TITLE:  Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, September 25, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-290732
DATE:  September 25, 2002
**********************************************************************
Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, September 25, 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:   Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, Inc.
    
File:            B-290732
    
Date:              September 25, 2002
    
Michael T. Zoretic, Esq., and Mark Rosencrantz, Esq., Stanislaw Ashbaugh,
for the protester.
Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Challenge to agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied
where the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated the
protester's proposal in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation
factors.
    
2.  Agency's decision to select a higher technically rated, higher priced
proposal is unreasonable where the record shows that the agency
mechanically applied the solicitation's evaluation methodology; neither
the source selection documentation nor the evaluation record establish a
valid rationale for why the agency found the higher priced, higher
technically rated proposal to be most advantageous to the government.
DECISION
    
Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, Inc. protests the award of a
contract to URS Group, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No.
R1-11-02-001, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for
the reclamation of the New World Mine in Park County, Montana.  Shumaker
alleges that the evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable and
that the agency's selection decision was improper.
    
We sustain the protest.
    
The RFP, issued on April 1, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price
contract for the consolidation and capping of mine waste in the McLaren
Pit, as the second phase of the New World Mine reclamation project.  The
solicitation established four technical evaluation factors:  past
performance, experience in similar work, technical approach to perform the
work, and key personnel.[1]  The RFP notified offerors that the experience
factor was more important than technical approach, which was slightly more
important than the past performance and key personnel factors, which were
of equal importance.  The solicitation also established that all four
technical evaluation factors, when combined, were approximately equal in
importance to price.  RFP S: M-2.  The RFP stated that the Forest Service
intended to make award, without discussions, *to that offeror (1) whose
proposal is technically acceptable and (2) whose technical/cost
relationship is the most advantageous to the Government.*  RFP S: M-1.
    
Four offerors, including Shumaker and URS, submitted proposals by the May
1 closing date.  Shumaker submitted the lowest-priced offer of
$3,591,956.15, and URS the second-lowest price of $3,987,695.20.  A
technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated the technical proposals under the
weighted evaluation factors utilizing a point scale rating system.[2]  The
technical evaluation scores of the proposals of URS and Shumaker, the two
highest rated, were as follows:
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|            |Technical Factor           |URS           |Shumaker        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Past Performance (30)           |26             |22             |       |
|--------------------------------+---------------+---------------+-------|
|Experience (55)                 |48             |39             |       |
|--------------------------------+---------------+---------------+-------|
|Technical Approach (45)         |43             |20             |       |
|--------------------------------+---------------+---------------+-------|
|Key Personnel (30)              |17             |12             |       |
|--------------------------------+---------------+---------------+-------|
|Total (160)                     |134            |93             |       |
|--------------------------------+---------------+---------------+-------|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
Agency Report, Tab E, Record of Proposal Evaluation, at 2.  After
evaluating technical proposals, and being informed of the offerors'
prices, the TEP recommended that contract award be made to URS.  The
contracting officer also concluded that the difference in technical scores
between URS and Shumaker justified the higher price, and recommended to
the source selection authority (SSA) that award be made to URS.[3]  Agency
Report, Tab D, Memorandum of Negotiation,
at 2.  The Forest Service informed Shumaker of the award decision on June
6, and this protest followed.[4]
    
Shumaker protests that the agency's decision to make award to URS was
improper.  Specifically, the protester contends that the Forest Service's
evaluation of its technical proposal, especially in comparison with that
of URS, was unreasonable.  Shumaker also alleges that the agency's
selection decision improperly failed to explain why selection of a
higher-priced proposal represented the best value to the government here. 
Shumaker argues that if the Forest Service had reasonably evaluated its
technical proposal, and conducted a proper best value determination, then
Shumaker would have been awarded the contract here.
    
While the record shows that the agency's evaluation of Shumaker's
technical proposal was reasonable, we find that the Forest Service failed
to properly explain its award selection decision, and we sustain the
protest on this basis.
    
Shumaker first contends that the Forest Service improperly evaluated its
proposal.   Specifically, Shumaker alleges that with regard to each of the
four technical factors, the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and not
in accordance with the evaluation criteria, especially in relation to how
the agency evaluated URS's proposal.  While we discuss only some for
illustrative purposes, we have examined each of the protester's arguments
in detail and find no basis to question the agency's evaluation.
    
In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we
examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
applicable statutes and regulations.  Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting,
Inc., B-285244, July 18, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 132 at 4.  A protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's judgment in its determination of the
relative merit of competing proposals does not establish that the
evaluation was unreasonable.  C. Lawrence Constr. Co., Inc., B-287066,
Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 70 at 4.  As demonstrated below, we find that
the Forest Service's evaluation of Shumaker's proposal was reasonable and
consistent with the evaluation criteria.
    
