BNUMBER:  B-278904; B-278904.5 
DATE:  April 2, 1998
TITLE: KRA Corporation, B-278904; B-278904.5, April 2, 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:KRA Corporation

File:     B-278904; B-278904.5

Date:April 2, 1998

John E. Jensen, Esq., Daryle A. Jordan, Esq., and Thomas A. 
Duckenfield, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, for the 
protester.
Paralee White, Esq., Michael A. Hordell, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, 
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.  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 conclusions does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.

2.  Protest that agency failed to perform proper cost/technical 
tradeoff is denied where source selection official considered 
technical evaluations, past performance ratings, and cost in his award 
determination and reasonably determined that the evaluated technical 
superiority of the six highest technically-rated proposals warranted 
payment of the cost premium associated with certain of these proposals 
vis-ï¿½-vis other lower technically-rated, lower cost proposals.

DECISION

KRA Corporation protests the Department of Energy's (DOE) decision not 
to award KRA a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DE-RP01-97EI30000, issued by DOE for technical services for the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA).[1]  KRA primarily challenges the 
agency's evaluation of KRA's technical proposal and the source 
selection determination.  

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), consisting of 528,984 DPLH for CLIN 
001, 183,000 DPLH for CLIN 002, and 412,920 DPLH for CLIN 003.  The 
RFP 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, the RFP provided 
that 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 (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 task order ceiling amount, 
indicating that this amount would provide the basis for the price 
comparisons of the proposals.

KRA 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 
system and quality lists, 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.

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 
each factor and these scores 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 and recommendations, the SSO 
determined to make awards to the six companies which submitted the 
highest technically-rated proposals.  KRA, whose proposal was ninth 
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."  

KRA's proposal received a total technical score of 470 consisting of 
the following point scores and weighted scores for each factor and 
subfactor:

                                             Score  Weighted Score
     1.  Business management, technical, and organizational
        approach
        1.1.  Business management plan         8        160
        1.2.  Technical plan                   5        100
        1.3.  Organizational approach          5         50
                              subtotal                  310
     2.  Past and present experience           2         40
     3.  Corporate resource management
        3.1.  Retain labor categories          2         10
        3.2.  Additional resources             2         10
        3.3.  Staff training and development   5         25
        3.4.  Provide ADP hardware, software,
          facilities                           5         25
                              subtotal                   70
     4.  Video presentation                    5         50
                                               TOTAL    470
        
KRA's past performance was rated "excellent" and its proposed price 
was fifth low of the 12 offers.  The relevant technical scores, 
adjectival ratings for past performance and evaluated ceiling prices 
for the awardees', the seventh-ranked offeror's, and the protester's 
proposal were as follows:

Offeror   Technical/Business  Past Performance 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)
[Offeror A]    [deleted]          excellent    [deleted]        
KRA            470                excellent    $41,325,514   (5)

DOE notified KRA that it had not been selected for award and, after a 
December 22 debriefing, KRA filed a protest with our Office.

KRA protests the evaluation of its proposal under factor 2, past and 
present experience, alleging that its proposal was improperly 
evaluated vis-ï¿½-vis the proposals of two awardees, Walcoff and Z, Inc.  
KRA also contends that the evaluations of its proposal under 
subfactors 3.1, "retain labor categories" and 3.2, "additional 
resources" were improper and challenges the propriety of the 
cost/technical tradeoff that resulted in the award selection of the 
proposals of the six highest technically-rated offerors.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Past and Present Experience

Section M.3 of the RFP advised offerors that their past and present 
experience would be evaluated: 

     based on the relevance and quality of the corporate past
     experience, as demonstrated by the Offeror's submitted
     contracts . . . to perform the types and complexity of
     work described in the Statement of Work for each
     functional area . . . .
        
To facilitate the evaluation, section L.31(b) required offerors to 
identify four recently completed (within the past 5 years) or existing 
contracts and to identify two recently completed or active contracts 
for each subcontractor proposed.  For each contract listed, the 
offeror was to describe, among other things, the contract's scope of 
work/requirements/responsibilities and show how these efforts are 
similar to the statement of work's (SOW) functional area for which the 
offer was being made. 

