BNUMBER:  B-277658 
DATE:  November 7, 1997
TITLE: UNICCO Government Services, Inc., B-277658, November 7, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:UNICCO Government Services, Inc.

File:     B-277658

Date:November 7, 1997

Michael P. Morizio, Esq., Friedman & Atherton, for the protester.
Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Meridian 
Management Corporation, an intervenor.
Seth Binstock, Esq., U.S. Social Security Administration, for the 
agency.
Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  In a negotiated procurement for facility management services, the 
awardee's good performance reports for facility management at an 
"extremely similar" federal building reasonably led the agency to 
assign it a high rating in the level of confidence assessment; the 
protester's mere disagreement with an agency's evaluation of the 
awardee's experience and past performance does not demonstrate that 
the agency's evaluation was unreasonable.

2.  An agency's site visit to a facility/building identified by the 
awardee as an experience/past performance reference does not 
constitute discussions where no information was obtained from the 
awardee that was essential for determining the acceptability of the 
awardee's offer or that modified or revised the awardee's proposal; 
information received by the agency from other government personnel 
during the site visit does not constitute discussions.

DECISION

UNICCO Government Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Meridian Management Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
SSA-RFP-97-2660, issued by the U.S. Social Security Administration 
(SSA) for consolidated facility management services at the Harold 
Washington Social Security Center (HWSSC) in Chicago, Illinois.  
UNICCO challenges the SSA's evaluation of Meridian's and UNICCO's 
proposals and failure to conduct discussions with UNICCO.

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, requirements contract 
for consolidated facilities management services at the HWSSC building 
for a base with 4 option years.  These services include mechanical 
equipment operation and maintenance, elevator maintenance, sustaining 
maintenance, custodial services, security (armed guard services), and 
utilities.

Proposals were to be submitted in two volumes:  an experience/past 
performance information volume and a price proposal volume.  Offerors 
were to include in the experience/past performance information volume 
an "Experience Reference Matrix," on which they were to identify 
contracts that had either been awarded or completed within the last 3 
years.  Offerors were admonished to include a sufficient number of 
"citations/references" to demonstrate their relevant experience and 
past performance.  The RFP requested 19 items of information that 
offerors were to provide for each citation; for example, offerors were 
to identify, among other things, the client name and address, provide 
the name and location of the contracting officer and contracting 
officer's technical representative, describe the services rendered, 
including information on the building/facility size and population.  
In addition, offerors were required to indicate and describe the 
extent to which the work required under the listed citation was 
applicable to the work sought by the RFP and to "[i]nclude any 
additional information which will further describe the 
activities/functions performed and demonstrate the relationship of 
such experience to the requirements of this solicitation."  Offerors 
were cautioned that they should demonstrate that the contracts 
identified were similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the RFP 
work.

The RFP provided for a best value basis for award and stated that 
price was less important than the agency's evaluated level of 
confidence in an offeror.  Level of confidence was to be ascertained 
by first evaluating each offeror's experience and past performance.  

In judging experience, the RFP stated that the agency would 
numerically rate how similar in size, scope, and complexity the 
offeror's experience was to the solicitation's requirements:  a score 
of 1.00 reflected extremely similar experience; .75, very similar; 
.50, somewhat similar; .25, slightly similar; and .00, not similar.  
Experience of similar size, scope, and complexity was defined by the 
RFP to be:

     a building/facility near or approximately 750,000 square feet in 
     size with a population near or approximately 2,300; and where 
     facility management included, but is/was not necessarily limited 
     to, Operations and Maintenance of Mechanical Equipment, Elevator 
     Maintenance, Custodial and Related Services, Sustaining 
     Maintenance, Utilities, and Armed Guard Services.

In assessing past performance, offerors were informed that the agency 
would subjectively judge how well the offeror had satisfied its 
customers, obeyed applicable federal, state and local laws and 
regulations, and conducted its business in an ethical manner.  The RFP 
stated that past performance would be numerically scored as follows:  
1.00, entirely favorable past performance; .75, more favorable than 
unfavorable past performance; .50, neutral, inconclusive, or no past 
performance; .25, more unfavorable than favorable past performance; 
.00, entirely unfavorable past performance.  In assessing past 
performance, the agency would evaluate the quality of service, cost 
control, timeliness of performance, business relations, management, 
and subcontract management.  The RFP provided that in determining the 
offeror's overall past performance rating the agency would evaluate 
the narrative information provided by the offerors as well as 
information obtained by the agency from other sources.  In addition, 
the RFP informed offerors that the agency reserved the right to 
conduct site visits at any or all referenced buildings.

