BNUMBER:  B-279378 
DATE:  June 5, 1998
TITLE: Century Environmental Hygiene, Inc., B-279378, June 5, 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:Century Environmental Hygiene, Inc.

File:     B-279378

Date:June 5, 1998

James E. Dennison for the protester.
Michael Colvin, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Source selection decision cannot be determined to be reasonable where 
the evaluation of the protester's proposal is inconsistent with the 
solicitation evaluation criteria, it is based on unsupported 
evaluation conclusions, and the agency fails to rebut protester's 
assertions that its proposal was misevaluated.

DECISION

Century Environmental Hygiene, Inc. protests the award of a contract 
to MedTox Northwest under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
240-BPHC-32(7) issued by the Health Resources and Services 
Administration (HRSA) of the Department of Health & Human Services for 
industrial hygiene and environmental health advisory services.  
Century argues that its proposal was improperly evaluated and scored.

We sustain the protest.

The purpose of the contract is to provide HRSA with industrial hygiene 
and environmental specialists to provide assistance to federal 
agencies throughout the western United States.  The contractor is to 
consult, plan, implement, evaluate, and certify environmental 
health/industrial hygiene services for federal employees and managers.  
The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, 
indefinite-quantity contract, with cost reimbursement elements for 
materials and travel expenses, for a base year and 4 option years.  

The RFP, at section M.5, contemplated "award to the best advantage of 
the Government, cost and other factors considered."  Section M.5 also 
stated that "[o]rganizations from among those determined to be 
technically best qualified will be reviewed with the lowest overall 
cost as the primary consideration for award," and that the 
determination of the organizations most qualified for award would 
include consideration of technical capabilities and past performance.  

The RFP included the following technical evaluation criteria and 
assigned weights:

     A. experience--maximum 50 points
     B. education--maximum 15 points
     C. professional development--maximum 15 points
     D. organizational information--maximum 20 points

Under the first three factors, the RFP indicated that the evaluation 
would focus on the qualifications of proposed personnel for five 
technical positions:  certified industrial hygienist (CIH), certified 
safety professional (CSP), professional engineer (PE), industrial 
hygienist (IH), and building inspector/management planner (BI/MP).  
Under these factors, evaluation points were to be assigned based on 
evidence in the proposals that the individual, or individuals, 
proposed for particular positions have certain types of experience 
under factor A, certain educational qualifications under factor B, and 
based on the number of continuing education units under factor C.  For 
example, under the experience factor, the RFP stated that a certified 
industrial hygienist would be awarded 5 points for 5 years of 
experience in industrial hygiene and additional points would be 
awarded for experience in the various aspects of the field of 
industrial hygiene.  Also under that factor, each individual proposed 
for a particular position could be awarded no more than 50 points and 
an offeror's total score for all certified industrial hygienists was 
to be determined by dividing the total points for all proposed 
certified industrial hygienists by the total number of individuals 
proposed for that position.

Under the fourth factor, organizational information, each offeror was 
to provide "an organizational chart and a description of how the 
various components will relate to staff who will perform services 
under this contract including lines of communication, authority and 
reporting relationships."  RFP at  sec.  M.1.D.  Offerors were to submit 
consultant agreements and other written agreements and were to provide 
a resume for the project director.  The organizational information 
factor also stated that offerors should identify the relationship of 
their project director to their corporate structure and should include 
the following:

     1. A narrative description on selection methods for 
     subcontractors.
     2. A narrative discussion of the methods the offeror plans to use 
     to insure proper managerial control is exercised over the 
     subcontractors.
     3. The Project Director's assurance procedures that will be 
     utilized to insure that each professional utilized under this 
     contract is in full compliance with the specifications of the 
     contract.
     4. Methods to be employed if the performance of an individual 
     staff member is determined to be unsatisfactory in the judgment 
     of the [contracting officer's technical representative].
     5. Methods to be employed in determining how tasks will be 
     assigned.

Finally, under the organizational information factor, the RFP stated 
that offerors would be "evaluated on the adequacy of number and 
professional type of staff presented in the proposal.  That is, does 
the offeror provide adequate resources to perform the scope of work."

Six proposals were received.  Each proposal was separately evaluated 
and scored by each of three members of a technical evaluation 
committee.  Two of the proposals were found to be technically 
unacceptable and the remaining four were included in the competitive 
range.  Oral discussions were conducted and best and final offers 
(BAFO) were submitted.  One of the four offerors withdrew from the 
competition, and the three remaining proposals were reviewed and 
rescored by the evaluators.  

