BNUMBER:  B-276122 
DATE:  May 13, 1997
TITLE: Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited, B-
276122, May 13, 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:Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited

File:     B-276122

Date:May 13, 1997

Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for the protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Laurie Stiteler, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency conducted meaningful discussions with the protester regarding 
its staffing level where during discussions the agency reasonably 
informed the protester that its proposed staffing may not be 
sufficient and requested the protester to address this concern.

DECISION

Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited, protests 
the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Air Force, San 
Antonio Air Logistics Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F41650-96-R-0008 for the maintenance and repair of military family 
housing at Kelly Air Force Base.  A Plus contends that the Air Force 
failed to conduct meaningful discussions, as required, prior to 
rejecting its proposal as technical unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on August 21, 1996, as a section 8(a) set-aside.  
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with certain 
materials, parts, and supplies to be reimbursed at cost by the 
government, for a base period of 1 year with 3 option years.  

The evaluation scheme in the RFP provided for a best value award; 
however, only proposals determined technically acceptable with regard 
to certain listed technical factors, either initially or as a result 
of discussions, were to be considered for award, which was to be based 
on price and performance risk.  The technical factors were evaluated 
with regard to the offeror's compliance with, understanding of, and 
soundness of approach in meeting the requirements stated in the 
performance work statement (PWS) and the solicitation.  Offerors were 
cautioned to submit sufficient information to enable the technical 
evaluators to fully ascertain each offeror's capability to perform all 
the requirements.  One of the technical areas for evaluation was 
"PLANNING," for which offerors were required to submit a manning and 
staffing plan that demonstrated a clear understanding of the tasks in 
the RFP's PWS.

The Air Force received [DELETED] proposals, including A Plus's, by the 
November 18 due date.  In the "Capacity to Meet the Requirements" 
section of its proposal, A Plus presented its staffing manning plan, 
which provided for a total of [DELETED] FTEs (Full-Time 
Equivalent--2,080 hours per year) positions for this contract.  In its 
manning chart, A Plus noted that the stated FTEs did not constitute 
the actual number of personnel to be deployed.  A Plus also included 
an organizational chart in its proposal which provided a synopsis of 
the responsibilities of corporate officials and employee 
classifications by position and title.

The agency's technical evaluator rated A Plus's proposal as 
unacceptable because, among other things, A Plus "provided a confusing 
staffing and manning plan with inadequate FTEs and provided no 
assurance or indication their plan could meet the requirements" of the 
PWS.  Nonetheless, the Air Force apparently determined that the 
proposal was "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable," and in 
a letter dated December 20, 1996, the contracting officer informed A 
Plus that its "[t]echnical proposal was found to be deficient in the 
following areas, and that additional information is needed to complete 
our review."

     "(a) Your offer failed to address an adequate manning and 
     staffing plan, that demonstrated a clear understanding of the 
     PWS, inasmuch as:

     "(1) Manning Chart - Indicates [DELETED] Full Time Employees.
     Organization chart indicates [DELETED] Full Time Employees.
     Need to verify which is the correct number to adequately meet the 
requirement of the PWS.

                    .     .     .     .     .

     "(3) Staffing Manning Plan - Incomplete, need to verify 
     sufficient number of people."

The letter offered A Plus an opportunity to correct these and other 
listed deficiencies, and stated that no further discussions were 
anticipated.

A Plus submitted a written response to the contracting officer's 
discussion letter on December 30.  With regard to item (a)(1), A Plus 
explained the manning chart was based on FTEs to be utilized for this 
contract, which it increased to [DELETED], but that the manning chart 
did not indicate the actual number of personnel to be deployed.  A 
Plus also replaced the original organizational chart with an 
organizational chart which showed an average number of [DELETED] 
personnel (including part-time) A Plus proposed to deploy for this 
contract.  In response to item (a)(3), concerning A Plus's staffing 
manning plan, A Plus stated that it included the number of estimated 
personnel to be deployed by position and title in its organizational 
chart.

The Air Force evaluated A Plus's response, and with regard to items 
(a)(1) and (3), determined that A Plus proposed inadequate staffing to 
accomplish the work, and that because its proposal "still confused the 
issue" and failed to explain how it would meet the requirements with 
its proposed staffing, the Air Force believed that A Plus did not 
understand the RFP requirements and had not developed a sound approach 
to meeting the requirements.  Based on this (and other, less 
significant reasons), A Plus's proposal was rejected as technically 
unacceptable.

