BNUMBER:  B-278165; B-278165.2 
DATE:  January 5, 1998
TITLE: International Consultants, Inc.; International Trade Bridge,,
B-278165; B-278165.2, January 5, 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:International Consultants, Inc.; International Trade Bridge, 
          Inc.

File:     B-278165; B-278165.2

Date:January 5, 1998

Douglas N. Harty, Esq., for International Consultants, Inc., and 
Carlos M. Caldas for International Trade Bridge, Inc., the protesters.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Award of a contract on the basis of awardee's higher-priced, 
technically superior proposal is unobjectionable where the evaluation 
is supported by the record and is consistent with the solicitation 
evaluation criteria and the agency reasonably determined that the 
difference in technical merit among the proposals justified the cost 
difference.

DECISION

International Consultants, Inc. (ICI) and International Trade Bridge, 
Inc. (ITB) protest the award of a time-and-materials contract to 
Integrated Information Technology Corporation (IITC) under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. F33601-96-R-9007, issued by the Department of the 
Air Force as a competitive 8(a) set-aside for hazardous material, 
hazardous waste, and pollution prevention program management services, 
as well as technical support, at the Materials Laboratory at 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.  ICI and ITB contend that the 
award was improper because the agency's technical and past performance 
evaluations were flawed; the agency was biased in favor of IITC, since 
that firm's proposed subcontractor was the incumbent contractor of the 
required services; and the agency did not make a proper best value 
determination.[1]

We deny the protests.

The RFP provided for award of a contract for a base year plus 4 option 
years to the responsible offeror whose offer was found most 
advantageous to the government considering, in descending order of 
importance, the following specific evaluation criteria:  technical 
(consisting of sample test plans in the areas of hazardous waste 
management, hazardous material management, and pollution prevention 
program management); management/support (including management, 
security, personnel, and database maintenance/support); and 
cost/price.  RFP  sec.  M-551.  A color/adjectival rating (relating to how 
well the proposal meets the solicitation requirements and evaluation 
standards) and a proposal risk rating (relating to the risk associated 
with the offeror's proposed approach) were to be assigned to each 
proposal under each evaluation subfactor.  RFP  sec.  M-551(F).  
Additionally, a performance risk assessment was to be made under each 
of the three evaluation factors based on the offeror's past 
performance.  Id.  The RFP stated that, within each evaluation factor, 
performance risk would be considered equal to proposal risk and the 
color/adjectival rating in making an integrated source selection 
decision.  Id.

Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP and discussions 
were held with the four offerors whose proposals were included in the 
competitive range.  Best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted and 
evaluated.  IITC's BAFO (at $11,206,603) was rated highest 
technically, with four blue (exceptional) ratings and three green 
(acceptable) ratings in the subfactor areas, and it was assigned low 
performance and proposal risk ratings.  ICI's BAFO (at $[DELETED]) 
received one blue rating and six green ratings, and it was assigned 
low performance and proposal risk ratings.  ITB's BAFO (at $[DELETED]) 
received one blue rating and six green ratings; it was assigned low 
performance risk ratings in all three categories, low proposal risk 
ratings in five of the seven subfactor areas, and moderate proposal 
risk ratings in the remaining two subfactor areas.  The source 
selection authority determined that the technical superiority of 
IITC's proposal warranted the cost premium involved, and thus that 
that proposal offered the best value to the government.  The agency 
awarded a contract to IITC on September 3.  Following detailed 
debriefings held with the firms, ICI and ITB filed the current 
protests with our Office challenging certain aspects of the agency's 
evaluation of the IITC proposal, and the award to that firm at a 
higher price than their own. 

The protesters initially contend that the agency was biased toward the 
awardee because that firm had proposed as a subcontractor Modern 
Technologies Corporation (MTC), the incumbent contractor for these 
services.  According to the protesters, the agency preferred that MTC 
continue performing these services.  Since MTC had graduated from the 
8(a) program and thus was ineligible for award under the RFP, award to 
IITC would allow MTC to continue performing some of the contract 
requirements.  Our review of the record, however, does not support the 
bias allegation.