The average of the scores assigned by the three evaluators to the 
BAFOs and the total BAFO prices were as follows:

    Offeror          Average Score   Total Price

    Century          76.6            $3,918,303

    MedTox           85.3            $4,364,928

    Third offeror    84.2            $4,509,412
Pursuant to section M.5 of the RFP, which called for the award 
selection to be based upon cost among those offerors considered 
"technically best qualified," the contracting officer reports that 
MedTox and the third remaining firm "scored substantially higher 
tha[n] Century . . . and were the only two offerors whose proposals 
were regarded as 'technically best qualified.'  Therefore only the two 
highest ranked offerors were then examined for cost factors."  Since 
MedTox proposed a lower price than the third offeror, award was made 
to MedTox.

Century challenges virtually every aspect of the technical evaluation 
of its proposal, focusing on the scores assigned to its proposal by 
each of the evaluators.  Century argues, for example, that the 
evaluators made mathematical errors, they assigned points in a manner 
inconsistent with the evaluation criteria, the agency has not 
explained or provided documentation to support the scores assigned, 
and the agency failed to discuss matters that should have been 
discussed.  According to Century, in the absence of these errors, its 
proposal would have received a higher score, it would have been 
considered among the best qualified offerors, and it would have 
received the award based on its low price.

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is 
not our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines the 
record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and 
in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria. Engineering and 
Computation, Inc., B-261658, Oct. 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  176 at 2-3.  In 
order for us to review an agency's selection determination, an agency 
must have adequate documentation to support that decision.  Arco 
Management of Washington, D.C., Inc., B-248653, Sept. 11, 1992, 92-2 
CPD  para.  173 at 3.  While adjectival ratings and point scores are useful 
as guides to decision-making, they generally are not controlling, but 
rather, must be supported by documentation of the relative differences 
between proposals, their weaknesses and risks, and the basis and 
reasons for the selection decision.  Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  15.608(a)(iii), 15.612(d)(2) (June 1997); Engineering and 
Computation, Inc., supra, at 3. 

Here, after reviewing all of the supporting documentation submitted by 
HRSA, we conclude that the technical evaluation is not adequately 
supported, not consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and is 
unreasonable.  We also conclude that a proper award determination 
could not be made based on the documentation submitted by HRSA.   

We focus our analysis on the evaluation under the organizational 
information factor since, based on the evaluation points assigned to 
the various proposals, under that factor Century's proposal was rated 
weakest in relation to the other two proposals remaining in the 
competition.[1]  Under the other three technical factors, the scores 
were close; the organizational information factor accounted for most 
of the difference in the overall scores assigned to the proposals.  
Specifically, under the organizational information factor, out of 20 
possible points, the three individual evaluators assigned Century's 
BAFO scores of 12, 10 and 7, compared to scores of 20, 11 and 18.5 for 
MedTox, and 20, 15 and 18.7 for the third offeror.  

In addition to the scores assigned, each of the three evaluators' 
rating sheets included comments concerning Century's proposal under 
the organizational information factor.  While some of the comments 
concerning Century's proposal were appropriate since they addressed 
matters reasonably encompassed by the organizational information 
factor, other criticisms on the rating sheets of two of the evaluators 
were not reasonably encompassed by the organizational information 
factor or were unsupported. 

For example, the rating sheet of the evaluator who assigned the lowest 
score (a score of 7) to Century's proposal under the organizational 
information factor included the following comments as weaknesses: 

     Resumes missing on all IH [industrial hygiene] technicians.  
     Point awarded on resume present, therefore must assume that there 
     is only one IH technician-Non responsive to RFP.  At least four 
     subcontractor.

Since these two criticisms--concerning the lack of industrial hygiene 
technician resumes and the number of subcontractors--are the only 
criticisms of Century's proposal in this evaluator's rating sheets, in 
the absence of any information to the contrary in the record, these 
criticisms appear to have had a substantial impact on Century's score 
under that factor.  The problem, however, is that based on the record 
before us, neither of these issues provides a reasonable basis for the 
deduction of points.

Concerning the lack of industrial hygiene technician resumes, Century 
argues that this was improperly considered a weakness since the RFP 
did not require resumes for industrial hygiene technicians.  In 
response to a question asked by our Office, HRSA concedes that the RFP 
required resumes only for professional personnel and that industrial 
hygiene technicians are not considered professional personnel.  The 
evaluator that made this comment assigned only 7 points (out of 20) to 
Century's BAFO.  The record includes no explanation of how many points 
this comment cost Century's proposal in this evaluator's scoring; 
since it was one of only two negative comments, it appears to have 
been a substantial number.

