TITLE:  Alaskan Publications, B-283272, October 27, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283272
DATE:  October 27, 1999
**********************************************************************
Alaskan Publications, B-283272, October 27, 1999

Decision

                    Matter of:Alaskan Publications

File:B-283272

Date:October 27, 1999

Robert J. Dickson, Esq., Atkinson, Conway & Gagnon, Inc., for the protester.

Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., and Capt. Jennifer M. Bell-Towne, Department of the
Air Force, for the agency.

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of agency?s evaluation of proposals and award to offeror that
submitted the proposal rated higher technically in a no-cost procurement is
denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated
evaluation factors for award.

DECISION

Alaskan Publications protests the award of a contract to Anchorage
Publishing under request for proposals (RFP) No. F65501-98-R-0068, issued by
the Department of the Air Force for the publication of a weekly base
newspaper at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska. The protester
challenges the agency?s evaluation of the proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on May 11, 1999, sought proposals for the award of a
contract to publish the base newspaper, Sourdough Sentinel, in accordance
with stated agency procedures for obtaining commercial enterprise (CE)
newspapers. See Air Force Instruction (AFI) 35-301 (Apr. 15, 1994);
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5120.4 (June 16, 1997). Under these
procedures, the contractor is awarded the right to produce and distribute
the newspaper, but must cover its costs and derive any profits from
advertising revenues, so that the government does not expend appropriated or
nonappropriated funds. [1] The government, in return, retains the right to
determine the editorial content of the publication. This exchange of rights
constitutes the contract consideration. Biloxi-D?Iberville Press,
B-243975.2, Sept. 27, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 301 at 2.

The RFP contemplated the award of a contract for a base period with options
to extend the contract for a total period not to exceed 6 years. RFP sect. 7(b).
The solicitation provided a list of publication content requirements to be
met by the publisher (id. sect. 1), and also set out general requirements
regarding the role of the base?s Public Affairs Office (PAO) in working with
the publisher. Id. sect. 2. Next, the RFP provided general requirements to be
met by the publisher in performance of the contract, regarding, for example,
the use of only editorial material and photographs provided by the PAO (id.
sect. 3(b)); the solicitation of all advertising (id. sect. 3(e)); the provision of
full process color pages (id. sect. 3(g)) and color separation (id. sect. 3(h)); the
provision of two Power Macintosh G-3 computers with specified software (id.
sect. 3(k)); the production of photo reproduction of the highest quality found
in local newspapers (id. sect. 3(n)); the use of standard, recyclable newsprint
(id. sect. 3(q)); and the provision of a quality control plan to ensure all
contract requirements are met. Id. sect. 3(v).

Offerors were advised that "award will be based on an [offeror?s] ability to
meet and/or exceed the government?s minimum requirements." RFP app. 4,
para. 1(f). Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal,
responsive to the solicitation, was determined to be most advantageous to
the government. RFP app. 4, para. 1(b). In accordance with DODI 5120.4
para. E4.1.10.8, cost was not a factor for award.

Appendix 4 of the RFP, at A-4-3 and A-4-4, listed the evaluation factors for
award "in descending order of importance, with factors 1 and 2 of equal
value and factors 3 and 4 of equal value." All subfactors were weighted
equally. This evaluation provision also notified offerors that their
proposals were to be "graded on their ability to meet and/or exceed the
government?s requirements. . . . [T]hose [proposals] that exceed the basic
requirements will be scored accordingly." Id. para. 4, at A-4-3.

Evaluation factor 1, technical and production capability, included
evaluation subfactors for the level and compatibility of automation, as well
as printing capability, production equipment, physical plant capabilities,
and distance to the plant. Id. para. 5, at A-4-3. Evaluation factor 2, services
and/or items offered, included subfactors for the quality and amount of
equipment and services offered, the usefulness of the services and/or items
to the PAO in enhancing the newspaper, and their impact on other parts of
the newspaper. Id. at A-4-4. The RFP also provided the following notice
regarding evaluation of proposals under factor 2: "[an] offer of equipment
or services not specifically related to producing the publication will not
result in the assignment of a higher score." Id. Evaluation factor 3, past
performance record, included subfactors relating to the offeror?s ability to
successfully produce a CE or similar publication, printing ability, timely
and responsive prior contract performance, and demonstrated capability to
sell advertising to recoup publication costs. Id. Evaluation factor 4,
management approach, included subfactors related to the offeror?s interface
with the PAO, control over the quality and timeliness of the finished
product, sale of advertisements enhancing the publication?s image, and the
supervision and management of the contractor personnel. Id.

