BNUMBER:  B-278352.2; B-278352.3 
DATE:  April 14, 1998
TITLE: RGII Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration and Protest, B-
278352.2; B-278352.3, April 14, 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:RGII Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration and Protest

File:     B-278352.2; B-278352.3

Date:April 14, 1998

James K. Kearney, Esq., and Theodore W. Atkinson, Esq., Reed Smith 
Shaw & McClay, for the protester.
Edward V. Gregorowicz, Jr., Esq., and Frederick P. Hink, Esq., for For 
Your Information, Inc., an intervenor.
Kimberly A. Kegowicz, Esq., U.S. Coast Guard, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

1.  Request for reconsideration of a decision sustaining a protest of 
an award based on a technically unacceptable best and final offer 
(BAFO) and recommending award based on the only apparent technically 
acceptable BAFO is denied where the BAFO in question did not satisfy 
the stated key personnel qualification requirements, the agency had 
conducted discussions, on this issue, and the resulting BAFO remained 
unacceptable.

2.  Agency may waive as a minor informality an offeror's failure to 
comply with a solicitation requirement for the submission of one 
original set and seven copies of oral presentation slides by the 
deadline for submission of initial proposals, where an offeror 
submitted seven copies of the set of slides by the deadline and the 
set of original slides submitted after the deadline duplicated the 
content of the copies previously submitted.

DECISION

RGII Technologies, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, For 
Your Information, Inc., B-278352, Dec. 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  164, 
sustaining a protest by For Your Information, Inc. (FYI) of an award 
to RGII under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-97-R-HRM001, 
issued by the U.S. Coast Guard for information technology support 
services.  RGII also protests the agency's decision, in response to 
our recommendation in For Your Information, Inc., supra, at 5, to 
terminate RGII's contract and to make award to FYI.

We deny the request for reconsideration and the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, 
indefinite-quantity contract.  Sections M.2 and M.3 of the RFP stated 
that award would be based on the proposal offering the greatest value 
to the government, as determined by an evaluation of the stated 
criteria for Phase I (mini-proposal and past performance survey) and 
the evaluation factors listed for Phase II (oral presentation slides, 
personnel data forms (PDF), and cost).  There were 28 subfactors to be 
evaluated under the oral presentation factor. 

Section I.12 and paragraph 4.2.1 of section L.9 of the RFP listed 10 
labor categories, all designated as key personnel positions, and 
required offerors to submit PDFs for a stated percentage of the 
personnel proposed for each labor category.  Pursuant to section L.8 
of the RFP, the PDFs were to include the qualifications and history of 
education and employment for an offeror's proposed personnel.  Section 
C.1.4 of the RFP stated the minimum qualifications for personnel 
proposed for each labor category.  Section M.4 of the RFP stated:

     The quality and quantity of all proposed personnel must meet the 
     stated minimum qualification in Section C.

Section H.9(a) of the RFP stated:

     The contractor agrees to assign to the contract those persons 
     whose [PDFs] were submitted with the proposal.

After the Phase I evaluation was completed, the Coast Guard received 
Phase II initial proposals from five offerors, including RGII and FYI, 
by the August 4 due date.  All of the offerors proposed personnel in 
their PDFs who failed to meet the RFP's minimum personnel 
qualifications.  The agency conducted discussions on this issue and on 
cost, and requested best and final offers (BAFO).  All five offerors 
submitted BAFOs.

Although all BAFOs were rated as "green/satisfactory" overall, only 
FYI's proposed personnel met all of the minimum qualifications; the 
BAFOs submitted by RGII and the other offerors proposed personnel who 
did not meet the minimum personnel qualifications.  Even though the 
technical evaluation team initially recommended award to FYI or a 
third offeror, the source selection official ultimately noted that all 
proposals were rated green/satisfactory overall, and awarded the 
contract to RGII, the lowest-priced offeror.

