TITLE:  Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL, B-288818.6, September 9, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-288818.6
DATE:  September 9, 2002
**********************************************************************
Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL, B-288818.6, September 9, 2002

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective      
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.        

   Decision
    
Matter of:   Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL
    
File:            B-288818.6
    
Date:              September 9, 2002
    
Nidal Z. Zayed, Esq., for the protester.
Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., for Al Ghanim Combined Group, an intervenor.
Nancy J. Williams, Esq., and Michael K. Millard, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Technical evaluation was reasonable where agency followed solicitation's
evaluation criteria and record supports agency's finding that protester's
technical proposal contained weaknesses attributable to lack of adequate
detail.
DECISION
    
Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL (SHBS) protests the award of a contract
to Al Ghanim Combined Group under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DACA78-01-R-0006, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for design
and construction services on projects in Kuwait.  SHBS challenges the
agency's evaluation of its proposal and the source selection decision.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFP sought proposals for a job order contract (JOC) to provide rapid
response for minor construction, renovation/rehabilitation, maintenance,
and repair of existing buildings and structures, as well as construction
of new facilities and/or additions to existing facilities at various sites
in Kuwait.  The successful contractor was expected to have the ability to
manage various trades and engineering disciplines to perform multiple
projects at multiple locations at the same time.  The RFP anticipated the
award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, based on the
issuance of task orders, for a base year with 4 option years. 
    
Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors, technical and
price.  The technical factor was divided into various subfactors and
associated elements:  management capability (organization, subcontracting,
and key personnel); technical capability (engineering/design, quality
control, and safety); experience documentation; and past performance
documentation.  The technical subfactors were of equal weight and the
technical factor was more important than price.  Award was to be made to
the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value.
    
Twenty-two offerors, including SHBS and Al Ghanim, submitted proposals
and, after an initial evaluation by a technical evaluation team, the
agency awarded the contract, without discussions, to Al Ghanim.  SHBS and
two other offerors protested this award and the agency took corrective
action, including the appointment of a Source Selection Authority (SSA) to
conduct and document both an independent evaluation of all 22 proposals,
and a comparative analysis to determine which of the offers represents the
best value to the government.  Contracting Officer's Statement (COS)
at 1.  Based on the proposed corrective action, we dismissed the protest
as academic.  Al Hamra Kuwait Co., et al., B-288818 et al., Oct. 9, 2001
(unpublished). 
    
In conducting the reevaluation, the SSA did not rely on the initial
technical evaluation and did not conduct discussions with the offerors. 
Instead, the contracting officer, as SSA, had a single engineer evaluator
review the technical proposals and provide her with an independent
assessment of all 22 offerors' technical ability.  Based on the engineer's
evaluation and her own review of each proposal and comparative analysis,
the SSA found four proposals, including SHBS's, marginally acceptable, and
two, including Al Ghanim's, acceptable as submitted.  In this regard,
under the technical factor, the RFP provided for an assessment of the
degree to which the proposal met the various requirements of each element
and sub-element of the four subfactors.  The SSA concluded as follows
regarding SHBS's technical proposal:
    
This offeror has submitted some good information on past performance,
however, they fall short on the management and technical submission.  The
technical proposal is marginally acceptable.  They failed to submit the
requested information on management and technical sub-factors.  I don't
have the feeling they have a good understanding of the JOC concept.  The
data submitted was not specific as requested in the solicitation.  The
overall technical proposal is marginal as far as meeting the criteria to
be submitted.  They did not explain how rapid response designs will be
accomplished and explain if they have adequate staffing for a multiple
task order contract.  Their pricing proposal is reasonable, complete and
indicates minimal risk.  When combining the pricing and technical
proposals, I could not award to this firm without holding discussions on
the technical proposal and requesting a revision.
Agency Report (AR), SSA Decision, exh. 5, at 4.  Although SHBS's proposal
was priced lower than either of the acceptable proposals, the SSA found
that the deficiencies in the protester's proposal would require
discussions to resolve.  Because Al Ghanim's proposal was rated overall
excellent and was the lower-priced of the two acceptable proposals, the
SSA made award to Al Ghanim.  After receiving notice of the award and a
debriefing, SHBS filed this protest.
    
