BNUMBER:  B-279379.2           
DATE:  June 22, 1998
TITLE: TEAM Support Services, Inc., B-279379.2, June 22, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:TEAM Support Services, Inc.

File:B-279379.2          
        
Date:June 22, 1998

Jeanene K. Louden for the protester. 
Karen J. Carroll, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the 
agency. 
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that evaluator was biased against the protester and 
improperly downgraded the protester on past performance based upon the 
evaluator's opinion of the protester's work as incumbent contractor is 
denied where the record contains no evidence of bias, the evaluator's 
opinion of the protester's prior work was relevant since the evaluator 
was the project officer during the several years that the protester 
performed as incumbent contractor, and the record shows that the 
evaluation of the protester's proposal was balanced, with the 
protester receiving high ratings on several aspects of its proposal 
and very low ratings on others.

2.  Evaluation of the protester's work on a contract for another 
agency was proper even though that contract was not listed as a 
reference in the protester's proposal, where the agency was aware of 
the protester's prior contract with another agency, the solicitation 
specifically stated that the agency might contact sources that were 
not listed as references in an offeror's proposal, and the information 
regarding the protester's prior work for another agency clearly was 
relevant to evaluation of the protester's past performance.

3.  Protest that agency evaluator was biased against the protester and 
the evaluation therefore tainted is denied where the record contains 
no evidence to support the bias allegation and the record shows that 
the evaluation was reasonable.

4.  Technically unacceptable proposal cannot be considered for award 
regardless of its low proposed price. 

DECISION

TEAM Support Services, Inc. protests the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) award of a support services contract to 
Transcontinental Enterprises, Inc. (TEI) pursuant to request for 
proposals (RFP) No. PR-NC-97-10730.  TEAM alleges that the agency 
employee who evaluated proposals was biased against TEAM and 
unreasonably downgraded TEAM's proposal.  TEAM also contends that it 
should have been awarded the contract because its proposed price was 
less than TEI's.  TEAM Protest, Enclosure 1 at 1-3.  

We deny the protest.

Issued on December 1, 1997, the RFP solicited proposals for operation 
and maintenance (O&M) support services at several agency facilities in 
Corvallis and Newport, Oregon, for a basic contract period of 1 year 
with options for 4 additional years.[1]  RFP Attachment 1 at 1-3; RFP  sec.  
B.1.  The RFP contemplated that the services would be provided on a 
fixed-price basis and that the contractor would be reimbursed the 
costs of materials.  RFP  sec.  B.1.  
  
The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose 
proposal was most advantageous to the government after consideration 
of technical factors and price, and that technical quality was 
considered more important than price.  RFP  sec.  M.3.  The technical 
evaluation factors were:  (1) past performance; (2) qualifications, 
work experience, availability, and other demonstrated ability of 
proposed personnel; (3) management approach, management structure, 
corporate resources; and (4) transition plan.  Id.  The RFP stated 
that the agency intended to award the contract without holding 
discussions.  RFP  sec.  L.1.

Eight proposals were received by the January 8, 1998 closing date.  As 
the anticipated dollar value of the contract was less than $5 million, 
EPA conducted the procurement using "fast track" procedures.  
Contracting Officer's Statement, Apr. 8, 1998, at 3.  The project 
officer alone evaluated all proposals, while the contracting officer, 
acting as the source selection official, selected the winning offer 
for award.  After evaluating technical proposals and contacting 
references as part of the past performance evaluation, the project 
officer concluded that six of the eight proposals, including TEAM's 
proposal, were technically unacceptable.  The project officer prepared 
a technical evaluation report which discussed the strengths, 
weaknesses and technical scores.  After reviewing the evaluation 
report, the contracting officer determined that, of the two 
technically acceptable proposals, TEI's proposal was superior in 
technical quality and lower in price.  The contracting officer also 
determined, after comparing the prices and the staffing levels of the 
various proposals and after comparing TEI's proposed price to the 
government estimate, that TEI's price was fair and reasonable.  Source 
Selection Decision, Feb. 20, 1998, at 20-22.  Accordingly, the 
contracting officer concluded that TEI's proposal represented the best 
value to the government, and, on February 20, 1998, awarded the 
contract to TEI.  Id.; Contracting Officer's Statement, Apr. 8, 1998, 
at 7.  After a debriefing, TEAM filed this protest in our Office.[2]

The protester primarily alleges that the project officer was biased 
against TEAM and, acting in bad faith, unfairly downgraded TEAM's 
proposal.  The protester asserts that the project officer's dislike 
for TEAM primarily grew out of two cost allowability disputes that 
arose when TEAM was the incumbent contractor under the Corvallis 
contract.  TEAM alleges that, because the project officer was biased 
against TEAM, he used his position as the sole evaluator to ensure 
that negative information was included in the information used to 
evaluate TEAM's past performance and then downgraded TEAM on the past 
performance evaluation factor.  TEAM Protest, Enclosure 1 at 1-3.   

