BNUMBER:  B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3    
DATE:  October 6, 1998
TITLE: Cobra Technologies, Inc., B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3,
October 6, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Matter of:Cobra Technologies, Inc.

File:B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3   
        
Date:October 6, 1998

Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., and John P. Walsh, 
Esq., Pompan, Murray, Ruffner & Werfel, for the protester. 
Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., and Elizabeth A. 
Ferrell, Esq., Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, for HAI-WW, LLC, an 
intervenor. 
Robert J. McCall, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency. 
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Contracting agency reasonably rated awardee--a new joint 
venture--very high on corporate experience where:  (1) request for 
proposals stated that corporate experience would measure the 
collective experience of an offeror's proposed project team and that 
prior performance by company officers and predecessor companies would 
be considered; (2) the two companies that formed the joint venture had 
previously successfully performed together the same type of work under 
separate contracts for the contracting agency at one of the four 
government buildings that is the subject of the present contract; and 
(3) all of the awardee's proposed employees have had significant 
relevant experience.  

2.  Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposals and alleging 
that agency failed to consider revisions contained in protester's best 
and final offer and to upgrade protester's score based upon revisions 
is denied, where the record shows that evaluation was reasonable and 
that evaluators were aware of protester's revisions and, as a result, 
upgraded protester's score based upon some revisions but not for 
others; protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation provides no 
basis to find the evaluation unreasonable.

3.  Agency properly awarded contract to the offeror of the higher 
technically rated, higher-priced proposal where the request for 
proposals stated that technical merit and price would be given equal 
weight and the agency reasonably determined that the extra technical 
merit of the awardee's proposal justified its higher price. (Awardee's 
proposal was rated [deleted] percent higher than protester's on 
technical merit, and awardee's proposed price was only [deleted] 
percent higher than protester's.)  

DECISION

Cobra Technologies, Inc. (Cobra) protests the award of a contract to 
HAI-WW, LLC (HAI-WW) by the General Services Administration (GSA) 
pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-03P-98-QAC-0003.  Cobra 
contends that the evaluation of proposals was flawed and that the 
agency did not consider Cobra's lower proposed price in selecting 
HAI-WW's proposal for award.  We deny the protest.   

Issued on April 8, 1998, the RFP solicited offers for providing 
facilities engineering, repairs and building maintenance services at 
four buildings in Baltimore, Maryland.  The contractor would provide 
all management, supervision, manpower, materials, supplies and 
equipment; the contractor would plan, schedule, coordinate and assure 
effective performance of all services.  RFP  sec.  B.1.  The RFP 
contemplated a fixed-price contract for a basic period of 1 year and 
included options for 4 additional multi-year periods.[1]  RFP  sec.  B.  
The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose 
proposal offered the greatest value to the government and that price 
and technical merit would be given approximately equal weight in 
determining greatest value.  RFP  sec.  M.1.  The RFP stated that technical 
merit would be measured in terms of a level of confidence (LOC) rating 
reflecting how confident the agency was that the offeror would be 
fully successful in furnishing the required services after evaluation 
of technical proposals on three criteria, listed in descending order 
of importance as:  management plan, corporate experience, and 
qualifications of key personnel.  RFP  sec.  M.1, M.3.

Six offerors submitted initial proposals.  The source selection panel 
(SSP) members individually evaluated each technical proposal; then, 
the SSP met as a group and gave each technical proposal a consensus 
LOC (i.e., technical) rating.  HAI-WW's initial proposal was rated the 
highest on technical merit, with a score of [deleted] out of a 
possible [deleted] points for a "very high" rating, while Cobra's 
initial technical proposal was rated second-highest, with a score of 
[deleted] points for a "low" rating.   SSP Initial Report at 2-3; 
Determination of Competitive Range at 1.  HAI-WW's initial proposed 
price was $[deleted] and Cobra's initial proposed price was 
$[deleted].  Determination of Competitive Range at 1.  

The contracting officer determined that only Cobra's and HAI-WW's 
proposals would be kept in the competitive range.  Id. at 2.  
Discussions were held with both firms, and best and final offers 
(BAFO) were accepted and evaluated by the SSP.  The following table 
(taken from the SSP Final Report at 4) sets forth the consensus 
technical scores and proposed total prices, as well as the independent 
government price estimate.

