BNUMBER:  B-278478.4 
DATE:  September 21, 1998
TITLE: CVB Company, B-278478.4, September 21, 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:CVB Company

File:     B-278478.4

Date:September 21, 1998

Robert A. Brunette, Esq., for the protester.
Ralph L. Kissick, Esq., Ronald S. Perlman, Esq., and Jeffrey L. 
Karlin, Esq., Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger, for Pacific Consolidated 
Industries, the intervenor.
John Lariccia, Esq., Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Mark Frazier, 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
1.  Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where record 
shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated 
evaluation factors.

2.  Agency's proposed award to offeror that submitted lower-rated, 
lower-priced proposal in a best value procurement (where solicitation 
stated that technical merit was significantly more important than 
price) is proper where the source selection authority performed a 
rational integrated assessment of the proposals and reasonably 
determined that the price premium involved in an award to the 
protester on the basis of its higher-rated, higher-priced proposal was 
not justified given the favorable level of technical competence 
available at the lower price.

DECISION

CVB Company, a joint venture of CV International, Inc. and Bauer 
Compressors, Inc., protests the proposed award of a contract to 
Pacific Consolidated Industries (PCI) under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. F41608-97-R-20209, issued by the Department of the Air Force 
for self-generating nitrogen service carts (SGNSC).  CVB principally 
contends that the evaluation of proposals and source selection 
decision were unreasonable and inconsistent with the stated evaluation 
factors for award.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, set aside for small business concerns, contemplated the award 
of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 2-year base period, with 
a 3-year option period, for an estimated quantity of 1,420 SGNSCs.  
RFP  sec.  B,  sec.  L-65C, and Amendment No. 8.  The required SGNSC is a diesel 
engine-powered, self-contained, towable unit capable of producing 
high-purity nitrogen gas from ambient air using air separation 
membrane technology; the carts are to be used in servicing military 
aircraft (e.g., in the service of tires, struts, accumulators, and 
external receivers) in all operating environments.  The RFP,  sec.  M-902, 
provided for award on the basis of the proposal that "provides the 
best overall value to satisfy Air Force needs."  In this regard, 
section M-900.A.1 provided that the agency would award a contract 
under the solicitation "to the responsible offeror whose offer, 
conforming to the solicitation, has the highest degree of credibility 
and whose performance can best meet the Government's requirements at 
an affordable cost."[1]

The RFP,  sec.  M-900.A.1, stated that award would be based on an 
integrated assessment of the results of the evaluations of the 
technical and price proposals, proposal and performance risk, and 
general considerations.[2]  The technical proposals were to be 
evaluated under the following factors (and subfactors), listed in 
descending order of importance:  design (including unit design, 
reliability/maintainability, and first article test plan); and 
production (including facilities, quality programs, and production 
plan).  RFP  sec.  M-900.B.1.  Offerors were advised that "to allow 
innovation and encourage superior design, evaluators may reward 
proposals which improve upon the requirements of the purchase 
description, with emphasis on mean time between failure, unit 
dimensions, weight, and operating time before refueling."  Id.  
Proposed prices were to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness.  
RFP  sec.  M-900.B.2.

Section M-900.A.3 of the RFP specified as follows regarding the 
respective weights of the evaluation factors in the overall evaluation 
scheme:

     The Technical Area is significantly more important than cost or 
     price, with cost or price and general considerations receiving 
     equal consideration.  The Technical Area will receive a color 
     rating and a performance risk rating, and the technical factors 
     will receive color ratings and proposal risk ratings.[[3]]  Each 
     of the ratings shall be given equal consideration in making an 
     integrated source selection decision.[[4]] 

Eight firms submitted proposals by the closing time for receipt of 
initial proposals on June 30, 1997.  Discussions were then conducted, 
through the issuance of clarification and deficiency reports, with the 
six offerors that submitted proposals determined to be within the 
competitive range for award, including CVB and PCI.  Initial best and 
final offers (BAFO) were received on November 3, and second BAFOs, 
submitted in response to certain amended solicitation terms, including 
a reduction in the stated estimated quantity, were received on 
February 18, 1998.

