BNUMBER:  B-278904.3 
DATE:  April 13, 1998
TITLE: Techsys Corporation, B-278904.3, April 13, 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:Techsys Corporation

File:     B-278904.3

Date:     April 13, 1998

Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., McMahon, David & 
Brody, for the protester.
Paralee White, Esq., Gadsby & Hannah, for Walcoff & Associates, an 
intervenor.
Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Patricia D. Graham, Esq., and Joseph A. 
Lenhard, Esq., Department of Energy, 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.  Where solicitation proposal preparation instructions set forth 
type size and a clearly defined page limitation for proposals, agency 
appropriately declined to consider those pages of the protester's 
proposal which exceeded the specified page limitation.

2.  Agency evaluation of technical proposals is unobjectionable where 
the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and 
consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's mere 
disagreement with the agency's conclusion does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.

DECISION

Techsys Corporation protests the Department of Energy's (DOE) decision 
not to award Techsys a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DE-RP01-97EI30000, issued by DOE for technical services for the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA).[1]  Techsys asserts that DOE 
improperly and arbitrarily eliminated certain pages of Techsys's 
proposal from consideration and otherwise improperly evaluated the 
proposal.    

We deny the protest.

DOE issued the RFP, referred to as the EIA Omnibus Procurement (EOP), 
via the Internet on July 7, 1997.  This solicitation, which combined 
technical support services that were currently being performed for EIA 
under 11 separate support services contracts, sought separate 
proposals for 3 functional areas/contract line items (CLIN) consisting 
of information management and product production (IM&PP) support 
services (CLIN 001); energy analysis and forecasting support services 
(CLIN 002); and information technology support services (CLIN 003).  
For each CLIN, the RFP listed a maximum number of direct productive 
labor hours (DPLH), specifically, 528,984 DPLH for CLIN 001, 183,000 
DPLH for CLIN 002, and 412,920 DPLH for CLIN 003.  The EOP provided 
for multiple indefinite-quantity awards with awardees becoming 
eligible for post-award competition for task orders for a 3-year base 
period with one 2-year option.  Since each contract will have cost 
reimbursement and fixed-price provisions, task orders are to be issued 
on both a cost-plus-fixed-fee and a fixed-price basis.

Section L.15 of the RFP stated that DOE would "award contracts 
resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whose 
offer conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous to 
the Government, cost or price and other factors, specified elsewhere 
in the solicitation, considered" and advised that DOE intended to 
award on the basis of initial offers without discussions.  Section 
M-1(B) reiterated that award would be made to the offerors whose 
conforming proposals were determined to be most advantageous to the 
government.  At section M-3, the RFP identified the following weighted 
evaluation factors and subfactors:

     1.  Business management, technical and organizational approach50
        1.1  Business management plan             20
        1.2  Technical plan                       20
        1.3  Organizational approach              10
     2.  Past and present experience                   20
     3.  Corporate resource management                 20
        3.1  Retain labor categories              5
        3.2  Additional resources                 5
        3.3  Staff training and development       5
        3.4  Provide automated data processing (ADP)
          hardware, software, facilities          5
     4.  Videotape response/presentation               10
     5.  Past performance

Offerors were advised that past performance would be adjectivally 
rated, and that the technical proposal was significantly more 
important than past performance or cost, and that past performance was 
also more important than cost.  

In submitting a total, estimated price, offerors were advised at 
section L.34(2) to include a fixed-price quotation for 50 percent of 
the maximum amount of level of effort (LOE) or DPLH for the total 
5-year contract term.  Section M.4 of the RFP advised offerors that 
the proposed fixed price for a particular functional area would be 
doubled and that amount would be used as a ceiling amount, indicating 
that this amount would provide the basis for the price comparisons of 
the proposals.  