The SOW for CLIN 001, IM&PP support services, consisted of 
approximately 10 pages and, as noted above, outlined three major types 
of work required under IM&PP, including data operations, data 
integration, and product production.  As relevant here, data 
operations included survey data collection (the distribution and 
collection of various survey forms for EIA) and survey and data 
systems operations.  The SOW listed 17 tasks under survey data and 
systems operations, including such things as performing data 
requirements studies, developing, maintaining and updating survey and 
data systems operations, contacting respondents to obtain survey data, 
distributing materials to respondents, developing survey forms and 
instructions, performing data capture, problem resolution, data 
correction, updating databases, reporting survey performance 
statistics, and designing, developing and pretesting survey 
instruments and preparing reports.  The SOW also listed 
accounting/auditing/systems assessment and evaluation services as the 
last of 10 tasks under the data operations category.  The 
accounting/auditing requirement stated that the offeror was to provide 
approximately 3,000 hours per year of professional accounting and 
auditing services for reviewing the accuracy of data, preparing a 
financial analysis report, and accounting and financial reporting 
problem research.  The SOW also called for the "analysis of deferred 
taxation issues, and research in connection with reporting practices 
in energy industries and financial reporting consequences of energy 
company mergers and acquisitions" and the preparation of annual 
reports and other research projects involving the application of 
professional petroleum engineering and auditing skills. 

Data integration work calls for the offeror to acquire and develop 
data, including such tasks as obtaining, analyzing, and incorporating 
domestic and international data from EIA offices, verifying data; 
maintain integrated databases; perform consistency and quality tests; 
calculate summary statistics; develop and maintain records; and 
provide comparative reports.  

Under product production, the SOW stated that, while publication was 
primarily an EIA staff responsibility, the offeror would be required 
to prepare forms, edit and update publications, and help in the review 
process.  The SOW listed requirements for the National Energy 
Information Center (NEIC), including such tasks as responding to 
inquiries and disseminating paper and automated products.  

In its 17-page subsection on past and present experience, KRA provided 
an overview of its experience and an in-depth discussion of four 
contracts.  Walcoff's 9-page past and present experience subsection 
provided an abbreviated discussion of four of its past and current 
contracts and 12 contracts of its 7 proposed subcontractors.  Z, 
Inc.'s 27-page past and present experience subsection highlighted 
certain current work and provided an in-depth discussion of four 
contracts.

The TEC assigned KRA's proposal a score of 2 under the past and 
present experience factor, based on the evaluators' finding that KRA's 
proposal demonstrated a lack of experience in accounting and 
auditing--regarded as a minor weakness--and a lack of experience in 
data collection and survey processing--regarded as a significant 
weakness, and no recognized strengths under this factor.   The TEC 
assigned Walcoff's proposal a score of 5 on this factor, noting that 
the firm proposed a large team which had experience in all activities 
in the SOW.  Similarly, the TEC assigned a score of 5 to the Z, Inc. 
proposal because it, too, demonstrated that the firm had performed 
almost every aspect of the SOW.   

KRA contends that Walcoff did not provide adequate information about 
its past and present experience to satisfy the proposal preparation 
instructions and provide a sufficient basis for an evaluation superior 
to that received by KRA.  Specifically, KRA argues that Walcoff simply 
provided "bullet summaries" of its contracts which did not include 
information sufficient for DOE to intelligently assess the "relevance 
and quality" of Walcoff's prior experience.  KRA contrasts the detail 
which it provided in its proposal, pointing out that KRA's proposal 
listed experience in survey/data systems operations, including data 
collection and statistical analysis; acquiring/developing data, 
including the acquisition and development of data and the 
identification of the sources and types, of data to be collected and 
the content of the data collection; survey response, including 
nonrespondent and data validation telephone calls, production of 
progress reports and final reports on the methodology for program 
evaluation; and data collection and processing systems assessment, 
including collecting survey data and processing and the comparison of 
data.   

KRA points out that Walcoff's proposal states only that Walcoff had 
designed, implemented and provided training for a menu-driven 
automated personal computer-based data collection; conducted surveys 
of U.S. Postal Service employees; and, performed the National School 
Radon Survey to assess concentrations of radon in public schools 
across the country.  Based on this comparison, KRA argues that its 
proposal was misevaluated.  

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.

