TITLE: B-299859, Alpha Genesis, Inc., September 12, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299859
DATE: September 12, 2007
*************************************************
B-299859, Alpha Genesis, Inc., September 12, 2007

   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: Alpha Genesis, Inc.

   File: B-299859

   Date: September 12, 2007

   Richard Moorhouse, Esq., Dorn C. McGrath, III, Esq., and Sean M. Connolly,
   Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester.

   Daniel J. Kelly, Esq., and Gary J. Campbell, Esq., McCarter & English,
   LLP, for Charles River Laboratories, Inc., an intervenor.

   Krystal A. Jordan, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the
   agency.

   Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest challenging agency's technical evaluations is denied where the
   record supports the reasonableness of the evaluations and does not support
   the protester's allegation regarding inadequate discussions.

   2. Protest that awardee's proposal contains material contingencies that
   make it improper for the agency to accept it is denied, where the record
   shows that the alleged contingencies concern a lease that the contractor
   was to obtain post-contract award and the acquisition of leased property
   for which the awardee had obtained a letter of commitment.

   DECISION

   Alpha Genesis, Inc. (AGI) protests the award of a contract to Charles
   River Laboratories, Inc. (CRL) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   NIAID-DIR-07-52, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services,
   National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and
   Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for the maintenance of a free-range,
   island-based breeding colony of Rhesus monkeys and the transportation of
   the animals to NIAID and other facilities. AGI challenges various aspects
   of the agency's evaluation of its and the awardee's technical proposals
   and alleges that the awardee's proposal contains material contingencies
   that made its acceptance by the agency improper.

   We deny the protest.

   For 27 years, the protester and its predecessor company, as the incumbent
   contractor, have maintained a government-owned colony of Rhesus monkeys,
   used by NIAID, NIH, and other organizations for research purposes. The
   subject colony, which numbers approximately 3,000 monkeys, resides on
   Morgan Island, an ecologically sensitive barrier island off the coast of
   South Carolina that has been leased to the protester by the South Carolina
   Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR).[1] Although each is individually
   marked by tattooing or other means, the monkeys freely breed and roam in
   the wild. The contractor ensures the proper feeding and health of the
   animals and captures and transports to research facilities roughly 500
   monkeys annually. The contractor also keeps extensive records of the
   colony, tracking births, deaths, gender, age, and other statistical and
   demographic data. Because the colony is island-based, maintenance requires
   the year-round transportation, by boat and barge, of personnel, food, and
   equipment.

   The agency issued the RFP for a cost-reimbursement contract on December
   22, 2006 with a proposal due date, after amendment, of February 1, 2007.
   The RFP called for the submission of separate business and technical
   proposals. The business proposal was to "contain sufficient information to
   allow the Government to perform a basic analysis of the proposed cost or
   price of the work." RFP at 45. The technical proposal was to contain as
   much detail as an offeror considered "necessary to fully explain [its]
   proposed technical approach or method." Id. at 40.

   The RFP specified that the technical evaluation committee (TEC) would use
   the following evaluation criteria when reviewing the offerors' technical
   proposals:

    1. Technical Capability

         a. Understanding of the scope of work and technical ability as
            evidenced by contractor's Facility Development Plan, Program
            Development Plan, and Colony Maintenance Plan.
         b. Availability and adequacy of facilities and equipment.

    2. Personnel Qualifications
       Qualifications and experience of proposed personnel. . . .
    3. Corporate Experience
       Offeror must demonstrate expertise and relevant experience in work on
       past or current contracts of similar nature and scope.[2]
    4. Past Performance

         a. Quality of Product/Service
         b. Cost Control
         c. Timeliness of Performance
         d. Business Relations
         e. Overall Satisfaction

   RFP at 56-57. The RFP stated that all four technical factors were of equal
   importance; no weight was assigned to the subfactors for technical
   capability and past performance. Id. These four non-price factors, when
   combined, were significantly more important than cost, and award was to be
   made to the offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the
   government.

   The RFP required the TEC to rate proposals under each evaluation factor
   using an adjectival rating system that, as relevant to this protest,
   included "outstanding" ("[v]ery significantly exceeds most or all of
   solicitation requirements"), "good" ("[f]ully meets all solicitation
   requirements and exceeds many of the solicitation requirements"),
   "acceptable" ("[m]eets all solicitation requirements"), and "marginal"
   ("[l]ess than acceptable"). Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts,
   attach. 1. For the evaluation of past performance, the RFP required that
   offerors provide a list of the last three contracts completed during the
   past 3 years and the last three contracts currently being performed that
   are similar in scope of work to the solicitation. RFP at 39. The RFP
   stated that the government would evaluate an offeror's past performance
   "on information obtained from references provided by the offeror, other
   relevant past performance information obtained from sources known to the
   Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning
   problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action
   taken." RFP at 57.

