BNUMBER:  B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B-274246.5 
DATE:  August 20, 1997
TITLE: Symetrics Industries, Inc., B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B-
274246.5, August 20, 1997
**********************************************************************

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:Symetrics Industries, Inc.

File:     B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B-274246.5

Date:August 20, 1997

Edward J. Kinberg, Esq., for the protester.
Sophia L. Rafatjah, Esq., Tracor, Inc., the intervenor.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of 
the Air Force, for the agency.
Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Argument that agency was required to amend the solicitation upon 
receiving information that funds were unavailable for the purchase of 
a significant portion of an estimated quantity included in the request 
for proposals for an indefinite quantity/indefinite delivery order 
contract is sustained where the record shows that the change in 
quantity was material and there was a reasonable possibility that the 
protester was prejudiced by the agency's failure to amend the 
solicitation.

DECISION

Symetrics Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tracor, 
Inc. by the Department of the Air Force, pursuant to request for 
proposals (RFP) No. F33657-96-R-0001, issued for the purchase of Lots 
IV through VII of the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System 
(CMDS).  Symetrics argues that the evaluation of proposals was 
unreasonable because it was based on a flawed quantity estimate, which 
resulted in an improper award decision.

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

The AN/ALE-47 CMDS is an electronic warfare system used by the Army, 
Navy and Air Force to protect aircraft from hostile missile attacks.  
The system discharges chaff cartridges and decoy flares to distract 
ground-launched missiles aimed at aircraft.[1]  Five distinct line 
replaceable units (LRU) comprise the system in varying numbers and 
configurations depending on the aircraft involved.  These LRUs are a 
control-display unit, a programmer, a switch assembly, a digital 
sequencer, and a dispenser assembly.  

The RFP was issued in October 1996, and contemplated the award of a 
4-year fixed-price indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) 
contract to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the 
government.[2]  The RFP explained that the proposal with the best 
value would be "the most advantageous offer, price and other factors 
considered . . . providing the best mix of utility, technical quality, 
business aspects, risks, and price for a given application."  RFP  sec.  
M.1.0.  

The RFP advised that each proposal would be evaluated in four areas, 
in descending order of importance:  technical, schedule, 
cost/price--most probable life cycle cost, and management.  Under 
these four factors, the technical factor included four subfactors of 
equal weight:  manufacturing/quality assurance, integrated logistics 
support, systems engineering, and testing.  In addition to the four 
factors, the RFP also listed four general considerations of equal 
weight, all of which were less important than the four evaluation 
factors.  The general considerations were pre-award survey, executive 
in-plant review, plant visits, and RFP terms and conditions.  RFP  sec.  
M.2.0.

Offerors were also advised that two of the evaluation 
factors--technical (including the four subfactors) and 
management--would be assigned a color/adjectival rating, a proposal 
risk assessment, and a performance risk assessment.[3]  They were also 
advised that the color/adjectival rating and the two risk ratings 
would receive equal consideration.  RFP  sec.  M.6.0  The remaining two 
evaluation factors--schedule and cost/price--were not rated but were 
assigned a performance risk assessment.  
Since the RFP here envisioned the award of an ID/IQ contract, each LRU 
had an accompanying minimum and maximum order quantity, as well as a 
best estimated quantity (BEQ) for each of the four lots to be 
procured.  These BEQs were used to evaluate each offeror's 
capabilities and price, and are set forth below:

      LRU       LOT IV        LOT V       LOT VI      LOT VII

Control- Display Unit   95     123          101         98

Programmer         107         147          137         134

Switch Ass'y       279         267          126         270

Sequencer        3,755         491          315         503

Dispenser        1,024         810          408         838

TOTAL SHIPSETS     107         147          137         134
As shown above, the purchase estimate for one of the LRU's, the 
sequencer, was much higher than any other item in Lot IV, and was much 
higher than the purchase estimate for this item in Lots V through VII.  
The RFP explained that in Lot IV, an estimated 3,219 additional 
digital sequencers would be procured to support the upgrade of the 
AN/ALE-40 system under the Consolidated Clean-Up modification program.  
RFP  para.  M.4.1.2.