The agency responds that the project officer evaluated TEAM's proposal 
fairly and in good faith.  Agency Report at 12.  In support, the 
agency submitted complete copies of the project officer's technical 
evaluation report, two declarations from the project officer, and the 
contracting officer's source selection decision, which the EPA 
believes show that the evaluation was unbiased and that the agency 
reasonably determined that TEAM's proposal was technically 
unacceptable.  In addition, the project officer specifically denies 
bias against TEAM and states that he evaluated each proposal in a fair 
and even-handed manner, consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.  
Project Officer's Declaration, Apr. 8, 1998, at 1. 

Government officials are presumed to act in good faith; we will not 
attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on 
the basis of inference or supposition.  Trataros/Basil, Inc., 
B-260321, May 30, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  265 at 3.  Where, as here, a 
protester alleges bias or bad faith on the part of a procurement 
official, the protester must present evidence that the official acted 
with the intent to injure the protester.  Science & Tech., Inc.; 
Madison Servs., Inc., B-272748 et al., Oct. 25, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  121 
at 6.  In addition to producing credible evidence showing bias, the 
protester must demonstrate that the alleged bias translated into 
action that unfairly affected the protester's competitive position.  
Pearl Properties, Inc., B-277250.2, Sept. 18, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  80 at 
5.  Our review of the record reveals no evidence that the project 
officer was biased against the protester or that he improperly 
downgraded the protester's proposal.

TEAM asserts that its strained relationship with the project officer 
was caused in part by a funding dispute and in part by a disagreement 
with the project officer (concerning the number and type of TEAM 
personnel that were allowed access to the Corvallis facility during a 
government furlough) that arose while TEAM was performing the 
Corvallis contract.  The disagreements that arose under the Corvallis 
contract are matters of contract administration and are not properly 
before us for resolution.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a) 
(1998).  However, we examined the entire record, including the 
parties' disparate versions of the facts associated with these 
matters, in light of the bias allegation, and we found no support for 
the protest allegation.  Rather, the agency actions about which TEAM 
complains appear to be the result of the reasonable exercise of the 
project officer's discretion to make decisions during the 
administration of a contract.  Certainly, the project officer's 
disagreement with TEAM over these and any other contract 
administration matters provides no evidence that the project officer 
acted with the intent to injure TEAM during his evaluation of TEAM's 
proposal in the current procurement.  Furthermore, in two sworn 
statements, the project officer disputed much of the protester's 
anecdotal support for the allegation and specifically denied any bias.  
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the project officer 
was hostile towards TEAM as a result of his previous dealings with the 
firm, as discussed below, there is no evidence of bias in the 
evaluation record and, therefore, we have no basis to object to the 
project officer's evaluation of TEAM's proposal.

The protester contends that the project officer included certain 
negative information concerning TEAM's past performance in the 
evaluation record and improperly used that information to downgrade 
TEAM's proposal on past performance, the most important evaluation 
factor.  Specifically, TEAM alleges that the project officer used his 
personal knowledge and opinion of TEAM's performance as the incumbent 
under the EPA Corvallis facility contract to downgrade TEAM's 
evaluation score.  TEAM also alleges that the project officer 
improperly solicited a past performance questionnaire from a 
knowledgeable National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
contracting official regarding TEAM's performance on a contract that 
TEAM had performed previously for that agency and used that 
information to further downgrade TEAM's proposal.  TEAM asserts that 
the project officer's asking NASA for a reference was "the work of a 
malicious saboteur manipulating what should be an impartial process to 
get his way."  TEAM Protest, Enclosure 1 at 2.  Our review of the 
evaluation record, however, reveals that the project officer's 
evaluation of TEAM's proposal was both reasonable and proper.

