BNUMBER:  B-279295 
DATE:  June 1, 1998
TITLE: Dual, Inc., B-279295, June 1, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Dual, Inc. 

File:     B-279295

Date:June 1, 1998

Kevin M. Kordziel, Esq., Jenner & Block, for the protester.
Kacie A. Haberly, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal under the 
solicitation's relevant corporate experience evaluation factor as 
technically unacceptable, where the proposal did not evidence 
sufficient experience in a required area, and the references listed in 
the protester's proposal and contacted by the agency did not indicate 
that the protester had the requisite experience.     

DECISION

Dual, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically 
unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. FCXA-FA-970003-N, 
issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for 
non-mandatory, multiple award federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts 
encompassing management, organizational and business improvement 
services (MOBIS).

We deny the protest.

Non-mandatory, multiple award FSS contracts are indefinite-delivery 
contracts under which commercial firms may provide government agencies 
with commonly used goods and services for given periods of time.  
Government ordering activities can order goods or services under 
simplified procedures from the contracts to meet their requirements.  
In this case, vendors that responded to this RFP and are awarded a 
contract by GSA will be listed on the FSS, and an agency needing MOBIS 
may, after making a best value determination, place a task or delivery 
order, based on a fixed price, with the selected vendor.

The RFP, issued on April 4, 1997, requested proposals for a contract 
period from the date of award through September 30, 2002, with one 
5-year option period.  The MOBIS contractors are to provide a full 
range of services and products for consulting, facilitation, surveys 
and training, which will permit the agencies to begin or continue 
management, organizational and business improvement efforts with 
regard to performance, quality, timeliness and efficiency throughout 
their organizations.  RFP  sec.  C.2.1.3, C.2.1.5.  The services are to 
facilitate agencies' responses to dynamic, evolutionary influences and 
mandates, and are intended to enable the agencies to continuously 
improve mission performance.  RFP  sec.  C.2.1.5.  Examples of the MOBIS 
contemplated under the FSS contracts include quality management; 
business process reengineering; strategic and business planning; 
benchmarking; strategic sourcing; activity-based costing; financial 
management analysis related to an improvement effort; statistical 
process control; surveys; individual and organizational assessments 
and evaluations; process improvements; process modeling and 
simulation; performance measurement; organizational design; change 
management; development of leadership/management skills; and training 
in improving customer service and satisfaction.  Id.  The RFP 
requested prices for five types of MOBIS-related items:  (1) 
consultation services, (2) facilitation services, (3) survey services, 
(4) training services, and (5) support products.  RFP  sec.  C.2.1.6 

The RFP provided for multiple awards to responsible offerors whose 
technical proposals are determined to be acceptable and whose prices 
are considered fair and reasonable.  RFP  sec.  E.5.  Section E.5.1 of the 
RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors:  (1) 
Understanding of Requirements, (2) Professional Staff, (3) Relevant 
Corporate Experience, and (4) Past Performance.  The RFP specified 
that the first three factors were to be evaluated on "a 'go or no-go' 
basis," RFP  sec.  E.5, and that for each of these evaluation factor 
proposals "must satisfy the requirement completely or they will be 
eliminated from further consideration." RFP  sec.  E.5.1.    

The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of 
proposals, and advised that GSA "may evaluate offers and award a 
contract without discussions with offerors."  RFP  sec.  B.2.  The RFP 
added that because of this "the offeror's initial offer should contain 
the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint."  Id. 
 
Dual's proposal was rated as "go," or technically acceptable, under 
the understanding of requirements and professional staff evaluation 
factors, and as "no go," or technically unacceptable, under the 
relevant corporate experience evaluation factor.  With regard to the 
relevant corporate experience evaluation factor, the RFP specified 
that in order for a proposal to be evaluated as technically acceptable 
it must include "[o]fferor-provided narratives which demonstrate that 
the offeror has performed at least three successful MOBIS-related 
projects within the last two years."  Here, the agency determined that 
one of the three projects listed by Dual in its proposal as evidencing 
its experience in providing MOBIS, which described Dual's performance 
of a contract supporting a cockpit resource management (CRM) program 
for the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve, was "not 
sufficiently MOBIS-related as defined in the [RFP's] statement of 
work."

Dual protests that the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the 
relevant corporate experience factor was unreasonable.  The evaluation 
of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the 
contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its 
needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Marine Animal Prods. 
Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  16 at 5.  In 
reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical 
proposals, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure 
that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's 
evaluation criteria.  MAR, Inc., B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  
367 at 4.  An offeror's mere disagreement with the agency does not 
render the evaluation unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., 
B-259694.2, B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51 at 18.

