BNUMBER:  B-278044.5 
DATE:  May 8, 1998
TITLE: L&M Technologies, Inc., B-278044.5, May 8, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:L&M Technologies, Inc.

File:     B-278044.5

Date:May 8, 1998

Antonio R. Montoya for the protester. 
William W. Goodrich, Jr., Esq., and Alison Micheli, Esq., Arent Fox 
Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for Advanced Integrated Management Services, 
Inc., an intervenor. 
Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., and John D. Bremer, Esq., Department of Energy, 
for the agency. 
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Challenge to exclusion of proposal from competitive range on the basis 
that offeror was not provided opportunity to make an additional oral 
presentation is denied where the request for proposal revisions did 
not provide for an oral presentation.  Proposal was properly excluded 
from the competitive range notwithstanding an improved technical score 
where the agency reasonably concluded that the offeror had no 
reasonable chance for award in view of the significantly higher 
technical evaluations of the proposals which were included in the 
competitive range. 

DECISION

L&M Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Advanced 
Integrated Management Services, Inc., (AIMSI) under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP65-97WA14007, issued by the Western Area 
Power Administration (Western), Department of Energy (DOE) for 
technical support services.  L&M challenges the agency's elimination 
of its proposal from the competitive range. 
We deny the protest. 

This procurement is to acquire technical support services for 
Western's Corporate Services Office (CSO) in Golden, Colorado.  These 
services include realty management, power system training and video 
production, engineering support, and three information services 
support tasks:  CSO support, corporate applications, and Financial 
Management System Transition support.  The procurement consolidates 
four existing support services contracts and aligns them with changes 
in Western's organization that have occurred during the past 3 years.  
The solicitation, which was issued as a total small business 
set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract 
for a base year with 4 option years.

Section L of the RFP advised offerors that their proposals would 
consist of an oral presentation of delineated technical information, 
supplemented by written documentation (e.g., reference information, 
experience matrix, and summary of exceptions and deviations).  Section 
M stated that technical proposals would be evaluated on the basis of 
three technical criteria:  project management (50 percent), past 
performance (25 percent), and understanding and approach (25 percent).  
Cost, while not scored, was used in determining an offeror's 
understanding of the requirements, in assessing the validity of the 
offeror's approach to managing and performing the work, and in 
determining the best overall value to the government.  The RFP advised 
that the proposed cost estimate would not be controlling and that 
proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the government's estimate 
of the most probable cost (MPC). 

While technical factors were more important than cost, the RFP advised 
that "apparent technical advantages will be weighed against the 
evaluated price" and "[a]n offer exceeding technical requirements will 
have an advantage over offers which meet requirements with lower cost, 
only insofar as the offer exceeding technical requirements is 
considered to be worth the price differential, if any."  Award was to 
be made on the basis of the offer providing the best overall value to 
the government. 

Twelve proposals, including those of L&M and AIMSI, were submitted by 
the May 20, 1997 closing date.  After initial review, the source 
selection official (SSO) determined to exclude certain offers (not 
including the protester's) from the competitive range.  The remaining 
offerors, including the protester, made oral presentations between 
July 8 and July 18, 1997.  The technical evaluation panel (TEP) 
evaluated the oral presentations and written proposals and conducted 
oral discussions with each offeror immediately following its oral 
presentation.  The cost analyst reviewed proposed costs and made 
adjustments in calculating an MPC for each offer.  The agency 
requested and obtained best and final offers (BAFO) from the offerors 
in the competitive range.  In that evaluation, AIMSI's proposal 
received a score of 825 points with an MPC of $16.9 million and L&M's 
proposal received a score of 665 points with an MPC of $16.4 million.  

Based on this evaluation, the SSO agreed with the TEP's recommendation 
to award the contract to AIMSI.  After receiving notice of the 
selection decision and a debriefing, L&M filed a protest with our 
Office (B-278044.2), challenging the agency's evaluation of L&M's 
technical proposal and the decision to award the contract at a higher 
cost than that offered by L&M.  Because of a protest from another 
offeror, DOE took corrective action and our Office dismissed both 
protests as academic.[1]  In response to a subsequent protest 
challenging the agency's decision to limit discussions (B-278044.3), 
DOE took further corrective action.  Our Office dismissed this protest 
as academic when the agency decided to allow offerors to completely 
revise their proposals and/or BAFOs. 