By the December 4, 1996, initial closing date, the Air Force received 
[deleted] proposals, [deleted] were included in the competitive range.  
Written and oral discussions were held with the competitive range 
offerors and best and final offers (BAFO) were received by April 7.  

At the conclusion of the evaluation, Tracor's proposal received 
[deleted] ratings [deleted] under the four equally-weighted technical 
subfactors, [deleted] rating under the management factor, and 
[deleted].  Symetrics's proposal received [deleted] ratings under the 
technical and management factors, and [deleted] ratings in every 
assessment of proposal and performance risk but one [deleted].[4]  
Symetrics's proposal offered [deleted].  A summary of these results is 
shown in the table below:

                   TRACOR             SYMETRICS

              Color
             RatingProp
                   Risk    Perf
                           Risk  ColorRatingProp
                                        Risk   Perf
                                               Risk

Technical                                    

     --Mfg./QA[deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted]

     --Int. Logistics     Support[deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][
                                      deleted][deleted]

     --Systems Eng'g[deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][dele
                                             ted]

     --Testing[deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted]

Schedule        -----  -----[deleted]   -----  -----[deleted]

Cost-Price/ MPLCC[deleted]  -----[deleted][deleted]  -----[deleted]

Management  [deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted][deleted]
In making the award decision, the source selection authority (SSA) 
noted that Tracor [deleted] the manufacturing/quality assurance 
technical subfactor, and [deleted] under the integrated logistics 
technical subfactor.  In addition, since Tracor proposed to accelerate 
delivery of production units--the RFP required production within 18 
months, Tracor offered to begin deliveries [deleted]--the SSA decided 
that the expedited production schedule offered "a significant risk 
mitigation opportunity" for the government.  Source Selection 
Decision, April 29, 1997, at third unnumbered page.  As a result, the 
SSA concluded that Tracor's technical superiority [deleted] awarded to 
Tracor.  This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Symetrics disputes nearly every element of the evaluations, raising at 
least 42 challenges in its initial and four supplemental protests.  
While many of these challenges fail to state a valid basis for a bid 
protest and some suggest a lack of understanding of the federal 
procurement process,[5] certain of these challenges raise issues 
appropriate for our review.  The three major areas in which Symetrics 
raises potentially valid challenges are whether the evaluation was 
based on an erroneous BEQ for sequencers and was flawed as a result, 
and whether the evaluations of Symetrics's and Tracor's proposals were 
reasonable.  

With respect to the need for sequencers, Symetrics argues that the 
requirement for sequencers in Lot IV of the purchase (which was only 
available for orders until September 30, 1997) was so unusually high 
that any offeror other than Tracor was required to take extraordinary 
steps to meet the agency's need.  Symetrics does not argue that the 
RFP was flawed when initially issued, but contends that the Air Force 
was required to amend the RFP when it received notice--1 week prior to 
the request for BAFOs--that the underlying purchase order for the 
great majority of the needed sequencers had been canceled for lack of 
funding.  In Symetrics's view, since several of the evaluation 
weaknesses assessed against its proposal--and against proposals 
submitted by any offeror other than Tracor--were related to the high 
number for sequencers in Lot IV which no longer reflected an accurate 
quantity estimate, the final evaluation and cost/technical tradeoff 
lacked a reasonable basis.  

The Air Force responds that the BEQ for sequencers included in the RFP 
had a sound basis and that the agency was not required to amend the 
RFP 1 week before the request for BAFOs on the basis of a funding 
change that did not diminish the underlying need for the parts.  The 
Air Force argues that the need for sequencers remains valid, and that 
the agency may yet receive funding before the end of the Lot IV 
ordering period on September 30, 1997.  In addition, the Air Force 
points out that other requirements for sequencers have arisen and the 
agency currently has concrete orders for 1,574 sequencers as part of 
Lot IV.  Alternatively, the Air Force argues that Symetrics was not 
prejudiced by the agency's decision not to amend the sequencer 
estimate in the RFP since all offerors competed equally.