We see no basis to conclude that the agency improperly evaluated KRA's 
(or Walcoff's) proposal concerning past and present experience.  While 
Walcoff did provide only short "bullet summaries" of its contracts in 
the past and present experience subsection of its proposal, Walcoff 
also discussed its past contracts and their relevance to the SOW in 
detail in its technical plan.  For example, as to data collection and 
survey processing, Walcoff's proposal indicates that it has developed 
surveys and survey methods for 20 years, and as one example of its 
work, Walcoff indicated that it has managed the U.S. Postal Service 
Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey for 5 years and explained:
     
     The survey encompasses nearly one million mailings and more
     than 200,000 voluntary responses per quarter . . . .  We process
     incoming surveys at a rate of up to 10,000 each day, and we 
     sample non-respondents periodically to control non-response
     bias.  The data are summarized in more than 240 management
     reports for dissemination to postal managers.  We look 
     continuously for ways to improve the process; we recently
     reduced reporting intervals from every quarter to every month
     with the potential to transmit data weekly.

Walcoff also pointed to its survey support to the Reformulated 
Gasoline Survey Association, a petroleum industry consortium formed to 
manage reformulated gasoline compliance surveys mandated by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.  In this regard, Walcoff's proposal 
stated:
     
     We draw 135 separate samples in 32 markets throughout the year, 
     sending them to the field collection agency within 24 hours.  For 
     instance, we constructed a survey master database of retail 
     gasoline stations with a sample frame consisting of 31,806 
     stations in 32 market areas.  It is updated every year for new 
     stations.

Walcoff's proposal also indicated that it improved the traditional 
door-to-door sampling approach for the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission by using a multistage design in determining what proportion 
of smoke detectors installed in homes were operable.  

In contrast, KRA states in its proposal that it has provided survey 
data collection services and systems operations for EIA for 4 years.  
In describing its EIA tasks, KRA discusses data collection, data 
entry, data analysis and statistical analysis.  For example, KRA 
states that it has provided "survey data collection services and 
systems operations for EIA" and goes on to say that "[s]urvey data 
collection involves receipt of EIA forms, data entry of energy data, 
data analysis, and statistical analysis."  In its work with the 
Department of Health and Human Services on a survey of the 
effectiveness of a short-term training program for minority students, 
KRA states that "[d]ata were collected, analyzed, and integrated into 
reports that detailed the program results."  KRA also states that it
 
     conducted survey data collection and processing assessments by 
     gathering data on program participants in such areas as 
     demographic characteristics, fields of study, and income.  
     Results were evaluated, reviewed and revised.

In short, KRA's comparison of the contents of its proposal to 
Walcoff's to try to establish that, relative to KRA's proposal, 
Walcoff failed to detail its past experience or show the relevance of 
that past experience to the work required here simply does not support 
that assertion.  On the contrary, the record shows that, while KRA has 
some experience in data collection and survey processing, its 
experience is more limited than Walcoff's.  For example, KRA's 
proposal indicates that it has had less experience than Walcoff in the 
early stages of data collection and survey processing work, 
specifically, the design and development of the survey and the process 
of data collection.  Moreover, KRA's proposal is general and lacks 
specificity; the protester never details what type of support it has 
provided.  As noted above, KRA explains that it collected data but 
provides no discussion of how the data collection was accomplished or 
what specific tasks KRA performed.  
Additionally, KRA's proposal does not discuss frame development, 
sampling or estimation procedures, or quality assurance and control 
activities.  Finally, KRA's contracts are smaller in dollar value than 
the task orders anticipated here and smaller than the contracts 
Walcoff listed in its discussion of its past and present experience.  
Indeed, KRA's contract with EIA is its only contract that exceeds $1 
million and the total value of all four of KRA's contracts is 
approximately equal to that of Walcoff's smaller referenced contracts.  
In short, notwithstanding KRA's disagreement, we find no reason to 
object to the agency's determination that KRA lacked significant 
experience in data collection and survey processing and that its 
experience was not comparable in type or complexity to that required 
under the RFP.  