The RFP provided that, taking into account the offeror's experience 
and past performance ratings, the agency would determine a "level of 
confidence assessment rating" (LOCAR) on the basis of the following 
scale:

     1.00    Completely confident -- The offeror received the highest 
possible rating for both experience and past performance (entirely 
favorable reports of past performance were received).  Offeror has 
also been found to be in the best possible financial condition.

      .50    None or neutral -- The offeror's experience is somewhat 
similar to the requirement; the offeror's past performance is neither 
predominately favorable or unfavorable; and the offeror's financial 
condition while presently stable, does not demonstrate that offeror 
will have financial resources to meet all contract requirements.

      .00    Completely not confident -- The offeror received an 
extremely low rating for both experience and past performance (almost 
entirely unfavorable reports of past performance were received).  
Offeror is on the brink of bankruptcy.

The RFP provided that:

     [t]he process of determining a LOCAR for any offeror is an 
     inherently subjective one.  The purpose of the LOCAR is to 
     facilitate the Government's comparison of offerors' experience 
     and past performance.  Thus, in comparing offerors' LOCARs, the 
     Government is seeking the optimal combination of experience 
     (similar, relevant, timely, and of sufficient depth and 
     [breadth]) and past performance[;]

and that:

     [t]he Government intends to evaluate offers, and reserves the 
     right to award a contract, without discussions.  Therefore, the 
     offeror's initial offeror should contain the offeror's best terms 
     in assenting/agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions of 
     the solicitation, and reflecting the offeror's best price for 
     performance in accordance with [the] same.  The Government 
     reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined . . 
     . necessary.  The Government may reject any or all offers if such 
     action is in the public interest; and waive informalities and 
     minor irregularities in offers received.

SSA received offers from eight firms, including Meridian and UNICCO 
(the incumbent contractor at the HWSSC building), by the April 11, 
1997, closing date for receipt of proposals.  Meridian's proposed 
price of $13.5 million was the second lowest-priced offer received, 
while UNICCO's offer of $14.5 million was sixth lowest priced.

A technical evaluation review panel (ERP), consisting of four 
evaluators, who were involved with the operation and management of the 
HWSSC building, reviewed the experience/past performance information 
proposals.  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 10, 177.[1]  Between April 15 
and May 8, the proposals were individually assessed by the evaluators, 
who then met as a group to agree on a consensus score for the 
experience and past performance factors.  The experience scores were 
based upon the information provided in the proposals, including the 
experience reference matrix.  After arriving at the consensus 
experience score, the ERP met as a group to conduct telephone 
reference calls to the government points of contact identified for 
offerors' contracts.  Tr. at 14.  Based upon information learned in 
these telephone calls, information obtained from the proposals, and 
the evaluators' own personal knowledge, the ERP agreed upon a 
consensus past performance score for each offeror.  Tr. at 21.  The 
ERP multiplied each offeror's experience score against its past 
performance score to obtain a total experience/past performance score; 
the ERP then calculated what percentage of the maximum possible points 
the offerors had attained for experience/past performance.  Tr. at 25.

After the ERP's initial calculations, as described above, the ERP 
conducted site visits of some offerors' facilities.  Tr. at 27, 29-30.  
Specifically, the ERP visited the Peachtree Summit Federal Building in 
Atlanta, Georgia, for which Meridian was providing facility management 
services, and another building at which the lowest-priced offeror was 
providing such services.  Tr. at 161.  The ERP did not conduct a site 
visit of any of the buildings UNICCO identified because the ERP was 
familiar with UNICCO's performance at the HWSSC building.

