TITLE:  EAA Capital Company, L.L.C., B-287460, June 19, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287460
DATE:  June 19, 2001
**********************************************************************
EAA Capital Company, L.L.C., B-287460, June 19, 2001

Decision

Matter of: EAA Capital Company, L.L.C.

File: B-287460

Date: June 19, 2001

Bernard S. Oleniacz for the protester.

Jud E. McNatt, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, for the
agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

An agency determination to exclude proposal from the competitive range is
unobjectionable where agency concluded, on the basis of evaluation which was
reasonable and consistent with solicitation evaluation criteria, that
proposal had no reasonable chance of being selected for award.

DECISION

EAA Capital Company, L.L.C. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-ATL-01629, issued
by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for services in
connection with home mortgage loans which originated at the Single Family
Homeownership Center (HOC) located in Atlanta, Georgia. EAA contends that
HUD failed to evaluate its proposal according to the terms of the
solicitation and thereby improperly excluded EAA's proposal from the
competitive range.

We deny the protest.

On December 7, 2000, HUD issued this RFP to obtain one or more contractors
to perform post endorsement technical reviews to be conducted for two
geographic areas under the jurisdiction of the Atlanta HOC. These technical
reviews are for the purpose of determining "the accuracy and the quality of
the closing documents, the mortgage credit documentation/underwriting as
well as to identify the degree of risk, if any, present in each case file
insured." RFP at C.3(a). The RFP contemplated the award of an
indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-priced line items for a base year
and four 1-year options. The RFP stated that technical factors were more
important than price; and that, among the technical factors, "management and
oversight capability" and " technical understanding" were equally important;
each of these factors was worth a maximum of 30 points and was slightly more
important than the remaining technical factors, "prior experience" and "past
performance," each
of which was worth a maximum of 20 points. Additionally, the RFP provided
that if an offeror received an unacceptable rating under the prior
experience or management & oversight capability factors, "the entire
proposal may be rated as technically unacceptable and may not be evaluated
further." RFP sect. M.2.

EAA was one of nine firms which submitted timely proposals by the January 8,
2001 closing date. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) individually scored
all nine proposals, and then the panel arrived at consensus scores for each
proposal. The consensus scores assigned to the nine proposals ranged from a
low of 22 to a high of 73 out of the 100 points available. Agency Report
(AR), Tab 10, Technical Evaluation Memorandum. Eight of the nine proposals,
including EAA's with an assigned score of 37, were viewed as technically
unacceptable by the TEP. As relevant here, the agency found numerous
weaknesses and deficiencies in EAA's technical proposal and concluded that
EAA's proposal was unacceptable.

Under the first technical evaluation factor, "management and oversight
capability," the RFP required that an offeror provide adequate information
to demonstrate the ability to manage and oversee the work to be performed
for each geographic area proposed to ensure quality of performance. RFP sect.
M.5(a). The RFP stated that sufficient evidence included at a minimum: an
acceptable quality control plan, acceptable evidence of a plan to handle
conflicting and/or multiple use of resources if employees or subcontractors
will be used on other contracts, and an acceptable plan for identifying and
managing cases where any organizational or individual conflict of interest
might be identified. Id. EAA received only 8 out of a possible 30 points for
this factor. The TEP found that EAA did not provide a production control
plan to deal with workload conflicts or to address how deadlines would be
met in the case of business interruptions. AR, Tab 11, EAA Evaluation. The
TEP viewed EAA's plan for handling conflicts of interest as weak because it
contained no plan of action for how an employee would identify what
constitutes a conflict and the measures to be taken by EAA if the policy was
not followed. Id.

Under the technical understanding factor, the RFP required offerors to
submit a complete technical plan to perform the work, which clearly
reflected an understanding of the skills and processes needed to perform the
work within the required parameters identified in the statement of work
(SOW). RFP sect. M.5(b).
The plan was to clearly show how the projected numbers of staff would
perform the estimated quantities of work required in each area proposed,
including time-on-task estimates for each function (such as valuation
review, underwriting review, and quality control check). Id. EAA's proposal
received only 8 out of 30 points for this factor because the evaluators
found that, while EAA's plan provided a general overview of its technical
understanding and ability, it lacked sufficient details to make a
determination of the soundness and the ability of the plan to function.
Contracting Officer's Statement at 4. According to the agency, the plan did
not provide the projected number of staff, how the work would be assigned,
or how the staff would perform the estimated quantity of work required in
each function. The agency also found that the plan neglected to address the
vital area of reviewing appraisals, failed to project the estimated
quantities of work required in each proposed function (including
time-on-task for each function), and provided no indication of the timeframe
it would take to perform a complete review. Id.