KRA also alleges that Walcoff's past and present experience does not 
demonstrate accounting or auditing work, arguing that Walcoff is as 
weak as, or weaker than, KRA in this area.  The protester argues that, 
while KRA's proposal discussed certain accounting experiences and 
linked these experiences to the SOW, Walcoff's proposal "did not even 
mention 'accounting.'"  According to KRA, the only description of 
financial work that Walcoff referenced was a general statement that 
Walcoff had "[r]eviewed all audited annual financial statements for 
all [Housing and Urban Development] HUD-held and HUD-insured loans 
collateralized by multi-family properties."  

In this regard, the evaluators found no particular strengths in 
Walcoff's experience concerning accounting or auditing.  Walcoff 
specifically noted accounting tasks for only one contract discussed in 
its proposal.  However, Walcoff proposed to use [deleted] 
subcontractors for auditing and accounting services.  The references 
for [deleted] of these proposed subcontractors indicated that the 
subcontractors had performed accounting and auditing work.  The 
[deleted] subcontractor is a public accounting firm which obviously 
has had accounting and auditing experience.  

KRA's discussion of its past and present accounting/auditing 
experience states only that KRA uses [delete].  Neither of these 
statements suggests the types of professional accounting or auditing 
work contemplated under the solicitation.  Unlike Walcoff's 
references, none of KRA's references suggests that accounting or 
auditing work was involved in their contracts.  Moreover, despite the 
fact that the RFP notified offerors that, among other labor 
categories, a certified public accountant (CPA) would likely be 
required to perform some tasks in the SOW, KRA did not indicate that 
it had a CPA available or on-staff.  Rather, KRA suggested that it 
would use an unnamed CPA firm to perform auditing tasks.  Accordingly, 
the agency reasonably determined that KRA's past and present 
experience was weak with respect to accounting and auditing 
experience.  

KRA next asserts that its proposal should have received the same score 
as the 
Z, Inc. proposal under the past and present experience factor because 
the evaluators' individual worksheets "are virtually 
indistinguishable" as to the identification of strengths and 
weaknesses of the two offerors.  As noted above, the evaluators 
regarded KRA's limited data collection and survey processing as a 
significant weakness and its limited auditing and accounting 
experience as a minor weakness.  The evaluators found that Z, Inc. had 
experience with every function listed in the SOW except 
auditing/accounting--a minor weakness--and data dissemination for 
NEIC--a minor weakness.

KRA argues that DOE improperly concluded that KRA's proposal did not 
demonstrate the complexity of accounting and auditing experience 
required, when contrasted with DOE's failure to assess Z, Inc.'s 
proposal as not demonstrating any accounting experience.  KRA also 
argues that its second alleged weakness--a lack of data collection and 
survey processing experience--is not as serious a shortcoming as Z, 
Inc.'s second alleged weakness--the lack of NEIC experience--since 
data collection and survey processing comprise only 2 of the 10 tasks 
under data operations, while lack of NEIC experience permeates an 
entire third of the SOW--the product production operation.  

In fact, the KRA and Z, Inc. proposals were treated identically with 
respect to their lack of accounting/auditing experience.  Essentially, 
DOE found that neither offeror demonstrated relevant accounting 
experience.  We see nothing objectionable in this assessment since, as 
noted above, and contrary to KRA's position, the accounting/auditing 
work cited by KRA was not the kind of professional accounting work 
outlined in the SOW.  

We also find without merit KRA's assertion that its lack of data 
collection and survey processing experience is not as significant as 
Z, Inc.'s lack of NEIC experience.  In this regard, KRA too narrowly 
interprets its data collection and survey processing weakness.  KRA 
argues that data collection is one task and survey processing 
experience is a second task under data operations in the SOW.  
However, there are no tasks in the SOW specifically titled "data 
collection" or "survey processing."  There is one task called "Survey 
Data Collection" but it describes only the distribution and collection 
of various survey forms for EIA, and thus is a more narrow application 
than what the agency intended when using the phrase "data collection."  

