BNUMBER:  B-276903 
DATE:  July 31, 1997
TITLE: MTP (JV), B-276903, July 31, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:MTP (JV)

File:     B-276903

Date:July 31, 1997

John Lukjanowicz, Esq., Oles Morrison & Rinker, for the protester.
Karen S. Hindson, Esq., for D.E.W. Joint Venture, an intervenor.
Elizabeth Rivera Bagwell, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the 
agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation contained specific qualification requirements for 
project manager, including educational requirements (high school 
diploma and community college certificate, for which candidate could 
substitute experience) and experience requirements (3 years in food 
service, with 2 years as a supervisor); protester provided no 
information on time periods during which candidate for project manager 
worked at positions listed on resume; and agency advised protester 
during discussions that it had failed to provide information for 
evaluation of project manager's qualifications, protester should have 
recognized need to provide basic information necessary to evaluate its 
proposal, notwithstanding that agency specifically identified only 
failure to provide information on high school diploma as aspect of 
qualifications not addressed.

DECISION

MTP (JV), a joint venture of Traction Systems, Inc. and McClean's 
Restoration Services, protests the award of a contract to D.E.W. Joint 
Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00604-96-R-0063, for 
mess attendant services at the Marine Corps base, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.  
MTP contends that discussions were inadequate to alert it to the 
omission from its proposal of information necessary to establish the 
qualifications of its project manager.

We deny the protest.

On October 16, 1996, the agency issued the RFP for a firm, fixed-price 
contract, to provide labor and supplies to serve food and clean the 
dining halls at the base, for a base period (established through 
subsequent amendment as 6 months), with four 1-year option periods.  
The solicitation provided for evaluation of technical and past 
performance factors, in addition to price.  The RFP stated that past 
performance was more important than price and that the agency intended 
to make award to the responsible offeror whose proposal met the 
government's minimum technical requirements and offered the best past 
performance.

The RFP stated that the evaluators would consider whether offerors met 
minimum technical requirements in the areas of key personnel, manning 
charts, quality control program, strike/job plan, and 
housekeeping/cleaning plan.  Initially, the agency considered the 
positions of project manager and alternate project manager as key 
personnel; the Navy subsequently modified the solicitation to delete 
the requirement for an alternate project manager.[1]  The RFP required 
key personnel to submit two forms attached to the solicitation, a 
"personnel qualifications sheet" and a "personnel data form" (PDF), 
demonstrating that they possessed the necessary education/training and 
experience for the position.

The education/training requirements for the project manager, set out 
in paragraph L101c.(2)(a)(1)A., were as follows:

     (i)  Must possess, at a minimum, a high School Diploma or 
     equivalent, and

     (ii)  Successful completion of a Community College Certificate in 
     Food Service or similar course work.  Based on curriculum which 
     included courses in food service operations and food service 
     management

     (iii)  Substitution for paragraph A.(ii) shall equal not less 
     than five years of institutionalized, e.g., military, hospital, 
     prison, school or college, food service.[2]

The experience requirements, set out in paragraph L101c.(2)(a)(1)B., 
were as follows:

     (i)  Three years in government/commercial galley/kitchen and 
     dining room facilities with equipment and operations equivalent 
     to that involved in the performance of this contract, and

     (ii)  Two years of work experience as a manager over work force 
     described in previous paragraph.

The RFP provided instructions on preparation of the PDF, directing 
offerors to identify the areas of work experience pertinent to the 
required effort.  It specifically mentioned the need to indicate the 
periods of time served in the qualifying positions.

On December 10, the agency received nine proposals, which it referred 
to a technical evaluation board (TEB).  On January 14, 1997, the TEB 
advised the contracting officer that, of the nine, only one was 
technically acceptable as submitted.  The agency determined that all 
nine offerors were in the competitive range and opened discussions.

With respect to MTP, the firm had simply failed to include any dates 
on the project manager's resume, making it impossible to determine how 
long he had served in the positions indicated.  There was no 
indication that the individual had the required high school degree.  
There was no claim that the individual had a community college 
certificate in food service or, absent any meaningful information on 
the individual's experience, whether the protester intended to offer 
experience as a substitute for the certificate.  Absent any 
information on the length of time involved in the jobs listed, the 
evaluators found the proposal unacceptable for every portion of the 
required qualifications for the project manager.