   With respect to the technical capability factor, the statement of work
   (SOW) required offers to include a Facility Development Plan that "should
   demonstrate adequate and appropriate use of available resources for
   containing and housing animals in a free-range environment." RFP at 62.
   The SOW also required a Program Development Plan that "should elucidate
   the contractor's plan to run the operation from a staffing,
   administration, supply and logistics standpoint." Id. The SOW stated that
   the contractor "shall be responsible for accepting the colony at the
   designated site and arranging for the lease of the facility." Id. at 61.

   The RFP was amended on January 23 by the addition of questions and
   answers, including the following:

     Q1. Assuming that the incumbent currently maintains the colony at Morgan
     Island, does this statement mean that incumbent is no longer interested
     in maintaining the colony, and the Contractor for NIAID-DIR-07-52 could
     take over the existing facilities under some sort of lease arrangement
     and maintain the colony in its current location instead of constructing
     new facilities in a different location?

     A1. This is a full and open competitive solicitation. The successful
     offeror will be responsible for accepting the animal colony at its
     current location and arranging for a lease of the facility with [SCDNR].

     Q4. What is the Government's role/involvement in assisting the
     contractor in procuring a lease of the Morgan Island property?

     A4. The Government is required to provide information and/or details to
     [SCDNR] regarding the award of any contract. The Government bears no
     responsibility in assisting the awardee with negotiating and/or
     executing a lease of the current facilities.

     Q5. What is the Government's role/involvement in assisting the contactor
     in procuring the use of dock facilities?

     A6. [sic] None. The offerors are solely responsible for negotiating a
     lease for adequate docking facilities.

   Agency Report (AR), Tab II.B, Questions and Answers at 1.

   AGI and CRL were the only offerors. In the initial evaluation of technical
   and business proposals, the agency rated AGI's technical capability as
   marginal, with an overall rating of marginal, and rated CRL's technical
   capability and its proposal overall as good. The TEC established a
   competitive range that included both offers and requested revised
   proposals from both offerors. With respect to concerns the agency had
   identified with AGI's Facility Development and Program Development Plans,
   and AGI's recent relocation of the docking facilities used to service the
   colony from its former location to Warsaw Island, the agency asked AGI the
   following questions, among others:

     1.  Please elucidate on your proposed future Facility and Program
     Development plans.

     2.  The decreased costs of relocating the dock facilities to Warsaw
     Island would appear to be countered by the increased distance to the
     Morgan Island base site. The additional distance increases fuel expense,
     wear on boats and motors, and travel time for employees noted in your
     proposal as being on Morgan Island for 8 hours per day. It is possible
     to minimize the additional travel time by employees and increase in
     expenses by relocating to a closer facility?

   AR, Tab V.A., Request for AGI's Revised Proposal at 5.

   The agency posed the following technical question, among others, to CRL:

     2.  As previously stated in `Answers to Questions' pertaining to this
     requirement, the contractor is solely responsible for securing a lease
     of Morgan Island facilities within 60 days of contract award. Please
     explain how the Contractor proposes to negotiate with the [SCDNR] in
     order to secure the lease within the established timeframe without the
     government's assistance.

   AR, Tab V.B., Request for CRL's Revised Proposal at 5.

   After the final evaluations, AGI's proposal was rated marginal for
   technical capability and good for each of the other three factors, with an
   overall rating of acceptable. Aided by the strength of its Facility
   Development and Program Development Plans, CRL's proposal was rated
   outstanding for technical capability, and its overall rating was also
   outstanding. The following table summarizes the evaluation ratings.

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                       Final Proposal Evaluation                        |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |   |Technical  |Personnel           |Corporate  |Past       |Overall    |
   |   |Capability |Qualifications      |Experience |Performance|           |
   |---+-----------+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
   |AGI|Marginal   |Good                |Good       |Good       |Acceptable |
   |---+-----------+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
   |CRL|Outstanding|Good                |Outstanding|Good       |Outstanding|
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AGI's final proposed cost was $11,243,700, and CRL's was $12,607,669, a
   difference of $1,363,969 or just over 12 percent. After conducting a
   cost/technical trade-off analysis that documented the rationale for
   choosing the higher-cost proposal and the benefits that the agency would
   gain by doing so, NIAID made award to CRL.

