BNUMBER:  B-278139 
DATE:  December 31, 1997
TITLE: The ENDMARK Corporation, B-278139, December 31, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:The ENDMARK Corporation

File:     B-278139

Date:December 31, 1997

Robert M. Cambridge, Esq., for the protester.
Laurie A. Dzien, Esq., Naval Air Systems Command, for the agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where solicitation requirements--for example, requirement that 
offerors submit a list of all of their subcontractors' support 
services contracts currently being performed or completed within the 
last 3 years (limited to a minimum of 20 contracts for large business 
subcontractors)--are deemed necessary by the agency to assess 
offerors' capabilities, and the requirements in fact are aimed at 
enabling the agency to make such an assessment, the requirements 
reflect the agency's needs and do not improperly restrict competition.

2.  Experience requirements do not exceed agency's needs where they 
are directly related to the work to be performed under the 
solicitation.

DECISION

The ENDMARK Corporation protests the terms of Department of the Navy 
request for proposals (RFP) No. N00019-97-R-0046, issued as a small 
business set-aside for analysis and technical studies, engineering and 
technical services, and management and professional services.  The 
protester contends that certain requirements in the RFP exceed the 
agency's needs and unduly restrict competition.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite 
quantity contract on a best value basis for a 1-year base period, with 
four 1-year options.  The RFP set forth the following three evaluation 
factors:  (1) technical, (2) price and cost realism, and (3) past 
performance.  The RFP listed three technical subfactors--personnel 
experience, sample tasks, and management plan--and two past 
performance subfactors--past contracts and key personnel.

For evaluation under the past contracts subfactor under the past 
performance factor, offerors were required to provide a list of their 
subcontractors' support service contracts being performed or completed 
within the last 3 years.  ENDMARK maintains that the requirement is 
unduly restrictive because it would be very difficult for small 
business offerors to assemble the voluminous contract information for 
proposed large business subcontractors.  In response to this argument, 
the agency issued amendment No. 0001, establishing 20 contracts as an 
acceptable minimum under this requirement for large business 
subcontractors.  The protester asserts that, while this is a step in 
the right direction, the requirement remains unduly restrictive since 
it precludes otherwise qualified large business subcontractors which 
have performed only a few contracts of significant value over this 
period.  ENDMARK concludes that requiring subcontractors to provide a 
list of fewer than 10 contracts would be adequate to meet the agency's 
needs.        

The determination of an agency's needs and the best method of 
accommodating them is primarily within the agency's discretion.  See 
U.S. Defense Sys., Inc.,        B-251544 et al., Mar. 30, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  279 at 5.  In this same vein, although the source and type of 
past performance information to be included in an evaluation should be 
tailored to the circumstances of each acquisition, it ultimately is 
within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials to 
determine what information is necessary.  See Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.608(a)(2)(ii) (June 1997). 

The requirements under the past contracts subfactor are 
unobjectionable.  The Navy explains that the relatively large number 
of past contracts must be listed because it will use these contracts 
to obtain references, and history has shown that only a small 
percentage of references actually complete and return the performance 
questionnaires.  Only in this manner can the agency be assured that it 
will have enough information for evaluation purposes.  While these 
requirements may impose a significant burden on offerors, the Navy's 
concerns clearly are valid, and the agency already has relaxed the 
requirement to some extent by permitting as few as 20 large business 
subcontracts to be listed.  Further, contrary to ENDMARK's contention, 
the RFP does not preclude offerors from proposing qualified large 
business subcontractors which have performed fewer than 20 contracts 
within the past 3 years, since amendment No. 0002 allows offerors to 
explain why they are unable to provide past performance information 
and states that offerors "will not be penalized if past performance 
information cannot be provided for legitimate reasons."  We conclude 
that the requirements, as amended, have been reasonably formulated to 
ensure that the agency will have enough information for evaluation 
purposes, while both relieving somewhat the informational burden on 
offerors and making provision to allow offerors to propose large 
business subcontractors which have performed fewer than 20 past 
contracts.  

