BNUMBER:  B-279715             
DATE:  July 16, 1998
TITLE: McHargue Construction Company, B-279715, July 16, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:McHargue Construction Company

File:B-279715            
        
Date:July 16, 1998

Mike McHargue for the protester. 
Sharon J. Chen, Esq., and Robert W. Schlattman, Esq., General Services 
Administration, for the agency. 
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation called for multiple awards on the basis of greatest 
value, with technical quality more important than price, the agency's 
decision to award contracts to six higher technically rated, 
lower-priced offerors than the protester is unobjectionable since the 
record shows that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the 
evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation and the record 
supports the evaluators' conclusions.

DECISION

McHargue Construction Company protests the failure of the General 
Services Administration to make an award to it under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. GS-04P-97-EWD-0056, for general repairs and 
alterations to government-owned and government-leased space in various 
buildings within the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee.  

We deny the protest.

The RFP, as amended, provided for award of multiple fixed-price, 
indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for a 
1-year base period with four 1-year option periods.  RFP, amend. No. 
02; Vol. 1  sec.  300 at 1-2,  para.  1.1-1.2, 1.4, 1.5.  The solicitation 
contemplates that GSA will issue task orders under each ID/IQ contract 
to obtain all labor, materials, supervision, tools, and equipment 
necessary for the construction and repair projects.  The RFP also 
stated the competition procedure for placement of individual task 
orders among the firms that receive contract awards.  RFP, Vol. I  sec.  
300 at 10-11,  para.  7.   The solicitation, which was not set aside for 
small business concerns, permitted offerors to submit proposals for 
all or for specific geographic areas within a particular state.[1]  
The RFP stated that the agency could award up to five ID/IQ contracts 
for each geographic area listed in the RFP.  RFP, amend. No. 02.  
Offerors were advised that the RFP reflected the agency's minimum 
requirements and were invited to increase the quantity and quality of 
services to be provided in their proposals.  RFP, amend. No. 02, Vol. 
II, Evaluation and Award,  para.  1.  The maximum value for each ID/IQ 
contract is $10 million.  RFP, Vol. 1  sec.  300 at 2,  para.  1.7.     

The RFP stated a greatest value evaluation scheme, with technical 
quality deemed more important than price.  RFP, Vol. I  sec.  300 at 6,  para.  
4.1.  Proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following 
technical evaluation factors, with their relative weights to be scored 
on a 1,000-point scale:[2]  (a) experience and past performance--500 
points; (b) qualifications of key personnel--250 points; and (c) 
management and technical approach--250 points.  The RFP provided 
detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals and requested 
that offerors organize their technical proposals to respond to the 
evaluation factors and provide separate technical and price proposals.  
RFP, Vol. I  sec.  300 at 7-9,  para.  5.2.  

Under experience and past performance, offerors were required to 
identify at least two similar projects valued at least $200,000 
each.[3]  As to the qualifications of key personnel, the RFP required 
resumes for each key individual including a description of the duties 
and responsibilities performed by these individuals on their last 
three similar projects.  As part of their management and technical 
approach proposal, offerors were required to describe their approach 
to accomplishing the demonstration project included in the RFP.  RFP, 
amend. No. 03 at 3.  This demonstration project was representative of 
the general requirements for work to be ordered under the ID/IQ 
contracts and offerors were to address and provide examples of their 
ability to perform work of the size and type involved; their ability 
to effectively coordinate the work of multiple trades; and their 
ability to handle multiple projects, priority work, and demanding 
customers.  RFP, amend. No. 02, Vol. III, Demonstration Project.   

With respect to price, the RFP instructed offerors that they were to 
prepare their price proposals by submitting pricing for normal and 
expedited completion of the demonstration project,[4] including 
detailed price break-out by major technical specification categories.  
RFP, Vol. I  sec.  300 at 9,  para.  5.2(d).  Price proposals would be evaluated 
based on the realism and reasonableness of the proposed price for the 
demonstration project, considering both the offeror's approach and 
understanding of the project.  RFP, Vol. 1  sec.  300 at 7,  para.  4.1(b).   

