BNUMBER:  B-281393             
DATE:  February 1, 1999
TITLE: Deva & Associates, P.C., B-281393, February 1, 1999
**********************************************************************

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:Deva & Associates, P.C.

File:B-281393            
        
Date:February 1, 1999

John E. Jensen, Esq., Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge, for the 
protester. 
James S. Phillips, Esq., and James S. DelSordo, Esq., Kinosky, 
Phillips & Lieberman,  for Tessada & Associates, Inc., an intervenor. 
John F. Ruoff, Esq., Defense Finance and Accounting Service, for the 
agency. 
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that awardee should not have received favorable past 
performance rating because it is not an accounting firm is denied 
where solicitation provided that past performance evaluation would be 
based on offeror's performance of similar services, and did not refer 
to status as accounting firm.

2.  Protest that agency's failure to consider references precluded it 
from properly evaluating past performance is denied where solicitation 
required offerors to furnish detailed past performance information and 
provided only that references may be contacted; information required 
by solicitation provided sufficient basis for past performance 
evaluation.

3.  Protest that awardee's technical score should have been lowered 
based on the awardee's low proposed wage rates for accountants and its 
low overall price is denied where agency reasonably concluded that 
awardee's rates were not substantially different from rates offered by 
other competitive range offerors, and price would be adequate to cover 
costs of performance.

4.  Protest that agency did not consider protester's superior past 
performance rating in performing price/technical tradeoff is denied 
where record shows that in performing the tradeoff the agency was 
aware of the past performance and technical ratings, as well as the 
proposed prices of all offerors. 

DECISION

Deva & Associates, P.C. protests the award of a contract to Tessada & 
Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
MDA220-98-R-0005, issued by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
(DFAS) for contract reconciliation and special studies services.  Deva 
argues that DFAS improperly evaluated past performance, failed to 
adequately assess the risk involved in awarding a contract to Tessada, 
and performed an improper price/technical tradeoff.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation was issued on February 17, 1998 for contract 
reconciliation and special studies services, including identifying and 
correcting out-of-balance conditions in contract payment and 
accounting records and systems; identifying and correcting unmatched 
disbursements and negative unliquidated obligations;  performing tasks 
to support contract close-out requirements; and identifying and 
correcting problems with outstanding or remaining unliquidated 
obligations.      RFP  sec.  C.1.1.  The solicitation contemplated the 
award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, and 
provided that proposals would be evaluated against (in descending 
order of importance) technical, past performance and price factors.[1] 
RFP  sec.  M.

DFAS received nine proposals and, following the initial evaluation, 
selected four, including Tessada's and Deva's, to be included in the 
competitive range.  After final proposal revisions were evaluated, 
Tessada's proposal was rated "better" under the technical factor and 
satisfactory under past performance, while Deva's was rated "better" 
under both factors.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 6.  However, 
Tessada's offered price ($7,667,551.37) was the lowest received, and 
Deva's ([DELETED]) the highest, id., and the agency determined that 
Tessada's proposal represented the best value to the government based 
on its low price.  Technical Evaluation Report at 1; Post Negotiation 
Business Clearance Memorandum at 8. 

PAST PERFORMANCE

Deva protests that the agency improperly evaluated the proposals under 
the past performance factor.  First, Deva argues that because Tessada 
is not an accounting firm, it should not have received a favorable 
past performance rating.[2]  This argument is without merit.  The 
solicitation neither required that offerors be accounting firms, nor 
provided that the past performance evaluation would take into 
consideration whether an offeror was an accounting firm.  Rather, 
offerors were to submit detailed performance information on directly 
related or similar contracts, that is, information regarding contracts 
for reconciliation and special study work.  RFP  sec.  L.4(c).  It thus was 
evident from the RFP that the past performance evaluation was to focus 
on offerors' performance of the type of services under the contract.  
Consequently, the fact that Tessada is not an accounting firm does not 
provide a basis for questioning Tessada's past performance rating.[3]  

Deva also argues that DFAS did not evaluate the quality of Deva's and 
Tessada's past performance, as required by the solicitation.  
Specifically, Deva asserts that the agency did not contact the 
references provided by Deva, and received information from only one of 
Tessada's references.  Deva concludes that the agency had no basis on 
which to evaluate the quality of the offeror's past performance.  

Procuring agencies are required to evaluate proposals in accordance 
with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2305(b)(1) (1994);  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)   sec.  15.304(d).  
Here, the solicitation stated that the government would evaluate the 
quality of the offerors' past performance.  RFP  sec.  M.7(b).  It did not 
state, however, that the quality of past performance would be 
evaluated through information obtained from references provided in the 
proposals.  Rather, the solicitation stated only that the government 
might obtain information from sources to aid in its past performance 
evaluation.  RFP  sec.  M.7(c).  At the same time, the solicitation, at 
section L.4(c), specifically required offerors to provide detailed 
information concerning their performance of prior contracts, including 
the following: 

     A.  Contract number(s) and type of contract;

     B.  Procuring agency and name of reference point(s) of contact . 
. .;

     C.  Dollar value of the Contract;

     D.  Period of Performance;

     E.  Detailed description of the work performed;

     F.  Relevancy of the contract to this proposed requirement; 

     G.  Clear statements describing whether the contract was 
completed on time,      with a quality product conforming to the 
contract, without any degradation in      performance or customer 
satisfaction.  Discuss any cost growth if the contract    was not 
completed for the original contract amount; and

     H.  The number, type, frequency, duration and impact of any 
quality, delivery or   cost problems in performing the contract, the 
corrective action taken, if any,       and the effectiveness of the 
corrective action.  