SHBS asserts that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was
flawed, specifically, that the identified weaknesses were not valid.  SHBS
concludes that its proposal should have been rated higher than marginally
acceptable.[1] 
    
In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, our role
is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent
with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
regulations.  National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999,
99-1 CPD P: 5 at 3.  An offeror is responsible for submitting an adequate
proposal and runs the risk that its proposal will be evaluated unfavorably
where it fails to do so.  Carlson Wagonlit Travel, B‑287016, Mar. 6,
2001, 2001 CPD P: 49 at 3.  Based on our consideration of all SHBS's
arguments, we conclude that none of those arguments has merit, and we find
that the agency reasonably determined that its proposal failed to provide
sufficient detail to warrant a higher rating.  We discuss some of the more
important of SHBS's arguments below.
    
SHBS challenges the agency's finding that its proposal failed to provide
sufficient information on its ability to perform engineering
designs/analysis in conducting rapid response design work.  The
engineering/design element of the technical capability subfactor included
an evaluation of the *degree to which the offeror demonstrates [the]
ability to perform engineering design involved in engineering analysis of
task orders* with regard to rapid response to the government's needs. 
Among other things, offerors were to *submit personnel qualifications of
those who will accomplish the work.*  RFP S: 00100.V.B.1.  SHBS asserts
that the RFP required only limited design work and that its proposal
adequately addressed this area because it contained a discussion of its
extensive engineering design capability and expertise. 
    
This argument is without merit.  First, while the RFP's definition for
*rapid response to government needs* states that the contractor is
*required to provide the majority of technical support of a non-design
nature,* it also outlines requirements for *Projects that require actual
design.*  RFP S: 00800.1.f (1), (2).  SHBS's proposal's references to its
design capabilities indicate that SHBS understood the requirement for
actual design work.  Thus, it was proper for the agency to evaluate SHBS's
ability to perform these tasks, including staffing. 
    
Further, although SHBS's proposal identifies more than 20 architects and
engineers and includes their resumes and professional certificates, it
fails to specify which of these personnel will be used to perform the
rapid response design work.  The proposal does contain a *typical project
team,* but states that project teams for specific tasks will be selected
based on the work required by the task orders.  SHBS Proposal at B-9.  The
contracting officer explains that the *engineering/design requirement is
very important since the Government is not providing detailed drawings to
the JOC contractor . . . [and] [i]f, as here, the proposal fails to
identify the personnel qualifications of those who will accomplish the
engineering/design work, and to provide information to show their
disciplines, registration and experience, the Government cannot determine
if the offeror is capable of performing the rapid response . . . work . .
. especially for multiple task orders at multiple sites.*  COS at 6. 
Based on SHBS's failure to indicate which of its professional personnel
would perform the design work, the agency reasonably concluded that its
proposal was weak under the technical capability subfactor.
    
SHBS also challenges the agency's assessment that its proposal was
*weakened by [its] failure to provide sufficient information about [its]
ability to provide a quality staff in a timely manner to perform multiple
task orders.*  Debriefing Letter, Feb. 21, 2002, at 2; Protest at 18.  The
subcontracting element under the management capabilities subfactor
included an evaluation of the *degree to which the Offeror proposes a
quantity and mix of subcontractors and trades sufficient to demonstrate
the ability to support multiple, simultaneous projects under construction
at various locations with quality and timely work.*  RFP
S: 00100.V.A.2.a.  SHBS argues that its proposal adequately addressed this
area by providing information demonstrating its ability to handle task
order requirements in-house, and explaining its intention to use
subcontractors only for *unique areas of specialized work.*  Protest at
21.  Specifically, SHBS's proposal included an *exemplar list* of
subcontractors it had used on a Department of State project in Kuwait;
assured the agency that it would obtain the agency's approval prior to the
start of any subcontracted work; and represented that any subcontractors
would be held to the same quality control and implementation standards
followed by SHBS.  Id. 
    
