BNUMBER:  B-278649 
DATE:  January 30, 1998
TITLE: High Country Contracting, B-278649, January 30, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:High Country Contracting

File:     B-278649

Date:January 30, 1998

Scott Thygeson for the protester.
L. Benjamin Young, Jr., Esq., Department of Agriculture, 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

Protest alleging that agency's evaluation of the protester's 
experience was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the 
agency evaluated the information submitted by the protester to 
determine the firm's relevant experience and that this determination 
is reasonable.

DECISION

High Country Contracting protests the award of a contract to Twin Oaks 
Construction under request for proposals (RFP) No. R6-3-97-96C(N), 
issued by the Department of Agriculture, Gifford Pinchot National 
Forest.  High Country alleges that the agency's evaluation of the 
firm's experience was unreasonable, resulting in the selection of a 
higher-priced offeror.  We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to 
construct  
5.1 miles of Valley Trail on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in 
Washington State.  The RFP included a detailed statement of work and 
drawings describing the required services.  The RFP stated a "best 
value" evaluation scheme in which technical capability and price were 
equally important, and that award would be made to the offeror whose 
proposal was determined most advantageous to the government.  Offerors 
were advised that the agency intended to award the contract on the 
basis of initial offers. 

The technical capability factor consisted of two 
subfactors--experience (30 points) and past performance (70 points).  
Under the technical proposal instructions, the RFP advised:

        Each offeror will be evaluated on their experience as shown 
        for existing and prior contracts.  Experience information will 
        be used as part of the capability evaluation factor against 
        which offerors' relative rankings will be compared to assure 
        best value to the Government.

For evaluation purposes, the RFP included an experience questionnaire 
which requested that offerors submit information concerning their 
current projects and those projects completed within the last 3 years.  
In this regard, offerors were asked to list the types of projects 
performed and their dollar value, and identify a point of contact 
(including address and telephone number) for each project listed on 
the questionnaire.  In addition, the questionnaire required offerors 
to identify the number of years the firm has performed "the line of 
work contemplated by this solicitation," and the experience of the 
firm's principal individuals.  

Four proposals were received by the closing date for receipt of 
initial proposals.  In evaluating High Country's proposal under the 
experience subfactor, the agency found that High Country had listed 
only three projects on the experience questionnaire that were 
completed--a trail and bridge project, and two bridge projects.  The 
two company principals were listed as having 5 and 2 years experience, 
respectively.  High Country did not enter any response to the number 
of years of experience it had in the line of work to be performed 
under this contract.  The protester also did not list any current or 
ongoing relevant work.  The reference provided by High Country for 
both the trail and bridge project and one of the two listed bridge 
projects was contacted regarding his experience with the firm.  The 
agency was advised that High Country had been awarded three trail 
construction contracts and a purchase order, that High Country's 
construction of these trails was "fairly good to very good depending 
on his crew," and that High Country's performance had "improved on 
each contract."  The contracting officer learned that these three 
trails were constructed under drier conditions on the east side of the 
mountains as opposed to the wet and muddy conditions of the west side 
of the mountains where the Valley Trail will be constructed.  
Moreover, the contracting officer considered the other projects 
identified in High Country's experience questionnaire, as well as High 
Country projects she was familiar with, to be smaller and less 
relevant to the current project.  

The contracting officer's concerns with High Country's inexperience 
with trail work were exacerbated by the fact that some of the services 
required for the Valley Trail construction (i.e., tread stabilization 
and side hill turnpikes) had caused contractors difficulty in prior 
procurements and because of the many flood repair projects underway, 
fewer agency personnel were available to perform contract 
administration.  The contracting officer concluded that based on the 
information provided in High Country's experience questionnaire, which 
showed only limited trail construction experience, as well as 
information provided by the contact reference for two of the three 
listed contracts, High Country's proposal represented a moderate risk 
of timely performance and increased contract oversight in performance 
of the Valley Trail requirements. 

Twin Oaks' proposal, on the other hand, was determined to be low risk.  
The contracting officer found, based on Twin Oaks' experience 
questionnaire and references contacted, that Twin Oaks had experience 
with trail and bridge projects of similar size, scope, and complexity 
and under conditions similar to those found on the west side of the 
mountains.  Twin Oaks reported that the firm's principals had 18 years 
experience in the line of work contemplated under the solicitation and 
17 years experience as a prime contractor.  Following the technical 
evaluation of proposals, Twin Oaks was ranked first with a composite 
score of 100 points and low risk, High Country was ranked fourth with 
a composite score of 75 points, comprised of 5 points for experience 
and 70 points for past performance, and rated moderate risk.  High 
Country offered the lowest price, $115,347; Twin Oaks offered the 
second low price, $126,863.75.  In selecting Twin Oaks' proposal for 
award, the contracting officer found that, even though High Country's 
proposal was considered acceptable, Twin Oaks' highest rated, low risk 
proposal was more advantageous to the government as it represented a 
greater likelihood of timely performance and that the need for 
government oversight of Twin Oaks' performance would be relatively 
low.  The contracting officer also determined that the difference in 
technical capability between the two proposals was significant enough 
to justify the payment of the associated price premium.  The 
contracting officer determined that Twin Oaks' proposal represented 
the best value based on technical capability and price considerations, 
and made award to that firm.  After being informed that Twin Oaks had 
received the award, and being provided with a written debriefing, High 
Country filed this protest.

