BNUMBER:  B-270672
DATE:  April 8, 1996
TITLE:  Systems Application & Technologies, Inc.

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

Matter of:Systems Application & Technologies, Inc.

File:     B-270672

Date:April 8, 1996

Timothy J. Adams for the protester.
Daniel A. Laguaite, Esq., Department of  the Navy, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that experience requirements for contractor's personnel 
are unduly restrictive of competition and can only be met by incumbent 
personnel is denied where agency establishes that specific experience 
is necessary to meet its minimum needs.

2.  Contracting agency is not required to acquire and furnish to 
successful offeror commercial software purchased by incumbent 
contractor and modified to produce contract reporting requirements 
where agency asserts that it did not pay for development of the 
software, and thus has no rights to it, and protester has not shown 
otherwise.

DECISION

Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. (SA-TECH) protests 
requirements under  request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-94-R-0132, 
issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division, Patuxent 
River, Maryland, for modification management support services for its 
Naval Aviation Maintenance Office (NAMO).[1]  SA-TECH principally 
challenges the RFP's personnel experience requirements as unduly 
restrictive of competition, and also argues that the agency should 
provide certain computer software to the successful offeror.[2]

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplates the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 
base period, with 4 option years, to the lowest-cost, technically 
acceptable offeror.  The required services consist of 11 tasks which 
can be summarized as:  assembling modification kits; tracking funding 
obligations for kit assembly tasks; evaluating commercial versus Navy 
kit assembly costs; warehousing assembled kits and transporting them 
to appropriate installation sites; tracking the field inventory of 
kits; and tracking compliance with the technical directives which 
provide the field activities with the requirement and instructions for 
the installation of the kits.  

EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS

Five key labor categories are listed in the RFP, the experience 
requirements for four of which--senior logistician, logistician, 
junior logistician, and data management analyst--SA-TECH maintains are 
restrictive of competition.  Specifically, SA-TECH objects to the 
requirement that these key personnel have "Naval Air" experience with 
the modification kits; for example, for the senior logistician the RFP 
requires at least 6 years experience with "Naval Air Technical 
Directive Kit Management Procedures" and the "Naval Air Technical 
Directive Status Accounting System."
SA-TECH maintains that these requirements can only be met by personnel 
who have worked, or are currently working, on the NAMO program, and 
that they are unnecessary for successful performance.  According to 
SA-TECH, the concepts of aircraft/ship/weapon system modification are 
fairly simple, and the systems and processes are generally the same.  
SA-TECH states that it has personnel on other Navy contracts currently 
performing tasks functionally identical to this effort, who 
nevertheless would not have the required experience in "Naval Air" 
systems and procedures.  SA-TECH states that it has been unable to 
locate personnel who can meet the qualifications, and that another 
firm has obtained exclusive contingency hire agreements with the 
majority of the incumbent personnel, so those persons are not 
available to SA-TECH.

The determination of a contracting agency's minimum needs and the best 
method for accommodating them are matters primarily within the 
agency's discretion.  Tucson Mobilephone, Inc., B-250389, Jan. 29, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  79, aff'd, B-250389.2, June 21, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  472.  
This discretion extends to determining whether key personnel need to 
have experience with work of the specific nature to be performed under 
the solicitation.  See, e.g., Marine Transport Lines, Inc., 
B-224480.5, July 27, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  91.  Further, where a 
requirement relates to human safety or national defense, as here, an 
agency has the discretion to define solicitation requirements to 
achieve not just reasonable results, but the highest possible 
reliability and effectiveness.  Tucson Mobilephone, Inc., supra; 
Marine Transport Lines, Inc., supra.  Where a protester challenges 
such requirements as unduly restrictive, we will review the record to 
determine whether the restrictions imposed are reasonably related to 
the agency's minimum needs.  Id.

The experience requirements are unobjectionable.  The Navy states that 
NAMO's work is only a part of the manned aircraft modification effort; 
different organizations or levels are involved in recommending an 
aircraft modification, designing, approving, and funding the 
modification, assembling the required kit, warehousing, issuing and 
tracking the kit through the system, and installing it.  NAMO's work 
must be coordinated with these organizations in the Naval Air 
community, and this is accomplished through the use of Naval Air 
standardized systems and procedures.  The Navy maintains that the 
effort of the key individuals requires analysis, reporting, or support 
for other organizations or organizational levels, and that they must 
perform using Naval Air systems and procedures so that their efforts 
can be integrated into the larger Naval Air aircraft modification 
system.  In order to do this properly from the outset, the Navy 
determined, these individuals must be experienced with those systems 
and procedures.  While, as SA-TECH alleges, some of the NAMO functions 
are basic warehousing and inventory management, these functions are 
performed, not by the key personnel, but by warehouse workers for whom 
"Naval Air" experience is not required. 

