BNUMBER:  B-275534
DATE:  March 3, 1997
TITLE:  Global Associates, Ltd.

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

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:Global Associates, Ltd.

File:     B-275534

Date:March 3, 1997

Ross W. Dembling, Esq., and Craig A. Holman, Esq., Holland & Knight, 
for the protester.
Alan D. Groesbeck, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the 
protester's and awardee's proposals under certain of the technical 
evaluation criteria is denied where the record shows that the 
evaluation was reasonable; the protester's mere disagreement does not 
render the agency's judgment unreasonable.

2.  A price/technical tradeoff analysis in which the agency quantified 
in dollars certain technical differences between the awardee's 
proposal, which received a near perfect rating, and the lower-rated 
protester's proposal based on costs associated with the protester's 
predecessor contract, did not give undue weight to one evaluation 
criterion--past performance--and was not otherwise inconsistent with 
the solicitation's evaluation criteria.

DECISION

Global Associates, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to 
Enviro-Management & Research, Inc., (EMR) under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. WO-96-02, issued by the Forest Service, Department of 
Agriculture, for writing, editing, and other services in support of 
the Forest Service's publications program.  Global argues that the 
agency improperly evaluated the proposals and failed to perform a 
reasonable or proper price/technical tradeoff. 

We deny the protest.[1]

The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, provided for the 
award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 1 
year with four 1-year options.  The contractor will be required to 
furnish, among other things, editing, manuscript preparation, 
proofreading, writing, and drawing services.  The RFP requested the 
submission of technical and cost/price proposals, and provided 
detailed instructions for their preparation.  Among other things, the 
RFP provided an estimate of the services to be ordered for a 12-month 
period, and requested that proposals describe "how the project is to 
be organized, staffed and managed."  Offerors were also required to 
complete a detailed price schedule based upon the estimated quantities 
of work set forth in the RFP.

The solicitation stated that award would be made to the responsible 
offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represented the 
best value to the government.  The RFP stated that since the agency 
was more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management 
features, technical merit was more important than price.  The 
solicitation listed the following technical evaluation criteria in 
descending order of importance:

     1. Corporate experience
     2. Past experience on similar projects
     3. Project management
     4. Personnel qualifications and experience
     5. Familiarity with government publishing standards and 
        regulations.

The agency received eight proposals by the RFP's closing date of 
January 25, 1996.  The proposals were evaluated by a technical 
evaluation team (TET), and the proposals of Global, EMR, and 
Grammarians, Inc., were included in the competitive range.  Written 
discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were 
received and evaluated.  The agency determined that Grammarians's 
proposal represented the best value to the agency and made award to 
that firm.

Global, the incumbent contractor, filed protests with our Office on 
April 8 and May 20, 1996, contending, among other things, that the 
agency had engaged in improper post-BAFO discussions with Grammarians.  
In Global Associates, Ltd., B-271693; B-271693.2, August 2, 1996, 96-2 
CPD  para.  100, we sustained Global's protests because the record 
demonstrated that the agency had held improper post-BAFO discussions 
with only Grammarians; we recommended that the agency reopen 
discussions and request new BAFOs. 

In response to our recommendation, the agency reopened discussions on 
September 9, addressed certain questions to the offerors, disclosed 
the total prices proposed by each offeror in their previously 
submitted BAFOs, and requested that Global, EMR, and Grammarians 
submit BAFOs by September 13.  Each of the three offerors submitted 
BAFOs by the September 13 due date.  On October 7, the agency notified 
the three offerors that the September 9 request for BAFOs had 
"included incorrect prices for the offerors in the competitive range" 
and advised the offerors of the correct prices; this notice also posed 
written discussion questions to each of the offerors and requested 
that BAFOs be submitted by October 11.  Each of the three offerors 
again submitted BAFOs.  

Global's BAFO was rated at 88 out of 120 points at an evaluated price 
of $791,822, EMR's BAFO was rated at 113 points at an evaluated price 
of $1,011,833, and Grammarians's BAFO was rated at 89 points at an 
evaluated price of $1,018,979.  The agency determined that EMR's 
proposal represented the best value to the government, and made award 
to that firm on November 13.

