BNUMBER:  B-279828             
DATE:  July 24, 1998
TITLE: Technical & Administrative Services Corporation, B-279828,
July 24, 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:Technical & Administrative Services Corporation

File:B-279828            
        
Date:July 24, 1998

Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., and Richard A. Maresca, Esq., Porter, 
Wright, Morris & Arthur, for the protester.
Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for RGI, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, for the agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Allegation that proposals were misevaluated is denied where record 
reflects merely that protester disagrees with evaluators' findings.

2.  Allegation that discussions were inadequate is denied where 
protester's only adverse rating was addressed by a specific and 
appropriate discussion question.

3.  Transition costs were not required to be included as part of price 
evaluation where solicitation did not call for consideration of such 
costs.

DECISION

Technical & Administrative Services Corporation (TADCORPS) protests 
the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity 
contract to RGI, Inc. under request for offers (RFO) No. 
RFOW-15635-JFK, issued as a small business set-aside by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for training logistics  
services to support the agency's headquarters Training and Development 
Division (Code FT).[1]  TADCORPS principally alleges that NASA 
misevaluated the proposals.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation was issued on November 28, 1997.  Technical proposals 
were to be initially evaluated to ensure that they satisfied the 
agency's baseline requirements as set forth in the performance work 
statement (PWS).  Acceptable proposals were then to be evaluated 
against three factors in order to determine whether, and how much, 
value was to be added to the rating of the proposal.  The value 
factors were: 
(1) relevant demonstrated experience and positive past performance in 
providing training logistics support; (2) direct experience and 
related higher education of proposed staff as well as capabilities in 
utilizing software packages currently used by Code FT and other 
industry standard software packages; and (3) the offering of   
improved response times, offices with proximity to Code FT, 
streamlined work processes, superior interfacing with various 
organizations, management flexibility and the elimination or 
minimization of rework.  Award was to be made on a best value basis 
assessing the best combination of qualitative merit and price.

Five offers were received, one of which was immediately rejected for 
reasons not relevant here.  The other four were priced as follows:

          Offeror A   $2.676 million

          RGI         $1.827 million

          TADCORPS    $5.362 million

          Offeror B   $8.000 million
The proposals of RGI and Offeror B were evaluated as having the 
highest technical merit.  TADCORPS's proposal was rated third and 
Offeror A's last.  All four were considered to have satisfied the 
agency's baseline requirements and were included in the competitive 
range.  Oral and written discussions were held and four revised final 
offers were requested and received.

Final prices were as follows:
                               
          Offeror A   $2.409 million

          RGI         $3.593 million

          TADCORPS    $3.979 million

          Offeror B   $6.724 million
Although Offeror A submitted the low-priced proposal, that proposal 
was eliminated  because it was found to have offered the least added 
value.  Offeror B's proposal was found to have offered the most added 
value, but was eliminated because of its high price.  In comparing the 
two remaining proposals, with respect to value factor 1 (corporate 
experience and past performance), RGI's proposal and TADCORPS's were 
found to be equivalent in terms of added value.  With respect to value 
factor 2 (staff experience and education as well as software 
capability), RGI's proposal was found to have added more value than 
TADCORPS's.  With respect to value factor 3 (improved response time, 
etc.), RGI's proposal was found to have added significantly more value 
than TADCORPS's.  Based on these assessments, as well as the price 
differential, award was made to RGI.  This protest followed.

PROTEST AND ANALYSIS

TADCORPS protests the comparative evaluation of its proposal and the 
awardee's under value factor 2 with respect to staffing and competency 
with multiple software packages and under value factor 3 with respect 
to improved response time.  TADCORPS maintains that the evaluations, 
as well as discussions, were unequal and, in the case of RGI's 
proposal evaluation, that the record does not support NASA's 
conclusions.  TADCORPS also argues that the agency failed to properly 
consider the dramatic increase in RGI's final price and the fact that 
the awardee's proposal did not include transition costs.

It is not the function of this Office to independently evaluate 
proposals.  Rather, the determination of the relative desirability and 
technical adequacy of proposals is primarily a matter of agency 
discretion, which we will not disturb unless it is shown to be without 
a reasonable basis or inconsistent with the stated evaluation 
criteria. Axion Corp., B-252812, July 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  28 at 3.  A 
protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is not 
itself sufficient to establish that the evaluation was unreasonable.  
ASR Management & Tech. Servs., B-252611, July 15, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  22 
at 6.

