BNUMBER:  B-278358 
DATE:  January 20, 1998
TITLE: Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A., B-278358, January 20,
1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A.

File:     B-278358

Date:January 20, 1998

Fernando Barria for the protester.
Carlos A. De Obaldia, Esq., De Obaldia & Garcia De Paredes, for CBH 
Construcciones, an intervenor.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson and Capt. John C. Lavorato, Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency evaluation of protester's proposal is unobjectionable where 
the record
shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation factors; protester's mere disagreement does not 
render the evaluation unreasonable.  
2.  Under best value solicitation in which technical factors were more 
important than price, selection on the basis that awardee's overall 
technical superiority warranted payment of the associated price 
premium is unobjectionable and consistent with the evaluation scheme 
where the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee's higher-priced 
proposal as offering a superior program management and technical 
approach.    

DECISION

Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A. (ASECOSA) protests the award of 
a contract to CBH Construcciones, S.A. under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. DAJN21-97-R-0039, issued by the Department of the Army for 
grounds maintenance services at various U.S. military installations in 
Panama.  ASECOSA objects to the evaluation of its proposal and asserts 
that the determination to award to a firm which did not offer the 
lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal was unreasonable.  

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued July 18, 1997, contemplated the award of a 
firm, fixed-price contract for a base year with a 1-year option.  The 
RFP was for grounds maintenance services at 11 installations on the 
south side of the isthmus of Panama.  The statement of work (SOW) at 
section C.5 listed 15 requirements, including: mowing, edging and 
trimming of improved grounds and semi-improved grounds, tree pruning, 
resodding, removal of dead/down trees, replanting trees and shrubs, 
leaf and debris removal, sanding and maintaining specified 
playgrounds, clearing right-of-way of aerial electrical lines, insect 
and disease control to damaged plants, clearing area, and special 
grass cutting services. 

At section M, the RFP provided for award to the offeror whose 
conforming proposal was determined to be the best value to the 
government.  The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and 
subfactors, listed in descending order of importance, except as 
specifically otherwise stated: 

     1.  Management
        a.  Past Performance
        b.  General Management Techniques

     2.  Technical
        a.  Technical Approach

     3.  Quality Control
        a.  Specific Inspection Techniques
        b.  Corrective Action

     4.  Price

Management was more important than either technical or quality 
control, which were stated to be of equal importance, and price was 
least important.  Subfactors under management and quality control were 
stated to be of equal importance.  The RFP provided that each factor 
and subfactor, with the exception of price, would be evaluated using 
color/adjectival ratings--green/outstanding, blue/good, 
yellow/acceptable, orange/susceptible, and red/unacceptable--which 
would represent the evaluators' views as to an offeror's understanding 
of the problem, compliance with the requirements, and the soundness of 
its approach.  In addition, performance risk ratings--green/low, 
blue/moderate, beige/high, and neutral[1]--were used to represent the 
evaluator's assessment of an offeror's probability of successful 
accomplishment of the requirement, based on the offeror's record of 
performance for the past 3 years.[2]  

The RFP advised that overall price would be evaluated by adding the 
price for the base requirement to the price for the option.  The RFP 
also provided for a cost realism analysis, which included an 
assessment of whether the offeror's proposed price reflected a clear 
understanding of the solicitation requirements.   

The agency received five proposals, including those of ASECOSA (the 
incumbent contractor) and CBH, by the August 18 closing date.  A 
four-member source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the 
proposals based on a 24-question checklist, which included detailed 
management and technical criteria.[3]  Based on the initial 
evaluation, four of the proposals, including ASECOSA's and CBH's, were 
included in the competitive range.  On September 3, discussions in the 
form of written items for negotiations were issued along with the 
request for best and final offers (BAFO).  BAFOs were received by 
September 10.  The final ratings for the awardee's and the protester's 
proposals were as follows:  

                               ASECOSA            CBH

1.  Management (Overall) Acceptable/Yellow   Good/Blue
   a.  Past Performance  Good/Blue           Good/Blue
   b.  General ManagementAcceptable/Yellow   Good/Blue

2.  Technical (Overall)  Acceptable/Yellow   Good/Blue

3.  Quality Control (Overall)Good/Blue       Good/Blue
   a.  Specific Inspection 
     Techniques          Good/Blue           Good/Blue
   b.  Corrective Action Good/Blue           Good/Blue