First, the protesters contend that MTC prepared the solicitation's 
specifications, and thus should have been excluded from participation 
in the competition; however, the record shows that this allegation is 
factually incorrect.[2]  Second, ICI points to an alleged statement by 
MTC early in the procurement that any firm acting as its prime 
contractor teaming partner would win the competition.  In our view, 
such a statement is insufficient to demonstrate agency bias; the 
statement is, at best, self-serving and provides no basis to question 
the agency's actions in conducting the procurement.  Third, the 
protesters contend that the agency purposefully reduced the transition 
period to favor the awardee due to its teaming with the incumbent 
contractor; no credible evidence has been provided to support the 
allegation. Moreover, as discussed further below, the record supports 
the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of the IITC proposal, 
and thus provides no basis to question the motives of the evaluators 
or the source selection authority.  In sum, the protesters have not 
demonstrated that there was any agency bias or that any such alleged 
bias translated into action that unfairly affected the protesters' 
positions.  See Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  171 at 6. 

The protesters next contend that the IITC proposal was unreasonably 
assigned low performance risk ratings despite the firm's lack of 
experience as a prime contractor for the type of environmental 
services required under the RFP.  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 method 
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.  As discussed below, we 
conclude that the record here supports the evaluation of IITC's 
proposal.

The RFP required each offeror to provide relevant past performance 
references; the agency would then solicit reference survey responses 
from these contacts in order to assess the offeror's performance risk.  
RFP  sec.  L-556(C)(2).  The RFP also required past performance information 
about proposed subcontractors to be considered in assessing the 
offeror's performance risk.  RFP  sec.  L-556(C)(2)(a).  IITC provided 
numerous past performance references for it and its proposed 
subcontractor, MTC.  The agency received only favorable past 
performance surveys for IITC--each relevant to certain of the 
management and support services to be performed--and numerous positive 
survey responses for MTC related to substantially similar, more 
directly relevant hazardous material management services.

In sum, although IITC does not have substantially similar prime 
contract, hazardous material management experience, the past 
performance survey responses show IITC's strong performance on various 
other support services contracts and contain numerous recommendations 
to hire the firm, reasonably supporting the rating of low performance 
risk in general.  Further, the record shows that MTC has substantial, 
directly relevant experience with the current work requirements.  
Under these circumstances, we see no basis to question the evaluators' 
determination that the proposed teaming arrangement of IITC and MTC 
offers low performance risk overall.[3]  

The protesters next contend that the blue/exceptional rating assigned 
to the IITC proposal under the personnel subfactor of the 
management/support factor is unreasonable, since IITC does not 
currently employ all of its proposed personnel and [DELETED].  The 
protesters contend that, since contingent hiring agreements, as were 
provided in the IITC proposal for these proposed individuals, do not 
offer any guarantee to the agency that the individuals proposed will 
perform under the contract, the blue/ exceptional rating was not 
warranted.  In this regard, however, the RFP provided only that 
proposals would be evaluated under the personnel subfactor in relation 
to identified qualifications and labor categories included in the 
performance work statement to meet stated work requirements.  RFP  sec.  
M-551(F).  The RFP did not preclude proposing prospective hires or 
provide that an offer proposing current employees would be weighted 
more heavily for evaluation purposes.  Moreover, as the protester 
points out, the agency, in question 58 of the pre-proposal questions 
and answers, specifically recognized that contingent hires, although 
not guaranteed, would be fully acceptable.[4]

Since the RFP did not require currently hired personnel or personnel 
commitments, we see no basis to conclude that the agency was required 
to downgrade IITC's proposal based on IITC's reliance on contingent 
hires.  In our view, the agency reasonably concluded, based on the 
signed agreements, that IITC had demonstrated a realistic intention to 
hire the individuals and the reasonable likelihood that the 
individuals proposed would be available to perform under the contract.  
More importantly, our review of the record shows that, in accordance 
with the stated evaluation criterion, the agency assigned the 
exceptional rating to the IITC personnel proposal only after 
reasonably confirming that many of the awardee's proposed personnel's 
qualifications exceeded the RFP's requirements, and that they showed 
valuable "hands-on" experience with the work requirements.  
Accordingly, we see no basis to question the evaluation rating in this 
area.

The protesters next challenge the best value determination as 
insufficiently supported and the award at a higher price as 
unreasonable.  In a negotiated procurement, there is no requirement 
that award be made on the basis of lowest price/cost; a cost/technical 
tradeoff may be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed 
for the other is governed by the tests of rationality and consistency 
with the established evaluation factors.  Hellenic Technodomiki S.A., 
B-265930, Jan. 3, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  2 at 3.  We will uphold awards to 
offerors with higher technical ratings and higher costs so long as the 
results are consistent with the evaluation criteria and the 
contracting agency reasonably determines that the cost premium 
involved is justified given the technical superiority of the selected 
offeror's proposal.  Id.