Value Factor 2:  Element Relating to General Staffing Qualifications

TADCORPS asserts that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for 
concluding that RGI's proposed staff was highly qualified and that, 
under this element in value factor 2, it was equal in value to the 
protester's proposed (incumbent) staff. 

In its initial proposal, RGI described its staffing plan and included 
resumes of two individuals representing its management team plus three 
additional resumes.  In addition, RGI proposed "a pool of twelve POCs 
[points of contact], with additional current staff designed to act as 
back-ups and POCs as scheduling dictates."  In response to discussion 
questions, RGI submitted an additional four resumes with its final 
proposal.  TADCORPS does not challenge the accuracy of these resumes 
nor does it assert that the individuals are not well qualified.  
Rather, the protester emphasizes that RGI did not identify specific 
personnel for specific tasks and argues that the lack of specific 
designations means that NASA cannot be sure which, if any, of the 
persons whose resumes were submitted will be performing under the 
contract and at what level of participation.

The contract contemplated by the RFO is a task order contract and NASA 
states that it did not know its requirements with certainty prior to 
award.  NASA points out that the solicitation did not require RGI to 
make the type of identification that the protester deems necessary, 
nor did the agency expect such particular designations.  RGI properly 
proposed resumes from a pool of its own personnel that it anticipates 
will be available for contract performance.  The group was highly 
rated overall.  In the absence of anything in the record beyond the 
protester's disagreement with NASA's reliance on these resumes, we see 
no basis to disturb the evaluation in this regard.  ASR Management & 
Tech. Servs, supra, at 6.

Value Factor 2:  Element Relating to Competency With Multiple Software 
Packages

In its initial offer, TADCORPS emphasized its experience with the 
following software packages:  MS Office, Raosoft, cc:mail, Eudora, 
Winsock, 3270 Emulation, Schedule+, Internet and World Wide Web 
Navigation, HTML and AdminSTAR.  NASA evaluated TADCORPS's response as 
providing low overall added value with respect to this element of 
value factor 2.

NASA explains that Winsock, 3270 Emulation, and World Wide Web 
Navigation are not really software packages.  The first is a network 
programming interface, the second is a communications protocol and the 
third is a statement implying general capability to use the Internet.  
MS Office and Raosoft were specified in the PWS and were therefore 
evaluated as providing some added value.  The record reflects that 
TADCORPS also received credit for experience in using the other 
programs listed in it proposal, but not as much credit as the 
protester believes it should have received for AdminSTAR.  

Discussions were held with TADCORPS on this subject, which included an 
indication by the agency of the de-emphasis in the future value of 
AdminSTAR.  NASA also informed the protester that its proposed staff 
appeared to have only limited knowledge of and experience with 
state-of-the-art computer and automated training logistics 
applications.  In response, TADCORPS reiterated the experience set 
forth in its initial proposal and essentially disagreed with the 
agency about the value of AdminSTAR.  While TADCORPS disagrees with 
the agency's assessment of the value of its experience, nothing in the 
record shows that the agency acted unreasonably and we have no basis 
to disturb the evaluation.  Id. 

Likewise, TADCORPS disagrees with the agency's evaluation of RGI's 
proposal with regard to software experience.  RGI's high rating was 
primarily due to experience with SPSS (Statistical Package for the 
Social Sciences)--which has data analysis and manipulation 
capabilities directly related to the required PWS tasks--as well as 
JAVA, Webpainter, Freehand, KAI suite, Pagemaker and Photoshop.  In 
its final comments, TADCORPS argues principally that, since RGI did 
not propose a definite key staff, its corporate experience with 
multiple software packages cannot be said to have satisfied the 
requirements of this element of value factor 2.  TADCORPS also 
criticizes the agency's interpretation of what constitutes "industry 
standard software packages."  This disagreement provides no basis for 
disturbing the evaluation.  The agency notes that even if some of the 
disputed programs were not "industry standard," as TADCORPS insists, 
RGI would have still been rated higher than the protester for 
experience with standard programs such as Corel suite, StatPak, 
Mathematica and SPSS.  In the absence of any cogent rebuttal to this 
assessment, we deny this aspect of the protest.  Id. 

Value Factor 3

TADCORPS objects to the agency assessment that RGI's proposal provided 
significant added value under this factor.  Concentrating primarily on 
RGI's offer to reduce response time by 20 percent where there are no 
interfaces with others outside RGI--for which the firm received 
credit--TADCORPS insists that the agency did not understand the 
qualification in RGI's proposal and, therefore, overscored RGI in this 
respect.  TADCORPS submits that the qualification concerning when 
there would be a reduction in response time renders the proposed 
reduction meaningless.

