BNUMBER:  B-279565.2; B-279565.3         
DATE:  June 26, 1998
TITLE: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc, B-279565.2; B-
279565.3, June 26, 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:Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc

File:B-279565.2; B-279565.3        
        
Date:June 26, 1998

Thomas J. Madden, Esq., Jerome S. Gabig, Jr., Esq., and Johana A. 
Reed, Esq., Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, for the protester. 
Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., and Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray, 
Ruffner & Werfel, for Halifax Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor. 
Richard A. Marchese, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, 
for the agency. 
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest is sustained where (1) protester argues that agency's 
relative assessment of proposals improperly failed to reflect specific 
beneficial features that allegedly made its proposal superior to 
awardee's, (2) it appears from record that the features in fact may 
have offered some significant benefit, and (3) the agency only 
generally asserts that the evaluation took the features offered by all 
offerors into consideration, without explaining or providing evidence 
showing why the protester's proposed features did not result in a 
superior score for protester's proposal under the relevant evaluation 
factor.

2.  Agency improperly downgraded protester's proposal relative to 
awardee's based on awardee's more detailed description of proposed 
elevator maintenance subcontractor's experience; since protester and 
awardee proposed same subcontractor, they should have received same 
score for subcontractor's experience.

DECISION

Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) protests the Department 
of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) award of a contract to Halifax 
Technical Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DU100C000018529, for commercial facilities management services with 
respect to the HUD headquarters building in Washington, D.C.  CESI 
challenges the evaluation results.

We sustain the protest.

The solicitation provided for award of a contract for a base year with 
four 1-year options, for custodial, security, operation and 
maintenance, elevator maintenance, landscape, mail, messenger, 
audio-visual, moving/receiving, parking, painting, electrical, space 
alteration, and locksmith services.  Award was to be made on a best 
value basis, with technical factors more significant than cost/price 
(the contract is to contain both cost-reimbursement and fixed-price 
elements).  A maximum of 300 evaluation points were to be available 
under two technical evaluation factors--management and plan of 
operations (140 points), and experience and qualifications (160 
points)--each of which included a number of subfactors.  An additional 
maximum of 14 extra points were available under a small business 
subcontracting program evaluation factor.

HUD received proposals from Halifax, CESI and six other offerors; 
Halifax's, CESI's and three other proposals were included in the 
competitive range.  At the conclusion of discussions, the agency 
requested best and final offers (BAFO).  Based upon the evaluation of 
BAFOs, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) recommended award to 
Halifax.  The TEP noted that Halifax's proposal received the highest 
technical score--289 points, compared to CESI's next highest 282 
points--and found Halifax's proposal to be "technically superior 
because it received the maximum scores in factors for which other 
offerors had weaknesses."  Source Selection Recommendation of February 
5, 1998, at 4.  Further, Halifax's evaluated cost, $45,159,742, was 
slightly lower than CESI's $45,595,733.  (Another proposal was 
slightly lower-cost than Halifax's, but the agency determined that 
this was offset by Halifax's proposal's technical superiority.)  The 
source selection official concurred in the TEP's recommendation and 
made award to Halifax.

EVALUATION OF BENEFICIAL FEATURES

CESI argues that the evaluation of Halifax's and CESI's proposals 
failed to reflect certain beneficial features of CESI's proposal which 
warranted CESI's proposal being rated technically superior to 
Halifax's.  In this regard, although CESI's proposal received the 
maximum 140 available points under the management and plan of 
operations factor, Halifax's also received a near perfect rating of 
139 points.

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, our 
Office will examine 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.  Where a best value evaluation approach is to 
be employed, offerors have a reasonable basis for expecting technical 
proposals to be evaluated and ranked in a way that reflects an 
offeror's relative technical superiority over a competitor.  National 
Test Pilot School, B-237503, Feb. 27, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  238 at 3-4.  
This is particularly so when technical factors are weighted more 
heavily than price.  Tritek Corp., B-247675.2, Aug. 6, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
82 at 5.

In order for us to find an agency's selection determination 
reasonable, an agency must present adequate documentation to support 
that determination.  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, for 
purposes of our review they 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  sec.  15.612(d)(2) (June 1997); Engineering and 
Computation, Inc., supra,   at 3. 