Several proposals were received by the October 17, 1997 extended 
closing date, including McHargue's.[5]  After the proposals had been 
scored by individual technical evaluation panel (TEP) members, the TEP 
developed a consensus score for each proposal.  Twelve offers were 
rated as technically acceptable, including McHargue's, and these 12 
proposals were included in the initial competitive range.  Technical 
Evaluation Report.  The agency subsequently conducted oral discussions 
with the competitive range offerors during which the agency identified 
weaknesses in each offeror's proposal, linking these weaknesses to 
specific RFP requirements.  In this regard, the agency contacted 
McHargue by telephone on January 26, 1998, and identified areas in its 
proposal that required additional information and/or clarification.  
The agency requested that the protester provide the experience, 
qualifications and education of its key personnel (other than its 
estimator); clearly define its management and technical approach to 
performing the demonstration project; and reevaluate its pricing for 
the HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system and other 
elements which seemed to be too high.  McHargue and the other 
competitive range offerors were asked to submit revised proposals by 
February 4 at 3 p.m.    

The agency evaluated the revised proposals received and conducted an 
analysis of the price proposals; GSA states that it did not receive a 
revised proposal from the protester.  The final weighted technical 
scores and evaluated prices (for the three geographic areas at issue 
in this protest) were as follows:

           Offeror  Technical Score (max. 1,000 points)Price For
                                 Normal CompletionPrice For Expedited 
                                              Completion

         R.D. Vaughn     875      $303,163.00 $322,063.00
         J.W. Poole      875      $359,396.00 $442,181.00
       Prime Builders    850      $323,777.00 $364,190.00

       Witherington Constr.825    $297,890.00 $496,574.00

          D.C. Neal      800      $422,500.00 $480,000.00
       Brooks Lumber     725      $444,891.00 $464,891.00

          McHargue       625      $453,154.04 $503,675.00

          Offeror A      600      $372,038.00 $438,221.00

          Offeror B      550      $517,383.14 $632,759.51
The contracting officer, who served as the source selection official 
(SSO) reviewed the technical and price evaluation reports and 
considered six higher-rated technical proposals superior to the 
protester's.  Based on the technical quality of these six proposals, 
the SSO selected Vaughn, Poole, Prime Builders, Witherington, Neal, 
and Brooks for award.[6]  Price Negotiation Memorandum.  After 
receiving notice of the awards and a debriefing on March 31, McHargue 
filed this protest.  

McHargue, a small business concern, objects to the agency's evaluation 
of its proposal under each evaluation factor as well as the agency's 
decision not to select its proposal for award.[7]

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations and 
source selection decisions, our Office will examine the record to 
determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord 
with the stated evaluation factors.  Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 
B-276247, May 27, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  195 at 3.  Based on our review of 
the record, we conclude that GSA's evaluation and selection decision 
were reasonable.  We discuss some key areas of the evaluation below. 

The experience and past performance factor was worth 50 percent of the 
evaluation points.  Of particular concern to the agency was McHargue's 
experience with projects of the scope, magnitude, and difficulty of 
the instant RFP.  In this regard, the amended RFP provided, in 
pertinent part, as follows:  "The projects listed should include at 
least two (2) projects whose dollar amounts are [at least $200,000.00] 
and should include at least one project for both design and 
construction services."  RFP, amend. No. 03 at 3; Vol. I  sec.  300 at 8,  para.  
5.2(c)1.  McHargue's proposal included information pertaining to 12 
past and current contracts.  Of these, it identified two current 
contracts with GSA:  for partition and miscellaneous repairs in the 
Raleigh area, valued at approximately $315,000; and for exterior 
cleaning and caulking of the federal courthouse in Winston-Salem, 
valued at approximately $230,000.  For the exterior cleaning and 
caulking contract, the protester identified itself as a subcontractor 
to Sigma Construction.  The average value of the other contracts 
identified in McHargue's proposal was less than $50,000. 

The evaluators considered the partition and miscellaneous repairs 
project as the only contract that met the dollar requirement for 
similar projects, and noted that  the other projects listed in the 
protester's proposal were not of the scope, magnitude, and difficulty 
of the instant procurement.  The evaluators noted that the other 
projects listed were smaller and less complex, that the protester 
received good references on all its projects, and concluded that the 
protester was better suited to handling smaller projects.  Based on 
these considerations, the evaluators assigned McHargue's proposal 300 
out of 500 available weighted points for this factor.  

