BNUMBER:  B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B-276633.4 
DATE:  March 23, 1998
TITLE: RAMCOR Services Group, Inc., B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B-
276633.4, March 23, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:RAMCOR Services Group, Inc.

File:     B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B-276633.4

Date:March 23, 1998

Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & 
Gordon, for the protester.
Michael Cameron, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Paul  E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Past performance and technical evaluations are unobjectionable 
where they were conducted in accordance with stated evaluation 
criteria and are supported by the record. 

2.  Where evaluated deficiencies and weaknesses are relevant to more 
than one evaluation subfactor, agency's evaluation of those matters 
under multiple criteria does not constitute improper "double 
counting."

3.  Protest of elimination of protester's proposal from the 
competitive range based on disagreement with agency's evaluation and 
allegation of bias on the part of evaluators is denied where the 
evaluation was conducted in accordance with the criteria announced in 
the solicitation, and the record supports the evaluators' conclusions 
and provides no evidence of bias. 

DECISION

RAMCOR Services Group, Inc. (RSG) protests the elimination of its 
proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. HQ-97-03, issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
Department of Justice for base operations and support services.  RSG, 
the incumbent, contends that its proposal was improperly eliminated 
based on biased and faulty evaluations of RSG's past performance and 
technical proposal.

We deny the protest.

The RFP sought proposals to provide comprehensive base operating 
support services to the U.S. Border Patrol Satellite Academy in 
Charleston, South Carolina.  These services include student support 
services such as operation and cleaning of dormitories, operation of 
the dining facility, and training support services (e.g., provision of 
range masters, role players for practical exercises, computer 
laboratory support, and equipment); facility-based services such as 
janitorial services, waste removal, and facility/grounds maintenance; 
and security services.  The successful contractor will furnish all 
labor, equipment, transportation, administrative support, training, 
and supplies necessary to ensure competent and productive service 
performance.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract 
for a base year with four 1-year options.[1]

According to section M of the RFP, proposals were to be evaluated on 
the basis of three major factors, listed in descending order of 
importance:  "past performance," "technical and management 
capability," and "cost/price."  Section M also listed subfactors for 
"past performance" (quality of service, timeliness of performance, 
cost control, business practices and customer satisfaction, and key 
personnel) and for "technical/management capability" (management plan, 
quality control plan, and personnel resources/staffing approach).  
Each subfactor also contained a narrative description of relevant 
sub-elements.  "Past performance" was scored using an adjectival 
rating system:  "neutral," "outstanding," "good," "satisfactory," and 
"marginal."  "Technical/management capability" was scored on a similar 
scale of "outstanding," "good," "average," "marginal," and 
"unsatisfactory."[2]  Section M also provided for the establishment of 
a competitive range, based on the initial evaluations, to be comprised 
of the proposals of all offerors with a reasonable chance of receiving 
contract award.  Those eliminated from the competitive range would be 
"notified that their proposals [were] unacceptable, that negotiations 
with them [were] not contemplated and any revisions of their proposals 
[would] not be considered."  Award was to be made to the offeror whose 
proposal was considered most advantageous to the government. 
[Deleted] proposals, including those of Omni-Cube and RSG, were 
submitted by the May 30, 1997, closing date.  Based upon the initial 
evaluation of the non-price factors, RSG's past performance was rated 
"good."  Under the technical/ management capability factor, RSG's 
proposal was rated as "marginal" under the "management plan" subfactor 
and "unsatisfactory" under the "quality control plan" and "personnel 
resources/staffing approach" subfactors, with an overall 
"unsatisfactory" rating for this factor.  RSG's evaluated price was 
the [deleted] lowest of the proposals.  

Based upon these initial ratings, the contracting officer recommended 
that RSG's and [deleted] other proposals, all rated marginal or 
unsatisfactory, be eliminated from the competitive range.  In making 
her recommendation, the contracting officer stated that none of the 
eliminated proposals had a reasonable chance of being selected for 
award.  She noted that each proposal had significant deficiencies that 
could not feasibly be corrected by the offerors through holding 
discussions and submission of revised proposals.  In her view, major 
revisions were necessary to correct the deficiencies.  The remaining 
[deleted] proposals, including Omni-Cube's, were included in the 
competitive range. 

