BNUMBER:  B-270241; B-270241.2; B-270241.3
DATE:  February 12, 1996
TITLE:  System Resources Corporation

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

Matter of:System Resources Corporation

File:     B-270241; B-270241.2; B-270241.3

Date:     February 12, 1996

John S. Pachter, Esq., Christina M. Pirrello, Esq., and Jonathan D. 
Shaffer, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, for the 
protester.
Craig D. Haughtelin, Esq., Department of Navy, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.   Where solicitation required offerors to submit resumes showing 
that key personnel met specified educational and experience 
qualifications, agency reasonably determined that resumes lacking 
sufficient information to establish qualifications were 
unsatisfactory.  Protester cannot cure insufficiencies by furnishing 
clarifying or missing information as part of its protest submissions.

2.  Where award is made on the basis of initial proposals and, in 
accordance with solicitation provisions, protester's unsatisfactory 
key personnel render its proposal unacceptable, the protester is not 
an interested party to challenge other aspects of  the agency's 
evaluation. 

DECISION

Systems Resources Corporation (SRC) protests the award of a contract 
to EER Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N68936-95-R-0001, a small disadvantaged business set-aside issued by 
the Department of the Navy for weapons and software system support for 
certain aircraft systems.  SRC protests the agency's evaluation of its 
management/technical and cost proposals, the evaluation of EER's 
proposal as "exceptional," and the cost/technical tradeoff.

We deny the protest.

The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division is the weapons system 
support activity (WSSA) and system software support activity for all 
aircraft assigned to it.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a 
cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, 
level-of-effort contract to provide system engineering services, 
test/simulation facility support, software design and development, 
WSSA program office technical support, and flight test support for 
each of the assigned operational aircraft.  These services include 
resolving software problems, implementing enhancements and new 
capabilities, writing and testing software for on-board embedded 
computer systems, and test and integration of new or revised weapons 
and avionics systems.

Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of cost and five 
management/technical factors:  (1) management plans; (2) technical 
knowledge and technical management processes; (3) past performance 
risk assessment; (4) resumes of key personnel; and (5) technical 
processes.  Cost was to be evaluated on the basis of realism, 
reflection of a clear understanding of the requirements, and 
consistency with the management/technical proposal.  Overall, 
management/technical factors were of greater importance than cost.  
Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the 
best value to the government.  The RFP provided that the Navy intended 
to award the contract on the basis of initial proposals, without 
discussions.  The RFP advised offerors to submit initial proposals 
containing their best terms from a cost and technical standpoint.

Three offerors, including SRC and EER, submitted proposals.  A source 
evaluation board performed a technical and cost realism evaluation of 
all three proposals.  Proposals were rated as exceptional, 
satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory, and of low, moderate, and 
high risk.  The results were as follows:

Factors        SRC          EER         Offeror 3

Factor 1 (Risk)Marginal (Moderate)Exceptional (Low)Satisfactory 
                                        (Moderate)

Factor 2 (Risk)Marginal (High)Exceptional (Low)Marginal (High)

Factor 3       Moderate     Low         Moderate

Factor 4 (Risk)Unsatisfactory (High)Exceptional (Low)Unsatisfactory 
                                        (High)

Factor 5 (Risk)Satisfactory (Moderate)Exceptional (Low)Satisfactory 
                                        (Moderate)

Evaluated Cost $88 million  $105 million [1]$104 million
The source selection advisory council presented the evaluation 
findings to the source selection authority (SSA) and recommended award 
to EER as offering the best value.  The council's findings included 
the determination that only EER's proposal was acceptable as 
submitted.  The council also found that even if the management plans 
and key personnel deficiencies of the other offerors were corrected, 
their lack of technical knowledge and related contract experience 
represented uncorrectable weaknesses.  The council reasoned that the 
slight cost difference between EER and Offeror 3 was outweighed by 
EER's overall technical excellence.  While SRC had a lower evaluated 
cost than EER, the council determined that SRC's significant 
management/technical weaknesses would result in the highest risks to 
the government in terms of quality and timeliness of products, 
potential cost overruns, and the need for significant government 
guidance to assure proper contract execution.  The SSA agreed with the 
council and found that EER's superior understanding of the 
requirements, along with its comprehensive approach strategy and 
effective management, reasonably could be expected to result in higher 
quality service and product, and thus better performance and eventual 
savings.  The Navy awarded EER the contract on October 13.  After 
receiving a debriefing, SRC filed its initial protest.  Subsequently, 
SRC filed two supplementary protests.