FYI protested that award to our Office on a number of bases, including 
that RGII's proposal was technically unacceptable.  We sustained that 
protest because RGII's proposal was technically unacceptable for 
failing to satisfy the minimum personnel qualifications.  Since after 
discussions on personnel qualifications, all of the BAFOs, except 
FYI's, continued to have deficiencies in this respect, FYI's BAFO 
appeared to be the only technically acceptable offer.  We thus 
recommended terminating the contract to RGII and awarding the contract 
to FYI, if, after reviewing FYI's BAFO, the agency determined that 
FYI's proposal was indeed technically acceptable.

On December 24, RGII requested reconsideration of that decision.  On 
January 9, 1998, after determining that FYI's proposal was acceptable, 
the Coast Guard determined to terminate the contract to RGII and to 
award the contract to FYI.  RGII requested and received a debriefing, 
and then timely protested to our Office.[1]

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

RGII alleges that our decision was erroneously decided because (1) the 
deficiencies in the qualifications of its proposed personnel were 
correctable; (2) the agency had the discretion to permit such 
correction through substitution of personnel after award; (3) the 
personnel deficiencies did not render its proposal unacceptable 
because the PDFs were not considered part of the proposal and these 
deficiencies were only evaluated weaknesses; (4) our decision 
improperly imposed a de novo evaluation in place of the agency's 
evaluation; and/or (5) our recommendation should have required the 
agency to reopen discussions.

In order to obtain reversal or modification of a decision, the 
requesting party must convincingly show that our prior decision 
contains either errors of fact or law, or present information not 
previously considered which warrants reversal or modification of the 
decision.  Eagle Transfer, Inc.--Recon., B-235348.2, Oct. 17, 1989, 
89-2 CPD  para.  360 at 2; 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.14(a) (1997).  Repetition of 
arguments made during consideration of the original protest or mere 
disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard.  Eagle 
Transfer, Inc.--Recon., supra.  Here, RGII has provided no basis to 
modify or reverse our prior decision.

RGII does not dispute that a proposal which fails to conform to 
material terms and conditions of the solicitation should be considered 
unacceptable and may not form the basis for an award.  See National 
Med. Staffing, Inc.; PRS Consultants, Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 500, 502 
(1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  530 at 3.  Instead, RGII contends that the 
requirement that offerors propose personnel on the PDFs that meet the 
minimum qualifications stated in the RFP is not a material term or 
condition.  

As noted, section M.4 of the RFP expressly required that all proposed 
personnel meet the stated minimum personnel qualifications.  Contrary 
to RGII's contention, this requirement was a material term and 
condition of the RFP because it affected both the quality and price of 
contract performance; RGII has not produced any evidence to the 
contrary.  Nor does RGII allege that its proposed personnel met the 
stated personnel qualification requirements.

RGII's allegation that the requirements are not material because the 
PDFs either were not "part of the proposal" or did not carry much 
relative weight under the stated evaluation scheme, misses the point.  
RGII proposed personnel who did not meet the RFP's qualification 
requirements, as was required by section M.4 of the RFP.  Since RGII's 
proposed personnel failed to meet these material requirements, its 
BAFO was unacceptable and could not form the basis for an award, 
regardless of where the PDFs were located within RGII's submission or 
how little weight PDFs carried under the RFP's evaluation scheme.

Moreover, as discussed in our prior decision, the provisions in the 
contract relating to substitution of personnel are predicated upon the 
agency's approval of acceptable personnel named in the proposal, not 
upon allowing an offeror to provide acceptable personnel after award 
to replace unacceptable personnel named in a proposal.  In any case, 
the fact that there is provision in the contract that allows for 
substitution of personnel after award does not render proper an agency 
award predicated upon the acceptance of a proposal premised on 
unacceptable personnel.  As indicated in our prior decision, this 
acceptance constituted an agency waiver of the personnel qualification 
requirements for RGII, which resulted in an unfair and unequal 
evaluation.  See Martin Marietta Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 214, 219 (1990), 
90-1 CPD  para.  132 at 7.