After receiving notice of the agency's competitive range determination 
and a debriefing, RSG filed this protest.  The agency initially stayed 
award of the contract, but proceeded to conduct discussions with the 
competitive range offerors and to obtain best and final offers from 
them.  Subsequently, the agency determined to override the stay based 
upon urgent and compelling circumstances, and awarded the contract to 
Omni-Cube.

RSG contends that the competitive range determination was flawed 
because it was based on erroneous and biased past performance and 
technical evaluations.[3]  In RSG's view, as the incumbent, it was 
entitled to a more favorable evaluation under all the non-price 
factors.  However, it is not the function of our Office to evaluate 
proposals de novo.  Rather, we will examine an agency's evaluation 
only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated 
evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations, since 
determining the relative merit of competing proposals is primarily a 
matter within the contracting agency's discretion.  Information Sys. & 
Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 284, 285 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  203 at 3; 
Advanced Tech. and Research Corp., B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  
230 at 3.  The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's 
judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.  
Medland Controls, Inc., supra.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Section L of the RFP called for offerors to submit information sheets 
for each government and commercial contract similar to the statement 
of work in the RFP.  Among other things, each sheet was to identify 
the contract and provide two references for each.  Section L also 
advised offerors that references other than those identified by the 
offeror may be contacted and that both data provided by the offerors 
and independently obtained data could be used by the agency in its 
evaluation.  Section M provided that past performance would be 
evaluated on the basis of five major subfactors:  quality of service, 
timeliness of performance, cost control, business practices and 
customer satisfaction, and key personnel.  Each of the past 
performance ratings was based on an assessment of the "risk 
anticipated of receiving quality product, delivered on time, or any 
degraded performance, or lack of customer satisfaction based upon 
offeror's past performance."  "Outstanding" was defined as "no risk," 
"good" was defined as "very little risk," "satisfactory" as "some 
potential risk," and marginal as "significant potential risk" 
anticipated. 

RSG identified five contracts including the predecessor contract at 
Charleston.  The other four contracts concerned work at the Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) at Glynco, Georgia and 
Artesia, New Mexico.  For all contracts, RSG identified the 
contracting officer and administrative contracting officer (ACO) as 
references.  The ACO on the predecessor contract recused herself from 
responding to the past performance questionnaire.  Accordingly, the 
agency submitted questionnaires to other respondents at the Charleston 
facility who were familiar with RSG's past performance.  The agency 
received eight responses for RSG and its food services contractor, the 
majority of which rated RSG and its food services subcontractor as 
"good" or "satisfactory."  RSG's proposal was initially evaluated as 
"marginal" overall under the past performance factor.

After reviewing the negative comments, the contracting officer 
furnished a list of them to RSG for response and RSG provided a 
detailed rebuttal.  The contracting officer determined that the 
specific negative comments were not applicable to the evaluation 
subfactors listed on the questionnaires and so determined to disregard 
them.  Instead, she relied on the adjectival ratings alone as a result 
of which she scored RSG's proposal as "good" overall under the past 
performance factor.

RSG, as the incumbent contractor, argues that its overall rating of 
"good" under the past performance factor is erroneous.  Since three 
predecessor contract respondents included negative comments, RSG 
argues that it was not enough to disregard the comments and accept the 
adjectival ratings.  In RSG's view, its past performance on the 
predecessor contract was excellent as evidenced by a 1996 letter of 
appreciation for its performance, as well as statements by the 
contracting officer at a pre-proposal site visit regarding RSG's 
"excellent" performance.  Thus, RSG contends that it is deserving of 
an "outstanding" rating.[4]

