B-166052, MAY 20, 1969

B-166052, MAY 20, 1969

TO METRON CORPORATION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING THE AWARD TO ANY OTHER FIRM OF A CONTRACT UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS (RFQ) NO. N00140-69-Q-0047, ISSUED BY THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK (NPONY).

THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT WAS INITIATED BY A REQUEST FROM NAVAL SHORE ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING ACTIVITY (NAVSEEACT), PHILADELPHIA, BEARING A PRIORITY RATING OF 04, TO NPONY, COVERING A REQUIREMENT FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE NAVAL ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS COMMAND TEST EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION PROGRAM. THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF THE COST WAS REVISED FROM $45,000 TO $52,000 BEFORE A PREQUOTERS CONFERENCE BASED ON THE FACT THAT TRAVEL COSTS OF APPROXIMATELY $7,000 HAD BEEN OMITTED. FACT, AS A RESULT OF THE PRE-QUOTERS CONFERENCE, PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL INDICATED THAT EVEN THE REVISED ESTIMATE WAS PROBABLY LOW. SUBSEQUENT TO SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN NPONY AND NAVSEEACT, THE REQUEST FOR QUOTATION WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 9, 1968, WITH A CLOSING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1968, WHICH WAS LATER EXTENDED TO OCTOBER 15, 1968, BY AMENDMENT 0001.

FIFTEEN FIRMS WERE ON THE LIST OF RECOMMENDED SOURCES. BASED ON THIS LIST, AND ADDITIONAL FIRMS RESPONDING TO THE SYNOPSIS PUBLISHED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY, 73 FIRMS WERE SOLICITED. METRON WAS NOT ON NAVSEEACT'S LIST OF RECOMMENDED FIRMS AND IT IS REPORTED THAT YOUR FIRM WAS NOT ONE OF THE 19 PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS WHO ATTENDED THE PRE-QUOTERS CONFERENCE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1968, AT NPONY TO WHICH ALL FIRMS WERE URGED TO SEND A REPRESENTATIVE. AS A RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE, AMENDMENT 0002 INSERTED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE CLAUSE ENTITLED "SELECTION OF THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR," WHICH INDICATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AWARD ON THE BASIS OF THE QUOTATIONS INITIALLY RECEIVED WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION AND WARNED THAT ,QUOTATIONS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED INITIALLY ON THE MOST FAVORABLE TERMS FROM A PRICE AND TECHNICAL STANDPOINT.' IN NOTES TO QUOTERS AT PAGE 13 OF THE RFQ, IT IS STATED: "2. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF QUOTATIONS - QUOTATIONS RECEIVED WILL NOT BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF PRICE ALONE (WHICH INCLUDES COST TO SHIP GFM). AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM, AS EVIDENCED BY FIRMS TECHNICAL QUOTATION, AND EXPERIENCE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED:

"/A.) THE PHILOSOPHY OF A GOOD TEST EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION PROGRAM.

"/B.) A THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING CONCEPTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE AS THEY RELATE TO ELECTRONIC TEST EQUIPMENTS.

"/C.) A KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING AS IT RELATES TO THE USE, HANDLING AND CALIBRATION OF TEST EQUIPMENTS.

"/D.) EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELDS OF MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTION PROGRAM ESTABLISHMENT; AND,

"/E.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AS RELATED TO TEST EQUIPMENT.' THE RFQ ALSO REQUESTED AT PAGE 14: "1. A DETAILED TECHNICAL QUOTATION, IN TRIPLICATE, CONTAINING THE QUOTER'S UNDERSTANDING OF THIS REQUIREMENT AND THE PROPOSED PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIVES. QUOTER MAY SUBMIT ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION, INCLUDING RESUMES WITH THEIR QUOTATION. * *

FIFTEEN QUOTATIONS WERE RECEIVED WITH PRICES RANGING FROM $23,733 TO $96,240. ALL QUOTATIONS WERE FORWARDED TO NAVSEEACT AND WERE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF FACTORS AND WEIGHTS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF THE RFQ BUT NOT MADE KNOWN TO THE QUOTERS. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE METHOD OF EVALUATION OF QUOTATIONS WAS AS FOLLOWS:

PRICE - 35 PERCENT; TECHNICAL APPROACH - 35 PERCENT; EXPERIENCE - 30 PERCENT BASED ON THIS PERCENTAGE BASIS OF EVALUATION, THE COMPARATIVE RATINGS AND THE POSITION OF THE TOP FIVE OFFERORS WERE AS FOLLOWS: FIRM PRICE TOTAL WT. PRICE WT. TECH. WT: EXP. WT:* ---- ----- --------- ------

A $28,492 68 PERCENT 32 PERCENT 24 PERCENT 12 PERCENT

B59,826 62 PERCENT 9 PERCENT 31 PERCENT 22 PERCENT

C 33,900 52 PERCENT 26 PERCENT 21 PERCENT 5 PERCENT

D 29,592 52 PERCENT 29 PERCENT 8 PERCENT 15 PERCENT

E 76,277 51 PERCENT 5 PERCENT 29 PERCENT 17 PERCENT

* PASSING MARK 17 (APPROX. 50 PERCENT OF 35 PERCENT WEIGHT FACTOR).

