BNUMBER:  B-280283.3 
DATE:  December 22, 1998
TITLE: Du & Associates, Inc., B-280283.3, December 22, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Du & Associates, Inc.

File:     B-280283.3

Date:December 22, 1998

Lucie Du for the protester.
Bruce M. Kasson, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
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.  Protest of technical evaluation is denied where it is merely based 
on protester's disagreement with the evaluators' conclusions.

2.  Protest that discussions were not meaningful is denied where 
record establishes that protester was led into the areas in which the 
agency was concerned that the proposal needed amplification and 
improvement.

DECISION
Du & Associates, Inc. (D&A) protests the elimination of its proposal 
from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
R-OPC-21184, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) for multifamily real estate assessment and analysis services.  
D&A principally alleges that its proposal was misevaluated and that 
HUD failed to conduct meaningful discussions.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on April 22, 1998, contemplated the award of five 
separate fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contracts for different 
geographic regions.  Agency requirements were set forth in a detailed 
statement of work (SOW).  RFP, Section C.  Award was to be made on a 
best value basis considering technical merit and, secondarily, price.  
RFP amendment 1, Section M.IV. 

The most important technical factor (worth 50 points out of a possible 
total of 120) is entitled Prior Experience and provides as follows:

     Offerors's proposal demonstrates experience, knowledge and 
     ability to perform, and manage the services listed in the [SOW].  
     Offeror's proposal provides documented evidence of previous 
     performance of similar or related work, as well as provides 
     evidence of the qualifications of the professional staff proposed 
     (including subcontractors and consultants) to perform the tasks 
     identified in the [SOW].

RFP amendment 1, Section M.III.A (hereinafter "Factor 1").

Past Performance, the second most important technical factor (worth 40 
points), is not at issue in this protest.  See RFP amendment 1, 
section M.III.B.

The final technical factor (worth 30 points), entitled Management 
Capability and Quality Control, provides, in relevant part, as 
follows:

     The offeror's proposal provides evidence regarding the ability to 
     perform all tasks under the contract in a quality and efficient 
     manner, including the management of subcontractors, if any.  The 
     offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the magnitude of 
     the contract requirements and of organizational ability to manage 
     the work required.  

RFP amendment 1, section M.III.C (hereinafter "Factor 3").

With respect to Factor 1, the RFP's proposal preparation instructions 
cautioned
offerors to provide evidence of qualifications of key staff performing 
the same or similar work to the SOW and specifically required the 
submission of job descriptions, resumes and/or organizational charts 
reflecting key personnel to perform "the tasks identified in the 
[SOW]," and provided that this experience was required to have been 
gained within the last 3 years.  RFP amendment 1, Section L.1(c)(1).

On June 8, proposals were received from 19 offerors.  Following an 
evaluation by the technical evaluation panel (TEP), competitive ranges 
were established for each geographic area.  D&A was included in the 
competitive range for each of the five areas.  On July 1, oral 
discussions were conducted with D&A.  The protester was also provided 
with the following pertinent, written questions under the heading 
"Technical Concerns":

     1.  We realize that [D&A] is a newly form[ed] company.  Please 
     provide assurance that the company has the capacity and financial 
     ability to perform the contract.

                         .     .     .     .     .

     4.  It is our concern that the costs reflect the understanding of 
     the solicitation and tasks that will be required by the 
     contractor.  Please provide a breakdown of costs supporting your 
     proposed fees to assure that adequate resources will be dedicated 
     to the contract(s).

Agency Report, Exh. 8, attachment.

D&A submitted a revised proposal on July 8.  Upon evaluation of all 
revised  proposals, the contracting officer (CO) made a second 
competitive range determination on August 14.  The top five ranked 
proposals had technical scores ranging from 100 to 117; D&A's 
proposal, ranked sixth, had a final score of 78.  D&A was not included 
in the final competitive range, which was limited to two offerors who 
were considered to have submitted the most highly rated proposals for 
all five areas considering technical merit and price.  The CO's 
statement submitted as part of the agency report indicates that it was 
primarily technical considerations, rather than price, that led to 
D&A's exclusion.[1]  Agency Report, Exh. 13 at 3.  Following further 
discussions with the two finalists, award was made to Pinnacle Reality 
on August 28 for all geographic areas.

