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 360ï¿½ 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.