Section L.31 of the RFP contained the proposal preparation 
instructions for the Technical and Business Management proposal.  
Section L.31(A)(1) stated that each offeror will provide a Technical 
and Business Management Proposal for each functional area for which an 
offer is being made.  The provision also stated:

     All materials submitted shall be in typeface Times New Roman 12 
     Point, doubled spaced on 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch white paper with 
     one inch margins all around and printed on one side.  The 
     Technical and Business Management Proposal shall not contain more 
     than 150 numbered pages inclusive of the table of contents, 
     charts, exhibits, and any other materials the Offeror deems 
     required for each functional area for which an offer is being 
     made.

On August 1, DOE issued amendment No. 001, which answered questions 
from offerors concerning the solicitation.  Two questions concerning 
the page limitation were asked:

     L.31(A)(1) Volume II - Tech & Bus Mgt Proposal.  It is our 
     understanding that the section and subsection tab dividers are 
     not included in the page count.  Is this correct?

The answer provided by DOE stated:

     No.  'The page limit is a maximum of 150 pages per functional 
     area in its entirety'.   The '150 numbered pages [is] inclusive 
     of the table of contents, charts, exhibits, and any other 
     material the Offeror deems required for each functional area for 
     which an offer is being made'.  

The second question asked was whether DOE would "consider excluding 
the table of contents from the 150 page count?"  The agency answered, 
"No."

Techsys was 1 of 12 offerors that submitted proposals on CLIN 001, 
IM&PP support services, which consists of data operations, including, 
among other things, survey data collection, survey and data systems 
operations, sampling and estimation, and data integration and 
analysis; data integration, including, among other things, acquiring 
and developing data, maintaining integrated databases, performing 
consistency and quality tests, and calculating summary statistics; 
and, product production, including, among other things, production, 
publication, and dissemination and automated systems support for the 
dissemination of energy data.  When DOE counted the pages in each 
proposal, it determined that Techsys's proposal exceeded the 150-page 
limit by 28 pages.  By letter dated September 18, the TEC returned 
these 28 pages to Techsys, informing the protester that its proposal 
exceeded the maximum 150 pages and that "only the first 150 pages of 
your Technical and Business Management Proposal will be accepted and 
forwarded for review and evaluation by the Technical Evaluation 
Committee."  Other proposals which exceeded the page limit were 
treated in the same manner.  
 
Members of the technical evaluation committee (TEC)[2] individually 
evaluated each proposal and, in internal discussions, reached a 
consensus on the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal and 
assigned each a point score of 0, 2, 5, 8 or 10 under each evaluation 
criterion.[3]  Numerical ratings were multiplied by the weight for the 
factors and the scores were then totaled.  A proposal that received 
scores of 10 on each evaluation factor would receive a maximum point 
score of 1,000.  Past performance was assigned an adjectival rating of 
"excellent," "good," "fair" or "neutral," "poor," or "unsatisfactory."  

The TEC briefed the source selection official (SSO) and, based on the 
SSO's review of the evaluations and recommendations, the SSO 
determined to make awards to the six companies which submitted the 
highest technically-rated proposals.  Techsys, whose proposal was 
tenth-ranked technically was not awarded a contract.  In his selection 
statement, the SSO noted:  "past performance information was received 
and evaluated, and price proposals were evaluated.  These evaluations 
were considered."  

The Techsys proposal received a total score of 300, consisting of the 
following point scores and weighted scores for each factor and 
subfactor:

                                        Score     Weighted Score
     1.  Business management and organizational
        approach
        1.1.  Business management plan    5            100
        
        1.2.  Technical plan              5            100
        1.3.  Organizational approach     5             50
                              subtotal                 250
     2.  Past and present experience      0               0
     3.  Corporate resource management
        3.1.  Retain labor categories     0               0
        3.2.  Additional resources        0               0
        3.3.  Staff training and development  0           0
        3.4.  Provide ADP hardware, software,
          facilities                      0               0 
                              subtotal                    0
     4.  Video presentation               5              50
                                        TOTAL          300
        