After the site visits, the ERP met as a group to arrive at a consensus 
LOCAR for each offeror.  Tr. at 29-30.  On May 9, the ERP informed the 
contracting officer that all offers were found to be technically 
acceptable and identified four offerors, including Meridian and 
UNICCO, whose proposals demonstrated experience similar in nature, 
size, and complexity to the HWSSC building and should be included in 
the competitive range.  The ERP also identified additional information 
regarding staffing and mobilization that the ERP wanted to review.  On 
May 12, letters were sent to Meridian, UNICCO, and two other offerors 
requesting additional information.  Prior to receiving any information 
from the four offerors, the contracting officer decided not to conduct 
discussions and rescinded the May 12 request for additional 
information.  A May 19 evaluation report was provided to the 
contracting officer, providing the ERP's final evaluation findings for 
Meridian and UNICCO, as follows:

           Experience Past Perf. Total Pts. Percentage of Max. 
                                                       Pts.LOCAR

Meridian   5.25       6.25       32.8       67         .85

UNICCO     6.50       5.0        32.5       66         .65
The contracting officer rejected this evaluation report because the 
mathematical formula applied by the ERP to arrive at its evaluation 
determination was inconsistent with the stated RFP scoring scheme.  
Tr. at 42-43.  In addition, the contracting officer was concerned that 
the ERP had been too "tough" on offerors in its subjective LOCAR 
scoring.  Tr. at 158.  The ERP reconvened to rescore offerors' 
proposals, based on the information it had reviewed, in accordance 
with the RFP scoring scheme and to reconsider their LOCAR score for 
each offeror.  The ERP's June 20 report rescored Meridian's and 
UNICCO's proposals, as follows:[2]

                Experience      Past PerformanceLOCAR

Meridian        1.0             1.0             .95

UNICCO          1.0               .75           .75
Meridian's evaluation scores reflected the evaluators' determination 
that Meridian's experience was extremely similar to the services 
required at the HWSSC building and that all of Meridian's past 
performance reports were entirely favorable, which was confirmed by 
the site visit to the Peachtree Summit Federal Building.  UNICCO's 
scores reflected the evaluators' determination that UNICCO, as the 
incumbent contractor, had specific and extensive knowledge of the 
HWSSC building but that UNICCO's past performance at the HWSSC 
building had not been entirely favorable.  Specific complaints 
regarding UNICCO's performance at the HWSSC building included concerns 
with UNICCO's management at the building, which was viewed as not 
proactive with problems regarding the failure to train engineers and 
subcontract management.  Tr. at 35, 37-38, 175, 186.

A price analysis was performed of the offers received, and a financial 
audit of the two lowest-priced offeror's (Meridian and another 
offeror) capability to perform was also conducted.  The lowest-priced 
offeror's offer was found to be unreasonably low; Meridian's proposed 
price was determined to be fair and reasonable.  In addition, SSA 
found that Meridian was in "good financial condition" and fully 
capable of performing the contract work.

A best value analysis was documented, which compared Meridian's offer 
with that of the lowest-priced offeror, the sixth lowest-priced 
UNICCO, and all the remaining offerors.  Regarding the lowest-priced 
offeror, Meridian's superior LOCAR score was found to reflect superior 
value that outweighed the other offeror's lower price, particularly 
since the SSA was concerned that the lowest price might not be 
realistic.  Regarding UNICCO's offer, Meridian's offer was also found 
to be a better value than UNICCO's offer, given Meridian's 
significantly lower price (approximately $1 million lower) and higher 
LOCAR score (.95 compared to .75).  Award was made to Meridian, and 
this protest followed.

UNICCO challenges the SSA's evaluation of Meridian's experience and 
past performance, complaining that Meridian did not identify a 
sufficient number of contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity 
to the RFP work to justify Meridian's high evaluation ratings.[3]

In considering protests of an agency's evaluation of proposals, we 
examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was 
rational and consistent with stated evaluation criteria and applicable 
statutes and regulations.  Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  223 at 4.  Such judgments are by their nature often 
subjective; nevertheless, the exercise of these judgments in the 
evaluation of proposals must be reasonable and bear a rational 
relationship to their announced criteria upon which competing offers 
are to be selected.  Southwest Marine, Inc.; Am. Sys. Eng'g Corp., 
B-265865.3, B-265865.4, Jan. 23, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  56 at 10.  A 
protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation 
determination does not demonstrate that the evaluation was 
unreasonable.  Brunswick Defense, B-255764, Mar. 30, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
225 at 9.  From our review of the record, including the hearing 
testimony and the parties' protest arguments, we conclude that the 
agency's evaluation of Meridian's proposal was reasonable.

