BNUMBER:  B-279919             
DATE:  July 29, 1998
TITLE: SDV Telecommunications, B-279919, July 29, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:SDV Telecommunications

File:B-279919            
        
Date:July 29, 1998

Christopher T. Voors for the protester. 
Jacquelyn A. Redditt, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. 
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Where record shows that both protester and awardee had difficulties in 
performing prior contracts for maintenance and repair of 
communications equipment, agency's evaluation, which concluded that 
there was no significant difference in the past performance of the two 
offerors, and selection of the lower-priced proposal were reasonable 
and consistent with solicitation.

DECISION

SDV Telecommunications protests the award of a contract to Carrier 
Communications under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N689936-98-R-0060, issued by the Department of the Navy for 
maintenance and repair of communication equipment.  The protester 
challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance.

We deny the protest.

On February 19, 1998, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-price 
indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, for a base period 
with three 1-year option periods, to provide preventive maintenance 
and remedial repair of ground-based communication equipment at the 
Naval Air Weapons Station at Point Mugu, California.  The RFP provided 
for award based on the offer most advantageous to the government, 
considering price and other factors, including past performance, which 
were "significantly less important" than price as selection criteria.  
RFP  sec.  M.

The agency received five proposals and established a competitive range 
of three.  As a result of discussions, the agency reduced the 
competitive range to two--SDV and Carrier--and requested best and 
final offers (BAFO).  Carrier offered a lower price than SDV.  After 
review of the BAFOs, the agency determined that the two offers were 
essentially equal technically and that either offeror could adequately 
perform the work required.  Since Carrier offered a lower price than 
SDV, the agency selected Carrier for award.

The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Carrier's past 
performance.  Specifically, SDV states that it is the incumbent 
contractor and took over performance from Carrier, the previous 
incumbent, in September 1997.  The protester contends that, at the 
beginning and throughout its performance of the current contract, it 
identified many instances of substandard performance by Carrier.  
Considering this poor performance by Carrier on the previous contract, 
SDV contends, it was unreasonable to consider Carrier's proposal 
technically acceptable under the criterion of past performance.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation and selection decisions, we 
examine them to ensure that they were reasonable and consistent with 
the stated criteria.  LTR Training Sys., Inc., B-274996, B-274996.2, 
Jan. 16, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  71 at 4.  The evaluation of proposals is by 
its nature often subjective; the protester's mere disagreement with 
the evaluation does not demonstrate that the evaluation was 
unreasonable.  UNICCO Gov't Servs., Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 
CPD  para.  134 at 6-7.  The record here supports the agency's determination 
that, in terms of past performance, there was no essential difference 
between the two offerors.

With respect to Carrier's performance of the previous contract, the 
record shows that, in general, the agency found Carrier disorganized 
but cooperative, and its personnel experienced.  Carrier's performance 
was considered satisfactory, it was flexible in working with the 
requiring activity, and it always ensured that there were enough 
personnel to handle the workload.  After SDV assumed responsibility 
for repairs from Carrier, the agency found problems with the records 
of work in progress left by Carrier, as well as with identifying the 
organizations to which equipment in repair belonged.  The agency 
concluded, however, that these problems could be avoided under a new 
contract by additional monitoring by the contracting officer's 
representative.

With respect to SDV's performance, the record shows that the agency 
found the quality of SDV's work superior, but that equipment often 
stayed in the shop for 1 to 3 months, well past the contract's 10-day 
requirement.  In addition, apart from the supervisor, SDV's personnel 
had limited experience, and the staff's responsiveness to concerns was 
highly dependent on whether the supervisor was present at any 
particular time.

Based on the record here, we see no basis to question the agency's 
determination that Carrier's past performance was acceptable, or to 
conclude that its performance problems were materially different in 
nature from those noted in SDV's past performance, such that it was 
improper to rate both firms acceptable in the area of past 
performance.  Since the agency reasonably concluded that Carrier and 
SDV were essentially equivalent in the area of past performance--as 
well as under the other technical evaluation factors, none of which is 
at issue here--the selection of Carrier, which offered a lower price 
than SDV, was reasonable and consistent with the RFP, which placed 
primary emphasis on price.[1]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The protester suggests that, by failing to perform preventive 
maintenance under the prior contract, while submitting monthly 
invoices, Carrier was filing false claims.  Such allegations of 
criminal conduct are within the cognizance of the Department of 
Justice; they are outside the scope of our bid protest function.  All 
Rite Rubbish Removal, Inc., B-241288, Jan. 31, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  99 at 
3.