Techsys's past performance was rated "good" and its proposed price was 
sixth low of the 12 offers.  The relevant technical scores, adjectival 
ratings for past performance, and evaluated ceiling prices for the 
awardees' and the protester's proposals were as follows:

Offeror   Technical/Business  Past           Proposed Ceiling
          Management Score    Rating         Price and Rank 

Orkand Corp  725              good           $27,271,220 (1)
SAIC         710              excellent      $30,220,500 (2)
Westat       695              excellent      $47,680,494 (10)
Abacus       590              excellent      $43,406,470 (7)
Z, Inc.      575              excellent      $37,296,764 (4)
Walcoff      515              excellent      $50,420,798 (11)
Techsys      300              good           $41,341,764 (6)

DOE notified Techsys that it had not been selected for award and, 
after a debriefing in late December, Techsys filed this protest with 
our Office.

PAGE LIMITATION

Techsys argues that DOE improperly and unreasonably excluded pages 
from its proposal that exceeded the 150-page limitation.  The 
protester complains that DOE's methodology of counting the first 150 
pages and discarding pages beyond the 150 pages is not authorized by 
the RFP or by any procurement regulation.  The protester argues that 
DOE should have provided Techsys "the opportunity to clarify the pages 
of its submission that should be considered in order to conform with 
the 150 page limit."  Techsys points out that Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.607(a) (June 1997) obligates the agency to 
examine proposals for waivable informalities, irregularities, and 
mistakes which can be corrected through clarifications,[4] and asserts 
that such clarifications would have caused the agency to discard 
unmarked pages, redundant table of contents pages and certain clearly 
surplus narrative information contained in one section.  Techsys 
asserts that "the inclusion of this information in the first place 
plays no meaningful role in the proposal, and its elimination through 
the process of clarification does not constitute a prohibited revision 
or improve the substance of the proposal in any measurable way."

Offerors are required to prepare their proposals within the format 
limitations set out in the solicitation, including the page limits at 
issue here, and assume the risk that proposal pages beyond the page 
limits will not be considered because consideration of an offeror's 
excess proposal pages could give that offeror an unfair competitive 
advantage.  All Star Maintenance, Inc., B-244143, Sept. 26, 1991, 91-2 
CPD  para.  294 at 3-4; Infotec Dev., Inc., B-238980, July 20, 1990, 90-2 
CPD  para.  58 at 4-5.

Here, the RFP clearly provided for a 150-page limit on technical 
proposals and in response to specific questions concerning the page 
limit, DOE indicated by amendment that any page that an offeror deemed 
necessary to include in its proposal would be included in the page 
count, including the table of contents and tab dividers.  Thus, 
offerors were on notice both of the 150-page limitation and that any 
and all pages, including unmarked pages, table of contents pages and 
all narratives would be considered in the page calculation.  Techsys's 
proposal clearly failed to comply with the solicitation format 
requirements.  Techsys did not protest the page limits of the RFP, but 
chose to exceed the proposal page limitation set forth in the RFP, 
thereby assuming the risk that excess pages in its proposal would be 
rejected for noncompliance with the page limits.  Infotec Dev., Inc., 
supra, at 4.   

While Techsys argues that DOE should have been more flexible in the 
handling of the page limitation, an agency that has set out a clear 
page limitation in a solicitation is not obligated to sort through 
hundreds of pages to decide which pages should or should not be 
counted toward that limitation.  HSQ Tech., 
B-277048, Aug. 21, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  57 at 3 n.1.  Further, where, as 
here, the agency has set specific page limits and indicated that any 
and all pages submitted would count toward that limit, the agency was 
not obligated to ask the offeror, after submission of its proposal, to 
"clarify" its proposal by selecting which pages it wants counted.  
Infotec Dev., Inc., supra, at 5.  Under these circumstances, the 
agency reasonably computed the 150 pages and properly declined to 
consider those portions of Techsys's proposal that exceeded the stated 
limits.  All Star Maintenance, Inc., supra, at 3-4.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Techsys otherwise objects to the technical evaluation of its proposal 
on the basis that the evaluators provided little or no explanation or 
documentation for their determinations, and that the evaluation of its 
proposal under factor 1, Business Management, Technical and 
Organization Approach, was improper.  Techsys also objects to the 
evaluation of its past performance.[5]    

