BNUMBER:  B-278904.4 
DATE:  April 13, 1998
TITLE: Centech Group, Inc., B-278904.4, 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:Centech Group, Inc.

File:     B-278904.4

Date:April 13, 1998

Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., and Jennifer C. Adams, Esq., Martin Rylander, 
for the protester.
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.  Protest that agency failed to perform proper cost/technical 
tradeoff is denied where source selection official balanced technical 
merit and price and reasonably determined that the evaluated technical 
superiority of the 11 highest technically-rated proposals warranted 
payment of the cost premium associated with certain of those 
proposals, and determined not to make an award to the protester whose 
proposal was ranked 12th of 18 proposals on technical merit and 
offered the 9th-low cost of the 12 highest technically-ranked 
proposals.  

DECISION

Centech Group, Inc. protests the award of contracts to 11 firms under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP01-97EI30000, issued by the 
Department of Energy (DOE) for technical services for the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA).[1]  Centech argues that DOE 
arbitrarily eliminated certain pages of Centech's proposal from 
consideration and improperly failed to consider price in making the 
award determinations.

We deny the protest.

DOE issued the RFP, referred to as the EIA Omnibus Procurement (EOP), 
via the Internet on July 7, 1997.  The solicitation, which combined 
technical 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 support services (CLIN 
001); energy analysis and forecasting support services (CLIN 002); and 
information technology (IT) 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 will 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
          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 and that:

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

Centech was 1 of 18 offerors that submitted proposals on CLIN 003, IT 
support services, under which the contractors are to provide hardware, 
software, database, and communications support, including, among other 
things, strategic planning, design, development and maintenance of EIA 
databases and applications, hardware, communications and software 
infrastructure, and life-cycle software development 
and maintenance support.  When DOE counted the pages in each proposal, 
it determined that Centech's proposal exceeded the 150-page limit by 7 
pages.  By letter dated September 18, the TEC returned these 7 pages 
to Centech, informing the protester 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 a point score of 0, 2, 5, 8, or 10 to each evaluations 
criterion.[3]  Numerical ratings were multiplied by the weight for the 
factors and the scores for each factor were 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, the SSO determined to make award to 
the 11 companies which submitted the highest technically rated 
proposals.  Centech, whose proposal was 12th-ranked technically, was 
not awarded a contract.  In his selection statement, the SSO noted 
that "past performance information was received and evaluated, and 
price proposals were evaluated.  These evaluations were considered."  

The Centech proposal received a total score of 595, consisting of 370 
on business management, technical, and organizational approach; 100 on 
past and present experience; 75 on corporate research management; and 
50 on the videotape presentation.  The protester's past performance 
was rated "excellent" and its proposed cost was 9th low of the top 12 
technically-ranked proposals.  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    Performance    Price and Rank

UNISYS       890              good           $35,159,002  (11)
SAIC         840              good           $26,818,438  (1)
MSD, Inc.    790              excellent      $32,905,478  (8)
Allied Tech. 780              excellent      $44,693,504  (17)
BDM          740              excellent      $29,864,140  (4)
Abacus Tech. 665              excellent      $38,224,828  (12)
Comprehensive665              excellent      $30,368,668  (5)
Q Systems    650              excellent      $29,399,704  (2)
Troy Systems 650              excellent      $32,426,186  (6)
MIL Group    645              excellent      $30,115,994  (4)
Z, Inc.      645              excellent      $32,873,024  (7)
Centech      595              excellent      $34,639,502  (9)

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

Centech argues that DOE improperly and unreasonably excluded from 
consideration the five pages from Centech's proposal that exceeded the 
150-page limitation.  Centech complains that it was unreasonable for 
DOE to include such things as a cover sheet, blank section dividers, 
and a table of contents in its page calculation.  

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 coversheets, dividers, and table of contents 
pages would be considered in the page calculation.  Centech's proposal 
clearly failed to comply with the solicitation format requirements.  
Centech 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.  Under these circumstances, the agency reasonably computed the 150 
pages and properly declined to consider the portions of Centech's 
proposal that exceeded the stated limits.  All Star Maintenance, Inc., 
supra, at 3-4.

Centech argues that DOE did not perform a proper cost/technical 
tradeoff, noting that the agency's report on the protest contains no 
cost evaluation report and no record of a cost/technical tradeoff 
performed prior to award.  The protester argues that, in making its 
award decision, DOE relied exclusively on the technical ratings given 
to the offerors and failed to consider price.  The protester contends 
that DOE merely "ranked each offeror in descending order of technical 
strength of proposals," and based its evaluation and award 
determination only on technical and past performance factors.  Centech 
contends that "DOE has provided absolutely no support for its broad 
and blanket assertion that it evaluated price" and argues that the 
agency's "blanket statement that it considered cost and cost had no 
impact on the selection decision, without more, is not [a] sufficient 
review of price."