4.  Price                $1,295,721.32       $1,668,968

CBH's proposal was rated higher under management in large measure 
because the awardee proposed a unique organizational structure, which 
divided the work sites into two groups with a supervisor and work 
teams for each group.  CBH also proposed a supply section/group.  In 
contrast, the protester's management was evaluated as acceptable 
because it submitted an adequate organizational structure, with one 
supervisor responsible for all work sites.  The agency determined that 
the awardee's organizational structure would provide superior overall 
management control and contract administration.  Similarly, CBH's 
overall technical rating was higher than ASECOSA's primarily because 
CBH provided a complete detailed description of all tasks and listed 
equipment needed for each task.  While ASECOSA provided a "Resources 
Utilization" chart, it did not provide specific details or 
descriptions, and the agency found the chart difficult to 
understand.[4]  In addition, because ASECOSA's price was 17 percent 
lower than the independent government estimate, the agency evaluators 
questioned whether ASECOSA had a clear understanding of the level of 
effort necessary to meet the RFP requirements.  Based on these 
evaluation results, the source selection official determined that 
CBH's proposal represented the best value to the government and the 
agency awarded the contract to CBH on October 3.  After ASECOSA 
received a debriefing on October 7, it filed this protest with our 
Office.                            
        
The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its 
management proposal concerning its performance risk and mobilization 
and also misevaluated ASECOSA's technical proposal.  Generally, the 
protester argues that it provided sufficient information concerning 
its approach to tasks and its resources and that any omissions were 
insignificant.  ASECOSA also argues that the agency's source selection 
determination was unreasonable, taking the position that it was 
entitled to the award because it submitted the lowest price offer that 
reflected the ability to meet the government's needs.  

PERFORMANCE RISK

ASECOSA's proposal received a blue/good rating for the past 
performance subfactor under management, and a "moderate" risk 
assessment based on its past performance record.  The protester 
challenges the moderate risk assessment, arguing that its past 
performance record should be assessed as low risk, pointing to, among 
other things, 10 years of grounds maintenance work, no evidence of 
poor performance, no "cure" notices or "show cause" notices in its 
government contracts, and the accomplishment of the required tasks in 
all of its contracts to support its position.    

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency, since that agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Mesa, Inc., B-254730, Jan. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  62 at 5.  In reviewing 
an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate the 
proposals; rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the 
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation 
criteria.  Id.  A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment, 
standing alone, is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted 
unreasonably.  Ionsep Corp., Inc., B-255122, Feb. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
97 at 3.

Here, we find without merit ASECOSA's contention that the evaluation 
of its past performance was improper.  The record shows that the 
protester submitted a list of 13 references, four of which the agency 
determined were for work similar in size and scope to the work 
required here, including the protester's performance as the incumbent 
contractor.  Three of the four references responded to the agency's 
requests regarding ASECOSA's performance. 

ASECOSA received an overall evaluation of "satisfactory" from one 
reference and another reference stated that ASECOSA had not performed 
long enough for a fair evaluation.  Under its current contract as 
incumbent, ASECOSA had received seven deficiency reports outlining, 
for example, deficient mowing, removal of trash and debris, edging, 
and maintenance of plantings.  These deficiency reports, viewed in 
conjunction with the "satisfactory" rating on another contract, caused 
the agency evaluators to conclude that there was some doubt as to 
whether ASECOSA would be able to adequately perform the requirements 
under the RFP.  Based on this, the agency determined that a past 
performance rating of "good" and a risk assessment of "moderate" were 
appropriate.  

While ASECOSA apparently has never received a cure notice or a show 
cause notice, it concedes that under the current contract, "some 
problems have occurred" in its performance.  Clearly, the six 
deficiency notices support the assessment that ASECOSA has not 
completely adequately performed the current contract and has been 
repeatedly notified of shortcomings.  While it may be true, as ASECOSA 
argues, that it resolved the performance problems satisfactorily, the 
protester does not dispute the fact that the deficiency notices were 
issued and that, in response, it did re-perform some of the services.  
Accordingly, we see nothing unreasonable in the agency's risk 
assessment.  

MOBILIZATION

The protester also argues that its proposal was improperly evaluated 
with respect to its proposed transportation for its work force.  The 
RFP at section C.4.3 required that the contractor provide 
transportation for mobilization of its work force.  Each contractor 
vehicle was to be identified with the contract number, contractor 
name, and office phone number.

In its proposal, ASECOSA listed the equipment it would use, including 
two pick-up trucks for moving personnel and small equipment and a 
flatbed truck for moving heavy equipment.  The Army determined that 
the protester's proposal was not detailed enough, because the 
protester failed to explain how the equipment would be utilized in 
relation to the different SOW tasks.  The protester's proposal was 
rated orange/susceptible under this management criterion.