   During AGI's debriefing, NIAID advised the protester that its proposal had
   been rated marginal for technical capability because of three weaknesses.
   The agency evaluated AGI's proposed Facility Development Plan as lacking
   specifics on the life span and wear and tear on facilities and equipment,
   with a focus primarily on past improvements and a lack of details
   regarding what actions will be taken in the future. Similarly, the
   proposed Program Development Plan, in the agency's judgment, relied on
   historical operation and provided minimal detail on future activities.
   Finally, the agency evaluated the proposal as failing to adequately
   address the issue of the likely increase in costs associated with the
   Warsaw Island dock's greater distance from the Morgan Island dock.

   DISCUSSION

   Evaluation of Protester's Technical Capability

   The protester challenges NIAID's marginal rating of its technical proposal
   under the technical capability factor. With respect to the criticism that
   its Facility Development and Program Development Plans focused more on
   past performance than future plans, the protester argues that it naturally
   included in its proposal recent developments and improvements it
   instituted at Morgan Island, considering them "logically relate[d] to
   planned future efforts." In reviewing protests alleging improper
   evaluation of proposals, our Office will examine the record to determine
   whether the agency's judgments were reasonable and in accordance with the
   solicitation criteria, as well as with applicable statutes and
   regulations. Verizon Fed., Inc., B-293527, Mar. 26, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 186 at 4. The RFP required offerors to demonstrate, through Facility
   Development and Program Development Plans, their understanding of the
   scope of work of the current--and not the prior--solicitations, and their
   current technical abilities with which they would execute their plans. We
   see nothing unreasonable with the agency's decision to downgrade the
   protester's proposal that, in the agency's judgment, was overly
   retrospective and failed to elucidate the protester's future plans.

   Further, while the protester asserts that there are "no appreciable or
   material difference[s]" between the Facility Development Plans of the
   protester and the awardee, Protester's Comments on AR at 7, the record
   does not support that assertion. The determination of the relative merits
   of proposals is primarily a matter of agency discretion, which we will not
   disturb unless it is shown to be without a reasonable basis or
   inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes
   and regulations. Madico, Inc., B-280003, Aug. 12, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 42
   at 3. Specifically, the relative desirability and technical adequacy of
   proposals is also a matter of agency discretion. Axion Corp., B-252812,
   July 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 28 at 3.

   The RFP required offerors to present their technical proposals "in as much
   detail as [they] consider[ed] necessary to fully explain [their] proposed
   technical approach or method." RFP at 40. The protester's proposal
   recounts, in some detail, the projects that have been completed in the
   past in the fulfillment of the contract. By contrast, the awardee's
   proposal includes a Facility Development Plan that, in the agency's
   estimation, would maintain the [DELETED] in usable condition, and includes
   a [DELETED] of facility and equipment [DELETED]. The awardee's plan
   includes a number of features that the agency favorably evaluated and that
   the protester's plan lacks, including the [DELETED] to be maintained; the
   proposed addition of a [DELETED] to the existing facilities; and the
   [DELETED] of the awardee's own [DELETED] facility. The awardee's proposal
   contains a similarly detailed Program Development Plan that includes
   [DELETED],[3] [DELETED], [DELETED], and [DELETED], among other
   innovations. In contrast, the protester, in its revised proposal, offered
   little of substance to augment the Program Development Plan included in
   its initial proposal. See AR, Tab VI.A, Protester's Revised Proposal at 2.
   We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's evaluation of the protester's
   Facility Development and Program Development Plans.

   In evaluating AGI's technical proposal, the agency took specific issue
   with the proposal's rationale for the relocation of the docking facilities
   to Warsaw Island. In response to the agency's concern that relocating the
   dock would increase transportation and personnel costs and wear and tear
   on equipment, the protester stated that

     [r]eplacement of the previous dock location was imperative. . . .
     Failure to act in a responsible manner could have jeopardized the future
     of the project. Residential and commercial zoning restrictions,
     residential development of deep water properties throughout the ACE
     Basin, and public access concerns make . . . [the previous site]
     unsuitable for this unique and sensitive project.