Furthermore, contrary to RGII's allegations, our decision did not 
simply reject the agency's evaluation and selection decision to impose 
an award decision of our own.  Instead, we reviewed the agency's 
evaluation and selection decision for reasonableness and consistency 
with the stated evaluation scheme, which is the proper standard for 
our Office's review of such protests.  See Abt Assocs., Inc., 
B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  223 at 4.  The record showed 
that the agency, in both its evaluation and the selection decision, 
acknowledged that RGII's proposal did not satisfy the qualification 
requirements, and the record further showed that this evaluation was 
reasonable and undisputed.  Yet the RFP expressly stated that proposed 
personnel "must meet the stated minimum qualification" requirements.  
As stated, we found it unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of 
the RFP for the agency to conclude that it could make an award based 
on a technically unacceptable proposal and require correction of the 
deficiencies after award.  Thus, we did not impose our own evaluation 
of proposals or selection decision, but merely identified that the 
agency's evaluation showed that four of the five BAFOs submitted were 
unacceptable and that an award could be made only based on an 
acceptable proposal.  

Lastly, RGII's request for reconsideration alleges that our 
recommended remedy was improper because it did not instruct the agency 
to reopen discussions and provide RGII with an opportunity to correct 
its deficiencies.  However, the agency had already conducted 
discussions with RGII and all other offerors on the deficiencies with 
their proposed personnel and provided them with an opportunity to 
revise their proposals.[2]  The agency had no obligation to advise 
these offerors that such deficiencies remained in their BAFOs or to 
provide an additional opportunity for proposal revision.  Hughes 
Training, Inc., B-256426.4, Jan. 26, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  154 at 8.  Since 
the agency was not required to conduct discussions with offerors whose 
BAFOs were technically unacceptable, our recommendation appropriately 
focused on consideration of the only apparently acceptable BAFO.[3] 
See Essex Corp., B-246536.3, June 25, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  170 at 9-10, 
recon. denied, Wackenhut Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-246536.4, Aug. 31, 
1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  137 at 4-6.

In sum, RGII's request for reconsideration does not establish the 
existence of errors of fact or law in, nor present new information 
that warrants reversal or modification of, our prior decision.

PROTEST

RGII's protest of the agency's decision to terminate RGII's contract 
and award to FYI alleges:  (1) FYI must be disqualified from competing 
under this RFP because its submission of the original oral 
presentation slides after the initial proposal due date constituted an 
unacceptable late proposal; (2) FYI's proposal is technically 
unacceptable because it fails to meet material RFP requirements; (3) 
the agency's use of a color/adjectival rating scale constituted an 
unstated evaluation criterion; and (4) the agency did not conduct 
meaningful discussions with RGII.[4]

With regard to the submission of FYI's original slides, the 
instructions for submitting proposals at RFP section L.9, paragraph 
4.3.2, stated that an offeror was to submit its original oral 
presentation slides (i.e., overhead projection transparencies) and 
seven copies with its offer.  Paragraph 4.2.2 of section L.9 stated:

     In order to ensure the integrity of the source selection process, 
     the offeror must use the overhead slides submitted to the 
     Government with its offer when making its Oral Presentation, 
     without any alteration.  The technical evaluation team may review 
     the copies of the slides prior to the presentation.  The offeror 
     may submit no other written documentation for its Oral 
     Presentation.  When evaluating the offeror's Oral Presentation, 
     the Government will consider only those overhead slides that were 
     actually projected and addressed by the offeror during its 
     presentation. . . .  The Government will process overhead slides 
     and copies that are received after the deadline for the 
     submission of offers in accordance with [Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation (FAR)  sec. ] 52.215-10.  If the slides and copies are late 
     and are not accepted for consideration on the basis of FAR [ sec. ] 
     52.215-10 then the Government will consider the offeror to be 
     ineligible for award and will not permit that offeror to make an 
     Oral Presentation.

FYI's proposal submitted prior to the August 4 deadline included seven 
copies of its set of oral presentation slides, but did not include the 
original set of slides.  On August 5, FYI submitted the original set 
of slides, as well as a table of contents not previously submitted 
with the seven copies.  One other offeror submitted the copies of its 
slides before the deadline and the original slides after the deadline.  

The agency initially informed these two offerors that their proposals 
would be rejected as late proposals under FAR  sec.  52.215-10 (June 1997).  
However, after FYI asserted that the submission of its slides after 
the due date constituted a minor informality that could be waived, and 
that its proposal could not be considered late, the agency reversed 
its decision and permitted both of these offerors to continue 
participation in the procurement.