Here, the source selection authority recognized the price differential 
between the proposals [DELETED].  In documenting his integrated 
assessment supporting his best value determination, the source 
selection authority also compared the technical and management scores 
assigned to each proposal and, in substantial detail, summarized those 
evaluation areas where the IITC proposal was found to be exceptional 
and technically superior to any other offeror's proposal, along with 
some of the reasons cited by the evaluators for the perceived 
superiority.

For instance, under the most important technical evaluation subfactor, 
hazardous waste management, IITC's proposal was commended for 
[DELETED].[5]  The source selection authority also pointed out that 
IITC's was the only proposal to receive blue/exceptional ratings for 
the management proposal.  IITC was found to have demonstrated a 
superior understanding of the work requirements by [DELETED].  In 
comparison, ICI's and ITB's proposals were found to be acceptable, but 
neither was found to offer substantial strengths; ICI and ITB do not 
protest their own technical evaluations.  Our review of the proposals 
and evaluation record confirms the reasonableness of the source 
selection authority's findings of the comparative differences between 
the proposals, namely, the documented strengths of the IITC proposal 
listed above.  Given the knowledge, detail, and expertise demonstrated 
by the IITC proposal, and the importance of that technical superiority 
to the performance of the specialized hazardous material management 
tasks required in the solicitation, we have no basis to question the 
reasonableness of the source selection authority's conclusion that 
award on the basis of IITC's superior technical proposal was worth the 
cost premium involved.  Our review of the record thus shows that the 
best value award determination was reasonably based and adequately 
documented.

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. To the extent the protesters contend that the agency improperly 
extended the incumbent's prior contract after the incumbent had 
graduated from the 8(a) program, the contention is untimely raised, 
since the protest, which involves a separate procurement, was filed 
more than 10 days after the basis of protest was known.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(2) (1997).

2. We note that the record shows that in the preliminary stages of 
this procurement, ICI submitted a capability statement which included 
the possible participation of MTC, the same firm ICI now contends 
should be excluded from participation in the competition as a 
subcontractor because of an incumbency advantage.  The record also 
indicates that the reason MTC was not ultimately proposed as a 
subcontractor by ICI was because the firms could not agree to certain 
business terms, not because of any concern regarding MTC's incumbency 
or eligibility to be a subcontractor.  We also point out that, just as 
an incumbent contractor may fairly compete for the award of a 
contract, there is nothing unlawful in an offeror's proposal to 
subcontract work to an incumbent contractor in an attempt to benefit 
from that incumbent's experience where, as here, the challenged 
incumbency advantage was reasonably evaluated and not the result of 
any unfair agency action.  See Patricia A. Geringer, B-247562, June 
11, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  511 at 7.  Further, to the extent the protesters 
contend that MTC will perform the contract in violation of 
solicitation subcontracting limitations, the allegation raises a 
matter of contract administration not for our review.  Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a).

3. ICI also contends that the past performance evaluations were 
improper because competing offerors provided each other as past 
performance references, raising the possibility that such references 
might be biased in light of the references' own interest in receiving 
the award under the RFP.  For instance, ICI contends that, since both 
ICI and IITC listed MTC as a reference, MTC's surveys may be tainted 
as purposefully more favorable for IITC, its teaming partner here.  
The agency reports, however, that once the competitors and their 
subcontractors were identified, the agency eliminated from 
consideration any past performance reference received from a competing 
offeror; the agency specifically reports, in response to the 
protester's concerns, that no MTC survey responses were received or 
considered.  Moreover, our review of the record confirms the 
reasonableness of the agency's position that the IITC proposal, and 
the unchallenged, "untainted" reference surveys received for IITC and 
MTC, sufficiently support the reasonableness of the low performance 
risk assigned to the IITC proposal.

4. Question 58, "Are contingent hire letters acceptable?", was 
answered by the agency as follows:  

            Yes.  The offeror must show how they will fulfill the 
            contract requirements.  The contractor to whom award is 
            made must actually fulfill these requirements.  Although 
            contingent hire letters provide no absolute assurance that 
            the individuals will actually perform on the contract, 
            someone of equal or better experience will have to be 
            provided after contract award.

5. Although ICI in its report comments contends that many aspects of 
this technical evaluation factor should have been scored on a 
pass/fail basis, nothing in the RFP provided for such scoring; 
instead, the evaluation plan contemplated that legitimate differences 
in proposal approaches might warrant additional technical credit.