Offeror              Technical Score      Total Price

HAI-WW               [deleted]            $22,381,800

Cobra                [deleted]            $[deleted]

Government Estimate  - - -                $[deleted]
The SSP recommended that the contract be awarded to HAI-WW on the 
basis that HAI-WW's BAFO represented the greatest value to the 
government.  SSP Final Report at 4.  The contracting officer and the 
source selection authority (SSA) concurred and, on June 16, 1998, the 
contract was awarded to HAI-WW.  Id. at 5; Contracting Officer 
Statement, July 30, 1998, at 3.  After a debriefing, Cobra filed its 
initial protest in our Office.[2]

Cobra contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection 
of HAI-WW were unreasonable and unsupported by the record and, 
therefore, the award decision should be overturned.  

Our Office will only question an agency's evaluation of proposals if 
it lacks a reasonable basis or is inconsistent with the stated 
evaluation criteria for award.  DAE Corp., Ltd., B-257185, Sept. 6, 
1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  95 at 4.  A protester's mere disagreement with the 
agency over its technical evaluation does not establish that the 
evaluation was unreasonable.  Id.; Cubic Applications, Inc., B-274768 
et al., Jan. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  98 at 3.  Here, after reviewing the 
record in light of the protester's arguments, we have no basis to 
question the agency's evaluation.

Cobra contends that GSA's evaluation of HAI-WW's corporate experience 
was fatally flawed.  Cobra asserts that since HAI-WW is a newly 
created concern, HAI-WW did not have any relevant experience.  Initial 
Protest at 4.  Cobra argues that GSA overlooked HAI-WW's lack of 
experience and unreasonably gave HAI-WW a nearly perfect score for 
corporate experience.  Supplemental Protest at 2.

The RFP stated that corporate experience was a measure of "the 
collective experience of the offeror's proposed project team."  RFP  sec.  
L.3.B.  The RFP also stated that prior performance by company officers 
and predecessor companies would be considered and that evidence of 
past successful performance as a team was desired for joint ventures.  
Id.  The evaluation of HAI-WW's corporate experience was both 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP's standards.

HAI-WW is a joint venture of two companies--HAI Integrated Building 
Services, Inc. and WW Contractors, Inc.--that was formed in 1998.  
HAI-WW Proposal,  sec.  6, Corporate Information.  The record shows that 
the SSP discussed one evaluator's concern that the HAI-WW teaming 
partners had only 1 year of experience working together, but resolved 
that this was not a deficiency because the RFP did not contain any 
minimum level of experience an offeror's project team should have.  
The SSP further noted that two different government employees had 
provided references indicating that the HAI-WW joint venture partners 
had performed successfully when working together over the past year at 
the Fallon Federal Building, one of the four buildings that are the 
subject of the present contract; the contracting officer explains that 
the two companies had worked as a team under separate contracts to 
address operational problems with the building's systems.  SSP Initial 
Report, Consensus Scoresheet (HAI-WW), at Corporate Experience; 
Contracting Officer Statement, July 30, 1998, at 3.  In this 
connection, the two government references cited by the SSP provided 
glowing appraisals of the outstanding work done by both companies at 
the Fallon Federal Building.  Reference Check Sheets [deleted].

The contracting officer also states that HAI-WW's very high rating on 
corporate experience was justified because both teaming partners had 
successfully performed building engineering and maintenance services 
for many years and HAI-WW's proposal included examples of the 
companies' relevant past performance on several different projects.  
Contracting Officer Statement, July 30, 1998, at 3.  In addition, the 
agency points out that the resumes of company officers reflect 
significant relevant experience.  Agency Report, July 30, 1998, at 4.  
In this connection, we note that resumes included in HAI-WW's proposal 
show that all of the joint venture's named proposed employees had 
previously worked on the Fallon Federal Building project.
  