RGII alleges that FYI's proposal was late because FYI's submission 
prior to the due date must be considered only a partial proposal 
without the original slides.  It asserts that, since the RFP stated 
that the agency will process slides and copies that are received after 
the due date in accordance with FAR  sec.  52.215-10, FYI's late submission 
of its original slides required disqualification of FYI's proposal 
from the competition.  

Offerors are responsible for submitting offers, and any modifications 
to them, so as to reach the government office designated in the 
solicitation on time.  FAR  sec.  15.412(b) (June 1997).  Proposals, and 
modifications to them, that are received in the designated government 
office after the exact time specified are "late," and shall be 
considered only if received before award and the circumstances meet 
the specific requirements of the provision at FAR  sec.  52.215-10.[5]  FAR  sec.  
15.412(c).  This rule regarding late proposals also applies to 
proposals which are received in part prior to the deadline, but where 
material portions of the proposal are not received until after the 
deadline.  See Inland Serv. Corp., Inc., B-252947.4, Nov. 4, 1993, 
93-2 CPD  para.  266 at 4 (proposal was late and not acceptable where the 
technical proposal was received on time but the price proposal was 
late); Radar Devices, Inc.,
B-249118, Oct. 27, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  287 at 3 (proposal sent by fax was 
late where, even though delivery began before the deadline, the 
majority of the proposal was not received prior to the deadline).  

However, even where not all of the information which a solicitation 
requires is submitted prior to the deadline, the proposal may not be 
considered late if the information received by the deadline is 
sufficient to constitute a complete proposal, such that the offeror 
submitting the proposal did not obtain an unfair competitive 
advantage.  See Abt Assocs. Inc., 66 Comp. Gen. 460, 462-63 (1987), 
87-1 CPD  para.  513 at 2-3 (where a solicitation required the submission of 
multiple copies of a proposal, the submission of fewer copies by the 
deadline was not a late proposal because, even absent the copies, the 
content of the proposal was complete); see also Wetlands Research 
Assocs., Inc., 71 Comp. Gen. 289, 292 n.7 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  251 at 5 
n.7 (timely submitted proposal which omitted a required photograph and 
drawing was not late where the proposal otherwise demonstrated the 
offeror's corresponding technical ability).  Under such circumstances, 
the failure to submit all requested information is a waivable 
informality or irregularity.  Abt Assocs. Inc., supra, 87-1 CPD  para.  513 
at 3.

We believe that FYI's submission on August 4 constituted a 
sufficiently complete proposal because, though missing the original 
set of slides, it contained seven sets of copies of those slides.  Any 
one set of these copies included all of the information which was to 
be evaluated under the corresponding oral presentation criterion.  
Thus, none of the content of FYI's offer was missing from its 
submission on August 4.  Since there is no question that FYI's August 
4 submission was received by the agency prior to the deadline, the 
proposal is not a late proposal and is not subject to rejection as 
late.  Id.

We also find that FYI's original set of slides was properly accepted 
by the agency, though received after the due date.  The RFP's 
instruction that the provision at FAR  sec.  52.215-10 would be applied to 
the submission of the slides was a condition which the RFP imposed on 
offerors in addition to the late proposal rule applicable by 
regulation to the submission of the entire proposal.  Such conditions 
may be imposed on offerors to the extent the conditions reflect actual 
and reasonable needs of the agency; however, bids and proposals that 
deviate from such solicitation conditions need not be rejected in 
every case, particularly where the deviation is a matter of form and 
not substance.  Abt Assocs., Inc., supra, 87-1 CPD  para.  513 at 2.[6]

The agency states that the purpose of the condition that offerors 
submit all slides with their proposals was to allow the evaluators to 
review the content of an oral presentation prior to the presentation, 
and to prevent revision of an offeror's oral presentation subsequent 
to the initial proposal due date.  A total deviation from this 
submission condition, e.g., an offeror's failure to submit at least 
one complete set of slides, would mean that the content of the oral 
presentation could not be reviewed prior to the presentation and the 
agency could not determine whether any revisions to that content were 
made after the proposal due date.  However, where seven sets of an 
offeror's slides are submitted by the due date, as here, the purpose 
of the condition is satisfied.  We thus believe that an offeror's 
failure to submit one additional set of slides (whether the original 
or a copy) by the proposal due date is a deviation that is a matter of 
form, which may be waived.

