TITLE:  Interstate General Government Contractors, Inc.
BNUMBER:  B-290137.2
DATE:  June 21, 2002
**********************************************************************

Matter of:      Interstate General Government Contractors, Inc.

File:                B-290137.2

Date:              June 21, 2002

Mallie Seckinger for the protester.
Robert E. Little, Jr., Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the
agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.


DIGEST

Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals is unobjectionable where record
establishes that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with stated
evaluation scheme; protester's mere disagreement with agency's conclusions
does not render evaluation unreasonable.


DECISION

Interstate General Government Contractors, Inc. (IGGC) protests the award of
a contract to Lake Moultrie Water Company under request for proposals (RFP)
No. N62467-01-9153, issued by the Department of the Navy for wastewater
facility headworks and related construction work at the Marine Corps Air
Station, Beaufort, South Carolina.  IGGC contends that the agency's
evaluation of the proposals and the resulting source selection decision are
unreasonable, and that they demonstrate agency bias in favor of the awardee
and against IGGC.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on August 13, 2001, anticipated the award of a fixed-price
contract for the demolition of an existing headworks structure, construction
of new headworks, bypass piping for lift stations, coating of lift station
and aerobic digester interiors, and related work.  The RFP provided for
award to the responsible offeror that submitted the proposal determined to
be most advantageous to the government.  The following evaluation factors
for award were listed in the solicitation:  past performance, technical
qualifications, construction schedule, and price.  The first three factors,
equal in importance, were to have a cumulative weight equal to price.
Proposals were to set forth accurate, complete information demonstrating the
offeror's experience and capability to successfully perform the work.
Offerors were advised to include their best pricing and technical terms in
their initial proposals, since discussions were not anticipated.  The RFP
provided that the agency's ?best value? determination would be based on the
solicitation's stated technical and price factors, and that award could be
made to other than the lowest-priced offeror.

In their past performance proposals, offerors were to provide information
demonstrating a history of performance within the last 3 years on contracts
similar in scope, complexity and size to the current procurement.  In
particular, offerors were to demonstrate a history of relevant experience in
wastewater treatment plant construction work.  Offerors were specifically
instructed to include in their past performance proposals a demonstration of
prior experience in complex concrete form and concrete structure work.
Offerors were advised that the failure to provide the requested proposal
information could result in a lower past performance rating.

Proposals were submitted by three offerors, including IGGC and Lake
Moultrie.  IGGC's proposal was priced lower (at $786,604) than Lake
Moultrie's (which offered a price of $878,000).  The Lake Moultrie proposal
was rated higher overall than the IGGC proposal, mainly due to the
difference in ratings assigned to each proposal under the past performance
criterion.  IGGC's proposal received a rating of marginal for past
performance; Lake Moultrie's proposal was rated exceptional under the
criterion.  Both proposals were rated as acceptable under the remaining
factors of technical qualifications and construction scheduling.  IGGC's
overall proposal was rated as marginal, and Lake Moultrie's proposal
received an overall rating of acceptable.  Lake Moultrie's proposed price
was considered reasonable; the price analysis performed showed that the
firm's price was lower than the government estimate for the work and that it
was in line with the other offerors' prices.[1]  Citing advantages in the
Lake Moultrie proposal, such as its detailed demonstration of successful
performance on several similar projects, as well as its detailed, favorable
construction schedule, the agency determined that the firm's was the most
advantageous offer under the technical and price factors of the RFP.  The
agency subsequently awarded a contract under the RFP to the firm.  Following
a debriefing, IGGC filed this protest.

IGGC primarily challenges the agency's past performance evaluation.[2]  The
protester generally challenges its marginal rating under the past
performance factor by asserting that its past performance is ?beyond
reproach? because IGGC recently performed a larger contract at the same
facility providing substantially similar services.  The protester argues
that the evaluators improperly failed to contact references IGGC listed in
its proposal for past performance information.  In particular, IGGC argues
that the evaluators should have contacted the point of contact it listed for
the firm's recent contract performance at the same facility; in this regard,
IGGC suggests that such communication would have bolstered its past
performance rating.  Additionally, based on its belief that Lake Moultrie
has not performed work similar to that required under the RFP, IGGC protests
the awardee's higher past performance rating.  In particular, the protester
contends that it was improper for the agency to credit the Lake Moultrie
proposal with the individual experience of that company's principal (Lake
Moultrie's president).  IGGC contends that the principal's alleged
experience relates to contracts awarded to another company, of which he is a
vice president.  IGGC concedes, however, that the other company has had
extensive experience in wastewater treatment plant construction work similar
to that required under the RFP.