Since the RFP stated that corporate experience is a measure of the 
collective experience of the offeror's team and that prior performance 
by company officers and predecessor companies would be considered, the 
agency's consideration of the teaming partners' past performance and 
excellent references for work done for GSA at the Fallon Federal 
Building, as well as its consideration of HAI-WW's proposed employees' 
performance on the Fallon Federal Building project, was completely 
consistent with the RFP.  Moreover, as the Fallon Federal Building is 
one of the four buildings for which services will be provided under 
the contract, the past performance of teaming partners and proposed 
employees at that building clearly was relevant in evaluating HAI-WW's 
project team's past performance on similar work.  TEAM Support Servs., 
Inc., B-279379.2, June 22, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  167 at 4-5; see Young 
Enters., Inc., B-256851.2, Aug. 11, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  159 at 6 (agency 
properly evaluated protester's prior performance on allegedly 
dissimilar projects with procuring agency where prior performance was 
relevant to protester's working relationship with agency contracting 
officials); see also LD Research Corp., B-230912.3, Sept. 9, 1988, 
88-2 CPD  para.  223 at 6 (in evaluating the experience of a new business, 
agency properly considered experience of supervisory personnel, as 
well as the firm's experience prior to its incorporation).  Thus, 
there is no basis to conclude that the agency's high rating of 
HAI-WW's corporate experience was unsupported, inconsistent with the 
RFP, or otherwise unreasonable.

The protester alleges that GSA unfairly downgraded its initial 
proposal for weaknesses that did not really exist and that, when Cobra 
addressed the alleged weaknesses in its BAFO, GSA did not consider the 
new information or upgrade its rating of Cobra's BAFO.  Cobra cited a 
number of examples to support this allegation, and GSA responded to 
each.  We have considered each of the examples, as well as the 
pertinent arguments.  We have also reviewed the entire evaluation 
record (including evaluators' handwritten notes, consensus 
scoresheets, and SSP reports) in light of the protester's examples and 
arguments.  Based upon our review of these materials, we have no basis 
to conclude that the evaluation of Cobra's proposal was unreasonable 
or that the SSP did not consider the revisions Cobra incorporated into 
its BAFO.  Basically, Cobra disagrees with the agency's evaluators and 
the contracting officer over the technical merit of its proposal; such 
disagreement does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable 
and provides no basis for overturning the award.  Cubic Applications, 
Inc., supra, at 3.  We will discuss only two of the more significant 
examples raised by Cobra.

The first example concerns the agency's downgrading of Cobra's 
proposal under the management plan criterion because the proposal gave 
little indication that Cobra's management would be proactive.  GSA 
Debriefing Memorandum at 1.  Cobra asserts that its proposal set forth 
Cobra's proactive philosophy and the steps Cobra would take to 
implement that philosophy.  First Supplemental Protest at 3-4.  Cobra 
asserts that, after GSA informed it of this perceived weakness during 
negotiations, Cobra supplemented its proposal with additional 
proactive measures, but GSA did not consider the revisions or increase 
its rating of Cobra's BAFO.  Id.  The record shows that Cobra's 
initial proposal received just [deleted] out of a possible [deleted] 
points in the management plan evaluation.  SSP Initial Report, 
Consensus Scoresheet (Cobra), at Management Plan.  The proposal was 
downgraded, only in part, because the SSP believed that the proposal 
did not demonstrate that Cobra would manage proactively.  Id.  The SSP 
criticized the proposal because it "[deleted] [contracting officer's 
representative]."  SSP Initial Report at 2-3.  Cobra's initial 
proposal was also downgraded in the management plan evaluation because 
the evaluators believed that the [deleted], and for other perceived 
weaknesses.  SSP Initial Report, Consensus Scoresheet (Cobra), at 
Management Plan.  Cobra was informed of the deficiencies in its 
management plan during negotiations.  Letter from the Contracting 
Officer to the President of Cobra Attachment, at 1 (May 22, 1998).  