Global argues that its proposal was unreasonably evaluated under the 
personnel qualifications and experience evaluation criterion as to the 
qualifications of its proposed project manager, and under the project 
management evaluation criterion with regard to the availability of its 
proposed project manager and other proposed personnel and Global's 
ability to perform simultaneous projects.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency because the agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Metrica, Inc., B-270086; B-270086.2, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  135.  In 
reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals, 
but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was 
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation 
criteria.  Decision Sys. Technologies, Inc.; NCI Information Sys., 
Inc., B-257186 et al., Sept. 7, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  167.  A protester's 
mere disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation 
unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 
16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  51.

With regard to the project manager's qualifications, the RFP required 
that proposals include "resumes of each key person assigned to this 
project, including the project manager," and set forth the standards 
against which each offeror's proposed key personnel would be 
evaluated; the RFP stated that "the standards for the [p]roject 
[m]anager are defined in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
Handbook X-118 Qualification Standards for Positions under the General 
Schedule, GS-1082-13 Writing and Editing Series."       

The TET determined during its evaluation of proposals that Global's 
proposed project manager did not meet the evaluation standards set 
forth in the RFP, in that she did not appear to have the appropriate 
writing and editing skills and experience.  The agency requested 
during discussions that Global "provide evidence that the [p]roject 
[m]anager meets the [OPM] Management Handbook X-118 Qualification 
Standards for Positions Under the General Schedules, for GS-1082-13, 
Writing and Editing Series, which is a requirement of the RFP."  In 
response, Global provided a statement that its proposed project 
manager "fully meets, and in fact exceeds, the minimum qualifications" 
for the project manager as set forth in the RFP, a table purporting to 
demonstrate that this was the case, and a reference to the project 
manager's resume provided in Global's initial proposal.

The TET reviewed Global's response, and again concluded that, despite 
Global's claim to the contrary, its proposed project manager did not 
meet the RFP's evaluation standard for that position.  The contracting 
officer reviewed the TET's conclusions, and to ensure their accuracy, 
forwarded the materials submitted by Global concerning the 
qualifications of its proposed project manager to a Forest Service 
Personnel Management Classification Specialist.  The classification 
specialist found, consistent with the determination of the TET, that 
Global's proposed project manager did not meet the OPM standards 
referenced in the RFP.  For example, the specialist found that 
although Global's proposed project manager "has experience in 
publication production" in that she "currently manages complete 
publication production for all Global clients . . . her 
writing-editing experience is thin."  The specialist noted that the 
proposed project manager [DELETED].  The specialist noted that, in 
contrast, the OPM standards referenced in the RFP require "knowledge 
of a broad range of sources of pertinent information, and the skill to 
analyze and present the information gathered."  According to the OPM 
standards, "[w]riters and editors use this knowledge to gather and 
verify facts; to write or edit materials, such as reports, articles, 
pamphlets, scripts, or speeches; and to develop and present factual 
information that is clear and meaningful to the intended audience."  
The specialist submitted her findings to the TET, and the TET 
ultimately rated Global's proposed project manager as 0 out of 6.67 
available points.

Global argues that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable because 
its proposed project manager is "the same [p]roject [m]anager that has 
performed successfully on the predecessor contract and whose 
qualifications have never been previously challenged by the Forest 
Service."  In this regard, Global claims, without any substantive 
explanation beyond referencing her experience under the predecessor 
contract, that the proposed project manager "fully meets, and in fact 
easily exceeds, the minimum qualifications for GS-1082-13, Writing and 
Editing Series, based on 19 years of substantive and relevant 
experience in increasingly responsible positions."[2]