The source selection evaluation team (SSET) assigned a [deleted] color 
rating to CVB's proposal for the "technical area" (reflecting the 
[deleted] color rating received under the more important "design" 
technical evaluation factor, and the [deleted] color rating received 
under the less important "production" technical evaluation factor).  
CVB's proposal also received a [deleted] performance risk rating under 
the technical area, and [deleted] proposal risk ratings under the 
design and production technical evaluation factors.  The CVB proposal 
was ranked highest technically of the offers received.

PCI's proposal was ranked third highest technically (slightly below 
another offeror's higher-priced proposal), with an overall [deleted] 
color rating for the "technical area" (reflecting the [deleted] color 
ratings the proposal received under the "design" and "production" 
technical evaluation factors).  Like CVB's proposal, PCI's proposal 
received a [deleted] performance risk rating under the technical area, 
and [deleted] proposal risk ratings under both technical evaluation 
factors.

CVB's evaluated price was $[deleted], which was the second highest 
price among the six competitive range offerors; PCI's evaluated price, 
at $[deleted], was the lowest received (at an amount only slightly 
lower than proposed by two other offerors).  All of the offerors' 
proposed prices were determined to be realistic and reasonable in 
terms of proposed approach; the difference between CVB's and PCI's 
proposed prices [deleted] primarily was attributed to PCI's lower 
overhead and material costs.  

In his source selection decision document (SSDD), the source selection 
authority (SSA) compared the strengths, weaknesses, evaluation 
ratings, and proposed prices of the six competitive range offerors.  
In making his best value determination for award, the SSA expressly 
recognized that CVB's proposal received the highest technical rating, 
and that technical merit was significantly more important than cost.  
The SSA determined, however, that "the additional technical benefits" 
offered by CVB compared to those offered by PCI did not merit paying 
the associated [deleted] cost premium (slightly more than $[deleted] 
million) over PCI's proposed price.[5]  SSDD at 7.  The offerors were 
subsequently notified that the agency intended to award the contract 
to PCI, since PCI submitted the proposal found to offer the best value 
to the government.  This protest, which includes supplemental protest 
grounds filed by CVB in response to the agency's document productions, 
followed.

CVB challenges the agency's evaluation of its and PCI's technical 
proposals as unreasonable.  The evaluation of technical proposals is a 
matter within the discretion of the contracting agency because the 
agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of 
accommodating them.  Metrica, Inc., B-270086, B-270086.2, Feb. 8, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  135 at 3.  In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we 
will not reevaluate proposals, but instead will examine the agency's 
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.  Decision Sys. Techs., 
Inc.; NCI Info. Sys., Inc., B-257186 et al., Sept. 7, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  
167 at 7.  An offeror's disagreement with the agency does not render 
the evaluation unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2, 
B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51 at 18.  Based on our review 
of the record, and as discussed in the examples set forth below, we 
believe that the agency's evaluation of CVB's and PCI's proposals was 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria.

The final SSET technical evaluation ratings, as recorded in the 
Proposal Analysis Report prepared by the SSET, and reviewed by the 
SSA, were as follows:

                         PCI            CVB
Technical Area/Risk      [deleted]      [deleted]
     Design/Risk         [deleted]      [deleted]
     --Unit Design       [deleted]      [deleted]
     --Reliability       [deleted]      [deleted]
     --First Article Test[deleted]      [deleted]
     Production/Risk     [deleted]      [deleted]
     --Facilities        [deleted]      [deleted]
     --Quality Programs  [deleted]      [deleted]
     --Production Plan   [deleted]      [deleted]

CVB protests the favorable technical ratings given to the PCI 
proposal, generally contending that its proposal should have been 
rated significantly higher in technical merit than the PCI proposal 
under each technical evaluation factor, as well as for overall merit.  
Although we have reviewed every one of CVB's numerous challenges to 
the agency's evaluation of proposals, we see no basis to question the 
proposed award.  We discuss below a sampling of CVB's allegations.

CVB generally contends that, since it has produced similar SGNSC units 
in the past, its proposal should have been ranked significantly higher 
than PCI's proposal in the technical area (i.e., higher in technical 
merit and lower in proposal and performance risk).  As the agency's 
evaluation record shows, CVB was credited for its prior experience in 
connection with the evaluation of performance risk (for which the 
protester's proposal received a [deleted] rating).  However, contrary 
to CVB's contention that its prior SGNSC experience should have 
increased its proposal's  rating under the [deleted], the agency 
reasonably gave CVB's proposal a [deleted] rating, [deleted], compared 
to the larger quantities and shorter time frames required under the 
RFP.  We also do not find that CVB's SGNSC experience provides any 
basis to conclude that PCI's proposal should have been rated as 
inferior regarding performance risk.  PCI's proposal was credited, and 
reasonably so, for the firm's substantial favorable prime contractor 
experience, and credit reasonably was given for the documented air 
membrane technology experience of its proposed subcontractor, since 
the RFP did not preclude the consideration of subcontractor 
experience.  Premier Cleaning Sys., Inc., B-249179.2, Nov. 2, 1992, 
92-2 CPD  para.  298 at 4.  There is nothing in the record, and the 
protester does not provide any persuasive basis, to suggest that the 
[deleted] performance risk rating assigned to the PCI proposal 
(supported by favorable customer and preaward survey information 
regarding the firm's compliance with delivery schedules) was other 
than reasonable.

CVB also protests that, under the technical area's design factor, 
PCI's proposal unreasonably received a [deleted] rating for the unit 
design subfactor--CVB contends that only its proposal deserves this 
high rating.  The RFP,  sec.  M-900.B.1, informed offerors that innovative 
proposals that exceeded technical requirements would receive 
additional credit, with emphasis in the design areas of mean time 
between failure, unit dimensions, weight, and operating time before 
refueling (where, regarding size and weight of the unit, proposing 
smaller measurements was desirable).  Both CVB's and PCI's proposals 
were found to exceed the RFP requirements in the following four 
identified significant design areas and, as a result, received 
[deleted] color ratings for the most important subfactor (unit design) 
of the most important technical evaluation factor (design):

Purchase Description Requirement   PCI            CVB
Mean time between failure (250 hours)[deleted]    [deleted]
Unit dimensions (90"l x 72"w x 62"h)[deleted]     [deleted]
Unit weight (4,000 lbs.)           [deleted]      [deleted]
Oper. time between refueling (5 hours)[deleted]   [deleted]

CVB contends that its proposal [deleted] should have been [deleted] 
because CVB's unit is based on proven technology and exceeded RFP 
requirements to a greater extent than PCI's unit.

Our review of the record shows that both offerors' proposals 
reasonably earned their [deleted] ratings under this subfactor in 
light of the design strengths noted for each.  For example, PCI's 
proposal was credited for proposing the use of [deleted] and [deleted] 
CVB's proposal was credited for proposing [deleted].  Since our review 
of the evaluation record confirms the reasonableness of the agency's 
determination that both proposals exceeded critical RFP requirements, 
and that each provided adequate support for the cited additional 
strengths, we have no basis to question the [deleted] ratings received 
by both proposals in this technical area.[6]

CVB also protests the evaluation of CVB's and PCI's proposals under 
the second and less important technical evaluation factor, production.  
In particular, CVB challenges the agency's acceptance of PCI's 
substantially smaller proposed facilities, for which the PCI proposal 
received a [deleted] rating under the facilities subfactor.  (CVB's 
proposal received a [deleted] rating for offering much larger 
production facilities.)  The record reasonably supports CVB's higher 
rating given [deleted] CVB for this effort.  However, contrary to 
CVB's contentions, there is no basis in the record to conclude that 
PCI's proposed facilities are inadequate to successfully perform the 
contract.  Although PCI's proposed production facilities are 
substantially smaller than those proposed by CVB, the evaluators found 
that the smaller facilities posed little, if any, risk to successful 
performance in light of PCI's proposed production facility layout and 
approach.  Tr. at 103-04.  Our review supports the reasonableness of 
this determination in view of PCI's anticipated substantial 
subcontracting of production line (metal fabrication subassembly) work 
to be performed at additional facilities.[7]  Overall, based on our 
review of the record, CVB has not provided any persuasive basis to 
question the propriety of the evaluation of CVB's and PCI's proposals.

CVB next protests the agency's selection of PCI for award as the 
offeror submitting the proposal determined to offer the best value to 
the government.  CVB contends that the technical superiority offered 
by its proposal more than accounts for the cost difference [deleted], 
or slightly more than $[deleted] million) between the PCI and CVB 
proposals.

Notwithstanding a solicitation's emphasis on technical merit, an 
agency may properly select a lower-priced, lower technically scored 
proposal if it decides that the price premium involved in selecting a 
higher-rated, higher-priced offer is not justified given the 
acceptable level of technical competence available at the lower cost.  
Dayton T. Brown, Inc., B-229664, Mar. 30, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  321 at 4.  
The determining element is not the difference in technical merit, per 
se, but the contracting agency's judgment concerning the significance 
of that difference.  Id. at 4-5.  In this regard, evaluation scores 
are merely guides for the source selection authority, who must use his 
or her judgment to determine what the technical difference between 
competing proposals might mean to contract performance, and who must 
consider what it would cost to take advantage of it.  Grey Adver., 
Inc., B-184825, May 14, 1976, 76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 9-10.  In making such 
determinations, the source selection authority has broad discretion, 
and the extent to which technical merit may be sacrificed for cost, or 
vice versa, is limited only by the requirement that the tradeoff 
decision be reasonable in light of the established evaluation and 
source selection criteria.  Id. at 12.

In making his source selection decision, the SSA reviewed the 
solicitation requirements and factors for award, the SSET's Proposal 
Analysis Report, the briefing charts prepared by the SSET, oral 
presentations by the SSET, and the results of inquiries he posed to 
the SSET.  Tr. at 15-17.  The SSA recognized that CVB's proposal was 
highest rated technically, and that the proposal exceeded the four 
emphasized design requirements (regarding weight, size, mean time 
between failure, and refueling) "by a significant margin."  Tr. at 19.  
The SSA then considered those proposals which were rated next highest 
technically, along with the SSET findings regarding those proposals.  
Tr. at 20.  The SSA then noted where proposals offered the same sort 
of strengths offered in the CVB proposal; the SSA noted, for instance, 
that the PCI proposal "far exceeded" the same critical design 
requirements that were significantly exceeded by the CVB proposal.  
Tr. at 21.  The SSA (who specifically noted that PCI's projected mean 
time between failure was based on [deleted] critical components, but 
that the evaluators reasonably were not substantially concerned about 
that sole weakness, Tr. at 22), considered the overall technical 
evaluations for design and production.  Tr. at 24.

CVB asserts that the SSA improperly found the two proposals to be 
technically equal.  Our review of the SSDD, however, does not support 
the protester's allegation that the proposals were at any time 
considered to be technically equivalent, since the SSA expressly 
recognized that CVB's proposal was technically superior to PCI's.  
Rather, the SSA noted that both PCI and CVB far exceeded the Air 
Force's minimum requirements "in the same areas" and that they, 
therefore, offered "many of the same strengths."  Tr. at 25.  The SSA 
explains that it was not critical to him that CVB "significantly" 
exceeded some RFP requirements that PCI's proposal "far exceeded" (but 
to a lesser degree than the CVB proposal did in some instances), since 
both firms submitted strong proposals greatly exceeding those 
requirements.  Tr. at 80.  The SSA instead reviewed the SSET's 
findings to determine if there were any meaningful differences between 
the proposals that were worth paying another $[deleted] million, since 
the agency could make award to PCI on the basis of its strong 
technical proposal, that included several cited technical strengths, 
at a significant cost savings.  Tr. at 25-26, 36-37.

We have reviewed the integrated assessment performed by the SSA in 
reaching his best value determination, and the SSDD memorializing that 
determination.  The SSA's review was, in our opinion, quite 
comprehensive.  The SSA first noted that CVB's proposal was highest 
rated technically, and included a short, but detailed evaluation 
summary of the proposal's technical ratings, as well as the strengths 
of that proposal that were noted by the SSET; he recognized that no 
weaknesses were found in the proposal and that it offered low risk.  
He then summarized every other proposal's evaluation and 
strengths/weaknesses, followed by a comparison of those technical 
areas where offerors had similar (albeit, to a differing extent) 
strengths.  He eliminated from consideration those offers that did not 
appear to have a reasonable chance for award in terms of technical 
merit or price.  Three proposals remained in the analysis:  CVB's 
higher-rated, higher-priced proposal; another offeror's slightly 
higher-rated, slightly higher-priced proposal; and PCI's technically 
acceptable proposal, with noted technical strengths (as well as a 
noted weakness regarding the limited seven-component reliability 
analysis to support proposed mean time between failure).  Focusing on 
the substantial cost difference, and the other two proposals' 
technical strengths, the SSA removed the CVB proposal from further 
consideration for award.  Finding that the intervening proposal was 
only slightly superior technically to PCI's lower-priced proposal, the 
SSA determined that the additional cost was not warranted, and that 
PCI's proposal offered the best value to the government.  
Specifically, the SSA stated in his SSDD, at 7, that "CvB's proposal 
was the most highly rated and ranked Technical Proposal, and the 
Technical Area was significantly more important than Cost, however, in 
my final integrated assessment I did not consider the additional 
technical benefits CvB offered compared to PCI . . . merited paying an 
additional [deleted] (over PCI) . . . ."

CVB contends that if a dollar value were assigned to each noted 
technical benefit in its proposal, the cumulative dollar value would 
outweigh the savings expected by the agency in making award to PCI at 
its lower price.  Specifically, CVB contends that the SSA wrongfully 
failed to consider [deleted] from the protester's SGNSC's [deleted].

First, the record shows that, as noted by the SSA, the RFP did not 
provide for evaluation of any claimed [deleted].  (In fact, our review 
of the PCI proposal shows that that firm also claimed [deleted] its 
proposed technology, which likewise were not evaluated in terms of 
dollar value.)  Second, these alleged [deleted] are only potential 
savings, at best, given that they would not be realized until the bulk 
of the estimated units were purchased (which further assumes no 
possibility of early termination of the contract or failure to 
exercise the option).  Moreover, the claimed [deleted] are dependent 
on a 20-year use of the SGNSCs (when, of course, advances in related 
technology or changed agency needs could as reasonably be expected to 
result in much earlier retirement of some of the units).  The SSA's 
failure to consider these, at best, [deleted], in our view, cannot be 
said to be unreasonable.

In our opinion, the SSA properly compared CVB's proposal's technical 
superiority, available at a substantially higher price, to the 
technical strengths of the PCI proposal (which exceeded critical RFP 
requirements), available at a substantially lower cost, and reasonably 
determined in accordance with the best value terms of the procurement 
that the noted technical superiority was not worth the cost premium 
involved.

The protest is denied.[8]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The term "highest degree of credibility" refers to the extent to 
which offerors provide sufficient support in their proposals to verify 
claims to meet solicitation requirements; the term "affordable cost" 
refers to the source selection authority's tradeoff analysis between 
technical merit and price.  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 12, 59-60, 97.

2. The RFP defines "general considerations" as elements typically 
relating to proposed contract terms and conditions, and results of 
preaward surveys.  While proposals were not to receive color, proposal 
risk, or performance risk ratings under this factor, it would be 
considered in the integrated assessment forming the basis for award.  
RFP  sec.  M-900.A.4.

3. The "color rating" depicts how well the offeror's proposal meets 
the evaluation standards and solicitation requirements (e.g., a "blue" 
rating indicates "exceptional"--that the specified performance or 
capability has been exceeded in a way beneficial to the government, 
and there are no significant weaknesses--and a "green" rating 
indicates "acceptable"--that the evaluation standards have been met 
and any weaknesses are readily corrected).  "Proposal risk" assesses 
the risk associated with the offeror's proposed approach as it relates 
to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation (e.g., a low 
proposal risk rating reflects little potential to cause disruption of 
schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance, and normal 
contractor effort and normal government monitoring will probably be 
able to overcome difficulties).  The "performance risk" rating 
assesses the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the 
proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past 
performance (e.g., a low performance risk rating indicates that little 
doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform as proposed).  
RFP  sec.  M-900.A.3. 

4. Referring to this sentence, CVB asserts that the technical factors 
comprising the overall "technical area" were to be given equal weight 
to the technical area itself.  This arguments reflects a strained 
reading of the sentence and is inconsistent with the overall 
evaluation scheme in the RFP.  Specifically, section M-900.B.1 sets 
out the two technical factors and their subfactors as elements of the 
overall technical area, not as independent factors; that provision 
also specifies that the factors are listed in descending order of 
importance, meaning that the first factor, design, is more important 
than--not equal to--the second, production.  Section M-900.A.3 then 
specifies that it is the overall "technical area" that is 
significantly more important than price in the evaluation.  In sum, 
the RFP clearly contemplates that the proposals would be evaluated 
under the two technical factors, resulting in an overall rating in the 
technical area which would then be significantly more important than 
price.  It simply is not reasonable to read the phrase "each of the 
ratings" in section M-900.A.3 as establishing that the individual 
factors under the overall technical area--which themselves comprise 
the technical area--were to be given weights equal to the technical 
area itself.

5. As noted above, section M-900.A.4 of the RFP also provided for an 
evaluation of "general considerations" for each proposal.  The SSA 
concluded that the general considerations factor was not a 
discriminator between CVB's and PCI's proposals in view of the fact 
that both firms had received unconditional award recommendations under 
this factor.  SSDD at 7.

6. CVB also alleges that it was unreasonable for the agency to accept 
PCI's projections regarding mean time between failure, because those 
projections were based on PCI's analysis of the performance of only 
[deleted] of approximately [deleted] SGNSC components.  We find CVB's 
challenge unpersuasive, since the RFP did not require the level of 
proof sought by CVB to be applied to the PCI proposal, and the record 
shows that those components that were analyzed are the PCI unit's key 
components which are critical to successful performance and reasonably 
serve as a representative model of anticipated unit operation.  Tr. at 
101-02, 153-54; Proposal Analysis Report at 23.

7. CVB's proposal received a [deleted] rating for the quality programs 
subfactor of the production technical evaluation factor for certifying 
compliance to an acceptable, yet less stringent quality assurance 
program than that proposed by PCI; PCI's proposal was rated [deleted] 
under this subfactor of the production factor.  CVB challenges the 
ratings assigned to the proposals under this subfactor.  Although CVB 
contends that its "certification" of performance to the less stringent 
quality standards offers some sort of strength over PCI's promise to 
"conform" to the more stringent standards, the agency reports that it 
does not recognize "certification" as offering any benefit over a 
firm's conformance to higher standards.  Tr. at 23, 84.  In short, 
since performance must be in compliance with the level of quality 
assurance standards proposed, we agree that PCI's proposal of a more 
stringent plan justifiably received the higher rating.

8. CVB has also raised numerous protest issues which are not for our 
consideration and thus, are addressed here only in a summary manner.  
For example, the protest ground asserting that this should have been a 
commercial item procurement is an untimely challenge to the terms of 
the solicitation.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(a)(1) (1998).  In this regard, CVB 
also has failed to provide sufficient grounds to support a waiver of 
our timeliness rules, since its contention that it did not know of the 
alleged requirement for a commercial item procurement prior to 
competing under the RFP is insufficient to excuse a late filing, and 
CVB has not persuasively shown that the matter warrants consideration 
as a significant issue of widespread interest.  Air Inc.--Recon., 
B-238220.2, Jan. 29, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  129 at 2.  We also note, as 
follows, that several of CVB's other challenges simply do not 
constitute valid bases of protest, since, contrary to CVB's general 
allegations:  it is not unlawful for an offeror to "buy in" (or offer 
a price below its costs), T.J. O'Brien Co., Inc., B-223680, Aug. 11, 
1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  177 at 1-2; CVB is not an interested party to protest 
the proposal evaluations of those offerors not in line for award 
before CVB, ECS Composites, Inc., B-235849.2, Jan. 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  
7 at 1; and, where an offeror's price is found to be reasonable, 
discussions are not required to inform the offeror that its price is 
higher than some of the other offerors'.  Blue Cross Blue Shield of 
Texas, Inc., B-261316.4, Nov. 9, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  248 at 6-7.  
Additionally, CVB has failed to provide any persuasive support for its 
general allegations of improper agency action related to the possible 
relaxation of purchase description requirements for PCI, or an alleged 
release by agency personnel of sensitive target pricing information to 
PCI (information which, we note, the record shows is available from 
other public sources and, in any event, could reasonably be estimated 
from available commercial pricing information).  Robert Wall 
Edge--Recon., B-234469.2, Mar. 30, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  335 at 2.  The 
remaining protest issue, regarding the propriety of the agency's 
denial of an earlier requested preaward debriefing, was withdrawn by 
CVB.