BNUMBER:  B-280921 
DATE:  December 7, 1998
TITLE: Pacifica Services, Inc., B-280921, December 7, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Pacifica Services, Inc.

File:     B-280921

Date:December 7, 1998

Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., and Alan Dickson, Esq., Epstein Becker & 
Green, for the protester.
Jance R. Hawkins, Esq., and Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, 
for TrendTec, Inc., an intervenor.
Capt. Larna Ross, Capt. Jesse Arnstein, and John E. Lariccia, Esq., 
Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Contracting agency's rejection of protester's proposal as technically 
unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's 
evaluation criteria where the record shows the agency reasonably 
determined that the proposal failed to comply with the solicitation's 
requirement to demonstrate that its proposed staffing represented an 
adequate number and appropriate allocation of qualified employees and 
job categories for each task.  Since offerors were on notice the 
agency might award the contract without conducting discussions, the 
agency's decision to do so under the circumstances here is 
unobjectionable. 

DECISION

Pacifica Services, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as 
technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F06493-98-R-0031, issued by the Department of the Air Force to obtain 
civil engineering services at the Los Angeles Air Force Base and its 
military family housing annexes.  Pacifica contends that the Air Force 
improperly evaluated its technical proposal and improperly failed to 
conduct discussions with the firm prior to awarding the contract to 
TrendTec, the only offeror whose proposal was evaluated as technically 
acceptable.  

We deny the protest.

The solicitation sought the services of a firm to perform a broad 
range of maintenance, repair, and minor construction work on real 
property at the
Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, California; the Lawndale 
Annex in Hawthorne, California; and the Fort MacArthur Military Family 
Housing Annexes in San Pedro, California.  RFP  sec.  L-II-1.0.a.  In 
addition to performing maintenance, repair, and minor construction 
work, the successful contractor was responsible for such disparate 
base civil engineering functions as management information systems, 
real property management, engineer services, contract planning and 
programming,
drafting and record drawing maintenance, design and construction 
management, and management of the base's simplified acquisition of 
base engineering requirements (SABER) contract.  Performance Work 
Statement (PWS), RFP  sec.  C-5,   para.  5.5-5.11.  

The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, award fee 
contract to a firm to perform these services for 1 base year, with up 
to 4 option years available.  RFP Cover Letter at 1; RFP  sec.  F(1).  
Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, 
technically acceptable proposal.  RFP  sec.  M.1.  Pass/fail ratings were 
to be assigned under the solicitation's non-price evaluation factors.  
RFP  sec.  M.2.b.  Since the government reserved the right to award without 
discussions, offerors were cautioned that their initial offers should 
include their best price and terms.  RFP  sec.  M.2.  

Section L-II-2.3. of the RFP cautioned offerors that their proposals 
shall be: 

     clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective 
     evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims.  
     The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the 
     Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing 
     rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these 
     requirements.  Offerors shall assume that the Government has no 
     prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base 
     its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's 
     proposal.   

The sole proposal volume at issue here is the leadership/technical 
volume.[1]  With respect to this volume, offerors were required to 
"provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology" they 
would use for accomplishing the PWS.  RFP  sec.  L-II-4.1.  They were also 
required to demonstrate their ability to "plan, organize, and manage 
resources in a coordinated and timely manner such that the performance 
requirements will be achieved, costs will be controlled, and schedules 
will be met.  The offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of 
the processes and efforts required to satisfy the requirements.  
Leadership/technical proposals must provide a complete and acceptable 
response to [the instructions in section L-II of the RFP]."[2]  RFP  sec.  
M.3. 

All of the non-price evaluation factors were drawn from the 
leadership/technical volume:  leadership/technical, sample 
problems/scenario, quality control, and past performance.  RFP  sec.  
L-II-4.2.  The sole factor at issue here is leadership/technical.  
Section M.4 of the RFP set forth five leadership/technical subfactors:  
management approach, organizational structure, staffing, key personnel 
qualifications, and
start-up plan.

The Air Force received and reviewed proposals from four offerors, 
including Pacifica (the incumbent contractor's principal 
subcontractor) and TrendTec.  The technical evaluation team (TET) 
concluded that Pacifica's proposal passed all of the non-price 
evaluation factors save leadership/technical.  According to the TET, 
Pacifica's proposal did not contain a sufficient number or proper 
allocation of qualified employees to accomplish all PWS requirements; 
did not demonstrate a detailed and integrated approach or rationale 
for management of all activities; and did not provide an approach to 
subcontract management.  Technical Proposal Evaluation of Pacifica at 
1.  Since Pacifica's proposal failed the leadership/technical factor, 
it was deemed to have failed the entire technical evaluation and 
considered to be technically unacceptable.  The source selection 
authority (SSA) concurred, and Pacifica's proposal was rejected, as 
were two other proposals deemed technically unacceptable.  SSA 
Decision at 1.  The Air Force subsequently awarded the contract to 
TrendTec, the only technically acceptable offeror, at a price of 
$34.671 million, approximately $2 million higher than Pacifica's 
proposed price.  

