TITLE:  Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc., B-295068, January 19, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295068
DATE:  January 19, 2005

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

   Decision

   Matter of:   Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc.

   File:            B-295068

   Date:              January 19, 2005

   Lyn R. Knox for the protester.

   Gil Bakshi for AMES Corporation; William H. Venema, Esq., Holland &
Knight, for The Ginn Group; Kurt D. Ferstl, Esq., Reed Smith, for JWK
International; Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., Barnhill & Associates for Quality
Services International, LLC; and Robert D. Vincent for VW International,
Inc., intervenors.

   Steven W. Feldman, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.

   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency's evaluation and source selection decision were flawed
is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation and source
selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's
evaluation factors.

   DECISION

   Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc. (ELE) protests the award of contracts to AMES
Corporation, The Ginn Group, JWK International, Quality Services
International, LLC (QSI), and VW International, Inc. (VWI) under request
for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-03-R-0009, issued by the United States Army
Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for operation and
maintenance services at government medical facilities in the continental
United States, Alaska, Hawaii and various overseas locations.  ELE
primarily objects to the agency's evaluation of proposals and the agency's
source selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on December 8, 2003, contemplated the award of an
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year
and four 1-year option periods.  The RFP called for two competitions.  One
competition was set aside for small business concerns, 8(a) concerns, and
HUBZone concerns.  RFP S B, P 12.b.  Under the restricted competition, the
solicitation provided for a total of five awards.  The solicitation
contemplated two awards under the unrestricted competition (not at issue
in this protest).  The RFP encouraged offerors to enter into teaming
arrangements and joint ventures if it was necessary to provide the full
depth and breadth of experience and capability required.  The RFP also
identified subcontracting as a valid teaming approach for this
procurement.

   The RFP provided that the awards would be made on a "best value" basis
considering the factors of technical, management, past performance, small
business participation, and price.  The RFP stated that the technical and
management factors were equal in importance and that each was more
important than the past performance factor.  The past performance factor
was significantly more important than the small business participation
factor.  The RFP stated that price was approximately equal in importance
to the past performance factor.

   Under the technical evaluation factor, offerors were to be evaluated based
on their experience in the operation and maintenance of medical facilities
and were required to provide a list of contracts for the last 5 years that
were directly related to the required operation and maintenance
experience.  RFP amend. 2, P L.3.2.  Under the past performance factor,
offerors were to be evaluated on their performance under existing and
prior contracts/subcontracts for services similar in scope, magnitude, and
complexity to this requirement.  RFP S M, P 2.4.  Offerors were to include
past performance information concerning the projects that they included in
their technical proposals under experience.  RFP amend. 2, P L.5.3.  The
RFP also specifically called for past performance information for
significant subcontractors proposed by offerors.  However, the RFP also
stated that the past performance evaluation of the prime contractor would
carry more weight in the evaluation.  Id. 

   The agency received numerous proposals in response to the RFP.  After the
initial evaluation, the contracting officer included nine offerors'
proposals in the competitive range for the restricted competition. 
Discussions were conducted and revised proposals were requested and
received.  The evaluators' final consensus ratings were provided to the
source selection authority (SSA), who reviewed the results and made
certain revisions to the evaluation of the proposals of some of the
offerors.  Specifically, the SSA found that for ELE's proposal, a rating
of high satisfactory under the technical factor was too low based on the
evaluators' comments.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Source Selection
Decision, at 2.  Consequently, the SSA revised ELE's consensus rating and
increased it to a medium good overall under the technical factor.  The
relevant offerors' final ratings for the restricted competition with the
proposed prices were as follows:

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|A   |TECHNICAL    |MANAGEMENT      |PAST           |SMALL       |PRICE  |
|    |             |                |PERFORMANCE    |BUSINESS    |       |
|----+-------------+----------------+---------------+------------+-------|
|ELE |Medium Good  |High            |Low Risk       |High        |$14.1 M|
|    |             |Satisfactory    |               |Excellent   |       |
|----+-------------+----------------+---------------+------------+-------|
|AMES|Medium Good  |Low Good        |Low Risk       |High        |$12.4 M|
|    |             |                |               |Excellent   |       |
|----+-------------+----------------+---------------+------------+-------|
|Ginn|High Good    |Medium Good     |Low Risk       |High        |$13.8 M|
|    |             |                |               |Excellent   |       |
|----+-------------+----------------+---------------+------------+-------|
|JWK |High Good    |High            |Low Risk       |High        |$13.6 M|
|    |             |Satisfactory    |               |Excellent   |       |
|----+-------------+----------------+---------------+------------+-------|
|QSI |Low Excellent|High Good       |Low Risk       |High        |$13.7 M|
|    |             |                |               |Excellent   |       |
|----+-------------+----------------+---------------+------------+-------|
|VWI |Low Excellent|Low Excellent   |Low Risk       |High        |$12.7 M|
|    |             |                |               |Excellent   |       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Id.

