BNUMBER:  B-280422.3 
DATE:  December 29, 1998
TITLE: RTF/TCI/EAI Joint Venture, B-280422.3, December 29, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:RTF/TCI/EAI Joint Venture

File:     B-280422.3

Date:December 29, 1998

Robert T. Findley for the protester.
Craig E. Hodge, Esq., and Terese M. Harrison, Esq., Army Materiel 
Command, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency evaluation of protester's proposal and oral presentation is 
reasonable where it was performed in accordance with stated evaluation 
criteria and reflects valid criticisms of protester's proposed 
approach.

2.  Agency's source selection in which price was considered only in 
the competitive range determination, while improper, did not prejudice 
the protester where the awardee's proposal was evaluated as 
significantly superior to the protester's and the awardee's price was 
significantly lower than that proposed by the protester.

DECISION

RTF/TCI/EAI Joint Venture (RTF) protests the award of a contract to 
Earth Tech, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAAA09-97-R-0271, issued by the U.S. Army Industrial Operations 
Command, for the disposal and decontamination of government property 
at the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LHAAP).  RTF argues that the 
agency's evaluation and award determination were flawed.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on October 10, 1997, sought fixed-price proposals on a 
commercial item basis (see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 
12) for the liquidation of personal and installed property and, as 
necessary, decontamination of property prior to sale.  The RFP 
included a statement of objectives (SOO) (Attachment 001) which 
outlined the essential tasks that each offeror was to address in its 
proposed scope of work.  Offerors were expected to develop a scope of 
work with an innovative approach to satisfy the government's SOO 
requirements.  As set forth in the SOO synopsis, the 24-month work 
effort consisted of:  explosive contamination coding; assessing 
personal property and marketable installed property market value; 
assessing installed real property salvage value; developing a 
marketing plan maximizing property sales values; publication and 
distribution of sales brochures; conducting liquidation actions and 
sales; maintaining a property disbursement audit trail and accounts 
receivable ledger; managing property removal; identifying 
environmental/health hazards that interfere with the property 
liquidation process; and environmental testing and decontamination of 
buildings.  The majority of these tasks were to be accomplished by the 
successful offeror for the fixed price proposed.[1]

With regard to the liquidation of personal, installed, and salvageable 
real property, the SOO explained that it was the government's intent 
to sell and remove that property, using best commercial practices for 
the disposal process, leaving only buildings that had been cleaned 
inside and out of accumulated scrap and debris, and with the objective 
of maximizing proceeds.  It also was the government's intent that 
potential contaminated personal property be disposed of in a safe and 
efficient manner; that qualified buyers of contaminated property be 
made fully aware of the contaminated/decontaminated status of the 
property; that property containing hazardous material as part of its 
original functional operation be sold for its intended purpose; and 
that the contractor attempt to sell equipment containing asbestos, 
hazardous materials, PCB capacitors, and explosives for their intended 
use.  If the contractor was unsuccessful at selling property for its 
intended purpose or to a qualified scrap dealer, the contractor 
remained responsible for proper disposal.  The government retained the 
right to determine whether any particular sale was in the best 
interests of the government. 

The contractor is responsible for complying with all existing federal, 
state, and local environmental laws and regulations including 
obtaining appropriate environmental permits required for contract 
performance.  Notwithstanding other contract provisions, the 
government retains the risk, responsibility, and obligation to pay for 
and remedy all pre-existing conditions at LHAAP, including remediation 
and corrective actions.  

In accordance with attachment 003, "Instructions for Offerors," 
proposals were to include sections on experience, past performance, 
technical plan including a five-page environmental plan concerning the 
building assessment and optional environmental actions, a two-page 
integrated master schedule, a seven-page quality assurance 
surveillance plan (QASP), and a scope of work meeting the SOO 
requirements.  Attachment 003 also provided guidance for the oral 
presentations for offerors included in the competitive range.

