BNUMBER:  B-276865 
DATE:  July 29, 1997
TITLE: MCA Research Corporation, B-276865, July 29, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:MCA Research Corporation

File:     B-276865

Date:July 29, 1997

R. Wood Miles for the protester.
Russell P. Spindler, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency is not required to structure solicitation requirements to 
eliminate competitive advantages allegedly possessed by incumbent 
contractor where  advantages did not result from any unfair government 
action.

2.  Protest that solicitation requirement for the submission of 
resumes for certain key personnel is restrictive of competition is 
denied where record establishes that the requirement was reasonably 
designed to ensure that the agency's minimum needs would be met.

DECISION

MCA Research Corporation protests as unduly restrictive of competition 
certain key personnel requirements under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. N68936-97-R-0057, issued by the Department of the Navy for weapons 
test support services at the Echo Range in China Lake, California.

We deny the protest.

Section M of the RFP provides that award will be made to the offeror 
whose proposal represents the best value to the government "from a 
technical/management and cost standpoint."  The four evaluation 
factors, listed in descending order of performance are management, 
past performance, technical, and cost.  One of the three subfactors 
under the management factor is "Qualifications of key personnel and 
their availability." 

Key personnel were identified as follows:

     Program Manager
     Deputy Program Manager
     Second Level Supervisors
     Administrative Personnel Responsible for Safety
     Administrative Personnel Responsible for Security
     Administrative Personnel Responsible for Government Property
     Head of Engineering Staff[1]

Resumes and letters of commitment were required to be submitted for 
all proposed key personnel.  In addition, offerors were required to 
describe their plans for hiring and retaining a qualified work force 
with the following proviso:

     The Government anticipates that at least 80 percent of the 
     incumbent employees will be retained by the follow-on contractor.  
     If the offeror does not plan on hiring the current work force, 
     then the plan on acquiring a work force needs to address how the 
     offeror will select, relocate, and train the work force so they 
     can assume responsibility for contract performance within the 
     Phase-in period.[2]

MCA alleges that it learned that a former Echo Range manager had 
convinced the incumbent key personnel to go with one firm as a 
consolidated unit, thus effectively limiting full and open competition 
because other bidders would have to include resumes of non-incumbents.  
The protester further asserts that there is a prevailing attitude 
against "outsiders" in the China Lake area, thus potentially limiting 
the ability of non-incumbent key personnel to function at an optimal 
level.  In addition, the protester objects to the identification of 
three administrative tracking positions as "key positions," asserting 
that all three positions are currently held by one person, and further 
objecting that the inclusion of administrative support positions as 
"key personnel" is, in and of itself, highly unusual.  The protester 
concludes that to list three "key" administrative positions currently 
performed by one person indicates that this solicitation requirement 
is "job protection" for that individual. 
                      
MCA asserts that, in order to enhance competition, the solicitation 
should be amended to delete the resume requirements for all personnel 
other than the program manager and section M should be revised to 
reflect the deletion of the resume requirements.  

In seeking competition, an agency is not required to construct its 
procurements in a manner that neutralizes the competitive advantage 
that some potential offerors (including incumbent contractors) may 
have over others by virtue of their own particular circumstances where 
the advantages did not result from unfair action on the part of the 
government.  See Group Technologies Corp.; Electrospace Sys., Inc.,   
B-250699 et al., Feb. 17, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  150 at 13.  Agencies are 
required to specify their needs in a manner designed to promote full 
and open competition and thus may include restrictive requirements 
only to the extent necessary to satisfy their minimum needs; we will 
not question an agency's determination of its minimum needs unless 
that determination has no reasonable basis.  Innovative Refrigeration 
Concepts, B-272370, Sept. 30, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  127 at 3.

Neither the alleged actions of the former, unnamed Echo Range manager 
(who is not a government employee), nor the alleged characteristics of 
the China Lake community constitute government action, much less 
unfair government action.  Accordingly, even if these alleged 
circumstances provided the incumbent contractor with some type of 
competitive advantage, the agency is not required to take that into 
account in designing a solicitation that meets its minimum needs.  
Mortara Instrument, Inc., B-272461, Oct. 18, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  212 at 
6.

With respect to two of the three employment categories which MCA 
specifically challenges as not requiring resumes--administrative 
personnel responsible for safety and security--the agency points out 
that the contract imposes very stringent guidelines with respect to 
range safety and security, as would be expected in a contract to 
support a major military test range.  The Navy reports that experience 
has shown that the quality of a contractor's performance in these 
areas is directly related to the importance placed upon the staffing 
of the personnel assigned responsibilities in these areas.  With 
respect to the third employment category--administrative personnel 
responsible for government property--the Navy reports that it imposed 
the resume requirement because the amount and value of government 
furnished property (GFP) associated with the contract demonstrated the 
importance of having highly qualified and motivated personnel 
responsible for managing this aspect of the contract.

MCA concedes that the contract involves a significant amount of GFP 
and provides no explanation as to why the resume requirements are not 
necessary to ensure that the agency's minimum needs are met, merely 
noting that the incumbent presently has one individual performing in 
all three capacities and speculating that the stated expectation of 
the reemployment of 80 percent of the incumbent employees on the 
follow-on contract obviates the need for resumes in the challenged 
employment categories.  As noted above, the solicitation specifically 
provides that one individual could perform more than one key personnel 
role.  Under the terms of the solicitation, contractors are free to 
propose varying solutions as to how many and which personnel are 
required to perform in key personnel roles.  The agency has provided a 
reasonable basis for including both the key personnel and resume 
requirements in order to ensure that its minimum needs are satisfied 
and MCA's observations provide no cogent reason to conclude otherwise.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. A note followed the list stating that:  "Two or more functions may 
be performed by one person."

2. A 30-day phase-in plan was one of the elements included in the 
third subfactor under the management factor.