We see nothing wrong with the project officer's evaluating TEAM's 
previous performance on the EPA Corvallis contract and incorporating 
his own opinion of and experiences with TEAM into that evaluation.  
See, e.g., National Med. Seminars Tempharmacists, B-233452, Feb. 22, 
1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  191 at 2.  The RFP stated that offerors would be 
evaluated on demonstrated successful past performance as evidenced by 
information gathered concerning contracts for similar work completed 
in the last 3 years or currently being performed, and TEAM's proposal 
highlighted the fact that TEAM had been performing the EPA Corvallis 
contract for the last 3 years and specifically listed the project 
officer as a reference.  RFP  sec.  M.3(b)1; TEAM Proposal, Jan. 6, 1998, 
Past Performance, at 1.  As the prior EPA Corvallis requirement was 
one of two contracts (the other being the EPA Newport contract) that 
had been combined to create the present requirement, this clearly was 
a relevant contract for evaluating TEAM's past performance on similar 
work.  See G. Marine Diesel, B-232619.3, Aug. 3, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  101 
at 6.  Moreover, the project officer's opinion of TEAM's working 
relationship (i.e., the level of TEAM's cooperation in resolving the 
cost disputes) with EPA personnel clearly was relevant to evaluation 
of TEAM's past performance.  See Young Enters., Inc., B-256851.2, Aug. 
11, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  159 at 6. 

The project officer's past performance questionnaire for the Corvallis 
contract contains no evidence that the project officer was biased 
against TEAM or that he unreasonably downgraded TEAM.  Overall, the 
project officer's appraisal appears to be balanced with the project 
officer rating TEAM from satisfactory to excellent on some aspects of 
past performance and unsatisfactory on others.  For example, TEAM's 
proposal emphasized that EPA management had given it "outstanding 
marks" concerning its performance on the EPA Corvallis contract during 
semi-annual management reviews, TEAM Proposal, Jan. 6, 1998, Past 
Performance, at 1, and, consistent with the proposal's statement, the 
project officer rated TEAM very high on several areas of past 
performance, including:  (1) the project officer stated that TEAM's 
on-site management was "excellent" and he was "very satisfied" with 
TEAM's on-site support; (2) the project officer rated TEAM as "very 
satisfactory" on initiative in meeting the requirements, response to 
technical direction, and customer satisfaction; (3) the project 
officer also rated TEAM as "satisfactory" on quality of service, 
timeliness of performance, and responsiveness to performance problems.  
However, the project officer also downgraded TEAM because, in his 
opinion, TEAM's corporate management had been "difficult to work with" 
in connection with the dispute over the accidental overpayment and the 
claim for payment for nonessential employees during the government 
furlough, and the project officer indicated that he would not choose 
to work with TEAM again.  Accordingly, the project officer rated 
TEAM's on-site management as "very satisfactory" overall, while he 
rated its corporate management as "unsatisfactory" overall because he 
believed TEAM's corporate management to be uncooperative.  Project 
Officer's Past Performance Questionnaire on TEAM.  While TEAM does not 
agree that its corporate management was uncooperative or difficult to 
work with, we have no basis to find unreasonable the project officer's 
contrary opinion, and we think that the negative statements made by 
the project officer reflect dissatisfaction with TEAM management 
rather than bias against the firm.  See Trataros/Basil, Inc., supra, 
at 4.        

Likewise, we see nothing wrong with the project officer's sending a 
past performance questionnaire to NASA.  The project officer explains 
that he was aware of the NASA contract from his conversations with 
TEAM managers.  He also explains that he solicited the NASA reference 
even though the contract was not listed in TEAM's proposal, because he 
had been able to contact only one TEAM reference for a prior non-EPA 
contract, and that one reference was for a very small contract.  The 
project officer states that he sent a questionnaire about TEAM's 
performance of the NASA contract to the NASA contracting officer's 
technical representative (COTR), because the NASA contract was closer 
in size, complexity and dollar value to the estimated value of the 
present procurement than most of the other contracts that TEAM listed 
as references.  Project Officer's Declaration, Apr. 8, 1998, at 4.  
The information garnered from the NASA COTR was largely negative 
concerning TEAM's performance.  For example, the NASA COTR reported 
that the TEAM corporate staff was not effective in selecting or 
managing the on-site staff; TEAM's corporate staff was "adversarial, 
would not let NASA staff see own records"; and that she would not 
choose to contract with TEAM again.  NASA COTR's Past Performance 
Questionnaire on TEAM.  The project officer, in our view, reasonably 
downgraded TEAM on past performance based in part on this negative 
information.  

