BNUMBER:  B-279565.5           
DATE:  March 19, 1999
TITLE: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc, B-279565.5, March 19,
1999
**********************************************************************

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-279565.5          
        
Date:March 19, 1999

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., Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., and John P. Walsh, 
Esq., Pompan, Murray, Ruffner & Werfel, for Halifax Technical 
Services, Inc., an intervenor. 
Richard A. Marchese, Esq., Department of Housing and 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 that agency failed to give evaluation credit for specific 
proposed beneficial features of protester's proposal--such as 
availability of off-site corporate resources and corporate buying 
power--when evaluating proposals for commercial facilities management 
services, is denied where agency reasonably determined that features 
were unlikely to contribute significantly to satisfying agency's 
stated needs.

2.  Protest that discussions were not meaningful because agency failed 
to point out excesses in protester's technical proposal is denied 
where claimed beneficial features in fact were not excesses, but 
rather (1) were considered by the agency to be desirable, (2) were 
simply protester's approach to complying with the solicitation 
requirements, or (3) did not render the proposal unacceptable, result 
in a significant reduction in score, or result in an unreasonable, 
grossly excessive price.

DECISION

Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) protests the Department 
of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) reevaluation of proposals 
undertaken in response to our decision in Consolidated Eng'g Servs., 
Inc., B-279565.2, B-279565.3, June 26, 1998, 99-1 CPD  para.  ___.  In that 
decision, we sustained CESI's protest against the 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 argues that HUD's new determination that Halifax's proposal 
offered the best value to the government was based on an unreasonable 
evaluation.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued on April 23, 1997, 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 price.  A maximum of 300 evaluation points were available under 
two technical evaluation factors:  (1) management and plan of 
operations (140 points), which included subfactors for phase-in, 
staffing, quality control, day-to-day work, materials and supplies, 
training, emergency response, interface with HUD management, and 
method for reporting building deficiencies and problems; and (2) 
experience and qualifications (160 points), which included subfactors 
for company profile, experience in performing custodial, elevator, 
operations and maintenance, security, electrical, space alterations, 
mail, audio visual, moving, painting, parking, landscape, locksmith 
and messenger services, and key personnel.  A maximum 14 extra points 
were available under a small business subcontracting program 
evaluation factor.

In the original evaluation, HUD's technical evaluation panel (TEP) 
recommended award to Halifax on the basis that Halifax's best and 
final offer (BAFO) received the highest technical score--289 points, 
compared to CESI's next highest 282 points--and had the lowest 
evaluated price ($44,864,494, compared to CESI's $45,410,864).  Source 
Selection Recommendation, Feb. 5, 1998, at 4-5.  

In sustaining CESI's protest against the ensuing award to Halifax, we 
concluded that the evaluation record did not establish that HUD had 
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 
explained why the two proposals were rated similarly--with CESI 
receiving the maximum 140 points available under the management and 
plan of operations factor and Halifax also receiving a near perfect 
rating of 139 points--despite certain of CESI's proposed features 
that, on their face, appeared to be potentially beneficial to the 
agency such that they reasonably could be expected to be reflected in 
the evaluation results.  In addition, we found that HUD unreasonably 
had assigned Halifax's proposal a 3-point higher score for proposed 
elevator maintenance organization, under the experience and 
qualifications factor, even though both offerors proposed the 
incumbent HUD elevator maintenance contractor.  We recommended that 
the agency reevaluate proposals consistent with our decision.

In its reevaluation of Halifax's and CESI's proposals, the TEP 
determined that, although the proposals indicated that both offerors 
were "very capable of performing" the contract, Halifax had a 
"superior technical proposal" because of the overall strength and 
experience of its subcontractors, its stronger staffing plan, and the 
more complete and comprehensive information in its proposal.[1]  
Source Selection Recommendation, Oct. 5, 1998, at 2-4.  The TEP again 
recommended award to Halifax on the basis that Halifax had submitted a 
superior technical proposal--it received a technical score of 286 
points, compared to CESI's 280 points--and had proposed an evaluated 
cost slightly lower than CESI's.  Upon learning of the source 
selection official's concurrence in the recommendation, and after 
receiving a copy of the recommendation and attached technical 
evaluation panel report (TEPR) dated October 5, 1998 (pursuant to an 
agency-level nondisclosure agreement), CESI filed this protest with 
our Office.  

EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

Beneficial Features

CESI argues that the reevaluation of Halifax's and CESI's proposals 
again failed to reflect certain beneficial features which warranted 
CESI's proposal being rated technically superior to Halifax's.  In 
this regard, CESI's proposal received 133 (of the 140 available) 
points in the reevaluation under the management and plan of operations 
factor and Halifax's received 131 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.[2]  As noted in our original decision, 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. Dev. 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.  
Consolidated Eng'g Servs., Inc., supra, at 5.  

The record here, which includes testimony taken at a hearing held by 
our Office, shows that HUD reasonably evaluated the relative merits of 
CESI's and Halifax's proposals.  We discuss several of the key issues 
below. 

HUD reasonably gave evaluation credit for, and considered to be a 
relative advantage, specific features of CESI's proposal which it 
reasonably determined would contribute in a meaningful manner to 
satisfying the agency's stated needs.  For example, CESI notes that it 
stated in its proposal that it proposed [DELETED].  CESI Proposal at 
A-67, B-9.  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.

The record indicates that, in reevaluating the proposals, HUD gave 
CESI's proposal evaluation credit for its [DELETED] and awarded CESI's 
proposal all 25 available evaluation points under the quality control 
subfactor (while giving Halifax only 23 points).  TEPR at 8-9.  HUD 
also gave CESI evaluation credit for its proposed [DELETED], and 
awarded CESI all 10 available evaluation points under that subfactor 
(while giving Halifax only 9 points).  TEPR at 20.  In addition, HUD 
gave CESI evaluation credit for its proposed [DELETED], and awarded 
CESI all 25 available evaluation points under that subfactor (while 
giving Halifax only 23 points).  TEPR at 18-19; Hearing Transcript 
(Tr.) at 66, 167-68.  However, HUD concluded that CESI's proposal to 
[DELETED], was an unnecessary step that would [DELETED].  TEPR at 11; 
Tr. at 240-41.  We have no basis to question this conclusion.

CESI notes that it also stated in its proposal that, as the facilities 
management and maintenance subsidiary of its corporate parent, The 
Charles E. Smith Companies, it would have access 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 in its proposal 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 maintains that it 
should have received evaluation credit reflecting access to these 
resources.

HUD determined that the "available talent from surrounding contracts 
was not an added value to the proposal."  Source Selection 
Recommendation at 4; TEPR at 5.  While (as acknowledged by one 
evaluator) additional CESI corporate resources could be of potential 
benefit to HUD in the event of an emergency, Tr. at 276, 279-80, 288, 
the agency concluded that the additional CESI corporate resources in 
fact were unlikely to make a greater contribution to satisfying the 
agency's stated needs than would Halifax's greater reliance on 
subcontracting for any additional resources that might be required.

HUD's conclusion was reasonable.  First, it is not clear from the 
record that significant off-site resources are likely to be required.  
The solicitation required the contractor to employ sufficient staffing 
to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the HUD building and set 
forth the agency's estimate of the minimum operations and maintenance 
staffing in various labor categories.  RFP  sec.  C, 
Description/Specification/Work Statement,  para.  X.H.  The specified 
minimum staffing was based on HUD's experience operating the building 
since it assumed the responsibility from the General Services 
Administration (GSA) in 1983; in this regard, according to hearing 
testimony, on-site, dedicated staffing are "able to fix probably 99.9 
percent of the . . . problems that . . . come up on a day-to-day 
basis."  Tr. at 283; see Tr. at 290, 326-29, 332-34.  In addition, the 
systems in HUD's headquarters building are relatively new, 
state-of-the-art systems, and are subject to a strict preventative 
maintenance program, Tr. at 264-65, 271, 307; RFP  sec.  C, 
Description/Specification/Work Statement,  para.  X.F.4; HUD has had few 
serious emergencies since it assumed responsibility for the building, 
Tr. at 182-83, 234-36; Declaration of HUD Director of the Building 
Operations Division (DBOD), January 28, 1999,  para.  9-22; and these 
emergencies apparently were met by recalling off-duty staff dedicated 
to the HUD building.  Id.  Indeed, the record indicates that reliance 
on dedicated building staff is deemed preferable; according to the HUD 
DBOD, it is "extremely important" to rely on staff dedicated to the 
HUD building since, "especially in an emergency situation . . . if the 
contractors brought in staff unfamiliar with the unique qualities of 
the HUD building, these staff could prove to be more of a risk to 
successful completion of the task than a benefit, being unfamiliar 
with the particularities of the HUD building."  Id.,  para.  13.  

