BNUMBER:  B-271821; B-271821.2
DATE:  August 22, 1996
TITLE:  Sigmatech, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Sigmatech, Inc.

File:     B-271821; B-271821.2

Date:August 22, 1996

Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and David A. Vogel, Esq., 
Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for the protester.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Carol P. Rosenbaum, Esq., Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency reasonably determined that offerors were required to have 
experience with particular weapon systems supported by contract, and 
protester's assertion that its experience with other weapon systems 
should have been considered equivalent reflects mere disagreement with 
the agency's judgment.
 
2.  Agency reasonably concluded that overall level of personnel 
proposed by protester was inadequate to meet the government's 
requirements under a task order contract where protester's proposed 
staffing level was based on the unrealistic assumption that the 
government's requirements would be met through a steady-state level of 
effort equal to an average of the total contract requirements.  

3.  Where awardees each proposed over three times more personnel with 
demonstrated experience supporting the weapons systems to be supported 
by this contract than did the protester, and solicitation provided 
that an offeror's evaluated capabilities to perform the contract 
requirements was significantly more important than any other 
evaluation factor, there is no basis to conclude that protester's 
slightly lower-cost proposal offered greater value to the government 
than awardees' proposals. 

4.  Where solicitation provided that failure to demonstrate relevant 
experience would be a negative evaluation factor, agency's advice 
during pre-proposal conference that offerors' abilities to 
affirmatively demonstrate such experience would be an enhancement did 
not mislead offerors so as to warrant sustaining the protest.  

DECISION

Sigmatech, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's contract awards 
to Dynamics Research Corporation (DRC), Decisions and Advanced 
Technology Associates, Inc. (DATA) and System Dynamics International, 
Inc. (SDI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAJ09-95-R-0608.  
The RFP sought support services for the Army's Aviation and Troop 
Command (ATCOM) and Program Executive Office (PEO) in connection with 
the Programmatic and Technical Support (PATS) III program.  Sigmatech 
maintains that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as 
unacceptable, and asserts that its proposal should have been assessed 
as offering greater value to the government than those of the 
awardees.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND   

On September 22, 1995, the Army issued the solicitation at issue 
here.[1]  The RFP contemplated the award of multiple 
cost-reimbursement task order contracts to provide programmatic 
support for specified ATCOM/PEO weapons systems.  Specifically, the 
RFP stated:  "the Government contemplates up to three awards (full and 
open, small business, 8a),"[2] and established a minimum value of 
$300,000 and an estimated maximum value of $33 million for each 
contract.  

Section M of the RFP states that proposals would be evaluated in three 
areas--capabilities, past performance, and cost--and that capabilities 
were significantly more important than past performance, which was, in 
turn, more important than cost.  Regarding evaluation of offerors' 
capabilities, section M states: 

     "This Evaluation Area is used to gauge the Government's 
     perception of the ability of a Contractor to successfully 
     complete the diverse and potentially complex work likely to be 
     tasked under the SOW in support of multiple weapon systems set 
     forth in Attachment 2."[3]

Section M further established three factors to be considered in 
evaluating offerors' capabilities:  corporate capabilities, corporate 
historical experience, and key personnel.  With regard to key 
personnel, the RFP required offerors to submit resumes for the prime 
and subcontractor personnel being proposed, stating that up to 200 
resumes could be submitted.  Regarding evaluation of key personnel, 
section M stated:

     "The Government plans to evaluate that the offeror has identified 
     sufficient personnel with ample qualifications to perform 
     applicable tasks/capabilities delineated by the Core Competencies 
     set forth in Exhibit F[[4]] and the SOW[[5]] for the future 
     support requirements of the weapon systems set forth in 
     Attachment 2."

The RFP states that proposals must be considered acceptable under each 
factor to be eligible for award and provides that awards would be 
based on the proposals offering the best value to the government, all 
factors considered.