The protester received a written debriefing on September 5 which 
summarized the agency's concerns with its final technical proposal as 
follows:

     The Government's evaluation of the significant weakness[es] or 
     deficiencies in the proposal, resulted in a lower rated technical 
     score.

                         Factor 1

     The proposal indicated experience of key personnel in multifamily 
     housing and other HUD programs, however, the personnel identified 
     in the proposal does not list the experience associated with the 
     tasks to be performed.  Most experience indicated in the proposal 
     was of a general nature and did not provide specific details of 
     the experience to determine if it was substantially similar to 
     the tasks required in the RFP.

                         Factor 3

     The panel had concerns on the proposal's organizational structure 
     and ability to perform the contract.  You were asked during oral 
     discussions to provide assurance that your firm had the capacity 
     and financial ability to perform the contract.

     The proposal is a "flat" organization and identified yourself as 
     the Key Principle and Project Manager and using subcontractors as 
     project managers.  However, the proposal did not address how the 
     work would be managed should you be unavailable or demonstrate 
     that your firm's employees have the management capability to 
     perform in your place.  The panel considered your proposed 
     organizational structure inadequate and depended on the 
     subcontractors for the management of a majority of the tasks in 
     the contract . . . .

Agency Report, Supplemental Exh. at 1.

This protest followed.

PROTEST 

Based largely on the debriefing letter quoted above, D&A alleges that 
HUD misevaluated its proposal by not considering its contents and by 
failing to evaluate the proposal in accordance with the stated RFP 
evaluation criteria.  Protester's October 27 Comments at 8.  In its 
comments on the agency report, D&A invites our Office to review its 
proposal to determine whether the agency failed to properly consider 
the contents of its final proposal.  Id. at 12.

D&A also alleges that the concerns expressed in the debriefing letter 
were not communicated during oral discussions or in the written 
discussion questions and argues, therefore, that the discussions were 
inadequate.  In connection with the oral discussion session the 
protester further states that it was advised that in preparing its 
revised proposal the firm was to "solely rely" on the written 
discussion questions.  Protester's October 27 Comments, Second 
Attached Affidavit at 1. Finally, D&A further alleges that it was 
prejudiced by advice, said to have been given by the CO in a 
conversation after the conduct of discussions, indicating that the 
firm's price was too low. 

ANALYSIS

Alleged Misevaluation

Referring us to extensive portions of its proposal, D&A argues that 
its low overall technical score is unjustified and indicates that HUD 
ignored the contents of the proposal.  D&A also argues that the 
findings summarized in the debriefing letter for Factors 1 and 3 
indicate that the agency did not evaluate the proposal in accordance 
with those evaluation factors.

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 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 & Technical Servs., B-252611, July 15, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  
22 at 6.

As for D&A's argument that the contents of its proposal were ignored, 
the individual and consensus TEP scoring sheets, which contain 
detailed comments, indicate otherwise.  It is clear that the 
evaluators read the proposal and did not regard it as highly as the 
protester believes is warranted.  D&A's disagreement with the 
evaluators' conclusions does not serve to establish that they lacked a 
reasonable basis.  Id.

For example with respect to Factor 1, the TEP downgraded D&A for a 
summary presentation of its staff members' experience.  The factor 
requires significant detail relating that experience to the SOW tasks.  
D&A submits that the summary representative lists of "some" of the 
experience of its staff was necessitated by RFP page limitations and 
criticizes the TEP findings as merely a matter of form.  While the 
lists contain some of the experience of some of D&A's staff, there is 
no direct tie of that experience to the specific SOW tasks.  
Accordingly, the agency's criticism reasonably reflects the contents 
of the protester's proposal and, at best, D&A disagrees with the 
evaluators with regard to this factor.

Likewise, the TEP criticized D&A's proposal for not indicating that 
the experience of its proposed key personnel was gained within the 
last 3 years as required by the proposal instructions in the RFP.  D&A 
mistakenly reads the instruction as requiring a separate listing of 
recent contracts, not requiring evidence of experience gained in the 
last 3 years.  As is clear from the language of the Factor 1 proposal 
instruction set forth above, D&A's disagreement is based on an 
erroneous reading of the instruction, which requires precisely the 
information which the agency downgraded D&A for failing to provide.  