Pacifica argues that the Air Force improperly evaluated Pacifica's 
proposal with respect to its staffing, management approach, and 
subcontracting approach.  Pacifica contends that the agency utilized 
an unstated minimum staffing level and unstated personnel requirements 
in evaluating Pacifica's staffing; utilized an unstated requirement 
for detailed management practices in evaluating Pacifica's management 
approach; and conducted an irrational evaluation of the firm's 
subcontracting approach. 

The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the 
procuring agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its 
needs and deciding on the best methods of accommodating them.  We will 
question the agency's technical evaluation only where the record shows 
that the evaluation does not have a reasonable basis or is 
inconsistent with the RFP.  Quarles Janitorial Servs., Inc.,
B-251095, B-251095.2, Mar. 3, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  197 at 3.  The fact 
that the protester disagrees with the agency does not itself render 
the evaluation unreasonable.  Id.  Further, since an agency's 
evaluation is dependent upon the information furnished in a proposal, 
it is the offeror's burden to submit an adequately written proposal 
for the agency to evaluate, and a protester's failure to fulfill its 
obligation in this regard does not render the agency's evaluation 
unreasonable.  See Robotic Sys. Tech.,
B-278195.2, Jan. 7, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  20 at 9.  Our review of the 
record, including testimony obtained at a hearing, leads us to 
conclude that the agency's evaluation of Pacifica's proposal as 
technically unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with the terms 
of the solicitation.

It is useful to briefly reiterate the solicitation's explicit 
instructions regarding the detail required of proposals.  Offerors 
were required to "include sufficient detail for effective evaluation 
and for substantiating the validity of stated claims"; "provide 
convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet [the 
government's] requirements"; "provide as specifically as possible the 
actual methodology" they would use to accomplish the PWS; and "provide 
a complete and acceptable response to [the instructions in section 
L-II of the RFP]."  RFP  sec.  L-II-2.3, L-II-4.1; M.3.

With these instructions as a backdrop, offerors were required to 
propose a staffing approach that was to be evaluated in accordance 
with the following relevant portions of RFP  sec.  M.4.a.(3), the staffing 
subfactor:

     The offeror's proposed staffing demonstrates that personnel are 
     capable of performing tasks in the PWS at the start and 
     throughout contract performance.  The offeror's proposed staffing 
     represents an adequate quantity and appropriate allocation of 
     qualified employees and job categories (including subcontractors) 
     for each critical and noncritical task which will ensure 
     accomplishment of the PWS requirements.  The proposed staffing 
     presents an effective mix of multidisciplined skills, education, 
     training, certifications/licenses, and work experience (including 
     subcontractors) to accomplish the requirements of the PWS.  

Pacifica's proposal cites its experience as the principal 
subcontractor to the incumbent contractor, asserts that the firm is 
fully knowledgeable of the staffing requirements to execute the PWS 
requirements, and claims that its proposed staffing will provide 
personnel with the requisite skill mix to perform the PWS tasks.  
Proposal at 29.  However, Pacifica's principal response to the 
staffing subfactor is found in Table IIe-3.2 of its proposal.

The 30 fold-out pages that comprise this table list each proposed 
labor category across the top and each PWS paragraph down the 
left-hand column.  At the intersection of each row and column, 
Pacifica lists the amount of time each labor category is to spend on 
each PWS paragraph, in full-time equivalent (FTE) hours.  In many 
instances, the intersection of row and PWS paragraph does not list a 
figure but, rather, an asterisk denoting "less than .05" FTEs.   

According to its contemporaneous evaluation document, the TET believed 
that Pacifica's proposed staffing did not demonstrate personnel 
capable of performing tasks in the PWS at the start and throughout 
contract performance, and that its proposal did not contain a 
sufficient number or a proper allocation of qualified employees to 
accomplish all of the PWS requirements.  As examples of these 
failings, the TET stated that Pacifica's proposal did not include "key 
technical coverage" in electrical and civil/structural engineering and 
did not propose a sufficient number of personnel for in-service work 
planning, SABER project development and management, and construction 
inspection.  Technical Proposal Evaluation of Pacifica at 1.  

