BNUMBER:  B-275181
DATE:  January 29, 1997
TITLE:  Cygnus Corporation

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

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:Cygnus Corporation

File:     B-275181

Date:January 29, 1997

William M. Rosen, Esq., Hilary S. Cairnie, Esq., and Edward W. Kirsch, 
Esq., Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, for the protester.
Eric M. Drattell, Esq., David R. Johnson, Esq., and Robert J. 
Rothwell, Esq., McDermott, Will & Emery, for Caliber Associates, Inc., 
an intervenor.
Terrence J. Tychan and Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human 
Services, 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

1.  New and independent grounds of protest included in a protester's 
comments on the agency report must independently meet the timeliness 
requirements of the General Accounting Office's Bid Protest 
Regulations; extensions of time for filing comments do not waive the 
timeliness requirements.

2.  Protester's contentions that the awardee failed to advise the 
agency that its project director would not be available at the start 
of contract performance and used an improper "bait and switch" 
practice by allowing other employees to substitute for the proposed 
project director in the first 3 weeks of contract performance is 
denied where the record shows that the proposal clearly advised the 
agency that the project director was a contingent hire; the awardee 
did, in fact, hire the proposed project director as promised; and the 
project director began work within 3 weeks of contract award.

3.  Allegation that agency evaluation of protester's best and final 
offer (BAFO) was unreasonable is sustained where the record as a whole 
supports the conclusion that the agency did not meaningfully evaluate 
certain key material in the BAFO.

DECISION

Cygnus Corporation protests the award of a contract to Caliber 
Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 105-96-1648, 
issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for the 
operation and management of the National Adoption Information 
Clearinghouse.  Cygnus argues that the agency conducted an 
unreasonable evaluation of the proposals and improperly selected 
Caliber for award.

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

As stated above, the RFP here sought a contractor to operate the 
National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, which provides 
information to the public on the subject of infant adoption and the 
adoption of children with special needs.  The RFP, reserved for small 
business participation, anticipated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee 
contract for a base year with two 1-year options to the offeror whose 
proposal was determined most advantageous to the government.  

Section M-1 of the RFP advised potential offerors that the quality of 
the technical proposal and the past performance of the offeror would 
be more important than proposed costs.  As set forth below, section 
M-2 identified five technical evaluation subfactors and the following 
allocation of points among the subfactors:

     1.  Understanding of the Statement of Work 15 points
     2.  Quality of Technical Approach   30 points
     3.  Corporate Experience            15 points
     4.  Staff Qualifications            20 points
     5.  Adequacy of Manpower, Resources,
        and Management Plan              20 points

        TOTAL                           100 points

All but one of these subfactors included as many as seven evaluation 
criteria, which will be discussed, as relevant, in greater detail 
below.  The criteria were not scored separately.

With respect to past performance, the RFP advised that this factor 
would not be scored, but would be influential in determining the 
relative merits of an offeror's proposal; with respect to proposed 
costs, the RFP advised that the government would review the costs for 
realism and evaluate offers based on the total evaluated costs for the 
base period and both option years.

Six proposals were received by the closing date of July 9, 1996.  Upon 
review by a technical evaluation panel, three of the proposals were 
evaluated as technically unacceptable, while the remaining three 
proposals--including those submitted by Cygnus and Caliber--were 
evaluated as acceptable and were included in the competitive range.  
Both oral and written discussions were held with the competitive range 
offerors, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received on September 
20.  Upon evaluation of each offeror's BAFO, the evaluation panel 
revised the scores given initially.  The resulting initial and BAFO 
scores, as well as evaluated costs, are set forth below:
     
     OFFEROR        ORIGINAL
                    TECHNICAL
                      SCORE           BAFO
                                    TECHNICAL
                                      SCORE          TOTAL
                                                   EVALUATED
                                                     COSTS

Caliber             [deleted]       [deleted]      [deleted]

Cygnus              [deleted]       [deleted]      [deleted]

Company A           [deleted]       [deleted]      [deleted]
Based on the results of the initial and BAFO evaluations, the contract 
specialist prepared a Summary of Negotiations Memorandum recommending 
award to Caliber.[1]  The memorandum states:

     "The [t]echnical [s]core of Caliber [deleted] represents a 
     [deleted] point advantage over Cygnus [deleted] and a [deleted] 
     point advantage over [Company A] [deleted].  It is my opinion 
     that the higher score assigned to the technical proposal and the 
     resulting point differential between Caliber and the other two 
     offerors justifies the higher costs of the Caliber proposal over 
     the three year period."  