For example, Shumaker challenges the rating the TEP assigned to its
proposal under the past performance factor.  The solicitation required
that offerors provide a list of all jobs completed in the past 3 years, to
include project description, contract amount, and contact person. 
Offerors were also to provide information on any problems encountered and
the corrective actions taken, cost control methods and procedures used,
and cooperation with the customer.  RFP S: L-2.  The RFP informed offerors
that the agency would evaluate past performance by considering the quality
of products and services, customer satisfaction, timeliness, cost control,
and the ability to solve problems that arose during contract performance. 
RFP S: M-2.
    
The protester argues that the past performance point score it received (22
of 30 points) was unreasonably low (or alternatively, the past performance
point score that URS received (26 of 30 points) was unreasonably
generous), given Shumaker's outstanding references and full descriptions
of its recently completed projects.[5]  Our review shows that the agency's
evaluation under this factor was reasonable.
    
In organizing its technical proposal, Shumaker did not format it into
sections consistent with the stated evaluation factors.  Instead,
Shumaker's technical proposal contained eight major divisions, and the
information relevant to each evaluation factor was spread among multiple
sections.[6]   With regard to the past performance factor, Shumaker's
proposal included several reference letters, as well as a separate listing
of contracts completed during the past 3 years.  Shumaker's list of
completed contracts included each project's name, contract amount, and
contact person, but little if any detail about the type and scope of the
projects performed.  The method by which Shumaker organized its proposal
adversely affected its evaluation; specifically, the TEP determined that
while Shumaker's proposal contained a long list of completed projects, the
brief descriptions provided of the projects made it difficult to determine
the type and scope of work performed.  Agency Report, Tab E, Record of
Proposal Evaluation, at 3.
    
The protester argues that its proposal did provide detailed project
descriptions of its past performance--by means of the solicitations of
Shumaker's prior contracts--that the agency failed to adequately
consider.  We disagree.  Shumaker's decision to use prior solicitations as
the means to convey descriptions of its prior work resulted in a proposal
containing a large amount of extraneous information (e.g., bid submission
instructions, listing of contract clauses, payment procedures, bid
schedules).  More importantly, as Shumaker's proposal listed its past
performance contracts in one part, and then attempted to provide the
necessary descriptions of the prior worked performed in another, the TEP
reasonably found it difficult to determine the type and scope of the
protester's past performance.  In this regard, it was Shumaker's
responsibility to submit a proposal with adequately detailed information
and in such a manner as to allow a meaningful review by the agency, see
Interstate Gen. Gov't Contractors, Inc., B-290137.2, June 21, 2002, 2002
CPD P: 105 at 5; it was not the agency's obligation during the evaluation
process to decipher a poorly organized proposal.  As Shumaker failed to
submit an adequately written proposal here, we have no basis to question
the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation.[7]
    
Shumaker also challenges the agency's scoring under the technical approach
factor.  The RFP required that offerors describe, among other things, the
detailed construction methods and sequencing, equipment, and procedures to
be used on this project, and provide a proposed schedule of work with
timeframes allocated to each significant phase of the work.  RFP S: L-2. 
The TEP determined that Shumaker's technical approach to the project
contained but a general description, and lacked details regarding specific
equipment, public safety considerations, and wildlife conflicts.  The TEP
also found that Shumaker's tentative work schedule was a basic bar
diagram.  The protester argues that its technical proposal provided
adequate information describing its technical approach to performing this
project.  We find that the record does not support the assertion that the
agency's evaluation here was unreasonable.
    
Shumaker's proposal, with regard to its technical approach to perform the
work, was little more than one page in length.  Moreover, the technical
approach described by Shumaker was very generic in nature.  In its
evaluation here, the TEP concluded that Shumaker's proposal was deficient
because it did not display a detailed technical approach plan for this
specific project, and because it did not provide a detailed schedule of
the tasks that Shumaker would perform at each stage of the mine
reclamation work.  The RFP expressly informed offerors that the *technical
proposal must present sufficient information to reflect a thorough
understanding of the requirements and a detailed description of the
techniques, procedures, and program for achieving the objectives of the
specifications/statement of work.*  RFP S: L-2.  Contrary to Shumaker's
arguments, it was not unreasonable for the agency to assign a lower rating
to a proposal that contained minimal detail of the technical approach to
perform the work.  The record, therefore, supports the agency's evaluation
of Shumaker's proposal.
    