Appendix 3 of the RFP, containing instructions to the offerors, emphasized
that proposals would be evaluated for soundness of approach, compliance with
requirements, and understanding of the requirement under each evaluation
factor. Offerors were notified that proposals were to describe in sufficient
detail the proposed approaches and methods of accomplishing the required
tasks. RFP app. 3, para. 9, at A-4-3. Appendix 3 also notified offerors of the
general type of information to be included in their proposals for evaluation
under the evaluation factors and subfactors. For example, offerors were
instructed to describe in their proposals their printing capability in terms
of color, quality of photo reproduction and quality of paper (id. at A-3-4),
the quality, usefulness, and amount of services and/or items offered that
would greatly enhance the publication (id.), and the firm?s quality control
methods for ensuring the quality and timeliness of the finished product (id.
at A-3-6).

A numerical/adjectival rating system was provided in the RFP to reflect the
evaluators? assessments of the proposals under each evaluation factor in
terms of quality, quantity, and usefulness. Under the stated evaluation
scheme, higher scores were to be assigned to proposals that were found to
excel in required areas. [2]

Alaskan, the incumbent publisher of the newspaper, and Anchorage submitted
the two proposals received by the scheduled June 1 closing time. The
proposals were evaluated, and strengths and weaknesses in the proposals were
noted by the evaluators. Although both Alaskan?s and Anchorage?s proposals
were highly rated, Anchorage?s proposal was rated higher overall, with a
higher total numerical score, based on the additional strengths found in its
proposal. Specifically, each of the offerors? proposals was rated excellent
under both the technical and production capability factor and the services
and/or items offered factor; however, as discussed more fully below,
Anchorage?s proposal was found to offer additional strengths under both
factors. Alaskan?s proposal was rated outstanding for past performance,
while Anchorage?s proposal was rated excellent. Under the management
approach factor, the protester?s proposal was downgraded under the quality
control subfactor for its failure to provide sufficient detail in its
quality control plan submission as to its proposed approaches and methods of
ensuring accuracy and timely completion of tasks; consequently, the Alaskan
proposal received a rating of acceptable under the management factor.
Anchorage?s proposal, which was found to provide a strong organizational
framework and detailed quality control plan, was rated excellent under the
management approach factor. Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET)
Memorandum, June 21, 1999, at 3-7.

The SSET determined that the Anchorage proposal offered the best overall
value to satisfy the agency?s needs. Id. at 6. In particular, the SSET noted
the following:

          [The Anchorage proposal] surpassed [the Alaskan proposal] in all
          areas except for past performance, although we are confident they
          can, and will, perform the duties associated with printing a
          quality [CE] newspaper. . . . Anchorage . . . provided a superior
          proposal, offering [deleted]. Customers speak very highly of their
          performance with regards to timely, accurate and quality work.
          They [deleted] and have a sound management plan, as well as
          [deleted].

Id. at 6-7. The source selection authority, citing the Anchorage proposal?s
strengths, as noted by the SSET, selected Anchorage for award, and the
contract was awarded on July 14. Alaskan filed its protest with our Office
after a debriefing with the agency.

Alaskan protests the evaluation of proposals as unreasonable and
inconsistent with the stated evaluation factors for award. [3] In reviewing
a protest challenging an agency?s technical evaluation of proposals, we
examine the record only to ensure that the agency?s evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, since the
determination of the relative merit of competing proposals is primarily a
matter within the contracting agency?s discretion. See Advanced Tech. and
Research Corp., B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 230 at 3. As discussed
below, we have examined the agency?s evaluation record, as well as the
offerors? proposals, and conclude that the evaluation and award
determination were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation
criteria.

Alaskan principally contends that the evaluators used unstated evaluation
factors in assessing the noted strengths in the Anchorage proposal. The
protester bases its contention on DODI 5120.4 and AFI 35-301, which provide
that the evaluation of proposals for CE publications is to be limited to
those items listed in the RFP?s evaluation criteria. In particular, Alaskan
contends that the agency should not have considered Anchorage?s offer of
equipment or services in excess of the RFP?s generally stated requirements
as the basis to distinguish the evaluated strengths of the proposals.

The RFP here expressly put offerors on notice that qualitative differences
in the proposals exceeding generally stated requirements would warrant
higher evaluation ratings. [4] RFP app. 4, at A-4-2 and A-4-3. Contrary to
Alaskan?s argument, in making such comparative judgments about the relative
merits of competing proposals, agencies may take into account specific
matters that are logically related to or encompassed by the evaluation
factors, even though the RFP did not list them as specific subfactors. See
TESCO, B-271756, June 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 284 at 2. Our review of the
record here, as discussed below, shows a reasonable relationship between the
strengths noted in the proposals and the RFP?s requirements, and a
reasonable basis for the agency?s rating Anchorage?s proposal higher overall
than Alaskan?s.