Further, to the extent that additional off-site resources could be 
required, agency evaluators questioned whether CESI would be 
significantly better able than Halifax to obtain such resources.  The 
record indicates that the evaluators were concerned that CESI's 
general listing of the available corporate resources did not amount to 
a commitment that, and a detailed description and explanation as to 
how, specific skilled personnel would be diverted from their other 
work to respond to HUD emergencies on a timely basis whenever 
required.  Tr. at 50-51, 279, 304-05, 321-23.  Further, the evaluators 
concluded that Halifax would be able to effectively furnish any 
additional resources that might be required through subcontracting, 
TEPR at 5; Tr. at 280-83, 291, 328, and we find nothing unreasonable 
in this conclusion.  Given that the record shows that there is a low 
likelihood that nondedicated staff assistance will be required, and 
that Halifax's approach appears to provide for such assistance through 
subcontracting, we think HUD reasonably concluded that CESI's proposal 
was not entitled to any significant evaluation advantage in this area.

CESI also challenges HUD's determination that both its and Halifax's 
proposal were equal under the materials and supplies subfactor.  (Both 
proposals received all 10 available points.)  CESI argues that HUD's 
evaluation failed to take into account the assertions in its proposal 
that its annual purchases of $[DELETED] million in building 
maintenance parts and supplies would afford it leverage in negotiating 
discounts, favorable delivery and warranty terms, as well as priority 
access in an emergency or for hard-to-find parts, and that it could 
draw upon its 130-building network for parts.  CESI Proposal at A-234 
(Chart), A-234 to A-237.

The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  First, again, it appears 
that the likelihood that HUD will need parts on an urgent basis is 
reduced by the characteristics of the HUD building.  As noted, the 
systems in the building are relatively new, state-of-the-art systems, 
and are subject to a strict preventative maintenance program, Tr. at 
264-65, 271, 307; RFP  sec.  C, Description/Specification/Work Statement,  para.  
X.F.4; as a result, the building has a very low failure rate.  Tr. at 
271.  Further, to the extent parts and supplies would be required, the 
solicitation required the contractor to maintain on-site inventories 
of both critical parts and expendable supply items.  RFP  sec.  C, 
Description/Specification/Work Statement,  para.  X.C.3-X.C.5.  The 
solicitation included an extensive list of critical parts--including 
parts that are hard to obtain, have long lead times or have a history 
of failure--which the contractor will be required to maintain in an 
on-site inventory, and the record indicates that the agency is 
continually adding to this list based on its experience with the 
building.  RFP  sec.  J, Attachment 4; Tr. at 301-03, 308-09, 317-18.  
Against this backdrop, the agency found no significant difference in 
the proposals.  While (as acknowledged by one evaluator) CESI's 
sizable corporate purchases could be of potential benefit to HUD in 
obtaining favorable prices or parts in short supply, Tr. at 234, 
257-59, 266, 312, the agency noted that Halifax, specifically proposed 
that, upon contract award, it would identify and order long-lead-time 
supplies and equipment.  Halifax Proposal at 1-2; TEPR at 12; Tr. at 
295-96.  HUD also considered significant the fact that Halifax's 
proposal indicated that the company's 30 years of activity in the 
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area gave it access to hundreds of 
reliable, proven local suppliers.  TEPR at 12-13; Halifax Proposal at 
1-94.  We see nothing unreasonable in this conclusion.

