BNUMBER: B-278195.2
DATE: January 7, 1998
TITLE: Robotic Systems Technology, B-278195.2, January 7, 1998
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Robotic Systems Technology
File: B-278195.2
Date:January 7, 1998
Donald J. Walsh, Esq., Scaldara & Potler, L.L.P., for the protester.
John B. Denniston, Esq., and Jason A. Levine, Esq., Covington &
Burling, for Intellitec Division, Technical Products Group, Inc., an
intervenor.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Phillip B. Hunter, Esq., Department of
the Army, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Communications between offeror and contracting agency which were
under-taken for the purpose of accounting for an apparent
inconsistency in the offeror's cost summaries, the resolution of which
was clear from a close reading of the cost proposal, without the
agency providing the offeror any opportunity for substantive revision
of its cost proposal, constituted clarifications and not discussions.
2. Agency reasonably determined that protester's proposal was
unacceptable where the technical proposal was deficient in a number of
material areas including the failure to provide adequate information
about the proposed test program and a crucial aspect of the item to be
developed, and the cost proposal lacked sufficient detail concerning
substantial work to be performed by subcontractors.
3. Contracting agency is not obligated to conduct discussions with
offeror which submitted unacceptable cost and technical proposals
where the solicitation advised all offerors that the government
intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals without
holding discussions, if possible, and specifically warned offerors
that initial proposals should contain the offeror's best technical and
cost terms.
DECISION
Robotic Systems Technology (RST) protests the award of a contract to
the Intellitec Division of Technical Products Group, Inc.
(Intellitec), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAM01-96-R-0079,
issued by the Department of the Army for engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) of the Joint Services Lightweight Standoff Chemical
Agent Detector (JSLSCAD). RST contends that the agency improperly
engaged in discussions with Intellitec and otherwise improperly
awarded the contract on the basis of initial proposals.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The JSLSCAD is a passive, chemical agent detector capable of providing
on-the-move 360� coverage from a variety of tactical and
reconnaissance platforms at a distance of up to 5 kilometers. In
addition to the 43-month EMD of the detector, the RFP included options
for refurbishment of production qualification testing units (11
months), initial production of up to 200 units (30 months), and full
scale production of up to 1,630 units (43 months).
The RFP, issued on February 21, 1997,[1] advised offerors that,
although the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions if
necessary, the agency planned to make an award on the basis of initial
proposals, without discussions, and that, therefore, offerors should
submit initial proposals with their best terms. Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) sec. 52.215-16, Alternate II (June 1997) (incorporated
by reference in the RFP). The RFP contemplated the award of a
cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the EMD portion and a
fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for the options. Award was to be
made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation,
represented the best value to the government. The determination of
best value was to be based on an integrated assessment of the results
of the evaluation of all areas and factors set forth in section M of
the RFP.
Proposals were evaluated on the basis of five areas with associated
factors, listed in descending order of importance: (A) Technical,
including (1) understanding the problem and (2) proposed solution; (B)
Management, including (1) management plan, (2) personnel plan, (3)
facilities, and (4) related experience; (C) Past Performance; (D)
Cost/Price; (E) Socio-Economic Commitment. The technical and
management areas received a combined merit rating, while past
performance was rated in a narrative form with a risk assessment of
high, moderate, or low. Cost/price was not numerically scored, but
was evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. The
socioeconomic area was evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.
Four offerors, including RST and Intellitec, submitted proposals by
the April 24, 1997, closing date. After evaluating the proposals, the
evaluators concluded that only Intellitec's proposal was acceptable as
submitted. RST's proposal was evaluated as capable of being made
acceptable, and the other two were evaluated as unacceptable. The
results of the agency evaluation of Intellitec and RST were as
follows:[2]
Criteria Intellitec RST
Technical (65) [deleted] [deleted]
Understanding [20][deleted] [deleted]
Solution [45] [deleted] [deleted]
Management (35) [deleted] [deleted]
Mgmt. Plan [10] [deleted] [deleted]
Personnel Plan [5][deleted] [deleted]
Facilities [10] [deleted] [deleted]
Related Exper. [10][deleted] [deleted]
Bonus [deleted] [deleted]
Total Merit Rating83.5 71.75
Past Perform Risk Low Low to Moderate
Socio-Economic Acceptable Unacceptable
Cost/Price[3] Ceiling/Target$203,336,597/
$235,044,483$104,895,337/
$112,909,392
During the evaluation, the agency requested clearer copies of certain
charts that had been submitted with RST's proposal. It also contacted
Intellitec with regard to its system of totaling its line and sub-line
item costs. The agency viewed both communications with these offerors
as clarifications. The contracting officer, as source selection
authority (SSA), reviewed the evaluation and determined that
discussions were unnecessary and that Intellitec's proposal
represented the best value to the government.
In her source selection statement, the SSA noted that Intellitec's
proposal contained excellent details on the proposed hardware and
software components for the JSLSCAD system; its test and evaluation
program were comprehensive and well staged; its integrated product
team (IPT) structure was strong; and its proposal was evaluated with
only minor disadvantages, no deficiencies, and two bonus points as
part of its merit rating of 83.5. With regard to RST's proposal, the
SSA noted that it was strong in some respects, such as its
interferometer design, production capability, and proposed IPT
structure.[4] However, the SSA found that issues concerning RST's
proposed algorithms and its proposed test program represented a high
risk to the government.[5] She also noted that RST's performance risk
rating was higher than Intellitec's and that, unlike Intellitec, RST's
socio-economic commitment was unacceptable. With regard to
cost/price, the SSA observed that Intellitec's proposed costs were
reasonable, realistic, and complete. While higher than RST's proposed
costs, Intellitec's were lower than the agency's independent cost
estimate. She also observed that RST's proposed costs could not be
verified for realism in part because the labor hours in the cost
proposal were inconsistent with those in the technical proposal and
because RST did not provide any details on the breakdown of its
subcontractor costs.
After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, RST filed this
protest. The agency has stayed performance of the contract pending
our resolution of the protest. Our Office conducted a hearing on
certain of the protest issues.[6]
DISCUSSIONS
RST first asserts that the agency held discussions with Intellitec
regarding its cost proposal and therefore improperly awarded the
contract because it failed to also hold discussions with RST. The
agency takes the position that its communications with Intellitec were
clarifications and not discussions.
FAR sec. 15.610(a) (June 1997) permits contracting agencies to make award
on the basis of initial proposals without discussions, where the
solicitation, as here, announces this possibility. As set forth in
FAR sec. 15.601 (June 1997), the difference between clarifications and
discussions is as follows:
"Clarification" . . . means communication with an offeror for the
sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities,
or apparent clerical mistakes in the proposal. It is achieved by
explanation or substantiation, either in response to Government
inquiry or as initiated by the offeror. Unlike discussion . . .,
clarification does not give the offeror an opportunity to revise
or modify its proposal, except to the extent that correction of
apparent clerical mistakes results in a revision.
"Discussion" . . . means any oral or written communication
between the Government and an offeror, (other than communications
conducted for the purpose of minor clarification) whether or not
initiated by the Government, that- (a) [i]nvolves information
essential for determining the acceptability of a proposal; or (b)
[p]rovides the offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its
proposal.
It is the actions of the parties that determine whether discussions
have been held, and not merely the characterization of the
communications by the agency. Raytheon Co., B-261959.3, Jan. 23,
1996, 96-1 CPD para. 37 at 11. The acid test of whether discussions have
been held is whether it can be said that an offeror was provided the
opportunity to revise or modify its proposal. International Data
Sys., Inc., B-277385, Oct. 8, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 96 at 3.
The communications in question consisted of a telephone conversation
between the agency's cost analyst and an Intellitec cost
representative and three e-mail messages sent by Intellitec to the
agency as follow-up to that conversation. The record shows that the
agency analyst had found that his calculation of Intellitec's
underlying work breakdown structure (WBS) cost summaries resulted in
numbers that were higher than the cost totals on Intellitec's standard
form (SF) 33. Thus, on or about May 15, 1997, he telephoned an
Intellitec representative to seek clarification of how Intellitec
derived its SF 33 figures. In the ensuing 2 to 3 minute call,
Intellitec's representative explained its cost proposal format. As
explained by Intellitec's representative at the hearing, and as
reflected in a cost overview supplied with Intellitec's cost proposal,
Intellitec used a numbering system to differentiate separate WBS and
sub-contract line item numbers (CLINs). Tr. 16-17, 20-21. For
example, Intellitec assigned "hardware design" the number 1110, and
the various aspects of that design, the numbers 1111-1118. The cost
proposal contained a separate summary sheet for each number with the
total on 1110 representing the total of 1111-1118. It became apparent
in the telephone conversation that the agency analyst was adding the
totals for 1111-1118 to the total for 1110. By repeating this error
throughout Intellitec's cost proposal, the analyst consistently
double-counted Intellitec's costs, which resulted in the perceived
inconsistency between the SF 33 and the underlying cost data. After
the telephone conversation, the agency analyst was able to confirm
that Intellitec's proposed costs were internally consistent.
According to the analyst, Intellitec was not allowed to revise its
cost proposal.[7]
Subsequently, on or about May 29-30, without any request from the
agency, Intellitec's representative sent a series of three e-mail
messages to the agency analyst. Tr. 30. The representative's purpose
was to summarize what had been discussed and to provide a reference if
the analyst had any questions. Tr. 25. According to the agency
analyst, he never received the e-mail messages, and they thus had no
impact on his evaluation.
We have reviewed the messages and find that (even if it is assumed,
arguendo, that they were received and considered by the agency) there
is nothing in them that is not either in the proposal as submitted, or
readily apparent from a close reading of the proposal. For example,
the first message followed the format of the furnished cost overview,
but included the separate cost for each item, clearly demonstrating
the consistency of the various costs. All items, with the exception
of a single sub-total, were already included in Intellitec's cost
proposal. The other messages simply re-clarified existing information
regarding the association of WBS numbers with the appropriate CLINs
and sub-CLINs. Again, all information was already in the Intellitec
proposal. One of these messages also included the correction of a
typographical error: a summary sheet (representing approximately
$6,000 in cost) was identified with CLIN 0001AA instead of CLIN
0001AK. When appropriate calculations of the summary sheets are
performed, it is readily apparent that the total for CLIN 0001AA is
too high by some $6,000, while the total for 0001AK is too low by the
same amount. According to the agency analyst, he figured out this
error on his own.
In our view, this typographical correction and the other e-mail
messages, as well as the telephone conversation, are plainly the type
of minor corrections and clarifications that are expressly
contemplated by the FAR. The corrections were "for the sole purpose
of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent
clerical mistakes" and were made both "in response to [g]overnment
inquiry" and "initiated by the offeror." FAR sec. 15.601. Intellitec
was not provided the opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, and
its communications with the agency did not constitute discussions.
International Data Sys., Inc., supra.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
RST argues that the agency's technical evaluation was flawed in
several areas.[8] In this regard, it is not the function of our
Office to evaluate proposals de novo. Rather, we will examine an
agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes
and regulations, since determining the relative merit of competing
proposals is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's
discretion. Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 284, 285
(1990), 90-1 CPD para. 203 at 3; Advanced Tech. and Research Corp.,
B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 230 at 3. The protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an
evaluation was unreasonable. Medland Controls, Inc., B-255204,
B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 260 at 3.
The technical evaluators identified 24 disadvantages and 2
deficiencies in RST's technical proposal. In her source selection
decision, the SSA observed that there were two "vitally important
technical problems that would have to be resolved in order for RST to
be determined capable of successfully executing the JSLSCAD EMD
effort." The first of these concerned RST's proposed algorithm
approach and the second concerned RST's test program.
[deleted]
At the hearing, RST's president disputed this evaluation. He noted
that RST had proposed to try all varieties of algorithms and would
continue to develop other algorithms to replace those that did not
work. Tr. 126. He also noted that one of its subcontractor/team
members, Bruker Spectrospin, Inc., which he stated is "number one or
number two in the world in interferometers," was working on "an
identical system" for the German government and was already 6 months
ahead of the JSLSCAD effort. Tr. 126-27. However, RST's president
agreed that these issues could not be resolved without discussions
with the agency. Tr. 187-88. In its comments, RST acknowledges that
it did not specifically express the detection limit in terms of
concentration levels, but argues that its proposal adequately covered
this area by discussing the factors which affect detection levels such
as temperature differences.
[deleted]
Based on our review of RST's proposal, we believe the agency's
evaluation was reasonable. It is plain from the record that the
algorithms are crucial to the successful operation of the JSLSCAD.
Yet, apart from a discussion of RST's basic algorithm approach, and
the promise to investigate advanced algorithms, the proposal contains
little detail on development of those advanced algorithms necessary to
meet the requirements of the RFP. Likewise, it is clear that RST did
not address the sensitivity of its algorithms in terms of
concentration levels, notwithstanding the presence of a table in the
performance specifications detailing the required and desired
concentration levels of agent to be detected. In this regard, section
L of the RFP required offerors to "provide sufficient detail in a
clear and concise manner to completely and logically address every
area" to be evaluated.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to the evaluation of RST's
test program. Offerors were required to propose a detailed
engineering design test (EDT), which would entail providing all
necessary test fixtures equipment to conduct the testing and
conducting the EDT to validate that the JSLSCAD met the performance
requirements in the specifications. RST proposed Science Technology
Corporation (STC) as its subcontractor responsible for executing its
proposed EDT. The evaluators determined that STC's personnel lacked
test experience required for the program and that STC itself had
little actual test experience, which posed a high risk. The
evaluators also noted that STC's facilities were not identified or
discussed in sufficient detail in the proposal. The SSA observed that
STC's personnel did not possess the qualifications needed to justify
the firm's role as principle planner and executor of the extensive
testing that would be a major portion of the JSLSCAD program. RST
also had not identified any test facilities that were capable of
supporting the proposed EDT effort.
At the hearing, RST's president stated that STC's role was to write
test plans and support the EDT. Tr. 177-78. An STC representative
stated that STC's role was to assist RST in running the test portion
of the program. Tr. 204. The STC witness disputed the agency's
evaluation, referring to a number of the resumes submitted for STC
personnel showing test experience and portions of RST's proposal where
STC's background in testing was discussed. Tr. 205-12. RST's
president noted that actual test facilities for STC did not need to be
shown in its proposal because testing was to be performed at RST,
Bruker, and other subcontractors' facilities. Tr. 159. According to
the testimony of RST's president, in drafting the RST proposal, he had
in mind that it was not necessary to provide much detail on testing
facilities, because RST could go to some four or five testing labs, at
a level of subcontracting which did not need separate reporting in the
proposal. Tr. 159-60. It is RST's position that its proposal
provided more than enough information to establish STC's capabilities
with regard to test support.
One of the agency's evaluators testified that, while the STC resumes
did indicate test experience, it was in the nature of test planning
and not actual testing experience. Tr. 281-83. That evaluator
further testified that, based on STC's proposed role, he was looking
for personnel with experience in conducting testing and, in his view,
the resumes submitted did not show that kind of experience. Tr.
283-84.
From our review of RST's proposal and the resumes, we believe the
agency's evaluation was reasonable. While there is evidence of STC's
and its personnel's experience in testing, the agency is correct that
the experience described is more in the nature of [deleted]. For
example, the test and evaluation program manager showed most recent
experience in developing and writing test plans. While there was
experience listed in executing test programs for major defense efforts
at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, there was no indication of when
during a 20-year period that experience was gained. Similarly, while
STC itself had conducted testing in other contracts, it is apparent
that the majority of that experience was not directly comparable to
that expected in the JSLSCAD program. Moreover, STC's contract
efforts are generally listed as technical support, engineering
support, and technical management support. Although there was some
experience in actual test performance in four of the eight contracts
listed, most of the experience concerns preparation of test programs
and test support.
Further, while RST now maintains that STC was simply the test designer
and supporter, not the actual tester, that is not what RST proposed.
RST's proposal clearly identifies STC as the EDT team leader,
responsible for planning and conducting all system testing. In this
regard, RST's uncosted labor matrix shows more than 13,000 hours of
effort for STC personnel involved in EDT and other testing. Although
the proposal does list other test subcontractors and sites, it does
not provide any detail regarding these firms' abilities to perform the
required testing or the extent of their test facilities. Rather, the
proposal states that the "JSLSCAD Test Team" will be responsible for
establishing all test facilities, equipment, and adequate personnel to
perform the testing. Since an agency's evaluation is dependent upon
information furnished in a proposal, it is the offeror's burden to
submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate, and
RST's failure to fulfill its obligation in this regard does not render
the agency's evaluation unreasonable. DATEX, Inc., B-270268.2, Apr.
15, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 240 at 6; Infotec Dev., Inc., B-258198 et al.,
Dec. 27, 1994, 95-1 CPD para. 52 at 12. Further, while RST asserts that
it could have resolved these matters in discussions, as explained
below, the agency was not obligated to conduct discussions with RST.
COST EVALUATION
The agency also determined that RST's cost proposal was unacceptable
as submitted. The evaluators identified 35 problems in 5 areas of the
cost proposal. Among the major problems was RST's failure to provide
any breakout of its subcontractor costs. In this regard,
notwithstanding its identification of more than 100,000 hours of
subcontractor effort in its uncosted matrix, RST provided only a
single cost figure for each subcontractor.[9] As such, the agency was
faced with a proposal of approximately $22 million for the EMD effort,
some $13 million of which represented cost attributable to the
subcontractors. Under the circumstances, it was impossible for the
evaluators to determine whether the subcontractors' costs were
reasonable, realistic, or accurately represented the level of effort
proposed.
RST contends that the agency unfairly downgraded its cost proposal for
failing to include detailed cost information for its subcontractors.
In RST's view, the RFP proposal instructions required only that
offerors identify lump sum costs for subcontractors. RST relies on
section L.7.2.3:
Submit a summary of all direct and indirect rates (e.g., labor
overhead, general and administrative [G&A], etc.), the number of
hours, and labor categories associated with each WBS element
applicable to the total period of contract performance. This
summary shall be proposed in the following format: (A sample
cost proposal summary is provided as an example, see Section J).
This instruction was followed by a form which included separate lines
for labor category, total direct labor, overhead, subcontractors,
other direct costs, material, travel, G&A, total estimated costs,
total fixed fee, and total price. Under the "labor category" heading
were additional blanks indicated to show different categories. Under
the "subcontractors" heading was the instruction "(specific breakout
for each SubKtr, include prime evaluation of each sub)." In section
J, several of these forms were filled out as examples. While the
"labor categories" section showed entries such as "senior engineer"
and "scientist" with separate hours, rates, and totals of costs and
hours, the "subcontractors" entries contained only a single dollar
figure. From this, RST concluded that it needed only to include a
total cost figure for each of its subcontractors for each WBS item.
Tr. 118-19, 141-46.
Based on our review of the record, RST unreasonably relied on this
single instruction in completing its subcontractor cost proposal.
Despite the presence of the furnished form and examples, the RFP
plainly required more subcontractor cost information from offerors
than was furnished by RST. Section L.7.2 stated "[p]roposed costs and
fee for the EMD effort shall be adequately broken down and in
sufficient detail to permit a thorough analysis. All costs and fee
shall be included with sufficient supporting information, in detail,
based on a 40 hour work week." In addition, section L.7.1. provided
that offerors submit a cost proposal on SF 1448, in accordance with
the instructions in Table 15-3 of FAR sec. 15.804-6. Table 15-3 provides
in pertinent part that the cost "information submitted shall be at the
level of detail described in the solicitation or specified by the
contracting officer" and that "[a]ny information submitted must
support the price proposed. Include sufficient detail or cross
references to clearly establish the relationship of the information
provided to the price proposed."
Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of solicitation language, we
will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in
a manner that gives effect to all provisions of the solicitation. Pro
Constr., Inc., B-272458, Oct. 10, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 141 at 3. Taken in
their entirety, the RFP's instructions clearly required that offerors
proposing substantial subcontractor efforts provide more than a single
cost entry for subcontractors. While the summary form contained only
one line, the RFP clearly required detailed information to support
that single line for an offeror such as RST which proposed a
significant percentage of performance by subcontractors.
AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS
RST also argues that the agency unreasonably determined to award the
contract on the basis of initial proposals without conducting
discussions. RST contends that the various issues identified in the
evaluation of its proposal could have been easily corrected through
discussions. The agency maintains that RST was on notice of the
potential for an award without discussions and that its unacceptable
technical and cost proposals eliminated it from consideration for
award.
There is generally no obligation that a contracting agency conduct
discussions where, as here, the RFP specifically instructs offerors of
the agency's intent to award a contract on the basis of initial
proposals. Radian, Inc., B-256313.2, B-256313.4, June 27, 1994, 94-2
CPD para. 104 at 11. As observed by the protester, the contracting
officer's decision to make award on the basis of initial proposals is
not unfettered. The Jonathan Corp.; Metro Mach. Corp., B-251698.3,
B-251698.4, May 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 174 at 14, recon. den., Moon
Eng'g Co., Inc. -- Recon., B-251698.6, Oct. 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 233.
We will review the exercise of such discretion to ensure that it was
reasonably based on the particular circumstances of the procurement,
including consideration of the proposals received and the basis for
the selection decision. Lloyd-Lamont Design, Inc., B-270090.3, Feb.
13, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 71 at 6. On the other hand, this discretion is
quite broad, and in recent years, has been expanded. For example,
Congress has deleted the requirement originally set forth in the
Competition in Contracting Act that an agency could make award without
discussions only to the offeror with the lowest price or evaluated
cost. Compare 10 U.S.C. sec. 2305(b)(4)(A)(ii) (1988) with 10 U.S.C. sec.
2305 (b)(4) (A)(ii) (1994) (showing deletion of requirement applicable
to defense agencies) and 41 U.S.C. sec. 253b(d)(1)(B) (1988) with 41
U.S.C. sec. 253b(d)(1)(B) (1994) (showing deletion of requirement
applicable to civilian agencies). In addition, the FAR provides that
once the government has stated its intent to award without
discussions, "the rationale for reversal of this decision shall be
documented in the contract file." FAR sec. 15.610(a)(3) (June 1997).
From our review of the record, we see nothing which indicates that the
contracting officer abused her discretion in determining not to
conduct discussions. While RST contends otherwise, as discussed
above, there is ample evidence that the agency reasonably evaluated
RST's technical and cost proposals as unacceptable, either one of
which evaluations would justify the decision not to conduct
discussions. The protester apparently prepared its proposal under the
(mistaken) belief that the agency would necessarily conduct
discussions, despite the RFP's advice to the contrary. Tr. 149.
However, since the RFP advised offerors that the agency intended to
make award without discussions, RST could not reasonably presume that
it would have a chance to improve its proposal through discussions.
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., B-255343.2, B-255343.4, Mar. 14, 1994, 94-1
CPD para. 325 at 8-9. On this record, there is no basis to object to the
agency's determination not to conduct discussions.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Prior to the RFP's issue, the agency issued a draft RFP in
September 1996, and provided responses to prospective offerors'
questions in November 1996, incorporating changes as necessary in the
final RFP. Later in November, the agency conducted a pre-solicitation
conference with industry representatives. After issuance of the final
RFP, the agency answered additional industry questions and
incorporated appropriate changes in three amendments.
2. Figures in the left column show the maximum number of points
available for each area and the factors within it (figures for factors
are in square brackets).
3. The awarded EMD portion of this contract, exclusive of options,
represented $30,228,070. RST's proposed cost to perform the
EMD portion was $22,460,932.
4. The interferometer is an optical device that splits a beam of light
into different beams and then brings them together to produce
interference. This interference is used in identifying chemical
agents.
5. An algorithm is a set of rules for solving a problem in a finite
number of steps. Algorithms are an integral part of the JSLSCAD's
software for identifying chemical agents and eliminating background
readings which tend to mask those agents.
6. Citations to the transcript (Tr.) refer to the transcript of that
hearing.
7. The agency's cost analyst was unable to attend the hearing for
medical reasons. Instead, he furnished his version of the events in
sworn statements, including a response to the protester's
interrogatories.
8. RST has raised a number of technical and cost evaluation issues.
We have reviewed them all and find that none have substantive merit.
This decision will discuss only the more significant of RST's
arguments.
9. Related to this deficiency was a significant inconsistency between
RST's technical proposal and its cost proposal with regard to the
proposed level of effort. While the uncosted matrix showed 87,900 RST
hours, the cost proposal covered 127,600 RST hours. At the hearing,
RST's president explained that the cost proposal represented the
actual level of effort and conceded that discussions were necessary to
resolve the proposal inconsistency. Tr. 192, 194, 197.