BNUMBER:  B-280922 
DATE:  December 4, 1998
TITLE: Teltara Inc., B-280922, December 4, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Teltara Inc.

File:     B-280922

Date:December 4, 1998

Ralph B. Wahlberg and Michael W. Campbell for the protester.
Pamela Langston-Cox, Esq., Internal Revenue Service, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Source selection decision is not reasonable where the record does not 
provide any  documentation or explanation which supports the decision, 
and the source selection memo essentially contains only percentage 
comparisons between the technical point score and price of the 
awardee's proposal and the technical point scores and prices of the 
other proposals, which do not support the purported best value 
determination.     

DECISION

Teltara Inc. protests the award of a contract to TMI Services, Inc. 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. TIRWR-97-R-00005, issued by the 
Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for 
janitorial services at the Ogden Service Center, Ogden, Utah.  Teltara 
asserts that the agency's selection decision is unreasonable and does 
not accurately take into account the relative proposal evaluations.    

We sustain the protest.  

The solicitation, issued on August 1, 1997 as a competitive small 
business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract 
for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options.  RFP  sec.  B.1, B.2.  
The solicitation provided that award would be made to the offeror 
whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government, 
to be determined "by comparing differences in the value of the 
technical features with differences in the offerors' prices."  RFP  sec.  
M.2.  The RFP further stated that "[i]n making this comparison the 
Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance 
between technical features and price to the Government."  Id.  Under 
the evaluation criteria section, the solicitation provided that 
technical proposals would be scored on the basis of plan of 
accomplishment (30 points), business management (35 points) and 
business experience (35 points), for a possible total of 100 points, 
and provided that price proposals would not be point-scored, but would 
be compared and considered with the technical score in determining 
which proposal offered the best overall value to the government.  RFP  sec.  
M.3.B.  The RFP did not specify the relative importance of price and 
technical factors.     

Fourteen firms, including Teltara and TMI, submitted proposals by the 
amended September 10 closing date.  Source Selection/Technical & Cost 
Evaluation Memo at 1.  The proposals were individually evaluated by a 
four-member evaluation team, after which the individual scores were 
averaged to obtain a final score under each evaluation criterion and 
these final scores were totaled to obtain each offeror's total 
technical score.  Id. at  2.  Based on this evaluation, six proposals, 
including Teltara's and TMI's, were included in the competitive range.  
Two rounds of discussions were conducted and best and final offers 
(BAFO) were received from the six competitive range offerors, as a 
result of which prices were revised but the technical evaluation 
scores for all offerors remained unchanged.  Id. at 2-4. Technical 
scores and BAFO prices for Teltara and TMI were as follows:

                    Technical ScorePrice

           Teltara  78.1          $3,716,275.16

           TMI      93.1          $4,458,381.00
The contracting officer determined to make award to TMI as offering 
the best overall value to the government, concluding that the 
16.65-percent price advantage associated with the lowest-priced 
Teltara proposal did not offset the 16.11-percent inferiority of 
Teltara's technical proposal relative to TMI's higher-scored technical 
proposal.  Id. at 4-5.  Award was made to TMI and this protest 
followed.  While Teltara was entitled to a statutory stay of 
performance, the agency determined to override the stay and permit TMI 
to perform on the basis that it was in the best interest of the 
government.  IRS Determination and Findings, September 2, 1998.

Teltara challenges the reasonableness of the agency's best value 
determination, pointing out that the RFP provided "no formula or 
process for determining 'best overall value'" and that its proposal, 
which was evaluated 16.11 percent lower technically than TMI's 
proposal was also 16.65 percent lower in price, thus offering a better 
value because a direct comparison of these percentages results in a 
.54 percent advantage to Teltara.  Protester Comments at 2.

In a negotiated procurement, the government is not required to make 
award to the firm offering the lowest price unless the RFP specifies 
that price will be the determinative factor.  Shirley Constr. Corp., 
B-240357, Nov. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  380 at 6.  Since the RFP did not 
provide for award on the basis of the lowest priced technically 
acceptable proposal, but instead stated that the award would be made 
to the offeror whose offer represented the best overall value to the 
government, considering price and technical factors, the contracting 
officer had the discretion to determine whether the technical 
advantage associated with TMI's proposal was worth its higher price.  
This discretion exists notwithstanding the fact that price and 
technical factors are of equal weight.[1]  Id.   The propriety of the 
price/technical tradeoff decision turns not on the difference in the 
technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection 
official's judgment concerning the significance of the difference was 
reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP evaluation 
scheme.  Cygnus Corp., B-275181, Jan. 29, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  63 at 11.