Our review of the SOW shows that the broad terms "data collection" and 
"survey processing" refer to tasks under both data operations and data 
integration, which involve the offerors' experience in the design, 
development, and analysis of surveys, as well as the maintenance and 
updating of data, data systems, and databases.  For example, one task, 
sampling and estimation under data operations, requires the offeror to 
develop optimal sample designs, which clearly relates to "data 
collection."  Similarly, the task "acquire and develop data" under 
data integration requires the offeror to obtain, analyze and 
incorporate domestic and international data from EIA offices--a 
responsibility that relates both to data collection and survey 
processing.  Thus, two-thirds of the work under CLIN 001 relates to 
the area of weakness identified by DOE in KRA's proposal.  Product 
production comprises the remainder of the work under this line item.  
Accordingly, Z, Inc.'s lack of experience in NEIC requirements was 
reasonably assessed by the agency as having less significance than 
KRA's lack of significant experience in data collection and survey 
processing. 

Further, KRA is mistaken in its assertion that NEIC experience 
"permeates" product production tasks.  Only two tasks are listed under 
product production, including specific requirements, which require, 
for example, producing graphical interpretations of data, producing 
text for reports, and preparing reports for publication.  NEIC work, 
which includes providing telephone and written responses to inquiries, 
logging inquiries, maintaining shelf and reserve stock of EIA 
publications, maintaining and updating the EIA electronic publishing 
system, and supporting the preparation and maintaining the quality of 
EIA publications simply does not "permeate" the other tasks under 
product production.

Retain Labor Categories

As noted above, section L.31(b) of the RFP provided instructions 
regarding proposal preparation.  For criterion 3, corporate resource 
management, the RFP asked offerors, among other things, to describe 
personnel resource management capabilities and procedures used to 
acquire and allocate personnel.  Offerors were also asked to describe 
corporate resources available to respond to unanticipated/nonrecurring 
situations which may be tasked during the contract period and to 
provide a description and demonstrate the effectiveness of their 
current employee training development program.  

In outlining the criteria for award at section M.3, the RFP reiterated 
that offerors would be evaluated on their ability to provide and 
retain by labor category the required personnel resources,[4] their 
ability to provide additional resources for unanticipated/nonrecurring 
situations, and the demonstrated commitment to and accomplishment of 
staff training and development.

In its proposal, KRA stated that it employed only the best qualified 
employees and that it did "everything we can to ensure the employees 
stay with KRA."  The protester provided a chart in its proposal that 
outlined its benefits package, including three main categories:  
health and welfare, retirement and savings, and rewards and bonus.  In 
relevant part, under rewards and bonus, KRA listed [deleted].  DOE 
evaluated KRA's proposal as having "no employee incentive," citing 
this as a weakness in the proposal.  

KRA argues that DOE improperly assessed KRA's incentive program.  KRA 
argues that the information it provided in this area was more detailed 
than the information concerning employee incentives provided by any of 
the awardees.  For example, KRA alleges that Walcoff stated only that 
"we maintain a bonus program that recognizes and rewards outstanding 
performance."  DOE states that the three incentives listed by KRA, the 
[deleted], are vaguely worded and do not evidence any particular 
relationship to employee retention or improved performance.  

While KRA disagrees with the agency's assessment of this aspect of its 
proposal, we see no basis to question it.  As the agency argues, KRA 
provided little detail on its incentive program, and the types of 
incentives offered, for example, the [deleted], are unrelated to 
employee retention.  Also, KRA provides no indication of what 
performance incentive--cash awards, certificates of achievement, or 
some other device--is awarded to an employee who achieves at work or 
in the community.  Finally, contrary to KRA's assertion, Walcoff's 
proposal identified competitive salaries, a complete benefits package, 
and diversity in work assignments in addition to its bonus program as 
management practices it employs to retain personnel.  In sum, we see 
no reason to conclude that the evaluation of proposals under this 
criterion was unreasonable.  

Additional Resources

As noted above, the RFP also provided for the evaluation of offerors 
on their ability to provide additional resources in special 
situations.  In its proposal, KRA listed several alternatives to 
respond to the need for additional resources, including the 
protester's continuous search for employees, extended or overtime 
opportunities for current employees, [deleted]."  DOE determined that 
KRA's response was inadequate, noted this as a weakness in its 
evaluation, and assigned KRA a score of 2 on this subfactor.  

Again, KRA complains that DOE evaluated offerors unequally on this 
subfactor.  KRA argues that its four alternatives to manage or augment 
its staff to address EIA's emergencies adequately address the issue, 
and that Walcoff, for example, did not offer "to approach these 
emergencies in any more detailed a manner than KRA," yet Walcoff's 
proposal was scored higher than KRA on this subfactor.