ENDMARK also objects to inclusion of the key personnel subfactor under 
the past performance factor.  Specifically, it objects to the Navy's 
use of a past performance questionnaire to obtain information 
concerning the key personnel's past performance because an evaluation 
based on this information would be purely
subjective, with the offeror having no opportunity for review or 
rebuttal, and improperly would convert the prior contracts into 
personal services contracts.[1] 

The key personnel subfactor is unobjectionable.  The Navy states that 
it is evaluating key personnel past performance, as part of its 
assessment of the offeror's past performance, to ensure the most 
effective and complete evaluation of the offeror's past performance.  
There is nothing improper in such an evaluation; evaluating the 
performance of key personnel clearly is related to the manner in which 
the offeror has performed previously, and thus reasonably may be 
considered predictive of the offeror's current performance 
capabilities.  Agencies properly may employ such evaluation criteria 
that relate to their needs.  Premiere Vending, 73 Comp. Gen. 201, 206 
(1994), 94-1 CPD  para.  380 at 7.  The protester's specific objections are 
without merit.  First, even if ENDMARK were correct that offerors 
would have no opportunity to rebut key personnel performance 
information if discussions were not held, agencies are not required to 
provide such an opportunity where discussions are not held.  See FAR  sec.  
15.610 (June 1997).  In any case, in response to the protester's 
suggestion, amendment No. 0001 includes a provision allowing offerors 
to "present a brief synopsis of any major performance problems 
encountered by key personnel and how those problems were resolved."  
Second, an agency's evaluation of a key employee's 
performance--provided to a contracting activity for the sole purpose 
of an evaluation of the employer's current proposal--does not 
establish or evidence an employer-employee relationship marked by 
"relatively continuous supervision and control [of the non-government 
employee] by a Government officer or employee," as required to 
constitute an improper personal services contract.  FAR  sec.  
37.104(c)(1); see Logistical Support, Inc., B-224592, Dec. 23, 1986, 
86-2 CPD  para.  709 at 2.
  
ENDMARK complains that the areas of experience required in the RFP for 
three key personnel categories--senior engineer/technical analyst, 
program manager, and senior program analyst--are not necessary for 
them to accomplish many of the tasks required in the RFP.  More 
specifically, ENDMARK asserts that many RFP tasks can be accomplished 
by individuals without experience with aerial targets, missiles, 
aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

This argument is without merit.  While it may be that some of the RFP 
work does not require the specified experience (ENDMARK does not 
identify which work), other work clearly does relate to the experience 
requirements.  In other words, the fact that the senior 
engineer/technical analyst, for example, may perform some tasks that 
do not require the specified types of experience does not mean that 
the proposed individual will not also be called on to perform work 
directly related to the specified experience.  The relevant question, 
therefore, is whether any tasks for a key individual are related to 
the required experience.  The agency has determined that experience 
related to development and execution of program planning for aerial 
targets, missiles, aircraft or UAV systems is directly related to 
tasks the senior engineer/technical analyst will perform.  While the 
RFP does not identify each task by the key individual who will perform 
it, the RFP calls for the contractor to "provide engineering and 
technical services in support of the concept demonstration and 
engineering and manufacturing development of aerial targets, decoys, 
and related systems."  Given that the senior engineer/technical 
analyst will be providing services of this type, it is not apparent to 
us, and ENDMARK does not explain, how the agency's determination in 
this regard could be unreasonable.  An agency's discretion in 
determining its needs extends to determining whether key personnel 
need to have experience with work of the specific nature to be 
performed under the solicitation.  See Systems Application & Techs., 
Inc., B-270672, Apr. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  182 at 3.[2]

ENDMARK argues that, since the Navy issued amendment No. 0002 as 
corrective action in response to several of its protest grounds, it 
should be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing this protest, 
pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(e) (1997).  
However, while we may recommend payment of costs, we will not do so 
where the corrective action was taken promptly; we generally regard 
action taken before the agency report due date as prompt.  See CDIC, 
Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, B-277526.2, Aug. 18, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  52 
at 1-2.  Here, the amendment was issued on October 6, several weeks 
before the October 24 agency report due date.  This is precisely the 
kind of prompt action our Regulations are designed to encourage.  
There thus is no basis for recommending reimbursement of ENDMARK's 
protest costs.   

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. A personal service contract, by its express terms or as 
administered, makes contractor personnel appear, in effect, to be 
government employees.  FAR  sec.  37.101.

2. In its comments on the agency report, ENDMARK seems to allege that 
the experience and education requirements exceed the agency's needs to 
the extent that they exceed the requirements under a prior similar 
contract.  This is an untimely expansion of its original argument, the 
specifics of which were limited to the areas we have addressed; our 
Regulations to not contemplate the piecemeal presentation of protest 
issues.  OHM Remediation Servs. Corp., B-274644 et al., Dec. 23, 1996, 
97-1 CPD  para.  4 at 9.