BNUMBER:  B-280261             
DATE:  September 9, 1998
TITLE: Morrison Knudsen Corporation, B-280261, September 9, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Morrison Knudsen Corporation

File:B-280261            
        
Date:September 9, 1998

Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Martin R. 
Fischer, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, for the protester. 
Donald A. Tobin, Esq., Bastianelli, Brown & Kelley, for CFS Logistics, 
Inc., an intervenor. 
Kenneth G. Wilson, 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

1.  Where solicitation provided that agency would evaluate past 
performance based on information presented in the proposals, awardee 
presented past performance information for an affiliate that had 
performed similar contracts, and protester did not advise contracting 
officer in writing of adverse information regarding performance by 
another of awardee's affiliates under contract for a different agency, 
evaluation of past performance, which considered only the contracts 
identified in the awardee's proposal, was reasonable and consistent 
with solicitation.

2.  Where agency found both proposals technically acceptable and both 
offerors low risk under the factor of past performance, selection of 
lower-priced proposal was reasonable and consistent with solicitation, 
which provided that, for technically acceptable proposals, price and 
past performance would be of equal importance in selection decision.

DECISION

Morrison Knudsen Corporation (MKC) protests the award of a contract to 
CFS Logistics, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N00189-97-R-0085, issued by the Department of the Navy for operation 
of the agency's Advanced Traceability and Control (ATAC) program.  The 
protester argues that the agency's evaluation and selection decision 
were unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation.

We deny the protest.

On September 30, 1997, the agency issued the RFP, for a fixed-price, 
indefinite-delivery requirements contract to operate the ATAC program 
for a 1-year base period, with two 6-month option periods.  RFP  sec.  B.  
The ATAC program is the Navy's program for managing repairable assets, 
those which the agency has determined more economical to repair than 
discard, which have been returned for repair.  RFP  sec.  C.1, attachment 
1, Statement of Work (SOW) 1.1.  The SOW involved staffing and 
operating 12 sites in the United States and abroad, providing 
accountability and control over items of high dollar value or critical 
to operational requirements, ranging from small electronic circuit 
cards to large steam-driven deck winches, from the point of failure to 
intermediate storage points and to the point of repair and back to the 
end user.  RFP  sec.  C.1, attachment 1, SOW 1.0 and exhibit 3.

The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose offer was found 
technically acceptable and was most advantageous to the government 
based on price and past performance, which were equal in weight as 
selection criteria.  RFP  sec.  M.1(a).  It directed offerors to submit 
proposals in three parts, including a technical proposal, a price 
proposal, and past performance information.  RFP  sec.  L.1.  It stated 
that the agency would base its evaluation of proposals on the 
information presented in the proposals.  RFP  sec.  M.1  The RFP provided 
for evaluation of technical proposals considering five factors, as 
follows:  overall technical approach to implementing ATAC; quality 
assurance; management approach; personnel qualifications; and 
corporate experience.  RFP  sec.  M.1(e).  With regard to corporate 
experience, the RFP advised as follows:

     Offerors shall provide a synopsis of their experience within the 
     past six years with contracts of a similar nature and magnitude 
     (e.g., freight forwarding, transportation, and warehousing).  
     Include the same type of information relative to any applicable 
     subcontractor that would be participating in this program.

     As a minimum, the contractor must provide an example of a 
     contract or function performed or managed within the last six 
     years which involved operation of multiple facilities, including 
     Conus and EXCONUS, involving custody of third party material, 
     electronic data transmission and fluctuating workload 
     requirements.

RFP  sec.  L.1.I.5.  The agency would review this material for technical 
acceptability.

As noted above, the solicitation provided for a comparative evaluation 
of past performance and instructed offerors to include past 
performance information in sufficient detail to identify previous 
experience as it related to the probability of successful 
accomplishment of the statement of work.  It directed offerors to 
"submit a description of their previous government (federal, state and 
local) or commercial contracts (all prime and major subcontracts 
received, or in performance, during the past 5 years) which are in any 
way relevant to the effort required by this solicitation."  RFP  sec.  
L.1.III.  It provided for assessment of risk in the areas of timely 
delivery of services, technical quality, and businesslike concern for 
the interests of the customer, considering the number and severity of 
any problems, the effectiveness of any corrective action taken, and 
overall work record.  RFP  sec.  L.1.III, M.1.B.

The agency received two proposals--from the protester and from the 
awardee--on January 9, 1998 and referred them to its source selection 
evaluation board (SSEB).  The SSEB found both proposals unacceptable 
but susceptible to being made acceptable.  The agency held discussions 
on March 3; the two offerors submitted best and final offers (BAFO) on 
March 11.  On May 12, the agency requested another round of BAFOs, 
which the offerors submitted on May 18.  As a result of discussions, 
the SSEB found both proposals technically acceptable and both offerors 
low risk under the past performance factor.  Since the proposals were 
technically acceptable and had received identical ratings for past 
performance, the contracting officer selected CFS for award, based on 
its lower price.  The agency provided a debriefing to MKC on June 2, 
and this protest followed.