Under the prior experience factor, the RFP required documented evidence of
the offeror's staff performance of the same or substantially similar
services, including underwriting experience for the entire past 3-year
period prior to the closing date of this solicitation, and other specific
experience. RFP sect. M.5(c). Documented evidence included resumes that clearly
show the employee/subcontractor meeting the stated qualifications
requirements for appraisers and underwriters. Id. Resumes were to reflect
whether the individual was an employee of the offeror; if the individual was
not already an employee, the offeror was to include an attached letter of
intent to work for the offeror if awarded the contract. EAA received only 4
out of a possible 20 points. EAA's proposal was downgraded because only two
of its proposed underwriters, identified as key personnel, had the required
credentials. Contracting Officer's Statement at 5. Moreover, one qualified
underwriter was not an employee of EAA and no letter of intent was provided
with the proposal. In several other instances, EAA proposed individuals, but
failed to provide resumes and letters of intent. EAA also proposed several
individuals in dual capacities. The evaluators believed that these
individuals could not perform their tasks based on the hours proposed. EAA
also provided no resume for the appraiser. AR, Tab 11, EAA Evaluation.

On the basis of this evaluation, the agency concluded that EAA's proposal
was unacceptable and eliminated it from the competitive range. EAA was
subsequently advised of its exclusion; this protest followed.

EAA protests that the agency failed to evaluate its proposal in accordance
with the terms of the solicitation. EAA primarily expresses disagreement
with the agency regarding the bases for the evaluated weaknesses and
deficiencies.

Contracting agencies are not required to retain in the competitive range a
proposal that is not among the most highly rated ones or that the agency
otherwise reasonably concludes has no realistic prospect of award. Federal
Acquisition Regulation
sect. 15.306(c)(1); SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2
CPD para. 59
at 5. Thus, where a proposal is technically unacceptable as submitted and
would require major revisions to become acceptable, the agency is not
required to include the proposal in the competitive range. Laboratory Sys.
Servs., Inc., B-256323,

June 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 359 at 2.

The evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a proposal is
in the competitive range are principally matters within the contracting
agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible for defining their needs
and for deciding the best method for meeting them. In reviewing an agency's
decision to eliminate a proposal from the competitive range, we will not
evaluate the proposal anew, but instead will simply examine the agency's
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and in accord with the
provisions of the solicitation. Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26,
1990, 90-1 CPD para. 223 at 3-4. A protester's mere disagreement with an
agency's evaluation does not, without more, establish that the evaluation
was unreasonable. Keco Indus., Inc., B-261159, Aug. 25, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 85
at 4-5.

Although EAA expresses disagreement with the agency's technical evaluation,
it offers no persuasive argument that the agency materially erred in this
evaluation. As described above, the agency provided detailed and specific
explanations concerning the weaknesses and deficiencies in EAA's proposal.
[1] For example, the agency points out that EAA's proposed staff either did
not meet the solicitation qualification requirements or in several instances
that EAA failed to submit the required letters of intent for the proposed
staff. In its response to HUD's report, EAA simply states that the
individuals proposed are individuals it has relied on for years and that
they met or exceeded the qualifications but fails to establish where in its
proposal it addressed its staff's qualifications. In fact, EAA essentially
concedes it did not demonstrate its compliance with the solicitation
requirement for letters of intent, when it states in its comments that it
has "handshake agreements" with the individuals proposed to perform the
solicitation requirements.

In its response to the agency's report, EAA argued that the agency
improperly downgraded its proposal because, according to the agency, its
management plan neglected to address the vital area of reviewing appraisals.
EAA contended that Amendment No. 0001, issued December 28, 2000, deleted the
need for appraisal reviews from the solicitation. The agency submitted a
supplemental report which clearly demonstrated that no work requirements
were removed from the solicitation by Amendment No. 0001, and that the
amendment only deleted the requirement that the contractor have a state
licensed appraiser conduct the appraisal reviews. In its response to the
agency's supplemental report, the protester does not rebut the agency's
position that the appraisal review requirement was not deleted from the
solicitation. We conclude that the protester's proposal failed to address a
specific solicitation requirement and, in accordance with the solicitation
evaluation criteria, was reasonably downgraded in this area. [2]

More generally, the evaluation criteria included requirements for detailed
information demonstrating the offeror's technical understanding, describing
how the offeror would perform the SOW, and establishing that it had adequate
and qualified staff to perform the work and that the proposed staff would be
available to perform the work. In these critical areas, EAA simply failed to
provide the required information. Thus, EAA's proposal reasonably was
downgraded and ultimately rejected as technically unacceptable.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. EAA complains that its proposal submitted here was based on a proposal
EAA submitted to HUD's Philadelphia office in response to a solicitation
covering the same type of file review services and that its proposal
received 96 out of 100 points. However, each procurement stands alone, and a
selection decision made under another procurement does not govern the
selection under a different procurement. Renic Corp., Gov't Sys. Div.,
B-248100, July 29, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 60 at 5.

2. In its response to the agency's supplemental report, EAA raised several
concerns, such as HUD's allegedly improper use of the Inspector General
Audit Memorandum and HUD's violation of a settlement agreement. These
concerns are not relevant to the issue of the reasonableness of the agency's
evaluation of EAA's proposal submitted in response to this solicitation, and
we therefore will not address them.