In response to the protest, the TET's chief evaluator provided a 
declaration in which she elaborated upon the contemporaneous 
evaluation.  She also testified on this subject at a hearing convened 
to resolve the protest.[3]  The chief evaluator stated that Pacifica's 
table was difficult to understand and failed to demonstrate that its 
proposed staffing represented an "adequate quantity and appropriate 
allocation of qualified employees and job categories" for each task 
that will ensure accomplishment of the PWS requirements, as required 
by the RFP.  First, there was no narrative to demonstrate why the 
number and mix of personnel proposed to perform given PWS tasks would 
ensure accomplishment of those tasks.  As the chief evaluator 
testified at the hearing, merely putting a number in a category does 
not substantiate the ability to perform the work because that "in no 
way tells us how that number is accurate to reflect the amount of work 
required to perform that one area of work."  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) 
at 77; see also Tr. at 86-88, 161-62.  Second, Pacifica's use of the 
asterisk made it difficult for the Air Force to ascertain how much 
time was to be devoted to various tasks because there was no way to 
know exactly how much less than .05 FTEs Pacifica was proposing for a 
given task and labor category.  Tr. at 180-81; see also Tr. 77-78.  
Despite determining that Pacifica's overall staffing was insufficient 
for the reasons above, the TET attempted to identify the number of 
proposed personnel for critical staffing only, in the event that these 
were the only services the Air Force's funding would allow.[4]  The 
Air Force encountered the same difficulties here and, in addition, 
concluded that some positions were assigned more tasks than the agency 
thought they could accomplish.  Chief Evaluator's Declaration at  para.  
35-38; Tr. at 77-78, 81, 118-22, 180-81.

Our review of Pacifica's table leads us to conclude that the Air Force 
reasonably determined that Pacifica failed to substantiate its 
proposed staffing, despite being on notice that it was required to do 
so.  We agree that its charts, which are indeed difficult to 
understand, do not serve as a substitute for an explanation of why the 
firm's proposed staffing was sufficient to perform the PWS 
requirements.  See Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A., B-278358, 
Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  26
at 8.  We also think that Pacifica incorrectly contends that the 
agency's concern with how it could perform the tasks with the total 
number of staff it proposed means that the agency evaluated its 
proposal using an unstated minimum staffing level.  The record shows 
that the Air Force was not evaluating Pacifica's proposal with a 
particular staffing level in mind, but was concerned by the firm's 
failure to substantiate its own proposed staffing given its own 
approach to performing the work.  Chief Evaluator's Declaration at  para.  
40; Tr. at 76-77, 81-83, 160-62, 183-84.  Both the concern and the 
resulting evaluation are reasonable.

As specific examples in support of its evaluation, the TET stated, 
among other things, that Pacifica's proposal did not include "key 
technical coverage in electrical and civil/structural engineering."  
Technical Proposal Evaluation of Pacifica at 1.

As an initial matter, Pacifica has mischaracterized the Air Force's 
position by arguing that it improperly required offerors to propose, 
as key personnel, an electrical engineer and a civil/structural 
engineer.  As the evaluation document plainly states, the agency's 
concern was with Pacifica's failure to provide "key technical 
coverage" in these areas, not its failure to propose actual engineers 
as key personnel.  See also Tr. at 138-39, 146-47.   

The chief evaluator refers to the requirement that the contractor 
repair and maintain all integral components of facilities, found at 
PWS  para.  5.31.2.  The requirement states, "[i]n addition to normal 
structural loading such as dead/wind/snow, the contractor shall 
consider seismic [factors] to assure structural integrity of 
facilities by using [an Air Force manual on seismic design for 
buildings]."  Id.  The chief evaluator states that this would require 
the contractor to look at as-built drawings and the existing structure 
to see if a proposed renovation would comply with current seismic 
standards, or if retrofitting was required, and to draft a statement 
of work.  Chief Evaluator's Declaration at  para.  15.  She points out, 
correctly, that there is no evidence in Pacifica's proposal that any 
of the personnel proposed to perform this task have the ability to 
"consider seismic [factors] to assure structural integrity of 
facilities."  Proposal Table IIe-3.2 at 7, 17; Proposal at 62-69; 
Proposal at Attachment 1; see also Tr. at 78-80, 145, 189-90.  

Pacifica's insistence that it allocated to this PWS paragraph 
personnel that were competent to do what is required is all very well, 
but there is no evidence to support this claim in its proposal.  There 
is no dispute that Pacifica was free to cross-utilize the architects 
it proposed elsewhere to do this work[5] or to subcontract for this 
skill, as it points out it could have done, but the firm's proposal 
failed to state that it would do either of these things.  As a result, 
we cannot conclude that the Air Force unreasonably determined that 
Pacifica's proposal failed to include key technical coverage in this 
area.