Generally, where an agency's requirements change after a solicitation 
has been issued, it must issue an amendment to notify offerors of the 
changed requirements and afford them an opportunity to respond.  
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.606(a); United Tel. Co. of 
the Northwest, B-246977, Apr. 20, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  374 at 7, aff'd, 
Department of Energy et al., B-246977.2 et al., July 14, 1992, 92-2 
CPD  para.  20.  The object of the requirement is to avoid award decisions 
not based on the agency's most current view of its minimum needs.  See 
N.V. Philips Gloellampenfabriken, B207485.3, May 3, 1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  
467 at 12.  Agencies must amend solicitations to reflect a significant 
change in the government's requirements even after the submission of 
BAFOs, up until the time of award.  See United Tel. Co. of the 
Northwest, supra, at 8 (change in requirements occurred after the 
selection decision but during the 2-1/2 year delay in award caused by 
various protests); Universal Techs., Inc., B-241157, Jan. 18, 1991, 
91-1 CPD  para.  63 at 4-5, recon. denied, B-241157.2, May 24, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  505.  One circumstance requiring the issuance of an amendment is 
a significant change in the government's estimate of the quantity it 
expects to order.  See Management Sys. Designers, Inc. et al., 
B-244383.4 et al., Dec. 6, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  518 at 5, recon. denied, 
Institute for Sys. Analysis--Recon., B-244383.7, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  328, req. for mod. of remedy denied, Management Sys. Designers, 
Inc.--Request for Modification of Remedy, B-244383.8, June 8, 1992, 
92-1 CPD  para.  496; Universal Techs., Inc., supra. 

As explained above, the RFP's estimate for sequencers in Lot IV was 
largely driven by a single requirement--the upgrade of the AN/ALE-40 
system under the Consolidated Clean-Up (CCUP) modification program.  
RFP  sec.  M.4.1.2.  Specifically, 3,219 of the sequencers out of the 
estimated 3,755 were related to this program.  Id.  A funded purchase 
request for Lot IV in the amount of $7 million in support of this 
program had been filed with the contracting office.  

Based on our review of the record, we have little doubt that the BEQ 
for sequencers in Lot IV was valid at the time the solicitation was 
issued, as the Air Force urges.  Notwithstanding the validity of the 
estimate when first made, the agency was required to amend the 
solicitation when it learned that its estimate of the amount to be 
purchased was no longer valid.  Universal Techs., Inc., supra.   Here, 
the record shows that on March 25, the CCUP program manager withdrew 
the $7 million order for 3,219 sequencers pending completion of an 
ongoing review of the precise number of sequencers that would be 
needed.  Concurrently, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force 
redirected the funds for the sequencer upgrade away from the CCUP 
program to support the Air Force's efforts in Bosnia.  At that 
point--which, as noted above, was 1 week before BAFOs were 
requested--the 3,755 figure no longer represented a reasonable 
estimate of the quantity of sequencers to be purchased as part of Lot 
IV.

In addition, our Office has previously considered whether the removal 
of available funding changes the validity of an agency's estimated 
requirement.  In Management Sys. Designers, Inc. et al., supra, an 
agency issued an ID/IQ RFP for the purchase of support services in 
seven discrete task areas--task areas A through G--but learned after 
the initial evaluation of proposals, and before convening discussions, 
that funding would be available only for task area A.  Id. at 3.  We 
concluded that while the agency might still have an ongoing "need" for 
the other six task areas, it could actually expect to procure only 
task area A since funding was only available for task A.  Under these 
circumstances, we held that the agency was required to amend the RFP 
to reflect the agency's best estimate of the purchase amount.  Id. at 
5.  In our view, the Air Force here--when it learned in March that the 
3,755 figure was no longer realistic--was likewise required to amend 
its RFP to reflect its best estimate of the quantity of sequencers to 
be purchased during Lot IV.[6]  

