TITLE:  James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, B-286129, November 27, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-286129
DATE:  November 27, 2000
**********************************************************************
James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, B-286129, November 27, 2000

Decision

Matter of: James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation

File: B-286129

Date: November 27, 2000

James M. Davin, Esq., Julian & Seele, for the protester.

W. Robins Brice, Esq., Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, for P&O Ports
Texas, Inc., an intervenor.

Col. Michael R. Neds, Capt. Charles T. Kirchmaier, Maj. Howard W. Roth, III,
Department of the Army, for the agency.

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rated protester's proposal unsatisfactory, such that it
could not form the basis for award, where agency reasonably determined that
proposal contained numerous material deficiencies including the lack of a
management plan, a security and safety plan, a quality control plan and a
cargo loss and damage control program.

DECISION

James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation protests the award of a contract to
P&O Ports Texas, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DAMT01-00-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army for stevedoring and
related services at the Port of Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas. Flanagan
contends that the agency misevaluated its proposal and improperly made award
to P&O at a price higher than its own.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity
contract to perform stevedoring and related services for a 2-year period.
Technical and cost proposals were to be submitted and proposals were to be
evaluated in the areas of technical capability, past performance and price,
with technical capability and past performance, in combination, being
approximately equal to price. The technical capability factor included five
equally weighted subfactors: understanding of the work; management plan;
proposed contractor furnished equipment; proposed safety and security plans
and cargo loss and damage prevention program; and proposed quality control
plan. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal found to
offer the best overall value to the government considering price and the
non-price evaluation factors. The agency reserved the right to make award on
the basis of initial offers, without discussions. [1]

The agency received numerous proposals, including Flanagan's and P&O's.
Flanagan's offered price of [deleted] was low, but its proposal was rated
poor understanding/high risk under the technical factor and good/moderate
risk under the past performance factor. In assigning these ratings, the
agency noted numerous material proposal deficiencies, in particular, the
absence of a management plan, a safety and security plan, a cargo loss and
damage prevention program, and a quality control plan. P&O's price of
$1,164,375 was the second lowest, and its proposal was rated superior
understanding/low risk under the technical factor and excellent-

superior/low risk under the past performance factor. The agency identified
no deficiencies in the proposal. On the basis of these evaluation results,
the Army determined that P&O's proposal represented the best value, and made
award to that firm on the basis of initial offers.

Flanagan maintains that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal,
arguing, essentially, that most of the reportedly missing information was in
fact included in its proposal and that, to the extent that there may have
been informational deficiencies, its capabilities are nonetheless well known
to the agency because the firm is the incumbent for this requirement.

In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of technical
proposals, our Office does not independently reevaluate proposals; rather,
we limit our review to considering whether the agency's evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme and
applicable procurement statutes and regulations. McHargue Constr. Co.,
B-279715, July 16, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 21 at 5. Moreover, agencies are required
to evaluate proposals based solely on the material submitted, and offerors
run the risk of having their proposals downgraded or rejected where the
proposal as submitted is inadequately written. Id. at 6.

The record supports the agency's evaluation conclusions. Regarding the
management plan, the RFP required offerors to identify managerial control
and supervision plans; submit key personnel resumes showing the managerial
experience and training of the individuals proposed; and propose staffing
plans for the allocation of manpower, including the numbers and types of
labor gangs and the offeror's plan for interfacing with the government. RFP
at 41. Flanagan's technical proposal (which consists of only three pages)
provides only general information in describing its management plan. The
proposal represents--without any supporting detail--only that Flanagan is
[deleted]. Flanagan Technical Proposal at 1-2. The agency found that this
general, skeletal outline was inadequate to meet the management plan
requirement, since it did not set forth a plan for [deleted]; did not
describe the firm's [deleted]; and did not even include information showing
the [deleted]. Given the absence of the required detailed information from
the proposal, we have no basis for questioning the agency's conclusion that
Flanagan's proposal was deficient in this area.

With regard to the safety and security plan, the RFP specifically required
offerors to demonstrate that they had a safety plan that complied with all
applicable federal, state and local safety and fire regulations (including
applicable OSHA provisions); provided for conducting safety briefings at the
change of each shift; and ensured that all of the contractor's equipment was
operated and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. RFP sect.
C at 2, 42. Flanagan's proposal did not include detailed information
responding to this requirement, stating in its entirety only that:

[deleted]

Flanagan Technical Proposal at 3. The agency found that this general
statement did not set forth safety and security procedures that would meet
the requirements of the solicitation's statement of work. The proposal also
did not address methods for ensuring the security of all cargo, freight and
equipment that might be tendered by the government, as required under the
statement of work. RFP sect. C at 2-3.

The agency's finding with regard to Flanagan's quality control plan was
similar. The requirements of the solicitation included showing that the
offeror had a checklist quality control procedure to review work being
performed to ensure compliance with a performance requirements summary
attached to the solicitation, RFP sect. C at 3, and Flanagan's proposal states
in its entirety:

[deleted]

Flanagan Technical Proposal at 3. Finally, Flanagan's proposal does not
mention the cargo loss and damage prevention plan required by the RFP. RFP
at 42.

Given Flanagan's failure to provide the information specifically called for
by the RFP in several different areas, the agency could not evaluate the
firm's proposal in those areas. The fact that the agency may have been
familiar with Flanagan's capabilities was not a substitute for an adequately
written proposal; as noted above, agencies are required to evaluate
proposals based on the material submitted. McHargue Constr. Co., supra. We
conclude that the agency reasonably rated the proposal unsatisfactory under
the technical evaluation criterion, such that the proposal could not form
the basis for award. [2]

The protest is denied. [3]

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. Under the technical capability factor, proposals were assigned adjectival
ratings of superior understanding, satisfactory understanding or poor
understanding, and risk ratings of high, moderate or low. Under the past
performance factor, the proposals were assigned ratings of superior,
excellent, good, marginal, or unacceptable, and performance risk ratings of
low, moderate or high.

2. Flanagan complains that the agency also misevaluated its proposal under
the past performance factor. However, given the unacceptability of its
proposal from a technical standpoint, we need not consider these additional
arguments; even if Flanagan were correct, its proposal would remain
unacceptable based on the deficiencies discussed above. Price Negotiation
Memorandum at 10.

3. Flanagan asserts that the Army improperly failed to consider that P&O was
acquired by a larger concern during the pendency of the acquisition, and
that the agency thus had no assurances that the resources offered by the
predecessor concern would be available for contract performance. The premise
of the protester's assertion is incorrect. The record shows that the
predecessor concern was acquired prior to the deadline for submitting
offers; during the acquisition, the successor concern merely changed its
name from Fairway Terminal Corporation to P&O. Contracting Officer's
Statement at 3. Consequently, there was no change in the entity making the
offer and no reason for the agency to question whether the resources offered
would be available.