The agency's position is that its cost/technical tradeoff was proper 
and that "[t]he record of this procurement makes clear that cost was 
considered."  Specifically, the agency points out that appropriate 
cost information, consisting primarily of the proposed ceiling prices 
for each offeror, was given to the SSO and that the source selection 
statement expressly states, as noted above, that cost was considered 
and that the relative prices proposed by the offerors for CLIN 003 did 
not alter the overall ranking of the awardees.  In response to 
Centech's argument that the agency merely ranked the firms according 
to technical merit and selected the highest technically-ranked firms 
for award, the agency notes that the Rating Plan called for each TEC 
to list offerors in order of their technical scores and, given the 
relative weights of the evaluation factors, argues that it was 
"rational" for the SSO to select the highest technically-ranked 
proposals in the circumstances presented here.  DOE points out that 
Centech's proposed ceiling price of $34.6 million was higher than all 
but three of the awardees' ceiling prices and its technical score was 
lower than all of them.  Centech's technical score was 70 points lower 
than the technical score received by Abacus--which was the lowest 
technically-scored awardee that was higher priced than Centech.  

DOE also argues that there is no technical/past performance/cost 
relative weighting that is consistent with the solicitation evaluation 
scheme in which cost was significantly less important than technical, 
and also less important than past performance, which would call for 
award to Centech.  To demonstrate this, in response to the protest, 
DOE normalized the scores for the technical and cost factors and 
found, for example, that if technical were weighted 50 percent, past 
performance were weighted 30 percent and cost were weighted 20 
percent, Centech's technical score would be 33.43 and its cost score 
would be 15.48, for a total of 48.91.  In comparison, Abacus, the 
lowest technically scored awardee, would score 37.36 for the technical 
and 14.03 for cost, for a total of 51.39.  Centech's total score would 
be less than any of the awardees' scores.  

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.  Grey Advertising, 
Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111, 1120, (1976), 76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 12;  Mevatec 
Corp., B-260419, May 26, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  33 at 3.  In exercising that 
discretion, they are subject only to the tests of rationality and 
consistency with the established evaluation criteria.  Mevatec Corp., 
supra, at 3.  As a general rule, however, agencies are required by the 
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) to include cost or price 
as a significant factor in the evaluation of proposals.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253a(b)(1)(A) (1994); Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.605(b)(1)(i) 
(June 1997).  

The record provide no basis for concluding that cost was not 
considered in making the awards or that the cost/technical tradeoff 
was unreasonable.  The SSO expressly stated in his source selection 
statement that DOE considered price in its cost/technical tradeoff.  
Our Office conducted a telephonic hearing at which the SSO testified 
concerning DOE's cost/technical tradeoff.  The SSO stated that he 
received extensive oral and written reports from the TEC presenting 
and explaining the evaluation and the award recommendations, and that 
he questioned the evaluation team members concerning the evaluations.  
He focused on the technical ranking form, which ranked offerors by 
technical scores and listed their size status, past performance 
ratings, and proposed costs.  The SSO stated that, while he did not 
use statistics or perform precise calculations in comparing the 
offerors' technical scores and costs, he did balance the major factors 
in making his decision.  Specifically, he first looked for "break 
points" in technical scores and examined ceiling prices to ensure that 
awards would be made to firms which provided a technical advantage at 
a reasonable cost.  While no written cost evaluation report was 
prepared,[4] the SSO stated that he looked at the ceiling prices of 
each offeror to see if a firm that was not an obvious candidate for 
award had a particularly attractive price.  He said that the proposals 
from firms "on the margin," such as Centech, did not offer especially 
low prices.  He stated that Centech was not selected for award because 
of the natural break in technical scores between it and the awardees 
and because its price was not particularly attractive.  Specifically, 
the SSO noted that, while Centech proposed fairly average costs, 
Centech was not attractive because the five firms ranked immediately 
above it on technical merit proposed lower costs.  

We also note that, using the same normalization technique as DOE, we 
calculated technical and price scores for Centech and Abacus using 
different weights for the technical and cost factors which were 
consistent with the RFP criteria weighting provision.  The agency is 
correct that no reasonable combination of weights consistent with the 
evaluation criteria alters the protester's ranking vis-ï¿½-vis Abacus 
(or any other awardee).[5]  While point scores are to be used merely 
as guides in decision making, this analysis does support the propriety 
of the selection decision.  In our view, the source selection 
determination reflects an appropriate comparison of the competing 
proposals, balancing technical merit and costs.  Under these 
circumstances, and given that technical factors were more important 
than price, we see no basis to object to the award selection.[6]

Accordingly, 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. For example, 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 
weaknesses.

4. Centech's argument that DOE's failure to prepare a cost evaluation 
report is a fatal flaw in the cost/technical tradeoff is without merit 
where, as here, the requirement for the report was not an RFP 
requirement but rather is simply listed in DOE's Rating Plan.  The 
Rating Plan is the agency's own internal source selection document 
which addresses source selection procedures.  Source selection plans 
are internal agency instructions and, as such, do not give outside 
parties any rights.  Eccles Assocs., Inc.; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 
ILA Group Ltd., B-260486.6, 
B-260486.7, Oct. 17, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  179 at 7.  It is the evaluation 
scheme in the RFP, not internal documents, to which the agency is 
required to adhere in evaluating proposals and in making the source 
selection.  Id.

5. For example, if technical merit were weighted 45 percent of the 
evaluation and price were weighted 25 percent, Centech's total score 
would be 49.44 and Abacus's total score would be 51.16.  

6. Centech also argues that DOE failed to make an award to an 8(a) 
small business "as required" by the solicitation.  While the agency 
argues that the protester has misinterpreted the RFP, which does not 
require such an award, we need not resolve this disagreement because 
the record shows that 3 of the 11 awards were to 8(a) small 
businesses.