In evaluating proposals, the agency may properly consider evidence 
from sources that are not listed in the proposal, Pearl Properties; 
DNL Properties, Inc., B-253614.6, B-253614.7, May 23, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
357 at 7; G. Marine Diesel, supra, at 6.  Here, the RFP specifically 
stated that the agency might contact past contract sources that were 
not listed as references in an offeror's proposal, and the project 
officer specifically sought the contracting officer's advice and 
received permission to contact the NASA reference before sending NASA 
a questionnaire.  RFP  sec.  L.12(g); Contracting Officer's Statement, Apr. 
8, 1998, at 5.  We will not, as the protester suggests, attribute 
improper motives to the project officer for obtaining information 
concerning TEAM's past performance on the NASA contract simply because 
the information received from that source was, in large part, 
detrimental to TEAM's past performance evaluation.  Insofar as TEAM 
contends that its performance of the NASA contract should not have 
been considered because the scope of work under the NASA contract was 
not similar in nature to the present requirement, the protest fails 
because the record shows that, for the most part, the negative 
information contained in the NASA reference questionnaire related not 
so much to the technical aspects of TEAM's performance as to TEAM's 
corporate management's effectiveness in selecting and managing on-site 
personnel and to TEAM's working relationship with NASA, information 
that clearly was relevant to evaluation of TEAM's past performance 
regardless of the type of work to be performed.  See Young Enters., 
Inc., supra, at 6.

The protester also contends generally that the entire evaluation was 
tainted by the project officer's bias against TEAM.  The protester 
states that it cannot understand how it received such a low score, and 
asserts that the answer must lie in a prejudicial evaluation by the 
project officer.  Other than the past performance allegations, 
discussed above, TEAM's protest does not allege any specific 
evaluation flaws.  

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will 
question the evaluation only where it lacks a reasonable basis or is 
inconsistent with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria.  DAE Corp., 
Ltd., B-257185, Sept. 6, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  95 at 4.  A protester's mere 
disagreement with the agency over its evaluation does not establish 
that the evaluation was unreasonable.  Id.  We reviewed all of the 
evaluation documents in light of the protester's general bias 
allegation, and we find no evidence that EPA's evaluation was tainted 
or otherwise unreasonable.[3]

On the past performance factor, the evaluator reasonably rated TEAM's 
proposal overall as satisfactory.  He based this rating on information 
contained in questionnaires received from three of the references 
listed in TEAM's proposal (including his own questionnaire for the 
EPA's predecessor Corvallis contract), as well as the NASA 
questionnaire.  In response to questions contained in those four 
questionnaires, two of the references gave TEAM adjectival ratings 
ranging from satisfactory to outstanding, and two of the references 
(discussed in detail above) gave TEAM ratings ranging from 
unsatisfactory to excellent.  In fact, the NASA reference indicated 
that for the most part she was not satisfied with TEAM's performance.  
Two of the four references stated that they would choose to contract 
with TEAM again, while the two others stated that they would not.  
Faced with this wide range of ratings, the evaluator reasonably 
determined that TEAM's collective past performances merited an overall 
rating of adequate.  While TEAM obviously disagrees with the 
evaluator's assessment, the protester's mere disagreement with the 
agency over its evaluation does not establish that the evaluation was 
unreasonable.  DAE Corp., Ltd., supra, at 4.  Moreover, in view of the 
fact that the evaluator gave TEAM a satisfactory rating in spite of 
his own negative opinion of TEAM's corporate management, we see no 
evidence that he was biased against TEAM or unreasonably downgraded 
the protester on this factor.

On the qualifications, work experience, availability, and other 
demonstrated ability of proposed personnel, the evaluator reasonably 
rated TEAM's proposal overall as superior.  This rating was primarily 
based upon the fact that all of TEAM's key personnel were qualified 
for their respective positions and all had worked for EPA on the 
predecessor contracts.  The high rating that the evaluator gave TEAM 
on this factor undercuts the allegation that the evaluator was 
prejudiced against TEAM.

The evaluator did downgrade TEAM's proposal on the management approach 
subfactor of the management approach, management structure, and 
corporate resources evaluation factor because he found several flaws 
in TEAM's proposed management approach.  For example, TEAM proposed no 
permanent employees for general on-site labor for such tasks as 
hanging bulletin boards or moving furniture; instead, TEAM proposed to 
use small, local subcontracts to do that type of work.  The evaluator 
believed that TEAM's approach created the risk that maintenance and 
operation tasks would be unacceptably delayed, because the local 
construction industry would be competing for the same laborers and the 
evaluator believed it unlikely that TEAM could obtain local labor in a 
timely manner.  Project Officer's Declaration, Apr. 8, 1998, at 3.  
Another weakness was TEAM's proposed use of an unstaffed "trouble 
desk" that would be monitored by a recording device; the evaluator 
opined that this was an ineffective way to respond to unplanned work 
activities.  Technical Evaluation Report, Jan. 29, 1998, at 30.  
Because of these and other flaws that the evaluator found in TEAM's 
approach--the most notable being the conclusion that TEAM's reliance 
on other than on-site staff was a "serious weakness"--the evaluator 
rated TEAM's proposal as inadequate.  Agency Report at 5-7; Technical 
Evaluation Report, Jan. 29, 1998, at 30.