The RFP required offerors to identify a "sufficient number" of 
contracts to allow the agency to evaluate the similarity of the 
offerors' experience to the RFP work.  In judging the similarity of 
offerors' identified references to the RFP work, the solicitation 
provided a standard for determining comparability; that is, a building 
of approximately 750,000 square feet, with a population of 
approximately 2,300, at which the offeror provided the same services 
sought by the RFP.  Contrary to the protester's belief, the RFP did 
not require that offerors identify any minimum number of contracts 
that exactly met or exceeded the size and population identified for a 
comparable building.  Rather, as confirmed by the testimony of the ERP 
chief, this solicitation language provided a guide by which the 
evaluators could judge how similar or dissimilar an offeror's 
reference was to the work to be performed at the HWSSC building.  Tr. 
at 97-98.  Although size of the building was important in determining 
the similarity of an offeror's experience to the RFP work, the types 
of services were also important.  Tr. at 167.  

Here, Meridian listed seven different buildings/facilities on its 
Experience Reference Matrix that ranged in size from 850,000 square 
feet (the Peachtree Summit Federal Building) to 247,000 square feet.  
Only the Peachtree Summit Federal Building and 
the services performed there by Meridian was viewed by the ERP as 
being experience "extremely similar" to the RFP work, although other 
referenced buildings/facilities were judged as being "very similar" 
experience.  Tr. at 167-68.  Nevertheless, the ERP found that based 
upon Meridian's two contracts, dating back to 1989, to provide 
facilities management services at the Peachtree Summit Federal 
Building that Meridian's offer had demonstrated extremely similar 
experience that justified its experience score of 1.0.[4]  Tr. at 180.  

We find no basis on this record to question the SSA's judgment in this 
regard.  The Peachtree Summit Federal Building meets or exceeds the 
comparability standards stated in the RFP; that is, the Peachtree 
Summit Federal Building is a federal office building, larger than 
750,000 square feet and has a population of at least 2,300,[5] and is 
a building at which Meridian has performed the services that will be 
required under the RFP.  In our view, the evaluators reasonably found 
that Meridian's provision of facility management services at the 
Peachtree Summit Federal Building for more than 8 years was extremely 
similar experience that justified a score of 1.0.[6]  UNICCO's 
disagreement with this determination does not demonstrate that the 
agency's evaluation conclusion was unreasonable in this regard.  
Brunswick Defense, supra, at 9.

UNICCO also challenged Meridian's 1.0 past performance score because 
Meridian assertedly had not listed a sufficient number of contracts 
that satisfied the RFP comparability standard.  The RFP's evaluation 
scheme, however, provided for the use of this comparability standard 
only in judging the similarity of offerors' experience to the RFP work 
and not in assessing each offeror's past performance.  Tr. at 117.  
Moreover, the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's 
judgment regarding Meridian's past performance.  The ERP received 
entirely favorable past performance reports from Meridian's 
references.  Tr. at 31.  The site visit to the Peachtree Summit 
Federal Building, which was chosen because of its relevance and 
outstanding past performance report, and discussions with government 
personnel at that building confirmed the favorable performance report 
the evaluators had received regarding Meridian's performance at the 
Peachtree Summit Federal Building.  Tr. at 106-109.  Again, UNICCO's 
mere disagreement with the SSA's evaluation of Meridian's past 
performance does not demonstrate that the agency's judgment was 
unreasonable.  Brunswick Defense, supra, at 9.

UNICCO also complains that the agency did not evaluate the offerors' 
financial condition, as required by the RFP, in determining each 
offerors' LOCAR score.  Specifically, UNICCO asserts that if the 
agency had considered financial capability in determining Meridian's 
and UNICCO's LOCAR scores, Meridian's score would have been lower and 
UNICCO's score would have been higher.