SRC protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal, specifically 
challenging the evaluation of its key personnel (factor 4).  Where an 
evaluation is challenged, we will examine the evaluation to ensure 
that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and 
applicable statutes and regulations, since the relative merit of 
competing proposals is primarily a matter of administrative 
discretion.  Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 284 
(1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  203.  Mere disagreement with an agency's evaluation 
does not itself render the evaluation unreasonable.  Litton Sys., 
Inc., B-237596.3, Aug. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  115.

The RFP required offerors to submit resumes for each of six identified 
key personnel.  Attachment 3 of the RFP detailed the experience and 
educational qualifications required for each of the key positions.  
Section L of the RFP provided that if the submitted resumes did not 
meet the minimum qualification requirements, the offeror would be 
considered technically unacceptable.  Section M stated that resumes 
"shall meet the minimum requirements."  In evaluating SRC's proposal, 
the evaluators determined that four of the six resumes submitted by 
SRC failed to establish that the personnel met the minimum educational 
and experience qualifications.  The unsatisfactory resumes were those 
of SRC's proposed chief engineer, local organization manager, and the 
persons with overall responsibility for software development, and 
system engineering and weapons integration.  Based on our review of 
the record we agree with the agency that the resumes found 
unsatisfactory do not contain sufficient information to establish the 
qualifications of the personnel proposed. 

For example, the local organization manager (LOM), whose duties 
include being the senior supervisor of all contract personnel, was 
required to have at least 8 years of "recent experience managing 
programs similar in nature to the requirements of this solicitation."  
The experience had to reflect the successful accomplishment of 
"increasingly complex and difficult technical and managerial efforts 
in Military Aircraft mission computer, avionics systems and software, 
and weapons systems integration."  The academic qualifications 
included a bachelor's degree in a "field closely related to the WSSA 
support services of the solicitation."  In the absence of such a 
degree, personnel could substitute "substantial managerial experience 
(a minimum of 10 years beyond the [other] experience requirement) in a 
contract operation similar in kind and size" to the statement of work.

The resume of SRC's LOM candidate showed bachelor's and master's 
degrees in fields unrelated to WSSA support services.  The resume also 
listed 1962 attendance at a university Aerospace and Missile Safety 
School, adding parenthetically "now called M.S. Systems Management 
retroactively."  The evaluators considered that "M.S." could stand for 
"missile safety" or "master of science."  In the absence of any 
bachelor's degree earned before 1962, the evaluators concluded that 
this education did not represent a qualifying accredited technical 
degree.  In reviewing the candidate's experience, the evaluators found 
that only 12 years out of 30 reflected documented, relevant 
experience.  For example, the most recent 3 years of experience was as 
a marketing/business development consultant.  The evaluators found 
that the next 12 years of experience at times included functions 
related to some degree to the RFP work, but concluded that it was 
questionable how much of it fit the requirements for experience 
managing programs similar in nature to the RFP or under contracts 
similar in kind and size to the statement of work.  The years 
preceding this experience included 2 years technical management 
concerning weapons, but did not identify any efforts supporting 
military aircraft.  Prior to that time, the candidate was a Navy 
aviator, but the resume identified no management experience.  Since, 
in the absence of the appropriate degree the resume had to show 18 
years of relevant experience, the evaluators found that 12 years of 
possibly qualifying experience failed to meet the requirement.

In its protest submissions, the protester explains that the LOM 
candidate had earned a completion certificate for a formerly 
unaccredited program, which should have been accepted as equivalent to 
a bachelor or master of science degree.  In the alternative, SRC 
provides additional detail regarding the experience listed in the 
resume.  For example, SRC notes that the candidate had 5 years of 
management assignments while in the Navy, including activities similar 
to the RFP requirements.  Although SRC now asserts that its candidate 
has ample relevant experience, the evaluators properly considered only 
information presented in the proposal.  Electronic Sys. USA, Inc., 
B-246110, Feb. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  190.  It is the protester's 
responsibility to ensure that its proposal adequately sets forth the 
expertise of its proposed staff.  The RFP advised all offerors that 
award would be made on initial proposals, without discussions, and 
that offerors should include their best terms.  Since SRC did not 
provide sufficient information for this candidate in its proposal, we 
find that the agency reasonably concluded that the LOM candidate was 
unsatisfactory.  The Scientex Corp., B-238689, Jun. 29, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  
597.  