In support of its argument that the evaluation is poorly documented 
and does not provide satisfactory support for the point scores 
assigned, the protester uses as an example the evaluation consensus 
sheet for criterion 1.3, which lists no strengths or weaknesses for 
its proposal.  Techsys complains that it is impossible to discern the 
basis for this determination and asserts that the finding that the 
proposal has no strengths "appears to be at odds with the 
determination that the same proposal has no weaknesses."  Techsys 
argues that because the worksheet was blank, the evaluation of this 
subcriterion rests exclusively on an unsupported point score.  

Techsys's argument that the evaluation was improperly documented is 
without merit.  As noted above, each factor and subfactor was 
evaluated on a point scale of 0, 2, 5, 8, or 10.  A score of "5" 
reflected a proposal response which appeared capable of meeting the 
requirement; such a response had few significant strengths or 
weaknesses.  The agency rating plan defined a "strength" as an aspect 
of a proposal which appears to enhance the likelihood of successful 
performance of the requirements; a "weakness" was defined as an aspect 
of a proposal which fails substantively to address matters under 
evaluation or otherwise appears to reduce the likelihood of successful 
performance of the requirements.  The term "significant" when used to 
modify "strength" or "weakness" indicated a major strength or weakness 
which would have substantial positive or negative impact on the 
offeror's ability to perform the required tasks.

The protester wrongly assumes that if a proposal is determined to have 
no weaknesses, it must have some strengths.  There is no basis to 
assume such an inherent linkage; a proposal reasonably could be 
determined to have several strengths and no weaknesses or to have 
several strengths and several weaknesses.  The lack of any listed 
strengths or weaknesses meant that the evaluators found that, while 
the proposal was acceptable and the offeror appeared capable of 
performing the tasks required, the proposal did not evidence anything 
that either enhanced or reduced the likelihood of successful 
performance.  While the protester believes that the evaluators should 
have written something on the evaluation form, the fact that no 
strengths or weaknesses were listed is sufficient to indicate that 
neither was found.  PRC, Inc., B-274698.2, B-274698.3, Jan. 23, 1997, 
97-1 CPD  para.  115 at 5-6.      

Business Management Plan

Section M.3 of the RFP advised offerors that their business management 
plan under factor 1 would be evaluated:
 
     on the degree of its feasibility and effectiveness in task 
     planning, monitoring, scheduling, cost controls, quality 
     assurance techniques, security management, and the transition 
     plan as it relates to the functional area in the Statement of 
     Work for which an offer is being made. Also to be evaluated under 
     the business management plan 
     will be the adequacy of the Offeror's procedures for awarding, 
     managing, and monitoring subcontracts and consultant agreements 
     and plans to improve productivity and timeliness.  The plan will 
     also be evaluated on the adequacy of the proposed procedures to 
     maintain productivity and timeliness given a budget reduction.
 
To facilitate the evaluation, section L.31(B)(a) required, among other 
things, that  offerors identify how task planning, monitoring, 
scheduling, cost controls, and quality assurance techniques will be 
determined, managed, and reported for work performed under this 
contract.   

The TEC assigned the Techsys proposal a score of 5 on this subfactor.  
The evaluators found that, while Techsys's proposal provided a good 
detailed discussion of the effectiveness of its cost controls, the 
proposal provided limited discussion of quality assurance techniques 
related to business practice.   

