TITLE:  Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc., B-285343.2; B-285343.3, October 10, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285343.2; B-285343.3
DATE:  October 10, 2000
**********************************************************************
Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc., B-285343.2; B-285343.3, October 10, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc.

File: B-285343.2; B-285343.3

Date: October 10, 2000

Robert G. Fryling, Esq., and Edward J. Hoffman, Esq., Blank Rome Comisky &
McCauley, for the protester.

Robert J. McCall, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.

Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester's contention that its proposal was improperly excluded from the
competitive range is denied where the decision to exclude the proposal from
further consideration was consistent with applicable regulations, and where
the protester fails to show that the evaluation--upon which the decision to
exclude the proposal was based--was unreasonable or inconsistent with the
stated evaluation criteria.

DECISION

Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from
the competitive range under solicitation for offers (SFO) No.
GS-03P-00-DXC-0001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for
facilities engineering maintenance services for six federal buildings in the
Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia areas. Wilson argues that its exclusion from
the competitive range was improper because GSA did not follow the
competitive range procedures identified in its source selection plan. It
also argues that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable due to
alleged discrepancies in the scores assigned by one of the evaluators, and
due to the agency's erroneous conclusion that its proposal was weak when, in
Wilson's view, the alleged weaknesses were only minor informational
deficiencies.

We deny the protest.

The GSA issued this solicitation via its Electronic Posting System on March
14, 2000, and anticipated award of a fixed-price 1-year contract followed by
one 2-year option, and three 3-year options, for a total performance period
of 12 years. SFO sect.sect. F.2, 4. The SFO advised potential offerors that GSA
would "select the offeror whose proposal offers the Greatest Value to the
Government in terms of technical and pricing merit," and that technical and
price would be given "approximately equal weight." SFO sect. M.1. It also
advised that total price would be calculated using the price for all option
years, and that technical merit would be calculated using a level of
confidence rating (LOCR). Id. sect.sect. M.1, 2. Four technical evaluation factors
were identified by the SFO--management plan, corporate experience,
qualifications of key personnel, and extent of participation of small
disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns. Id., amend. 3, sect. M.3. Of these four
factors, management plan was the most important, corporate experience and
key personnel were equally important and more important than the factor for
evaluating a proposal's use of SDB concerns, which was the least important
evaluation factor. Id.

Although this solicitation was not reserved for exclusive small business or
HUBZone [1] small business participation, it contained a cascading award
preference, as described below. Specifically, the SFO provided that: (1) if
competitive proposals were received from at least two HUBZone small business
concerns, award would be made to a HUBZone small business; (2) if fewer than
two proposals were received from eligible HUBZone small businesses, but
competitive proposals were received from at least two small businesses,
award would be made to a small business; and (3) if fewer than two proposals
were received from qualified small business concerns, then award would be
made on the basis of full and open competition among all competing offerors.
SFO sect. I.22.

Eleven proposals were received in response to this SFO. Of the 11, 1 was
submitted by a HUBZone small business concern, 6 were submitted by small
businesses not considered HUBZone concerns, and 4 were submitted by large
businesses. After the initial evaluation of offers, the source selection
evaluation board (SSEB) concluded that the competition could not be limited
to HUBZone concerns, but could likely be limited to the seven small business
offerors (including the HUBZone small business concern). Technical Proposal
Evaluation and Consensus Report, at 3.

After the SSEB developed consensus scores for each of the proposals
submitted by a small business, and conducted a detailed review of prices,
the SSEB concluded that there was a natural break in the technical merit
scores between the two highest-rated small business offerors and the five
remaining small businesses. In this regard, the two highest-rated offerors
received LOCR scores of [deleted] and [deleted], while the remaining
offerors received scores of [deleted] (Wilson), [deleted], [deleted],
[deleted], and [deleted]. Id. at 27. After consideration of
prices--including analyses made with and without application of price
evaluation preferences for small disadvantaged businesses, and for HUBZone
businesses--the SSEB recommended that only the two highest-rated offerors be
included in the competitive range. Id. at 28. Even though Wilson was the
lowest-priced offeror by a slight margin when given the benefit of the price
preference for small disadvantaged businesses (without the preference Wilson
was the second lowest-priced offeror), the SSEB specifically concluded that
despite its price, Wilson's significantly lower technical score justified
its exclusion from the competitive range. Id. at 31-32. On July 21, the CO
accepted the recommendation of the SSEB, and by letter dated July 25, GSA
advised Wilson that it had been excluded from the competitive range. This
protest followed.

Wilson's first challenge--that GSA improperly excluded its proposal from the
competitive range--was initially based on the erroneous assumption that its
exclusion from the competitive range was made without regard to its price.
See Meridian Management Corp., B-285127, July 19, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 121. As
described above, the record here included an analysis by the SSEB of
Wilson's price as part of its recommendation to exclude the company from the
competitive range. Thus, Wilson did not pursue this argument in its
comments. [2]

In its comments, Wilson argues that GSA's competitive range determination
was improper because it was based on the current version of FAR sect. 15.306(c).
Protester's Comments at 3. FAR sect. 15.306(c)(1) allows agencies "to establish
a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. . .
." Wilson contends that the agency's internal source selection plan outlines
a competitive range procedure different from the one set forth in FAR sect.
15.306(c), and that the agency thus acted improperly by deviating from its
source selection plan.