Attachment 004, "Evaluation Factors and Steps for Award" provided that 
award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to 
represent the best value, based on an integrated assessment of the 
evaluation factors.  The first of two evaluation steps included 
evaluation of experience, past performance, price, and technical plan, 
and described their relative importance.  Attachment 004 specifically 
stated that "[t]hese factors will be used in determining a competitive 
range" and that only those offerors included in the competitive range 
would be considered for the Step-2 oral presentation.  The oral 
presentation was to be evaluated in two areas: (1) addressing the 
offeror's approach to meet the SOO requirements, the technical plan 
for disposal/decontamination of government property at LHAAP including 
the environmental and quality assurance surveillance plans, and (2) 
how revenue generated by the sale of property would be controlled.[2]

Four offerors, including Earth Tech and RTF, submitted proposals by 
the January 22, 1998 closing date.  In the initial evaluation of 
proposals, the agency discovered that two of the offerors had 
submitted offers with cost-type provisions.  Because the agency 
believed that the RFP was not clear that only fixed prices could be 
proposed, the agency issued amendment No. 0008 to add "It is the 
Government's intent to award a firm-fixed price contract as a result 
of this solicitation."  The amendment also referred offerors to a 
question and answer section on an agency Internet web site for 
"[f]urther clarification of what is included in the firm-fixed price 
proposal."       

The amendment also advised offerors that the agency would open 
negotiations in order to obtain information necessary to make the 
competitive range determination.  The agency furnished all offerors 
with a list of evaluated strengths and deficiencies and provided them 
with the opportunity to submit revised offers.  One offeror withdrew 
from the competition and the others, including RTF and Earth Tech, 
submitted revised proposals.  RTF lowered its price from $20.7 million 
to $17.9 million, and Earth Tech raised its price from $1.7 million to 
$3.7 million.  All three offerors were included in the competitive 
range.

In accordance with the evaluation scheme, each of the offerors made a 
1-hour oral presentation and participated in a 1-hour question and 
answer period in which only clarification questions were asked.  These 
presentations were videotaped.  The evaluation team for the oral 
presentations was different from that which evaluated the written 
proposals because the agency did not want the Step-2 evaluators to be 
influenced by the prices proposed.  Oral presentations were scored 
under the following factors:  approach to liquidation, contaminated 
property, and QASP (45 points); identification of hazardous 
substances, compliance with environmental regulations/maintenance of 
permits (40 points); and physical inventory and property control 
system (25 points).  RTF's final oral presentation score was 80.25 
points of 110 possible points and Earth Tech's score was 90.9.  Based 
on these evaluations, the agency determined that Earth Tech's proposal 
represented the best value and awarded it the contract on April 30, 
1998.  

After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, RTF filed a 
protest with our Office.  Among other things, RTF argued that the 
evaluators were biased against the protester and had improperly 
evaluated the oral presentation without taking into account the 
written proposals.  The agency notified our Office that it intended to 
take corrective action and we dismissed the protest as academic.

Prior to the reevaluation, the agency notified all three offerors that 
it would select a new evaluation team.  In accordance with the 
reevaluation plan, the new team reviewed the technical section of each 
proposal, but not the past performance, experience, or price sections.  
After reviewing the oral presentation videotapes, including the 
clarification segment, the evaluators had no additional clarifications 
to request.  The team's review of each proposal/presentation resulted 
in a score of 54 of 110 points for RTF and 98 of 110 points for Earth 
Tech.  Based upon an integrated assessment of all the proposals, the 
source selection authority determined that Earth Tech's proposal 
offered the best overall value to the government.  After receiving 
notice of the award and a debriefing, RTF filed this protest. 

RTF raises a number of issues concerning the conduct of the 
reevaluation of proposals.[3]  Where there is a challenge to the 
evaluation of proposals in a negotiated procurement, it is not the 
function of our Office to evaluate the proposals de novo.  Rather, we 
will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was 
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and 
applicable statutes and regulations, since determining the relative 
merit of competing proposals is primarily a matter within the 
contracting agency's discretion.  Advanced Tech. and Research Corp., 
B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  230 at 3; Information Sys. & 
Networks Corp., B-237687, Feb. 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  203 at 3.

RTF first contends that the evaluators were not provided sufficient 
information on which to make their evaluations.  Specifically, RTF 
observes that the evaluators did not have all non-price material from 
the offerors' proposals.[4]  Based on our review of the record, we 
find nothing improper in the conduct of the reevaluation.  

In accordance with the stated evaluation criteria, Step 1 in the 
original evaluation assessed the written technical proposal, past 
performance and experience, environmental plan and QASP, and price to 
determine the competitive range.  Step 2 was to observe each 
competitive range offeror's oral presentation and focus on each 
offeror's approach to meeting the disposal/decontamination SOO 
requirements and the offerors' approach to controlling the revenues 
from sales.  The purpose of the corrective action reevaluation was to 
repeat Step 2, augmented with relevant, non-price portions of the 
proposals.  In this way, the agency wanted to ensure that the 
evaluators reviewed all aspects of the proposed approaches, not just 
what the offerors chose to include in their oral presentations.  Thus, 
the new evaluators were given the technical proposal, environmental 
plan, and QASP, all dealing with proposed approach.  They did not 
receive the past performance, experience, and resume portions of the 
proposals, all of which dealt with the offerors' qualifications to 
perform because those aspects had already been evaluated in 
determining the competitive range.  