Summary of Negotiations Memorandum, Sept. 26, 1996, at 4.  The record 
does not contain a separate source selection decision, or any other 
explanation of the agency's tradeoff decision.

The performance period for the incumbent contractor, Cygnus, expired 
on September 29, and award was made to Caliber on September 30.  This 
protest followed.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Cygnus argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was 
unreasonable in several areas.  While many of Cygnus's claims are 
either untimely[2] or challenge evaluation assessments that can only 
be described as de minimis,[3] the discussion below details Cygnus's 
two principal arguments.  First, Cygnus claims that the agency gave 
Caliber unreasonable credit given the unavailability of its project 
director in the initial weeks of contract performance.  Second, with 
respect to its own evaluation, Cygnus argues that the agency 
unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the quality of technical 
approach subfactor.  Our review of these contentions is discussed 
below.

Caliber's Project Director

Cygnus argues that Caliber's proposal improperly failed to advise the 
agency that its project director would not be available at the start 
of contract performance, and that Caliber used an improper "bait and 
switch" tactic because other--presumably less qualified--employees 
were substituted for the project director from the time Caliber began 
performance until the project director was hired.  Cygnus also argues 
that because the project director was not immediately available, the 
agency's favorable evaluation of Caliber was unreasonable.[4] 

We find that the record does not support a conclusion that Caliber 
misled the agency, or that it engaged in "bait and switch" practices.  
All of Caliber's proposed personnel were current employees, with the 
exception of its proposed project director, who was a contingent hire.  
Caliber's proposal explained that if selected for award, it would hire 
its proposed project director within 2 weeks of the award date.  In 
addition, Caliber included in its proposal a copy of the letter by 
which the proposed project director accepted Caliber's contingent 
offer of employment.  When Caliber learned of its award, it did, in 
fact, hire its proposed project director, who then relocated to the 
Washington, D.C. area and has been working on this contract since 
October 21.  Cygnus does not allege that any other Caliber employee 
failed to show up as promised.

In addition to our conclusion that Caliber's proposal fully and 
accurately disclosed its plans with regard to its proposed project 
director, our review of this solicitation reveals nothing that 
requires all of an offeror's employees to be available at the start of 
contract performance.  Cygnus contends that this requirement is 
implied by the orientation meeting described in the RFP's statement of 
work (SOW) at subtask 1.1.  SOW at 8.  However, subtask 1.1 requires 
only that the contractor plan an initial 1-day orientation meeting 
within 1 week of contract award.  The provision does not require the 
presence of any specific employee at this meeting, and the provision 
cannot be read to require that the project director must be available 
from the first day of performance.[5]  

Cygnus's claim that Caliber engaged in "bait and switch" tactics 
likewise is without merit.  "Bait and switch" practices are usually 
alleged when an offeror's proposal is favorably evaluated on the basis 
of personnel that it does not expect to use during performance.  This 
practice has an adverse effect on the integrity of the competitive 
procurement system and provides a basis for rejection of that offeror.  
Ralph G. Moore & Assocs., B-270686; B-270686.2, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 
CPD  para.  118 at 3.  Here, we see nothing misleading about Caliber's 
approach, and nothing that required the agency to downgrade its 
evaluation of Caliber.  The proposal clearly advised the agency that 
Caliber's proposed project director was a contingent hire and might 
not be available immediately.  Because the agency was late in 
completing its evaluation, there was no remaining time between 
contract award and the time for performance to commence.  In fact, 
even if the project director had been hired within 2 weeks of award, 
exactly as promised, Caliber would still have begun performance 
without its project director.  Finally, to the extent that Caliber's 
project director began working 3 weeks after contract award, rather 
than the 2 weeks promised, we see no basis in the record to conclude 
that the delay is anything but de minimis. 