** PASSING MARK 15 (APPROX. 50 PERCENT OF 30 PERCENT WEIGHT FACTOR).

THE FACT THAT THE HIGHEST EVALUATED AND LOWEST PRICED PROPOSAL WAS TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE, AT A HIGHLY FAVORABLE PRICE, AND HAD RECEIVED A MARK ONLY SLIGHTLY BELOW THE PASSING GRADE FOR EXPERIENCE, RESULTED IN THE FINDING THAT IT WARRANTED FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT DISCUSSIONS HELD WITH THAT PROPOSER ON DECEMBER 10, 1968, RESULTED IN A FINDING THAT IT WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE SOURCE. DISCUSSIONS WERE THEN HELD WITH THE NEXT HIGHEST EVALUATED PROPOSER, ITT, ON DECEMBER 17, 1968, WHICH RESULTED IN CONFIRMATION OF THE INITIAL EVALUATION AS TO ITS FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIVES AND THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED AND THE ADEQUACY OF ITS EXPERIENCE. CONTRACT NO. N00140-69-C-0203 WAS THEREUPON AWARDED TO ITT ON JANUARY 17, 1969, ON ITS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

THE BASIS FOR YOUR PROTEST IS TWOFOLD, NAMELY: (1) THE AWARD PRICE WAS 1.76 TIMES THE PRICE QUOTED BY METRON ($59,826 V. $33,900); (2) THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY FOR NOT AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO YOUR FIRM ARE COMPLETELY INACCURATE AND UNACCEPTABLE.

THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT WAS NEGOTIATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF 10 U.S.C. 2304 (A) (10), AS IMPLEMENTED BY PARAGRAPH 3-210.2 (VIII) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR). SECTION 2302, TITLE 10 U.S.C., DEFINES THE TERM "NEGOTIATE" AS MEANING TO "MAKE WITHOUT FORMAL ADVERTISING.' THEREFORE, WHEN NEGOTIATION IS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 2304 (A), THE EXTENT AND METHOD OF NEGOTIATION IS ORDINARILY LEFT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, AND THE RULES OF FORMALLY ADVERTISED COMPETITIVE BIDDING ARE NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, 10 U.S.C. 2304 (G) PROVIDES THAT NEGOTIATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED AS FOLLOWS:

"/G) IN ALL NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS IN EXCESS OF $2,500 IN WHICH RATES OR PRICES ARE NOT FIXED BY LAW OR REGULATION AND IN WHICH TIME OF DELIVERY WILL PERMIT, PROPOSALS SHALL BE SOLICITED FROM THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF QUALIFIED SOURCES CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUPPLIES OR SERVICES TO BE PROCURED, AND WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHO SUBMIT PROPOSALS WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE, PRICE, AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION WITH RESPECT TO WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS NEED NOT BE APPLIED TO PROCUREMENTS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTHORIZED SET-ASIDE PROGRAMS OR TO PROCUREMENTS WHERE IT CAN BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED FROM THE EXISTENCE OF ADEQUATE COMPETITION OR ACCURATE PRIOR COST EXPERIENCE WITH THE PRODUCT, THAT ACCEPTANCE OF AN INITIAL PROPOSAL WITHOUT DISCUSSION WOULD RESULT IN FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICES AND WHERE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOTIFIES ALL OFFERORS OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSION.'

