BNUMBER:  B-280176 
DATE:  September 8, 1998
TITLE: California Resources, B-280176, September 8, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:California Resources

File:     B-280176

Date:September 8, 1998

Kelly T. Smith for the protester.
Pamela Reiner Waldron, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the 
agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Selection of slightly higher quote was proper where experience and 
past performance were more important than price, and agency reasonably 
evaluated protester's experience as deficient.

DECISION

California Resources protests the selection of Riojas Enterprises, 
Inc. (REI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SSA-RFQ-98-3446, 
issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security 
Administration (SSA), for the relocation of SSA records from 10 
locations to the SSA National Records Center (NRC) in Independence, 
Missouri.  California Resources objects to the evaluation of its quote 
and selection of REI at a higher price.
 
We deny the protest.

The procurement was conducted as a small business set-aside under the 
Simplified Acquisition Procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) subpart 13.5.  The RFQ was to lead to a fixed-price, 
indefinite-quantity contract for 1 base year, with four 1-year 
options.  The contractor was to provide all necessary management, 
personnel, materials, services, facilities and equipment necessary to 
relocate boxes filled with confidential SSA records.  SSA personnel 
were to pack and sequentially number the boxes, the tops of which were 
to remain open.  The contractor was responsible for palletizing and 
shrink-wrapping the boxes, loading the palletized boxes into trucks, 
shipping the boxes to the NRC, and unloading the boxes and moving them 
to shelves in proper sequential order.  The 10 loading sites are 
located in 7 different states.  

Quotes were to be evaluated based on experience, past performance and 
price, with experience and past performance equal in weight and more 
important than price.  For the experience/past performance evaluation, 
quoters were required to submit a sufficient number of references, 
current or completed within the last 3 years, to demonstrate relevant 
experience and provide a record of relevant past performance.  RFQ  sec.  
H-1(B)(1)(j).  For each reference, quoters were to provide, in 
addition to basic identifying information, a full description of the 
services provided, including the extent to which the work was similar 
in size, scope and complexity to the requirement here (more 
specifically, information concerning "the transportation/storage of 
vital records or sensitive materials, the volume of materials handled, 
number of sites involved, personnel requirements and scheduling").  
RFQ  sec.  H-1(B)(1)(j)(i)-(iii).  Experience was to be evaluated in terms 
of size (volume of material handled), scope (shipping sensitive 
materials with schedules established on short notice), and complexity 
(pickup from multiple sites for shipment to a single facility on a 
flow basis).  RFQ  sec.  I-1(d)(1).  Award was to be made to the firm 
submitting the quote which represented the best value to the 
government.  The RFQ warned that failure to supply complete reference 
information and a thorough description of the quoter's experience 
might result in the quote being eliminated from consideration.  RFQ  sec.  
I-1(a), H-1(B)(1)(j).

Of the nine quotes timely received, the protester's was low at 
$2,971,450, and REI's second low at $3,022,330.  Four of the quotes 
were rejected for lack of sufficient experience information and/or the 
required reference information necessary to evaluate past performance.  
SSA found that four others, including the protester's, failed to 
include references demonstrating experience performing contracts of 
similar size, scope and complexity.  Although the evaluators concluded 
that only REI's quote demonstrated adequate experience/past 
performance, and that the other quotes, including the protester's, 
were unacceptable, the contract specialist performed a price/technical 
tradeoff, which was adopted by the contracting officer, between the 
protester's and REI's quotes.  The conclusion of that analysis was 
that REI's superior experience/past performance warranted paying REI's 
slightly higher price, and the agency thus made award to REI.  

California Resources argues that the evaluation of its quote, 
particularly with respect to the experience requirements, was 
unreasonable.  It maintains that its quote in fact contained 
references which demonstrated its experience performing similar 
contracts.[1] 

The evaluation of quotations, like the evaluation of proposals, is 
within the discretion of the procuring agency, since it is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them, and 
must bear the results of a defective evaluation.  See Orion Research, 
Inc., B-253786, Oct. 21, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  242 at 3.  Where an agency's 
technical evaluation is challenged, our Office will not independently 
weigh the merits of quotations or proposals; rather, we will examine 
the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with 
the stated evaluation factors.  Integrity Private Sec. Servs., Inc., 
B-255172, Dec. 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  332 at 3.