In rating the Anchorage proposal excellent for technical and production
capability, the agency noted specific strengths in that proposal, which were
not found in the protester?s proposal, related to Anchorage?s offer of
[deleted], and the ability of the firm [deleted]. SSET Memorandum, supra, at
3-4. These strengths are reasonably related to the RFP?s stated publisher
requirements, regarding newsprint (RFP sect. 3(q)), and color capability (id. at
sect. 3(g) and (h)), and are appropriate for consideration under the RFP?s
evaluation scheme, which notified offerors that their proposals were to
include information regarding the quality of paper and variety of color
proposed, RFP app. 3, at A-3-4, factor 1(c), and provided for a qualitative
rating of printing and production capabilities. See RFP app. 4, at A-4-2
through A-4-3. The record shows that although Alaskan?s proposal was
credited for strengths in providing [deleted] (which, we note, were not
specifically required by the RFP, and were, in any event, similarly offered
in the awardee?s proposal) and [deleted], the awardee?s proposal offered the
additional strengths noted above, and under the RFP?s evaluation scheme, was
evaluated accordingly. See SSET Memorandum, supra, at 4. The record
therefore provides no reason to question this aspect of the evaluation.

Under the services and/or items offered factor, the Anchorage proposal was
considered superior to the Alaskan proposal for strengths related to its
offer of a [deleted] for use by the PAO (which, the agency concluded, would
enhance automated publication of the newspaper since [deleted]. The
evaluators also noted the awardee?s demonstrated commitment to further
improvement of the paper through its proposal for [deleted]. Id. These cited
strengths (regarding the [deleted]) are reasonably related to RFP
requirements regarding, respectively: the use of PAO-furnished photographs
and photo reproduction (RFP sect. 3(b), and (n)); quality of computer equipment
(id. sect. 3(k)); and advertisement solicitation. Id. sect. 3(e). These cited
strengths, along with the support services proposed, which were also noted
as strengths in the Anchorage proposal, also reasonably relate to the RFP?s
general requirements for the publisher to work closely with the PAO,
ensuring compatibility with PAO equipment, and to uphold the image of the
publication. Id., app. 3, at A-3-5, factor 4. Accordingly, we conclude that
the agency reasonably credited the proposal for these strengths as logically
encompassed by the services and/or items offered factor, which explicitly
provided subfactors for the quality and amount of equipment and services
offered. Id. at A-3-4, factor 2. See Winkler Co., supra, at 10.

Although Alaskan?s proposal was credited under the services and/or items
offered factor for its strengths in offering the [deleted], the protester
has not shown that the agency acted without a reasonable basis in
determining that, overall, the Anchorage proposal offered additional
strengths under this evaluation factor. The agency points out, for instance,
that the benefits of [deleted] were attractive and noted as a strength in
the Alaskan proposal, but comparatively, the substantial anticipated
benefits of the awardee?s [deleted] included: [deleted]. [5] SSET
Memorandum, supra, at 4; Supplemental Agency Report, Sept. 9, 1999, at 1,
and attach 1 para. 1. Since the evaluation was reasonably based, we see no
reason to question the evaluation of the proposals under this factor.

With respect to the two remaining evaluation factors, although Alaskan?s
proposal was rated higher than Anchorage?s proposal for past performance,
Alaskan?s proposal was rated lower under the equally weighted factor for
management approach. The protester?s proposal was downgraded for failure to
provide, as required, a detailed quality control plan demonstrating the
proposed methods and approaches to ensure successful performance of contract
requirements. The agency evaluators found that, although Alaskan stated its
prior successes in performing similar projects, and stated its emphasis on
maintaining communication with the PAO (for example, [deleted]), the firm
"failed to spell out how they would ensure quality control. No specific plan
was provided, only general statements regarding success." SSET Memorandum,
supra, at 6.