Shumaker also protests that the agency's selection decision fails to
adequately explain the agency's best value determination.  Specifically,
Shumaker alleges that in making its price/technical tradeoff, the agency
failed to compare the advantages of URS's proposal to those of Shumaker's
proposal or explain why any advantages in the awardee's proposal were
worth the approximately $400,000 higher price.  We agree.
    
So long as the solicitation's evaluation criteria permit it, agencies may
make price/technical tradeoffs, and the extent to which one is sacrificed
for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency
with the stated evaluation criteria.  KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P., B-271673,
July 15, 1996, 96-2 CPD P: 53 at 5.  Where a price/technical tradeoff is
made, the source selection decision must be documented, and the
documentation must include the rationale for any tradeoffs made, including
the benefits associated with additional costs.  FAR S: 15.308; Opti-Lite
Optical, B-281693, Mar. 22, 1999, 99-1 CPD P: 61 at 5.  This explanation
can be given by the source selection authority in the award decision, or
it can be evidenced from the documents on which the source selection
decision is based.  TRW, Inc.,
B-260788.2, Aug. 2, 1995, 96-1 CPD P: 11 at 4.  The propriety of the
price/technical tradeoff decision turns not on the difference in the
technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection
official's judgment concerning the significance of the difference was
reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP's evaluation
scheme.  Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., B-289942, B-289942.2, May
24, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 88 at 6.  We find that the record does not establish
a valid rationale for the agency's tradeoff decision here.
    
As stated above, the solicitation notified offerors that contract award
would be based on that technically acceptable proposal whose
*price/technical relationship* was most advantageous to the government. 
In making such a best value award selection decision, the RFP specified as
follows:
    
Trade-offs may be made among cost and other non-cost factors that allow
the government to accept other than the low cost proposal.  The critical
factor in making any cost/technical trade-offs is not the spread between
the technical ratings, but rather the significance of that difference. 
The significance of the difference in ratings will be determined on the
basis of what that difference is and what it would cost the Government to
take advantage of it.  Award may not necessarily be made for technical
capabilities that would appear to exceed those needed for fulfilling the
requirements of this contract.  The Government reserves the right to make
cost/technical trade-offs that are the best value to the Government.
    
RFP S: M-1.  While the RFP correctly noted the standard for tradeoff
decisions, the agency nonetheless failed to provide a valid rationale for
its award selection decision here.
    
The source selection decision document, prepared by the contracting
officer and concurred in by the SSA without comment, stated:
    
It is the recommendation of the Contracting Officer that the major
difference in technical scores does justify the slightly higher price in
this case.
    
It was the recommendation of the technical evaluation board that the URS
Group has presented the best value based on its overall technical
evaluation and price.  It received the highest technical evaluation,
scoring 134 points, versus 93 points for Shumaker Trucking.  This
represents a technical difference of 44 percent (134/93=1.44).  Also the
difference on item number 3, which is the technical approach to perform
the work, the difference was even greater, being 20 points for Shumaker
Trucking and 43 points for URS.  This represents over
100 percent difference in this important aspect.
    
The URS Group's bid, while being below the Government Estimate, is within
2 percent.  The URS Group was selected for recommendation of award as they
offer the best overall value to the Government.  This is based on their
high technical score and the price being fair and reasonable.  While they
are somewhat higher that the second rated firm (Shumaker Trucking) the
Technical Evaluation Board and the Contracting Officer felt the difference
in cost of $395,739.05 is justified based on the superior scoring on past
performance and technical approach provided in their proposal.[8]
    
Agency Report, Tab D, Memorandum of Negotiation, at 2.
    
The record shows that the focal point of the agency's price/technical
tradeoff decision here was URS's higher technical point score, without
discussing what, if anything, the spread between the technical scores of
URS and Shumaker actually signified.  The record contains no evidence that
the agency compared the advantages of the awardee's proposal to those of
Shumaker's proposal, or considered why any advantages of the awardee's
proposal were worth the approximately $400,000 higher price.  As we have
previously stated, point scores are but guides to intelligent decision
making.  Ready Transp., Inc., B-285283.3, B-285283.4, May 8, 2001, 2001
CPD P: 90 at 12.  In this case the Forest Service's tradeoff is inadequate
because its mechanical comparison of the offerors' point scores was not a
valid substitute for a qualitative assessment of the technical differences
between the offers from URS and Shumaker, so as to determine whether URS's
technical superiority justified the price premium involved.  Opti-Lite
Optical, supra, at 5.
    
In its report filed in response to Shumaker's protest, the agency contends
that the award selection decision here was proper because it was based on
a number of factors:  URS had an 11 percent higher price but a 44 percent
higher technical score; URS outscored Shumaker in each technical factor;
with regard to the two most important technical factors--experience and
technical approach--URS outscored Shumaker by 23 percent and 115 percent,
respectively; and URS's price was below the government estimate. 
Memorandum of Law at 5.  The agency argues that since its price/technical
tradeoff decision did not rely solely upon the difference in total
technical scores, the explanation was sufficient.  We disagree.
    