We agree with the protester that the record does not establish that 
HUD properly evaluated the relative merits of CESI's and Halifax's 
proposals.  Specifically, neither the contemporaneous evaluation 
record nor the agency's response to CESI's protest adequately explains 
why the two proposals were rated similarly despite the beneficial 
features enumerated in CESI's proposal, which it again set forth in 
its protest, Protest of March 20, 1998, at 11-12 and Attachment 3, and 
again discussed at length in its comments on the agency report.  
Comments of May 13, 1998, at 5-7 and Attachment 2.  Instead of 
providing such an explanation, or supporting documentation with the 
necessary information, HUD stated conclusorily in its report that 
"[a]ll information provided was considered by the TEP," that "[w]here 
proposals contained various attributes which may not have been 
directly called for in the solicitation, the TEP took that information 
into consideration," that both CESI's and Halifax's proposals were 
"excellent in this area," and that the evaluation was "in accordance 
with the requirements of the RFP and . . . reasonable."  Report of May 
4, 1998 at 15-16.  Aside from these conclusory statements, the agency 
has not specifically addressed, and the record does not show, why the 
specific features proposed by CESI under the management and plan of 
operations factor did not warrant according CESI's proposal a 
significant advantage over Halifax's under this factor.[1]

We have reviewed CESI's proposed features and find that, on their 
face, they appear to be potentially beneficial to the agency such that 
they reasonably could be expected to be reflected in the evaluation 
results.  For example, as noted in its protest, CESI stated in its 
proposal that as the facilities management and maintenance subsidiary 
of its corporate parent, The Charles E. Smith Companies, which owns 
and manages more than 34 million square feet of office space and about 
21,000 residential units, with 130 buildings in the Washington area, 
CESI would have access for emergency support and other purposes to 
significant additional corporate resources beyond those committed on a 
full-time basis to the HUD building.  CESI Proposal at E-1, 
A-253/A-254.  CESI specifically noted the availability of 80 
radio-dispatched mobile maintenance vehicles, more than 400 skilled 
building operating and crafts personnel, equipment overhaul and repair 
shops, and in-house professional engineers and experts.  Id. at E-1 to 
E-2, A-29 to A-30, A-61 to A-62, B-5, B-11.  CESI further proposed 
[DELETED].  Id. at A-67, B-9.  CESI, although recognizing that HUD 
[DELETED], proposed to [DELETED].  Id. at A-82 to A-83; Solicitation 
Clause H-6(A)(4).  In addition, CESI proposed to [DELETED].  Id. at 
E-1, E-8 to E-9, A-4, A-80/A-81, A-81 to A-82, A-260 to A-261, B-5 to 
B-6, B-9 to B-10.

In contrast, Halifax proposed [DELETED], and proposed [DELETED].  
However, there was no indication in Halifax's proposal that it would 
[DELETED], comparable in scope and extent to that proposed by CESI.  
Halifax Proposal at 1-11, 1-13, 1-15, 1-92 to 1-94, 1-114, 2-4 to 2-5; 
Halifax BAFO of November 21, 1997, at 12, 24 to 27.  Nor did Halifax 
propose to [DELETED].  (Halifax instead proposed [DELETED].  Halifax 
Proposal at 1-51, 1-63, 2-3.)  

In the absence of a specific response from the agency explaining why 
the apparently unique and potentially advantageous features of CESI's 
proposed approach in the areas specified by CESI did not warrant a 
higher relative score for CESI's proposal, there simply is no basis 
for concluding that the agency's essentially equal assessment of the 
proposals under the management and plan of operations factor was 
reasonable.  HUD correctly asserts that in documenting a source 
selection decision, a contracting agency need not address each and 
every proposed, purportedly beneficial feature of an offeror's 
approach.  However, where, as here, a protester challenges the 
agency's evaluation conclusions, the agency must establish that it had 
a reasonable basis for its conclusions.  HUD has failed to do so with 
regard to the evaluation of the relative merits of CESI's and 
Halifax's proposals.

We emphasize that an agency is not required to give evaluation credit 
for specific features where it reasonably determines that such 
features will not contribute in a meaningful manner to better 
satisfying the agency's stated needs.  See Tecom, Inc., B-275518.2, 
May 21, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  221 at 7 (agency reasonably concluded that 
offeror not entitled to higher rating where requirements were not 
exceeded in a manner that would provide increased benefit to agency); 
Computer Sys. Development Corp., B-275356, Feb. 11, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  
91 at 7-8.  Alternatively, an agency may reasonably determine that the 
benefit of proposed specific features is not worth any additional cost 
associated with the proposal.  However, the record does not show that 
HUD made any such determination--and HUD does not suggest that one was 
made--that the above features proposed by CESI will not provide a 
meaningful benefit or are not worth the additional associated cost.    

EVALUATION OF EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

CESI also challenges the evaluation of the subfactor for proposed 
elevator maintenance organization, under the experience and 
qualifications factor.  (Halifax's proposal received 150 and CESI's 
142 of the available 160 points under the factor.)  Although both CESI 
and Halifax proposed the incumbent HUD elevator maintenance 
subcontractor (Millar Elevator Service Company), 3 of 15 available 
subfactor points were deducted from CESI's score--while Halifax 
received all 15 points--for failure to adequately address the results 
achieved (e.g., quality of service, timeliness of performance and cost 
control), by Millar under prior contracts.  CESI disputes the agency's 
position that Halifax's proposal was superior in addressing the 
results achieved by Millar, and argues that, in any case, since the 
proposed subcontractor was the incumbent, the evaluators should have 
been aware of its performance and capabilities.[2]

HUD reports that the members of the TEP had no personal knowledge of 
the results achieved by Millar, the incumbent elevator maintenance 
contractor.   According to the agency, the evaluators confined their 
evaluation of an offeror's proposal to the information in that 
proposal.  TEP Statement of May 5, 1998, at 4; TEP Response of May 13, 
1998, at 8 n.1.    