The RFP, at  sec.  E.3.C,  informed offerors that the section of their 
proposals responding to the relevant corporate experience evaluation 
factor
     
     must include . . . [s]ummary descriptions of MOBIS efforts 
     undertaken by the offeror and, separately, by each proposed 
     subcontractor, within the last two years, in federal, state or 
     local government agencies that are relevant to MOBIS. . . .  
     Descriptions must include the following:

        1.A description of assistance provided to agency or firm.  
          Show objectives, methodologies, and results.  Indicate the 
          nature of the organization for which the services were 
          provided, such as:  legal, military, medical, finance and 
          accounting, postal services, personnel management, 
          specialized manufacturing, education and training, general 
          support services, procurement, etc.

        2.Identify agency or firm, including names and telephone 
          numbers of the individuals in the agency's or firm's program 
          office, as well as line managers for whom work was 
          performed.  This information may be used to verify 
          information provided in the summaries.  

The RFP required that each of the three descriptions of the offeror's 
MOBIS efforts be no more than two typed, single-spaced pages long, and 
emphasized that the descriptions were to "concisely identify the 
objectives, methodologies and results obtained throughout the firm's 
MOBIS efforts."  Id. (emphasis deleted).

The agency found in reviewing Dual's description of its role in the 
CRM program that, while the description referred to tasks that 
appeared to be MOBIS related, Videotape Transcript (VT) at 10:24:50, 
the references were conclusory in nature, in that they failed to 
describe specific methodologies employed by Dual to show what was 
being changed or improved in the organization.  VT at 11:09:20.[1]  
The agency also found that the only references to MOBIS-related tasks 
in Dual's description of the CRM program were in two sentences of the 
total description and that MOBIS-related work seemed to be a 
relatively minor part of the program.  VT at 10:40:58.   The agency 
concluded, based upon its review of Dual's proposal, that the CRM 
program, and Dual's role in the program, primarily involved training 
regarding human interaction within an aircraft cockpit and its effect 
on flight safety, rather than, for example, strategic planning or 
performance measurement on an organizational level, which would be 
MOBIS related.  VT at 9:37:33.  Because of this, the agency found that 
it was, at best, unclear from Dual's proposal whether Dual had 
performed sufficient MOBIS-related work with regard to the CRM program 
for its proposal to be determined technically acceptable, and decided 
to contact the individuals listed in Dual's proposal for the CRM 
program.  VT at 12:08:39.  

The agency contacted each of the three individuals listed by Dual in 
this section of its proposal, and was informed that, consistent with 
GSA's understanding, the CRM program primarily involved classroom 
training regarding, for example, the coordination of the individuals 
in an airplane or flight of airplanes and the core concepts that 
affect airplane safety, such as stress and fatigue.  VT at 12:16:44, 
12:18:45, 14:28:19, 14:35:33, 14:36:55, 14:37:12.  The agency explains 
that, based upon its determination that Dual's experience with the CRM 
program, as described in its proposal, was not sufficiently MOBIS 
related, and its conversations with the references listed in Dual's 
proposal, which in GSA's view verified the accuracy of its initial 
determination, it concluded that Dual's proposal did not evidence that 
Dual had "performed at least three successful MOBIS-related projects 
within the last two years" as required by RFP  sec.  E.5.1, and was thus 
technically unacceptable.

Dual contends that the agency's determination that Dual's proposal is 
technically unacceptable was primarily based upon the agency's 
misunderstanding of Dual's role in the CRM program.  Specifically, 
Dual explains that it used a five-step approach in implementing the 
training system for the CRM program, VT at 11:19:00, and contends that 
the first two steps of this approach constitute MOBIS.  VT at 
11:20:59.  In its comments on the agency report, Dual provides a 
lengthy explanation regarding the services it performed during these 
first two steps, as well as the relevant delivery orders, which 
according to Dual verify that the work it performed during these first 
two steps was MOBIS related.  Dual also explains that the references 
listed in its proposal were unable "to detail the exact nature or 
significance of Dual's MOBIS related work" because the references' 
participation in the CRM program commenced after Dual had completed 
the first two steps of its five-step approach to the CRM program.  

In our view, the agency reasonably determined that Dual's proposal was 
technically unacceptable.  We agree with the agency that the majority 
of Dual's narrative concerning the CRM program discusses activities 
and characteristics of the program which do not appear to be MOBIS 
related.  This impression, as indicated above, was confirmed by the 
references listed in Dual's proposal.  Moreover, as noted by the 
agency, the parts of the narrative which mention MOBIS-related work do 
not, as requested by the RFP, show the objectives and methodologies 
used by Dual in assisting the agencies with the CRM program in any 
detail at all, VT at 11:32:44, but instead describe Dual's role in a 
conclusory fashion.  VT at 11:32:44.