The record shows that the offerors' financial condition was not 
considered by the ERP, which was not provided with access to the 
offerors' financial information.  Rather, the contracting officer 
requested and received an audit of the financial condition of the two 
lowest-priced offerors, which included Meridian.  The contracting 
officer considered this audit information in conjunction with the 
offerors' LOCAR scores and proposed prices to determine which offeror 
represented the best value to the government.  While Meridian's 
financial condition was not specifically considered in determining the 
LOCAR score, the score and financial condition were considered 
together by the contracting officer in making her award selection.  
Given Meridian's evaluated good financial condition and ability to 
perform the contract, we find nothing in the contemporaneous record to 
support UNICCO's allegation that Meridian's financial condition would 
or should have any negative impact in the contracting officer's 
consideration of Meridian's proposal for award.

Similarly, we find nothing in the record to suggest that UNICCO's 
financial condition could have resulted in such positive consideration 
in the contracting officer's source selection decision that it would 
have resulted in UNICCO's higher- priced, but lower-rated, proposal 
being selected for award.  Rather, the record shows that the evaluated 
discriminator between Meridian's and UNICCO's proposals was UNICCO's 
comparatively poorer past performance, which would not be affected by 
UNICCO's financial strength.  The ERP was comprised of evaluators who 
were all involved in the operation and management of the HWSSC 
building and who were all personally aware of UNICCO's performance as 
the incumbent contractor.  Tr. at 10, 177.  The ERP identified a 
number of problems in UNICCO's performance at the HWSSC building that 
caused the ERP to assess UNICCO's past performance as not entirely 
favorable.  In fact, UNICCO's past performance reasonably received an 
evaluated score of .75, which the RFP indicated was appropriate for 
offerors that had past performance that was more favorable than 
unfavorable, but that was less than entirely favorable.

UNICCO also protests that the SSA improperly failed to conduct 
discussions with UNICCO prior to selecting Meridian for award.  
Specifically, UNICCO argues that the RFP did not reasonably inform 
offerors that the agency intended to make award on the basis of 
initial proposals and therefore the agency was required to conduct 
discussions here.  UNICCO also complains that the agency's site visit 
to the Peachtree Summit Federal Building constituted discussions with 
Meridian, requiring the agency to conduct discussions with UNICCO and 
request best and final offers.[7]

We disagree with UNICCO that the RFP did not adequately inform 
offerors of the agency's intent to make award on the basis of initial 
proposals.  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.610(a)(3) 
provides that the requirement for discussions need not be applied in 
acquisitions in which the solicitation notified offerors that the 
government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without 
discussions, unless the contracting officer determines that 
discussions are considered necessary.  As noted above, the RFP stated 
that the agency intended to evaluate offers without conducting 
discussions, that offerors should submit their best terms and 
conditions and best price for performance, and that the government 
reserved the right to conduct discussions if later determined to be 
necessary.  This adequately informed offerors that the agency intended 
to make award without discussions.

We also disagree with the protester's contention that the ERP's site 
visit to the Peachtree Summit Federal Building constituted discussions 
with Meridian that required the agency to conduct discussions with 
competitive range offerors and to obtain best and final offers.[8]  
Discussions occur when information requested from and provided by an 
offeror is essential for determining the acceptability of the 
offeror's proposal, or where the offeror is given an opportunity to 
revise or modify its proposal.  FAR  sec.  15.601 (FAC 90-45); The Hotel 
San Diego, B-260971, July 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  4 at 3-4 (discussions 
conducted during site visit).  