On the management structure subfactor of the management approach, 
management structure, and corporate resources evaluation factor, the 
evaluator rated TEAM's proposal as deficient.  While the evaluator 
found a number of deficiencies in TEAM's proposed management and 
staffing, the primary deficiency was that TEAM's proposal was 
understaffed.  TEAM proposed a staff of only 9.3 people to do the work 
for both the Corvallis and Newport facilities, even though the two 
predecessor contracts had employed 21.5 people (15 for Corvallis and 
6.5 for Newport).  TEAM designated only two employees to service the 
Newport facilities, seven to service the Corvallis facilities, and 0.3 
off-site employees for engineering support.  Agency Report at 8; 
Technical Evaluation Report, Jan. 29, 1998, at 31.  The evaluator knew 
from past experience at the sites that the daily maintenance 
requirements were substantial, requiring performance of at least 400 
preventative maintenance tasks each month.  The evaluator concluded 
that TEAM's proposal was understaffed and that the proposal failed to 
demonstrate how TEAM would be able to perform the required work in a 
timely manner with crews at each site that were less than half of the 
previous crews that had been used to perform the work.  Project 
Officer's Declaration, Apr. 8, 1998, at 2-3; Project Officer's 
Declaration, Apr. 24, 1998, at 1-2.

The agency reports that TEAM's proposed staffing level was 
substantially lower than the awardee's proposed staffing and the 
average staffing level proposed by the other offerors and that TEAM's 
proposal was determined to be technically unacceptable chiefly because 
TEAM proposed too few on-site staff and failed to demonstrate that it 
could provide a timely response to work requirements.  Agency Report 
at 10-12.  In its comments on the agency report, TEAM contends that, 
as an incumbent contractor, it was better able to determine the 
correct staffing level than  the project officer/evaluator.  We note 
that, even during the development of the protest record, TEAM provided 
no information to refute the evaluator's determination that more staff 
would be needed, and TEAM did not explain how it would be able to 
perform properly with its reduced staff.  TEAM simply disagrees with 
EPA's evaluation of its proposal and determination that the proposal 
was technically unacceptable.  TEAM's mere disagreement provides no 
basis for finding the evaluation unreasonable, and the evaluation 
record is devoid of any evidence that the evaluation and determination 
of technical unacceptability was the result of bias against TEAM.[4]  
See Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc., B-259082.3, July 17, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  21 at 5.

In sum, the record shows that the evaluation of TEAM's proposal was 
reasonable and contains no evidence to support the allegation that the 
evaluation was tainted by prejudice against TEAM.  In view of the fact 
that TEAM's proposal was reasonably determined to be technically 
unacceptable, TEAM's contention that it should have been awarded the 
contract on the basis of its lower proposed price is without merit as 
it is well settled that a technically unacceptable proposal cannot be 
considered for award, notwithstanding its low proposed price.  
Spectrum Controls Sys., Inc., B-275505, Feb. 27, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  89 
at 3-4.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Previously, the O&M requirements for EPA facilities in Corvallis 
and Newport were performed under two separate contracts, one for 
Corvallis and one for Newport.  TEAM had been the incumbent contractor 
for the Corvallis facilities continuously since 1988 and for the 
Newport facilities from 1990 through 1994.

2. Because TEAM was not represented by counsel, we did not issue a 
protective order and TEAM was provided only redacted versions of the 
agency report and supporting documents.  However, in resolving the 
protest, we reviewed in camera unredacted copies of all evaluation and 
source selection documents in light of the protest arguments raised by 
TEAM.  As much of the information reviewed by our Office is source 
selection sensitive and proprietary in nature, our discussion of the 
evaluation will necessarily be limited.

3. Because the protester has not provided specific reasons why it 
believes its proposal was unreasonably downgraded, we will not discuss 
every aspect of the evaluation, but rather, will provide a few 
examples to show why the TEAM proposal received a low evaluation score 
and was determined to be technically unacceptable and to illustrate 
that the evaluation was not biased against TEAM. 

4. As previously noted, our discussion above contains only examples of 
both the strengths and weaknesses that were reasonably found to exist 
in TEAM's proposal.  Although EPA found a number of additional 
weaknesses in the TEAM proposal, we believe that the agency's 
rejection of TEAM's proposal as technically unacceptable was justified 
on the basis of the low proposed staffing level alone.