Based on our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the agency 
acted unreasonably in rating Global's proposed project manager as 0 
out of 6.67 points.  The information submitted by Global during the 
course of the procurement (and this protest) simply does not evidence 
that Global's proposed project manager has the experience or education 
necessary to be considered a writer/editor under the OPM standards 
referenced in the RFP.  With regard to the project manager's 
performance on the predecessor contract, the agency points out that 
the solicitation under which that contract was awarded did not provide 
that the qualifications of proposed project managers would be 
evaluated against the OPM standards referenced in this RFP, and 
accordingly, did not provide that the project manager possess the 
writing/editing skills referenced here.  The agency notes that the OPM 
standards were included in this solicitation because the scope and 
complexity of the work required has changed dramatically, and that a 
project manager with certain writing and editing skills would be 
better able to manage the contract with higher quality products being 
provided to the agency.  Because the education and experience 
requirements for, and the responsibilities associated with, the 
project manager position under the predecessor contract did not 
require that the project manager possess significant writing and 
editing skills, and thus differ from the education and experience 
requirements referenced in the project manager evaluation standard set 
forth in this RFP, the fact that Global's proposed project manager 
filled the project manager position under the predecessor contract 
does not render the evaluation unreasonable.[3]

Global contends that because the TET initially found Global's proposed 
project manager qualified and rated her at 5 out of 6.67 points, the 
"only rational explanation and the only appropriate inference to be 
made is that the Forest Service unduly contorted the evaluation to 
avoid an award to Global."  Prejudicial motives will not be attributed 
to contracting officials on the basis of unsupported allegations, 
inference, or supposition.  McDonnell Douglas, Corp., supra.  In any 
event, an agency may properly revise its technical ratings during the 
conduct of a procurement where, as here, the revisions are reasonably 
based, Hines/Mortenson, B-256543.4, Aug. 10, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  67, and, 
as discussed above, the agency's ultimate evaluation of Global's 
proposed project manager was reasonable and in accordance with the 
relevant evaluation criterion. 

The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal 
under the project management evaluation criterion, under which its 
proposal received 15 out of 25 available points, was unreasonable.  
For example, Global argues that the agency unreasonably determined 
that Global's BAFO was unclear as to the availability of its project 
manager and Global's ability to perform simultaneous projects.  Global 
points out, with regard to its ability to handle simultaneous 
projects, that it "proposed [DELETED] senior writer/editors [DELETED] 
([DELETED] percent available) to the Forest Service contract" and 
"[DELETED] proposed and reserve writer/editors," for which it was 
downgraded, while EMR's proposal received almost a perfect score under 
this evaluation criterion, even though EMR proposed only [DELETED] 
writer/editors committed to the contract for [DELETED].

The TET found that the individual proposed as Global's project manager 
was also [DELETED].  The TET thus found Global's proposal unclear as 
to the proposed project manager's availability to fill that position 
when needed.  The agency also was confused as to Global's staffing 
plan for senior writer/editors, because the individuals proposed for 
these positions were listed, without further explanation, as part of 
either a "dedicated" or "resource" team, each with an "availability" 
of "[DELETED]%."  During discussions, the agency thus informed Global 
that based upon its evaluation, "[DELETED]."  The agency requested 
that Global "elaborate" on this aspect of its staffing plan.  The 
agency also asked, with regard to the staffing of senior 
writer/editors, that Global "[e]xplain how the dedicated team will 
provide editing and quality assurance on every job and simultaneous 
work."  The agency added here that Global should "[d]escribe the 
course of action that will be taken if work requests exceed editorial 
and quality assurance editors." 

Global provided the following response, in relevant part, to the 
request for elaboration as to its project manager's availability:

     "[The project manager] is available to work on this contract 
     [DELETED] percent of her time . . . . [The project manager's] 
     'availability' of [DELETED] percent (as with the availability of 
     all our people) does not, of course, imply that they will be 
     committed for 2080 hours each year to work nor does the 
     anticipated work level support this.  In fact, [the project 
     manager's] record of work hours actually performed shows a level 
     of commitment with uncompensated overtime which would provide 
     sufficient margin for her to perform [DELETED] of such an 
     interpretation of the 'availability' criterion used . . . .  
     Thus, the statement of her 'availability [DELETED] percent of the 
     time' is correct."

