TITLE:  Red Road Inc., B-283713.2, March 14, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-283713.2
DATE:  March 14, 2000
**********************************************************************
Red Road Inc., B-283713.2, March 14, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Red Road Inc.

File: B-283713.2

Date: March 14, 2000

Don Loper for the protester.

Daniel N. Hylton, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal, which received the lowest
technical rating of any of the proposals submitted, was reasonable where the
record supports the agency's determination that the protester's proposal
failed in many instances to include information specifically requested by
the solicitation and necessary for evaluation purposes.

DECISION

Red Road Inc. protests the award of a contract to Quigley Bros. under
request for proposals (RFP) No. R1-17-99-30, issued by the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, for certain watershed improvements in the Nez
Perce National Forest, Idaho. Red Road contends that the agency's evaluation
of its proposal was unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror
submitting the proposal determined to be most advantageous to the government
under the following evaluation criteria: past performance; production
schedule; experience and qualifications of the firm, supervisor, and
employees; equipment available; and price. RFP at 65, 70. The solicitation
advised offerors that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award
the contract without conducting discussions, and thus offerors should
include their best terms from a price and technical standpoint in their
initial proposals. RFP at 70.

The agency received six proposals, including Quigley's and Red Road's, by
the RFP closing date. The agency evaluated the proposals received, selected
the proposal submitted by Quigley as representing the best value to the
government, and awarded the contract to that firm. Contracting Officer's
Statement at 3.

The agency, in response to a protest filed with our Office by Red Road,
convened a new technical proposal evaluation panel (TPEP), and again
evaluated the proposals. [1] Id.; Agency Report, Tab 6, Letter from the
Contracting Officer to Selected Members of the Second TPEP (Oct. 22, 1999).
Quigley's proposal received the second highest technical rating of the
proposals received with the second lowest price of $99,370. Contracting
Officer's Statement at 3; Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Documents, at 4.
Red Road's proposal, at $98,574, was the lowest-priced proposal received,
but also received the lowest technical rating of any of the proposals. The
agency again determined that Quigley's proposal represented the best value
to the government, and notified the disappointed offerors that the agency's
previous award to Quigley would not be rescinded. Agency Report, Tab 6,
Evaluation Documents, at 4, and

Tab 2B, Letter from Contracting Officer to Red Lion (Nov. 29, 1999).

Red Road protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal, and argues that,
but for the agency's unreasonable evaluation, its proposal would have been
selected for award. The protester contends that contrary to the agency's
view, "[t]here should be no doubt that [Red Road] provided enough
information to meet and exceed the [RFP's] ‘Technical Proposal
Instructions.'" [2] Protester's Comments at 3.

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. In reviewing an agency's
evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead will
examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. An offeror's
mere disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation
unreasonable. Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc., B-277208, B-277208.2, Sept. 15,
1997, 97-2 CPD para. 94 at 4. As illustrated by the following examples, we find
that the agency's evaluation is reasonable, given the evaluators' reasonable
conclusions that Red Road's proposal (in contrast to that of the awardee)
lacked, in many instances, any sort of the requested detail.

The RFP specified, among other things, that each offeror's technical
proposal "must present sufficient information to reflect a thorough
understanding of the requirements and a detailed description of the
techniques, procedures and program for achieving the objectives of the
specifications/statement of work." RFP at 68. The RFP's proposal preparation
instructions referred here to the evaluation criteria, and stated, for
example, that offerors should address the production schedule evaluation
criterion by addressing in their proposals "who, what, where, when and how
you plan to do the work, from beginning to end, including time frames." RFP
at 68, 70.