Contrary to Cobra's assertion, the record shows that the evaluators 
did consider the revisions Cobra incorporated into its BAFO.  
Specifically, the SSP noted that Cobra had [deleted] and that Cobra 
had included [deleted]; the SSP awarded Cobra's BAFO an additional 
point because of these improvements.  SSP Final Report at 3.  However, 
the SSP did not award Cobra's BAFO any additional points for its 
revisions concerning the proactive issue because the SSP believed that 
the BAFO still gave little indication that Cobra's management would be 
proactive.  Id.  In this regard, the evaluators noted that Cobra's 
BAFO still included statements to the effect that Cobra would 
[deleted].  Id.  The evaluators also noted that Cobra had addressed 
the proactive issue by including a guide from a previous National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration contract, but provided [deleted].  
Id.; SSP Final Report, Consensus Scoresheet (Cobra), at Management 
Plan.  While Cobra disagrees with the evaluators' opinion as to 
whether its management would be sufficiently proactive and about the 
overall technical quality of its management proposal, it is clear that 
the SSP did consider Cobra's BAFO revisions before determining that 
the proposal had only improved slightly and awarding Cobra's BAFO one 
additional evaluation point.  Cobra's mere disagreement with the 
evaluators' opinion and scoring provides no basis for us to find the 
evaluation unreasonable.  Cubic Applications, Inc., supra, at 3.           

The second example concerns the agency's awarding HAI-WW's BAFO a 
higher score on the qualifications of key personnel criterion.  Cobra 
states that HAI-WW's proposal listed seven candidates for seven 
different positions and included resumes for all of them.  Cobra 
alleges that the SSP improperly considered the qualifications of 
HAI-WWs entire seven-person staff even though the RFP identified only 
two positions--project manager and lead supervisor--as key personnel.  
Second Supplemental Protest at 2-3.  Cobra also alleges that its 
proposal was penalized in the evaluation and received a lower score on 
this criterion because Cobra followed the RFP rules and included 
candidates for just the two specified positions as key personnel.  RFP  sec.  
L.3.C.

HAI-WW's initial proposal received [deleted] out of a possible 
[deleted] evaluation points, while Cobra's initial proposal received 
just [deleted] points, on the qualifications of key personnel.  SSP 
Initial Report, Consensus Scoresheets (HAI-WW and Cobra, 
respectively), at Qualifications of Key Personnel.  Cobra's proposal 
was downgraded on this criterion, in part, because GSA's [deleted] 
provided a [deleted] reference for its proposed [deleted] and, in 
part, because it was unclear whether the proposed project manager 
would be on site.  SSP Initial Report at 3.  After negotiations, Cobra 
clarified that the project manager would be on site and the SSP 
upgraded Cobra's BAFO score on this criterion to [deleted] points. SSP 
Final Report at 3.  HAI-WW's score remained at [deleted] points after 
BAFO evaluation.

The record shows that some of the individual evaluators' scoresheets 
do, in fact, make reference to HAI-WW's entire management team.  
However, in response to the protest, the chairman of the SSP provided 
a declaration in which he stated that he reminded the evaluators when 
they met as a panel that the RFP required them to base their 
evaluation of key personnel solely on the positions of project manager 
and lead supervisor and that the consensus evaluations of both HAI-WW 
and Cobra were based solely on the qualifications of the people 
proposed for those two key positions.  Declaration of [deleted] at 1.  
The agency provided our Office with all of the reference check sheets 
that were completed by agency personnel when they contacted references 
for HAI-WW and Cobra and for their proposed key personnel; the check 
sheets show that references were contacted only for HAI-WW's and 
Cobra's proposed project managers and lead supervisors, but not for 
the other staff positions set forth in HAI-WW's proposal.  The 
reference check sheets for HAI-WW's proposed project manager and lead 
supervisor show ratings across the board of excellent and outstanding.  
Reference Check Sheets (HAI-WW), Lead Supervisor and Project Manager.  
On the other hand, while some of the reference check sheets for 
Cobra's key persons contained good ratings, one of the references for 
Cobra's proposed [deleted] was generally very negative.  