Contracting officials in negotiated procurements have broad discretion 
in taking corrective action where the agency determines that such 
action is necessary to ensure fair and impartial competition.  
Rockville Mailing Serv., Inc., B-270161.2, Apr. 10, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
184 at 4.  We will not object to an agency's corrective action so long 
as the action taken is appropriate to remedy an impropriety.  Id.  
Here, the Step 1 evaluation established the competitive range and did 
not need to be reevaluated.  The only reason for furnishing the other 
written portions was due to the overlap between them and the oral 
presentation.  Because only the technical plan, QASP and environmental 
plan were relevant to the offerors' approaches, the agency reasonably 
decided not to furnish the entire written proposals to the evaluators 
for review.[5]  Limiting the scope of the reevaluation, where only a 
portion of the original evaluation was potentially flawed, is a 
reasonable method to avoid undue delay in the source selection 
process.  See Serv-Air, Inc., B-258243.4, Mar. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  125 
at 2-3.

RTF argues that the evaluators should have reviewed the balance of its 
proposal because important information about its approach is contained 
in its personnel resumes, subcontractor experience, and past 
performance.  It is plain from the RFP that an offeror's technical 
approach was to be reflected in the technical plan.  The RFP advised 
offerors that the technical plan was to include an environmental plan, 
QASP, integrated master schedule, and a scope of work to meet the SOO 
requirements (RFP, Attachment 003, part II).  RTF's decision to 
include "approach"-type information in other areas of its proposal 
reflects its business judgment and does not mean that the agency erred 
in failing to reconsider all non-price portions of the proposals.  
Further, we note that RTF's revised technical proposal, submitted 
prior to the original oral presentation, specifically added 
information about the relevant experience of the protester and its key 
personnel, as well as information about its subcontractors.  Thus, 
much of the information which RTF claims was not considered was before 
the evaluators for review in the reevaluation.  In any event, after 
RTF complained about this matter at its debriefing, the agency had the 
evaluators review the portions in question and none found that the 
additional information provided any basis for changing their 
evaluation.[6]

RTF next challenges virtually all of the evaluators' criticisms of its 
oral presentation and technical plan.[7]  In RTF's view, the 
evaluators either misunderstood RTF's proposal or were biased against 
RTF.  An offeror is responsible for affirmatively demonstrating the 
merits of its proposal and risks the rejection of its proposal if it 
fails to do so.  DBA Sys., Inc., B-241048, Jan. 15, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  
36 at 4, citing Vista Videocassette Servs., Inc., B-230699, July 15, 
1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  55 at 5.  Based on our review of the evaluation 
criteria, the evaluations, technical proposal and oral presentation, 
and the agency's and RTF's protest submissions, we find the agency was 
reasonable in identifying various matters as deficiencies or 
weaknesses, and that RTF's arguments to the contrary constitute mere 
disagreement with the agency's technical judgment which does not 
render the evaluation unreasonable.  Medland Controls, Inc., B-255204, 
B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  260 at 5.  In this regard, most 
of the evaluation criticisms are attributable to RTF's failure to make 
clear the details of its approach in its technical plan and oral 
presentation.  

For example, under the liquidation of property subfactor, the agency 
found that RTF demonstrated a weak and disjointed approach to 
liquidation.  Specifically, it found that the overall tone of the 
written and oral presentations was that the vast majority of the 
property was scrap and would be treated as such without any attempt at 
negotiated or forced sale.  RTF argues that this criticism is without 
merit because its technical plan states that RTF spoke with 
knowledgeable used equipment dealers who were familiar with the LHAAP 
used personal property.  RTF also described a 6-week period during 
which all prospective buyers would have an opportunity to inspect all 
personal and installed equipment and to submit bids on them.  The 
completion of this process would confirm that all remaining items were 
scrap.  RTF believed some 90 to 95 percent of the property was scrap 
based on the expertise of its personnel, its discussions with the used 
equipment dealers, and on a newspaper quote from an LHAAP official 
that private sector manufacturers would not want much of the property 
due to its highly specialized nature.  Notwithstanding RTF's view, its 
written proposal devoted only two and one-half pages to property 
liquidation and during its 1-hour oral presentation, RTF spent only 12 
minutes on this subject.[8]  Thus, while RTF's assessment and plan 
were described in its technical and oral presentations, both could 
reasonably be found to lack sufficient detail.  In this regard, they 
did not identify the used equipment dealers referred to, their 
qualifications, or the supporting rationale for their opinions.  Nor 
did the proposal or presentation discuss how RTF determined that a 
6-week offering on a 2-year contract was a reasonable method to 
determine the scrap and non-scrap status of more than 6,000 items of 
property.  In short, RTF's proposal failed to adequately demonstrate 
why the agency should have confidence in RTF's assessment.  We believe 
that the agency was reasonable in concluding that RTF's stated 
experience and limited market methodology for determining scrap value 
were not an adequate substitute for a detailed description of its 
approach to making that determination. 