Evaluation of Cygnus's Proposal under Quality of Technical Approach 
Subfactor

Cygnus argues that the evaluation of its proposal under the quality of 
technical approach subfactor was unreasonable because the agency 
evaluation materials fail to reflect that Cygnus added key information 
with respect to this subfactor in its BAFO.  Based on our review of 
the record, and for the reasons set forth below, we agree.  

As explained above, the quality of technical approach subfactor was 
weighted more heavily (30 points) than any of the other technical 
evaluation subfactors.  Section M-2 of the RFP identified three 
elements under this subfactor.  The third element--referred to by the 
parties here as evaluation subfactor 2.c.--required "[a]n indication 
of the problems that might be encountered in the implementation of the 
project and a description of how these will be resolved."  Cygnus 
failed to include this information in its initial proposal.

In its review of Cygnus's initial proposal, the technical evaluation 
panel awarded the proposal [deleted] of 30 available points under the 
quality of technical approach subfactor, and noted only one weakness.  
The weakness noted was that Cygnus had failed to provide a discussion 
of potential problems and solutions as required by subfactor 2.c.  The 
agency report submitted in response to this protest explains that this 
omission resulted in "the main deduction" from Cygnus's score.  
Attachment to Letter from Terrence J. Tychan, Nov. 15, 1996, at 2.  
The record also shows that the agency initially considered including a 
discussion question for Cygnus asking it to provide this information, 
but deleted the question after concluding that it would result in 
"technical leveling."[6]   

In its comments on the agency report, Cygnus conceded that its initial 
proposal did not include a response to evaluation subfactor 2.c.  
Cygnus Comments, supra at 11.  Cygnus explained, however, that even 
though the agency did not ask about the omission, Cygnus realized its 
error and included a discussion of these issues in its BAFO.  Id. at 
12.  According to Cygnus, the agency improperly failed to evaluate the 
additional information.[7] 

Our review of the evaluation record shows the following events upon 
receipt of Cygnus's BAFO.  First, in a memorandum to the file written 
immediately after receipt of the materials, the contract specialist 
states:

     "I have just reviewed Cygnus's [BAFO].  The first portion of 
     their proposal is titled '[BAFO] Technical Considerations.'  
     During this 'discussion,' Cygnus addresses subjects which were 
     not a part of either the technical questions nor the 
     negotiations.  Cygnus has given a lot of detail regarding 
     subjects that were not addressed nor requested either in the 
     technical questions from the [technical evaluation panel] nor 
     during negotiations on cost matters."

Memorandum to File, Sept. 21, 1996, at 2.  The evaluation record 
compiled afterwards shows no adjustment by any evaluator to Cygnus's 
score under this evaluation subfactor.  More importantly, the record 
shows no contemporaneous consideration of this information and no 
judgment that the newly supplied information did not warrant an 
increase to Cygnus's score--even though the omission of this 
information was the only weakness noted by the agency under the 
subfactor.  Finally, the agency's written summary of its debriefing of 
Cygnus reflects that the proposal "provided no discussions of 
potential problems/solutions."  Memorandum on Summary of Debriefing, 
Oct. 18, 1996 at 2.

During the course of this protest, our Office prepared written 
questions for the agency on this matter.  Specifically, by letter 
dated December 31, 1996, and provided to all parties, we asked the 
agency how this information in Cygnus's BAFO was evaluated, and where 
the results of the evaluation are reflected in the record.  By letter 
dated January 7, the agency pointed to the evaluation scoresheets that 
were provided in the record--which, as described above, reflect no 
consideration of this issue--and submitted a declaration from one of 
the three evaluators explaining his view of the adequacy of Cygnus's 
BAFO response in this area.  The evaluator's declaration states that 
the information was considered but was not sufficient to cause a 
change in score, or a change in the relative standing of the two 
proposals.  In essence, the evaluator explains that the additional 
information in Cygnus's BAFO was not impressive, and this area of the 
evaluation "continued to be a weakness."  Declaration, January 7, 
1997, at 2.  Neither the cover letter nor the declaration points to 
any evidence of contemporaneous consideration of this issue.  