The evaluation of technical proposals, including the determination of the
relative merits of proposals, is primarily a matter of the contracting
agency's discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs
and the best method of accommodating them.  Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
B-260289, B-260490, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD ï¿½ 261 at 3.  In reviewing the
agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposals, but
will examine the record of the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable
and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria as well as with
procurement law.  Id.  A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.
See Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD
ï¿½ 129 at 5.  In evaluating past performance information in an offeror's
proposal to assess the firm's ability to perform the prospective contract
successfully, an agency may properly take into account performance
information regarding key personnel who have relevant experience, as well as
relevant subcontract experience of the firm, since that experience may be
useful in predicting success in future contract performance.  See Federal
Acquisition Regulation ï¿½ 15.305(a)(2)(iii); SDS Int'l, B?285822, B-285822.2,
Sept. 29, 2000, 2000 CPD ï¿½ 167 at 4; Philips Nat'l, Inc., B-253875, Nov. 1,
1993, 93?2 CPD ï¿½ 252 at 6.  As explained below, the record provides no basis
to object to the evaluation of the offerors' past performance proposals.

First, our review of the record here confirms the reasonableness of the
agency's conclusion that Lake Moultrie's principal has had substantial
experience and responsibility directing and managing the performance of
wastewater treatment facility contracts of similar scope, complexity and
size.  Even though the principal's experience relates to performance of
another firm's contracts, it is clear that the nature and success of the
management work he performed under those contracts is directly relevant to
his performance in a similar capacity as project manager under the Lake
Moultrie proposal.  Second, the firm's proposal also identifies work
performed by Lake Moultrie under joint ventures and subcontracts for similar
services, as well as some prime contract experience.  Third, as the
evaluators noted, the proposal also includes commendations from a previous
customer recognizing the strength of management personnel on a contract
managed by Lake Moultrie's president.  Fourth, as required by the RFP, the
awardee's past performance proposal contained a detailed demonstration of
the firm's experience working with complex concrete forms and structures.
Our review of the record thus confirms that, despite IGGC's contentions
otherwise, Lake Moultrie's demonstrated corporate and key personnel
experience is highly relevant to the current requirement, where the same
principal will assume contract management responsibilities similar to those
he has successfully performed a number of times in prior contracts.
Accordingly, we find no reason in the record to question the agency's
consideration of the noted experience, as a legitimate basis to predict
success in the management and performance of the current similar contract,
or the high past performance rating assigned to the firm after such
consideration.

As to the agency's evaluation of IGGC's past performance, the record shows
that the evaluators did credit the firm for performance of its recent
contract for similar work at the same facility.  Additionally, contrary to
the protester's allegations, the agency reports that the evaluators did
contact the reference IGGC had listed in its proposal for information as to
the quality of the firm's performance of that contract; in fact, the agency
reports, several individuals familiar with the contract were contacted.  The
firm's performance of the contract, however, did not receive the highly
favorable commendation that IGGC apparently expected.  One evaluator
familiar with the contract, for instance, noted that frequent correspondence
between the firm and the contracting agency indicated that the firm's
performance required additional agency intervention and supervision, and
that individuals contacted as references for the work considered performance
under the contract to have been marginal.  The firm's proposal rating of
marginal under the past performance factor was also due to IGGC's omission
of material information that could have supported a higher rating.  For
example, the evaluators noted that the proposal failed to demonstrate IGGC's
successful performance of the contracts it listed, failed to demonstrate
that the referenced contracts were of similar scope, complexity and size,
and failed to describe the work actually performed under the contracts,
hampering the agency's review of the relevance of the work performed.  The
proposal was also downgraded under the past performance factor due to IGGC's
failure to demonstrate any experience with complex concrete form work, as
required by the RFP.

It is an offeror's responsibility to submit a proposal with adequately
detailed information to allow a meaningful review by the agency.  See Intown
Properties, Inc., B-250392, Jan. 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD ï¿½ 73 at 5.  Here, the
RFP required a demonstration by the offeror in its proposal of its relevant
experience.  In an exercise of its own business judgment, IGGC submitted a
proposal without completing the comments portion of the past performance
sheets included in the RFP for offerors to describe the type of work
performed and demonstrate the work's relevance to the current requirement.
As the evaluation record notes, and our review of the firm's proposal
confirms, there is no discussion of the success in performance of its prior
contracts--the majority of which were smaller in scope or size--and there
was no discussion of whether IGGC or its subcontractors possessed the
complex concrete work experience also needed to warrant a higher evaluation
rating for award.  All offerors were advised by the RFP that it was their
responsibility to include in their proposals accurate, complete information
demonstrating experience and capability to successfully perform the work,
and they were specifically warned that the failure to provide all requested
proposal information could result in a lower past performance rating.
Accordingly, despite IGGC's contentions that the evaluators could have
contacted additional references listed by IGGC to supplement the firm's
limited past performance submission, the agency was under no obligation to
do so--it was the protester's responsibility to provide sufficient narrative
in its proposal to establish the relevance of its experience to demonstrate
the likelihood of successful performance under the current RFP.  See Logicon
RDA, B-261714.2, Dec. 22, 1995, 95-2 CPD ï¿½ 286 at 7.  Based on the record
before us, we see no basis to question the reasonableness of the marginal
rating; IGGC's mere disagreement with the evaluation of proposals does not
render the evaluation unreasonable.