First, contrary to the statements in the agency's post-protest Memorandum
of Law, the source selection decision document nowhere notes that URS had
outscored Shumaker in each technical factor, or that URS had outscored
Shumaker with regard to the most important technical factor, experience. 
See Agency Report, Tab D, Memorandum of Negotiation, at 2.  More
important, an agency's mechanical comparison of the point scores for
individual technical factors is no more sufficient an explanation than a
mechanical comparison of total point scores; it is not a valid
determination of what the difference in technical scores signifies, such
that it warrants the additional price involved.  See Johnson Controls
World Servs., Inc., supra.  While, as the agency argues, it would not be
unreasonable for the contracting officer to equate a higher technical
score with a significantly more detailed understanding of the work to be
performed and of the technical approach to be used, Memorandum of Law at
15, we will not make such assumptions on the agency's behalf where the
contemporaneous record is bereft of any evidence of this.[9]
As the record, including the source selection decision document, fails to
show why the agency determined that URS's higher technically rated, higher
priced proposal was the best value to the government, it simply is not
possible to conclude that the SSA reasonably decided that URS's proposal
was worth the price premium involved.  Accordingly, we sustain the protest
on this basis.
    
We recommend that the agency perform and document a proper price/technical
tradeoff.  If, based on this analysis, URS's proposal is no longer found
to represent the best value to the government, the agency should terminate
the contract and award a contract for the remainder of the work to the
offeror whose proposal is selected.  Additionally, we recommend that the
protester be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.
S: 21.8(d)(1) (2002).  The protester should submit its certified claim for
costs to the contracting agency within 60 days of receiving this
decision.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S: 21.8(f)(1).
    
The protest is sustained.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] The RFP also informed offerors of the various criteria, or subfactors,
within each technical factor.
[2] The TEP rated proposals by having each member identify strengths and
weaknesses and assign a numeric rating to each technical subfactor and
factor.  The TEP then developed consensus ratings based upon discussions
among the members of the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal.
[3] The SSA approved the contracting officer's recommendation without
comment.  Agency Report, Tab D, Memorandum of Negotiation, at 3.
[4] The agency notified our office on July 1 of its decision to override
the automatic stay of performance (see Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) S: 33.104(c)(2)), having determined it in the best interest of the
government to proceed with contract performance in light of the extremely
short construction season available each year for the high-altitude mine
reclamation work required here.
[5] The protester makes a similar argument regarding the TEP's evaluation
and scoring of Shumaker's experience with mine reclamation projects, to
include high elevation mine reclamation projects, given the detailed
descriptions provided in its proposal.
[6] The first part of Shumaker's proposal was an executive summary, which
included the offeror's technical approach and tentative work schedule. 
The second section, *past work history,* included a company resume with
brief narrative of recent contracts performed, a partial equipment list, a
listing of Shumaker's experience with reclamation projects, and a listing
of the contracts completed in the last 3 years.  The third section,
*original project descriptions,* contained copies of the solicitations of
Shumaker's prior contracts--relevant to both the past performance and
experience evaluation factors.  Shumaker's technical proposal was then
organized into separate sections for reference letters, key personnel, the
contractor's resources, the offeror's quality control plan, and the
offeror's general safety policy.
[7] Shumaker also argues that the agency should have rejected URS's
proposal because, contrary to the terms of the RFP, the awardee did not
provide a list of all jobs completed during the past 3 years.  URS's
failure to list all such contracts did not make its proposal unacceptable
because the solicitation requirement was intended to provide the agency
with sufficient information upon which to reasonably evaluate an offeror's
past performance, which was achieved.  Moreover, URS did not mislead the
agency here, but clearly made it known that its proposal contained but a
demonstrative sampling of the hundreds of projects completed during the
past 3 years.  While Shumaker argues that URS's failure to list all recent
projects permitted the awardee to conceal negative performance
information, this contention is at best mere speculation.
[8] The record contains no statement from the SSA providing additional
explanation, contemporaneous or otherwise, for the agency's selection
decision.
[9] Although not argued by the agency, we recognize that the TEP also
concluded that URS's proposal represented the best value to the
government.  Agency Report, Tab E, Record of Proposal Evaluation.  There
is no evidence in the record, however, that the SSA took into account the
TEP's recommendation in making the award selection determination.  In any
event, as with the source selection decision document, the TEP's
recommendation largely merely acknowledges the technical point score
difference between the proposals of URS and Shumaker, without determining
its significance.