   AR, Tab VI.A., Protester's Revised Proposal at 2-3. The protester also
   asserted that existing vandalism and other concerns would be exacerbated
   by the site owner's plans to build a restaurant. Furthermore, the
   protester argued that it had not "experienced any increase in costs or
   loss of efficiency in the past year that the Warsaw facility has been
   utilized and does not anticipate any increase in costs over the course of
   the contract period." Id. at 3. The protester stated that the increased
   travel time is "negligible" and "largely offset" by increases in
   efficiency. Id.

   The agency rejected this argument, stating that it did not understand why
   "increasing the distance from the dock to the island would not increase
   costs based on additional fuel and wear and tear on the boats alone," or
   how, based on the information supplied by the protester, the replacement
   of the previous dock location was "imperative." AR, Tab VII.A., Technical
   Evaluation of Protester's Proposal at 2. The agency concluded that the
   protester's response was long on rationale for the move but devoid of any
   specifics on relative costs. The protester's challenge to the agency's
   evaluation amounts to mere disagreement, and a protester's mere
   disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that the
   evaluation was unreasonable. JAVIS Automation & Eng'g, Inc., B-293235.6,
   Apr. 29, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 95 at 5. We find reasonable the agency's
   concern that the relocation of the docking facility would increase
   transportation and personnel costs as well as wear and tear on transport
   equipment, and we find nothing improper in the agency assessing the
   protester's proposal a weakness for this issue.[4]

   The protester also alleges that, to the extent the agency's failure to ask
   the protester for "exact amount[s]" concerning the costs of the dock
   relocation resulted in the protester's "materially downgraded Technical
   Capability rating, the Agency violated FAR [sect.] 15.306(d) by not
   conducting meaningful discussions." Protest at 9. We disagree.

   In order for discussions in a negotiated procurement to be meaningful, an
   agency must advise the offeror of the deficiencies in its proposal, so
   that the offeror may have an opportunity to revise its proposal to satisfy
   the government's requirements. Pan Am World Servs., Inc. et al., B-231840
   et al., Nov. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 446 at 11. However, the content and
   extent of discussions is a matter of the contracting officer's judgment
   based on the particular facts of the procurement. Syscon Servs., Inc., B-
   235647, Sept. 21, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 258 at 7. In reviewing whether
   there has been sufficient disclosure of deficiencies, the focus is not on
   whether the agency described the deficiencies in such detail that there
   could be no doubt as to their identity and nature, but whether the
   information was sufficient in the context of the procurement to afford the
   offeror a fair and reasonable opportunity to identify and correct
   deficiencies in its proposal. Eagan, McAllister Assocs., Inc., B-231983,
   Oct. 28, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 405 at 5. Given the agency's direction to
   offerors that they include as much detail as necessary in their technical
   proposals, and the agency's pointed request to the protester to explain
   how the new dock location would be cost effective, we find no merit to the
   protester's allegation that the agency conducted inadequate discussions.

   Evaluation of the Awardee's Corporate Experience

   The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of CRL's proposal under
   the corporate experience factor.[5] As part of CRL's discussion of its
   general experience, its proposal included this statement:

     [DELETED]

   AR, Tab B2.B(2), CRL's Proposal at 16. In rating CRL outstanding for
   corporate experience, the agency relied, in part, on CRL's experience
   running the Key Lois colonies, the [DELETED] experience that CRL has had
   operating island-based, free-range, non-human primate colonies. The record
   contains evidence that the monkeys in the CRL colonies on Key Lois, newly
   arrived in Florida from India, denuded that island, resulting in the
   relocation of the colonies and the replanting of the island vegetation.

   The protester argues the agency was required to conduct the research
   necessary to uncover the difficulties that CRL encountered at Key Lois,
   and that it was unreasonable for the agency to award CRL a corporate
   experience rating of "outstanding" in light of the information that the
   agency should have considered.[6] We disagree. An agency has discretion as
   to how to define RFP requirements, see Vertrol, Sys. Co., Inc., B-293644.4
   et al., July 29, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 146 at 3, including corporate
   experience.[7] As noted above, under corporate experience the RFP here
   requires the offeror to demonstrate "expertise and relevant experience in
   work on past or current contracts of similar nature and scope" and defines
   corporate experience to include the "accomplishment of work, either past
   or on-going, which is comparable or related to the effort required by this
   RFP." While an agency has the discretion to include in the RFP's
   evaluation scheme a qualitative review of an offeror's corporate
   experience, the agency simply chose not to do so here. Moreover, even if
   the agency was required to research the awardee's corporate experience,
   and even if the agency had uncovered reports of the destruction of
   vegetation at Key Lois, the agency could nevertheless reasonably evaluate
   the awardee's management of the colony at Key Lois, which was successful
   in producing non-human primates suitable for research purposes, as a
   significant contributor to the awardee's corporate experience.[8]