Dual's explanation that it used a five-step approach in implementing 
the training system for the CRM program and its detailed description 
of the services performed during these first two steps appeared for 
the first time in its comments on the agency report.  Since an 
agency's evaluation is dependent upon the information furnished in a 
proposal, it is the offeror's burden to submit an adequately written 
proposal for the agency to evaluate, especially where, as here, the 
offeror is specifically on notice that the agency intends to make 
award based on initial proposals without discussions.  Infotec Dev., 
Inc., B-258198 et al., Dec. 27, 1994, 95-1 CPD  para.  52 at 6.  In light of 
Dual's failure to fulfill its obligation in this regard, we see no 
basis to find this aspect of the agency's evaluation unreasonable.

Dual complains that the agency failed to ask "probing questions to 
elicit information relevant to the MOBIS-related aspects of the CRM 
projects" when it spoke with the references listed by Dual for the CRM 
program.  Post-Hearing Comments at 7.  The protester adds that the 
agency should have contacted an individual who was not identified 
anywhere in Dual's proposal, but was mentioned by the references 
during their conversations with the agency.  Dual argues that, had 
this individual been contacted, he would have been able to explain 
that certain of the work performed by Dual for the CRM program was 
MOBIS related.

There is no duty imposed upon an agency to ask questions of references 
in a particular manner, or to seek out individuals who were not listed 
in the relevant offeror's proposal, but were mentioned by the 
references contacted.  See Basic Tech., Inc., B-214489, July 13, 1984, 
84-2 CPD  para.  45 at 7.  In reviewing the manner and conduct of an agency 
in contacting, or choosing not to contact, the references listed by 
offerors in their proposals, we look to see if the agency proceeded in 
a reasonable and prudent manner.  International Bus. Sys., Inc., 
B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  114 at 5.   

As indicated above, the agency contacted all three references listed 
by Dual in the section of its proposal addressing its role in the CRM 
program.  Further, when the agency tried to contact one of the 
references listed by Dual and was told that the individual listed was 
no longer with the CRM program, and was referred to another 
individual, the agency contacted that individual.  VT at 1:39:59.  The 
agency states that in questioning the references listed by offerors, 
including those listed by Dual, it simply asked the references what 
the relevant offeror's role was in the contract identified.  VT at 
10:26:34.  The agency explains that it chose not to ask the references 
more specific questions because it was concerned that specific 
questions would "prompt" certain answers.  VT at 1:45:56.  We simply 
cannot see how the agency, which contacted each of the references 
listed by Dual in its proposal and asked the references what role Dual 
had in the CRM program, acted unreasonably.[2]

Dual, a small disadvantaged business concern, argues for the first 
time in its comments on the hearing held in connection with this 
protest that the agency's rejection of Dual's proposal as technically 
unacceptable under the relevant corporate experience evaluation factor 
violated the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  637(b)(7)(A) (1994).  
This protest contention is untimely and will not be considered.  

Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests not based upon 
solicitation improprieties be filed not later than 10 days after the 
basis of protest is known, or should have been known, whichever is 
earlier.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1998).  Because Dual was aware at the 
time it filed its initial protest with our Office that it was a small 
disadvantaged business and that its proposal had been rejected as 
technically unacceptable under the relevant corporate experience 
evaluation factor, its protest that this rejection of its proposal 
violated the Small Business Act is untimely.  Id.

Dual, while conceding that it did not raise the "legal argument" that 
the agency's rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable 
violates the Small Business Act until it filed its comments on the 
hearing, nevertheless contends that this argument falls within Dual's 
"broad challenge to GSA's technical evaluation" of Dual's proposal.  

The timeliness of specific bases of protest raised after the filing of 
a timely protest depends upon the relationship the later-raised bases 
bear to the initial protest.  Vinnell Corp., B-270793, B-270793.2, 
Apr. 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  271 at 7.  Where the later-raised bases 
present new and independent grounds for protest, they must 
independently satisfy our timeliness requirements.  Conversely, where 
the later-raised bases merely provide additional support for an 
earlier, timely raised protest basis, we will consider the 
later-raised arguments.  Id.

Here, Dual's argument regarding the Small Business Act, first raised 
in Dual's comments on the hearing, constitutes a new and independent 
bases of protest, rather than additional supporting material for its 
earlier protest contentions.  Specifically, Dual's later-raised 
argument that the agency's actions violated the Small Business Act 
provides no support for, and is separate and distinct from, its 
initial protest contention that the agency's determination that Dual's 
proposal was technically unacceptable under the RFP's relevant 
corporate experience evaluation factor was unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States        

1. Citations to the videotape transcript refer to the transcript of 
the hearing conducted by our Office in connection with this protest.

2. Because, as explained by Dual and evidenced by the testimony of two 
of the references, the references were not familiar with Dual's 
claimed performance of MOBIS-related work in the initial phases of the 
CRM program, it is unclear how Dual was prejudiced by the agency's 
determination not to ask specific questions of the references.  That 
is, the record reflects that because of their lack of familiarity with 
Dual's claimed performance of MOBIS-related work in the initial phases 
of the CRM program, the references would have been unable to 
substantively answer "probing questions to elicit information relevant 
to the MOBIS-related aspects of the CRM projects."