With regard to the availability of its proposed senior writer/editors, 
Global again provided a table listing [DELETED] of its senior 
writer/editors as part of the "dedicated team" with "availability" of 
"[DELETED]%," and [DELETED] senior writer/editors as part of the 
"resource team" with "availability" also listed as "[DELETED]%."  
Global also provided a table depicting its document and publications 
staff by name and title only, and a table depicting its proposed key 
and non-key personnel by name, title, and years at Global and years on 
Forest Service work.

The agency, still concerned as to the "availability" of Global's 
proposed staff, including its project manager, to perform the contract 
in accordance with the statement of work, informed Global when 
discussions were reopened that the agency "would better understand 
[Global's] proposed staffing plan if [Global] provided an 
organizational chart that reflects the actual job titles and hours 
available to the contract of all personnel."

Global responded in its BAFO by providing a table depicting its 
proposed key and non-key personnel by name, title, and "percent of 
time available for this contract" only, without any reference to 
availability in terms of hours, and a table depicting its proposed 
document and publications staff by name and title, without any 
reference to availability whatsoever.  

The TET thus downgraded Global's proposal here because, among other 
things, the TET concluded that Global's proposal remained unclear as 
to the actual number of hours that Global's project manager and 
writer/editors would be available to perform the work required under 
the contract, and, as a consequence, as to Global's ability to perform 
simultaneous work.  In this regard, the TET found that the tables 
provided by Global in its BAFO did "not alleviate [the TET's concerns] 
as to who would be available and to what extent," and determined that 
Global had never adequately "delineated/defined" the "[r]oles of [the] 
'dedicated' vs. 'resource' team[s]."

In our view, the record supports this aspect of the agency's 
evaluation of Global's proposal.  Despite the agency's repeated 
requests, Global never clarified the meaning of its statements 
regarding the project manager's or writer/editors' availability 
(expressed by Global in percentages of their time), or of the 
designation that certain of its personnel were part of a "dedicated" 
team and others were part of a "resource" team.  That is, we agree 
with the agency that Global never clearly stated which individuals 
would be available to perform the work required and for how many hours 
per week, month, or year.  This lack of clarity in Global's proposal, 
considered in conjunction with Global's failure to comply with the 
agency's relatively simple request that Global furnish an 
organizational chart depicting its proposed personnel by title and 
hours committed to the contract, was reasonably viewed by the agency 
as cause for concern regarding Global's ability or commitment to 
perform the work required.  Accordingly, we find that the agency  
reasonably downgraded Global's proposal under the project management 
evaluation criterion.[4] 

Moreover, contrary to the protester's assertion, the agency's 
evaluation of EMR's proposal under this evaluation criterion was 
consistent with its evaluation of Global's proposal.  First, as 
mentioned above, EMR's proposal clearly stated which of its proposed 
personnel were committed to the contract and for how many hours per 
week.  The merits of EMR's approach to project management could 
therefore be readily evaluated by the agency, whereas the merits of 
Global's proposal, because of its failure to clarify these relatively 
fundamental points, could not.  Under these circumstances, we cannot 
conclude that the agency acted unreasonably in finding EMR's firm 
commitment of [DELETED] writer/editors for a minimum of [DELETED] more 
desirable than Global's proposed approach, which failed to provide any 
firm commitment or specific statement as to the number of hours its 
proposed writer/editors would be available to perform the contract.

Global protests that agency's evaluation of EMR's proposal overall, 
arguing that the evaluation, which resulted in EMR's final BAFO 
receiving 113 out of 120 available points, must have been unreasonable 
in light of the far lower rating that EMR's initial proposal and BAFO 
received (on which the previous award selection was based).  However, 
despite having access under our protective order to, among other 
things, EMR's proposal and the agency's evaluation documentation, 
Global, in its comments on the agency report, does not substantively 
respond to the propriety of the agency's evaluation of EMR's proposal.  
Rather, the protester simply continues to assert in general terms, 
without any reference to any aspect of EMR's proposal or the agency's 
evaluation, that the evaluation of EMR's proposal must have been 
unreasonable because of the relatively low rating EMR's initial 
proposal and BAFO received in comparison with the high rating its 
final BAFO received.  Global's challenge to this aspect of the 
agency's evaluation constitutes, at best, its mere disagreement with 
the evaluation results, and as such, does not provide a basis to find 
the evaluation unreasonable.  Metrica, Inc., supra;  McDonnell Douglas 
Corp., supra.