Nor is there a basis for questioning HUD's determination that CESI is 
not significantly more likely to obtain lower prices for necessary 
materials and supplies.  As an initial matter, HUD is only responsible 
for the cost of materials and supplies required for a major repair 
where that cost is expected to exceed $10,000; otherwise, the 
contractor will bear the cost.  RFP  sec.  C, 
Description/Specification/Work Statement,  para.  X.F.10.  According to HUD, 
there were no such major repairs at the HUD building in 1998, and 
there have been none to date during Halifax's performance of the 
protested contract.  HUD Comments, Jan. 29, 1999, at 10.  Moreover, to 
the extent that HUD might be called on to bear the cost of materials 
and supplies required for a repair, there actually is reason to 
believe that Halifax's proposed approach might result in lower costs 
than CESI's.  Specifically, as noted by the agency, Halifax proposed 
to obtain a minimum of two competitive quotations before making 
purchases of from $1,000 to $2,500, and a minimum of three competitive 
quotations before making purchases of $2,500 or more.  Halifax 
Proposal at 1-95.  Agency evaluators concluded that this competitive 
procurement approach provided assurance that the agency would get the 
"best," or at least a "good," price.  Tr. at 227-28, 298-99.  CESI's 
own expert witness testified that it was important when managing 
public facilities to obtain competitive bids, Tr. at 356-59; however, 
CESI did not specifically offer such an approach.  We conclude that 
the agency reasonably found that CESI's proposal did not warrant 
greater relative credit in this area.

Current Performance

CESI argues that HUD's reevaluation failed to take into account the 
fact that Halifax's subcontractor for custodial services was not fully 
complying with the solicitation's Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers 
clause.  That clause provides:

     Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, the 
     contractor shall, except as otherwise provided herein, in good 
     faith offer those employees (other than managerial and 
     supervisory employees) under the predecessor contract whose 
     employment will be terminated as a result of the award of this 
     contract or the expiration of the contract under which the 
     employees were hired, a right of first refusal to employment 
     under the contract in positions for which employees are 
     qualified.

RFP  sec.  I, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers,  para.  (a), at I-1.  In this 
regard, CESI asserts that Halifax's custodial subcontractor, AAA 
Painting and Janitorial Contractors, Inc., was not meeting its 
obligations under the clause with respect to offering employment to 
workers of the incumbent custodial contractor, Tri-Ark Industries, 
when it commenced performance on August 1, 1998.  HUD awarded Halifax 
all 15 available points for AAA's custodial experience and 
qualifications, and rated AAA's performance of the HUD contract to 
have been "outstanding."  TEPR at 24-25.  HUD maintains that there was 
no basis for it to conclude that Halifax's custodial subcontractor was 
not complying with the Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers clause.   

The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  CESI's claim that Halifax 
was violating the clause is based primarily on the minutes of a July 
14 meeting between HUD, Halifax, AAA and Tri-Ark personnel concerning 
compliance with the clause during the transition from Tri-Ark to AAA.  
Neither these minutes, nor any other information in the record, 
establishes that Halifax ultimately failed to comply with the 
nondisplacement clause.  Although a HUD official stated that he had 
been advised by several Tri-Ark employees that AAA was requiring them 
to waive their seniority, wages and vacation time, AAA's Director of 
Marketing assured the government that "[t]hat requirement has been 
rescinded," and a Halifax vice president stated that "[w]e will ensure 
compliance with the Wage Determination."  Meeting--July 14, 1998, 
11:40 a.m., Notes (Meeting), at 3-4.  Further, HUD officials indicated 
their intention to ensure compliance, warning Halifax and AAA that the 
current wage rate determination must be complied with and cautioning 
that AAA would be reported to the Department of Labor (DOL) if AAA 
required anyone to sign a waiver.  Given Halifax's response once this 
issue arose, we think the agency could reasonably conclude that it 
should have no negative impact on Halifax's evaluation.  Id. [3] 

