TITLE:  	GCI Information Services, Inc., B-282074, May 28, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-282074
DATE:  May 28, 1999
**********************************************************************
GCI Information Services, Inc., B-282074, May 28, 1999

Decision

Matter of: GCI Information Services, Inc.

File: B-282074

Date: May 28, 1999

Robert M. Nutt, Esq., for the protester.

Thomas F. Williamson, Esq., Stacey L. Valerio, Esq., and Mary D. Walsh,
Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for TeleSec CORESTAFF, an intervenor.

Terrence J. Tychan, National Institutes of Health, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that in evaluating offerors' experience agency applied an
allegedly undisclosed criterion of whether offerors had handled a volume of
shelving comparable to that required under the solicitation is denied where
the solicitation put offerors on notice that similarity of experience would
be considered.

2. Protest that the contracting agency misevaluated the protester's proposal
under the criterion of understanding the requirement is denied where record
shows that the evaluation was reasonable; protester's mere disagreement does
not render the agency's judgment unreasonable.

DECISION

GCI Information Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to the
incumbent contractor, TeleSec CORESTAFF, under request for proposals (RFP)
No. NHLBI-OR-P-98-250, issued by the Department of Health & Human Services,
National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute, for library support services for the NIH Bethesda Campus library
and potentially for other federal government libraries throughout the
Washington metropolitan area.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on September 8, 1998, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price labor hour contract for a base year with four 1-year options to
provide library support including the "qualified personnel, materials and
services" required for the complete maintenance and collection control of
library materials at the NIH library, and potentially also for other federal
libraries as required by individual task orders/work assignments. RFP sect. B.1.
The RFP provided for a best value award, listing the evaluation factors in
order of importance as technical, cost and past performance and stating that
all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, were
significantly more important than cost or price. RFP sect. M.1. The RFP went on
to list the following technical evaluation factors and assigned weights for
technical proposal evaluation purposes:

1. Staffing and Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience 45 Points

2. Similar or Related Experience 35 Points

3. Understanding the Requirement 20 Points

Total Possible Points 100 Points

RFP sect. M.3.

With respect to the "understanding the requirement" evaluation factor, the
RFP required that proposals provide a detailed plan indicating how each
aspect of the statement of work was to be accomplished. RFP sect. M.3.A. This
plan was to include strategies, technologies, and methodologies that would
be used to meet the project objectives. Id. For purposes of the "similar or
related experience" factor, offerors were required to furnish a discussion
of the similarities and differences of this proposed effort versus other
contracts that they had performed. RFP sect. M.3.C. The RFP elsewhere provided
that past performance would be evaluated after determination of the
competitive range. RFP sect. M.5.

The agency received three proposals by the closing date, of which two, GCI's
and TeleSec's, were included in the competitive range. Written discussions
were held, and final proposal revisions were requested and received.
TeleSec's and GCI's revised proposals were evaluated and received technical
point scores of 99 and 92, respectively. TeleSec's proposed price for the
first task order, the NIH library, was $[deleted] and GCI's was $[deleted].
Source Selection Statement, Jan. 22, 1999, at 6, 12, 14. The two proposals
were equally rated as acceptable under the past performance factor. The
contracting officer concluded that TeleSec's proposal was technically
superior to GCI primarily because TeleSec had a long history of successfully
performing services similar to those required at the NIH library, while GCI
was determined not to have experience handling volumes comparable to that
indicated here in the statement of work (SOW). Recommendation for Award,
Dec. 28, 1998, at 1. Further, TeleSec's proposal showed a clear
understanding of the requirement, while GCI's proposal reflected that the
offeror lacked a full understanding of the requirements. Id. The agency
concluded that the difference in cost did not outweigh the technical
superiority of the TeleSec proposal. Source Selection Statement, Jan. 22,
1999, at 14. On January 20, 1999, award was made to TeleSec. After
requesting and receiving a debriefing, GCI filed this protest with our
Office on February 17, 1999.

GCI argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and
reflects the application of criteria which had not been specifically set
forth or called for in the solicitation. GCI asserts that this flawed
evaluation caused it to lose points under the factors of "similar or related
experience" and "understanding the requirement." [1] GCI also makes the
general allegation that the technical evaluation was flawed because no
specific guidance was provided the evaluators as to how to determine the
appropriate assignment of the available points within each criterion.
Protester's Comments at 2. GCI also complains that it appears that the
agency used TeleSec's proposal as the comparison standard and scored GCI's
proposal against it.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and the best method of accommodating them. Marine Animal Prods. Int'l,
Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 16 at 5. In reviewing an
agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead
will examine the agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable
and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. MAR,
Inc., B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 367 at 4. An offeror's mere
disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable.
McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2, B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD para.
51 at 18.

