BNUMBER:  B-277874.4 
DATE:  May 13, 1998
TITLE: Correa Enterprises, Inc., B-277874.4, May 13, 1998
**********************************************************************

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:Correa Enterprises, Inc.

File:     B-277874.4

Date:May 13, 1998

Lisa B. Horowitz, Esq., and Joseph D. West, Esq., Arnold & Porter, for 
the protester.
Philip M. Dearborn, Esq., and Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Piliero, 
Mazza & Pargament, for Systems Engineering and Security, Inc., an 
intervenor.
David G. Gherlein, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest generally challenging agency's evaluation and conduct of 
discussions is denied where record indicates that the protester and 
the awardee were advised of significant weaknesses in their proposals 
and were treated equally during discussions, and that the evaluation 
of proposals was reasonable and consistent with factors stated in the 
solicitation.

DECISION

Correa Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Systems 
Engineering and Security, Inc. (SES) under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. GS01K-97-M-0002, issued by the General Services Administration 
(GSA) for facilities management.  Correa contends that SES received 
preferential treatment from the agency.

We deny the protest.

On January 31, 1997, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-labor-rate, 
indefinite-quantity contract for facilities management services, 
primarily in support of information processing facilities in the New 
England region and upstate New York.  RFP  sec.  C.1, L.5.  The RFP 
provided a catalog of anticipated services and indicated that the 
agency would issue task orders with specifically defined scopes and 
schedules, as needed, to the successful offeror.  RFP  sec.  C.1, C.2.

The agency advised potential offerors that it would select for award 
the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the 
government, considering price and other factors including, in order of 
importance, past performance, hiring and retention (with subfactors 
compensation plans and critical vacancies), and performance 
management.[1]  RFP  sec.  M.2, M.2.1.  These technical factors would be 
more important than price in the selection decision; the agency would 
evaluate price for realism and reasonableness.  RFP  sec.  M.2, M.2.3.

The agency received 11 proposals on April 28 and referred them to a 
technical evaluation panel (TEP).  The TEP evaluated the proposals for 
technical merit--Correa and SES received the two highest ratings--and 
recommended a  competitive range of six offers in the event that the 
contracting officer decided to hold discussions.  TEP Report on 
Initial Offers, July 24, 1997 at 2.  The contracting officer decided 
to make award without discussions, and selected Correa, whose proposal 
had received the highest technical score overall, for award.  The 
agency provided notices to unsuccessful offerors, including SES, on 
August 12 and written notice of award to Correa on August 18.

On August 26, The Centech Group, informed that the agency had 
eliminated its proposal from the competitive range prior to the 
selection decision, filed a protest with our Office, asserting that 
GSA had not fully evaluated its proposal.  As a consequence, the 
agency decided to reevaluate the proposals of Centech and another 
offeror and terminated Correa's contract for the convenience of the 
government.  The agency subsequently established a new competitive 
range of eight offers and decided to hold discussions.

The agency conducted discussions by telephone, requested and received 
best and final offers (BAFO), and referred the revised proposals to 
the TEP.  The evaluators considered additional information from Correa 
regarding its past performance and increased the protester's score 
under the past performance factor from 37.3 points (of 50 points 
available) to 40.2 points, raising the protester's total score from 
82.1 points (of 100 points available) to 85 points.[2]  TEP BAFO 
Report, Dec. 28, 1997 at 32-34.  SES's initial proposal had received a 
nearly perfect past performance score of [DELETED].  Based on 
information provided with the BAFO, however, SES's score increased 
significantly [DELETED], for a total score of [DELETED].[3]  TEP 
Report on Initial Offers at 4-11, 32; TEP BAFO Report at 17-18, 34.  
Since SES had also proposed a lower estimated price, and since the TEP 
found both offerors were proposing realistic, reasonable labor rates, 
the contracting officer selected SES for award.  By letter dated 
January 16, 1998, the contracting officer notified Correa of her 
selection.

In this protest filed after receiving a debriefing from GSA, Correa 
contended that GSA did not treat the parties equally during 
discussions.[4]  Protest at 5.  Correa noted that the "dramatic" 
increase in SES's score between the initial proposal and the BAFO 
resulted almost completely from SES's ability to improve its 
compensation package, which Correa notes was relevant to only one 
subfactor of a factor--hiring and retention--that itself ranked second 
in importance overall to past performance.  Protest at 6-7; RFP  sec.  
M.2.1.  From this, Correa speculates that the agency must have treated 
SES more favorably during discussions than other offerors, or applied 
different evaluation criteria to SES's proposal.

Correa has not, in fact, produced any specific allegations of 
impropriety in the evaluation process.  Although the agency report in 
response to the protest contained material and documents setting forth 
and supporting the agency's position that discussions and the 
evaluation did accord with applicable statute and regulation, as well 
as the evaluation factors listed in the solicitation, Correa elected 
not to file a response.  In accordance with our Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.3(i) (protest will be dismissed unless the 
protester timely files comments or a written statement requesting that 
the case be decided on the existing record), Correa has requested that 
our Office consider its protest on the basis of the existing 
record--the materials supplied by the agency and Correa's initial 
protest.

To the extent that Correa challenges the agency's evaluation of 
proposals, we have reviewed the record to ensure that the evaluation 
was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  
Litton Sys., Inc., B-239123, Aug. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  114 at 9.  
Similarly, to the extent that Correa contends that the agency treated 
the awardee more favorably than Correa, we have reviewed the record to 
determine whether there was unfair treatment.  See CBIS Fed. Inc., 
B-245844.2, Mar. 27, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  308 at 7-8.  Based upon our 
review of the record--Correa's initial, general allegations of 
improper discussions and evaluation and the agency's response to the 
protest--we find nothing improper in the discussions and evaluation 
process here.

The evaluation documents indicate that under the most heavily weighted 
factor, past performance, the agency concluded that SES had a superior 
record and gave the proposal a nearly perfect score of [DELETED] of 50 
points.  TEP Report on Initial Offers at 4-6, 32.  Under the hiring 
and retention factor, however, the evaluators initially found that 
[DELETED].  TEP Report on Initial Offers at 7.

After the initial award to Correa, and before the Centech protest, SES 
received a detailed debriefing that specifically laid these points 
out.  During discussions, SES informed agency personnel that it had 
provided incorrect information on its [DELETED], which would be 
corrected in the BAFO, and that it had [DELETED].  Record of 
Discussions at 6-7.  The BAFO did in fact include these enhancements, 
among others; once SES and [DELETED] were offering a competitive 
compensation package, SES's high score for past performance ensured 
that SES would receive a top score--the highest score, in fact, among 
the proposals evaluated here.  TEP BAFO Report at 17-18, 34.

With respect to the discussions held with Correa, the record, which 
Correa does not attempt to refute, shows that the agency reminded 
Correa that there was potential for other offerors to substantially 
improve their technical proposals during negotiations.  Record of 
Discussions at 1-2.  While, with regard to the hiring and retention 
factor, the agency conceded that the protester had provided a "strong" 
benefits package, the agency also advised Correa that its most 
significant weakness came in the area of past performance, 
specifically, that the scope and size of the referenced projects were 
small.  The record indicates that there was some discussion of what 
Correa could do to strengthen its proposal in the past performance 
area and that the agency advised the protester that it could 
substitute other projects for those evaluated, so long as the project 
met the 9-month time frame required by the RFP,  sec.  L.22.1.2.  Id.  
Further, while Correa suggested that its personnel were more 
experienced than its corporation record of past performance indicated, 
the agency specifically reminded the protester that it was considering 
the past performance of the firm, rather than of the employees and 
subcontractors.  Id.  As a result of these discussions, Correa chose 
to present further information on four contracts, which resulted in 
some enhancement of its score, as noted above.  However, the 
evaluators found that the projects and contracts generally were not 
large or comprehensive enough to warrant a significant increase in 
score.  See TEP Report on Initial Offers at 28-29, 32; TEP BAFO Report 
at 32-34.

From the record before our Office, it appears that both offerors were 
advised of the significant weaknesses in their proposals and were 
treated equally during discussions.  SES, with its more comprehensive 
experience and somewhat better record of past performance, was simply 
better able to raise its technical score, by revising its compensation 
package, than Correa could, given that the weakness in Correa's past 
performance record was principally historical in nature.  Despite 
Correa's attempt to minimize the importance of an offeror's 
compensation package in the evaluation, in fact the compensation plans 
subfactor was worth 38 of the 100 total points available.  Further, it 
is clear from the record that it was the substantial increase in SES's 
score under this subfactor [DELETED] which resulted in SES's receiving 
a higher total score than Correa's--a result completely consistent 
with the evaluation scheme in the RFP.

In sum, we see no grounds for concluding that discussions were 
improper or that the evaluation was either unreasonable or 
inconsistent with the stated evaluation factors.

We deny the protest.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Section M.2.2 of the RFP also indicated that the agency would 
consider certain other factors, not relevant here, on a pass/fail 
basis. 

2. Total points available were as follows:  past performance, 50 
points; hiring and retention, 44 points (38 points of which were for 
one subfactor, the compensation plan); and performance management, 6 
points.  Correa's BAFO scored as follows:  past performance, 40.2 
points; hiring and retention, 38.8 points (33.8 points for the 
compensation plan); and performance management, 6 points.  

3. SES's initial score was [DELETED]; the [DELETED] accounted for 
virtually the entire increase in its BAFO score to [DELETED], and 
reflected a [DELETED]-point increase under [DELETED].  The improvement 
in SES's overall score also reflected a [DELETED] increase, from 
[DELETED] factor. 

4. Correa filed its initial protest prior to receiving a debriefing, 
and our Office dismissed the protest after the agency agreed to 
provide Correa with a formal debriefing.  See B-277874.2, Feb. 12, 
1998, unpublished; 4 C.F.R. sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1997) (a protest shall not be 
filed prior to the debriefing date offered to the protester, in the 
case of protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of 
competitive proposals).  In the instant protest, Correa acknowledges 
that, at the debriefing, the agency satisfactorily addressed the 
issues raised in Correa's initial protest.  Protest at 5.