Our review of the record discloses nothing objectionable in the past 
performance evaluation.  Of the eight respondents' questionnaires, 
only six concern RSG; the other two concern its food services 
subcontractor.  Of the other six, three rated RSG as "satisfactory" 
and two rated it as "good," and only one rated its past performance as 
"outstanding."  While RSG argues that this "outstanding" evaluation of 
its work at the FLETC-Artesia reflects its true past performance, that 
contract is not completely relevant to the type of work to be 
performed under the new contract.  In this regard, the FLETC-Artesia 
contract was for construction and rehabilitation of the FLETC, covered 
only 2 years, and was worth less than $600,000.  In contrast, the 
RFP's statement of work covers base operation services for an entire 
training center including food services, security, maintenance, and 
training support, at a cost in excess of $30 million over a potential 
5 years.  The more relevant past performance concerned RSG's work on 
the predecessor contract.  While some of the respondents included 
irrelevant negative comments, the contracting officer took reasonable 
steps to eliminate any unwarranted negative impact by providing RSG an 
opportunity to respond, by disregarding the negative comments, and by 
effectively raising the respondents' "satisfactory" ratings to "good."  

In addition, the "good" rating is not inconsistent with the 
contracting officer's site visit statements.  As explained by the 
agency, RSG had expressed concern that the recompetition of the 
predecessor contract would imply the agency's dissatisfaction with its 
past performance.  When such a question was raised at the site visit 
by a potential offeror, the contracting officer explained that the 
resolicitation was not a negative reflection on RSG's performance as 
incumbent.  She also stated that RSG "had done an excellent job in 
preparing the [facility] for its first class of students in a 
remarkably short period of time."  The contracting officer's praise 
for RSG's early "excellent" performance does not mean that its 
performance throughout its contract period was excellent.  Further, an 
"outstanding" rating is based on "no risk," while a "good" rating is 
based on "very little risk" regarding performance.  Since RSG admitted 
in its rebuttal to the negative comments that it had "made mistakes" 
in the performance of the predecessor contract, there is no basis to 
conclude that the rating of "good" was an unreasonable evaluation of 
RSG's past performance.

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY EVALUATION

RSG's proposal was rated "unsatisfactory" under the 
"technical/management capability" factor based on deficiencies 
associated with its management, preventive maintenance, and quality 
control plans, as well as personnel resources and staffing approach.  
RSG challenges this "unsatisfactory" rating, contending that the 
proposal deficiencies and weaknesses identified by the evaluators were 
not valid.[5]  From our review of the record, including the proposals, 
evaluation documents, and the arguments of the parties, we find the 
agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated 
evaluation criteria.[6]  Information Sys. & Networks Corp., supra.

For example, under the first subfactor, "management plan," the 
evaluators identified major weaknesses associated with RSG's 
preventive maintenance plan.  Specifically, they noted that RSG had 
proposed that, should scheduled maintenance work be missed, it would 
be completed the following month, without adjusting the preventive 
maintenance schedule, which could result in such maintenance work 
being performed back-to-back or avoided due to work load or staffing 
concerns.  RSG contends that this evaluation is unfair because 
implicit in its proposal was the understanding that such slippages 
would be rare, that all scheduled preventive maintenance would be 
completed, and that the 1-month slip was simply an example, not a 
definite schedule.  However, while RSG's proposal provides that 
"[t]his seldom happens," it goes on to say that "sometimes emergency 
work becomes a top priority and everything else is allowed to slip."  
The proposal then provided that when that maintenance is allowed to 
slip, RSG would "bring it back onto its original inspection schedule."  
Even though RSG proposes to provide all the maintenance required, 
because it did not propose to change the schedule for the slipped 
item, the evaluators are correct that there is a potential for 
maintenance to be done too close to the next scheduled maintenance.  
We see nothing unreasonable in the evaluators' assessment.