On October 17, the agency conducted a pre-proposal conference during 
which it provided answers to various questions concerning the 
procurement.  Although not incorporated into the solicitation, the 
record of the pre-proposal conference was subsequently provided to 
offerors.  Nine proposals were submitted by the November 9 closing 
date, including the proposals of Sigmatech, DRC, DATA, and SDI.  
Technical proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation 
board (SSEB) using an adjectival rating system of exceptional (E), 
very good (VG), acceptable (A) and unacceptable (U).  With regard to 
cost proposals, the agency assigned a most probable cost to each 
proposal and assessed an associated cost risk.  The proposals of 
Sigmatech and the three awardees were rated as follows:

                    DRC       SDI       DATA      Sigmatech 

Capabilities        E         E-        E-/VG+    U           
Past Performance    VG        A         VG        E
Most Probable Cost  $36.969   $38.289   $35.795   $35.773
(in millions)
Cost Risk           low       low       low       low

Sigmatech's proposal was evaluated as unacceptable in the area of 
capabilities based on its failure to identify sufficient personnel to 
perform the contract requirements.  Specifically, the SSEB report 
concluded:

     "Sigmatech provided 76 resumes of individuals representing 
     limited depth of programmatic expertise relative to the 
     applicable SOW/Core Competencies/Weapons Systems . . . .  
     Sigmatech has limited capability (depth or breadth) demonstrated 
     in any aviation or troop weapon systems[[6]]. . . .  The 
     Sigmatech proposal does not demonstrate adequate resources to 
     respond to most Government requirements . . . .  Sigmatech is a 
     small disadvantaged 8(a) business and would be required to 
     perform at least 50% of the labor as the prime."

In contrast, the SSEB concluded that DRC's proposal provided 134 
resumes and "documented depth and breadth of capability in all weapon 
systems"; that SDI's proposal provided 155 resumes demonstrating 
"outstanding aviation system capability in all aviation weapon 
systems"; and that DATA's proposal provided 159 resumes demonstrating 
"experience in all aviation weapon systems."[7]  

On April 8, the agency selected DRC, DATA and SDI for contract 
awards.[8]  On April 19, Sigmatech filed an initial protest with our 
Office which it supplemented on May 9.  

DISCUSSION

Sigmatech protests the agency's determination that its proposal failed 
to include sufficient personnel with adequate capabilities to perform 
the contract requirements.  First, Sigmatech maintains that the agency 
should have considered the experience of Sigmatech's personnel with 
systems other than ATCOM/PEO systems, including missile systems, to be 
equivalent to experience with the ATCOM/PEO systems.  Second, 
Sigmatech challenges the agency's determination that 76 persons was an 
inadequate staffing level, arguing that the 76 resumes submitted in 
its proposal represented the maximum number of people that could be 
required to perform the contract.[9]  Overall, Sigmatech maintains 
that the qualifications of the personnel it proposed should have been 
considered more than adequate to respond to the government's 
requirements and that, as a result, its low-cost proposal offered 
greater value to the government than the awardees' proposals.  
The agency responds that offerors' demonstrated experience with the 
ATCOM/PEO weapon systems supported by this contract was considered to 
be the most reliable indicator of an offeror's capabilities to 
successfully perform the contract requirements.[10]  Accordingly, 
Sigmatech's limited experience with ATCOM/PEO weapon systems, combined 
with the low overall level of personnel it proposed, resulted in the 
unacceptable rating.  

In explaining that the alternative experience demonstrated by 
Sigmatech's personnel was inadequate, the agency relied on the unique 
complexities of the ATCOM/PEO weapon systems at issue, explaining 
generally: 

     "Multiple ATCOM/PEO, Aviation requirers anticipate programmatic 
     efforts in support of complex weapon systems which require a high 
     degree of technical understanding in order to accomplish the 
     required coordination and support with minimum expenditure of 
     time and resources . . . .  Knowledge of the mission of the 
     system, critical performance parameters and at least a working 
     knowledge of subsystems, qualification and testing requirements, 
     as well as eventual operation utilization are essential to 
     successful execution of a program.  This is especially true for 
     aviation systems since they are an integral part of the total 
     battlefield . . . .  Understanding the technical issues, system 
     operation, and development status is critical to providing risk 
     mitigation in establishment of acquisition strategy.  Aviation 
     systems are the most complex and diversified of all the DOD 
     systems."   

More specifically, the agency referenced the unique technical and 
engineering aspects of certain weapon systems to be supported, 
including the Comanche and the Kiowa Warrior, stating that a working 
knowledge of the subsystems, qualification and testing requirements, 
and eventual operational utilization of these systems is critical for 
successful contractor performance.  Due to the unique aspects of the 
ATCOM/PEO weapon systems, the agency concluded that Sigmatech's 
alternative experience, including its missile system experience, was 
not an adequate substitute to ensure successful performance.  