Here, the record establishes that the SSA did not obtain any 
information from Meridian during the site visit that was essential for 
determining the acceptability of its proposal or that revised or 
modified its proposal.  The ERP visited the Peachtree Summit Federal 
Building for the purpose of reviewing the building and discussing 
Meridian's past performance with government personnel.  The ERP chief 
testified that there were no discussions between the ERP and Meridian 
personnel regarding Meridian's proposal under this RFP.  Tr. at 30.  
Rather, the ERP chief testified that the only conversations between 
the ERP and Meridian personnel were confined to ERP requests to be 
shown various parts of the Peachtree Summit Federal Building, 
identifying equipment contained within the building (e.g., elevators), 
and seeing maintenance records.[9]  Tr. at 28, 109.  None of the 
information provided by Meridian to the agency modified or revised 
Meridian's proposal; that is, the information provided by Meridian was 
not considered by the agency in its evaluation of experience/past 
performance.  Rather, the condition of the building, as viewed by the 
evaluators, and information obtained from government personnel at the 
building merely confirmed the agency's experience/past performance 
scores and entered into the ERP's LOCAR score assessment.  In any 
case, the discussions between government personnel at the Peachtree 
Summit Federal Building and the ERP (and not between Meridian and the 
ERP) regarding Meridian's past performance at the building do not 
constitute discussions.  See Contrack Int'l, Inc., B-270102, 
B-270102.2, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  53 at 5.

UNICCO also complains that the agency's Peachtree Summit Federal 
Building site visit provided Meridian with an unfair competitive 
advantage.  We disagree.  The RFP informed offerors that the agency 
might conduct a site visit to a building referenced by an offeror.  
The ERP decided to conduct site visits at what appeared to be the most 
comparable buildings of the offerors that were determined to have a 
reasonable chance of being selected for award.  None of UNICCO's 
referenced buildings were visited because UNICCO's most comparable 
building at which it was providing similar facility management 
services was the HWSSC building, with which the ERP was intimately 
familiar.  Because the ERP was already familiar with UNICCO's past 
performance at the very building for which the contract was to be let, 
the evaluators had no need to visit another of UNICCO's buildings to 
ascertain or confirm UNICCO's past performance.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. A hearing was conducted to obtain testimony from the chief of the 
ERP regarding the calculation of Meridian's and UNICCO's LOCAR scores 
and the site visit at a building where Meridian was providing facility 
management services.

2. All of the offerors' LOCAR scores went up in the ERP's rescoring.  
Tr. at 158.

3. UNICCO also complained in its post-hearing comments that Meridian 
had not provided information in response to each of the 19 items for 
which the RFP had requested information.  Our Bid Protest Regulations 
require protests of other than apparent solicitation improprieties to 
be filed within 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should 
have been known.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1997).  The basis of UNICCO's 
protest was apparent from the documents provided in the agency's 
report.  Its post-hearing challenge, which is more than 10 days from 
its receipt of the report, is untimely and is dismissed.  In any 
event, the record shows that the information provided by Meridian in 
response to the RFP was sufficient to allow the SSA to evaluate 
Meridian's experience and past performance.

4. The evaluators recognized that Meridian was not presently providing 
armed guard services at the Peachtree Summit Federal Building, but 
these services had been provided during Meridian's performance under 
the prior contract.  Tr. at 73-74.

5. It is true, as alleged by the protester, that the ERP did not 
attempt to determine the population of any of Meridian's referenced 
buildings/facilities. Nevertheless, the chair of the ERP testified 
that given the size of the Peachtree Summit Federal Building the ERP 
assumed that the building would exceed the population identified in 
the RFP.  Tr. at 190-94.  Documents provided with Meridian's 
post-hearing comments evidence a population of 4,000 at the Peachtree 
Summit Federal Building.  We do not find that the ERP's failure to 
ascertain the population of any of the offerors' referenced 
buildings/facilities provides any basis to object to the SSA's 
determination that Meridian's experience was extremely similar.

6. Although UNICCO complains that Meridian received credit for two 
contracts at the same building, the RFP does not limit consideration 
to contracts at different buildings.

7. UNICCO asserted for the first time in its post-hearing comments 
that the agency's requests for financial information from Meridian and 
the lowest-priced offeror to support its financial capability review 
constituted discussions.  This allegation, based upon documents 
provided in the agency's report, was not timely protested within 10 
days of the date that UNICCO learned the basis of the allegations as 
required by our Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2), and is dismissed.

8. UNICCO also argued that the SSA's May 12 letter to offerors 
requesting various information constituted discussions.  This 
contention is without merit, given that the contracting officer 
rescinded the letter prior to obtaining any information from offerors 
in response to the letter.

9. This testimony is consistent with the ERP chief's contemporaneous, 
handwritten notes of the ERP's visit to the Peachtree Summit Federal 
Building.