As noted above, this evaluator also considered it a weakness that 
Century had proposed "[a]t least four subcontractor[s]."  While this 
appears to be an appropriate issue under the organizational 
information factor, in response to a question asked by our Office, 
HRSA explained that MedTox included 14 subcontractors in its initial 
proposal and 6 additional subcontractors in its BAFO, for a total of 
20.  Nonetheless, in spite of having five times as many subcontractors 
as Century, the record includes no criticism of the MedTox proposal 
for the number of subcontractors it proposed.  Again, the record 
includes no explanation of how many points were lost as a result of 
this comment; since the awardee was not penalized for the number of 
subcontractors, and in fact received higher scores under this factor, 
the record does not support any deduction of points from Century's 
proposal on this basis.

The evaluator that assigned a score of 10 to Century's proposal under 
the organizational information factor listed the following as 
weaknesses:

     Individuals listed on the Project Team Organization diagram can 
     not be found in the resume section.  Too few CSPs, PEs, IHs, and 
     BI-MPs.  
Concerning the first of these two weaknesses, with one exception, all 
of the individuals listed on Century's Project Team Organization 
diagram for whom there were no resumes were industrial hygiene 
technicians.  As noted above, the agency concedes that resumes were 
not required for these positions.  Therefore, any deduction of points 
for the lack of resumes for the industrial hygiene technicians was 
inconsistent with the RFP.[2]

With respect to the second weakness--"[t]oo few CSPs, PEs, IHs, and 
BI-MPs"--this would be an appropriate issue under the organizational 
information factor, which called for an evaluation of "the adequacy of 
number and professional type of staff presented in the proposal."  
Nonetheless, the evaluator's scoring is not adequately documented in 
the record.  This evaluator assigned 10 points to Century's initial 
proposal under the organizational information factor.  The agency's 
Pre-Negotiation Plan memorandum for Century indicates that one of the 
questions to be asked of Century was: "Could you provide additional 
Certified Industrial Hygienists in Seattle, . . . Building 
Inspector/Management Planners in Denver, and Certified Industrial 
Hygienists in San Francisco?"  Agency report, exhibit H.  In its BAFO, 
Century stated that in response to the technical issues raised by the 
agency, it had added to its proposal two additional CIHs, one in 
Seattle and one in San Francisco, an additional BI-MP for Denver, and 
an additional PE.  Although these additional personnel may not have 
completely satisfied the concerns of this evaluator--for instance, the 
evaluator may have been looking for a greater number of additional 
personnel--the evaluator's BAFO rating sheets include no 
acknowledgment of the additional personnel and include the same 
criticism.  In addition, that evaluator assigned the same 10 points to 
Century's proposal under the organizational information factor and his 
BAFO rating sheets include the same weakness concerning "[t]oo few 
CSPs, PEs, IHs, and BI-MPs. "  Based on this record, we are unable to 
determine whether this evaluator considered the additional personnel.  
For that reason, and since the criticism of the lack of industrial 
hygiene technician resumes is inconsistent with the RFP, the record 
does not support the score assigned by this evaluator. 

The record indicates that the evaluators had concerns about Century's 
proposal that were appropriate under the organizational information 
factor.  For example, the third evaluator's rating sheets listed as a 
weakness that Century's proposal included the potential for too much 
administrative oversight by the project director.  In addition, a 
report prepared by the evaluation panel also noted that Century's 
proposal offered too much administrative involvement.  However, these 
legitimate concerns do not overcome our reservations about the 
evaluation of Century's proposal under this factor.  As explained 
above, the scores assigned by each of the evaluators were based on the 
strengths and weaknesses noted by each of the evaluators on the 
individual rating sheets.  In addition, regardless of whether there 
were legitimate reasons to criticize Century's proposal under the 
organizational information factor, the decision that Century's 
proposal was not among the "technically best qualified" was based on 
the scores assigned by the individual evaluators and we can only 
conclude that those scores were based in large part on the weaknesses 
listed by the evaluators.  Since some of the listed weaknesses were 
inconsistent with the RFP evaluation criteria, or were simply 
unsupported, we do not find that the decision to exclude Century's 
proposal from the "technically best qualified" was reasonable. 

As noted above, in addition to these problems under the organizational 
information factor, there were problems in the evaluation under other 
factors.  For example, the evaluator that scored Century's proposal 
the lowest (a score of 70.1) made errors in his scoring--some of which 
he concedes--that should have resulted in the assignment of 6.5 
additional points to that evaluator's score on Century's proposal.  
This evaluator concedes that he miscalculated the score for Century's 
industrial hygienists.  This evaluator assigned a score of 40 for 
industrial hygienists but erroneously carried that score over to 
another page as 30 and then erroneously divided that score by two, 
instead of one, for the single industrial hygienist proposed by 
Century.  The evaluator concedes that the overall score he assigned to 
Century's proposal would have been 5 points higher if not for these 
errors.  

