral" rating in past performance, 
the agency was, in effect, not evaluating the small business offerors 
on these factors.  

As noted above, the agency is responsible for defining its needs and 
the best method of accommodating them.  Loral Sys. Co., supra.  Here, 
nothing in the records supports ECG's contention that the agency's 
evaluation was improper or inconsistent with the terms of the RFP.  
The rating plan merely provided objective guidelines for evaluators to 
use in evaluating the proposals and follows the RFP's evaluation 
criteria, which advised offerors that past performance would be 
evaluated on existing and prior contracts similar in size, scope, and 
complexity to the work outlined in the SOW.  To the extent that ECG is 
asserting that 8(a) firms should not have been evaluated under the 
same terms as non-8(a) firms, as provided for in the RFP, ECG's 
protest is untimely.  Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest 
based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent 
prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals 
must be filed prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of 
initial proposals.[7]  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) 
(1997).

In any event, as noted above, while the RFP stated that multiple 
awards were anticipated, there was no guarantee that more than one 
contract would be awarded under the solicitation.  As a consequence, 
the agency determined to ensure that an offeror could perform the 
entire scope of work in the event that only one offeror was selected 
for award.  Therefore, the agency established one set of evaluation 
standards designed to ensure that any awardee would possess a level of 
corporate experience sufficient to ensure effective performance of the 
entire scope of work.  

This evaluation process reflects a reasonable concern that competing 
proposals be evaluated in light of the entire scope of the contract, 
while facilitating the participation of 8(a) concerns in the 
competition.  Indeed, the standards adopted by DOE were not strict or 
restrictive.  For example, while the offerors were advised that they 
would be evaluated on their past performance relative to the tasks 
outlined in the SOW, an offeror with experience in just three key 
tasks (budget analysis, environmental regulatory support, and 
scientific/engineering support) could be rated "satisfactory."  
Similarly, an offeror with experience on a single project with 40 
individuals, far fewer than the agency's estimated requirement for the 
contract at issue, could receive a "satisfactory" rating.  Thus, we 
find nothing improper in the evaluation scheme employed by DOE.[8]
  
COMPLIANCE WITH THE 8(a) PROGRAM

ECG also argues that the RFP required DOE to determine if the 
employees listed by Global were current employees and if Global, as 
the prime contractor, could perform 50 percent of the work with its 
own employees, as required by the 8(a) program.  The protester argues 
that Global did not indicate in its proposal which of the individuals 
listed were its employees and which were employees of its 
subcontractors.  The protester also claims that Global cannot perform 
50 percent of the work without hiring new personnel.

The protester is correct that Global did not indicate firm affiliation 
for each individual listed in its proposal; however, the RFP did not 
require such information.  As noted above, the RFP required only that 
each offeror identify the individuals on its team, their educational 
degrees, and their availability during the first contract period.  
Global's proposal complied with this requirement.  Moreover, there is 
nothing on the face of the Global proposal which suggests that it 
cannot or will not comply with the 8(a) requirement that its employees 
must perform 50 percent of the work under the contract.  ECG's mere 
speculation that Global will not comply with such a requirement is 
unsupported and insufficient to form a valid basis for protest.  
Hornet Joint Venture, B-258430.3, B-258430.4, Feb. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
110 at 4.

Further, whether Global can comply with the limitations of 
subcontracting is a matter of responsibility which we will not review 
absent a showing of possible fraud, bad faith, or misapplication of 
definitive responsibility criteria on the part of contracting 
officials.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(c); Corvac, Inc., B-254757, Jan. 11, 1994, 
94-1 CPD  para.  14 at 4-5.  Whether Global in fact complies with 
subcontracting limitations when performing the contract is a matter of 
contract administration also not reviewable under our bid protest 
function.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a); Corvac, Inc., supra.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States 

1. The RFP provided that this small business concern must qualify 
under Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 8742, with average revenues of 
less than $5,000,000 per year over the immediate past 3 years.  

2. Personnel was weighted 30 percent of the technical capability 
evaluation.  Within personnel, project manager and other personnel 
were each weighted 15 percent.  Past performance and corporate 
experience were each weighted 25 percent and technical approach and 
project management were each weighted 10 percent.

3. ECG's proposed price was 23 percent higher than Global's price.

4. In the tables, "O" represents "outstanding," "AA" represents "above 
         average," "S" represents "satisfactory," "BA" represents 
         "below average," and "M" represents "marginal."

5. While ECG states that it is protesting the awards to Booz-Allen, 
Systematic, and Global, the protester does not challenge any specific 
technical or managerial aspects of these proposals or the agency's 
evaluation of them.

6. The agency has provided no explanation for its finding that ECG's 
proposed project manager's experience is only similar (rather than 
directly related) to that listed in the SOW.  Our review of the 
candidate's experience suggests that the agency may have improperly 
downgraded ECG on this subfactor.  However, we need not resolve this 
matter, since the assessment of this one position did not have a 
prejudicial impact on ECG.  Even if ECG received an "above average" 
rating for its proposed project manager, the highest ECG's candidate 
can achieve, as discussed above, the additional 30 technical points 
would be inconsequential under the circumstances.

7. The protester argues that its protest of the agency's use of one 
set of evaluation criteria for both 8(a) and non-8(a) concerns is not 
untimely because it is the evaluation criteria specified in the rating 
plan rather than anything in the RFP that is improper.  We find this 
argument unpersuasive.  While it is true that the protester was not 
aware of all of the objective guidelines set forth in the rating plan 
until its debriefing, it knew or should have known from the RFP the 
anticipated size, scope, and complexity of the contract at issue 
(from, among other things, the size of the labor force needed and 
specified in the RFP and the 25 tasks listed in the SOW), and it knew, 
or should have known, that its past performance and corporate 
experience would be evaluated relative to these factors.  The 
protester also knew that the procurement was not a set-aside, that it 
would be competing against non-8(a) concerns and, as noted above, that 
the RFP specified a single set of evaluation criteria for all offers.  
Thus, the RFP language placed the protester on notice of how the 
agency intended to evaluate past performance and corporate experience 
and, if the protester objected, it was required to do so prior to the 
closing time set for receipt of proposals. 

8. The protester also alleges that DOE improperly failed to select 
non-8(a) firms from among all competing offerors.  The agency responds 
that it did perform a best value determination among all offerors.  
The record is not clear about the mechanics of the comparison, but 
does clearly show that six non-8(a) firms were determined to have 
higher technical scores and comparable prices to the highest-ranked 
8(a) concern.  Consequently, no 8(a) concern was prejudiced by the 
evaluation that was employed.  Since competitive prejudice is an 
essential element of every viable protest, and since the record 
establishes no reasonable possibility of prejudice, we deny this 
grounds of protest.  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 
CPD  para.  54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc., v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577 
(Fed. Cir. 1996).