Techsys contends that its rating on subfactor 1.1 is incorrect and 
that the agency's noted weakness "is a particularly puzzling 
evaluation comment because [Techsys] included an extended discussion 
of its unqualified quality assurance techniques at pages 17-20 of its 
[proposal]."  Techsys also contends that DOE departed from the 
evaluation criteria in evaluating subfactor 1.1.  Specifically, 
Techsys states that the RFP is very explicit about evaluating quality 
assurance as it relates to the functional area in the SOW and argues 
that there is no requirement that offerors discuss quality assurance 
with respect to business management techniques.     

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
contracting agency's discretion since the agency is responsible for 
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Loral 
Sys. Co., B-270755, Apr. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  241 at 5.  In reviewing 
an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposal, 
but will examine the record of the evaluation to ensure that it was 
reasonable and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria, and not 
in violation of procurement laws and regulations.  Id.

The record does not show that the agency improperly evaluated 
Techsys's proposal concerning its business management plan.  We have 
reviewed pages 17 to 20 of the Techsys proposal and, contrary to 
Techsys's position, the protester did not provide a detailed 
discussion of its quality assurance plan.  Rather, the protester's 
proposal only provides its quality assurance procedures as they relate 
to a limited situation--[deleted].  However, Techsys does not describe 
any quality assurance techniques for the other tasks outlined in the 
SOW or for any tasks related to business management.  Based on this 
record, DOE reasonably concluded that Techsys's discussion of its 
quality assurance procedures was limited and presented a weakness in 
its proposal.  

We also find unpersuasive Techsys's contention that the evaluators' 
consideration of quality assurance techniques related to business 
practices represents the use of an undisclosed evaluation criterion.

Solicitations must inform offerors of the basis for proposal 
evaluations, and the evaluation must be based on the factors set forth 
in the solicitation.  FAR  sec.  15.605(d)(1), 15.608.  However, while 
agencies are required to identify the 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.  Bioqual, 
Inc., B-259732.2, B-259732.3, May 15, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  243 at 4.

While the solicitation did not explicitly provide that the proposals 
would be reviewed for the offerors' quality assurance procedures as 
they relate to its business management plan, in our view, that feature 
is intrinsically related to and encompassed by the subfactor.  That 
is, the business management plan was to be evaluated as it related to, 
among other things, task monitoring, cost control, and quality 
assurance.  DOE reasonably viewed these issues and quality assurance 
as intertwined with a firm's business practices generally.  Thus, 
DOE's consideration of quality assurance techniques related to an 
offeror's business management plan was unobjectionable and consistent 
with the stated evaluation criteria.  

In any event, even if Techsys were correct and its proposal should not 
have been downgraded for a limited response regarding its quality 
assurance techniques, its evaluation would not change.  Specifically, 
other than the one strength listed above, the record does not show 
that Techsys's proposal evidenced other significant strengths and the 
protester does not identify other strengths it believes should have 
been noted here by the evaluators.  Thus, even if it had not been 
assessed a weakness, Techsys's score on this subfactor would remain 
unchanged as the proposal still would properly be characterized as 
having "few significant strengths or significant weaknesses."  

Technical Plan

Section M.3 also advised offerors that subfactor 1.2, technical plan, 
would be evaluated on the effectiveness of the offeror's technical 
plan as demonstrated by its technical expertise to accomplish the work 
in the functional area for which an offer is being made.  Section 
L.31(B)(a) required that each offeror provide a detailed discussion of 
its technical plan to accomplish all of the specific requirements of 
the SOW, including references in support of the plan. 

The TEC assigned Techsys's proposal a score of 5 on this subfactor, 
finding one strength (real-time editing expertise) and two weaknesses 
(no demonstrated ability in survey design and no expertise in 
information dissemination and product support).  Techsys argues that 
its proposal was improperly assessed on this subfactor and that the 
designated weaknesses were discussed in its proposal.  Techsys 
believes that its proposal warranted a score of 8 or 10 under this 
subfactor.  
We have reviewed the proposal pages Techsys cites as relevant to its 
discussion on survey design and dissemination, and they provide no 
basis to question DOE's evaluation.  For example, in Techsys's "Data 
Operations" section, we find no mention of survey design work or 
dissemination work.  Indeed, the headings under this section are 
[deleted].  Contrary to the protester's assertion, we see no specific 
references to dissemination in a second section of Techsys's proposal, 
although the protester does mention preparation of [deleted].  Techsys 
does discuss its "[deleted] approach" to survey construction and 
execution on 2 pages of its technical proposal, [deleted].  However, 
this discussion is broad and provides few details or specifics.  