By letter of February 20, the agency requested information regarding 
certain areas of MTP's proposal, advising the protester that failure 
to submit the "required information, corrections, and/or 
clarifications" might result in rejection of the proposal.  With 
regard to key personnel, the agency advised the protester as follows:

     Insufficient information was provided to review the 
     qualifications of the proposed Project Manager.  Clause 
     [L101c.(2)(a)(1)A.] states that the Project Manager must possess, 
     at a minimum, [a] high school diploma or equivalent.

Thus, although the agency generally advised the protester that it had 
failed to provide information necessary to review the candidate's 
qualifications, it made a specific reference only to the high school 
diploma requirement.  It made no specific reference to the remaining 
educational and experience requirements that the protester had failed 
to provide--the community college certificate in food service or 
substituted institutional experience, the 3 years experience in 
equivalent facilities, or the 2 years experience as a manager.  With 
the discussion questions, however, the agency did issue amendment No. 
0005 to the RFP, requiring submission of the PDF,[3] which calls for 
offerors to identify the experience requirement to which each job 
experience related, along with the time periods involved.[4]

With its revised proposal, MTP provided a revised resume, indicating 
that its candidate met the minimum educational qualifications in that 
he had graduated from high school in 1963.  MTP did not provide the 
required PDF.  Although the revised resume did indicate that one job, 
involving caretaker services, had lasted from April 1993 to April 
1996, it still omitted any indication of how long the individual had 
served in five of the six positions.  While the resume did contain a 
statement that the list of positions represented 30 years of military 
experience, only one of the positions involved mess attendant 
services; the remaining experience involved quality of life programs, 
personnel work, and inventory control not obviously relevant to the 
instant effort.  The resume stated that the individual was a 
"certified food service sanitation instructor" and contained a list of 
courses taken (generally quartermaster courses); it did not address 
the community college certificate or how any of the employment might 
substitute for the certificate.  As a result, the evaluators were 
unable to determine whether the candidate had the required 3 years 
experience in food service or 2 years managerial experience in food 
service.  Further, MTP's proposal did not demonstrate that the 
candidate met the minimum education requirement--either a community 
college certificate in food service or 5 years of experience.  As a 
consequence, the TEB found MTP's proposal technically unacceptable 
because it contained insufficient information to establish that the 
protester was offering a project manager who met the mandatory 
qualification requirements.

Overall, the TEB determined that five of nine offers were acceptable; 
all five offerors received "excellent" past performance ratings.  On 
March 6, and again on March 14, the agency requested the submission of 
BAFOs from the offerors remaining in the competitive range.[5]  After 
review of the BAFOs, the agency selected D.E.W. for award based on its 
low price and excellent past performance rating, which was equal to 
that of the offerors remaining in the competitive range.  After a 
debriefing by telephone on April 21, MTP filed this protest with our 
Office.

The protester contends that, by failing to alert MTP explicitly to its 
failure to provide information on the project manager's experience, 
the Navy breached its statutory duty to inform the protester of 
deficiencies in its proposal and engage in meaningful discussions.  
The protester points out that while the record indicates that the TEB 
specifically noted MTP's failure to address five of the six 
qualification requirements of the solicitation, the agency only 
brought one of these failures to the protester's attention during 
discussions.[6]  Further, the protester asserts, the agency did not 
identify this concern as a deficiency but merely as a point needing 
clarification.  Prior to rejecting the proposal, after submission of 
BAFOs, the agency never expressed concern over the proposed project 
manager's experience.  The agency misled it, MTP argues, by asking 
only whether the candidate had a high school degree, obscuring the 
concern over experience and denying MTP the opportunity to revise its 
proposal to meet the agency's concerns.

The Competition in Contract Act of 1984 and the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) require that written or oral discussions be held with 
all responsible offerors whose proposals are within the competitive 
range.  See 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2305(b)(4)(A)(i) (1994); FAR  sec.  15.610(b).  In 
order for discussions in a negotiated procurement to be meaningful, 
contracting agencies must furnish information to all offerors in the 
competitive range as to the areas in their proposals which are 
believed to be deficient so that offerors may have an opportunity to 
revise their proposals to satisfy the government's requirements.  FAR  sec.  
15.610(c)(2); Pan Am World Servs., Inc. et al., B-231840 et al., Nov. 
7, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  446 at 11.  In evaluating whether there has been 
sufficient disclosure of deficiencies, the focus is not on whether the 
agency describes deficiencies in such detail that there could be no 
doubt as to their identity and nature, but whether the agency imparts 
sufficient information to the offeror to afford it a fair and 
reasonable opportunity in the context of the procurement to identify 
and correct deficiencies in its proposal.  Huff & Huff Serv. Corp, 
B-235419, July 17, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  55 at 3.  Agencies are only 
required to reasonably lead offerors into those areas of their 
proposals needing amplification, given the context of the procurement.  
Eagan, McAllister Assocs., Inc., B-231983, Oct. 28, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  
405 at 5.  Here, we conclude that the agency reasonably led MTP into 
the area of its proposal needing revision.