As noted by CESI, the minutes also state that a HUD official indicated 
at the meeting that, based on information from AAA, that firm intended 
to perform the work with 20 retained Tri-Ark employees and 25 AAA 
employees, 10 fewer than 
Tri-Ark had employed at HUD and Halifax had proposed.  Meeting at 2; 
Halifax Proposal, Part 1, Volume 2, Tab 3, AAA Painting and Janitorial 
Contractors, Inc., at 6th unnumbered page.  Although CESI appears to 
believe that these numbers establish a violation of the 
nondisplacement clause, that clause specifically provided that the 
contractor "shall determine the number of employees necessary for 
efficient performance of this contract and may elect to employ fewer 
employees than the predecessor contractor employed in connection with 
the performance of the work"; the contractor "is not required to offer 
a right of first refusal to any employee(s) of the predecessor 
contractor whom the contractor reasonably believes, based on the 
particular employee's past performance, has failed to perform suitably 
on the job"; and that the contractor "may employ on the contract any 
employee who has worked for the contractor for at least 3 months 
immediately preceding the commencement of this contract and who would 
otherwise face lay-off or discharge."  RFP  sec.  I, Nondisplacement of 
Qualified Workers,  para.  (a), (b), at I-1.  In this latter regard, we 
note that a Halifax representative explained at the meeting that AAA 
was attempting to avoid laying off its own employees by transferring 
them to the HUD contract, and the record includes a declaration from 
AAA's director of marketing explaining that AAA gave preference to its 
own employees who were facing lay-off because of the loss of work on 
another government contract.  Meeting at 2; HUD Comments, Dec. 30, 
1998, Exhibit 2, Declaration of AAA Director of Marketing, at 3-4.  
Since this approach appears to be consistent with the quoted 
provisions, the record does not establish any violation of the 
nondisplacement clause, such that HUD was required to downgrade 
Halifax's proposal on this basis.[4]

DISCUSSIONS

CESI maintains that HUD was required to advise it during discussions 
that the features of its proposal which the agency considered to offer 
little or no value to the government were excesses. 

In negotiated procurements, contracting agencies generally must 
conduct discussions with all offerors whose proposals are within the 
competitive range.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  253b(d)(1)(A) (1994); Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.610(b) (June 1997).  Such 
discussions encompass weaknesses, deficiencies, or excesses that must 
be addressed in order for the offeror to be in line for the award.  
Mechanical Contractors, S.A., B-277916.2, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  68 
at 4.[5] 

Here, we find that the discussions were adequate.  A number of the 
features cited by CESI--including, for example, the proposed LAN, 
Environmental Control Center, and corporate-based quality control 
inspections--were considered by the agency to be desirable, and thus 
were not deficiencies, weaknesses, or excesses that had to be raised 
during discussions.  Holmes & Narver, Inc., B-266246, Jan. 18, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  55 at 7.  Likewise, CESI's proposal to make available 
corporate resources did not render the proposal unacceptable or result 
in a significant reduction in CESI's score and, inasmuch as it was an 
offer to make existing resources available when needed, there is no 
basis for concluding that it had a significant impact on CESI's 
price.[6]  Other cited features--such as CESI's offer to have a 
licensed/certified operating engineer at the HUD building 24 hours a 
day and to perform scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and 
incidental repairs 24 hours a day as well--were simply CESI's approach 
to meeting the mandatory solicitation requirements and thus also were 
not deficiencies, weaknesses, or excesses that needed to be raised 
during discussions.  RFP  sec.  C, Description/Specification/Work 
Statement,  para.  X.F.1 and X.G.2. 

PRICE EVALUATION

CESI argues that HUD's evaluation of Halifax's proposal prices was 
inconsistent with the requirement in the solicitation that "the 
proposed cost or price must be considered reasonable and must reflect 
the proposed technical approach."  RFP  sec.  M, Evaluation Factors For 
Award at M-1.  CESI does not question the evaluation of Halifax's 
overall price ($44,864,494), which was only approximately 1.2 percent 
below CESI's ($45,410,864) and only approximately 4.6 percent below 
the internal government estimate ($47,007,156).  Rather, CESI notes 
that the solicitation required detailed prices with respect to each of 
the required services except parking--which was to be 
self-supporting--and generally provided that:  "All prospective 
offerors must have acceptable responses to all 14 services in order to 
be considered for award," RFP  sec.  M, at 4; the protester concludes from 
these requirements that the agency was to evaluate the pricing for 
each of the required services.  CESI alleges that Halifax's pricing 
for custodial ($[DELETED]) and messenger ($[DELETED]) services was 
unreasonably low, well below the independent government estimate 
($9,213,661 for custodial services, and $962,676 for messenger 
services), and did not reflect the statement of work requirements in 
these areas.

Cost realism is not ordinarily considered in the evaluation of 
proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract, because these 
contracts place the risk of loss upon the contractor.  However, an 
agency may provide, as here, for the use of a price realism analysis 
in a solicitation for the award of a fixed-price contract for the 
purpose of measuring an offeror's understanding of the solicitation's 
requirements or to assess the risk inherent in an offeror's proposal.  
PHP Healthcare Corp., B-251933, May 13, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  381 at 5.  
The nature and extent of an agency's price realism analysis are 
matters within the sound exercise of the agency's discretion.  
Cardinal Scientific, Inc., B-270309, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  70 at 
4.