The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  The subcontracting element
called on offerors to *describe the services to be performed by each
proposed subcontractor and provide resumes of key subcontracting
personnel.*  RFP S: 00100.V.A.2.a.  SHBS concedes that it did not provide
such a listing or resumes; its *exemplar list* merely identified the
various trades of the subcontractors, without identifying any of the firms
involved.  While SHBS maintains that it is capable of performing most of
the task order work itself, it concedes that it cannot perform all of the
work.  Indeed, SHBS's proposal listed some 11 on-going projects, 7 of
which ranged from 0 to 30 percent complete, and the evaluator specifically
noted SHBS's *considerable on-going work,* which he found could *cause
difficulties . . . in the management of available labor resources.*  SHBS
Proposal at G.5; AR, exh. 4, at 15.  It was incumbent on the protester to
provide adequate information, beyond mere promises to hire qualified
subcontractors when the need arises, to permit the agency to evaluate the
firm's capability under this element.  See DynCorp Int'l LLC,
B‑289863, B‑289863.2, May 13, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 83 at 9. 
Given SHBS's failure to provide the required information, the agency
reasonably concluded that its proposal was weak in this area.[2] 
    
SHBS also asserts that the agency failed to conduct a proper
price/technical tradeoff, maintaining that, given the $67 million *not to
exceed* value of this contract, its proposed price coefficient could save
the agency approximately $5.7 million.  This argument is without merit. 
We have found that the agency had legitimate concerns regarding SHBS's
proposal, which led the agency to conclude that the proposal could not be
accepted for award without discussions, notwithstanding its lower price. 
The SSA properly conducted a price/technical tradeoff between the only two
fully acceptable proposals, and selected Al Ghanim for award based on its
excellent overall rating and lower price coefficient.  SSA Decision at
6.   
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] As a preliminary matter, SHBS asserts that the evaluation was flawed
because, contrary to the RFP's provisions (RFP at 12), the agency did not
assign adjectival ratings for all subfactors.  This argument is without
merit.  While the evaluator did not assign the proposals an adjectival
rating for each of the four technical subfactors, he did provide a
detailed narrative for each proposal that included the proposals' major
strengths and weaknesses.  Since evaluation ratings are merely guides for
the SSA, Research Triangle Inst., B-278254, Jan. 12, 1998, 98-1 CPD P: 22
at 6, and the information developed by the evaluator provided the SSA with
the necessary guidance, his failure to reduce his evaluation to a single
adjective for each evaluation subfactor was unobjectionable.  In any
event, since the agency evaluated all proposals on the same basis, we do
not believe that the protester could have been prejudiced, even if that
failure were objectionable.  Sociometrics, Inc., B-261367.2,
B‑261367.3, Nov. 1, 1995, 95-2 CPD P: 201 at 4.
[2] Our conclusions are not changed by SHBS's observation that the
contracting officer's statement contains some evaluation rationales that
were not included in her source selection memo, and its assertion that
this information therefore should be accorded little or no weight in our
review.  SHBS Comments at 1-2.  These additional rationales are credible
and consistent with the underlying evaluation and simply represent an
expanded explanation of her assessment regarding SHBS's failure to submit
adequate information on the management and technical subfactors.  Where,
as here, a post-protest explanation simply fills in previously unrecorded
details of contemporaneous conclusions, we will consider it in our review
of the rationality of selection decision so long as the explanation is
credible and consistent with the contemporaneous record, which is the case
here.  NWT, Inc.; PharmaChem Labs., Inc., B‑280988,
B‑280988.2, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 158 at 16.