The record shows that the members of the technical evaluation group (TEG)
were instructed to complete a technical evaluation form for each proposal
documenting their observations concerning the strengths and weaknesses of
each proposal with direct reference to the technical evaluation criteria in
the RFP. Memorandum from the Contract Specialist to the Project Officer and
the Members of the Technical Evaluation Group (Oct. 19, 1998) (Oct. 19
Memorandum). The evaluators were specifically instructed that it was
"imperative that discussions and subsequent acceptability and
unacceptability of each proposal be compared only against the technical
evaluation criteria in the Solicitation and not against another proposal."
Id. at 1. There is no evidence in the record that the evaluators did
anything other than evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation
criteria. Further, to the extent GCI argues that the evaluators somehow
failed to follow internal agency instructions for reviewing technical
proposals, alleged deficiencies in the application of an agency evaluation
plan do not provide a basis for questioning the validity of the award
selection; these plans are internal agency instructions and as such do not
give outside parties any rights. Management Plus, Inc., B-265852, Dec. 29,
1995, 95-2 CPD para. 290 at 2 n.2.

With respect to the allegation that the agency failed to provide the
evaluators with a precise point scoring methodology, the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.305 provides that evaluations may be conducted using
any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival
ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. The relative strengths,
deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal
evaluation must be documented in the contract file. Here, as noted above,
the evaluators were instructed to document their observations concerning the
strengths and weaknesses of each proposal with direct reference to the
technical evaluation criteria in the solicitation. Evaluators were also
advised to evaluate each proposal in conformity with the technical
evaluation criteria and not to determine that one proposal was superior and
set that up as the standard; nor were they to use their own criteria or
scoring system. Oct. 19 Memorandum, attach. 3, at 1. The record shows that
each evaluator reviewed GCI's proposal and its responses to discussions
concerns and reasonably rated the proposal, consistent with the RFP
evaluation criteria. While the evaluators differed slightly on the ratings
provided each proposal, disparate scoring among evaluators by itself does
not suffice to establish an improper evaluation. Unisys Corp., B-232634,
Jan. 25, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 75 at 6.

GCI makes the particular allegation that the agency improperly downgraded
GCI's proposal under the similar or related experience factor because the
agency evaluated the magnitude of GCI's volume-handling experience on a
single-location versus an aggregate-location basis. GCI maintains that this
constitutes the application of an unstated evaluation factor and "smacks of
pre-selection" because the evaluation approach "gave no firm other than
TeleSec a reasonable or fair chance of being selected." Protester's Comments
at 5.

This argument is without merit. The RFP specifically required offerors to
provide a brief discussion of the similarities and differences of this
proposed effort versus other contracts performed. RFP sect. M.3.C. The SOW
provided that during fiscal year 1997 the library shelved 932,000 volumes,
photocopied 3,056,000 pages, processed 413,000 document delivery requests
and processed 308,000 volumes through the self service copy center, and that
during that period, 77,600 materials were shelved each month. RFP attach.
10. In the initial evaluation, the evaluators recognized that GCI performed
library activities at 15 federal government libraries and currently supports
64 nationwide government work sites performing project tasks similar to
those required here. During negotiations, GCI was requested to quantify the
volume of work performed for shelving, circulation, interlibrary loan and
bindery activities, as well as to provide the number of items circulated per
day and the number of interlibrary loans per day on each contract.
Negotiation Letter, Dec. 15, 1998. GCI's response demonstrated that while it
had, in fact, performed under contracts requiring similar or related duties,
it had not performed under any contract at a single site a high volume of
services comparable to that called for with respect to the NIH requirement.

After the review of GCI's responses during discussions, the evaluators
concluded that while GCI appeared capable of processing some large volumes
of work, GCI did not have experience in servicing a workload comparable to
the NIH library. We see nothing improper in the agency's evaluation here. In
assessing whether a prior contract should be considered "similar," it is
reasonable for the agency to consider the similarity of the prior contracts
to the RFP requirement with respect to volume of workload and, particularly
in view of the questions posed to GCI during discussions, GCI was on notice
of the agency's intent to consider this element in its evaluation of GCI's
experience. The RFP clearly placed offerors on notice of the volume of
activity at the NIH library and that this would be taken into consideration
in the evaluation of prior contracts. GCI's experience in performing high
volume contracts at a single library was reasonably taken into consideration
under the RFP criterion of similar or related experience. See EastCo. Bldg.
Servs., Inc., B-275334, B-275334.2, 97-1 CPD para. 83 at 3-4. The greatest
volume of shelving performed by GCI at the Environmental Protection Agency
library was approximately 300,000 volumes, which is less than 50 percent of
the NIH volume. GCI's Revised Technical Proposal. To the extent this
evaluation criterion may have given TeleSec a competitive advantage, an
agency is not required, in seeking competition, to construct its
procurements in a manner that neutralizes the competitive advantage that
some potential offerors (including incumbent contractors) may have over
others by virtue of their own particular circumstances. Group Techs. Corp.;
Electrospace Sys., Inc., B-250699 et al., Feb. 17, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 150 at
13. In sum, we see nothing improper in the evaluators taking into
consideration in its evaluation of GCI's experience the fact that GCI had
not performed any contracts which were similar with respect to the "single
site" volume needs anticipated at the NIH library.