THE STATUTE THUS PERMITS NEGOTIATED AWARDS TO BE MADE IN APPROPRIATE CASES WITHOUT WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS, BUT WE HAVE CONSTRUED THESE PROVISIONS AS REQUIRING THAT IF DISCUSSIONS BE CONDUCTED WITH ONE OF THE OFFERORS, THEN DISCUSSIONS SHALL ALSO BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHOSE PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED. ALSO, ASPR 3-805.1 (A) (V) REQUIRES THAT "IN ANY CASE WHERE THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE PRICING OR TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF ANY PROPOSALS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL NOT MAKE AWARD WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLORATION AND DISCUSSION PRIOR TO AWARD.' THE FACT THE ULTIMATE CONTRACT PRICE IS NOT THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IN THE AWARD DETERMINATION, OR THAT THE AWARD IS TO BE MADE TO THE OFFEROR SUBMITTING THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL ON A BASIS OTHER THAN PRICE, DOES NOT, IN OUR OPINION, RELIEVE THE AGENCY FROM ITS PRIMARY STATUTORY DUTY TO CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS SUBMITTING PROPOSALS WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED COMPETITIVE. CF. 46 COMP. GEN. 191, 192. AT THE SAME TIME, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE DETERMINATION OF COMPETITIVE RANGE, PARTICULARLY AS REGARDS TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS, IS PRIMARILY A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION WHICH WILL NOT BE DISTURBED IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING THAT SUCH DETERMINATION WAS AN ARBITRARY ABUSE OF DISCRETION. B-164313, JULY 5, 1968; B-164434, NOVEMBER 13, 1968, 48 COMP. GEN. -----.

YOU VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY NPONY FOR NOT AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO YOUR FIRM, WHICH WERE SUMMARIZED BY THE NAVSEEACT ON THE ORIGINAL EVALUATION AS FOLLOWS:

"OFFEROR HAS BEEN VAGUE IN DESCRIBING HOW THE RESULTS OF PHASE I OF HIS STUDY WILL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE CALIBRATION PROGRAM. THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO DISCUSS HOW THE TRANSPORTABLE QUALIFICATION PROGRAM WILL BE DEVELOPED AND THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INDICATE THE USE OF SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL OR PERSONNEL WITH THE REQUIRED ENGINEERING QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THIS STUDY.'

YOUR REBUTTAL TO THE NAVY REPORT SUMMARIZED ABOVE WAS SUBMITTED TO NAVSEEACT, WHICH RESPONDED THERETO IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

"* * * THE GOAL PORTION OF PHASE I OF METRON'S PROPOSAL WAS THOROUGHLY EVALUATED ALONG WITH ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL. THE QUOTER WAS NOT EXPECTED TO PREJUDGE THE RESULTS OF THIS PHASE OF THE STUDY. HOWEVER THE RESULTS OF THIS PHASE OF STUDY WERE TO BE DIRECTLY USABLE BY THOSE PERSONNEL EMPLOYING TEST EQUIPMENT, AS REQUIRED IN PARAGRAPH 4.2.2.1, SECTION 2.0 OF REFERENCE (A). METRON DID NOT PROPOSE TO PROVIDE A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE WITH THIS CARD OR OTHER DEVICE.- THIS DEMONSTRATES A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING, SINCE A -DEVICE- WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS IS USELESS. METRON HAS STATED THAT -A MORE COMPLETE DISCUSSION WOULD IMPLY THAT THE INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT OF PHASE I WAS NOT REQUIRED.- PROPOSING TO PROVIDE A SET OF IMPLEMENTING INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE -CARD- DOES NOT IMPLY THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PERFORM ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

"* * * THE DISCUSSION OF PHASE III IN METRON'S PROPOSAL HAS BEEN STUDIED CAREFULLY. IN STATING THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE STUDY OF QUALIFICATION SUPPORT, METRON HAS COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED ANY CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AS REQUIRED BY PART (A), PARAGRAPH 4.2.2.3, SECTION 2.0 OF REFERENCE (A). ENVIRONMENT IS A CRUCIAL ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN DEVELOPING TEST EQUIPMENT FACILITIES TO BE UTILIZED FOR QUALIFICATION PURPOSES. THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENT IS FURTHER AMPLIFIED WHEN IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SUCH A TEST EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION BE MADE TRANSPORTABLE. SINCE ENVIRONMENT FACTORS WERE OMITTED FROM CONSIDERATION IN METRON'S PROPOSAL, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THEY DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM AS PRESENTED IN REFERENCE (A).

"TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, THE ITEMS LISTED UNDER COMPANY EXPERIENCE INDICATE AN EXTENSIVE INVOLVEMENT IN THE NAVY CALIBRATION PROGRAM. HOWEVER, READING THROUGH THE TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PHASE III OF THIS STUDY CASTS SERIOUS DOUBT ON METRON'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STUDY. ITEM ONE OF THE COMPANY EXPERIENCE INDICATES THAT METRON HAS INSTRUCTED PERSONNEL IN THE USE OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF TEST EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ACCURACY OF VARIOUS TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS AND GAUGES. THIS DOES NOT INDICATE THAT METRON IS KNOWLEDGEABLE IN ALL MEASUREMENT AREAS OF CALIBRATION-, AS THEY HAVE STATED IN REFERENCE (C) (YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 24, 1969, ADDRESSED TO CONTRACTING OFFICER). ITEMS TWO AND THREE INDICATE A KNOWLEDGE OF THE USE OF THE PHASE A, B, C AND D QUALIFICATION EQUIPMENT AS IT PERTAINS TO MAKING VARIOUS MEASUREMENTS, AND IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT METRON IS THOROUGHLY KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE NAVY CALIBRATION PROGRAM. THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE LIST ARE LACKING IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL NECESSARY TO DETERMINE HOW THE EXPERIENCE OBTAINED IN THIS WORK WOULD APPLY TO THIS STUDY.