In any event, as was the case for subfactor 1.1 discussed above, 
Techsys's proposal was evaluated as "fair" or "neutral" on this 
subfactor, with a score of 5, indicating that the evaluators believed 
Techsys was capable of performing on this subfactor.  Even if the 
evaluation were erroneous as to the weaknesses noted, Techsys's score 
on this subfactor would not change since, again, DOE noted only one 
strength and Techsys does not question this evaluation or suggest 
other strengths.  Thus, Techsys does not demonstrate that its proposal 
had the significant strengths required for a higher score, 
irrespective of the assessed weaknesses.  

Past Performance

Section M.3 of the RFP provided that an offeror's past performance 
would not be point scored but would be evaluated with respect to 
satisfaction of customer cost and technical requirements, customer 
relations, production and product timeliness, corporate integrity and 
all other functions associated with the management and administration 
of tasks.  

Ratings for past performance were based on responses from 
questionnaires submitted by offerors' references.  References were to, 
among other things, provide a performance rating on a scale of 0 to 
10, where 0 is unacceptable and 10 is outstanding, on 25 data 
operations, data integration, and product production tasks.  While the 
evaluators rated Techsys's past performance as "good," Techsys argues 
that it should have received an "excellent" rating, noting that it "is 
unaware of any government sources who would have provided information 
to the agency that would warrant less than an excellent rating."  
Techsys also states that it is aware of at least one source that rated 
its past performance as excellent.  The protester argues that if it 
had received the "excellent" past performance rating it deserved, it 
would have been awarded a contract. 

The record shows that while one reference rated Techsys outstanding 
(10) on the  majority of the tasks, a second reference rated Techsys 
outstanding (10) on only three tasks, a "9" on four tasks, "8" on nine 
tasks, and "7" on four tasks.  Thus, while Techsys's past performance 
evaluation was clearly favorable, DOE's "good" rating was 
unobjectionable as it reasonably reflects the combined past 
performance evaluations.  In sum, we see no basis to object to the 
agency's evaluation of the Techsys proposal.
 
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. EIA is an independent statistical and analytical agency within DOE.

2. Three separate TECs, one for each CLIN or functional area, 
evaluated the proposals.

3. As relevant here, a score of 5 reflected a proposal which appeared 
capable of meeting the RFP requirements and had few significant 
strengths or significant weaknesses.  A score of 8 reflected a 
proposal evidencing very good responses showing a high probability of 
meeting the RFP's requirements and had significant strengths and few 
significant weaknesses.  A score of 10 reflected a proposal 
distinguished by its excellence as to have a very high probability of 
meeting all RFP requirements.  Such a response would normally evidence 
significant strengths and no significant weaknesses.

4. FAR  sec.  15.607(a) provides that contracting officers shall examine 
all proposals for minor informalities or irregularities and apparent 
clerical mistakes and that communication with offerors to resolve 
these matters is clarification, not discussion, and does not trigger 
the requirement for discussions with all competitive range offerors 
unless the communication prejudices the interest of other offerors.

5. In its initial protest submission, Techsys also argued that DOE's 
evaluation of factor 4, its video presentation, was improper.  The 
agency provided explanation and support for its technical assessment 
of the video presentation in its report, but Techsys, in its comments 
filed on that report, did not rebut the agency's position.  Therefore, 
we regard this issue as abandoned.  Theisinger und Probst 
Bauunternehmung GmbH, B-275756, Mar. 25, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  168 at 6 
n.2.