As for D&A's assertion that the findings relating to Factors 1 and 3 
are inconsistent with those criteria, we disagree.  Factor 1 expressly 
calls for relating the experience of proposed staff, contractors and 
subcontractors to their ability to perform the 
tasks set forth in the SOW and the TEP's findings that D&A failed to 
adequately relate experience to the ability to perform fall squarely 
within that factor.  Similarly, where Factor 3 requires a 
demonstration of an ability to manage contractors and subcontractors, 
the TEP's concern that D&A had not adequately demonstrated this was 
consistent with the factor.  Accordingly, we have no basis to disturb 
the evaluation.

Discussions

On July 1, HUD conducted oral discussions with D&A at which time 
written discussion questions were distributed.  On the evening of that 
date, HUD and D&A had a follow-up telephone conversation.  Because the 
written record of this protest contains divergent accounts of what 
transpired on July 1, we held a telephonic hearing on November 18 to 
resolve the apparent factual disputes. 

At the outset, D&A alleges that at the oral discussion session the CO 
advised its representatives that they did not need to take notes 
because written discussion questions would be distributed upon which 
the offeror was to "solely rely" in preparing its revised proposal.  
D&A argues that it followed these instructions which caused it to 
respond only to the written questions in its revised proposal, to its 
detriment.

At the hearing, the CO categorically denied that he gave any such 
instructions to D&A on July 1 or at any other time.  He also testified 
that he used the written questions, which he orally clarified, to 
structure the oral discussion session.  In its comments on the agency 
report, D&A attached an affidavit from one of its participants at the 
July 1 session which states that the CO gave advice to "solely rely on 
the written questions."  Protester's October 27 Comments, Second 
Attached Affidavit at 1.  That participant further stated that "[w]e 
used the information from the meeting to interpret the [written] 
questions relating to HUD's technical concerns . . . ."  Id. 

The hearing officer requested the affiant's presence at the hearing 
but D&A reported that she was unavailable.  At the hearing, one of 
D&A's witnesses testified that she recalled the CO giving the alleged 
advice and wrote a note to that effect.  The hearing officer requested 
that D&A produce the note in its post-hearing comments but the 
protester failed to do so.  Because of the failure to testify upon our 
request and the failure to produce evidence relating to whether the CO 
instructed D&A to  "rely solely" on the written questions, we draw an 
inference adverse to the protester, Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.7(f) (1998), and find that the record supports the conclusion that 
the CO did not give the advice alleged by the protester, and did use 
the written questions to structure the oral session as indicated by 
the agency.  In reaching this conclusion, in addition to drawing an 
adverse inference, we view the purported instruction as implausible 
because it would effectively have rendered the oral discussions 
meaningless, raising a question as to why they were being conducted.  
In short, we conclude that the protester was not instructed, and 
therefore was not free as it claims, to ignore the content of the oral 
discussion session when preparing its revised proposal.
 
D&A also asserts that it was not apprised of the agency's concerns 
about the experience of its personnel or its ability to manage 
subcontractors during oral discussions. 

Solicitations issued after January 1, such as this one, are governed 
by the revisions to Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) contained in Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) No. 97-02.  The 
Part 15 rewrite revised the rules that apply when an agency is 
contracting using negotiated procedures, including those rules 
governing exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.  Section 
15.306(d)(3) includes guidance with respect to the conduct of 
discussions and states, in pertinent part, that:

     The contracting officer shall . . . indicate to, or discuss with, 
each offeror
     still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, 
deficiencies,
     and other aspects of its proposal . . . that could, in the 
opinion of the
     contracting officer, be altered or explained to enhance 
materially
     the proposal's potential for award.  The scope and extent of 
discussions
     are a matter of contracting officer judgment.