Although an offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written 
proposal, and an agency may downgrade a proposal for lack of requested 
information,  Formal Management Sys., Inc., B-259824, May 3, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  para.  227 at 3, an agency may not ignore prior performance 
information of which it is aware.  International Bus. Sys., Inc., 
B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  114 at 4-6; G. Marine Diesel; 
Phillyship, B-232619, B-232619.2, Jan. 27, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  90 at 4; 
Inlingua Schools of Languages, B-229784, Apr. 5, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  340 
at 5.

Even if HUD is correct that CESI's proposal did not provide as much 
information as Halifax's regarding Millar's experience, since both 
proposals offered the same subcontractor, the evaluation unreasonably 
accorded the two proposals different scores in this area.  Once the 
agency became aware of Millar's experience--whether from Halifax's 
proposal, personal knowledge, or otherwise--it could not reasonably 
assign Halifax's proposal a higher score than CESI's based on that 
experience. Accordingly, it appears that CESI's proposal was entitled 
to the same score as Halifax's under this subfactor, for an increase 
of 3 points.[3]

RECOMMENDATION

In view of Halifax's narrow, 7-point evaluated technical advantage, 
and its only approximately 1-percent cost advantage, we conclude that 
there is a reasonable possibility that CESI was prejudiced in the 
competition by the identified evaluation deficiencies.  See 
McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; see also 
Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  
We therefore sustain Halifax's protest.  By letter of today to the 
Secretary of HUD, we are recommending that the agency reevaluate 
proposals consistent with our decision.  If, upon reevaluation, it is 
determined that Halifax's proposal does not represent the best value 
to the government, we recommend that the agency terminate Halifax's 
contract for convenience.  We also recommend that CESI be reimbursed 
the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable 
attorneys' fees.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)(1) 
(1998).  CESI's certified claim for such costs, detailing the time and 
costs incurred, should be submitted within 60 days after receipt of 
this decision.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1).
 
The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In a May 19 supplemental report, HUD again failed to provide any 
specific explanation of the evaluation of CESI's proposed features.  
In response to the protester's specific, subfactor-by-subfactor 
discussion in its comments, with respect to the evaluation under the 
management and plan of operations factor, the agency stated as 
follows:

            [I]n preparing its Final Report, the TEP had no obligation 
            to specifically address each individual "feature" included 
            as part of CESI's proposal.  As a review of the proposals 
            submitted by all five offerors included within the 
            competitive range indicates, each proposal contained 
            numerous distinct "features" differing in a variety of 
            ways from the basic requirements of the RFP.  All 
            "features" included within the proposals of all offerors 
            were considered by the TEP in conducting its evaluation.  
            See the TEP's individual handwritten scoresheets, which 
            reference the specific portions of the individual 
            proposals in which the TEP found information supporting 
            its point scores. . . .  In conducting its evaluation of 
            the proposals, the TEP concluded that, all "features" of 
            all offerors considered, Halifax's proposal represented 
            the best value to the Government.

Supplemental Report of May 19, 1998, at 4.

2. CESI also challenges other aspects of the evaluation under the 
experience and qualifications factor, as well as the evaluation of the 
reasonableness of the proposed prices.  Since, as discussed below, we 
are recommending that the agency reevaluate proposals, these protest 
grounds are academic and will not be considered.  See generally VSE 
Corp.--Recon. and Entitlement to Costs, B-258204.3, B-258204.4, Dec. 
28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  260 at 2; American Express Bank Ltd., B-228910, 
Nov. 16, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  488 at 4.

3. CESI argues that the agency improperly failed to evaluate proposals 
under the small business subcontracting program factor.  The 
solicitation provided in this regard that an additional "Maximum 14 
Extra Technical points" were available under the small business 
subcontracting program factor for "proposals that are found to be 
technically acceptable or capable of being made technically 
acceptable"; according to the solicitation, "[i]f the technical merit 
and the evaluated cost of proposals are essentially equal, [HUD] will 
use its evaluation of offerors' subcontracting plans as the 
determining factor in selecting a source among otherwise substantially 
equal offers."  Solicitation Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award.  
HUD did not evaluate proposals under this factor because it did not 
find proposals to be equal with respect to the technical and cost 
factors, but instead determined that Halifax's lower-cost proposal was 
superior.  Although CESI contends that the agency was required to 
evaluate the proposed subcontracting plans in all circumstances where 
a proposal was technically acceptable, we find that it was clear under 
the solicitation that offerors' subcontracting plans would be 
evaluated only in case of a tie under the remaining factors.