DOE reasonably rated Walcoff's proposal higher because Walcoff's 
proposal set forth the need for additional support not [deleted].  
Walcoff stated that such support may be [deleted].  Walcoff indicated 
that [deleted].  Walcoff provided a more complete response than KRA, 
discussing level of support, required skills, and the identification 
of resources.  Thus, KRA's objection provides no basis to question the 
evaluation of either KRA or Walcoff in this respect.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

KRA also argues that DOE did not perform any cost/technical tradeoff, 
noting that the agency's report on the protest does not present a 
tradeoff analysis or explicitly state that the SSO made a tradeoff.  
KRA further argues that the SSO did not understand the differences 
between the proposals, pointing out that, during a telephonic hearing 
conducted by our Office, the SSO, when asked to discuss his 
understanding of the differences between the proposals in specific 
evaluation areas, did not have any specific knowledge of the different 
aspects of the proposals.  KRA also alleges that, although the SSO 
stated that he was aware that KRA had scored higher than Walcoff under 
the most highly weighted criterion, the SSO failed to consider this 
fact in the award determination, instead improperly relying 
exclusively on total technical point scores.  The protester objects 
that DOE has presented a supplemental source selection statement and 
mathematical calculations, both prepared only in response to the 
protest, to support its award decision.  Because the protester 
proposed a lower cost than Walcoff, the lowest technically-ranked 
offeror to receive an award, the protester believes that KRA should 
have been awarded a contract under a proper cost/technical tradeoff.

The agency's position is that the SSO did perform an appropriate 
cost/technical tradeoff and that the resulting award determinations 
were substantiated.  The agency points out that the appropriate cost 
information, consisting primarily of the proposed ceiling prices for 
each offeror, was given to the SSO and the source selection statement 
expressly states that all factors, including past performance and 
price, were evaluated and considered.  The SSO prepared a supplemental 
source selection statement explaining his selection decision, which 
stated that Walcoff's "overall evaluated technical score was higher 
than KRA's, and this figured significantly in [his] decision," and 
that in selecting Walcoff for award, he "was fully aware of its cost 
in comparison to the other offerors that were not selected, including 
KRA."  The SSO continued by explaining that, while KRA's cost proposal 
was competitive, "KRA did not demonstrate sufficient technical 
expertise and experience in the areas of EIA's [SOW]."

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.  Id.  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); see Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  
15.605(b)(1)(I) (June 1997).  

First, to the extent that the protester's argument is premised on its 
position that KRA was entitled to a more favorable technical 
evaluation, the argument is unfounded because, as explained above, 
KRA's technical evaluation was unobjectionable.  Next, despite the 
brevity of the source selection statement, it is clear from the record 
that cost/technical tradeoffs were performed in making the award 
determinations, and the record establishes that the cost/technical 
tradeoffs were reasonable and substantiated.  

The SSO expressly states in his source selection statement that DOE 
considered past performance and price in making its award 
determination.  While the protester complains that the precise 
technical advantages were not quantified in determining that any of 
the proposals warranted the payment of a particular cost premium, in 
performing a cost/technical tradeoff there is no requirement that a 
selection official dollarize the process by making a precise 
mathematical calculation that an additional dollar will be paid only 
if there is a corresponding discrete technical advantage.  Marion 
Composites, B-274621, Dec. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  236 at 8 n.5.  Here, 
during the telephonic hearing, the SSO explained 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 evaluation.  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 he compared the 
offerors' technical scores and costs and balanced the major factors in 
making his decision.  Specifically, he first looked for logical "break 
points" in technical scores and examined ceiling prices to ensure that 
awards would be made to firms which provide a technical advantage at a 
reasonable cost.  The SSO stated that, while he would have preferred 
to be able to select the lower cost proposals, cost was not the 
predominant evaluation factor and he found that in balancing the 
factors, cost did not change the technical rankings.  

