TITLE:  Firma Hermann Leis, B-295956; B-295956.2, May 19, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295956; B-295956.2
DATE:  May 19, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of: Firma Hermann Leis

   File: B-295956; B-295956.2

   Date: May 19, 2005

   Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq., Reinsdorf & Associates, for the protester.

   Maj. Gregory R. Bockin, Department of the Army, 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

   1.  Protest that awardee does not meet solicitation's definitive
responsibility criterion requiring proof of 5 years of experience for the
type of work to be performed is denied where record shows that the
contracting officer reasonably determined that the awardee satisfied this
criterion.

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

   DECISION

   Firma Hermann Leis protests the award of a contract to Dachbau Kurpfalz
GmbH under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912PE-04-R-0059, issued by the
Department of the Army, for roofing work in support of the 411th Base
Support Battalion facilities in Germany.  Leis objects to the agency's
evaluation of proposals and the source selection decision.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The solicitation contemplated the award of an
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity roofing contract for a 1-year base
period with four 1-year option periods.  As a threshold requirement, the
RFP provided that "[o]fferors who [did] not have five years of [roofing]
experience [were] not eligible for award."  RFP S M, P A.  For those
offerors that met the 5-year experience requirement, the RFP stated that
award would be made on a "best value" basis, with the past performance and
experience factors being of equal importance and, when combined, the
factors would be approximately equal to price. RFP S M, PP A, B.  In this
regard, the RFP stated that in evaluating experience, the agency would
emphasize the following:

   a. Depth of experience doing work of a similar size and nature, task
orders covering multiple service/work orders in accordance with the SOW in
the amount of Euro 400,000.00.[1]

   b. Experience working with U.S. Government agencies.

   c. Experience in performing multiple projects in different locations at
the same time.

   RFP S M P C.

   Offerors were required to complete and submit either an offeror
questionnaire in the format provided in attachment A to the RFP or a
separate document containing all the information outlined in attachment A,
which included information supporting the firm's experience and
qualifications to perform the requirement.  On attachment A, offerors were
to specifically provide a description of work which best illustrated past
performance and experience relevant to the current contract, including
"all task orders issued [for] multiple service work orders" and a
description of the work experience that demonstrated the offeror's ability
to perform multiple projects in different locations at the same time.  RFP
SS M P C.2.a, L, Additional Information.

   As relevant here, both Leis and Dachbau were determined to have met the
5-year minimum experience requirement.  The agency then contacted three
references for each offeror.  AR, Tab 15, Source Selection Decision.  The
evaluation of the proposals submitted by the Dachbau and Leis was as
follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Offeror      |Past Performance      |Experience      |Price             |
|-------------+----------------------+----------------+------------------|
|Dachbau      |Low Risk              |Very Good       |$2,655,756.25     |
|-------------+----------------------+----------------+------------------|
|Leis         |Low Risk              |Marginal        |$[DELETED]        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Although Dachbau was a new firm, the agency determined that it had the
requisite

   5-year experience based on its relationship with Braunwart Zappe, the
incumbent contractor on the predecessor contract.  As explained by Dachbau
in its proposal, Dachbau had assumed the management and assets of
Braunwart and had completed performance of the incumbent contract. 
Dachbau's proposal showed that Braunwart had the requisite experience on
roofing contracts dating back to 1991. 

   In contrast, while the protester had 5 years of experience, the
protester's technical proposal failed to show experience with service
order type contracts or experience working several projects
simultaneously.  Consequently, the agency concluded that, absent the
required experience, there was serious doubt that Leis could successfully
perform the requirement.  Accordingly, the agency rated Leis' proposal
marginal under the experience factor.  AR, Tab 15, Source Selection
Decision, at 4.

   In performing a trade-off between the two firms' proposals, the
contracting officer determined that Dachbau's slightly higher-priced, but
superior technical proposal, as compared to Leis' lower-priced,
lower-rated proposal, represented the best value to the government.  For
this reason, the agency awarded the contract to Dachbau.  Subsequent to a
debriefing held with the firm, Leis filed this protest.

   ISSUES and ANALYSIS

   Definitive Responsibility Criterion

   The protester contends that the agency improperly waived the 5-year
experience requirement for the awardee.  The protester argues that the
record does not support the agency's conclusion that Dachbau is the
successor-in-interest to Braunwart, the incumbent contractor.