The Navy's explanation for the requirements generally establishes that 
familiarity with Naval Air systems and procedures will facilitate 
successful performance, and the RFP's position descriptions confirm 
that the key personnel in question will in fact be involved in the 
Naval Air processes.   For example, the senior logistician is to serve 
as "the primary point of contact for obtaining Naval aviation 
modifications task progress and milestone tracking," while the 
logistician and junior logistician are to "appl[y] Naval Aviation 
Modification experience to perform functions such as kit installation 
support, Technical Directive review, configuration management support, 
Technical Directive kit quality assurance, kit requisition status, kit 
reclamation status and kit incorporation status," and also will 
provide "technical analysis, recommendations, and reports concerning 
modification management support for assigned Naval Aviation Weapon 
systems/subsystems."  SA-TECH has not shown that the work required 
does not involve substantial integration with other Naval Air 
elements; that the specific experience requirements will not further 
that aspect of performance; or that Naval Air procedures are generic 
in the sense that experience with any Navy or other military activity 
will suffice (as SA-TECH asserts).  We thus conclude that the 
experience requirements are reasonable.

The fact that SA-TECH has had difficulty finding personnel who can 
meet the Navy's qualifications, while unfortunate, is not a basis for 
challenging requirements such as these, which are reasonably related 
to the agency's needs.  See Industrial Maintenance Servs., Inc., 
B-261671 et al., Oct. 3, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  157.  The agency is not 
required to compromise its needs for the purpose of maximizing 
competition.  Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst., Inc., B-243417, July 
17, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  67.[3]

SOFTWARE  

SA-TECH argues that the agency should provide the successful offeror 
with software (which includes formats for the reports, listings, and 
graphics required to be submitted under the contract) allegedly 
developed by the incumbent contractor at government expense.  It 
claims that, otherwise, any offeror which obtains the software may 
gain an unfair competitive advantage.  However, while the Navy 
confirms that an incumbent contractor purchased commercial software 
and modified it to generate reports required under the contract, it 
states that the software was not developed as a contract requirement, 
and that the government did not pay for the software development.  The 
Navy concludes that it could not acquire the software and provide it 
to the successful offeror because it has no rights in the software.  
In support of its position that the government owns the rights to the 
software, SA-TECH cites Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement  sec.  252.227-7013(c)(2), "Rights in Technical Data and 
Computer Software (Oct. 1988)," a provision included in the incumbent 
contract which stated that the government shall have unlimited rights 
in "(ii) Computer software required to be originated or developed 
under a Government contract, or generated as a necessary part of 
performing a contract."  

We find no basis for questioning the agency's position.  The incumbent 
contract did not contain any provision requiring the contractor to 
develop the reporting software in question, and it is the agency's 
position (and the terms of the incumbent contract do not suggest 
otherwise) that the software was not necessary to perform the 
contract.  SA-TECH has furnished no evidence (besides its assertions) 
that the software in fact was developed under the circumstances 
contemplated by the provision.  Thus, even if SA-TECH is correct that 
the software may give another offeror a competitive advantage, this 
would not be an improper advantage, since it would not result from 
preferential treatment of an offeror or other unfair action by the 
government.  Skyland Scientific Servs., Inc., B-229700, Feb. 9, 1988, 
88-1 CPD  para.  129; Halifax Eng'g, Inc., B-219178.2, Sept. 30, 1985, 85-2 
CPD  para.  559.

BAD FAITH

SA-TECH claims that the Navy has engineered this procurement so that 
only the firm which offers the incumbent personnel and obtains the 
reporting software will be technically acceptable.  The Navy generally 
denies SA-TECH's charges, and specifically denies that it had any 
knowledge of contracting arrangements made by incumbent employees, or 
that it has been involved in any offeror's decision as to what 
personnel to hire.  SA-TECH offers nothing in support of its 
allegation but its report of undocumented conversations with incumbent 
personnel and its own speculation.  Absent some independent supporting 
information, there is no basis to conclude that the agency acted with 
the intent of hurting the protester, the showing that must be made in 
order to establish bad faith.  QualMed, Inc., B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 
1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  94. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. NAMO supports the naval air community in matters of aircraft 
modification, including providing centralized management for naval air 
modification kits. 

2. In its original protest, SA-TECH also argued that Federal 
Acquisition Regulation  sec.  52.222-42 required the Navy to provide wage 
rate and fringe benefit information for all labor categories expected 
to be employed under the contract, and that neither the RFP nor 
subsequent amendments provided that information.  The Navy refuted 
this allegation in its report, but SA-TECH failed to address it again 
in its comments.  We thus consider the issue abandoned and will not 
consider it.  Coulter Corp. et al., B-258713; B-258714, Feb. 13, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  para.  70.    

3. In any case, the Navy disputes SA-TECH's argument that only 
incumbent personnel could be found technically acceptable, and offers 
a long list of personnel with types of non-NAMO naval aviation 
modification or maintenance experience that it maintains would satisfy 
the experience requirements.  The Navy explains that these other 
qualified personnel are available because, although it has centralized 
the management of Naval Air modification kits, fewer than 20 percent 
of the kits are produced by NAMO; the remainder are produced at Navy 
depots or private contractor facilities.  The Navy states that it 
received three proposals by the closing date, some of which propose 
individuals other than incumbent personnel.  Although one offer was 
based almost exclusively on incumbent personnel, the agency further 
notes, some of those personnel were also offered by another offeror.