While agencies must identify in a solicitation all major evaluation 
factors, they are not required to identify all areas of each factor 
which might be taken into account provided that the unidentified areas 
are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated criteria.  
JoaQuin Mfg. Corp., B-275185, Jan. 29, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  48 at 2.  As 
noted above, the RFP required information from each offeror as to how 
the offeror intended to mobilize its work force.  While the 
solicitation does not specifically request that an offeror explain its 
mobilization plan in relation to the different SOW tasks, this 
information reasonably relates to the need for the vehicles and the 
transportation of the work force.  The protester points to nothing in 
its proposal to substantiate its position that it was misevaluated 
other than reiterating the information it provided and stating that 
"mobilization is not a complicated management problem . . . ."  The 
protester's mere disagreement with the evaluation does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.

TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

The RFP at section L stated that technical approach to performing 
tasks consisted of methodology and resources.  The solicitation stated 
that offerors were to submit a narrative methodology section and a 
resources section.  The RFP advised each offeror to describe in its 
methodology section how each task would be accomplished and, in its 
resources section, specify its specific work resources in support of 
the contract effort, including personnel, equipment, and materials.  
The RFP also advised that the equipment and materials description 
should be provided in sufficient detail to demonstrate understanding 
of the materials necessary for meeting the solicitation's 
requirements. 

In its technical proposal, ASECOSA provided, among other things, a 
three-page outline of its methodology for the tasks listed in the SOW, 
descriptions of its specific task teams, a three-page listing of 
equipment, and a discussion of its equipment repair and maintenance 
operation.  As noted above, the proposal also included a Resources 
Utilization chart.  In its final evaluation, the agency determined 
that ASECOSA's technical proposal did not adequately address how each 
task would be performed and, as noted above, found the Resources 
Utilization chart confusing and difficult to interpret.  

ASECOSA argues generally that its proposal did explain how it would 
perform the work, citing specifically its response to clearing area 
procedures and maintaining playground areas in its BAFO.  The 
protester also argues that its Resources Utilization chart is clear 
and legible and "only needed adequate research," in order for the 
agency to fully understand ASECOSA's proposed procedures.  

Based on our review of the record and notwithstanding ASECOSA's 
disagreement, we see no reason to object to the evaluation.  ASECOSA 
provided a three-page description of its methodology for completing 
the required tasks and discusses the equipment and workers it will use 
to complete each task, but provided little information on how it will 
perform the tasks.  For example, its methodology for plant maintenance 
states:

     [These services] will be performed by Team of Gardeners:  team of 
     trained gardeners are assigned to specific areas of performance.  
     They are in charge of watering, plantings, resodding, insect and 
     pest control or other special gardening functions.  The assigned 
     personnel will receive training at the COMPANY green house 
     operation before they are assigned to gardening functions.  The 
     grounds maintenance crew of brush cutters and personnel for 
     policing will identify gardeners under training, to support 
     gardening functions.  Personnel with gardening experience will be 
     rotated through our green house operation to receive proper 
     training and certification.

Similarly, the methodology on insect and disease control to damaged 
plants states:  

     [This function] will be performed by trained gardeners under the 
     supervision of license[d] personnel.  Personnel assigned to this 
     function will be trained in our green house operation, and 
     certified prior to being assigned to their duties.  

The agency reasonably concluded that neither of these responses 
explains how the protester intended to perform the tasks.  No steps to 
performing the tasks are outlined and no procedures are listed.  The 
protester provides only general information; for example, that the 
work will be performed by experienced personnel and that workers will 
be trained in ASECOSA's greenhouse operations, which are unrelated to 
how ASECOSA will perform the tasks.

The protester's assertion that it provided a detailed methodology for 
clearing areas and maintaining playgrounds is also inconsistent with 
the record.  The protester's narrative description of its procedures 
for clearing an area provides no concise steps or procedures the 
workers are to execute.  Instead, ASECOSA's narrative describes the 
personnel and equipment to be used.  As to procedures, ASECOSA's 
narrative simply states that workers "will execute the clearing, and 
will pick up the material resulting from the clearing."  Similarly, 
ASECOSA's narrative on maintaining playgrounds reviews its experience 
with this task, states that personnel assigned must be excellent 
gardeners and specifies that it coordinates with playground personnel 
both before and after performing the task.  The protester also 
discusses the sand to be provided and the equipment it would use for 
replacement of large quantities of sand.[5]

In addition, we reviewed the Resources Utilization chart provided by 
the protester, and we see why the agency evaluators found it difficult 
to understand.  As an example, the agency points to the protester's 
entry on the chart for the mowing of improved areas and notes that 
ASECOSA identified 19 employees who would participate in completing 
the task, including two managers/supervisors and three truck/tractor 
drivers.  Fifteen motor vehicles are listed as being used to complete 
this task and, of these, three types of vehicles are repeated three 
times.  Other entries are similarly confusing.  We see no basis to 
question the agency's determination that the protester's Resources 
Utilization chart was difficult to interpret.  Under these 
circumstances, we find nothing improper in the agency's evaluation of 
the protester's technical proposal.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Finally, ASECOSA argues that the award selection was improper, 
alleging that any deficiencies shown in its proposal are insignificant 
and that the benefits offered by the awardee's proposal do not merit 
the payment of an additional $373,246.68.