The chief evaluator also refers to PWS  para.  5.30.8, 5.31.5, and 5.31.11, 
which require the contractor to repair and maintain overhead 
distribution systems, substations, switching stations, electrical 
vaults, exterior lights, meters, low voltage electrical wiring, 
devices, electrical equipment/appliances, grounding, wiring, 
rectifiers, associated hardware, and to install cathodic protection.  
Chief Evaluator's Declaration at  para.  17-19.  While there are general 
references to electrical experience for two of the personnel proposed 
by Pacifica to perform these tasks, there is no indication that they 
have electrical engineering experience.  Pacifica Proposal Table 
IIe-3.2. at 17; Proposal Attachment 1 at 15, 16.  Pacifica asserts 
that the individual it proposed as its installation restoration and 
disaster preparedness section head has a degree in electrical 
engineering, but he was not proposed to perform these tasks.  Further, 
we are not persuaded by Pacifica's argument that its reference to 
subcontracting out for high voltage work should have assured the 
agency that all of these electrical engineering possibilities would be 
covered.  

The requirement for key technical coverage in the area of electrical 
engineering surfaces again when PWS  para.  5.10.1.7. is considered.  That 
paragraph requires the contractor to provide engineer and technical 
services as required to support site surveys and investigations, 
requests for information, preparation of project packages for 
contracting, cost estimates, technical translation, and support to the 
contracting officer for evaluating bids, and to provide technical 
assistance for planning in-house work orders.  As the Air Force points 
out, the two personnel proposed by Pacifica to perform this task--its 
architect and mechanical engineer--have no electrical engineering 
experience.  Pacifica Proposal Table IIe-3.2. at 2; Proposal 
Attachment 1 at 7, 9.  As a result, to the extent this PWS task will 
involve the provision of electrical engineering services, the task is 
not fully covered by Pacifica's proposed staffing.[6]  

In conclusion, the record affords us no basis to disagree with the Air 
Force's conclusion that Pacifica's proposal was technically 
unacceptable because it failed to demonstrate that its proposed 
staffing represented an adequate quantity and appropriate allocation 
of qualified employees and job categories for each PWS task, as the 
solicitation's terms required it to do.  Moreover, we have no basis to 
disagree with the Air Force that this deficiency alone was sufficient 
to render the proposal technically unacceptable.[7]  See RFP  sec.  M.2b, 
M.2c.

We also disagree with Pacifica's contention that the Air Force 
improperly failed to conduct discussions prior to making award to 
TrendTec.  There is generally no obligation that a contracting agency 
conduct discussions where, as here, the RFP specifically instructs 
offerors of the agency's intent to award a contract on the basis of 
initial proposals.  Robotic Sys. Tech., supra, at 11.  The contracting 
officer has broad discretion to make award on the basis of initial 
proposals, but that discretion is not unfettered; we will review the 
exercise of such discretion to ensure that it was reasonably based on 
the particular circumstances of the procurement, including 
consideration of the proposals received and the basis for the 
selection decision.  Id.; Lloyd-Lamont Design, Inc., B-270090.3, Feb. 
13, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  71 at 6.  Under the circumstances here, recounted 
above, we conclude that it was permissible for the agency to reject 
Pacifica's proposal rather than provide the firm an opportunity to 
correct the deficiencies.  See Good Food Serv., Inc., B-277145, Sept. 
2, 1997,
98-1 CPD  para.  102 at 3. 
 
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Offerors were also required to submit executive summary, 
cost/price, contract documentation, and relevant past and present 
performance volumes.  RFP  sec.  L.2.2.

2. The instructions in section L-II of the RFP are virtually identical 
to the evaluation factors in section M, relevant portions of which are 
quoted below.

3. We do not agree with Pacifica that the contents of this declaration 
and of certain hearing testimony constitute a wholly new evaluation 
which we should not consider.  Post-protest explanations that provide 
a detailed rationale for contemporaneous conclusions, as is the case 
here, simply fill in unrecorded details, and will generally be 
considered in our review of the rationality of an evaluation, so long 
as those explanations are credible and consistent with the 
contemporaneous record.  See Jason Assocs. Corp., B-278689 et al., 
Mar. 2, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  67 at 6 n.4.  

4. The RFP informed offerors that the agency would acquire only 
critical services and environmental services if planned funding was 
not provided.  RFP Cover Letter at 1.  Accordingly, each PWS paragraph 
was identified as representing a critical or non-critical task.

5. Neither architect was proposed to perform this task but, in any 
event, a review of their resumes does not disclose an ability to 
"consider seismic [factors] to assure structural integrity of 
facilities."  Proposal Attachment 1 at 7, 8.

6. There is a similar lack of coverage--for both electrical and 
structural/civil engineering--with respect to PWS  para.  5.10.1.10., which 
requires the contractor to perform constructability reviews of all 
designs.  Chief Evaluator's Declaration
at  para.  20. 

7. Based on this conclusion and the one below, we need not address 
Pacifica's allegations concerning the evaluation of its proposal's 
management approach,  subcontracting approach, or price.