   The Morgan Island Lease

   The protester raises two issues with respect to the lease of Morgan
   Island--a lease that AGI recently renewed and that will be required for
   contract performance. First, AGI argues that because it holds the lease
   and has no intention of assigning the lease or subletting to CRL,
   performance by CRL is impossible, and that NIAID failed to consider this
   material fact in evaluating CRL's technical proposal as "outstanding." To
   the extent that the protester is arguing that it is impossible for any
   other firm to perform the contract, given the protester's lease on the
   required island, the protester is raising an untimely challenge to the
   terms of the solicitation. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2007); Baird Corp.,
   B-206268, July 6, 1982, 82-2 CPD para. 17.

   The protester also argues that the agency failed to "evaluate the
   acquisition of a lease as either a strength or a weakness at all for any
   offeror, contrary to the specific provisions of the SOW and Section M,
   Evaluation Factors for Award, of the Solicitation."[9] Protester's
   Response to Agency's Motion to Dismiss at 4. The SOW states that the
   "Contractor shall be responsible for accepting the colony at the
   designated site and arranging for the lease of the facility." AR, Tab I.B,
   SOW at 1. As noted above, one evaluation criterion under the technical
   capability factor is the "[a]vailability and adequacy of facilities and
   equipment."[10] RFP at 57. These provisions do not require the acquisition
   of a lease for Morgan Island prior to contract award; indeed, the
   questions and answers noted above specifically require the contractor--not
   the offeror--to secure a lease within 60 days of contract award.

   Material Contingencies

   The protester also asserts that, because CRL's proposal contains "material
   contingencies and reservations," it was improper for the agency to accept
   the proposal. Protester's Response to Agency's Motion to Dismiss at 5. At
   issue are these paragraphs labeled "Advanced Understandings and Requested
   Conditions" in CRL's proposal:

     [DELETED]

   AR, Tab B2.B(2), CRL Proposal at 50. The introduction to these paragraphs
   states that CRL "respectfully requests that our Proposal be viewed subject
   to the following understandings and conditions."

   In negotiated procurements, any proposal that is expressly conditioned
   upon the agency's acceptance of terms and conditions that take material
   exception to the terms of the solicitation should be considered
   unacceptable and may not form the basis for an award. Sonshine Enters.,
   B-246268, Feb. 26, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 232 at 5. Here, however, the
   allegation that the awardee made its proposal contingent upon its ability
   to obtain a lease from the SCDNR ignores the fact that the RFP makes the
   acquisition of the Morgan Island lease a performance requirement, not a
   term of the solicitation. Per the RFP, the awardee must acquire the Morgan
   Island lease, but only after contract award. Accordingly, while CRL's
   proposal sets out the terms it will seek to have included in its lease of
   Morgan Island, it does not take exception to any of the terms of the
   solicitation.

   The protester also asserts that the awardee made its offer contingent on
   its ability to secure the lease of necessary docking facilities and that
   there was no indication in the agency report that the awardee has been
   able to secure such a lease. A requirement that offerors have dedicated
   facilities in place at the time of contract award can be met by offerors
   who have leases that are contingent upon receipt of the contract. See
   University Research Corp., B-216461, Feb. 19, 1985, 85-1 CPD para. 210 at
   6. In its revised proposal, CRL states that if it is selected for award it
   [DELETED]. AR, Tab VI.B, CRL Revised Proposal at 1. Such an arrangement
   satisfies the requirements of the solicitation and does not take material
   exception to the terms of the RFP, and we find no merit to the allegation
   that CRL's proposal is unacceptable.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The protester's recently renewed lease for the island ends on December
   31, 2011. The lease contains a clause titled, "Termination Clause -
   Cancellation by Either Party," that states "that either party may
   terminate . . . this lease before expiration of the five (5) year term . .
   . in the event the [United States] . . . terminates its financial support
   of lessee's program . . . to husband and maintain primates in South
   Carolina." Lease at 11.

   [2] Elsewhere, the RFP stated that "[o]rganizational experience is defined
   as the accomplishment of work, either past or on-going, which is
   comparable or related to the effort required by this RFP. This includes
   overall offeror or corporate experience." RFP at 52.