GCI next argues that it received only 17 of the 20 available points for the
"understanding the requirement" evaluation factor and was improperly
downgraded for failure to adequately describe the process of "journal
shifting."

In its initial evaluation, the agency recognized that GCI had an
understanding of the scope of library operations and that its proposal
included many of the procedural and quality control measures to successfully
complete the work. However, several weaknesses were noted, such as GCI's
proposal to unnecessarily verify 10 items on each side of an item during
shelving and GCI's failure to discuss the requirement to move the older
journals to a lower floor during the annual shifts of journals as required
in the SOW, as a result of which GCI's proposal received an aggregate score
of 16. During discussions, GCI was advised about its failure to address
certain requirements, including the annual shifting of older journals from
the upper level to the lower level.

In the final evaluation, the evaluators found that GCI had addressed most of
their concerns; however, it was determined that GCI still did not provide an
in-depth explanation on questions related to understanding the requirements
such as how the annual shift of journals would be conducted. GCI maintains
that, in accordance with the solicitation, in response to the agency's
concerns about shifting, it promised that its on-site supervisor would
coordinate the annual shift of older volumes of journal titles to the lower
floor and that the on-site supervisor would work with the NIH library staff
to review and discuss the volume of materials to be moved and to determine
the level of effort and time required to complete the task. GCI contends
that any deduction in the rating assigned its proposal for its lack of
journal shifting information lacked a rational basis given the fact that
TeleSec's proposal was deficient if judged by the same standard applied to
GCI. The protester maintains that TeleSec did not offer a journal shifting
plan, while GCI fully explained how it did shifting of its volumes, and
promised to coordinate with the project officer to make it happen, yet GCI's
proposal received a lower score than TeleSec's. GCI contends that this
disparate treatment of GCI was unfair and prejudicial.

Contrary to the protester's argument, the record shows that TeleSec did
provide a more detailed discussion of the specifics of the shifting process.
In particular, TeleSec provided [deleted]. TeleSec further provided that
[deleted]. Based on the details provided by TeleSec in its proposal about
the shifting process, coupled with the agency's knowledge that, as the
incumbent, TeleSec had successfully performed this requirement in the past,
we believe the agency reasonably evaluated TeleSec's proposal as being
superior in this area. While we agree with the protester that it did discuss
the shifting requirement, it did not provide details concerning the
necessary personnel and resources needed to perform the annual shift of
journals from the upper level to the lower level of the library. In sum, the
record provides a reasonable basis for the agency's downgrading of GCI's
proposal under this evaluation factor, and for its determination that
TeleSec's more detailed proposal was superior to GCI's under this factor.

Finally, GCI challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff determination
premised on its contention that the two proposals were essentially equal and
therefore price should have been the determining factor. However, as
explained above, TeleSec's proposal was reasonably evaluated as technically
superior to GCI's proposal. TeleSec's proposed price was $[deleted] and
GCI's was $[deleted]. In a negotiated procurement, agency officials have
broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which whey will
make use of technical and price evaluation results. Price/technical
tradeoffs may be made; the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the
other is governed by the test of rationality and consistency with the
established evaluation factors. General Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan.
9, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 44

at 9. Where, as here, the RFP indicates that technical considerations are
more important than price considerations, selection of a technically
superior, higher-priced proposal is proper where the record shows that the
price premium was reasonably found to be justified in light of the
proposal's technical superiority. Dynamics Research Corp., B-240809, Dec.
10, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 471 at 2.

Here, the agency determined that TeleSec's proposal was technically superior
based on the fact that it demonstrated that TeleSec clearly understood the
contract requirements, TeleSec's key personnel had experience which exceeded
the requirements, and TeleSec had a long history of successfully providing
similar or related experience commensurate with the RFP requirement.
Although GCI's proposed price was lower, the agency reasonably determined
that the cost savings were outweighed by TeleSec's demonstrated superiority.
In these circumstances, GCI's contention that price should have been
determinative is misplaced, and the record provides no basis to question the
award determination.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. GCI also objects to the evaluation of its proposal under the "staffing
and key personnel qualifications and experience" factor and questions the
basis for it receiving a score of only 44.5 out of a possible 45 points. The
record shows that GCI did not receive a perfect score under this evaluation
factor because one evaluator determined that GCI's proposed supervisor was
overqualified, which could possibly result in that individual seeking other
more suitable employment. We see nothing unreasonable in the nominal
downgrading of GCI's proposal because it proposed an individual reasonably
determined to be overqualified and thereby posing a potential problem. See
Diversified Technical Consultants, Ltd., B-250986, Feb. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD
para. 161 at 3-4. We also note that TeleSec's proposal, which did not have any
weaknesses or deficiencies under this criterion, received a comparable point
score of 44.33.