We view the statutory and regulatory mandate for discussions with all 
competitive range offerors, which was not changed in the FAR Part 15 
rewrite, as requiring that such discussions must be meaningful, 
equitable and not misleading.  See 41 U.S.C.  sec.  253b(d)(1)(A) (1994); 
FAR  sec.  15.306(d)(1).  At issue here is whether the FAR Part 15 rewrite 
altered the rules governing the content of discussions in a way 
relevant to the outcome of this protest.  We recognize that the FAR 
rewrite could be read to limit the discretion of the contracting 
officer by requiring discussion of all aspects of the proposal "that 
could, in the opinion of the contracting officer, be altered or 
explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for award."  
We do not believe, however, that it was the intention of the rewrite 
to limit the contracting officer's discretion in this manner.  Cf. SDS 
Petroleum Prods., Inc.
B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  59 at 5 (intent of Part 15 rewrite 
was to give contracting officers discretion to establish a more 
limited competitive range than was permitted previously).  
Consequently, we do not view the rewrite as having changed the prior 
legal requirements governing discussions in a manner which affects 
this case.  See MCR Fed., Inc., B-280969, Dec. 14, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para. ___ 
at 10-11.  The rule thus remains that, while an agency is required to 
conduct meaningful discussions leading an offeror into the areas of 
its proposal requiring amplification or revision, the agency is not 
required to "spoon-feed" an offeror as to each and every item that 
could be revised so as to improve its proposal.  See Applied Cos., 
B-279811, July 24, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  52 at 8.  This is especially the 
case where, as here, the RFP evaluation criteria and instructions to 
offerors on proposal preparation are detailed and clear with respect 
to the problem areas.  Id.

The CO testified that, during oral discussions, he communicated HUD's 
concerns reflected by written question 4 (which is couched in terms of 
"cost" although listed as a "technical" question[2]), to indicate that 
he was concerned with D&A's technical capacity to perform, including 
whether the protester had the appropriate staffing to perform the 
contract.  This testimony was echoed by the testimony of the 
contracting specialist who attended the discussion session; she 
testified that the discussion started with capacity concerns and 
shifted to cost.  D&A's witnesses did not directly contradict these 
accounts, rather they stated that the "focus" of the oral session was 
"cost."  In our view, this testimony does not contradict the agency's 
account.  Moreover, it is logical to infer that the agency 
communicated a concern about staff experience because, as both parties 
testified, the firm's president did address her staff's experience in 
oral discussions--albeit not, in HUD's estimation,  to the degree 
required by the RFP.  Accordingly, since the record supports a 
conclusion that the protester was led into the area of the agency's 
concern about tying experience to performance of specific SOW tasks, 
we have no basis to conclude that discussions were not meaningful in 
this regard.  Id.

With respect to D&A's challenge to the adequacy of discussions 
concerning its organizational structure and ability to manage 
subcontractors--a concern of the agency's under Factor 3--while it 
appears that no specific mention of the concern occurred during oral 
discussions, the factor itself expressly requires (indeed emphasizes 
the need for) a demonstrated ability to manage subcontractors.  In 
light of this, we believe that written technical question 1 requesting 
assurances that the firm has the "capability" to perform the contract 
served to sufficiently lead D&A into the area of organizational 
structure and subcontractor management so as to support a conclusion 
that discussions were meaningful in this regard.  Id.

Finally, D&A alleged in its comments on the agency report that the 
contracting officer advised the protester that its price was too low 
thereby misleading the protester into significantly raising its price 
in its revised proposal.  At the hearing, D&A's president testified 
that this advice occurred during a follow-up conversation to the oral 
discussion session on the evening of July 1.  The CO specifically 
denied that he gave such advice.  The contracting specialist, who was 
a participant in the conference call, corroborated the CO's testimony.
 
Irrespective of the actual advice that was given, this argument is 
essentially irrelevant because technical concerns, not whether the 
protester's final price was too high, provided the basis for the 
elimination of D&A's proposal from the competitive range.  In any 
event, a preponderance of the evidence supports the agency's position 
in this regard and we deny this aspect of the protest. 

The protest is denied.[3]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. D&A's total evaluated price was $28.1 million.  The final 
competitive range offerors submitted prices of $10.4 million (eventual 
awardee) and $32.1 million.  Agency Report, Exh. 12 at 1. 

Although the protester's $28.1 million price was for all five 
geographic areas, Du's July 8 revised proposal stated that "[w]e would 
like to emphasize that we are presenting our proposed prices for all 
five areas but we are only bidding on two areas."  Agency Report, Exh. 
9 at 1.                              

2. Although couched in cost terms, the question itself relates to the 
agency's concern that an offeror has an "understanding of the 
solicitation and tasks" and seeks to determine whether an offeror has 
"adequate resources" to perform.  In our view, even without the oral 
amplification of the CO at the discussion session, the question could 
not be reasonably read in the restrictive manner urged by the 
protester.

3. We have reviewed the various ancillary issues raised by D&A and, 
although they do not warrant discussion here, we find them to be 
without merit.