Under this same subfactor, the evaluators also assigned a deficiency 
to RSG's proposed janitorial schedule in a particular building.  The 
statement of work provides that the classroom building (No. 61) was 
open for student use 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.  It 
specifically provides:  "In order not to interrupt classes, cleaning 
in this Building shall take place during the hours from 5:00 p.m. to 
7:00 a.m., 5 days per week."  RSG proposed to provide four janitors 
for cleaning this building, with three of them assigned from 7:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m. and one of them from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.  The proposal also 
stated that when the three morning janitors began their work, they 
would clean restrooms, offices, and empty classrooms.  RSG argues 
that, since this schedule would not interrupt classes, it had not 
taken exception to the RFP requirements.  RSG's argument ignores the 
clear provision that the RFP prohibition covers cleaning throughout 
Building 61; it does not provide an exception for cleaning areas which 
are not occupied classrooms.  The evaluators properly considered this 
exception to an RFP provision to be a deficiency.[7]

Under the "quality control plan" subfactor, the evaluators found major 
weaknesses associated with RSG's inspection program.  Among other 
matters, they were concerned that RSG relied too heavily on 
self-inspection; failed to address the number and frequency of 
unscheduled inspections; and had not provided for its dedicated 
quality control employee to devote enough time to inspections.  RSG 
argues that its quality control plan was appropriately based on 
customer, staff, and employee feedback; its identification of 
10-percent random surveys of work met the unscheduled inspection 
requirement; and the agency misunderstood the work that its quality 
control employee would perform.  Contrary to RSG's arguments, its 
quality control plan does suffer from the identified weaknesses.  It 
relies heavily on line employees (e.g., janitors and maintenance 
technicians) to use checklists on which they will identify any 
deficiencies relating to their own work.  While RSG's proposal 
provides for supervisors to conduct 10-percent random surveys, it does 
not provide any particular plan for how the 10 percent would be 
determined.  The proposal also indicates that the dedicated quality 
control inspector would devote
1 day per week to inspections, apparently spending the balance of his 
time on paperwork.  RSG observes that the single day represents the 
amount of time in
1 week devoted to inspection.  However, its proposal does not make 
this clear and does not indicate how that time would be spent each 
week.  Thus, the evaluators were reasonably concerned that quality 
deficiencies would not be readily identified under RSG's plan.[8] 

Under the third subfactor "personnel resources/staffing approach," the 
evaluators assigned deficiencies because the proposed project manager 
did not meet the requirement for 5 years of relevant experience.  RSG 
argues that its proposed manager's resume indicated more than 10 years 
of relevant experience.  The RFP, as amended, requires that the 
project manager have at least 5 years of "responsible experience in 
the management and supervision of adult education resident facilities 
including facility operations maintenance, food services, housekeeping 
and human resources at facilities having the approximate size, 
characteristics and service mix at the [Charleston site]."  While the 
resume indicates 10 years of experience, it is not clear that the 
employee meets the requirement.  In this regard, the resume indicates 
that the proposed manager had worked in that capacity at the 
Charleston site and as "vice president and program manager" at the 
FLETC-Artesia.  However, his resume does not indicate what his 
responsibilities were at the FLETC and a matrix of relevant experience 
reflects only 1 year of experience with food service operations and 
security, and only 3 years experience with role players.  RSG argues 
that the evaluators should have known that the FLETC experience was 
comparable to that at Charleston and given its proposed manager 
credit.  While evaluators may consider evidence from sources outside 
the proposals, Continental Maritime of San Diego, Inc., B-249858.2, 
B-249858.3, Feb. 11, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  230 at 6, agencies are not 
obligated to go in search of information specifically requested by the 
solicitation, which the offeror has omitted or failed to adequately 
present.  Telos Field Eng'g, B-251384, Mar. 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  271 
at 6.  Accordingly, we find the agency's evaluation unobjectionable. 

RSG also contends that the evaluators improperly penalized it by 
making multiple references to the same deficiencies and weaknesses 
under the same subfactors.[9]  It is improper for an agency to 
exaggerate the stated importance of any one evaluation criterion by 
considering an element of that criterion under one or more other 
evaluation criteria.  J.A. Jones Management Servs., Inc., B-254941.2, 
Mar. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  244 at 6.  However, an agency is not 
precluded from considering an element of a proposal under more than 
one evaluation criterion where the element is relevant and reasonably 
related to each criterion under which it is considered.  Teledyne 
Brown Eng'g, B-258078, B-258078.2, Dec. 6, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  223 at 
4-5.  Here, the alleged examples of multiple counting of the same 
deficiencies and weaknesses were not improper because the agency 
legitimately considered elements which were relevant and reasonably 
related to the various evaluation subfactors under which they were 
considered.  