McHargue maintains that it was improper for GSA to discount its 
exterior cleaning and caulking contract on the basis that McHargue is 
not the prime contractor.  We find nothing unreasonable in the 
agency's factoring of this consideration into the evaluation.  The 
roles of a company as a subcontractor on a project working under a 
prime contractor, as opposed to serving as the prime contractor, are 
different, and we think the agency could reasonably decide that the 
listed subcontract did not meet the RFP requirement for similar 
projects of the requisite size, scope and difficulty in assigning the 
experience evaluation points, since this solicitation called for the 
firm to act as a prime contractor.  Further, the remaining projects 
listed were less complex projects of low dollar value compared to the 
contracts to be awarded under this solicitation.  We think the record 
reasonably supports the agency's determination that the past and 
current projects identified in McHargue's proposal did not demonstrate 
the firm's experience as a prime contractor on larger, complex 
projects of the type contemplated by this RFP.  In these 
circumstances, we think the scoring under this factor was not 
objectionable.

Next, McHargue maintains that the agency misapplied the qualifications 
of key personnel in evaluating its proposal.  According to the 
protester, the agency improperly downgraded its proposal for not 
submitting resumes for the key individuals identified in its proposal, 
when, in fact, "amendment number 03 to this solicitation deleted this 
requirement."  Protester's Comments at 3.  This allegation is without 
merit.

Under the proposal submission requirement in Volume 1 of the RFP for 
the qualifications of key personnel factor, offerors were to identify 
all individuals and principals proposed to perform all phases of the 
projects and, among other things, "[a] resume must be submitted for 
each."  The RFP advised that each resume should "include a description 
of duties and responsibilities performed by the key individuals and 
principals on their last three similar projects."  RFP, Vol. I  sec.  300 
at 9,  para.  5.2(c)(3).  Amendment No. 03 did not change nor modify this 
requirement.  (As relevant here, amendment No. 03 merely deleted the 
two subfactors--project manager and on-site superintendent--under the 
qualifications of key personnel technical factor in Volume II of the 
RFP.  RFP, amend. No. 03 at 3 (revisions to Vol. II,  para.  4).  Our review 
of McHargue's proposal indicates that the firm did not include resumes 
for any key personnel and that the information provided in the firm's 
proposal simply named four individuals and stated that each had passed 
a "full FBI background check," but did not describe the experience or 
qualifications of the personnel at all.   The technical evaluation of 
a proposal is based on information submitted in it and an offeror runs 
the risk of having its proposal rejected or downgraded if the proposal 
submitted is inadequately written.  See Research Analysis and 
Maintenance, Inc., B-242836.4, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  387 at 5.  We 
see no basis to object to the evaluators' downgrading of McHargue's 
proposal in this area (which was assigned 125 out of a possible 250 
points).          

McHargue also contends that the agency improperly evaluated its 
proposed pricing  for the HVAC portion of the demonstration project on 
the basis that the firm was "the only offeror that truly understood 
the HVAC portion of the demonstration project as it was described in 
their specifications."  Protester's Comments at 4.  While McHargue 
generally disagrees with the agency's conclusion that its pricing for 
HVAC and other elements seemed too high, it has not specifically 
refuted those conclusions.  In particular, the protester has not 
refuted the agency's overall concern--communicated to the protester 
during discussions--that its HVAC pricing was based on an assumption 
concerning the chiller and air handler which was inconsistent with the 
requirements of the demonstration project.[8]

Since McHargue has provided nothing to establish that the evaluators' 
conclusion concerning its pricing was unreasonable or objectionable 
and the record shows that McHargue's price for the demonstration 
project was the second highest of all 12 offers and higher than any of 
the awardees' prices, we have no basis to question the agency's 
evaluation and ranking of McHargue's price proposal.  The protester's 
mere disagreement with the agency does not in itself render the 
evaluation unreasonable.  See Microeconomic Applications, Inc., 
B-258633.2, Feb. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  82 at 5.  Thus, the record 
reasonably supports the agency's determination that McHargue's overall 
price was higher than any of the awardees' total price.  

In sum, the record shows that McHargue's proposal was properly 
downgraded under each evaluation factor, and the evaluators reasonably 
concluded that there were no competitive strengths in McHargue's 
proposal that outweighed those in the proposals of the six higher 
technically rated proposals that were ultimately selected for 
award.[9]  

McHargue nonetheless argues that it should have received a contract 
since the RFP contemplated multiple awards, the firm is a small 
business, and its proposal was acceptable.  There is no right to a 
government contract, Jack Faucett Assocs., B-277555, Sept. 12, 1997, 
97-2 CPD  para.  71 at 3, although firms do have the right to have their 
bids or offers considered fairly.  Krygoski Constr., Co., B-213035.2, 
May 15, 1984, 84-1 CPD  para.  523 at 6.  The agency awarded five contracts 
for each of the seven geographic areas consistent with the amended 
RFP.  In order for McHargue to have received an award, it would have 
had to displace one of the higher-rated, lower-priced firms.  As 
discussed above, McHargue was rated technically inferior and offered 
higher prices compared to the proposals of the six firms, all 
self-certified small businesses, that were awarded contracts.  Under 
these circumstances, the agency's decision not to award McHargue a 
contract was reasonable.

Accordingly, the protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The geographic areas are:  Asheville, NC; Raleigh, NC; 
Winston-Salem and Greensboro, NC; Charleston, SC; Columbia, SC; 
Greenville/Spartanburg, SC; and Knoxville/Chattanooga, TN.

2. Each evaluation factor was to be rated using an adjectival and 
numerical scoring scheme which was not disclosed in the RFP.

3. Similar projects were defined as projects of the scope, magnitude, 
and difficulty contemplated by the instant RFP.  RFP, Vol. I  sec.  300 at 
7-8,  para.  5.2(c)1.

4. Normal project completion was defined as work performed within 
approximately 90 days; expedited completion anticipates that the work 
will be completed in 30 days.  RFP, amend. No. 02, Vol. III, 
Demonstration Project--Assumptions at 6. 

5. McHargue submitted a proposal for three geographic areas in North 
Carolina:  Winston-Salem/Greensboro, Raleigh, and Asheville.

6. In each area, award was made to five firms; most of the firms 
received award in more than one area.  All of the six awardees were 
self-certified small businesses.

7. The protester submitted numerous arguments in support of these and 
other protest grounds.  This decision will discuss only the more 
significant arguments.  We have reviewed the entire record and 
considered all of the protester's arguments; those arguments not 
specifically addressed in the decision are also denied.

8. While McHargue argues that the HVAC requirements in the 
demonstration project were flawed, such an argument, to be timely, was 
required to be raised by the date and time set for receipt of 
proposals.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1998). 

9. The protester asserts that the agency lost or improperly failed to 
evaluate additional information which GSA allegedly received on 
February 3.  McHargue has provided our Office with the United States 
Postal Service Express Mail receipt as evidence of delivery of a 
package to GSA on that date.  In response, GSA states that it did not 
receive this package from McHargue and argues that even if it had 
received this additional information, the firm would still not be in 
line for award because the awardees' proposals were technically 
superior to the protester's, particularly in the area of experience in 
projects of similar size, magnitude and difficulty as the instant 
solicitation.  As shown above, the record shows that McHargue's 
proposal was higher priced and technically lower scored by at least 
100 points compared to the awardees'.  Further, the record supports 
the agency's position that McHargue did not address the deficiencies 
in its proposal which the agency identified in discussions.  Our 
review of McHargue's correspondence to the agency shows that McHargue 
never provided resumes nor described the qualifications and education 
of all key personnel, did not respond to the request to clearly define 
the technical approach to be used and, as the agency points out, the 
protester did not, and apparently could not provide any additional 
relevant experience which would have justified a higher score.  Thus, 
the record shows that McHargue's submission, even if it was not 
properly considered, did not rectify the deficiencies in its initial 
proposal that resulted in its low technical scoring.