In this regard, the SSO explained that his primary focus was on 
whether or not to make an award to [Offeror A], the technically 
seventh-ranked offeror with a technical score of [deleted] at a 
relatively low cost of $[deleted].  The SSO explained that he and the 
evaluators had closely reviewed and analyzed the differences between 
the Walcoff and the [Offeror A] proposals because of the possibility 
that [Offeror A], whose technical evaluation was only [deleted] points 
lower than Walcoff's and whose price was $[deleted] million less than 
Walcoff's, should have been awarded a contract.  However, in balancing 
the technical and cost factors, the SSO was deeply concerned that 
[Offeror A's] proposal had received a score of 2, or "poor," on one 
subfactor.  The SSO believed that an offeror with such a low score on 
any criterion presented a real risk of unacceptable technical 
performance.  In contrast, Walcoff's proposal was evaluated as a 5 or 
better on all evaluation factors and subfactors.  Taking this 
performance risk potential into consideration, the agency concluded 
that award to [Offeror A] was not warranted, notwithstanding [Offeror 
A's] relatively low cost.

The SSO similarly considered the KRA proposal, but concluded that 
KRA's proposal was not as attractive as [Offeror A] because [Offeror 
A] was higher ranked technically than KRA and [Offeror A's] cost was 
$[deleted] million lower than KRA's.  Additionally, although KRA had a 
higher technical score than Walcoff on criterion 1, KRA, like [Offeror 
A], had received scores of 2 ("poor")--in KRA's case under one factor 
and two subfactors.  The SSO determined that KRA's higher score on 
business management did not adequately compensate for the "poor" 
scores under the second and third evaluation factors.  Further, the 
SSO viewed as a significant strength Walcoff's approach of highly 
qualified subcontracting for those areas in which it did not have 
extensive experience or qualified staff in-house.  The SSO determined 
that this more costly approach was significantly superior to KRA's 
proposal to use its own staff, even for areas in which KRA's staff 
lacked strong relevant experience or qualifications.     

In addition, the record does not support the protester's position that 
the SSO did not understand the differences between the proposals.  
During the hearing, the SSO explained that, while he did not read the 
actual proposals, he reviewed and discussed the summary information 
presented to him in which the strengths and weaknesses of each 
proposal were explained and was aware that KRA's technical expertise 
and experience in tasks listed in the SOW were weak.  He was also 
aware that KRA's proposal demonstrated a more limited scope of 
experience and less complex work than required by the SOW.  In short, 
the SSO had before him an accurate and thorough evaluation of the 
competing proposals which provided a reasonable basis for adopting the 
evaluators' award recommendations.[5]  Moreover, in view of the 
respective costs and technical evaluations of the [Offeror A] and KRA 
proposals, it is questionable whether KRA is a sufficiently interested 
party to even raise this protest issue.  Under our Bid Protest 
Regulations, only a party whose direct economic interest would be 
affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a 
contract may protest.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a) (1997).  To the extent that 
KRA's argument is that another award should be made or that a firm 
other than Walcoff should be awarded a contract, [Offeror A] (whose 
proposal evaluation KRA has not questioned), not KRA, would be that 
firm.  Therefore, KRA would not be affected by the agency's decision 
to award another contract or to replace Walcoff with another offeror.  

Under the circumstances described above, we see nothing improper in 
this selection decision.  It reflects an appropriate comparison of the 
competing proposals and a reasoned determination to select certain 
higher-cost proposals.  Particularly here, where the RFP provided that 
technical factors were significantly more important than cost, we have 
no basis to object to the award decision.

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 2 reflected a proposal which omitted 
major details and/or evidenced a lack of understanding of stated 
requirements.  Such a response would normally have very few 
significant strengths but would evidence significant weaknesses.  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.  

4. KRA also alleges that under subfactor 3.1, ability to provide and 
retain required personnel, Walcoff's proposal, which received a score 
of 8, "was no better than the other awardees," all of whom received a 
score of 5.  We dismiss this grounds of protest because KRA is 
essentially contending that these other offerors should have received 
higher scores, and KRA is not an interested party to assert on behalf 
of
another that the other's proposal was improperly scored.  See Recon 
Optical Inc. et al., B-272239, B-272239.2, July 17, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  
21 at 3-4. 

5. Source selection officials may reasonably rely upon the expert 
advice and evaluation recommendations of the evaluation committee and 
need not actually read the proposals to make an integrated assessment 
of the proposals and a reasonable award selection.  Pan Am World 
Servs., Inc. et al., B-231840 et al., Nov. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  446 at 
22.