The evaluation record belies TADCORPS's argument.  Contrary to 
TADCORPS's assertion, while NASA's evaluators graded RGI's proposal 
highly for improved response time, they explicitly noted that this was 
for "most tasks," not all tasks.  The record reflects that the 
evaluators recognized precisely what RGI was proposing and, 
notwithstanding the protester's disagreement about the significance of 
the qualification, the record provides no basis for disturbing the 
evaluation.  Most importantly, TADCORPS's argument essentially ignores 
the fact that the high ranking for improved response time was only 1 
out of 12 high rankings received by RGI under value factor 3.  

Finally in this regard, TADCORPS asserts that there was an 
overemphasis on this factor, which should have been the subject of 
discussions or a solicitation amendment to indicate that it was not to 
be weighted equally with the other factors.  The evaluation record 
shows, however, that each value factor was considered separately and 
without disproportionate weighting as TADCORPS suggests; rather, the 
agency simply took into account the degree of added value presented by 
RGI under the particular factor.  Accordingly, this aspect of the 
protest is denied.  

Discussions

TADCORPS alleges that meaningful discussions were not held with 
respect to its staff qualifications, its software experience and its 
proposal for improved response
time and suggests that RGI had more extensive discussions in these 
areas.  Of the 10 staff members the protester proposed, 9 received a 
"high" rating and 1 received a "medium" rating.  None were rated "low" 
or unacceptable."  The firm was rated "low" for having a limited 
knowledge of state-of-the-art computer and automated training 
logistics applications; however, this rating was the subject of a 
specific discussion question.  With respect to improved response time, 
TADCORPS was rated "high."

We review the adequacy of discussions to ensure that agencies point 
out weaknesses that, unless corrected, would prevent an offeror from 
having a reasonable chance for award.  Brown & Root, Inc. and Perini 
Corp., a joint venture, B-270505.2, B-270505.3, Sept. 12, 1996, 96-2 
CPD  para.  143 at 6.  An agency is not required to discuss every aspect of 
an offeror's proposal that receives less than the maximum score.  DAE 
Corp., B-259866, B-259866.2, May 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  12 at 4-5.   
Neither is an agency required to advise an offeror of minor weaknesses 
that are not considered significant, even where the weaknesses 
subsequently become a determinative factor between two closely ranked 
proposals.  Brown & Root, Inc. and Perini Corp., a joint venture, 
supra.  Contracting agencies have wide discretion in determining the 
nature and scope of discussions and their discretion will not be 
questioned unless it is clearly shown to be without a rational basis.  
PRB Assocs., Inc., B-277994, B-277994.2, Dec. 18, 1997, 98-1 CPD  para.  13 
at 5-6.

Here, there were no significant weaknesses in TADCORPS's proposal.  
Rather, with the exception of the "low" rating for software 
experience, the proposal received the best technical ratings possible.  
The "low" rating was the subject of a specific discussion question, as 
noted above, and, thus, there is no basis to conclude that the agency 
failed to conduct meaningful discussions.

RGI's Final Price

TADCORPS alleges that NASA failed to question the large increase in 
RGI's price contained in its final offer.  This allegation presumes 
that there was no apparent basis for the increase.  RGI's final offer, 
however, states that staff loading was significantly revised to 
provide additional support and that these adjustments are reflected in 
the revised price.  The record provides no basis to question the 
contracting officer's acceptance of this explanation.

Finally, TADCORPS argues that the evaluation was flawed because RGI's 
final price does not include any funding for transition costs to be 
incurred by the
non-incumbent.  There is no requirement that transition costs be 
evaluated in every procurement and they cannot be evaluated unless the 
solicitation provides for their consideration.  Intra-Med Servs., 
Inc., B-272012, Aug. 8, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  59 at 4, n.4.  To the extent 
that TADCORPS is objecting to the fact that the RFO did not require 
consideration of the costs of transition, the issue is untimely since 
it involves an alleged apparent solicitation defect which must be 
filed prior to the time set for receipt of proposals.  Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1998).

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States  

1. The solicitation also provides, unlike previous contracts which 
were limited to support for Code FT, that the contract resulting from 
the RFO would provide for  support services on an agency-wide basis.  
TADCORPS is the incumbent Code FT contractor.