"AN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE NAVY RECALL SYSTEM IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THIS STUDY. ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A BETTER, MORE RESPONSIVE SYSTEM OF CALIBRATION RECALL. METRON'S INVOLVEMENT IN AUDIT STUDIES DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THEY ARE IDEALLY SUITED FOR THIS STUDY. AUDIT IS MERELY AN EXAMINATION OF A SITUATION AND A PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS REQUESTED A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE SOLUTION TO VARIOUS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAVELEX (NAVAL ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS COMMAND) ELECTRONIC TEST EQUIPMENT PROGRAM. AN AUDIT OFFERS NO SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND THEREFORE DOES NOT PROVIDE METRON WITH ANY PECULIARLY VALUABLE EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS WITH RESPECT TO THIS STUDY. BASED ON THE MATERIAL PROVIDED IN METRON'S PROPOSAL, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT METRON HAS FAILED TO GRASP THE FULL SCOPE OF THE STUDY DESIRED. "* * * WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THERE WAS NO EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING PERSONNEL, SUBMITTAL OF SUCH INFORMATION WAS IMPLIED ON PAGE 14 OF REFERENCE (A). (RFQ) ALL QUOTERS SUBMITTED INFORMATION CONCERNING PERSONNEL. THIS INFORMATION WAS MOST VALUABLE IN DETERMINING WHICH QUOTER SHOWED THE MOST PROMISE OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN FACT, IT IS TO THE QUOTER'S ADVANTAGE TO PROVIDE SUCH INFORMATION, SINCE IT FURTHER DEMONSTRATES HIS ABILITY TO PERFORM. BASED ON THE SKETCHY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THEIR PROPOSAL WITH REGARD TO PERSONNEL, METRON CORPORATION WAS JUDGED UNABLE TO PERFORM IN A CAPACITY EQUAL TO EIGHT OF THE OTHER QUOTERS WHO RESPONDED TO REFERENCE (A).

"* * * METRON HAS MISINTERPRETED THE STATEMENT MADE. * * * -* * * YOUR PROPOSAL DID NOT INDICATE THE USE OF * * * PERSONNEL WITH THE REQUIRED ENGINEERING QUALIFICATIONS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THIS STUDY.- THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT SAY THAT METRON'S PERSONNEL ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THIS STUDY. IT DOES SAY THAT METRON DID NOT PROVIDE FACTS WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PERSONNEL POSSESS THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN METRON'S PROPOSAL IS IN SUCH GENERAL TERMS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSONNEL ARE. ALL THAT CAN BE DETERMINED IS THAT THE PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE NAVY CALIBRATION PROGRAM FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME. NOWHERE IS IT STATED THAT ANY OF THE PERSONNEL HOLD A DEGREE FROM ANY RECOGNIZED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING. SUCH AN EDUCATION IS A VALUABLE PART OF A PERSON'S EXPERIENCE AND HELPS ESTABLISH HIS ABILITY TO PERFORM. BASED UPON THE LACK OF SUCH INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO PERSONNEL, METRON CORPORATION WAS JUDGED UNABLE TO PERFORM IN A CAPACITY EQUAL TO EIGHT OF THE OTHER QUOTERS WHICH RESPONDED TO REFERENCE (A).'

IN VIEW OF THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF THE DETERMINATIONS, OUR LACK OF EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA, AND THE WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION VESTED IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICIALS, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE CONSTITUTED A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL PROPOSALS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN EVALUATED ON THE SAME BASIS, USING THE SAME CRITERIA.

SINCE AWARD HAS BEEN IN GOOD FAITH, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE ACTION TAKEN CONSUMMATED A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. WHILE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS PRECLUDE FURTHER ACTION ON OUR PART IN THIS MATTER, WE ARE BY LETTER OF TODAY SUGGESTING TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY THAT IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATION, AND THE WEIGHTS TO BE GIVEN TO THE SEVERAL FACTORS, WHERE SUCH AN EVALUATION FORMULA IS TO BE FOLLOWED, BE STATED IN THE SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS.