BNUMBER:  B-278182 
DATE:  November 10, 1997
TITLE: JRS Management, B-278182, November 10, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:JRS Management

File:     B-278182

Date:November 10, 1997

Jacqueline Sims for the protester.
Joshua Kranzberg, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where principal employee proposed by protester tendered resignation 
prior to initial closing date, protester accepted resignation prior to 
closing date, agency advised protester of the need to provide 
replacement individual with required supporting past performance 
information, and protester failed to do so, agency reasonably rated 
protester's proposal unacceptable for past performance and rejected 
it.

DECISION

JRS Management protests the rejection of its proposal under request 
for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB08-97-R-0028, issued by the Department of 
the Army for financial education and counseling services at Fort 
Monmouth, New Jersey.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, as amended, provided for award to the offeror submitting the 
best overall proposal based on evaluation of three factors listed in 
descending order of importance--technical capabilities/oral 
presentation, past performance, and price.  For the proposed program 
manager, the principal employee under the contract, the solicitation 
required offerors to submit a detailed resume, a certification of 2 
years of specialized experience providing consumer/financial affairs 
counseling, and three references.  

Two offerors--JRS and the Life Enhancement Company--submitted 
proposals by the September 18, 1997, amended closing date.  For the 
program manager position, the protester's proposal included the resume 
and references for an individual who is currently performing the 
protester's incumbent contract for similar services.  This same 
individual also submitted her own independent, competing proposal, in 
the name of Life Enhancement.  By letter dated September 4, the 
individual notified JRS that she was resigning as an employee, 
effective September 30, to coincide with the conclusion of the 
protester's current contract.  By letter dated September 8, the 
individual further notified JRS that she would not represent JRS in 
the firm's oral presentation for this solicitation.  In a letter dated 
September 15, JRS accepted the individual's resignation effective 
September 30.  The individual notified the Army's contracting officer 
of these events, and in letters dated September 19, September 22, and 
September 23, the contracting officer requested that JRS provide a 
resume and three references for "a prospective [candidate] that will 
be available to begin working on the expected [commencement] date of 1 
Oct 97."  JRS did not do so.  As a result, on September 25, the 
contracting officer rejected the firm's proposal as unacceptable under 
the past performance factor for failure to provide the required resume 
and references for an individual shown to be available to perform as 
the program manager.

JRS contends that the credentials of the individual it named as its 
proposed program manager should have been sufficient to satisfy the 
past performance requirement, since (1) that individual "was an 
employee of the firm at the time [the firm's] proposal was submitted 
and there was no reason for us to believe or for the agency to assume 
that [the firm] would not be able to reach an agreement with [that 
individual] for continued employment under the new contract," and (2) 
the RFP did not require letters of commitment/availability. 

We will review a proposal evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable 
and consistent with the solicitation and applicable statutes and 
regulations.  Professional Software Eng'g, Inc., B-272820, Oct. 30, 
1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  193 at 4.  

The evaluation was proper.  Notwithstanding that JRS may believe it 
could have come to agreement with the individual it proposed as 
program manager to return as an employee in the future, the only 
information available to the agency during the evaluation indicated 
that she had terminated her association with JRS, effective upon the 
conclusion of the current contract.  Further, although the proposals 
received showed that the individual was interested in continuing 
performance of the requirement through Life Enhancement, there was no 
information available to the agency (and none has been presented in 
connection with the protest) showing that she was interested in 
employment with JRS in the event JRS received the award.  In light of 
the available information, the agency discounted both the fact that 
the individual was an employee at the time the proposal was submitted, 
and the absence from the RFP of a letter of commitment/availability 
requirement, and concluded that there was at least substantial 
uncertainty as to whether the individual would be available to perform 
as the protester's program manager.  We see nothing unreasonable in 
this conclusion.  It follows that the agency reasonably disregarded 
the individual's past performance as part of the evaluation of the 
protester's proposal and, after JRS declined to provide a different 
individual for evaluation as its proposed program manager, properly 
rejected the protester's proposal.

JRS also challenges certain RFP provisions as improper.  These 
arguments are largely untimely, since they were initially raised in an 
agency-level protest, but were not then raised in a protest to our 
Office within 10 days of initial adverse agency action--i.e., the 
agency's issuance of RFP amendments which allegedly failed to resolve 
the issues--as required under our Bid Protest Regulations.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(3) (1997); Tucson Mobilephone, Inc.--Recon., B-247055.3, Feb. 
6, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  158 at 2.  Two of the protester's additional 
arguments--concerning allegedly restrictive requirements for the 
program manager position--were timely filed.  However, given our 
conclusion that the Army reasonably rejected the protester's proposal, 
and since the firm does not argue that, but for these provisions, it 
could have submitted an acceptable offer, these arguments would not 
change the outcome. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States