The evaluation here was proper.  The protester's quote included four 
experience references which clearly were not similar to the current 
requirement.  For example, one contract involved logistics planning 
services for a waste processing program for the Government of Guam.  
The reference read as follows:

     H&H provides comprehensive waste management planning services.  
     California Resources provided subcontracted design of logistics 
     for a waste processing program for the Government of Guam in 
     1995.  Logistics planning included equipment specification, 
     modeling and budgeting.  The total contract amount was $20,000.

Letter from California Resources to the Contract Specialist 3 (Mar. 
23, 1998).  It was not apparent to the agency--nor is it apparent to 
us--how this effort was similar to the current requirement, since the 
description did not reference packing, handling, shipping, or working 
with sensitive materials.  The protester argues that this reference 
indicated interstate shipping experience.  However, neither in the 
reference nor elsewhere in the quote is there any indication that this 
contract involved interstate shipping.

Two other contracts involved recycling programs performed within 
California.   Under one, for the City of Sacramento, California 
Resources organized the collection of used paper from a variety of 
locations, which was then transported by the city to the protester's 
warehouse and then processed by the protester's workers for recycling.  
Estimated revenues were $4,000.  The agency determined that this 
contract was not relevant because the protester did not perform the 
shipping, interstate or otherwise, and it did not involve sensitive 
materials.  Under the other contract, California Resources worked with 
another recycling company to collect unused bulk mail from three post 
offices in Sacramento and had it transported to the protester's 
warehouse where it was processed for recycling.  The agency concluded 
that the contract was of limited relevance because it also did not 
require California Resources to transport or ship sensitive materials 
interstate.  We find no basis to object to this conclusion.  The 
protester asserts that the materials it handled under the post office 
contract were in fact sensitive, as shown by the fact that it had to 
sign security commitments in order to do the work.  However, the 
protester's quote does not mention a security commitment or provide 
other information that would indicate that the materials were 
sensitive, and we do not think the term "unused bulk mail" in any way 
suggested that sensitive materials were involved.[2]

In contrast, REI submitted six references, one of which was the 
incumbent contract under which REI shipped records from multiple sites 
to the NRC.  Another was an SSA contract to ship records from 
Baltimore, Maryland to the NRC.  Under both contracts, there were 
fewer locations from which boxes were to be shipped, but the scope and 
complexity of the services were essentially identical to the current 
requirement.  Two other reference contracts, performed for Department 
of Defense agencies, were similar to the current requirement in that 
they involved the handling of sensitive materials, although the 
shipping requirement was regional, rather than national, in scope.  
Further, REI's past performance on its reference contracts was 
evaluated as excellent with no performance issues or concerns.

Based on the protester's failure to furnish references establishing 
relevant experience, we think the evaluators reasonably determined 
that its quote was unacceptable.  Even if the quotation were assumed 
to be acceptable, however, it is clear that the tradeoff the agency 
conducted was reasonable, given that experience and past performance 
were the most important factors, and REI's price premium--$50,880, or 
less than 1.7 percent--was minor.  Saco Defense, Inc., B-252066, May 
20, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  395 at 7.

The protester argues that the evaluation was biased in favor of the 
awardee, the incumbent contractor.  However, the protester has made 
only bare allegations--it has not furnished any evidence that 
contracting officials had a specific and malicious intent to injure 
the protester, and that the intent translated into agency action which 
unfairly affected the protester's competitive position.  D. M. Potts 
Corp., B-247403.2, Aug. 3, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  65 at 7.  There thus is no 
basis for a finding of bias.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. California Resources also argues that the evaluation process as 
outlined in the RFQ inappropriately weighed experience and past 
performance too heavily.  Citing FAR  sec.  15.101, the protester argues 
that the requirement in this case was clearly definable and that the 
risk of unsuccessful performance was minimal, and therefore price 
should have played a dominant role in the source selection.  These 
arguments amount to a protest of the RFQ's evaluation provisions, 
which expressly stated that  experience and past performance were more 
important than price, and warned that the low quoter might not receive 
award.  Such protests of alleged solicitation improprieties are 
untimely, and will not be considered, where they are not filed prior 
to the closing time for submitting quotes.  See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) 
(1998).

2. The fourth contract, for a California state agency, involved 
collecting, preparing for shipping and transporting used telephone 
directories from California to Washington state.  Again, however, the 
agency reasonably found that the contract did not involve sensitive 
materials or shipping from various nationwide locations to a central 
location.