TITLE:  SWR, Inc., B-294835; B-294835.2, December 20, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294835; B-294835.2
DATE:  December 20, 2004

**********************************************************************

   Decision

   Matter of:   SWR, Inc.

   File:            B-294835; B-294835.2

   Date:              December 20, 2004

   Benjamin M. Bowden, Esq., Albrittons, Clifton, Alverson, Moody & Bowden,
for the protester.

   Edward E. Duryea for John Demosthenes Company, LLC, an intervenor.

   J.R. Cohn, Esq., and Julius Rothlein, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the
agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where
record shows that agency evaluated proposal consistent with solicitation's
evaluation scheme.

   DECISION

   SWR, Inc. protests the award of a contract to John Demosthenes Company,
LLC under U.S. Marine Corps request for proposals (RFP) No.
M00263-04-R-0001, issued as a small business set-aside for uniform
alterations.  SWR argues that the Corps improperly evaluated its proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for
a base period of 1 year, with 4 option years, to alter military uniforms
for new recruits and training personnel at Parris Island, South Carolina. 
The solicitation provided for a "best value" evaluation of the technical
proposal (most important), past performance (second in importance), and
price.  There were three technical evaluation factors:  understanding the
scope of work and ability to perform (most important, two subfactors);
understanding the managerial effort required and ability to meet that
effort (second in importance, three subfactors); and personnel planning
(equal to the previous factor, no subfactors).  There were two past
performance factors:  a review of Department of Defense contracts with a
value greater than $500,000, and review of uniform alteration contracts
within the past 10 years that demonstrate corporate experience similar in
nature and magnitude to the solicitation effort. 

   Three proposals were submitted, including SWR's and Demosthenes's.  The
agency rated Demosthenes's proposal excellent under the technical and past
performance factors, and rated SWR's proposal average.  Since SWR offered
the lowest proposed price--$8,248,277, compared to Demosthenes's price of
$9,592,221--the agency conducted a cost-technical tradeoff between the
proposals.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 12.  The agency determined that
Demosthenes's superior technical and past performance ratings warranted
paying its higher price, and thus made award to that firm on the basis
that its proposal represented the best value.  

   In its initial protest, SWR challenged the agency's evaluation findings
that it lacked experience altering uniforms under a contract of this size,
and that its proposal failed to provide a method to implement the tasks
proposed, and included an unrealistic plan to recruit the current work
force and lacked a contingency plan if it failed to do so.  The agency
responded to each of these arguments in its administrative report,
explaining why it believed the evaluation was reasonable.  In its comments
on the report, the protester responded by merely stating that it stands by
its original submission.  Where a protester makes no further mention of an
argument, or merely references it without substantively replying to the
agency's detailed position, we deem the argument abandoned.  Career Quest,
a division of Syllan Careers, Inc., B-293435.2, B-293435.3, Aug. 2,
2004, 2004 CPD P 152 at 6 n.6.  Consequently, we will not consider these
issues.

   SWR raised additional arguments in its comments based on information it
received in the agency report.  We have reviewed these arguments and find
all to be without merit.  We discuss the SWR's principal arguments below. 

   SWR alleges that the agency applied the evaluation factors in such a
manner as to eliminate every firm from award consideration except the
incumbent.  In this regard, SWR points to various comments in the record
that relate to SWR's lack of the experience, resources and personnel
necessary to perform.  Supplemental Protest atA 2-4.  SWR concludes from
these comments that "a potential offeror would need to have a facility at
or near Parris Island, already equipped, with a work-force in place, and
have corporate experience in United States Marine Corps recruit uniform
alterations" in order to successfully compete for this contract. 
Supplemental Protest at 2. 

   In considering a protest of an agency's evaluation of proposals and source
selection decision, our review is limited to determining whether the
agency acted reasonably and consistent with the stated evaluation factors
and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  Al Hamra Kuwait Co.,
B-288970, Dec. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD PA 208 atA 2. 

   The evaluation here was unobjectionable.  As the Corps points out, the
concerns noted by SWR directly relate to the RFP evaluation factors.  The
RFP instructed offerors to demonstrate in their proposals the resources
needed to perform the contract (including equipment on hand and equipment
to be acquired), the personnel proposed to perform the contract, and the
firm's experience with similar contracts.  RFP at 14-15.  All of these
considerations were reflected in the technical and past performance
evaluation factors.  Id.  In applying the evaluation factors, the agency
did not find that its concerns rendered SWR's proposal unacceptable, or
conclude that only the incumbent's proposal was acceptable; rather, it
lowered SWR's rating, noting in particular that SWR lacked corporate
experience in performing uniform alteration contracts (the firm identified
only one smaller contract in this area), and lacked qualified personnel to
perform the contract.  In doing so, the agency acted consistently with the
evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP, and since SWR has made no showing
that the agency's conclusions do not reflect the contents of the
proposals, we have no basis to object to the evaluation.  While
Demosthenes, as the incumbent contractor, may have been better situated to
score more highly under the identified evaluation factors, the government
has no obligation to ignore a competitive advantage that an offeror may
enjoy as a result of a prior government contract, unless the advantage
resulted from unfair motives or actions by the contracting agency, which
was not the case here.  Bironas, Inc., B-249428, Nov. 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD
PA 365 at 3.

   SWR alleges that the agency improperly failed to take into consideration
one of its key personnel--who has experience with uniform alterations at
Parris Island--when evaluating the firm's experience.  However, it
generally is improper for an agency to consider personnel experience under
a corporate experience factor where there are separate evaluation factors
for each.  Technical Resources, Inc., B-253506, Sept. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD
PA 176 at 5.  Here, the RFP provided that past performance would be
evaluated based on contracts performed by the offeror, RFP at 15, and that
experience and qualifications of proposed staff would be considered in
evaluating the technical proposal.  RFP at 14-15.  The evaluation was
consistent with this scheme.[1]

   SWR asserts that the agency improperly failed to take into account the
relative weights of the evaluation factors in scoring the proposals.  The
agency concedes that it arrived at total evaluation scores for the
proposals by averaging the factor and subfactor scores without taking into
account the weights of the factors and subfactors.  However, there is no
basis for finding that correctly weighted scoring would have had any
significant impact on the award decision.  For example, the agency
demonstrates in its report that under one reasonable weighting scheme the
protester's total score would have increased from 77 to 78.2 points, while
the awardee's total score would have increased from 94 to 94.6.  AR, Tab
23, at 1-2.  SWR questions the weighting scheme the agency uses, but does
not identify any other scheme that would significantly change the scoring
to SWR's advantage.  Indeed, since Demosthenes's proposal was scored
significantly higher than SWR's under every individual evaluation factor
and subfactor, it is reasonable to conclude that its rating would remain
significantly higher than the protester's under any rational scheme.  We
conclude that SWR has failed to show that it was competitively prejudiced
by the agency's error; our Office will not sustain a protest absent a
showing of such prejudice.  See McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8,
1996, 96-1 CPD P 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d
1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] SWR alleges that the agency improperly penalized SWR for its lack of
experience in "marine recruit uniform alteration," since the RFP only
referred to "uniform alteration" experience.  However, an agency properly
may take into consideration specific, albeit not expressly identified,
experience in making qualitative distinctions between competing proposals,
so long as the specific experience is logically encompassed by or related
to the RFP's requirements and stated basis for evaluation.  Omniplex World
Servs. Corp., B-290996.2, Jan. 27, 2003, 2003 CPD P 7 atA 4 n.10.