   As described above, the solicitation required offerors to have a minimum
of 5 years of experience in order to be eligible for award.  The parties
do not dispute, and we agree, that this requirement is a definitive
responsibility criterion, which is defined as a specific and objective
standard established by an agency for use in a particular procurement
designed to measure a prospective contractor's ability to perform the
contract.  Deployable Hosp. Sys. Inc., B-260778.2, B-260778.3, Feb. 12,
1996, 96-1 CPD P 113 at 4.

   Where, as here, a protester alleges that a definitive responsibility
criterion has not been satisfied, we will review the record to ascertain
whether evidence of compliance has been submitted from which the
contracting official reasonably could conclude that the criterion has been
met; generally, a contracting agency has broad discretion in determining
whether offerors meet definitive responsibility criteria since the agency
must bear the burden of any difficulties experienced in obtaining the
required performance.  Id.  In determining compliance with a definitive
responsibility criterion, in the absence of RFP language to the contrary,
an agency may consider the experience of the corporation's principal
officers, the experience of the firm's employees, and the experience of a
predecessor company acquired by the "bidding entity."  See D.H. Kim
Enters., Inc., B-255124, Feb. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD
P 86 at 3; J.D. Miles & Sons, Inc., B-251533, Apr. 7, 1993, 93-1 CPD P 300
at 3; Unison Transformer Servs., Inc., B-232434, Nov. 10, 1988, 88-2 CPD P
471 at 5.

   Here, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the agency to
conclude that Dachbau met the experience requirement through its
relationship with Braunwart, the incumbent contractor.   The cover letter
to the awardee's proposal explained that the manager of Braunwart
established Dachbau to ensure continued performance of all of the current
contracts of Braunwart and that Dachbau had "taken over" the "fixtures and
furnishings and [Braunwart's] most efficient employees".   AR, Tab 13,
Cover Letter to Dachbau's Proposal.   Moreover, the contracting officer
confirmed that Dachbau replaced Braunwart under the predecessor contract
and continued to perform satisfactorily.  AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer's
Statement, at 4.  Here, the contracting officer had both written evidence
and personal knowledge that Dachbau had assumed the business operations of
Braunwart, and, in our view, reasonably concluded that the awardee
satisfied the experience requirement of the RFP.

   Evaluation of Protester's Proposal

   The protester also challenges the agency's assignment of a "marginal"
rating to its proposal under the experience factor.  In reviewing an
agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision, our review
is confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and
consistent with the stated evaluation factors.  Main Bldg. Maint., Inc.,
B-260945.4, Sept. 29, 1995, 95-2 CPD P 214 at 4. 

   As stated above, the RFP specifically stated that the agency would
emphasize an offeror's experience in performing task orders covering
multiple service work orders and experience in performing multiple
projects in different locations at the same time.  RFP S M, P C.2.a, L,
Additional Information.  The record shows that in listing its references,
the protester provided none of the crucial information required by the RFP
to enable the evaluators to determine specifically whether the protester
had the relevant experience performing task order contracts or experience
performing multiple projects in different locations at the same time. 

   The protester argues that there was no requirement for offerors to include
a description of service order type work in the reference list.  However,
as described above, the RFP specifically asked for offerors to list task
orders performed covering multiple service work orders and for offerors to
describe experience in performing multiple projects simultaneously.  It is
incumbent on an offeror to submit an adequately written technical proposal
for the agency to evaluate.  Baker Support Servs., Inc., B-257054.2, Jan.
20, 1995, 95-1 CPD P 29 at 5.  Here, the protester simply failed to
provide within the four corners of its proposal enough information to
enable the evaluators to determine that it possessed the experience
required by the RFP.  Furthermore, the protester does not argue that it,
in fact, has the required experience.  We find the contracting officer had
a reasonable basis for rating the protester marginal under the experience
factor because the protester failed to demonstrate that it had the
required experience.[2]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel       

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

   [1] The record shows that under this provision, the agency was seeking a
contractor with experience with "small repair work without specifications
of exact definition."   Agency Report (AR), Tab 15, Source Selection
Decision, at 4.

   [2] The protester also argues that the agency used an unstated
geographical limitation factor in evaluating its experience.  However, a
review of the record demonstrates that the protester received a marginal
rating for experience because it failed to demonstrate the required
experience and not because of its location.