We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we do not accept Wilson's premise that
GSA's internal source selection plan states a standard for establishing the
competitive range different from the standard set forth at FAR sect. 15.306(c).
Nevertheless, even if it did, requirements stated in source selection plans
which are not disclosed to offerors do not give outside parties any rights.
Mandex, Inc.; Tero Tek Int'l, Inc., B-241759 et al., Mar. 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD
para. 244 at 7. Instead, the competitive range procedures published in the FAR
set the standard for establishing such ranges. Wilson's argument that GSA
acted improperly by following the guidelines in the FAR thus is wholly
unpersuasive.

Wilson next argues that its exclusion from the competitive range was
improperly based on an unreasonable evaluation of its proposal, as evidenced
by two alleged discrepancies in the scores assigned by one evaluator. In the
first instance, Wilson claims the evaluator unreasonably gave the company
only 25 of 50 available points under the management plan evaluation factor,
despite identifying seven strengths, no deficiencies, and five weaknesses.
In the second instance, Wilson claims the same evaluator treated the company
unequally in scoring its proposal under the corporate experience evaluation
factor, when the score is compared with that given one of the offerors
included in the competitive range. Specifically, Wilson states that the
evaluator articulated a strength for both offerors that was "virtually
identical," but awarded the other company 18 of 20 available points, while
awarding Wilson only 15 points. Protester's Comments at 4-5.

The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is
principally a matter within the reasonable exercise of discretion of the
procuring agency. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and
subsequent competitive range determination we will not evaluate the
proposals anew in order to make our own determination as their acceptability
or relative merits; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether
the documented evaluation was fair, reasonable, and consistent with the
evaluation criteria. Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-280993, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2
CPD para. 151 at 3. As with any evaluation review, our chief concern is not the
number of strengths or weaknesses, point scores, or specific ratings, but
whether the evaluation communicates the principle strengths and weaknesses
of the proposal and whether the record supports the evaluators' conclusions.
Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc., B-275786.2, Apr. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD para.
144 at 9.

With respect to the first instance cited by Wilson, we have no basis on this
record to conclude that the evaluator acted unreasonably in awarding Wilson
only 25 of 50 available points after identifying seven strengths and five
weaknesses. In addition, even though Wilson's counsel was provided all of
the evaluation materials here (under the terms of a protective order issued
by our Office) Wilson fails to make any specific argument in support of its
claim that the rating is unreasonable. For example, Wilson raises no
challenge to the nature of the weaknesses and strengths identified, does not
address whether they are accurate assessments, and fails to address how the
score should be changed given the evaluator's unchallenged findings. In
addition, Wilson makes no attempt to explain how the score of this one
evaluator compares to the scores given by other evaluators; does not address
the apparently minimal impact of changing this one score, given the fact
that the score must be averaged (or otherwise reconciled) with the scores of
[deleted] other evaluators to obtain a consensus score; and makes no
assertion that this minimal change to one evaluator's assessment, under one
evaluation factor, would meaningfully change the company's overall technical
rating. Under these circumstances, we have no basis to conclude that the
assessments made by this evaluator were unreasonable, or that they caused
the overall evaluation to be unreasonable. See DTH Management JV, B-283239,
Oct. 6, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 68 at 4-5. We find similarly unpersuasive Wilson's
undeveloped argument that it was unreasonably excluded from the competitive
range because one evaluator of [deleted] gave the company a past performance
score of 15, while giving another offeror a score of 18, based on a review
of past performance records that Wilson considers similar.

Wilson's third challenge is closely related to its first argument--i.e.,
Wilson argues that the agency wrongly excluded its proposal from the
competitive range under the standard for establishing a competitive range
set forth in GSA's internal source selection plan, because the weaknesses
identified in its proposal were mostly informational deficiencies that could
have been resolved by holding discussions with the company. As before, we
note that even though we disagree with Wilson's characterization of the
agency's source selection plan, there is nothing improper about GSA's
decision to follow the standards for establishing a competitive range set
forth in FAR sect. 15.306(c). Under this regulation, an agency may properly
establish a limited competitive range, eliminating proposals, like Wilson's,
which it reasonably concludes have little probability of success. Matrix
Gen., Inc., B-282192, June 10, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 108 at 3. Further, an agency
need not conduct discussions with an offeror whose proposal has been
properly eliminated from the competitive range. Wirt Inflatable Specialists,
Inc., B-282554 et al., July 28, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 34 at 3.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 19.001 defines the term "HUBZone"
as "a historically underutilized business zone, which is an area located
within one or more qualified census tracts, qualified nonmetropolitan
counties, or lands within the external boundaries of an Indian reservation."
To be considered for award as a "HUBZone small business concern," the
offeror must be included on the List of Qualified HUBZone Small Business
Concerns maintained by the Small Business Administration. FAR sect. 19.001.

2. In fact, Wilson raised several additional arguments which the agency
addressed in detail in its report, but Wilson did not pursue in its
comments. Included within these arguments were certain solicitation
challenges raised by Wilson in an earlier protest, which the company was
allowed to reinstate here for reasons that are no longer relevant to this
dispute. Wilson's comments on the agency report expressly abandoned the
solicitation issues, and responded to the agency only on the three issues
discussed in this decision. Protester's Comments at 1. For those issues not
expressly abandoned, but for which Wilson offers no rebuttal to the agency's
arguments, we consider those issues abandoned as well. Purification Envtl.,
B-259280, Mar. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 142 at 2 n.2.