Red Road's technical proposal was a half page long with three resumes.
Agency Report, Tab 4, Red Road's Proposal. The portion of this half page
which appears to respond to the production schedule evaluation criterion
states only that Red Road "will finish the project within 90 days of the
award" and will "purchase, collect and distribute materials in appropriate
locations and perform the work in sequences that allow for the completion of
road sections in a manner that minimizes the need for reentry into completed
sections." [3] Id. Given that Red Road's proposal failed to address in any
meaningful way "who, what, where, when and how [it] plan[ned] to do the
work, from beginning to end, including time frames" as requested by the RFP,
we cannot find unreasonable the agency's criticism that this aspect of Red
Road's proposal set forth "minimal specifics on procedure" and was
considered "below average." Contracting Officer's Statement at 6-7.

As another example, the RFP's proposal preparation instructions stated that
offerors should address the equipment available for use on this project
criterion by listing the equipment "owned or rented, type and size, as
applicable to the work." RFP at 70. In response to this evaluation
criterion, Red Road's technical proposals simply says that it would
accomplish the work "with the use of 1-2 excavators." Agency Report, Tab 4,
Red Road's Proposal. Again, given that the protester's proposal fails to
provide any detail regarding the type and size of the equipment owned, how
it will be used, or whether the equipment it intends to use is owned by Red
Road or will be rented, the agency reasonably found that this aspect of the
protester's proposal was "indefinite" and thus "below average." Agency
Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Documents, at 6-9.

The protester refers to two handbooks it has written which concern the type
of work to be performed under the RFP, and argues that, because the agency
was aware of these handbooks, there should have been no question as to Red
Road's technical capabilities. The protester adds here that any further
questions regarding its technical capabilities could have been resolved
through "a simple phone call" to one of the references cited by the
protester in its proposal. Protester's Comments at 3.

As noted previously, the RFP required that offerors submit technical
proposals and supplied instructions as to what the proposals were to address
in relation to each of the RFP's evaluation criteria. Because the agency's
evaluation was dependent upon the information furnished in a proposal, it
was Red Road's obligation to submit an adequately written proposal for the
agency to evaluate. GEC-Marconi Elec. Sys. Corp., B-276186, B-276186.2, May
21, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 23 at 7. Red Road simply failed to submit an adequate
proposal, and notwithstanding the protester's suggestion to the contrary,
the agency was not obligated in conducting its evaluation to obtain and
refer to Red Road's handbooks or its references for information regarding
the protester's technical capabilities. [4] Id.; KCI, Inc., supra.

The protester complains at length that the agency's unfavorable evaluation
of its proposal was due to agency bias against Red Road. As explained above,
the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of Red
Road's proposal; accordingly, there is no basis on which to concluded that
the agency's unfavorable evaluation of Red Road's proposal was the result of
bias or bad faith. Gordon R.A. Fishman, B-257634.3, Nov. 9, 1995, 95-2 CPD
para. 217 at 3-4.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. We dismissed Red Road's protest of the evaluation of its proposal and
award of
the contract to Quigley upon being informed by the agency that it would
reevaluate proposals. Red Road, Inc., B-283713, Oct. 26, 1999.

2. To the extent that Red Road is challenging the solicitation's
requirements regarding the information to be included in technical
proposals, that protest is untimely. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a
protest against alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed no later
than the time set for receipt of initial proposals. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1)
(1999); KCI, Inc., B-244690, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 395 at 3.

3. Red Road's proposed 90-day completion period was consistent with the
RFP's requirement that the successful contractor commence work within 10
days after it receives a notice to proceed and complete the work in 90 days.
RFP at 12.

4. The agency also found Red Road's proposal deficient because, although Red
Road completed the price schedule set forth in the RFP, it failed to comply
with the solicitation's requirement that it submit a business proposal that
includes a "price breakdown of estimated direct costs (materials & labor)
and indirect costs (overhead & profit), as used in computing bid price and
project work schedule." RFP at 68. In addition, the agency found Red Road's
past performance and qualifications "below average." We need not consider
the reasonableness of Red Road's past performance and qualifications
ratings, in view of the deficiencies in Red Road's proposal, discussed
above, that warranted its low rating and in and of themselves would cause
Red Road not to be in line for award, given Quigley's technically superior
proposal at a slightly higher price.