The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and improperly 
evaluated the past performance of CFS, a new company that is the 
successor to a concern, now bankrupt, that has been in "non-use" 
status with the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) for the 
past year.  MKC points out that CFS has only been in existence for 3 
years.  The protester therefore concludes that the only past 
performance information that CFS could have provided must relate to 
predecessor corporations, one of which, Calore Express, MTMC has 
placed in "non-use" status.[1]  It was therefore unreasonable, MKC 
argues, to rate CFS as "low risk" for past performance.

The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility 
of the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for 
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them, and it 
must bear the burden of any difficulties resulting from a defective 
evaluation.  Litton Sys., Inc., B-237596.3, Aug. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
115 at 8.  In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of 
proposals, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency 
regarding the merits of proposals; rather, we will examine the 
agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent 
with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and 
regulations.  Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-250135.4, May 24, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  398 at 9.  A protester's mere disagreement with the 
agency's evaluation does not render it unreasonable.  Id.  We find the 
evaluation here to be both reasonable and consistent with the RFP's 
stated evaluation criteria.

The record shows that CFS supplied past performance information 
related to three contracts--its own warehousing contract and two 
contracts performed by CFS Air Cargo, a firm that the awardee 
considers the true predecessor of CFS Logistics.  Beyond references, 
in the corporate experience portion of its technical proposal, to 
origins with "a regional trucking company" (Calore Express, 
incorporated in 1954), the proposal made little mention of affiliates 
and none of Calore Freight Systems.  For the contracts listed, the 
record shows that the agency did contact references, who reported no 
problems.  The Navy states that it did not consider contracts 
involving Calore Express or Calore Freight Systems because, under the 
technical factor of corporate experience, CFS had primarily relied 
upon the experience of its management personnel with CFS Air Cargo, 
and under past performance, CFS did not reference any contract 
involving Calore Express or Calore Freight Systems.

As noted above, section L.1.III of the RFP required offerors to submit 
past performance information on "relevant" contracts.  In this regard, 
the awardee argues that CFS Air Cargo, whose assets CFS Logistics 
acquired and in whose name CFS Logistics does business, and not Calore 
Freight Systems, is the awardee's predecessor organization.  The 
contracts performed by CFS Air Cargo, which required management at 
multiple sites and which contained extensive computerized 
record-keeping requirements, and not the trucking contracts awarded to 
Calore Freight Systems, are, the awardee argues, the contracts 
relevant to performance under the instant contract.  Thus, CFS argues, 
it did identify the relevant contracts and provided information on the 
relevant predecessor corporation as required by the solicitation.  It 
did not provide information on Calore Freight Systems, CFS explains, 
because the RFP did not require it to provide information on its 
affiliated or "sister" companies.  We do not find this interpretation 
unreasonable.

As a general rule, in determining whether one company's performance 
should be attributed to another, an agency must consider the nature 
and extent of their relationship, and it is appropriate to consider an 
affiliate's performance record where it will be involved in the 
contract effort or where, as here, it shares management with the 
offeror.  NAHB Research Ctr., Inc., B-278876.2, May 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  
150 at 4.  Thus, the agency reasonably considered past performance by 
CFS Air Cargo, which shares management with CFS Logistics, in the 
evaluation of the awardee's proposal.

The protester contends, however, that regardless of the information in 
CFS's proposal, information on the problems with Calore Freight 
Systems was so "close at hand" that it was unreasonable for the agency 
to disregard the poor performance of that firm in the past performance 
evaluation of CFS.  See International Bus. Sys., Inc., B-275554, Mar. 
3, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  114 at 5 (evaluation of past performance 
unreasonable where agency failed to consider information "close at 
hand," specifically, the protester's performance of a contract for the 
same services for the same agency, simply because no one in the agency 
had completed and returned the past performance evaluation forms).  
MKC believes the problems of Calore Freight Systems to be so 
well-known in the industry that the agency could not be ignorant of 
them.  In any event, the protester argues, it has presented evidence 
in the form of sworn statements that its representatives discussed the 
Calore companies with the contracting officer's technical 
representative (COTR) prior to the submission of proposals.[2]

