BNUMBER:  B-278187 
DATE:  January 5, 1998
TITLE: J&E Associates, Inc., B-278187, 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:J&E Associates, Inc.

File:     B-278187

Date:January 5, 1998

Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., James S. DelSordo, Esq., and Leigh H. 
Turner, Esq.,
James S. Phillips Law Offices, for the protester.
Richard A. Pelletier, Esq., Quinto & Wilks, P.C., for Zeiders 
Enterprises, Inc., an intervenor.
Theresa Chesnut, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is 
denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance 
with the factors announced in the solicitation, and the record 
reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions. 

DECISION

J&E Associates, Inc. protests the award of a firm, fixed-price 
contract to Zeiders Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. N00244-97-R-5017, issued by the Department of the Navy to 
operate and manage Family Service Centers (FSC) at three installations 
in the San Diego, California commuting region.  J&E argues that the 
Navy's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were 
improper.

We deny the protest.

The three FSCs at San Diego Naval Station, North Island Naval Air 
Station, and the San Diego Submarine Base currently provide 
comprehensive programs and services to single and married Navy members 
and their families to improve the personal and family readiness of the 
military personnel and to assist with adaptation to military life.  
The successful contractor will provide administrative and professional 
staff, equipment, materials and supervision necessary to perform the 
specific categories of programs and services identified in the RFP's 
performance work statement.   

The RFP was issued on April 30, 1997, for the purpose of determining 
the cost of  in-house versus contractor performance under Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-76.  The solicitation contemplated 
the award of a fixed-price contract plus award fee for a base period 
with four 1-year options.  Offerors were to submit a written proposal 
and to make an oral presentation.  The purpose of the oral 
presentation was to assess the offeror's knowledge and understanding 
of the solicitation requirements, the offeror's technical capability 
to provide these services, and the offeror's ability to sustain 
quality and cost effective programs and services for the life of the 
contract.

The RFP provided that award would be to the responsible offeror whose 
offer, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be the most 
advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered.  
As amended, the RFP listed four evaluation factors:  technical 
approach oral presentation (25 percent); management plan (25 percent); 
past performance (50 percent); and price (the combined weight of the 
three technical factors was approximately equal to that of price).  
The RFP cautioned offerors to submit their best terms in their initial 
proposals, since the agency intended to evaluate proposals and select 
a contractor without discussions unless the agency subsequently 
determined that discussions were necessary. 

[deleted] including Zeiders and J&E, submitted proposals in response 
to the RFP.   A technical evaluation board evaluated the technical 
proposals under an adjectival rating scale of outstanding, highly 
satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal, and unacceptable.  The 
evaluation board's consensus adjectival rating and evaluated prices 
were as follows:

             [deleted]
 
Based on these evaluation results, the agency's source selection 
authority decided that Zeiders's proposal, which received the second 
highest technical rating overall and was the lowest priced, 
represented the best value to the government.  A subsequent cost 
comparison between Zeiders's proposal and the government's proposal 
resulted in the determination that contractor performance was 
preferable to performance in-house.  Following a debriefing, J&E filed 
this protest.

J&E contends that its proposal was misevaluated under the management 
plan and past performance factors compared to Zeiders's proposal.  
More specifically, J&E's challenge of the agency's evaluation of its 
management plan proposal focuses on two subfactors:  organizational 
structure and staffing plan.  J&E argues that its proposal was 
improperly downgraded because of the agency's judgment that [deleted].

It is not the function of this Office to evaluate technical proposals 
de novo; rather, in reviewing a protest against an allegedly improper 
evaluation, we will examine the record only to determine whether the 
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated 
evaluation factors.  Richard M. Milburn High School,     B-277018, 
Aug. 19, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  53 at 3.  The protester's disagreement with 
the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable.  ESCO, Inc., 
66 Comp. Gen. 404, 410 (1987), 87-1 CPD  para.  450 at 7.  Here, based upon 
our review of the agency report, including each evaluator's narrative 
explanation supporting each rating, and the evaluators' consensus 
findings, we find that the agency's evaluation of proposals was 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme and the 
selection of Zeiders's proposal was reasonable.  

The record shows that the most significant concern identified by the 
agency in the protester's proposal related to its management plan, 
which was rated [deleted] overall.  The management plan evaluation 
factor included five subfactors--organizational structure, staffing 
plan, operating procedures, transition plan, and  inspection/quality 
control plan.  Under each of these five subfactors, the evaluators had 
concerns regarding J&E's proposal.  [deleted] since the protester did 
not provide convincing evidence that such an approach could fulfill 
the agency's needs.  [deleted].

We see no basis to find the agency's assessment unreasonable or 
inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria.  While the 
protester asserts that its approach adequately addressed the 
management requirements for the FSCs, we think the agency reasonably 
could conclude that J&E's approach was [deleted].  Further, we think 
the agency had a reasonable basis for concluding that J&E's [deleted].  
While the protester correctly states that the RFP [deleted].

With regard to the staffing plan, another of the five subfactors 
within the management plan factor, [deleted].

J&E's basic response is that [deleted].  We do not find that this 
rebuts the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation.  First, this 
does not address the agency's concern [deleted].  Second, J&E's 
response essentially expresses disagreement with the agency's view 
[deleted].  Under these circumstances, we have no basis to question 
[deleted] under the staffing plan subfactor.

In sum, we find that the agency's evaluation of these two subfactors 
of the management plan was reasonable and consistent with the 
solicitation's evaluation criteria.  Since the protester does not 
challenge the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the other 
three subfactors--operating procedures, transition plan, and 
inspection/quality control plan--about which the evaluators also had 
concerns, we conclude that the agency's overall evaluation of J&E's 
management plan as [deleted] was reasonable.

In light of this conclusion, we need not reach the other protest 
issues, because they could not call into question the reasonableness 
of the source selection.  Particularly relevant in this regard is the 
fact that the protester has not challenged the evaluation under the 
technical approach factor--where Zeiders's proposal was rated 
[deleted] while J&E's was rated [deleted].  As to the remaining 
technical evaluation factor, past performance, even identical ratings 
for the protester and the awardee would not outweigh the evaluation 
advantage enjoyed by Zeiders' proposal under the technical approach 
and management plan factors, particularly since Zeiders's price was 
lower than J&E's.[1]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Regarding price, J&E argues that Zeiders's proposal was improperly 
based on compensation rates so low as to be insufficient to attract 
and retain a quality professional staff, as required by the RFP.  This 
argument is without merit.  The record shows that the direct labor 
rates proposed by Zeiders were comparable to the rates proposed by the 
other offerors, including J&E.  Thus, the average direct labor rate 
for Zeiders is [deleted] whereas the rate for J&E is [deleted] and for 
[deleted], respectively.  The agency found Zeiders's compensation 
rates to be adequate and in line with the other offerors', and there 
is nothing in the record to indicate that the agency's analysis or 
conclusions were erroneous.