IGGC next protests the agency decision to award the contract to Lake
Moultrie despite IGGC's lower proposed price.  IGGC contends that the agency
failed to follow the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme, which provided
that price was to be equal to the combined technical factors; IGGC argues
that its lower-priced proposal should be considered the best value to the
agency.

In a negotiated procurement, the government is not required to make award to
the firm offering the lowest price unless the RFP specifies that price will
be the determinative factor.  See Marathon Constr. Corp., B-284816, May 22,
2000, 2000 CPD ï¿½ 94 at 5.  A procuring agency retains the discretion to
select a higher-priced, technically higher-rated proposal if doing so is
reasonably shown to be in the government's best interest and is consistent
with the solicitation's stated source selection scheme.  See University of
Kansas Med. Ctr., B-278400, Jan. 26, 1998, 98-1 CPD ï¿½ 120 at 6.  As such,
even where technical and price factors are to be weighted equally, equal
weight need not be given to the differential between technical ratings and
the differential between proposed prices.  See IBP, Inc., B?289296, Feb. 7,
2002, 2002 CPD ï¿½ 39 at 5-6.  Rather, the source selection official must
exercise reasonable business judgment regarding the significance of the
differences and what the technical differences between competing proposals
might mean to contract performance.  Id.

Here, the RFP advised all offerors that award would be made to the firm
whose proposal was determined to offer the best value to the agency, price
and technical factors considered.[3]  Offerors were specifically notified
that award could be made to other than the low-priced offeror.  Here, the
record shows that the source selection official considered the technical
evaluation report prepared by the technical evaluation team, as well as the
separately prepared price analysis of the proposals, and determined that,
despite its higher price, Lake Moultrie's proposal offered the best value to
the government.  The source selection official cited significant advantages
in that firm's proposal, such as the degree of relevant experience shown,
the successful performance of substantially similar projects, and the firm's
detailed, favorable construction schedule.  The proposal was consequently
evaluated as offering a low risk of performance, demonstrating the offeror's
substantial knowledge of the work to be performed, while also demonstrating
strong quality control and a keen understanding of the customer's needs.
Considering the technical advantages associated with Lake Moultrie's
proposal, and the resulting benefits it would provide to the agency in terms
of contract performance, the source selection official determined that the
awardee's higher-rated proposal offered the best overall value to the agency
despite the cost premium involved.  The propriety of this reasoned agency
tradeoff analysis is supported by our review of the source selection record,
including the offerors' proposals and the evaluation and selection
documentation, showing the best value determination to be reasonably based
and
consistent with the evaluation terms of this negotiated procurement; IGGC
simply has not shown otherwise.[4]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

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

[1] The third offeror, whose overall rating was marginal, offered a price
higher than both the government estimate and IGGC's and Lake Moultrie's
prices.
[2] IGGC also raises several challenges to the procurement that fail to
constitute valid bases of protest.  First, IGGC points out, and the agency
recognizes, that, during the debriefing, the contracting officer identified
a company other than Lake Moultrie as the awardee.  This misstatement,
however, simply provides no basis to conclude that the evaluation or award
decision were improper.  Next, IGGC asserts, and the agency concedes, that
the agency initially planned to have two individuals conduct the price
evaluation of proposals.  The price evaluation ultimately was handled by
only one of those two individuals; the second individual was reassigned to
handle other pressing work duties. While IGGC asserts that this change was
?by design,? again there simply is no basis to conclude that the agency's
action demonstrates an impropriety in the selection process.  Finally,
while, as IGGC points out, the technical evaluators were not made aware of
the offerors' proposed prices, IGGC is incorrect in its assumption that
price was not considered in the source selection decision.  As discussed
later in this decision, the award determination here was appropriately based
on a tradeoff analysis by the source selection official (i.e., not the
technical evaluators) between the technical merit of the proposals and
price, as contemplated by the RFP.
[3] IGGC argues that its lower price alone deserves at least half of any
evaluation points available under the RFP, and that any technical merit in
its proposal would then put it in line for award.  We disagree.  The RFP
here did not provide for the assignment of evaluation points to proposals.
Rather, by stating that price and technical merit were to be considered
equal, the RFP essentially provided that neither of the two criteria was
more important than the other.  Instead, any differential in technical merit
would have to be subjectively weighed against any price differential; as
stated above, the resulting best value determination must be reasonably
based in terms of the agency's needs and the evaluation scheme stated in the
RFP.
[4] As to IGGC's allegations of agency bias, we note that, since government
officials are presumed to act in good faith, we cannot attribute unfair or
prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference or
supposition.  Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B?250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD
ï¿½ 171 at 6.  IGGC has not produced persuasive evidence of bias in the award
selection here; rather, as discussed above, the reasonableness of the award
is supported by the record.  Although IGGC generally opines that contractor
favoritism exists at this facility, and that IGGC is being deprived of
contracting opportunities, the protester's general inferences and
allegations of impropriety in other procurements simply do not show that the
source selection under the current RFP was improper in any way.