Our remaining 1.5 point correction to this evaluator's score, in 
addition to the 5 points he concedes, derives from two other issues.  
First, this evaluator agrees that he failed to recognize that two of 
Century's certified industrial hygienists have at least 1 year 
experience in federal contracting.  The RFP called for 5 points to be 
assigned for each certified industrial hygienist that had such 
experience.  The RFP called for averaging the scores assigned to all 
of the certified industrial hygienists, and Century proposed 9 
certified industrial hygienists; according to our calculations, this 
error cost Century's proposal an additional .5 point on this 
evaluator's overall scoring.

Second, Century argues that this evaluator shortchanged Century's 
proposal for continuing education credits for certified industrial 
hygienists.  Factor C, professional development, called for the award 
of 1 point for each continuing education unit awarded to a proposed 
individual in the past 5 years, up to 15 points per individual.  As 
Century points out, two of its proposed certified industrial 
hygienists were assigned no points for continuing education units, in 
spite of the fact that their resumes stated that these individuals had 
25 and 2.5 continuing education units over the last 5 years.  

In response to this allegation, the evaluator in question states that 
"nearly all the proposals were submitted without adequate 
documentation.  Most bidders just listed their [continuing education] 
courses without a certificate from the training institution.  This 
lack of documentation . . . made the task of awarding points difficult 
in this process."  

Neither this evaluator nor HRSA argues that the RFP required any 
documentation for continuing education credits, and our review of the 
RFP reveals no such requirement.  Thus, we conclude that this 
evaluator inappropriately denied points to Century's proposal due to a 
lack of certificates for continuing education credits.  The impact of 
this error was approximately one additional point on the score 
assigned by this evaluator.[3]

With respect to numerous other allegations by Century, neither the 
contemporaneous record nor the agency's submissions in response to the 
protest provide a basis for determining whether points were assigned 
reasonably and consistent with the RFP.  For example, one of the 
evaluators wrote on his rating sheets that Century's proposed CSP had 
"[w]ell documented experience."  In response to Century's complaint 
that the 27 of 50 possible points assigned by this evaluator for that 
category was inconsistent with his positive comment, the evaluator 
merely stated that he considered the experience that was documented to 
be well documented.  Nonetheless, neither in the contemporaneous 
evaluation record, nor in response to the protest, has this evaluator 
explained which projects listed in Century's proposal for the 
personnel in question were credited and which were not.  Without 
further documentation of the evaluation under this category, and many 
others, it is impossible to know whether the evaluation was 
reasonable.  With no further explanation, we conclude that the 
evaluation was not consistent with the RFP.[4]

If HRSA had concerns about insufficient documentation of training in 
the various proposals, or about the lack of resumes for industrial 
hygienist technicians, the agency could have raised these matters in 
discussions.  To the extent that HRSA continues to have these 
concerns, we recommend that the agency amend the solicitation and 
clarify its needs.  In addition, we recommend that HRSA conduct 
appropriate discussions with all offerors in the competitive range, 
including Century, request and reevaluate BAFOs, and make a new source 
selection, including consideration of the acceptable cost and 
technical proposals.  Also, we recommend that the protester be 
reimbursed its costs of filing and pursing the protest.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(d)(1).  The protester should submit its certified claim, 
detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the 
contracting agency within 60 days of receipt of this decision.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. We address below other areas of the evaluation in which we conclude 
there were problems.

2. Century explains that the other listed individual for whom no 
resume was included also was not offered for one of the professional 
positions under the RFP.  Thus, no resume was required for this 
individual either.

3. In another error, as Century points out, one of the evaluators 
erroneously totaled the points he awarded to Century's initial 
proposal for experience.  That evaluator's overall initial score 
should have been 75.6, instead of 74.4.

4. Century has raised two issues in an untimely manner.  First, 
Century argues that epidemiology should not have been included in the 
evaluation criteria because it is not within the purview of industrial 
hygiene.  Second, Century argues that the RFP scoring criteria for the 
professional engineer category improperly covered disparate 
engineering disciplines.  Protests based upon alleged improprieties in 
a solicitation which are apparent prior to the closing time for 
receipt of initial proposals must be filed prior to that closing time.  
Bid Protest Regulations,  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1998).  Here, it was 
apparent from the RFP that epidemiology would be considered in the 
evaluation and the terms of the evaluation and scoring under the 
professional engineer category also were apparent from the face of the 
RFP.  Because these allegations were not timely raised, we do not 
consider them.