   The record shows that although the SSA recognized that ELE received high
ratings in the past performance and small business participation factors,
"it was higher priced and received lower or equal Technical and Management
Factor ratings when compared to the ratings and costs of those offerors
who were selected for award for the Restricted Competition."  Post-Award
Debriefing Letter from Agency to ELE (Oct. 6, 2004).  Based on the SSA's
determination that ELE's standing in the competition was below that of the
five eventual awardees, ELE's proposal was not considered in any of the
tradeoffs conducted by the SSA.  The SSA concluded that in the restricted
competition, the proposals of AMES, Ginn, JWK, QSI, and VWI provided the
best value to the government.  AR, Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, 
t 4.  The agency subsequently awarded contracts to these five offerors. 
Following a debriefing, ELE filed this protest with our Office.

   ELE first challenges the agency's evaluation of the proposals of the
awardees on the ground that the agency erroneously concluded that the
awardees have the requisite experience with medical facility operation and
maintenance as specified in the RFP. 

   The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Marine Animal Prods.
Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, JulyA 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD P 16 at 5.  In reviewing
an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals;
instead we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
criteria.  MAR, Inc., B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD P 367 at 4.  An
offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not render
the evaluation unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2,
B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD P 51 at 18.

   ELE's protest that the agency erroneously evaluated the awardees'
experience is based primarily on its belief that none of the awardees has
the required relevant experience to justify their receiving a rating equal
to or greater than ELE's rating.  However, the record shows that AMES,
JWK, and VWI all have significant experience providing operation and
maintenance services at medical facilities, both as prime contractors and
subcontractors.  AR, Tab 3, Source Selection Evaluation Board Report, at
25, 82 and 106.  While the protester is correct that Ginn and QSI have
limited operation and maintenance experience as prime contractors, the
record shows that both of these offerors proposed a team member with
highly relevant experience with medical facilities.  For example, the SSA
specifically recognized that Ginn's primary weakness in medical operation
and maintenance experience was offset by its proposal to team with an
experienced subcontractor with highly relevant medical operation and
maintenance experience.  AR, Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, at 5. 
Similarly, while QSI had limited direct experience with medical operation
and maintenance services, the record shows that QSI included in its
proposal evidence of a formal DoD/SBA Mentor-Protege Program agreement
with an experienced contractor, and the SSA determined that this teaming
arrangement "significantly enhanced" QSI's ratings.  Id. at 6.

   ELE asserts that the agency's consideration of proposed subcontractor
experience for Ginn and QSI was improper.  Here, as described above, the
RFP clearly placed offerors on notice that they could propose
subcontractors and that at least with respect to past performance, the RFP
specifically stated that a subcontractor's prior projects would be
evaluated.  RFP S B, P 14.  In this connection, an agency may consider an
offeror's subcontractor's capabilities and experience under relevant
evaluation factors where, as here, the RFP allows for the use of
subcontractors and does not prohibit the consideration of a
subcontractor's experience in the evaluation of proposals.  FMC Corp.,
B-252941, July 29, 1993, 93-2 CPD P71 at 2.  Thus, in our view, the
agency's evaluation of the offerors' subcontractors was not objectionable
under the RFP.

   ELE also protests the agency's evaluation of its own proposal arguing that
as an incumbent, its proposal demonstrated that it was better qualified to
perform this requirement than any of the awardees under the restricted
competition.

   The record shows that under the technical evaluation factor, the agency
specifically recognized that ELE demonstrated relevant, current experience
on two medical facility operation and maintenance projects as a prime
contractor, and ELE received a rating of medium good.  The agency
additionally recognized as strong points that ELE proposed good approaches
for safety and health, quality control, and facility operation and
maintenance.  The agency also recognized that ELE performed concurrent
task orders at multiple sites.  ELE was rated high satisfactory under the
management factor and was recognized for its management organization, its
key personnel with significant medical operation and maintenance
experience, its detailed approach to cost control, and its successful
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care accreditation of two
medical facilities.  While ELE disagrees with the agency's evaluation of
its proposal, we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the
agency's evaluation and ratings.

   The record here shows that while ELE's proposal was rated relatively high
overall, it was not selected for award because, compared to the ultimate
awardees' proposals, ELE proposed a higher price and its proposal was
rated either lower than, or equal to, the awardees' proposals.  Based on
our review of the record, the agency's decision to award to firms with
lower priced proposals that were either rated technically equal to, or
higher than, ELE's proposal was reasonable and in accordance with the
terms of the solicitation.

   The protest is denied.[1]

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] In its comments on the agency report, ELE raised a number of
additional allegations with respect to the agency's consideration of
subcontractor experience.  These allegations essentially state differently
the protester's primary concern that, as an incumbent contractor, it was
improper for the agency to evaluate offerors without similar prime
contract experience equal to or higher than ELE's incumbent experience. 
As discussed above, we conclude that the agency's evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria.

   ELE also argued that the agency failed to evaluate the awardees' ability
to comply with the RFP's limitation on subcontracting clause, which
requires that the small business offeror itself incur at least 50 percent
of the personnel costs of contract performance.  Federal Acquisition
Regulation S 52.219-14.  As a general rule, an agency's judgment as to
whether a small business offeror will comply with the subcontracting
limitation is a matter of responsibility, and the contractor's actual
compliance with the provision is a matter of contract administration. 
Orincon Corp., B-276704, July 18, 1997, 97-2 CPD P 26 at 4.  The agency
reports that none of the small business awardees in their proposals
deviated from the 50-percent requirement and, therefore, the agency had no
reason to question the awardees' intent to comply with the subcontracting
limitation.