In another instance, RTF failed to receive the maximum number of 
points under the first subfactor of the environmental factor.  This 
subfactor assesses the offerors' approach to identifying hazardous 
substances and preparing a detailed decontamination plan and cost 
proposal for turning over buildings.  In the evaluation, the agency 
noted that RTF had not included a decontamination plan or cost 
proposal.  RTF argues that this evaluation is unfair because the RFP 
did not require the submission of the decontamination plan and cost 
proposal for identified buildings until 90 days after contract award.  
However, the SOO (Attachment 001 at  para.  3.3.3.1) required offerors to 
identify all excess personal property that had the potential to be 
contaminated and code that equipment.  If there were no buyer for 
contaminated property, the contractor remained responsible for its 
disposal ( para.  3.3.6) including decontamination ( para.  3.3.4).  RTF's 
proposal provides very little information on its approach to 
determining the presence of contaminants or how they would accomplish 
needed decontamination.  Because there is a substantial amount of 
property other than buildings which could require decontamination, the 
agency reasonably downgraded RTF's proposal under this subfactor.  To 
the extent the agency improperly withheld points under this subfactor, 
RTF was not prejudiced.  In this regard, all offerors were penalized 
for failure to submit the cost proposal.  Further, if RTF's proposal 
score were increased to the maximum for this subfactor, its overall 
score would still be significantly lower than Earth Tech's score. 

RTF also claims that the evaluators were biased against it.  This bias 
allegedly is evidenced by the evaluators' lack of familiarity with the 
requirements of the RFP and their consequent failure to recognize the 
superiority of RTF's proposal.  The composition of a technical 
evaluation panel is within the discretion of the contracting agency.  
In the absence of evidence of bad faith or actual bias, we have no 
reason to question the composition of the panel.  EBA Eng'g, Inc., 
B-275818, Mar. 31, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  127 at 4.  Government officials 
are presumed to act in good faith; we will not attribute unfair or 
prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference 
or supposition.  Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  171 at 6.  In addition to producing credible evidence 
showing bias, the protester must demonstrate that the agency bias 
translated into action that unfairly affected the protester's 
competitive position.  Id.

Here, there is no evidence of bad faith or bias or that any alleged 
bias translated into a lower evaluation score than was otherwise 
justified.  In fact, as explained by the agency, a different 
evaluation team was chosen to conduct the reevaluation in order to 
ensure that the original evaluation would not influence them.  The 
fact that the evaluators may not have had the familiarity with LHAAP 
that RTF believed they should have had, does not constitute bias.  As 
explained by the agency, in view of the size of LHAAP (8,500 acres), 
the number of buildings involved (450), and the number of salvage 
items (more than 6,000), evaluation emphasis was on the offerors' 
approach to successful marketing and disposal, rather than focusing on 
the specific accomplishment of any given task.  Thus, familiarity with 
LHAAP itself was not as important as the expertise to assess the 
validity of the offered approaches.  The record shows that each 
evaluator was well qualified to evaluate the offerors' approaches.  
Moreover, since the record establishes the propriety of the agency's 
evaluation of RTF's proposal, there is no basis to question the 
motives of the evaluators. 