For example, the RFP called for an alternate project manager (APM) to 
be named as one of eight key personnel.  In the absence of the project 
manager, the APM was responsible for the overall management and 
coordination of contract work and to serve as the central point of 
contact for the government, having the authority to speak and act for 
the contractor.  During normal duty hours, the project manager or APM 
was required to be on site and available within 30 minutes notice.  
During non-duty hours, one or the other was required to be available 
within 2 hours.  RSG proposed two different APMs.  The primary APM was 
stationed at RSG's home office in Tucson, Arizona.  The secondary APM 
was on site in Charleston, but also was the facility operations 
manager, another key personnel position.  In evaluating these proposed 
personnel, the evaluators assigned five deficiencies and two major 
weakness.  Taken together, the deficiencies and weaknesses concerned 
the inability of the primary APM to be on site within the stated time, 
overburdening of the secondary APM, and a lack of required education 
for the secondary APM.[10]  

As explained by the agency, and supported in the record, these 
multiple deficiencies and major weakness relate to different aspects 
of RSG's proposal of its APMs.  In this regard, the first three 
deficiencies and major weakness were assessed under a sub-element of 
the "management plan" subfactor concerning the "processes and controls 
the offeror proposes for managing the contract," while the fourth and 
fifth deficiencies were assessed under separate sub-elements of the 
"personnel resources/staffing approach" subfactor:  "past experience 
of key personnel" and "appropriateness of the project team 
organization structure."  Since they concern different sub-elements of 
different subfactors, there is nothing objectionable in the agency's 
multiple references to these deficiencies and weaknesses.  

Likewise, the multiple references under the same sub-elements are 
unobjectionable.  The first deficiency under the "processes and 
controls" sub-element dealt with RSG's violation of the RFP's 
requirement for an APM who could be on site within a specified time.  
As stated above, RSG's proposed primary APM could not meet that 
requirement.  The second deficiency dealt with RSG's expressed concern 
that there were "too many layers of management" and so proposed the 
APM structure that it did.  While this deficiency also concerns the 
primary APM and, arguably, the secondary APM, the evaluated deficiency 
represents a legitimate concern regarding RSG's management plan 
vis-ï¿½-vis the model outlined in the RFP.  The third deficiency dealt 
with the secondary APM and his status as another key personnel, the 
facilities operations manager.  Since both positions were listed in 
the RFP as full-time key positions, we see nothing improper in the 
evaluators' denomination of this as a separate deficiency.  With 
regard to the two major weaknesses, we note that the proposed APM is 
simply one of three examples of a "process and controls" weakness 
which concerned RSG's proposal to continue to function under the 
predecessor contract while failing to consider the responsibilities 
and functions included in the RFP for the new contract.  The other 
major weakness, under the "monitoring techniques for schedule control" 
sub-element dealt with the evaluator's reasonable concerns with RSG's 
ability to meet all contract requirements due to potential 
overburdening of the secondary APM who already was proposed to perform 
a full-time key position.[11]

COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

In a negotiated procurement, an agency is to determine a competitive 
range for the purpose of selecting those offerors with which the 
contracting agency will hold oral or written discussions.  FAR  sec.  
15.609 (June 1997); Hummer Assocs., B-236702, Jan. 4, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  
12 at 3.  The competitive range consists of all proposals that have a 
reasonable chance of being selected for award.  Intown Properties, 
Inc., B-250392, Jan. 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  73 at 3.  