This information, although obtained directly from the offerors, 
clearly was sufficient to allow DFAS to evaluate the quality of 
offerors' past performance, as required by the RFP.  Deva has not 
challenged the conclusions reached by the agency in the past 
performance evaluation, and we see no basis to question the 
reasonableness of the evaluation.

RISK ASSESSMENT

The RFP provided that an offeror's technical score could be reduced 
where its proposed price was too low, or not consistent with its 
technical proposal, so as to raise concern about the offeror's ability 
to provide quality services and personnel at the price proposed over 
the life of the contract.  RFP  sec.  M.5.  Deva argues that Tessada's 
proposal should have been downgraded under this provision because its 
overall contract price and proposed wage rates are too low.  Deva 
notes in this regard that its proposed price was based on several 
labor surveys and is approximately [DELETED] higher than Tessada's.  
Deva further asserts that these surveys show that Tessada's proposed 
salary for accountants is below the national average.  In this regard, 
Tessada's proposed hourly direct labor rate for accountants 
([DELETED]) is below Deva's ([DELETED]), as is its contract rate for 
accountants ([DELETED] versus Deva's [DELETED]).  Final Revision Cost 
Spreadsheet at 1.

DFAS responds that the contracting officer found that Tessada's 
offered price was comparable to other competitive range proposals and 
that its rates were comparable to Deva's, Legal Memorandum at 11, and 
also determined that Tessada's rates correlated to the key personnel 
ratings and that its proposed price was adequate to cover the labor 
costs necessary to perform the contract.  Contracting Officer's 
Statement at 11.  The agency therefore did not downgrade Tessada's 
proposal for performance risk. 

The evaluation of Tessada's proposal in this area was reasonable.  
First, the total proposed prices of the four proposals included in the 
competitive range were initially $7.9 million (Tessada), $7.9 million 
(ASI), $7.7 million (fourth offeror), and [DELETED].  Contracting 
Officer's Statement at 5.  In the final proposals, these prices were 
revised to $7.6 million (Tessada), $7.6 million (fourth offeror), $8.6 
million (ASI), and [DELETED] (Deva).  Id. at 6.  With respect to the 
direct labor rates for the accountant labor category, Tessada proposed 
an hourly rate of [DELETED] compared to Deva's [DELETED].  Price 
Comparison Chart, Sheet 5.  Tessada's loaded rate was [DELETED], 
compared to [DELETED] for Deva, [DELETED], for ASI, and [DELETED] for 
the fourth offeror.  Final Revision Cost Spreadsheet at 1.  Based on 
these numbers, Tessada's proposed accountant wage rate and total price 
clearly were not out of line with the competitive range proposals 
taken as a whole.  With regard to the surveys Deva cites, as the 
agency points out, these surveys represent average salaries, while the 
salaries paid by any particular employer may vary greatly, depending 
on such factors as the size of the business, accounting functional 
areas, and geographical factors.  Supplemental Agency Statement at 7.  
The agency further points out, moreover, that Tessada's proposed 
accountant wage rate actually is within the margin of error for one 
survey and is not comparable to the rate used in the second survey, 
[DELETED].  Id.  We conclude that there simply is no basis to question 
the agency's determination that Tessada's proposal did not carry with 
it any particular performance risk. 

PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

Deva maintains that the tradeoff is flawed because it did not take 
into account Deva's superior past performance.  This argument is 
without merit.  While the source selection official did not discuss 
Deva's superior past performance rating in detail when he agreed that 
the proposal submitted by Tessada offered the best value to the 
government, it is clear from the procurement record that the agency 
was fully aware that Deva's past performance was rated as superior to 
Tessada's when it made the decision.  In this regard, the technical 
evaluation panel recommended to the contracting officer that Tessada 
be selected for award.  In the recommendation, the panel specifically 
lists the ratings of each of the offerors for the technical and past 
performance factors, as well as their costs.  Technical Evaluation 
Report at 1-2.  The panel then states:

     Tessada is recommended for award.  The overall Technical Proposal 
     rating of "Better", Past Performance rating of "Satisfactory", 
     and Price (@ [DELETED] lower than ASI, @ [DELETED] lower than 
     DEVA, and @ [DELETED] lower than [fourth offeror]) for Tessada 
     were considered in making a best value determination.  The price 
     premiums for ASI and DEVA were considered while the overall 
     technical rating for ASI, DEVA, and Tessada were "Better."  A 
     price premium is not justified.   

In selecting Tessada, the contracting officer reviewed the evaluators' 
recommendation, and expressly adopted it.  Post Negotiation Business 
Clearance Memorandum at 8.  Since the agency determined that Tessada's 
lower proposed price more than offset Deva's past performance 
advantage, the tradeoff decision was proper.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The technical proposals were to be adjectivally rated as 
outstanding, better, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable.  RFP  sec.  
M.2(b), M.3(c).  The past performance proposals were to be 
adjectivally rated as neutral, outstanding, better, satisfactory or 
marginal.  RFP  sec.  M.3(c), M.7(d). 

2. Deva also challenges the evaluation of the proposal of ASI, which 
the agency ranked as next in line for award after Tessada.  Because we 
find that the award to Tessada was proper, we need not consider that 
aspect of the protest.

3. Deva also generally asserts that DFAS did not properly evaluate the 
relevance of Tessada's past performance.  Deva does not explain the 
basis for this conclusory assertion, and such a general statement is 
not sufficient to constitute a basis of protest.  Ogden Support 
Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-270354.3, June 11, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  212 at 2.