In attempting to resolve any conflict between the statement produced 
by the agency in response to our December 31 letter and the evaluation 
materials, the comments of the contract specialist, and the agency's 
summary of debriefing, we do not limit our review to contemporaneous 
evidence, as the protester urges.  See Benchmark Security, Inc., 
B-247655.2, Feb. 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  133 at 7; Hydraudyne Sys. and 
Eng'g B.V., B-241236; B-241236.2, Jan. 30, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  88 at 4-5.  
However, while we consider the entire record, including later 
explanations and arguments, we accord greater weight to 
contemporaneous evaluation and source selection material than to 
arguments and documentation prepared in response to protest 
contentions.  DynCorp, 71 Comp. Gen. 129 (1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  575 at 7, 
n.13; Southwest Marine, Inc.; American Sys. Eng'g Corp., B-265865.3; 
B-265865.4, Jan. 23, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  56 at 10. 
 
The contemporaneous record provided by the agency in response to this 
protest strongly suggests that the additional information in Cygnus's 
BAFO addressing problems and solutions required by evaluation 
subfactor 2.c. was not evaluated by the agency.  The agency described 
the protester's omission of this information from its initial proposal 
as the cause of "the main deduction" from Cygnus's score.  Since it is 
not disputed that the material submitted with the BAFO was offered to 
rectify the omission, the information, at a minimum, should have 
triggered some consideration of its adequacy.  Not only is there no 
basis in the BAFO evaluation materials to support a conclusion that 
this information was considered, but the comments of the contract 
specialist before the review, and the memorandum of the debriefing 
after the review--when viewed in context with the evaluation 
materials--further support a conclusion that it was not considered.  

Against this backdrop, we weigh the post-protest statement of one of 
the three evaluators who says that "[t]o my knowledge, the other 
evaluation panel members and I read and evaluated all of Cygnus's 
[BAFO], including material that was not submitted in response to 
direct questions raised in negotiations."[8]  Declaration, supra. at 
1.  While we have no reason not to believe the evaluator's explanation 
of his own actions, his statement is not dispositive of the actions of 
the other evaluators.  In our view, even if the materials were 
reviewed in some cursory fashion, there is no evidence of any 
meaningful consideration of this issue.  In fact, the silence of the 
evaluation record on the subfactor 2.c. information is in contrast 
with the BAFO evaluation of an unrelated issue where Cygnus included 
additional information in response to a discussion question--involving 
a much less significant weakness--and received an increase in its BAFO 
score.[9] 

Our review of the record as a whole--including the statement submitted 
during the course of this protest--leads us to conclude that the 
evaluation of Cygnus's BAFO was unreasonable.  We reach this 
conclusion because we accord more weight to the contemporaneous 
documents, and because the declaration provided during this protest, 
at a minimum, does not clearly resolve doubts about how the other 
evaluators reviewed this issue.  We also consider the contrast between 
the asserted evaluation of this issue and the quality control 
information raised during discussions.  The contrast between these two 
issues together with the contract specialist's statement and the 
summary of debriefings prepared afterwards leads us to conclude that 
the subfactor 2.c. information was not evaluated as the agency now 
claims.  

Finally, we also conclude that Cygnus was prejudiced by the agency's 
failure to evaluate Cygnus's BAFO.  Since Cygnus received [deleted] of 
30 available points under the quality of technical approach subfactor, 
and the omission of the information described above was the only 
weakness cited under the subfactor, it appears that Cygnus's proposal 
could receive up to [deleted] additional points if this information is 
properly considered.  If Cygnus's score rises as a result of reviewing 
this information, we can not assume that the agency would stand by its 
earlier cost/technical tradeoff, where it elected to pay Caliber's 
higher costs on the basis of the [deleted] differential between the 
proposals.   Accordingly, we find that Cygnus was prejudiced by the 
agency's actions, and we sustain its protest.  See  Lockheed 
Aeronautical Sys. Co., B-252235.2, Aug. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  80 at 7.

MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS

Cygnus argues that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions 
with it regarding weaknesses within its proposal.  In this regard, in 
its initial protest filing Cygnus complains that the two written 
questions and nine oral discussion points raised during negotiations 
did not inform Cygnus of several of the problems raised during its 
debriefing.  In its comments, Cygnus contends that discussions were 
not equal because Caliber received more questions than Cygnus, and 
Cygnus supplements its general challenge to the adequacy of 
discussions by claiming that every negative evaluation comment on the 
agency scoresheets should have been raised during discussions.[10]  

We review the adequacy of agency discussions to ensure that agencies 
point out weaknesses that, unless corrected, would prevent an offeror 
from having a reasonable chance for award.  Department of the 
Navy--Recon., 72 Comp. Gen. 221 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  422.  There is no 
requirement that an agency advise an offeror of a minor weakness that 
is not considered significant, even where the weakness subsequently 
becomes a determinative factor when two closely ranked proposals are 
compared.  Volmar Const., B-270364; B-270364.2, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
139.  There is also no requirement that offerors be asked the same 
number of questions.  Textron Marine Sys., B-255580.3, Aug. 2, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  63 at 24.

Many of the criticisms raised during Cygnus's debriefing, or listed on 
the evaluator's scoresheets, involve only the most minor of weaknesses 
that need not have been pointed out during discussions.[11]  Our 
general review of the record leads us to conclude that the questions 
asked of Cygnus were related to more substantive concerns.  In short, 
we have reviewed each of Cygnus's challenges in this area and conclude 
that they do not separately, or in toto, provide a basis for 
concluding that discussions here were improper.

RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

We conclude that the agency's evaluation of Cygnus's subfactor 2.c. 
information--which was omitted from its initial proposal, but added in 
its BAFO--was unreasonable.  Given that the omitted information was 
the subject of the agency's "main deduction" from Cygnus's score, and 
that Cygnus's decision to provide the information did not result in 
either an increase in the score, or a verifiable determination not to 
increase the score, we recommend that the agency reevaluate Cygnus's 
BAFO reflecting its view of the adequacy of the added information.  

In addition, although not challenged by Cygnus in this protest, the 
best value determination and resulting selection decision in this 
record are not adequately justified or documented.  While agencies 
routinely make cost/technical tradeoffs in deciding between competing 
proposals, the propriety of such a tradeoff decision turns not on the 
difference in the technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether 
the selection official's judgment concerning the significance of that 
difference was reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP 
evaluation scheme.  DynCorp, supra. at 6.  Here, there is no 
explanation as to why Caliber's higher point score reflected technical 
superiority or what the elements of that superiority were-- the 
Summary of Negotiations Memorandum prepared by the contract specialist 
does not go beyond a bare comparison of the two technical scores in 
justifying selection of the offeror with higher proposed costs.[12]  
Accordingly, regardless of whether Cygnus's point score changes, the 
agency should prepare a more substantive statement of its 
determination.  

If, at the conclusion of the agency's reevaluation of Cygnus's BAFO, 
the revised best value determination shows that Cygnus's proposal, and 
not Caliber's, represents the best value to the agency, the agency 
should terminate Caliber's contract and award to Cygnus.  We also 
recommend that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of 
filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees.  Bid 
Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.8(d), 61 Fed. Reg. supra at 39046 (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)).  The protester should submit its 
certified claim for protest costs directly to the agency within 60 
days of receipt of this decision.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  
21.8(f)(1), 61 Fed. Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(f)(1)).

The protest is sustained

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. Under the past performance evaluation factor, Cygnus and Caliber 
were viewed as essentially equal, and the issue played no role in the 
selection decision.  Cygnus initially challenged the evaluation of 
past performance, but later withdrew its claim.

2. Cygnus received the agency report on this protest on November 15, 
1996, and filed its comments on December 4--19 days later.  While 
Cygnus received permission to file its comments later than the 10 
calendar days required by section 21.3(i) of our Bid Protest 
Regulations, 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39044 (1996) (to be codified at 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.3(i)), the granting of such an extension does not waive 
the timeliness requirements for filing bid protests.  Keci 
Corp.--Recon., B-255193.2, May 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  323.  Thus, new 
issues raised in Cygnus's comments are not timely under section 
21.2(a)(2) of our rules, 61 Fed. Reg. supra at 39043 (to be codified 
at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).

3. For example, Cygnus asks our Office to sustain this protest on the 
basis that it was wrongly assessed a weakness under the corporate 
experience evaluation subfactor, worth 15 points.  Under this 
subfactor, Cygnus received scores of 15, 15, and 14, from the three 
agency evaluators, but was also assessed a minor weakness by one of 
the evaluators who awarded Cygnus a perfect score.  Given that Cygnus 
received a perfect score from the evaluator who noted the weakness, it 
was clearly not prejudiced by the assessment, and we will not consider 
it further. 