Regarding the overall level of personnel proposed by Sigmatech, the 
agency explains that Sigmatech's assertion that it can adequately 
perform the contract with 76 people is based on an unrealistic 
assumption that the task order requirements of this contract will be 
met by providing a steady-state level of effort equal to an arithmetic 
average of the maximum contract requirements; further, the skill mix 
reflected in the task order requirements would have to precisely match 
the skill mix of Sigmatech's proposed personnel.  The agency asserts 
that Sigmatech's assumptions are particularly unrealistic in the 
context of this procurement where, as discussed in the solicitation, 
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) has recommended 
that the ATCOM/PEO aviation missions and functions be transferred to 
other locations during the anticipated term of the contract.  The 
agency explains that this transfer activity is likely to require the 
contractors to provide simultaneous responses to complex tasks in 
multiple locations, thereby requiring substantially more direct labor 
at certain times than an arithmetic average of the overall contract 
requirements.  In short, the agency maintains that rather than 
reflecting the maximum number of individuals that could be required to 
perform the contract, Sigmatech's proposed level of personnel would be 
adequate to meet the government's requirements only under a set of 
unrealistic circumstances.  Accordingly, the agency maintains that it 
properly evaluated Sigmatech's proposal as unacceptable.  

Procuring agencies are generally in the best position to determine 
their actual requirements and the best method for meeting them.  In 
reviewing protests challenging technical evaluations, our Office will 
not substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we will 
review the record to determine whether the agency's actions were 
reasonable and consistent with the listed criteria and whether there 
were violations of procurement statutes or regulations.  See, e.g., 
Facilities Management Co., Inc., B-259731.2, May 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
274; RMS Indus., B-247233; B-247234, May 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  412.   

Here, we find no basis to question the agency's subjective 
determination that demonstrated experience with the relevant ATCOM/PEO 
systems constitutes the most reliable indicator of an offeror's 
capability to perform the contract and that the alternative experience 
of Sigmatech's personnel was insufficient.  In making its 
determination, the agency considered its own contract experience 
supporting the ATCOM/PEO weapons systems and the complexity and unique 
requirements of the tasks to be performed.  The record provides no 
basis to question the agency's conclusion that the expertise 
demonstrated by Sigmatech personnel with respect to alternative 
weapons systems was not an adequate substitute to ensure successful 
contract performance.  Sigmatech's contrary assertion merely reflects 
its disagreement with the agency's judgment, which provides no basis 
for sustaining the protest.  Calspan Corp., B-258441, Jan. 19, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  para.  28.

Even if Sigmatech's proposed personnel had demonstrated adequate 
experience with the ATCOM/PEO weapons systems, or equivalent 
expertise, the overall level of personnel it proposed was reasonably 
evaluated as inadequate to meet the contract requirements.  Using 
Sigmatech's own calculations, the record shows that the level of 
personnel it proposed would meet the government's potential tasking 
requirements only in the event those requirements did not exceed an 
arithmetic average of the total requirements and were distributed by 
skill and experience in a manner matching the skill and experience of 
Sigmatech's proposed personnel.[11]  We believe the agency reasonably 
determined that successful contract performance would require 
performance by some personnel who were not dedicated on a full time 
basis to this contract.  In short, where Sigmatech's own calculations 
demonstrate that it proposed only enough personnel to match the total 
number of staff years that could be required, we cannot question the 
agency's determination that Sigmatech's proposed level of personnel 
was inadequate.  