Nonetheless, even where we have held that an agency has acted 
improperly, a protester must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that 
it was prejudiced by the agency's actions, that is, the protester must 
show that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a 
substantial chance of receiving the award.  McDonald-Bradley, 
B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. 
Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Universal Techs., 
Inc., supra, at 5.  As stated above, the Air Force argues that 
Symetrics was not prejudiced by the agency's failure to amend the RFP 
because all offerors were treated equally, and because the weaknesses 
in Symetrics's evaluation--resulting in the decision to select 
Tracor's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal over Symetrics's 
lower-priced, slightly lower-rated proposal--would not change as a 
result of a correction of the solicitation's estimated quantity.  

We disagree.  Our review of the record shows that the requirement for 
sequencers in Lot IV, 3,755, is between 7 and 12 times higher than the 
BEQ for sequencers in Lots V through VII (491, 315, and 503, 
respectively).  This anomaly in the RFP's requirement for sequencers 
was triggered by the one-time purchase of sequencers in support of the 
upgrade program discussed above.  The effects of this one-time 
purchase are reflected in the evaluation results.

Specifically, during the evaluation, only Tracor, the original 
equipment manufacturer and the incumbent producing these items since 
1988, was found to clearly possess the capacity to produce the items 
required by Lot IV without schedule risk.  Symetrics's proposal (and 
those of the other small business offerors) showed a requirement to 
hire additional workers to meet the RFP's requirements for Lot IV.  It 
was because of the need for the new hires that the agency evaluators 
gave the proposal a [deleted] rating and concluded that there was a 
[deleted] of schedule slippage under the [deleted] technical 
subfactor.

The Air Force argues that its assessment of [deleted] under the 
[deleted] technical subfactor was related to all of the requirements 
in Lot IV, and not just the sequencers.  In addition, the Air Force 
argues that, even if its need for sequencers had been reduced to the 
amount of its current orders, it still would have assessed a 
performance risk against Symetrics.  In our view, the evidence in the 
record does not support these contentions.  

With respect to the link between new hires--the cited reason for the 
risk assessed under this subfactor--and the large estimate for 
sequencers, the Air Force's request for clarification number CTQD003 
asked how many additional people would be needed to support the 
program, and how many were new hires as opposed to transfers within 
the company.  Symetrics responded that due to the "surge" requirements 
in Lot IV it would need [deleted].  In addition, in its comments on 
the first agency report, Symetrics explained that it needed "to hire 
[deleted] to meet the high quantity manufacturing requirements of 
having to build 3,755 Sequencers in one year."  Symetrics's First 
Comments Filing, June 30, 1997, Part I at 11.  Thus, our comparison of 
all the BEQs in Lot IV with those in Lots V, VI, and VII (see table on 
page 3 of this decision) and our review of other materials in the 
record, lead us to conclude that the requirement for sequencers was 
clearly driving the need for additional hires to meet the requirements 
of Lot IV.  

With respect to the Air Force's claim that even with a lower sequencer 
estimate it still would have assessed a risk against Symetrics, we 
note that Symetrics claims its hiring needs would drop substantially 
[deleted] if the requirement for sequencers dropped to 600.  Id. at 
20.  While there is no way to know how the evaluators would have 
assessed the risk associated with Symetrics needing to hire [deleted] 
the record provides no basis to infer that the risk assessment would 
be the same as when Symetrics needed to hire [deleted] as it did under 
the superseded estimate of 3,755 sequencers.  Thus, on this record, we 
conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that Symetrics was 
prejudiced by the agency's failure to amend its quantity estimate.