While FYI's original slides submitted after the submission due date 
included a table of contents (i.e., 6 slides out of a total of 138), 
this deviation was also one of form rather than substance.  The table 
of contents did not identify any new information; it merely stated the 
title of each slide and the corresponding slide number; otherwise, the 
original slides were identical to the copies.  Moreover, FYI did not 
use the table of contents in its oral presentation and, consistent 
with the instructions at RFP section L.9, the agency did not consider 
the table of contents in its evaluation because it was not used in the 
oral presentation.  

Although RGII alleges that it was unfairly prejudiced by the waiver of 
the condition for submitting all slides, it has not produced any 
evidence of such prejudice, except to argue that, by not disqualifying 
FYI, the agency prevented RGII from receiving the award.  However, 
unfair competitive prejudice from a waiver or relaxation of the terms 
and conditions of the RFP for one offeror exists only where the 
protester would have been able to alter its proposal to its 
competitive advantage, were it given a similar opportunity.  See 
Container Prods. Corp., B-255883, Apr. 13, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  255 at 4.  
Since the waiver here resulted only in the acceptance of a duplicate 
of the information previously submitted, and thus the contents of the 
timely submission could not change, the waiver resulted in no 
competitive prejudice.

RGII next alleges that FYI's proposal is technically unacceptable 
because it did not satisfy five material requirements of the 
solicitation.  These alleged material requirements relate to 5 of the 
28 total subfactors of the oral presentation, which is the most 
important evaluation factor.  FYI's BAFO received "yellow/marginal" 
ratings under these five subcriteria.[7]  RFP section M.6 defined a 
"yellow/marginal" rating as:

     Fails to meet the minimum requirements; has one or more 
     deficiencies, but they are correctable without major revisions.

The agency states that, in response to the recommendation made in our 
prior decision, it reviewed FYI's proposal and found no deficiencies.  
Rather, the "yellow" ratings were given as a result of evaluated 
weaknesses in the content of FYI's oral presentation under the five 
identified subfactors.  The agency reviewed FYI's BAFO, and determined 
and documented that FYI's BAFO complied with all material terms and 
conditions of the RFP, particularly with respect to the five 
subfactors in question, such that FYI's BAFO was technically 
acceptable.

The protester has identified no requirements related to the five 
subfactors which were not satisfied by FYI's BAFO.  Although the 
agency's report on this protest specifically and reasonably addressed 
the acceptability of FYI's proposal considering the weaknesses noted 
under each subfactor, the protester's comments on the report merely 
express RGII's general disagreement with the agency's decision to 
determine FYI's proposal acceptable, notwithstanding the "yellow" 
ratings.  

For example, one of the five subfactors was:

     c6.  Demonstrate your company's corporate knowledge, experience, 
     and ability to develop job aids and user guides for office 
     automation [OA] applications.

The agency evaluation assigned a yellow rating to FYI's oral 
presentation under this subfactor because the presentation did not 
cover the development of user guides for OA applications.  The agency 
provided the following rationale to explain why this did not represent 
a failure to comply with material terms and conditions of the RFP:

     FYI received a blue [superior rating] in subfactor c1 providing 
     OA support for [Technical] Exhibit One OA applications.  They 
     also discussed the fact that they have knowledge supporting the 
     required OA applications.  In addition, FYI also indicated that 
     they have experience developing job aids and user guides.  
     Although FYI did not identify that they had developed user guides 
     for the OA application in Technical Exhibit One, this is not 
     material due to the combination of FYI's stated ability to 
     support the OA applications and their stated experience 
     developing job aids and user guides.

Our review of the RFP revealed that, while offerors were required to 
demonstrate their corporate experience in developing job aids and user 
guides for OA applications, the RFP set no minimum requirement in this 
area other than at section C.1.4.8, which stated that experience in 
developing user guides was a personnel qualification requirement for 
the training specialist.  It is undisputed that the person FYI 
proposed for the training specialist position met this requirement.  
Other work requirements stated in section C required the contractor to 
prepare user guides, and FYI's BAFO did not take exception to these 
requirements.