In any event, our review of the proposals, along with the 
solicitation's evaluation scheme, leads us to conclude that, even if 
Sigmatech's proposal had been considered acceptable in the area of 
capabilities, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that it 
represented the best value to the government.  The record shows that 
each of the awardees' proposals demonstrated significantly greater 
capabilities in the context of the contract requirements.  Most 
importantly, each of the awardees proposed over three times the level 
of personnel demonstrating relevant experience with the ATCOM/PEO 
weapons systems than was proposed by Sigmatech.[12]  Based on our 
review, we conclude that the level of capabilities demonstrated by the 
personnel uniquely offered by each of the awardees, augmented by the 
capabilities of the "shared personnel," was substantially superior to 
the capabilities demonstrated by Sigmatech's proposed personnel.  
Similarly, with regard to corporate historical experience, another 
evaluation factor under the capabilities area, each of the awardees 
and their proposed subcontractors demonstrated significantly greater 
experience than did Sigmatech.[13]  

The solicitation provided that an offeror's capabilities to perform 
the contract requirements would be "significantly" more important than 
its evaluated past performance which, in turn, would be more important 
than cost.  In light of this evaluation scheme, even if Sigmatech's 
proposal had been rated acceptable in the area of capabilities, its 
higher past performance rating and slightly lower cost could not 
reasonably be considered to offset the awardees' clear superiority in 
the "significantly" more important evaluation area of capabilities.  
Accordingly, there is no reasonable basis to challenge the conclusion 
that the awardees' proposals offered the best value to the 
government.[14]  

Finally, Sigmatech protests that it was misled during the pre-proposal 
conference regarding the importance the agency intended to place on 
ATCOM/PEO weapon systems experience.  In this regard, Sigmatech 
references the following question and answer provided by the agency:
  
     "Q.Do [contractor] personnel have to have experience supporting 
        the weapon systems shown at [attachment] 2, or is experience 
        with similar systems to be considered equivalent?  Will not 
        having the experience on the specific weapon systems be a 
        negative evaluation consideration?

     A. Experience on weapon systems shown at [attachment] 2 is deemed 
        of value to the Government and will be considered as an 
        enhancement in the evaluation."[15]

Sigmatech asserts that the agency's response constituted a statement 
that it would not consider an offeror's lack of ATCOM/PEO weapon 
systems experience as a negative evaluation consideration.  

As noted above, section M of the solicitation specifically advised 
offerors that, in evaluating key personnel, the agency would assess 
whether each offeror "identified sufficient personnel with ample 
qualifications to perform applicable tasks/capabilities . . . for the 
future support requirements of the weapon systems set forth in 
Attachment 2."  Similarly, in describing the evaluation of corporate 
historical experience, another factor under capabilities, the 
solicitation stated, "inability to show corporate historical 
experience that the [agency] deems germane to the SOW(atch 1)/core 
competencies (ExhF)/current ATCOM PEO, Aviation, weapon systems (Atch 
2) will be a negative consideration in the assignment of an adjectival 
descriptor for the Capabilities Evaluation Area."  (Emphasis added.)

In light of this language, we believe the solicitation reasonably put 
offerors on notice that a lack of ATCOM/PEO weapons systems experience 
would be a negative evaluation factor.  We do not believe the agency's 
statement that an offeror's affirmative demonstration of such 
experience would also be considered an enhancement contradicts the RFP 
provision that the absence of such experience would be a negative 
factor.  While the agency's response to the question may not have been 
a model of clarity, it does not provide a basis for sustaining the 
protest.  

The protest is denied.  

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. At that time, the agency also issued two other solicitations 
relating to the PATS III program--one for technical support and one 
for logistical support.  Contracts awarded under those solicitations 
are not at issue in this protest.

2."8a" refers to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  
637(a) (1994), which provides for contract awards to small 
disadvantaged business concerns.  

3. The ATCOM/PEO weapon systems listed in attachment 2 included:  
various helicopter systems including the Apache, Kiowa Warrior, 
Comanche RAH-66, Cobra, UH-1, as well as "utility helicopters," and 
"light observation helicopters"; various special operations aircraft; 
all army fixed-wing aircraft; and various transportation systems, 
bridging equipment, water equipment, and environmental systems.  

4. Exhibit F identified various core competencies likely to be 
required, including:  aerospace engineering, metallurgy, composite 
materials engineering, computer resources engineering, and 
financial/cost management.

5. The statement of work contemplated a broad range of tasks 
including:  resource management support, cost estimating and analysis, 
schedule development and assessment, plans and integration, strategic 
planning analysis, and engineering data and configuration management 
support.  

6. In assessing "depth" of personnel, the agency considered the number 
of individuals that had relevant experience and were otherwise 
qualified; in assessing "breadth" of proposed personnel, the agency 
considered the number of competencies and systems in which the 
offeror's personnel demonstrated experience and expertise.  