Global also challenges the price/technical tradeoff that resulted in 
the selection of EMR's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award, 
contending that insufficient consideration was given to Global's low 
price, and too much consideration was given to Global's past 
performance under the predecessor contract. 

Award may be made to an offeror submitting a higher-rated, 
higher-priced proposal where the award decision is consistent with the 
evaluation and source selection criteria and the agency reasonably 
determines that the technical superiority of the higher-priced offer 
outweighs the price difference.  Sabreliner Corp., B-242023; 
B-242023.2, Mar. 25, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  326.  Source selection officials 
have broad discretion in making such determinations, and the extent to 
which price may be sacrificed for technical merit, or vice versa, is 
limited only by the requirement that the tradeoff decision be 
reasonable in light of the established evaluation criteria and source 
selection scheme.  Rockwell Int'l Corp., B-261953.2; B-261953.6, Nov. 
22, 1995, 96-1 CPD  para.  34.
 
The agency's price/technical tradeoff analysis recognized that EMR's 
proposal's near perfect score represented a significant technical 
advantage over Global's lower-rated, lower-priced proposal.  The 
agency identified and discussed the particular weaknesses in Global's 
proposal, as compared to the strengths in EMR's proposal, under the 
various evaluation criteria.  The agency was generally concerned that 
Global's 

     "plan of work relative to how the work will be assigned, how it 
     will flow, how they will handle simultaneous work, quality of 
     their resources, and how they will handle quality control did not 
     assure [the agency] that [Global] could perform better than they 
     have in the past or better than EMR."  

The price/technical tradeoff also identified "non-quantifiable values 
of awarding to EMR" and "quantifiable values of awarding to EMR" under 
the specific evaluation criteria.[5]  The "quantifiable values of 
awarding to EMR" expressed in dollars the evaluated differences in the 
proposals with regard to particular identified advantages and 
disadvantages under the project management, corporate experience, and 
personnel qualifications evaluation criteria.  For example, the 
price/technical tradeoff analysis stated, with regard to the project 
management evaluation criterion, that "[a] well-organized staff [as 
was depicted in EMR's near perfect proposal] will allow for work to be 
produced in a more efficient manner," and that the 

     "[c]ost to the [g]overnment as a result of rescheduling projects 
     because of poor organization in the last year of [Global's] 
     contract is estimated to be $[DELETED], which over a 5-year 
     period equates to $[DELETED]."[6]   

In other words, the agency determined that the technical differences 
between the proposals in this area was worth $[DELETED] in favor of 
EMR.

Global argues that the quantifications set forth in the 
price/technical tradeoff analysis evidence that the agency "conducted 
its 'best value' analysis not by comparing the relative merits of the 
two offerors' proposals, but instead by comparing EMR's proposal to 
Global's performance during the last year of the incumbent 
contract.[7]"  Global contends that any focus on its past performance 
under the predecessor contract under each of the evaluation criteria 
was inconsistent with the RFP evaluation scheme, which identified past 
performance as only one of five evaluation criteria.

We disagree.  The quantifications were not based upon the agency's 
evaluation of the relative merits of EMR's proposal with Global's past 
performance on the predecessor contract.  Rather, they were based upon 
a comparison of the relative merits of EMR's and Global's proposals, 
in areas where Global's proposed approach to performance was 
substantially similar to its actual performance under the predecessor 
contract.  

