TITLE:  CMC & Maintenance, Inc.
BNUMBER: B-290152 
DATE:  June 24, 2002
**********************************************************************
CMC & Maintenance, Inc., B-290152, June 24, 2002

Decision


Matter of:   CMC & Maintenance, Inc.

File:            B-290152

Date:              June 24, 2002

Richard McCue for the protester.
Kenneth M. Homick, Esq., and Robert E. Little, Jr., Esq., Department of the
Navy, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range
where proposal was deficient in all three technical evaluation factors and,
to become acceptable, would have required major revisions tantamount to
submission of a new proposal.

DECISION

CMC & Maintenance, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's exclusion of
CMC's  proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP)
No. N6472?01-R-5235 to provide custodial services at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard in Kittery, Maine.

We deny the protest.

The Navy issued the RFP on January 7, 2002, seeking proposals to provide the
labor, materials, equipment, transportation, supervision, and security
clearances necessary to perform specified custodial services at Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard.  The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the
basis of the following three, equally important, technical factors:
relevant past performance; management, organization and staffing; and
quality control/customer service plan.

Twelve offerors, including CMC, submitted proposals on or before the
February 7 closing date.  CMC's proposal was evaluated as containing
deficiencies under each of the three evaluation factors and was rated as
"unacceptable" overall.[1]  The agency concluded that due to the multiple
deficiencies in CMC's proposal, CMC's proposal would require "extensive
changes tantamount to submission of what would amount to an entirely new
proposal," and that CMC did not have a reasonable chance of receiving
award.[2]

CMC protests that all of the deficiencies in its proposal could have been
corrected through discussions, and maintains that the agency was therefore
legally obligated to include CMC's proposal in the competitive range and to
conduct discussions with CMC.  We disagree.

Contracting agencies are not required to retain a proposal in a competitive
range where a proposal is not among the most highly rated or where the
agency otherwise reasonably concludes that the proposal has no realistic
prospect of award.  Federal Acquisition Regulation ï¿½ 15.306(c)(1); SDS
Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD ï¿½ 59 at 5.  Where
a proposal is technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major
revisions to become acceptable, exclusion from the competitive range is
generally permissible.  Laboratory Sys. Servs., Inc., B?256323, June 10,
1994, 94-1 CPD ï¿½ 359 at 2.  Further, 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 rather, will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure it was reasonable
and in accord with the provisions of the solicitation.  Abt Assocs. Inc.,
B?237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ï¿½ 223 at 3-4.  Finally, a protester's
mere disagreement with an agency's evaluation does not establish that the
evaluation was unreasonable.  Keco Indus., Inc., B-261159, Aug. 25, 1995,
95-2 CPD ï¿½ 85 at 4-5.

Here, as discussed below, we have reviewed the record and find no basis to
question the reasonableness of the agency's determination to exclude CMC's
proposal from the competitive range.

The agency rated CMC's proposal as "unacceptable" under two of the
evaluation factors ("management, organization and staffing," and "quality
control/customer service plan") and "deficient but correctable" under the
third factor ("relevant past performance").[3]  With regard to "management,
organization and staffing," the solicitation required offerors to provide
letters of intent from individuals proposed as key personnel, established
various qualification requirements for various key positions, including the
quality control manager, and directed that:

[t]he offeror shall provide information in a narrative format concerning
plans for the overall management of this contract.  Specifically, indicate
how you intend to organize, coordinate, monitor and control on-site
operations to ensure successful and timely execution of the work under this
contract. . . .  Clearly describe functions to be performed between
full-time field personnel and part-time personnel, specifying differing
shifts.
RFP at 59-60.

The only portion of CMC's proposal that addresses its intended approach to
staffing and management of the contract is a single table in the proposal
that appears under the heading "Management Organization and Staffing," as
follows:

1  Part time Quality Control Manager
2  Project Coordinators
2  Part time Evening Staff
16  Janitors assigned to building (see example of building assignment)
2  Janitors assigned to Restroom cleaning
3  Janitors assigned to Floor Maintenance (stripping & waxing)

Agency Report, encl. 2, CMC Proposal, at 3.

None of the specific management information requested in the portion of the
solicitation quoted above is provided anywhere in the proposal.  More
specifically, CMC's proposal fails to indicate how CMC intends to organize,
coordinate, monitor and control on-site operations to ensure successful and
timely contract performance, nor does it address in any way its intended
allocation of functions between full-time and part-time personnel.
Additionally, CMC's proposal contained no letters of intent for any
personnel, and failed to demonstrate that CMC's quality control manager met
the specified qualification requirements.

With regard to the evaluation factor "Quality Control/Customer Service
Plan," the solicitation required that offerors submit a separate quality
control plan and a separate customer services plan, laying out particular
requirements for each.   With regard to the customer service plan, the RFP
stated that proposals:

shall describe ideas, specific plans and procedures which will ensure that
each member of the company will be courteous, timely, proficient and
customer oriented.  The offeror shall include its specific plan(s) to
respond to customer complaints and to ensure customer satisfaction.  The
offeror shall include examples of successful customer service implementation
and how customer service was measured on previous projects of a similar
nature to this contract (i.e. how was feedback from customers received and
how was it acted upon to ensure continuous or future quality of services?)
RFP at 61.

Other than general representations regarding its intent to meet customer
needs, CMC's proposal contained virtually none of the information identified
above.

Overall, the RFP directed offerors to submit proposals which addressed the
various elements identified under each evaluation factor, requiring that
"[t]he proposal should clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough
understanding of the project. . . . Clarity and completeness of the
description of the offeror's approach to the project is essential."  RFP at
50.  In summarizing CMC's proposal, the agency concluded that CMC failed to
follow these general directions, noting, "there were no delineations [in
CMC's proposal] between the three factors as required by Section L of the
RFP," and further noting, "The proposal's content jumped from one factor's
information to another."  The agency concluded, "The entire proposal would
need to be rewritten to conform to the required format and content."  Agency
Report, encl. 3, Technical Evaluation Team Report, at 9.

In responding to the agency's report, CMC does not dispute that its proposal
contained the deficiencies discussed above.  Rather, it repeats its
assertion that CMC could have corrected these deficiencies had the agency
included its proposal in the competitive range and conducted discussions
with CMC.

As noted above, a procuring agency is not required to retain a proposal in
the competitive range where the proposal is so deficient as to require major
revisions to
become acceptable.  The agency concluded that such a situation existed
here.    Based on our review of CMC's proposal, we find no basis to question
the agency's judgment in that regard.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel



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

[1] The agency employed an evaluation system that used the adjectival
ratings of "exceptional," "very good," "acceptable," "deficient but
correctable," and "unacceptable."  An "unacceptable" rating was defined as
applying to a proposal with "a significantly above average level of risk,"
"major or extensive deficiencies," and "no reasonable chance of the proposal
being selected for award."  Agency Report, encl. 3, Technical Evaluation
Team Report, at 2.
[2] In contrast, five of the twelve proposals that were submitted were
retained in the competitive range on the basis that each had the capability
to be rated either "acceptable" or "very good" under each of the evaluation
factors.
[3]  With regard to past performance, CMC failed to follow specific
solicitation directions requiring that questionnaires be sent to the various
organizations CMC identified as able to provide relevant past performance
information.