Source selection officials in negotiated procurements have broad 
discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will 
make use of technical and cost evaluation results.  Roy F. Weston, 
Inc., B-274945 et al., Jan. 15, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  92 at 17.  Agencies 
may make cost/technical tradeoffs in deciding between competing 
proposals and the propriety of such trade-offs turns not on the 
difference in technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the 
selection official's judgment concerning the significance of that 
difference was reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP 
evaluation scheme.  Id.  

ASECOSA's objection is premised on its view that the agency was 
required to award to the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror, 
which had been the award criterion for the predecessor contract under 
which ASECOSA received the award.  However, as noted above, the 
current RFP provided for award on a best value basis, listing price as 
the least important factor, and indicated that price may become the 
determining factor if proposals are evaluated as equal under the 
management, technical and quality control factors.  Here, the two 
proposals were not evaluated as equal under these factors.  

The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the full record, 
including advantages and disadvantages cited for the proposals as well 
as the color/adjectival ratings and cost evaluation results.  The SSA 
concluded that CBH offered the most advantageous proposal on the basis 
that CBH submitted the highest-rated proposal, which demonstrated a 
clear understanding of the requirements, provided a complete 
description of all work tasks, and proposed a unique organizational 
structure, which warranted payment of the associated price premium.  

The protester's objection provides no basis to call into question the 
selection decision, which reflects an appropriate comparison of the 
competing proposals and includes a reasoned determination for the 
selection of the higher-priced proposal under an RFP in which 
management and technical factors were set forth as more important than 
price.  ASECOSA's view that award was required to be made to the 
lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror simply does not 
accurately reflect the RFP award criteria.[6]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. A neutral rating was to be assigned to a firm with no past 
performance history.

2. In relevant part, section M provided that a blue/good rating would 
be assigned where the proposal demonstrated an approach which 
satisfied all the government's requirements with adequate detail to 
indicate feasibility of approach and an understanding of the problem, 
with a low to moderate degree of risk in meeting the government's 
requirements.  A yellow/acceptable rating would be assigned where the 
proposal demonstrated an approach which barely satisfies all of the 
government's requirements with minimal detail to indicate feasibility 
of approach and an understanding of the problem, with a moderate to 
high degree of risk in meeting the government's requirements. 

3. For example, management criteria included such things as the 
inclusion and adequacy of the offeror's organizational chart, 
equipment storage and maintenance information, mobilization plans for 
transporting equipment and personnel, and procedures for completing 
special services.  Technical criteria included such things as the 
adequacy of the offeror's description of personnel and equipment 
assigned to the different tasks and the description of how the offeror 
intended to accomplish the different tasks, such as insect and disease 
control, mowing improved and unimproved grounds, resodding, 
maintaining playgrounds, and tree pruning.   

4. The chart provided a matrix which contained a numerical listing of 
personnel, rental equipment, and maintenance equipment for each task.  
The chart also provided an analysis of the cost to perform each task 
based on the personnel and equipment to be used to perform the task.   

5. In contrast, the awardee listed and detailed the steps in 
maintaining playgrounds.  Specifically, the awardee stated that it 
would prepare within its facility a collecting area, stocked with sand 
approved by the agency and that, before delivering the sand, it would 
strain the sand with a number 4 sieve.  The awardee also stated that 
it would replace 1 cubic yard of sand on a weekly basis and that the 
sand would be delivered in a dump truck, placed on resistant plastic 
sheets, and carried to the playground in wheelbarrows.  The sand would 
then be raked and leftovers would be returned to the awardee's storage 
area.  The awardee stated that the area would be perfectly cleaned due 
to the use of the plastic sheets, which facilitate collection of sand 
leftovers.  Finally, a rubber band around the playground perimeter 
would be kept in proper position to keep the sand in the proper area.

6. To the extent that ASECOSA is arguing, after award, that the award 
should have been made on the basis of the lowest-priced technically 
acceptable offer, its protest constitutes an untimely challenge to the 
RFP's award criteria, which did not so provide.  Blue Cross-Blue 
Shield of Tennessee, B-210227, 83-1 CPD  para.  555 at 2-3.  Our Bid Protest 
Regulations require that protests of alleged improprieties in an RFP 
which are apparent prior to the closing time for submission of initial 
proposals be filed prior to that time.  4. C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1997).