The gravamen of A Plus's protest is that the Air Force did not conduct 
meaningful discussions with regard to its staffing level.  
Discussions, when they are conducted, must be meaningful and must not 
prejudicially mislead offerors.  SRS Technologies, B-254425.2, Sept. 
14, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  125 at 6.  Although discussions need not be 
all-encompassing, an agency is required to point out weaknesses or 
deficiencies in a proposal as specifically as practical considerations 
permit so that the agency leads the offeror into areas of its proposal 
which require amplification or correction.  E.L. Hamm & Assocs., Inc., 
B-250932, Feb. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  156 at 3-4.  An agency may not 
mislead an offeror, through the framing of a discussion question, into 
responding in a manner that does not address the agency's concerns.  
Price Waterhouse, B-254492.2, Feb. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  168 at 9.  

A Plus argues that the Air Force's December 20 discussion letter was 
deficient because it failed to inform A Plus of the agency's paramount 
concern, based on the government estimate of [DELETED] personnel 
required to perform the contract, that A Plus's proposed staffing 
level was unacceptably low, but instead focused on the apparent 
discrepancy between the staffing and organizational charts; this 
assertedly misled A Plus into believing that it merely needed to 
verify the correct number of personnel it was proposing or to explain 
why the total on its staffing and organizational charts did not match.  
A Plus also contends that the Air Force's request that A Plus verify 
that there were a sufficient number of people in its staffing manning 
plan needs to be viewed in the same context, i.e., another way of 
asking A Plus to choose between the [DELETED] and [DELETED] figures, 
in its manning and organizational charts, respectively.[1]  

The protester relies on our decision in Professional Servs. Group, 
Inc., B-274289.2, Dec. 19, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  54 at 4, to argue that 
since the staffing level proposed by A Plus was considered by the Air 
Force to be a deficiency, the agency was required to provide A Plus 
with the opportunity to either change its staffing level or persuade 
the agency that its lower level of staffing could satisfy the agency's 
requirements.  In that case, we found that an agency had failed to 
conduct meaningful discussions where it merely sent a generic request 
to all offerors to provide more detailed staffing plans in a 
particular format and "never once hinted to [the protester] that its 
proposed staffing was inadequate."  Id. at 3.

By contrast, here, the Air Force's December 20 discussion letter 
revealed the agency's concerns with A Plus's proposed staffing level.  
Under heading (a) of the letter, the contracting officer informed A 
Plus that its "offer failed to address an adequate manning and 
staffing plan that demonstrated a clear understanding of the PWS."  In 
this context, it should have been reasonably apparent to A Plus that 
in asking it in item (1) to verify which is the correct number of 
employees it was proposing--the [DELETED] indicated in the manning 
chart or the [DELETED] indicated in the organization chart--"to 
adequately meet the requirement of the PWS," and by informing it in 
item (3) that its staffing manning plan was incomplete and that A Plus 
needed to verify that a "sufficient number of people" were in its 
staffing manning plan, the Air Force was questioning the sufficiency 
of A Plus's proposed staffing level.  Indeed, in A Plus's December 30 
response to the Air Force's discussion letter, A Plus stated that it 
had "made appropriate changes to ensure adequate staffing to satisfy 
the requirements of the [PWS]."  Accordingly, the record shows that 
the discussions conducted here were adequate because the Air Force led 
A Plus into the area of its proposal considered deficient and of 
primary concern to the agency.  See D'Wiley's Servs., Inc., B-251912, 
May 11, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  377 at 4-5; Centro Management, Inc., 
B-249411.2, Dec. 2, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  387 at 6-7.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although A Plus raised other issues concerning the Air Force's 
evaluation of its staffing plan, such as the Air Force's apparent 
concerns over cross-utilization of employees and use of part-time 
employees, the record confirms that the central reason that its 
proposal was considered unacceptable was its low overall staffing 
level and its failure to persuade the agency that the work could be 
done with its proposed staffing.  Thus, we need not address A Plus's 
other contentions.