We reach the same conclusion with regard to SRC's candidate for the 
position of software development department manager, the employee with 
overall responsibility for software development.  This manager was 
required to have at least 8 years of experience at the chief 
engineer/scientist or senior engineer/scientist level, at least 3 of 
which "must have been in positions of responsible technical management 
of software development programs similar in nature" to the RFP 
requirements.  This experience was also required to "reflect the 
successful accomplishment of increasingly complex and difficult 
technical efforts in Military Aircraft software development."    

We have reviewed the resume of SRC's candidate for this position and 
note that the "summary" identifies experience with military aircraft 
software and indicates some management responsibilities, but it does 
not identify how long the candidate performed in a management 
capacity.  Under "employment history," the resume shows 9 years of 
experience with the incumbent contractor as a senior scientist, but it 
does not identify any management responsibilities.  The resume 
reflects an additional 9 years of experience including management 
responsibilities.  However, the technical work concerned software for 
nuclear power plant simulators and various tasks (programming, 
verification, etc.) which did not include any connection with military 
aircraft software development.  Based on this resume, the evaluators 
reasonably concluded that the candidate lacked the requisite 3 years 
of relevant management experience in software development efforts 
similar in nature to the RFP requirements.

As with the LOM candidate's resume, the protester has submitted 
additional explanatory information, including a statement from the 
candidate's supervisor detailing the candidate's more than 3 years of 
management experience with the incumbent contractor as a functional 
team leader.  As before, since this information was not in the resume, 
submitted with the initial proposal, it cannot now be used to 
establish the acceptability of the candidate.  Electronic Sys. USA, 
Inc., supra.

SRC also challenges the validity of other deficiencies identified at 
its debriefing, the agency's upward adjustment of certain of its 
costs, and the cost/technical tradeoff.  It further alleges that 
giving EER additional evaluation credit for teaming with the incumbent 
contractor, while downgrading SRC's proposal for not proposing the 
incumbent, represented an undisclosed evaluation criterion.  We will 
not consider these remaining issues since, under our Bid Protest 
Regulations, a party is not interested to maintain a protest if it 
would not be in line for award if the protest were sustained.  
Sections 21.0(a) and 21.1(a), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,739-40,740 (to 
be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a) and 21.1(a)); Peterson Constr. Co., 
B-256841, Aug. 3, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  55.   The RFP provided that 
proposals containing resumes that did not meet the minimum 
qualification requirements would be considered technically 
unacceptable, and we have determined that the evaluators reasonably 
concluded that four of SRC's resumes were unsatisfactory.  An 
unsatisfactory rating under this factor rendered SRC's proposal 
unacceptable for award.[2]  While EER is the sole acceptable offeror, 
SRC has only challenged the "exceptional" rating of its proposal, not 
its acceptability.  Thus, even if we were to sustain SRC's remaining 
protest grounds, EER's proposal would remain technically acceptable, 
and SRC's would remain unacceptable.  Accordingly, SRC would not be in 
line for award, and we will not consider these additional issues on 
the merits.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The source selection authority determined that $98.8 million 
                            represented a more realistic cost for EER 
                            based upon a cap on EER's overhead rate 
                            and use of labor market value labor rates.

2. Notwithstanding the evaluators' finding that only EER's initial 
proposal was acceptable, they presented SRC's and the third offeror's 
proposals to the SSA for consideration in a cost/technical tradeoff.  
This does not change our conclusion.  Since the agency was considering 
whether to award the contract on an initial proposal basis, we find 
reasonable the agency's decision to consider whether correction of 
deficiencies through discussions would be worthwhile.  Here, the 
agency determined that even with correction of the other offerors' 
deficiencies, EER's proposal represented the best value.  Accordingly, 
there was no need to conduct discussions and the agency properly 
awarded the contract to the only technically acceptable offeror.