High Country protests that the agency's evaluation of its proposal 
under the experience subfactor was erroneous; it believes its proposal 
merited a higher score based on all its years experience, and not just 
those projects it had completed within the last 3 years.[1]   
 
The evaluation of technical proposals is the function of the 
contracting agency; our review is limited to determining whether the 
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation 
factors.  The Arora Group, Inc., B-270706.2, June 18, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
280 at 3.  Where a solicitation indicates that experience will be 
evaluated, the agency properly may evaluate the extent to which an 
offeror's specific experience is directly related to the work required 
by the RFP.  Human Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc., 
B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 21, 1995, 96-1 CPD  para.  35 at 3.  Based on our 
review of the record, and as discussed below, we find the agency's 
evaluation of High Country's proposal under the experience evaluation 
subfactor was reasonable and in accordance with the RFP.

The record shows that High Country's low score under the experience 
subfactor was reasonably based on the information provided by the 
protester as well as the information obtained from the protester's own 
reference, and the protester's specific objections to the evaluation 
in no way cause us to question the reasonableness of the evaluation.  
For example, the protester claims that none of the references 
identified on its experience questionnaire were contacted by the 
agency.  We find no merit to this allegation.  As discussed above, the 
agency did contact the reference identified by High Country for both 
one of the bridge projects and the trail and bridge project listed on 
the questionnaire.  While the protester disputes the assessment 
provided by the reference for this particular project, as well as the 
contracting officer's own assessment based on her own knowledge of the 
types of projects performed by the firm, we conclude that High 
Country's objection to this aspect of the agency's evaluation 
constitutes, at best, its mere disagreement with the evaluation 
results, and does not demonstrate that the agency's evaluation was 
unreasonable.

Here, the contracting officer properly evaluated the most relevant 
contract performed by the protester.  The other two projects were 
identified by the protester itself as bridge work and, although the 
current requirements include bridge construction, the agency did not 
consider the experience gained by High Country in performing these 
projects relevant because the trail bridges for the Valley Trail 
contract are not considered to be a significant portion of the actual 
work to be performed.  While the protester has provided with its 
protest written references regarding its experience under several 
projects which, in its view, are similar in size, scope, and 
complexity to the Valley Trail project, none of this information was 
included in its proposal and was therefore not considered by the 
agency in evaluating the firm's experience.  We think the evaluation 
of High Country's proposal under the experience subfactor was 
reasonably based on the information contained in its proposal, which 
showed limited relevant trail construction experience and, as 
discussed above, there is no showing that the agency misevaluated the 
information.  In these circumstances--where the protester fails to 
include in its proposal information necessary to demonstrate its 
experience--the fact (unknown to the agency) that it may have such 
experience is irrelevant to the propriety of the evaluation.  AEC-ABLE 
Eng'g Co., Inc., B-257798.2, Jan. 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  37 at 7.

Finally, even if we assume that High Country's proposal merited a 
higher score under the experience evaluation subfactor, as the 
protester argues, none of High Country's protest issues provides a 
basis to disturb the source selection decision.  In a negotiated 
procurement, award may be made to an offeror submitting a 
higher-rated, higher-priced offer, where the decision is consistent 
with the solicitation's evaluation scheme, and the agency reasonably 
determines that the technical superiority of the higher-priced offer 
outweighs the price difference.  See Systems Integration & Dev., Inc., 
B-271050, June 7, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  273 at 6.  Here, the contracting 
officer specifically determined that Twin Oaks' demonstrated 
experience in performing contracts similar in size and scope to the 
present requirements and under similar conditions was far greater than 
High Country's, and the protester has not challenged these findings by 
the agency.  Specifically, the agency found (and the record confirms) 
that Twin Oaks has more extensive trail building experience than High 
Country, much of the work was similar to the work under this contract, 
and many of the trail projects were in the Gifford Pinchot Forest.  
Thus, even if the two proposals were considered equal in all other 
respects, this would not necessarily mean that the agency had to award 
to the low offeror, because the RFP stated that the significance of 
the technical differences between competing proposals was the critical 
factor in making the price/technical capability tradeoff.  In sum, 
based on Twin Oaks' more extensive relevant experience, the agency's 
selection of Twin Oaks' offer as most advantageous was consistent with 
the stated evaluation scheme and reasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. To the extent High Country challenges the solicitation experience 
evaluation provisions as restrictive or otherwise defective, this 
allegation is not timely raised.  Our Bid Protest Regulations require 
that protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which 
are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of initial 
proposals must be filed prior to that time.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) 
(1997).