The price evaluation was unobjectionable.  The solicitation provided 
for award of a fixed-price contract to a contractor that would be 
responsible for furnishing all required services, and did not 
specifically require a service-by-service price evaluation.[7]  
Further, the record indicates that HUD evaluated Halifax's proposal as 
indicating an understanding of the solicitation's requirements; HUD 
specifically concluded that Halifax had submitted a comprehensive 
staffing plan that included adequate staffing levels for each of the 
required services and a management approach that was better organized 
than CESI's; a comprehensive quality control plan; and a comprehensive 
plan for the accomplishment of day-to-day work.  TEPR at 4-5, 7-11.
       
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Halifax proposed subcontractors to perform 13 of 14 services, while 
CESI proposed subcontractors for 12 of 14 services.

2. CESI argues that the reevaluation was unreasonable because "the 
merits of the proposals were never evaluated against Section M and the 
requirements of the solicitation.  Instead the merits were determined 
by a side-by-side comparison."  Protest, Oct. 26, 1998, at 29.  As we 
recognized in our original decision, where a best value evaluation 
approach is to be employed, offerors have a reasonable basis to expect 
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.  Here, HUD evaluated the proposals under the stated evaluation 
criteria in a manner designed to measure the relative merits of the 
proposals.  This approach was proper.

3. HUD was unable to resolve the matter within 30 days after it was 
formally raised by the concerned labor union (by letter of September 
7).  At that point, on October 20, pursuant to FAR  sec.  22.1206, HUD 
referred the matter to DOL, 15 days after the reevaluation decision on 
October 5.  HUD Comments, Dec. 3, 1998, at 2-3. 

4. In its December 7 comments on the November 24 agency report, and in 
subsequent comments, CESI challenged numerous additional aspects of 
the evaluation and conduct of the procurement.  However, CESI was 
furnished a copy of the source selection recommendation and evaluation 
report pursuant to an agency-level nondisclosure agreement prior to 
filing its protest on October 26.  These documents furnished a basis 
for filing this aspect of the protest.  Thus, these additional 
arguments, raised more than 10 days after CESI received the documents, 
are untimely.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1998); Vinnell Corp., B-270793, 
B-270793.2, Apr. 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  271 at 7.  

5. The rewrite of FAR Part 15 (FAC 97-02) did not apply to this 
acquisition, since the solicitation was issued prior to its effective 
date. 

6. Similarly, CESI's proposal to install and operate as an "optional 
initiative" a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS), as an 
alternative to HUD"s existing internal CMMS which the solicitation 
indicated offerors were to use, was not a deficiency, weakness, or 
excess.  CESI Proposal at A-82 to A-83.  This feature, which was 
evaluated as affording no additional value to HUD, did not render the 
proposal unacceptable or result in a significant reduction in CESI's 
score.  Further, inasmuch as CESI described it as an optional 
approach, the transition to which would be "at minimal if any 
expense," there is no basis for concluding that it had any significant 
impact on the proposal's price.  Id. at A-82 to A-83; TEPR at 11.

7. It appears that CESI itself may have assumed that prices for the 
services would not be independently evaluated.  In this regard, CESI 
has not refuted HUD's assertion that when questioned during 
discussions concerning its extremely low pricing for painting 
services--its BAFO price ($[DELETED]) was approximately [DELETED] 
percent lower than the lowest (Halifax at $[DELETED]) of the five 
other evaluated offers in this area, [DELETED] percent lower than the 
next lowest ($[DELETED]), and [DELETED] percent lower than the 
independent government estimate ($1,576,899)--CESI explained that "it 
realized that its proposed price for painting was extremely low, but 
that it would make up any lost costs in that area under one of the 
other 13 areas", such as the operations and maintenance area.  Agency 
Report, Nov. 24, 1998, at 42; see Halse Enters., B-271757, July 22, 
1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  32 at 2-3 (there is no basis for sustaining protest 
concerning waiver of solicitation requirement where agency treated 
offerors equally).