As indicated, RGII did not specifically respond to the agency's 
documented reasons for finding FYI's proposal acceptable, but merely 
generally disagreed with the agency's decision in this regard.  On 
this record, we find that the agency reasonably determined FYI's 
proposal was acceptable. 

RGII's allegation that the color/adjectival ratings employed by the 
agency were unstated evaluation factors has no merit.  Essentially, 
RGII alleges that its proposal was deemed technically unacceptable, 
both by our decision on FYI's protest and subsequently by the agency, 
because RGII's proposal received "red/unsatisfactory" ratings under 
several subfactors, including the evaluation of personnel under the 
PDF factor.  In fact, RGII's BAFO was technically unacceptable because 
it failed to meet the mandatory personnel qualifications requirements, 
not merely because the proposal received a "red" rating.  It is well 
established that ratings, be they numerical, color or adjectival, are 
merely guides for intelligent decision-making in the procurement 
process.  Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111, 1118 (1976), 
76-1 CPD  para.  325 at 9.  Here, the ratings reflected proposal strengths, 
weaknesses, and deficiencies identified by the evaluators to assist in 
the decision-making process; they were not themselves evaluation 
factors.  See Israel Aircraft Indus., Ltd., MATA Helicopters Div., 
B-274389 et al., Dec. 6, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  41 at 7.

RGII finally alleges that it did not receive discussions on areas of 
its proposal, other than proposed personnel, which the agency had 
evaluated as weak or deficient, and thus RGII did not receive 
meaningful discussions.  Since the agency did conduct discussions with 
RGII identifying the deficiencies in its initial proposal regarding 
its proposed personnel, and since RGII's subsequent BAFO remained 
technically unacceptable on that basis, RGII's BAFO was ineligible for 
award, regardless of any other evaluated weaknesses or deficiencies.  
Since meaningful discussions were conducted on a deficiency which 
ultimately rendered RGII's BAFO technically unacceptable, we need not 
address the other allegations concerning discussions.

The request for reconsideration and the protest are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. After FYI filed its prior protest, the agency authorized 
performance of the contract by RGII as being in the best interest of 
the government.  The agency then determined that it would delay the 
termination of the contract to RGII and the award to FYI, pending the 
resolution of RGII's request for reconsideration and protest.

2. While RGII asserts that the agency did not specifically advise 
offerors during discussions of the consequences of a failure to 
propose personnel who met the qualification requirements, there was no 
need for it to do so, given that the RFP clearly required proposals to 
meet the minimum personnel qualification requirements stated in the 
RFP.

3. Nevertheless, our decision did not prohibit the agency from 
reopening discussions if it determined such action was appropriate.

4. RGII initially alleged that selection of FYI's BAFO for award was 
not in accord with the stated greatest value selection scheme.  In its 
report responsive to the protest, the agency fully justified the 
decision to make award to the only offeror which submitted an 
acceptable proposal, FYI.  Since the protester did not rebut the 
agency's position in its comments, we consider RGII to have abandoned 
this basis of protest.  Akal Sec., Inc., B-261996, Nov. 16, 1995, 96-1 
CPD  para.  33 at 5 n.5.

5. The circumstances that permit acceptance of a proposal or 
modification received after the due date generally concern a 
submission that is timely sent, but received late due either to delays 
in specified mail services or to mishandling by the government, or one 
that is submitted late and is the only proposal received.  FAR  sec.  
52.215-10.  None of the exceptions stated in FAR  sec.  52.215-10 for 
accepting a late proposal apply here.

6. RGII alleges that Abt Assocs., Inc. is not applicable to this RFP 
condition because that decision predates the provision at FAR  sec.  
52.215-10.  This allegation is incorrect.  FAR  sec.  52.215-10 (1985), 
which has not changed in any material way in regard to the issues 
here, was specifically cited in Abt Assocs., Inc., supra, at 2.

7. These "yellow" ratings were the basis for our recommending in our 
decision on FYI's protest that the agency review FYI's proposal to 
determine its acceptability before making award to FYI.