In order for our Office to perform a meaningful review of an agency's 
selection determination, an agency is required to have adequate 
documentation to support its evaluation of proposals and its selection 
decision.  Biospherics Inc., B-278508.4 
et al., Oct. 6, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  96 at 4; Arco Management of 
Washington, D.C., Inc. B-248653, Sept. 11, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  173 at 3.  
While adjectival ratings and point scores are useful as guides to 
decision-making, they generally are not controlling, but rather, must 
be supported by documentation of the relative differences between 
proposals, their strengths, weaknesses and risks, and the basis and 
reasons for the selection decision.  Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  15.608(a)(3), 15.612(d)(2) (June 1997); Century Envtl. 
Hygiene, Inc., B-279378, June 5, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  164 at 4; Arco 
Management of Washington, D.C., Inc., supra, at 3.  

Here, the source selection decision is unreasonable on its face and is 
not supported by the record.  The contemporaneous documentation of the 
agency's technical evaluation process in the IRS report to our Office 
consists of copies of the evaluation sheets completed by the 
evaluation team members and the contracting officer's Source 
Selection/Technical & Cost Evaluation Memorandum.  The proposal 
evaluation sheets completed by the evaluators contain numerical scores 
for each factor and subfactor, total point scores and narrative 
responses to questions concerning the proposals.  There is also a 
sheet titled "Averaged Scores" that was completed for each proposal, 
which contains the scores assigned by each evaluator on each factor.  
These scores are averaged and the averages totaled to arrive at a 
total technical score for each proposal.  While the agency report 
states that each proposal was scored independently and that the 
evaluation forms "were compiled to tally all the scores given for each 
offeror," Contracting Officer's Statement at 3, there is no indication 
that the evaluators discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the 
proposals or otherwise looked beyond the individual point scores in 
mechanically establishing a total technical score for each proposal.  

The contracting officer's Source Selection/Technical & Cost Evaluation 
memo provides only the total technical scores and prices for the 
competitive range proposals and percentage comparisons between TMI's 
technical score and price and the technical scores and prices of the 
other competitive range proposals.  The contracting officer's memo 
contains no hint as to the basis for the scoring of the proposals; in 
fact, there is nothing in the record which indicates that the 
contracting officer was ever made aware of the individually noted 
strengths and weaknesses in TMI's or Teltara's proposals.  Indeed, the 
record before us lacks any evidence that the contracting officer did 
anything more than make percentage comparisons among the competitive 
range proposal scores and prices in order to determine which offeror 
should be awarded the contract.  

It is improper to rely, as the IRS essentially did here, on a purely 
mathematical cost/technical tradeoff methodology, unless the 
application of such a methodology is consistent with the RFP source 
selection scheme.  General Offshore Corp.-Riedel Co., a Joint Venture, 
B-271144.2, B-271144.3, July 2, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  42 at 8.  In this 
case, beyond the mechanical comparison of the percentage differences 
in the price and technical scores, the contracting officer's only 
qualitative assessment of the technical differences between Teltara's 
and TMI's technical proposals consists of her observation that TMI's 
was highest and Teltara's lowest among the competitive range 
proposals.[2]  

Moreover, the agency's mechanical comparative analysis of these scores 
is flawed.  Specifically, as the protester points out, a simple 
comparison of Teltara's 16.11-percent technical inferiority with its 
16.65-percent lower price, does not result in an advantage to TMI 
where, as here, technical merit and price are equal in weight.  While 
the contracting officer's determination appears to assume that TMI's 
technical point score is of greater significance than Teltara's low 
price, the IRS offers no support for this position, nor is it 
consistent with the agency's mechanical application of the RFP source 
selection scheme.  Accordingly, the source selection decision, 
apparently based only upon the point score percentage differentials, 
is inadequately supported by documentation and the record lacks 
evidence to ensure its reasonableness.  

Since we find that IRS failed to document the reasonableness of its 
evaluation and award decision, we recommend that IRS reassess the 
relative technical merits and prices of the BAFOs, consistent with the 
RFP evaluation criteria, and make a proper and documented source 
selection determination.  After doing so, if TMI's proposal is no 
longer considered the best overall value, the agency should terminate 
TMI's contract for the convenience of the government and award the 
contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the 
best value.  In addition, we recommend that the protester be 
reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(d)(1) (1998).  The protester should submit its certified claim, 
detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the 
contracting agency within 60 days of receiving this decision.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1).  

The protest is sustained.  

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Where, as here, a solicitation fails to indicate the relative 
importance of price and technical factors, they are considered to be 
equal in weight.  Great Lakes Roofing Co., Inc., B-240731, Nov. 28, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  439 at 3; Video Ventures, Inc., B-240016, Oct. 19, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  317 at 3.

2. In the contracting officer's statement prepared after award for 
this protest, the only substantive comparison between any of the 
proposals consists of the contracting officer's recognition that 
"Teltara had the least technical merit of those in the competitive 
range," and her statement that:  "[t]he difference between the 
awardee's technical merit and Teltara's is dramatic and provides for 
an assurance of quality performance at a reasonable price."  
Contracting Officer's Statement at 3.