Here, while RSG's past performance was ranked "good," its proposal was 
evaluated as marginal in 1 subfactor and unsatisfactory in the other 2 
with more than 20 assessed deficiencies and weaknesses and only 2 
minor strengths, ranking it [deleted] in technical merit.  In 
contrast, of the [deleted] proposals included in the competitive 
range, all but 1 had 5 or fewer deficiencies and weaknesses, and 3 had 
more than 12 strengths.  All were rated "good" or "average" overall in 
technical merit and "outstanding" or "good" in past performance.   
While RSG has challenged the evaluation, as discussed above, our 
review has disclosed nothing unreasonable or objectionable in that 
evaluation.  In view of the unsatisfactory ratings assigned to RSG's 
proposal, the agency's assessment that major revisions were necessary 
to correct the various deficiencies and weaknesses, and the overall 
acceptability of the [deleted] proposals included in the competitive 
range, we conclude that the agency properly excluded RSG's proposal 
from the competitive range without conducting discussions.  TLC Sys., 
B-243220, July 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  37 at 2-3.

BIAS ALLEGATIONS

RSG attributes its past performance and other evaluation scores to 
bias on the part of various agency employees.  For example, it alleges 
that a contract specialist, who refused to accept that RSG would not 
be held responsible for an inventory discrepancy, sought to improperly 
influence the past performance and technical evaluation.  It also 
alleges that the contracting officer unreasonably held a grudge 
against it based on the incorrect assumption that an RSG employee had 
made false allegations to the contracting officer's superior.  The 
agency employees charged with bias by RSG have denied any bias or 
other improper motives in their participation in the procurement.  RSG 
has produced no evidence in support of these allegations, pointing 
instead to the record of the evaluations. 

Government officials are presumed to act in good faith; we will not 
attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on 
the basis of inference or supposition.  Triton Marine Constr. Corp., 
supra.  In addition to producing credible evidence showing bias, the 
protester must demonstrate that the agency bias translated into action 
that unfairly affected the protester's competitive position.  Id.  
Here, RSG has furnished no credible evidence to support its 
allegation; it merely infers bias based on the evaluation and the 
exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range.  We will not 
attribute bias in the evaluation of proposals on the basis of 
inference or supposition.  TLC Sys., supra, at 4.  Moreover, since the 
record establishes the propriety of the agency's evaluation of RSG's 
proposal and the consequent exclusion of the proposal from the 
competitive range, there is no basis to question the motives of the 
evaluators.

The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The RFP also provided for the performance of other services to be 
paid on a fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity basis, 
and on a time-and-materials basis through the issuance of delivery 
orders. 

2. Under this rating system, each adjective represented an assessment 
of how well the proposal met the requirements, the offeror's 
understanding of the requirements, the approach, the number of 
deficiencies and weaknesses, and the chance of success.  Thus, an 
"outstanding" proposal "significantly exceeds the requirements"; 
"good" "meets all requirements"; "average" "meets the basic 
requirements"; "marginal" "barely meets the basic requirements"; and 
"unsatisfactory" "does not meet requirements."  In addition, marginal 
proposals offered only a minimal chance of success, while an 
unsatisfactory proposal did "not offer a reasonable chance of 
success."

3. RSG raises a wide variety of arguments in support of its protest.  
We have considered them all and find none of them has merit.  For 
example, RSG challenged the price evaluation based on statements by 
the evaluators of the initial proposals that the variance in proposed 
line item prices indicated a lack of understanding by the offerors.  
However, the contracting officer and the source selection authority, 
who had access to both the technical and price proposals, reasonably 
concluded that the majority of the total fixed-price offers were 
clustered within a narrow 
15-percent range, and determined that each offer appeared sufficient 
to perform the contract.  See Cardinal Scientific, Inc., B-270309, 
Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  70 at 4-5.  RSG's mere disagreement with 
this conclusion is not a basis for finding it unreasonable.  Medland 
Controls, Inc., B-255204, B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 
94-1 CPD  para.  260 at 3.  This decision will address only the more 
significant matters raised by RSG. 