7. The total number of resumes listed for each offeror in the SSEB 
report was slightly different than the numbers subsequently verified 
by the agency as having been submitted.  After reviewing the file, the 
agency subsequently concluded that DRC had actually submitted 3 more 
resumes (137) that SDI had submitted 1 less resume (154) and that DATA 
had submitted 5 less resumes (154).

8. DRC was awarded the contract for which all offerors were 
considered.  SDI was awarded the contract for which only small 
businesses were considered.  DATA was awarded the contract for which 
only 8(a) firms were considered.  Sigmatech, a certified 8(a) firm, 
was eligible to be considered for each of the contracts.

9. Sigmatech bases its assertions regarding total manning requirements 
by dividing the contract value of $33 million by [deleted ]concluding 
that [deleted] is the maximum number of contract hours that could be 
required.  Sigmatech then divides that total contract hours by 
[deleted] to conclude that no more than 380 man years could be 
required.  It then divides total manyears by the 5-year contract 
period to conclude that no more than 76 individuals will be required 
to perform the contract.  

10. The contracting officer explains that, in the two preceding PATS 
contracts, offerors' capabilities were evaluated on the basis of 
"rhetorical responses" to the statements of work and narrative 
descriptions of proposed approaches to theoretical tasks, and that 
evaluation of offerors' capabilities based on such input had not 
always been accurate.  Accordingly, in structuring this solicitation, 
the agency intentionally provided that offerors' demonstrated 
accomplishments would be given greater consideration in evaluating 
their capabilities.  Thus, section M of the solicitation put offerors 
on notice that the agency would be evaluating offerors' capabilities 
to support the specific weapons systems listed at RFP attachment 2, 
and that demonstrated experience with those particular systems was of 
vital importance to the agency.

11. Sigmatech's calculations also make no allowance for non-productive 
employee time such as vacation, sick leave, and time spent performing 
activities not properly billed to the contract.

12. Sigmatech argues that the number of resumes submitted by each of 
the awardees is not a valid indicator of their individual capabilities 
because some of the resumes were included in more than one proposal, 
thereby indicating that those individuals will not be dedicated full 
time to each offeror.  However, even when considering only the resumes 
"unique" to each proposal, each awardee's proposed personnel 
demonstrate substantially greater experience with ATCOM/PEO weapons 
system than Sigmatech's proposed personnel.  Further, proposals 
reflecting "shared personnel" are consistent with the realistic 
assumption that not all individuals will be dedicated on a full time 
basis to a given contract. 

13. With regard to corporate historical experience, the RFP required 
offerors to list each of the government contracts performed by the 
offeror and its subcontractors during the preceding three years, in 
which billings exceeded $100,000.  The listings of DRC and its 10 
subcontractors exceeded those of Sigmatech and its 4 subcontractors by 
45 percent.  The listings of SDI and its 15 subcontractors also 
exceeded those of Sigmatech and its subcontractors by 45 percent.  The 
listings of DATA and its 12 subcontractors exceeded those of Sigmatech 
and its subcontractors by 35 percent.         

14. Sigmatech also argues that it was facially unreasonable for the 
agency to evaluate its proposal as exceptional in the area of past 
performance and unacceptable in the area of capabilities.  We 
disagree.  As the agency points out, evaluation in the area of past 
performance considered only the quality of the offeror's performance 
history and did not assess the relevance of that prior performance to 
the requirements of this solicitation.  In contrast, the agency's 
evaluation in the area of offerors' capabilities, which included the 
corporate historical experience and key personnel factors, focused on 
the ability of the offeror to perform the particular requirements of 
this solicitation.

15. This question and answer was one of over 160 provided to the 
offerors as part of the pre-proposal conference record.  Although the 
record was not formally incorporated into the solicitation, our Office 
has stated that:  "where . . . an agency disseminates written 
responses to offerors' questions during the course of a procurement, 
even where the questions and answers are not expressly incorporated 
into the RFP, the agency is bound by its responses, where they are not 
inconsistent with the RFP and one or more of the offerors would be 
prejudiced if the agency does not adhere to its statements."  Meridian 
Management Corp.; Consolidated Eng'g Servs., Inc., B-271557 et al., 
July 29, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.     .