L&M, AIMSI, and the other original competitive range offerors 
submitted revised proposals in the form of BAFOs.  After evaluating 
these submissions, the TEP increased L&M's proposal score to 720 
points, but determined that its proposal, along with certain other 
proposals, should be eliminated from the competitive range.  The SSO 
subsequently awarded AIMSI the contract at $17,097,042 after 
determining that AIMSI's superior technical score more than outweighed 
the associated cost premium.  After receiving notice of the 
elimination of its proposal, and a post-award debriefing, L&M filed 
this protest challenging its exclusion from the competitive range.

The competitive range consists of all proposals that have a reasonable 
chance of being selected for award.  Information Sys. & Networks 
Corp., B-237687, Feb. 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  203 at 4.  The 
determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is 
principally a matter within the contracting agency's discretion, since 
agencies are responsible for defining their needs and for deciding the 
best method of meeting them.  Engineering & Env't, Inc., B-271868.3, 
Sept. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  182 at 3.  In determining the competitive 
range, it is an acceptable practice to compare the evaluation scores 
and consider an offeror's relative standing among its competitors, and 
to exclude a proposal that is technically acceptable, when, relative 
to other acceptable offers, it is determined to have no reasonable 
chance of being selected for award.  Information Sys. & Networks 
Corp., supra.  A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's 
judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted 
unreasonably in this regard.  Delta Ventures, B-238655, June 25, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  588 at 4.  

L&M does not challenge the accuracy of the agency's evaluation of 
weaknesses in L&M's technical proposal or the technical score its 
proposal received.  Instead, L&M argues that the agency improperly 
failed to provide L&M with an adequate opportunity to revise its 
proposal.  In this regard, L&M observes that the original technical 
proposal consisted of an oral presentation, supplemented by written 
documentation.  Since the agency did not provide an opportunity for a 
second oral presentation of the proposal revisions, L&M argues that it 
did not have an opportunity to improve its "technical proposal."  It 
also argues that it did not have an opportunity to resolve the 
agency's misunderstandings concerning L&M's past performance.  L&M's 
position is factually misplaced.

In taking corrective action in response to the previous protests, DOE 
provided all offerors in the original competitive range, including 
L&M, with the opportunity to revise their technical and cost 
proposals.  In this regard, by letter of December 19, 1997, Western 
notified L&M of its right to submit "a complete revised proposal 
[which would] be evaluated and if no further discussions are required, 
award [would] be made."  The letter continued, "Include with your 
revised proposal all information, not previously provided to Western, 
which would be necessary for full evaluation.  The submittal should be 
considered a second best and final offer."  This letter did not 
provide for, or even mention, any additional oral presentation, and 
L&M's revised proposal also clearly indicated that it did not believe 
it had the right to such a presentation.   Its BAFO cover letter 
conceded that any additional oral presentations would be at Western's 
"discretion."  It also is clear from the record that none of the 
offerors was provided an opportunity for a second oral presentation in 
response to this request. 

In response to the agency's provision of an opportunity to submit a 
new BAFO, L&M included new information in the form of revisions to the 
majority of the original oral presentation slides which had comprised 
its technical proposal.  L&M also made revisions to its past 
performance information.  In its reevaluation, the TEP increased L&M's 
proposal score from 665 points to 720 points which included 
improvements in L&M's project management and past performance scores.  
Thus, L&M was offered, took advantage of, and benefited from, the same 
opportunity to revise its proposal that was afforded to all other 
offerors in the competitive range.  L&M's complaints to the contrary 
are simply unfounded. 

L&M also argues that the agency failed to consider L&M's lower cost in 
the  competitive range determination.  Again, L&M is incorrect.  The 
record establishes that the agency considered L&M's improved score and 
relative MPC in determining the final competitive range.  While L&M's 
MPC was lower than that proposed by AIMSI, it was higher than that of 
two other offerors which were eliminated from the competitive range 
and that of one offeror which was included in the final competitive 
range, all of which had significantly higher technical scores than 
L&M.  Weighing the relative technical and MPC differences among the 
proposals, the SSO appropriately concluded that L&M had no reasonable 
chance for award.  The mere fact that L&M's estimated cost was less 
than the cost proposed by the ultimate awardee does not require that 
L&M's proposal be included in the competitive range.  Intown 
Properties, Inc., B-250232, Jan. 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  43 at 6.

The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Source One Management, Inc. (SOM) also filed a protest challenging 
the agency's evaluation.  SOM has filed two subsequent protests 
(B-278044.4 and B-278044.6) which will be addressed in a separate 
decision.