RTF next speculates that Earth Tech's contract does not impose on it 
all the action items set forth in a list of questions and answers.[9]  
The list verified that a number of items not specifically discussed in 
the RFP are within the scope of the SOO requirements.  For example, 
the list states that all steam and air lines, rails and roadbed, and 
fences throughout LHAAP are to be removed/salvaged.  The agency agrees 
that all the items identified by RTF are requirements under the RFP 
and Earth Tech's contract.  The awardee's failure to specifically 
identify them in its proposal does not eliminate Earth Tech's 
responsibility to dispose of all excess personal property leaving only 
stripped out buildings (Attachment 001 at  para.  3.1).  In view of the 
magnitude of the requirements, the agency reasonably concluded that no 
manageable document could detail every item and task required for 
contract compliance.  Thus, the SOO format was used and the agency 
evaluated proposals on the stated approaches to accomplishing the 
objectives, rather than on whether there was a specific agreement to 
accomplish thousands of discrete tasks.  While RTF was not allowed 
access to Earth Tech's proprietary proposal and contract, we have 
reviewed both and find nothing to indicate either that Earth Tech has 
taken exception to any of the requirements or that it is not obligated 
to perform all requirements encompassed by the SOO and the list of 
questions and answers.

RTF's arguments are based in part on its opinion that Earth Tech is 
incapable of performing all of the requirements for the price it 
proposed.  The submission of a below cost offer is not itself legally 
objectionable.  Oshkosh Truck Corp., B-252708.2, Aug. 24, 1993, 93-2 
CPD  para.  115 at 6 n.3.  Whether a contract can be performed at the 
offered price is a matter of the offeror's responsibility.  Id.  We 
will not review an agency's affirmative determination of 
responsibility absent circumstances not present here.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.5(c).  

In a related argument, RTF contends that due to the significant 
difference in proposed prices, it was improper for the agency not to 
perform a separate price reasonableness evaluation.  Here the agency 
evaluated price as part of Step 1.  This is a fixed-price contract, 
based on SOO requirements and the offerors' approaches to them.  Since 
there were four offerors, three of whom were included in the 
competitive range, and each had a unique proposal, the agency 
reasonably concluded that there was adequate price competition.  
Where, as here, there is adequate price competition, no additional 
information is necessary for determining price reasonableness.  FAR  sec.  
15.802(a)(1), 15.804-5(b) (June 1997).[10]  

RTF also appears to argue that the agency erred by failing to consider 
price in the final award determination, and the record supports this 
argument.  The agency maintains that the RFP's evaluation scheme made 
clear that price was to be considered only in Step 1 and that the 
award would be based only on the Step-2 evaluation.  We disagree. 

Notwithstanding the agency's intent to keep Step 1 and Step 2 separate 
and make the award determination solely on the results of the oral 
presentation, the evaluation scheme states that award would be made 
"to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the 'Best 
Value' to the Government. . . . [and] [b]est value is determined by an 
integrated assessment of the evaluation factors."  RFP, Attachment 004 
(emphasis added).  In view of the stated intent to make a best value 
determination based on that integrated assessment, the RFP does not 
clearly indicate that price would not be considered after the 
evaluation in Step 1.  This is especially true, where, as here, 
offerors were given the opportunity to revise their prices and 
technical proposals.  

If the evaluation scheme had clearly limited the price evaluation to 
Step 1 only, the evaluation would be flawed.  As a general rule, the 
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires contracting 
agencies to include cost or price as a significant evaluation factor 
that must be considered in the evaluation of proposals.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2305(a)(2)(A), 2305(a)(3)(A)(ii) (1994); Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft 
Support, B-277263.2, B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  91 at 
9-10; see FAR  sec.  15.605(b)(1)(i).  A source selection which fails to 
give significant consideration to cost or price is inconsistent with 
CICA and cannot serve as a reasonable basis for award.  Electronic 
Design, Inc., B-279662.2 et al., Aug. 31, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  69 at 8; 
Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, supra.  

Accordingly, the agency's failure to specifically consider the 
offerors' proposed prices as part of the award determination was 
improper.  Under the circumstances of this case, however, the error 
did not prejudice RTF.  No trade-off was needed here because Earth 
Tech's high-scored proposal offered the lowest price.  Since RTF's 
price was higher, consideration of price merely serves to reinforce 
the overall superiority of Earth Tech's proposal.  While RTF's 
proposal and oral presentation (receiving 54 of 110 points) showed 
adequate knowledge of the inventory process and property control 
system, it demonstrated a weak approach to liquidation, and generally 
failed to provide much detail on its approaches to decontamination.  
In contrast, Earth Tech's proposal and presentation (receiving 98 of 
110 points) showed a strong knowledge of the inventory process, a 
demonstrated comprehensive and systematic approach to inventory, 
coding, marking, decontamination, sales and accountability for sale 
proceeds, and included a detailed decontamination plan and site 
assessment.  In view of Earth Tech's far superior proposal and 
presentation and its price, $14 million less than that proposed by 
RTF, it is clear that if the agency had specifically considered price 
in its best value determination, the award would still have been made 
to Earth Tech.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. With respect to the work not covered under the fixed-price 
proposal, the RFP provided for two optional tasks: closure of three 
hazardous waste sites at LHAAP and the environmental decontamination 
of specifically identified buildings.  In this regard, not later than 
90 days after contract award, the successful offeror is required to 
submit a detailed decontamination plan and competitive cost proposal 
on how best to clean the identified buildings to Environmental 
Protection Agency standards.  Performance of optional tasks depends 
upon negotiation after review of the plan and cost proposal.  