   [3] The protester asserts that because the [DELETED] "was not reasonably
   embraced by the stated contract requirements and evaluation criteria,"
   Protester's Comments on AR at 8, it was inappropriate for the agency to
   credit the awardee's proposal for proposing this [DELETED]. We disagree.
   By definition, as noted above, to be rated better than acceptable in any
   of the four technical evaluation criteria an offeror's proposal was
   required to exceed the solicitation requirements. Here, the awardee
   proposed to supply a [DELETED]--a proposal feature that exceeds the RFP
   requirements--and we see nothing improper in the agency's favorable
   evaluation of that aspect of the proposal.

   [4] In its initial protest, the protester also challenged the good rating
   its proposal received under the three other technical evaluation factors,
   stating that it would "supplement this ground of protest once additional
   facts are learned from the agency report as appropriate." Protest at 10.
   The protester's sole supplemental assertion is that it should not have
   been rated merely good for past performance because the agency introduced
   no evidence of unsatisfactory performance by the protester on the
   incumbent contract. We find that argument without merit. There was no
   showing that the good rating was not reasonable, and the mere absence of
   unsatisfactory performance could have resulted in a rating as low as
   acceptable, and the protester's proposal was rated good.

   [5] In its protest, AGI also asserts that the agency improperly evaluated
   the awardee's past performance, in that the agency ignored CRL's alleged
   shortcomings in administering the Key Lois colonies. The awardee's
   maintenance of the Key Lois colonies was properly not considered as part
   of the awardee's past performance; as noted above, past performance
   included an evaluation of contracts submitted by the offeror that had been
   performed in the past 3 years. CRL concluded its maintenance of the Key
   Lois colonies more than 3 years ago and did not offer its performance at
   Key Lois--which was not a contract but a private venture--as a past
   performance reference.

   [6] The protester also alleges that the agency could not properly rate the
   awardee's technical proposal higher than the protester's, when the awardee
   has never managed the subject colony. The evaluation criteria did not
   require experience managing the Morgan Island colony, and for reasons
   addressed throughout, we find reasonable the agency's evaluation of both
   technical proposals.

   [7] For example, a solicitation may require the agency to evaluate "the
   extent, depth, and quality" of corporate experience. JWK Int'l,
   B-256609.4, Sept. 1, 1994, 95-1 CPD para. 166 at 9. Corporate experience
   may be combined with other factors such as "quality of work," NWT, Inc.;
   PharmChem Labs., Inc., B-280988, B-280988.2, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD para.
   158 at 2, or past performance. D.O.N. Protective Servs., Inc., B-249066,
   Oct. 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 277 at 6-7. Agencies may make corporate
   experience an evaluation factor, with past performance as a subfactor.
   Defense Tech., Inc., B-271682, July 17, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 54 at 2.
   However corporate experience is incorporated into the evaluation scheme,
   as with any other criterion, the agency's evaluation must treat all
   offerors similarly. Ashe Facility Servs., Inc., B-292218.3, B-292218.4,
   Mar. 31, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 80 at 12-13.

   [8] Because we find that the agency reasonably evaluated both offerors'
   technical proposals, we need not consider the protester's allegation that
   a proper technical evaluation would have produced a score for AGI that was
   at least as good as that for CRL, and that AGI, with the lower-cost
   proposal, would have been the clear choice for contract award. Where, as
   here, a solicitation emphasizes the significantly greater importance of
   technical factors over price, an agency has considerable discretion to
   award to an offeror with a higher technical rating and a higher cost. WPI,
   B-288998.4, B-288998.5, Mar. 22, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 70 at 10. The
   agency's cost/technical trade-off documents the rationale for selecting
   CRL, including the many benefits associated with the additional cost, and
   we see no reason to question the agency's award decision. Id.

   [9] "[T]he government did not evaluate the acquisition of the lease as a
   strength or a weakness for any offeror." Contracting Offeror's Statement
   of Facts at 9.

   [10] The presolicitation notice stated that the agency would evaluate an
   offeror's "ability to provide adequate facilities and equipment including
   securing a lease of the current colony site." AR, Tab I.E, Presolicitation
   Notice at 2. To the extent that the protester's argument relies on that
   language, see Protest at 10, its argument is legally flawed. Acquisition
   of the lease by an offeror was clearly eliminated as an evaluation
   criterion when the agency published the RFP; when the terms of an RFP
   conflict with the presolicitation notice, the RFP controls. See Hung Myung
   (USA) Ltd., Inc.; Containertechnik Hamburg GmbH & Co., B-244686 et al.,
   Nov. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 434 at 4.