The RFP stated that the agency would base its evaluation of proposals 
on the information presented in the proposals; therefore, reliance 
upon the contracts referenced by CFS Logistics was consistent with the 
solicitation.  Although the COTR acknowledges that MKC raised the 
issue of past performance by CFS's affiliates at a lunch, after the 
site visit, she states that she told MKC to put this information in 
writing, which MKC did not do; MKC does not dispute this.  The COTR 
did not participate in either the evaluation of past performance or 
the selection of CFS.  She did not independently advise the SSEB or 
the selection official of her conversations with MKC officials and 
states that, as she has never administered one of CFS's contracts, she 
has no independent knowledge of any performance difficulties.  Where 
we have charged an agency with responsibility for considering 
information "close at hand" in its past performance evaluation, that 
information has generally concerned contracts for the same services, 
with the same procuring activity, or at least information personally 
known to the evaluators.  See, e.g., International Bus. Sys., Inc., 
supra, and cases cited therein, at 5, including G. Marine Diesel, 
B-232619.3, Aug. 3, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  101 at 5-6; G. Marine Diesel; 
Phillyship, B-232619, B-232619.2, Jan. 27, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  90 at 4-5; 
Inlingua Schs. of Languages, B-229784, Apr. 5, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  340 at 
5; and New Hampshire-Vermont Health Serv., B-189603, Mar. 15, 1978, 
78-1 CPD  para.  202 at 12-13.

With regard to issues raised with the COTR at the site visit, only 
Calore Freight Systems' "non-use" status with MTMC would appear 
relevant to the past performance evaluation.  MKC did not present the 
allegation (which MKC apparently knew only from rumor) or raise it 
during discussions with the contracting officer.  The record indicates 
that the COTR's participation in the instant procurement was limited; 
she had no direct role in the evaluation or selection.  We see no 
basis for charging the SSEB or contracting officer with knowledge of 
everything that may have been said to the COTR at the site visit. 

MKC also contends that, by selecting the low-priced, technically 
acceptable offeror for award, the Navy failed to follow the selection 
criteria of the RFP, which provided that past performance was equal in 
importance to price.  The Navy concedes that, during the debriefing on 
June 2, it advised the protester that it had selected CFS for award as 
the low-priced, technically acceptable offeror.  In addition, the 
business clearance memorandum, which memorialized the selection 
decision, incorrectly stated that the RFP had provided for award to 
the technically acceptable, low-priced offeror. 

The agency explains that, in preparing the business clearance 
memorandum, it inadvertently copied the format from an earlier 
document and incorrectly described the basis of award as low-priced, 
technically acceptable.  The error was carried over to the debriefing.  
Regardless of the reference to the incorrect selection criteria on 
page 6 of the memorandum, however, page 8 of the memorandum contains a 
detailed discussion of the criteria for evaluating past performance 
and the results of the evaluation, supporting the "low risk" rating 
for the two offerors.[3]  MKC has made no allegation that CFS's 
proposal was technically unacceptable, and the record clearly supports 
the agency's determination that both contractors were technically 
acceptable, with low risk.  Since the agency therefore found nothing 
to distinguish the two proposals technically or in the past 
performance area, it was consistent with the RFP to select the 
lower-priced proposal.  USA TODAY, B-278650, Feb. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  
71 at 6.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. MKC categorizes the firms at issue here, affiliated with CFS, as 
"corporate vehicles" for the business of Michael Calore, sharing the 
same addresses and all incorporated in Rhode Island.  They include CFS 
Air Cargo and Calore Freight Systems, Inc., which was merged into 
Calore Express, a trucking company, in 1993.  According to a MTMC 
letter dated May 22, 1997, placed in the record by MKC as an enclosure 
to its comments of July 16, 1998, responding to the agency report, 
MTMC imposed the "non-use" status on Calore Freight Systems as a 
result of problems with performance of a contract at the Defense Depot 
Susquehanna.  The letter was addressed to JSC Investments, a holding 
company for the bankrupt Calore Freight Systems, and precludes JSC and 
Calore Freight Systems from transporting freight traffic for MTMC for 
a period of 1 year, beginning May 22, 1997.

2. MKC representatives also advised agency officials of the 
bankruptcies of certain Calore firms; however, the record shows that 
the agency properly addressed issues related to CFS's financial 
responsibility in its affirmative determination of responsibility; our 
Office will not review such determinations, absent an allegation of 
bad faith or the failure to meet definitive responsibility criteria.  
See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(c) (1998).  In any event, the record shows that 
the agency became aware of the bankruptcies of CFS Air Cargo and 
Calore Express during the preaward phase here and concluded that CFS 
had a line of credit more than sufficient to finance the instant 
effort, considering that it is primarily a service contract, with no 
great need for capital outlay at the outset.

3. For example, the memorandum notes that the references contacted 
regarding CFS's past performance rated the firm's overall technical 
performance as "good" and quoted the references' conclusions.