The Anchorage proposal, on the other hand, which provided a comprehensive
description of its organizational framework and management plan, included a
detailed quality control plan setting out its editing and review systems and
its intent to work closely with its staff and the PAO through [deleted]. We
think the agency?s higher level of confidence in the awardee?s more detailed
management proposal in this regard, as reflected in the evaluation and
source selection record, is reasonably based. The higher evaluation rating
assigned to it is in accordance with the RFP?s evaluation scheme. The RFP
required a detailed submission of the offeror?s proposed methods and
approaches to performance (RFP app. 3, para. 9), and specifically required a
quality control plan to ensure that all contract requirements are met. It is
an offeror?s obligation to submit an adequately written proposal. See
Educational Computer Corp., B-227285.3, Sept. 18, 1987, 87-2 CPD para. 274 at
3-4. Alaskan, in an exercise of its own business judgment, failed to provide
much detail in its quality control "plan" submission to demonstrate how it
proposed to ensure accurate and timely performance of the contract; the
proposal was reasonably downgraded for this reason. Consequently, we have no
basis to question the propriety of the agency?s evaluation of the proposals
for award, or its selection of Anchorage?s higher rated proposal. [6]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. Since the publishing of CE newspapers does not involve the payment of
appropriated funds, the Federal Acquisition Regulation generally does not
apply. Our review in CE publication protests involves a review of the
agency?s actions to determine whether they were reasonable and consistent
with any laws and regulations that may be applicable. The Winkler Co.,
B-252162, June 8, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 444 at 5. In this regard, this
procurement was conducted pursuant to DODI 5120.4 and AFI 35-301, which
include provisions addressing the procurement of CE publishing services,
including instructions for the factors to be used for evaluation of the
proposals which were incorporated into the current RFP?s evaluation scheme.

2. Under the RFP?s rating system, for instance, a rating of "outstanding"
(worth 5 points) reflects an evaluation finding that the proposal "[e]xcels
in the specified performance or capability in a beneficial way to the Air
Force and has no weakness." A rating of "excellent" (worth 4 points)
reflects a finding that the proposal "[e]xceeds in the specified performance
or capability in a beneficial way to the Air Force and has no significant
weakness." A rating of "acceptable" (worth 3 points) reflects a finding that
the proposal "[m]eets evaluation standards and any weaknesses are readily
correct[able]." A rating of "marginal" (worth 2 points) reflects a finding
that the proposal "[f]ails to meet evaluation standards; however, any
significant deficiencies are correctable." Ratings of "poor" (worth 1 point)
and "unacceptable" (worth 0 points) were also listed. RFP app. 4, at A-4-2.

3. Several other aspects of Alaskan?s protest are untimely and will not be
considered further. Alaskan contends that the RFP is deficient since,
according to Alaskan: the RFP failed to provide definitive agency minimum
requirements; the RFP?s evaluation factors failed to specify the type of
equipment or services that, if proposed, would warrant a higher rating; the
RFP failed to state the specific information that the agency deemed
necessary for a higher evaluation rating for the required quality control
plan; and the RFP failed to adequately set out the relative weight assigned
to the evaluation factors. These post-award protest contentions are untimely
filed, since, under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1)
(1999), a bid protest which is based upon alleged improprieties apparent
from a solicitation, must be filed prior to the closing time for the receipt
of proposals. Teleport Communications Group, B-277926.2, Sept. 17, 1998,
98-2 CPD para. 72 at 6 n.6; Imagineering Sys. Corp., B-228434.2, Feb. 4, 1988,
88-1 CPD para. 109 at 2.

4. To the extent the protester asserts that the DODI and AFI prohibit this
type of qualitative ranking of proposals for technical merit, crediting a
proposal offering items or services beyond those necessary to meet stated
minimum requirements, the challenge is untimely, since alleged improprieties
in a solicitation must be protested prior to the closing time for receipt of
proposals. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1).

5. We note that, although Alaskan alleges that the strengths cited in the
Anchorage proposal reflect the use of undisclosed evaluation criteria, its
argument is undercut by its failure to question the high ratings assigned to
its proposal for offering services not specifically listed in, but similarly
reasonably related to, the stated evaluation criteria (e.g., although the
RFP did not provide them as specific evaluation factors, Alaskan?s proposal
was rated highly for its offer of a [deleted], related only to the RFP?s
general instructions, at appendix 3, referencing photographic services, and
for its proposed training.

6. Alaskan also contends that it recently learned that a former employee of
a company that was purchased by Alaskan had heard from a business associate,
prior to award, that Anchorage?s publisher had said that Anchorage was going
to receive the award. Affidavits submitted by Alaskan?s source and the
business associate, however, do not reasonably support the protester?s bald
allegation of improper influence in the award of the contract. In light of
the lack of evidence to support the allegation, and since the record fully
supports the reasonableness of the award determination, we have no basis to
review the allegation further. In its comments to the agency?s report,
Alaskan also raised, for the first time, a challenge to the agency?s failure
to conduct a site survey during the procurement. This contention, which the
protester could have pursued at the time of its initial protest, is untimely
filed and, therefore, not for our review. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2).