4. RSG also alleges that the predecessor contract respondents were 
biased against it and that this led to their negative comments.  Apart 
from its reference to the "unfounded" negative comments, RSG has 
presented no evidence that any of the respondents were biased against 
it.  Its speculation of bias is insufficient to support its 
allegations.  Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  171 at 6.  Further, we have reviewed the negative comments 
as well as RSG's rebuttal and note that the comments essentially are 
statements of opinion regarding RSG's performance.  Since RSG's 
rebuttal admitted that it "had made mistakes which [it would] continue 
to correct," we find no evidence of bias from the respondents' 
expressions of dissatisfaction with RSG's performance.  

5. RSG also asserts that the technical evaluators were improperly 
influenced by the negative comments of the past performance 
respondents.  In this regard, it notes that the respondents criticized 
RSG's cross-utilization of personnel and that some of the technical 
evaluators also seemed concerned with the same matter.  From our 
examination of the record, we found no evidence of any improper 
influence.  Any tendency of the technical evaluators to view RSG's 
proposal in the same light as the past performance respondents is 
unsurprising, since both the evaluators and respondents were stationed 
at the Charleston site and thus had common experiences upon which to 
draw. 

6. Although RSG challenged virtually all of the evaluations, this 
decision will only address a representative number of them.  

7. RSG's proposal also was assessed a minor weakness for its proposal 
of only 153 full-time employees (FTE).  RSG alleges that it was 
subjected to disparate treatment because its proposal was closer to 
the agency's revised FTE estimate of 176 FTEs than were other 
competitive range offerors.  In RSG's view, it was improper to include 
other proposals, with far fewer proposed FTEs, in the competitive 
range and to provide them the opportunity to correct this weakness 
through discussions.  On this record, there is no evidence of 
disparate treatment.  All offerors' proposals were subject to the same 
standard and were assessed major or minor weaknesses on the basis of 
how close the proposed FTEs were to the revised FTE estimate.  In this 
regard, Omni-Cube, the awardee, also proposed [deleted] FTEs and was 
assessed a minor weakness as a result.  While RSG could have increased 
its FTE proposal through discussions, because its proposal was 
properly eliminated from the competitive range, RSG was not entitled 
to discussions.   

8. In a related argument, RSG claims that Omni-Cube proposed a similar 
self-inspection plan, yet was not assigned any weaknesses.  A review 
of its proposal demonstrates that Omni-Cube proposed a much more 
comprehensive [deleted] plan. [deleted].

9. RSG identified a number of examples of alleged improper multiple 
counting of the same deficiencies and weaknesses, none of which has 
merit.  In addition, some of its examples were raised for the first 
time in its comments to the agency report.   Where a protester files 
supplemental protest grounds, each new ground must independently 
satisfy the timeliness requirement of our Bid Protest Regulations, 
which do not contemplate the piecemeal presentation or development of 
protest issues.  QualMed, Inc., B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
94 at 12-13.  This includes the identification of "examples" of flaws 
in the evaluation generally alleged in the initial protest.  Id.  Such 
new issues must be filed within 10 calendar days after the protester 
knew or should have known the basis for its protest.  Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1997).  Since RSG was furnished 
with a copy of the evaluated deficiencies and weaknesses at its 
debriefing, its attempt to supplement its protest some 7 weeks later 
represents an unwarranted, piecemeal presentation of the issue.      

10. One of the deficiencies assessed on the primary APM was identified 
as a failure to follow an RFP requirement for an "on-site APM."  As 
RSG observes, the RFP does not specifically call for the APM to be on 
site at all times.  In fact, language to the effect that the project 
manager or APM be on site "at all times" was deleted from the 
statement of work in amendment No. 0003.  Notwithstanding the 
evaluators' apparent misunderstanding of the requirement, the 
deficiency remains valid.  The primary APM, stationed in Tucson, 
Arizona, could not possibly meet the 30-minute and 2-hour on-site 
requirements of the RFP.  

11. Even to the extent the multiple deficiencies under the first 
subfactor are considered duplicative, this aspect of the evaluation 
was not dispositive.  RSG's proposal was evaluated with five 
additional deficiencies and more than 10 major and minor weaknesses 
not associated with the proposed APM.