For example, as discussed above, the agency compared the relative 
merits of EMR's and Global's proposals under the project management 
evaluation criterion, under which EMR's and Global's proposals were 
rated at 24 and 15, out of 25 points, respectively.  The agency noted 
that, among other things, EMR's proposal depicted a firm that was 
well-organized with a clearly delineated hierarchy, whereas Global's 
organizational structure was not clearly defined.  Since the agency 
found that Global's proposed approach to project management was 
substantially similar to the management structure it operated under in 
performing the predecessor contract, the agency simply relied on its 
experience with Global to determine what acceptance of what Global 
proposed would cost the government vis-a-vis what the cost of EMR's 
proposal would be.

Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the portion of the 
agency's price/technical tradeoff analysis which quantified the 
relative technical merits of the proposals was inconsistent with the 
RFP or gave too much weight to past performance.  Although Global 
generally states that its technical approach is substantially 
different from its approach under the predecessor contract, the only 
specific example cited is Global's proposed addition of a number of 
writer/editors--as discussed above, this was offset by Global's 
failure to provide any commitment as to the number of hours its 
proposed writer/editors would be available.  Global does not deny that 
its management approach, which was found to be poorly organized, is 
substantially similar to that used under the predecessor contract, and 
Global is obviously using the same project manager. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. A hearing was held in the protest pursuant to section 21.7 of our 
Bid Protest Regulations, 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39045 (1996) (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.7), at which certain of the issues raised 
were addressed by the parties.  Our conclusions are based on the 
testimony at the hearing as well as the written submissions of the 
parties.

2. Global apparently protests that although the RFP required that each 
offeror propose a project manager, the agency was actually seeking 
"another full-time [s]enior [w]riter-editor."  The agency's desire 
that proposed project managers possess significant writing and editing 
skills was, as indicated above, clear from the face of the 
solicitation.  As such, to the extent Global protests that the RFP was 
flawed in that the proposed project managers should not have been 
evaluated against a standard requiring writing and editing skills, its 
protest on this basis is untimely and will not be considered because 
it was not filed prior to the time for receipt of proposals.  Bid 
Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(1), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) 
(to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1)).

3. Global also complains that the contracting officer, in forwarding 
the materials submitted by Global to the personnel specialist, never 
specifically informed the specialist that Global's proposed project 
manager had served as the project manager on the predecessor contract.  
However, the project manager's experience on the predecessor contract 
was not clearly defined on her resume, even though Global was 
specifically requested during discussions to provide "evidence that 
[its] [p]roject [m]anager meets the [OPM standards]."  In any event, 
given that the project manager's performance under the predecessor 
contract did not, as evidenced by the record, involve completion of 
any significant writing and editing work, we fail to see why the 
personnel specialist's conclusion that the project manager did not 
meet the OPM standards would have changed had she been informed that 
the proposed project manager had served as the project manager under 
the predecessor contract.

4. Global also protests that its proposal was improperly downgraded 
under the project management evaluation criterion with regard to its 
proposed skill mix, or in the alternative, that the agency failed to 
conduct meaningful discussions with it concerning this aspect of its 
proposal.  Because the record reflects that Global was not 
significantly downgraded for this problem since the agency identified 
Global's skill mix as only one of a number of weaknesses under the 
relevant portion of the project management evaluation criterion, we 
fail to see how the agency's having raised this point during 
discussions or not considering it as a weakness would have had any 
impact on the agency's ultimate decision to award the contract to EMR.  
As such, we need not consider these issues on the merits.  McDonnell 
Douglas Corp., supra.   

5. For example, the agency found as a non-quantifiable value that, 
with regard to past performance, it received "more favorable comments 
relating to [EMR's] editing and graphics ability, which is the crux of 
this contract."  

6. The price/technical trade-off analysis details how the agency 
arrived at the $[DELETED] figure, and similarly explains how the 
agency calculated each of the quantified benefits in determining to 
award the contract to EMR.  Because Global does not challenge the 
specific dollar values calculated by the agency in performing this 
analysis, the calculations need not be detailed here.

7. Global contends that its problems under the predecessor contract 
have been exaggerated by the agency and notes that it received a 
relatively high rating for past performance (25 of 30 points).