2. It is the government's intent that proceeds from the sales of 
property be used to defray the costs of the optional tasks.

3. RTF has raised a number of arguments in support of its protest and 
the agency has responded to each one.  We have reviewed them all and 
find that none has merit.  For example, while RTF contends the agency 
did not use the same evaluation criteria in the reevaluation, the 
record establishes that the agency used the same criteria.  This 
decision will address only the more substantial issues. 

4. RTF also complains that the evaluators did not have a copy of the 
oral presentation slides.  While they did not have a copy of the 
presentation slides, this was not prejudicial to the protester.  We 
have reviewed the videotape of the presentation and note that 
virtually all of the slides are clearly shown on the tape.  Those 
portions which are blocked by the overhead projector were either read 
by RTF's representative or are easily understood from the context of 
the presentation.  

5. We reach the same conclusion with regard to RTF's complaint that 
the evaluators did not have the amendments to the RFP or the offeror 
questions and agency answers which were furnished to the offerors.  
The amendments for the most part made minor additions and deletions to 
the SOO.  Amendment No. 0008 referred offerors to a list of questions 
and answers, some of which concerned clarification of whether specific 
tasks were within the scope of the SOO requirements.  However, the 
stated purpose of the amendment was to make clear that performance on 
the basic contract, including the clarified tasks, was to be covered 
in a lump-sum, fixed price.  The evaluators were not reviewing the 
oral presentation to determine whether the offerors were going to 
perform any specific task; rather they were reviewing it to evaluate 
each offeror's approach.  Thus, we agree with the agency that review 
of the amendments and questions and answers were not material to the 
reevaluation.

6. In addition, the agency observes that the technical proposal was 
only relevant to the technical approach portion of the Step-2 
evaluation.  Thus, even if RTF's score were increased to the 60 point 
maximum for this portion, its technical score would remain 10 points 
less than that which Earth Tech's proposal received.  Because Earth 
Tech's technical score would still be higher and Earth Tech proposed a 
significantly lower price, Earth Tech's proposal would remain the best 
value and the award determination would not change.

7. RTF also argues that the evaluation was flawed because subfactors 
and their relative weights were not identified in the RFP.  The 
absence of subfactors and weights is readily apparent from a review of 
the RFP.  Allegations of solicitation improprieties must be raised 
prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals.  Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1998).  Since RTF did not raise 
these issues until after contract award, these issues are not timely 
raised.  Moreover, we note that the RFP did disclose the relative 
weights of subfactors in Step 1 and RTF was provided a copy of the 
Step-2 subfactors as part of its original debriefing.  

8. By comparison, Earth Tech devoted 34 pages to its written 
liquidation and marketing plans and spent 18 minutes during the oral 
presentation on these subjects.

9. RTF also argues that the award to Earth Tech is improper because 
that firm's initial proposal was not responsive to the RFP's 
requirement for a fixed-price offer.  This argument is without merit.  
The agency explains that Earth Tech and another offeror included cost 
reimbursement elements in their initial proposals.  While the agency 
always contemplated award of a fixed-price contract, the RFP did not 
use the term "fixed-price."  Since two offerors had misunderstood this 
aspect of the procurement, and initial evaluations had identified 
deficiencies in all proposals, the agency issued amendment No. 0008 to 
make clear that only a lump sum offer was acceptable and to open 
negotiations with all offerors. 

10. RTF had earlier complained that if Earth Tech's price were 
considered reasonable, the agency should have eliminated RTF from the 
competition as having no reasonable chance for award.  In this regard, 
the agency specifically apprised RTF in discussions that its price may 
be excessive.  While RTF heeded this advice and lowered its price, its 
determination not to lower it further represents its business judgment 
and does not make the evaluation unreasonable.