Based upon the above record, we have no basis to conclude that the SSP 
upgraded HAI-WW's rating by giving it extra credit for including 
several additional staff positions/resumes or downgraded Cobra's 
rating because it included resumes/candidates only for the two key 
positions specified in the RFP.  Furthermore, in view of the uniformly 
excellent references received for HAI-WW's key position candidates and 
the mixed references received by Cobra's key position candidates 
(especially, the negative response received regarding Cobra's proposed 
[deleted]), we cannot find unreasonable the SSP's giving HAI-WW's BAFO 
a near perfect score of [deleted] points while Cobra's received just 
[deleted] points in the evaluation of the qualifications of key 
personnel.  Again, Cobra's mere disagreement with the evaluators' 
consensus does not provide any basis for finding the evaluation 
unreasonable.  Cubic Applications, Inc., supra, at 3.     

The protester also contends that GSA awarded the contract to HAI-WW 
based solely upon HAI-WW's proposal's technical superiority, without 
considering Cobra's lower proposed price.  Cobra argues that, since 
the RFP stated that price and technical merit would be given equal 
weight, GSA's selection based solely upon technical merit was not in 
accord with the RFP's stated scheme.  Initial Protest at 4-5. 

In a negotiated procurement, a procuring agency has the discretion to 
select a more highly rated technical proposal if doing so is 
reasonable and is consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.  PW 
Constr., Inc., B-272248, B-272248.2, Sept. 13, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  130 at 
6-7.  An agency may properly award a contract to the offeror of a  
higher-rated technical proposal with a higher proposed cost, where the 
agency determines that the cost premium is justified considering the 
significant technical superiority of the selected offeror's proposal.  
Id.  Here, the agency conducted a price/technical tradeoff analysis 
and reasonably concluded that the premium the agency would have to pay 
was justified in view of the technical superiority of HAI-WW's 
proposal.  

The SSP's Final Report (with which the contracting officer and SSA 
concurred) noted the large spread between the technical ratings of 
HAI-WW's and Cobra's BAFOs ([deleted] and [deleted] points, 
respectively) and stated that the disparity was the result of HAI-WW's 
BAFO's technical superiority over Cobra's BAFO in every area of the 
technical evaluation--management plan, corporate experience, and key 
personnel.[3]  SSP Final Report at 4.  The SSP Final Report noted the 
strengths of HAI-WW's BAFO, particularly in its management plan and 
the superiority of its proposed key personnel.  Id. at 4-5.  On the 
other hand, the SSP Final Report noted several weaknesses in Cobra's 
BAFO, including evidence of Cobra's [deleted] of the BAFO.  Id. at 
3-5.  Accordingly, the SSP specifically determined that HAI-WW's 
BAFO's technical superiority justified the expenditure of an 
additional $[deleted] over the 12-year life of the contract; the 
contracting officer and SSA concurred.  Id. at 5.  Moreover, while not 
specifically cited as a justification for selecting HAI-WW's BAFO, 
HAI-WW's technical rating was approximately [deleted] percent higher 
than Cobra's, while HAI-WWs proposed price was only approximately 
[deleted] percent higher than Cobra's.  In view of the fact that 
technical considerations and price were to be given equal weight in 
the selection decision, we believe that the SSA reasonably selected 
HAI-WW's technically superior proposal for award.  PW Constr., Inc., 
supra, at 6-7.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The basic contract plus all four option periods totals 12 years.

2. Cobra's initial protest, filed on June 29, alleged that GSA rated 
HAI-WW's proposal too high on corporate experience and did not 
consider Cobra's lower proposed price in selecting HAI-WW's proposal 
for award.  Initial Protest at 4-5.  Cobra's first supplemental 
protest, filed on July 2, alleged that GSA rated Cobra's proposal too 
low in a number of areas.  First Supplemental Protest at 2-7.  Cobra's 
second supplemental protest, filed on August 10, asserted that GSA 
rated HAI-WW's proposal too high and Cobra's proposal too low on the 
qualifications of proposed key personnel.   Second Supplemental 
Protest at 2-4.

3. As pointed out by the SSP, HAI-WW's technical rating of [deleted] 
points was a "near perfect score."  SSP Final Report at 4.  According 
to the agency's Source Selection Panel Guide, HAI-WW's [deleted]-point 
rating equated to a very high level of confidence, while Cobra's 
[deleted]-point rating equated to a moderate level of confidence.