As an initial matter, the failure to provide any dates for the 
candidate's experience reflects gross carelessness by MTP, frustrating 
any attempt to determine whether the candidate met the RFP 
requirements.  Further, having made the error in its initial proposal, 
even a cursory review prior to the submission of BAFOs should have 
alerted MTP to the omission of information relative to the candidate's 
qualifications.  In addition, in the discussions letter the agency 
specifically advised the protester of the omission ("insufficient 
information was provided to review the qualifications of the proposed 
Project Manager") and, overall, the RFP itself sets the requirements 
out very simply and very specifically.  (As noted above, they include, 
in addition to the high school diploma, the community college degree 
(or experience), 3 years food service experience, and 2 years 
supervisory experience.)  Moreover, during discussions the agency 
issued an amendment to the RFP which required submission of the PDF, a 
form which specifically calls for offerors to provide the kind of 
information missing from MTP's proposal.

Under the circumstances here, we cannot conclude that a reasonably 
prudent offeror, reviewing the agency's question in conjunction with 
the material that it had submitted with its proposal, could have 
failed to recognize the need to provide the basic information 
necessary for evaluation of its proposal.  See Textron Marine Sys., 
B-243693, Aug. 19, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  162 at 8 (although agency orally 
ascribed a deficiency to the wrong key employee proposed by protester, 
a reasonably prudent offeror would have ensured that each of its 
proposed key personnel met the requirements of the RFP, given the 
specificity of the RFP requirements for education and experience, and 
general written guidance and oral advice from the agency regarding key 
personnel qualifications).  Given this conclusion--that MTP received 
sufficient notice that its proposed project manager did not meet the 
RFP requirements--we see no basis to conclude that the agency failed 
to hold meaningful discussions with MTP because it did not more 
specifically identify the omissions in MTP's proposal.  Accordingly, 
in light of the protester's failure to demonstrate that its proposed 
project manager had the qualifications required by the RFP for the 
position, we further conclude that the evaluation and determination 
that MTP's proposal was technically acceptable were reasonable and 
consistent with the RFP.  Jet Invs., Inc., B-276215, B-276215.2, May 
22, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  193 at 2-3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency failed to delete all references to the requirement and 
discovered, after receipt of best and final offers (BAFO), that one 
offeror had included an alternate project manager in its proposal.  
The agency issued an amendment clarifying the issue and allowed the 
offeror to submit a new offer, without the alternate project manager 
position.  There was no effect on the protester or the awardee and the 
error has no relevance to the protest issues here.

2. In the initial version, subparagraph (iii) contained the phrase 
"minimum education necessary" after the reference to paragraph A.(ii) 
and the list beginning with "e.g." was contained by parentheses 
through the word "college."

3. As initially issued, the RFP stated that "[k]ey personnel must 
submit a resume (refer to Attachment 2-'Personnel Qualifications 
Sheet' and Attachment 3-'Personnel Data Form')" demonstrating the 
required education/training and experience.  Amendment No. 0005 
changed this reference to the two forms to a requirement, stating that 
"[k]ey personnel shall submit Attachment 2-'Personnel Qualifications 
Sheet' and Attachment 3-'Personnel Data Form'. . . ."  (Emphasis 
added.)

4. That is, whether the job served as a substitute for the community 
college certificate, whether it satisfied the requirement for 3 years 
experience in institutional food service, or whether it satisfied the 
requirement for 2 years supervisory experience in an institutional 
food service setting.

5. The agency included the five acceptable proposals in the 
competitive range established for March 6; it included two proposals 
in the final competitive range.  

6. Five of the requirements are those set out in paragraph 
L101c.(2)(a)(1)A.(i)-(iii), and paragraph L101c.(2)(a)(1)B.(i)-(ii), 
quoted above.  The sixth requirement, from  paragraph 
L101c.(2)(a)(1)G., was for a letter of intent or commitment from 
individuals not employed by the offeror.