For the reasons above, we conclude that the large requirement for 
sequencers in Lot IV significantly affected the evaluation, and that 
the agency's decision not to amend the solicitation and permit 
offerors to revise their proposals accordingly resulted in an 
unreasonable evaluation and a flawed selection decision.  Since we are 
sustaining Symetrics's protest and recommending that all offerors in 
the competitive range be permitted to submit revised proposals, we 
need not address the other issues raised in Symetrics's protest.[7]

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons above, we recommend that the agency reopen the 
competition, issue an amendment to reflect its current best estimate 
of the quantity to be ordered as part of Lot IV, request a second 
round of BAFOs, and reevaluate proposals.  If, at the conclusion of 
the agency's reevaluation, another offer represents the best value to 
the government, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to 
Tracor--performance of which has been suspended pending the outcome of 
this protest--and make a new award.  We also recommend that the 
protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing 
its protest, including attorneys' fees, limited to its contention that 
the agency failed to amend the RFP's estimate for sequencers.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)(1) (1997); see Komatsu Dresser Co., 71 Comp. Gen. 
260, 267 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  202 at 9.  In accordance with 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(f)(1), Symetrics's certified claim for such costs, detailing the 
time expended and the costs incurred, must be submitted directly to 
the agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision.  

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The AN/ALE-47 has been developed for integration and installation 
on Air Force F-16, C-130, C-141, C-17 and C-5 aircraft; Navy F-18, 
VH-60, VH-3, P-3, V-22 and HH-60 aircraft; and Army MH-47D and MH-60 
aircraft.  Foreign military sales to Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, 
Finland and Malaysia are also underway.

2. The appropriate method for procuring these items--after procuring 
them since 1988 on a sole-source basis from Tracor, the original 
equipment manufacturer--has been in dispute for several years.  The 
Air Force first decided to "break out" the remaining need for these 
parts for full and open competition, but later elected to reserve the 
requirement for exclusive small business participation in accordance 
with a decision by the head of the agency.  In response, Congress 
first directed that the viability of a small business set-aside be 
reviewed, and ultimately directed the use of full and open competition 
including, but not limited to, small businesses.  A more complete 
recitation of these events is found in our decision in Datacom, 
Inc.--Protests and Request for Costs, B-274175 et al., Nov. 25, 1996, 
96-2 CPD  para.  199 at 2-4.

3. The color/adjectival ratings used in the evaluation were 
blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, and 
red/unacceptable.  Proposal risk was rated high, moderate or low, and 
was defined as the risks identified in an offeror's proposed approach.  
Performance risk was rated high, moderate, low, or not applicable, and 
was defined as an assessment of the offeror's present and past work 
record to gauge confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully 
perform as proposed.

4.[deleted]

5. For example, Symetrics argues that the evaluation was flawed 
because the source selection briefing contained a slide showing the 
number of CRs (clarification requests) and DRs (deficiency requests) 
issued to the competitive range offerors during negotiations.  
Conducting negotiations using CRs and DRs is a routine procedure and a 
summary of this effort routinely appears as part of the briefing given 
to selection officials.  Symetrics cannot reasonably claim to be 
prejudiced by the mere mention of the number of CRs and DRs to the 
selection official.  In another instance, Symetrics complains that the 
assessment of performance risk by the Performance Risk Assessment 
Group (PRAG) constituted an improper double evaluation.  Again, the 
use of a PRAG to evaluate performance risk is a routine technique for 
making reasoned judgments about risk, and violates no federal 
procurement principle.

6. While the Air Force contends that it could yet purchase more 
sequencers if it locates more funding between now and September 30, we 
note that the ordering period for Lot IV expires in just over 1 month.  
At this juncture, a general claim that these funds might materialize, 
without more, is speculative and insufficient to support the estimate 
in the RFP.

7. While we do not address Symetrics's specific challenges to the 
evaluation of its and Tracor's proposals, we have reviewed each of 
these contentions and conclude that none would merit a decision by our 
Office to sustain the protest.