4. In its comments on the agency report, Cygnus also argues that 
Caliber improperly failed to identify its key personnel in accordance 
with the requirements of the RFP.  While Caliber and the agency 
disagree with Cygnus's view of the RFP's requirements, this is another 
issue Cygnus failed to raise in a timely manner.

5. In fact, even Caliber's proposed implementation of subtask 1.1 does 
not firmly promise that the project director will be present for the 
initial orientation meeting.  Instead, page II-7 of Caliber's proposal 
states that "[i]t is anticipated that key staff from Caliber--the 
Principal in Charge and Project Director--will convene a meeting with 
[key agency personnel] for the orientation meeting."  The record shows 
that while the orientation meeting did take place, another employee 
substituted for the proposed project director.

6. Cygnus did not challenge the agency's decision not to raise this 
matter during discussions in its initial protest or in its comments.  
Instead, its comments include a one-sentence aside in the section 
where Cygnus argues that the agency did not evaluate the information 
in its BAFO, merely noting that the agency did not mention this issue 
during discussions.  Cygnus Comments, Dec. 4, 1996, at 12.  (Another 
unclear remark is included in the Comments at 22.)  If either remark 
was intended as a substantive challenge to the agency's action, they 
were untimely given that Cygnus filed its comments more than 10 days 
after its receipt of the agency report.  Furthermore, even if these 
remarks were timely, they were too vague and indefinite to raise this 
issue.  We mention this because the protester's final January 15, 
1997, reply to the agency's January 7 response to our December 31, 
1996, written questions assumes that this issue was timely raised and 
adequately pleaded.  It was not.

7. In addition to arguing that the agency failed to evaluate the 
subfactor 2.c. information included in its BAFO, Cygnus also claims in 
its comments that the agency violated Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  
15.608 by comparing proposals.  Again, this new ground of protest is 
untimely.

8. While the January 7 Declaration does include one paragraph 
presenting a post-protest review of the information in Cygnus's BAFO 
by the individual evaluator who submitted the Declaration, the 
assessment is minimal in nature.  In addition, as the document 
reflects the view of only one evaluator, it does not reflect a 
measured consideration or consensus among the evaluation panel members 
about whether Cygnus's BAFO submission was sufficient to address the 
major weakness identified in its proposal.  Thus, it clearly is not an 
adequate substitute for a thorough consideration of the information by 
the entire evaluation panel.

9. Specifically, the record shows that Cygnus was asked during 
discussions to provide additional information regarding its procedures 
for quality control.  The quality control issue appears to have had a 
much smaller impact on Cygnus's evaluation than its omission of the 
subfactor 2.c. information--which the agency described as responsible 
for the "main deduction" from Cygnus's score.  Upon receiving Cygnus's 
BAFO, one of the evaluators increased Cygnus's score in this area by 1 
point.  In light of this, the record as a whole leaves the impression 
that the agency evaluators did not revisit issues which were not 
raised as discussion questions.

10. Cygnus's listing of every less than favorable comment written by 
the evaluators during their review--coupled with an assertion that 
each of these comments reflects a weakness that had to be raised 
during discussions--is an ineffective surrogate for a substantive 
analysis of the adequacy of discussions.  Ann Riley & Assocs., 
B-271741.2, Aug. 7, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  ___ at 9.  As discussed above, 
the majority of these comments reflect minor weaknesses in the 
proposal.

11. For example, as described in note 3 supra, one of the evaluators 
who gave Cygnus a perfect score under the corporate experience 
subfactor cited as a weakness his view that the proposal included too 
much information related to this issue.  Cygnus now argues that the 
agency failed to hold meaningful discussions because it failed to 
apprise Cygnus of this perceived weakness.  

12. For the record, we also note that the Summary of Negotiations 
Memorandum prepared by the contract specialist contains the agency's 
only statement justifying its award decision.  We recommend that the 
agency consider requiring preparation of a source selection document 
in future cases, especially where agency personnel are making 
cost/technical tradeoffs and other types of best value determinations.