BNUMBER:  B-278695; B-278695.2; B-278695.3; B-278695.4; B-278695.5;            B-278695.6 
DATE:  March 4, 1998
TITLE: Modern Technologies Corp.; Innovative Technologies Corp.;, B-
278695; B-278695.2; B-278695.3; B-278695.4; B-278695.5; B-278695.6,
March 4, 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:Modern Technologies Corp.; Innovative Technologies Corp.; 
          Information Systems & Networks Corp.; and Camber Corp.

File:     B-278695; B-278695.2; B-278695.3; B-278695.4; B-278695.5; 
          B-278695.6

Date:March 4, 1998

Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & 
Gordon, for Modern Technologies Corp.; Douglas N. Harty, Esq., for 
Innovative Technologies Corp.; Norman H. Singer, Esq., Rudnick, Wolfe, 
Epstien & Zeidman, for Information Systems & Networks Corp.; and Alan 
M. Grayson, Esq., and Laura J. Mann, Esq., Alan M. Grayson and 
Associates, for Camber Corp., the protesters.
John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Eun K. Chung, Esq., 
and Christina M. Pirrello, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & 
D'Ambrosio, for SEMCOR, Inc.; Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Holland & 
Knight, for RJO Enterprises, Inc.; and John E. Jensen, Esq., and Devon 
E. Hewitt, Esq., Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge, for Innovative 
Logistics Techniques, Inc., the intervenors.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Terrance J. Moran, Esq., Scott W. Singer, 
Esq., William D. Cavanaugh, Esq., Janice C. Beckett, Esq., Alvin 
Chase, Esq., Deborah Muldoon, Esq., and Jennifer L. Grimm, Esq., 
Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

l.  Protesters' contentions that agency unreasonably evaluated 
awardees' and protesters' proposals are denied where the record shows 
the agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with stated 
evaluation criteria.

2.  Protester's contention that its strong performance as the current 
incumbent should be reflected in the evaluation of its proposal, and 
that as the incumbent it should receive extra credit in its past 
performance evaluation is denied where the record shows that the 
agency appropriately evaluated the proposal based on the merits of the 
proposal itself, and reasonably gave the highest possible past 
performance rating--but not extra credit--to the protester and to 
other offerors who had strong past performance references, even though 
the other offerors had not served as the incumbent for these services.

3.  Protester's argument that the agency is required to perform a cost 
analysis is denied where the agency is awarding a time-and-materials 
contract and reasonably concludes that the fixed nature of the labor 
rates indicates the presence of adequate price competition.

4.   Agency redetermination of its initial source selection decision 
in response to an offeror's questions raised after that offeror's 
debriefing, but prior to the filing of its protest, is entitled to 
review along with the other contemporaneous evaluation and selection 
documents.  Protester's contention that such a redetermination should 
be given little weight by our Office and treated as a redetermination 
prepared in the heat of the adversarial protest is denied.

5.  Protest alleging violation of internal agency policy is not for 
consideration by General Accounting Office as compliance with such 
policies is a matter for review by the agency.  Our bid protest 
function focuses instead on whether the agency adhered to law and 
regulation by evaluating proposals in accordance with the evaluation 
scheme announced in the solicitation.

DECISION

Modern Technologies Corp. (MTC), Innovative Technologies Corp. (ITC),  
Information Systems & Networks Corp. (ISN), and Camber Corp. protest 
their failure to receive one of the five awards made by the Department 
of the Air Force pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F33657-97-R-0014, issued to procure omnibus support services for the 
Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.  
Instead, the Air Force made award to SEMCOR, Inc.; Dynamics Research 
Corp. (DRC); RJO Enterprises; H.J. Ford Associates, Inc.; and 
Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc. (INNOLOG).  Each of the four 
protesters claims that the agency's evaluation of proposals was 
flawed, and that its proposal should have been selected over the 
proposals of other offerors. 

We deny the protests.

BACKGROUND

On July 8, 1997, the Air Force issued the RFP here to procure various 
categories of support services, including support for 
configuration/data management, engineering, acquisition security, 
acquisition management, administration, management of government 
furnished property, testing and evaluation, manufacturing, and 
litigation.[1]  The RFP anticipated award of up to five indefinite 
delivery, indefinite quantity contracts with both time-and-materials 
(T&M) and cost reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLIN).  The 
competition for these awards was limited to small businesses, and up 
to two awards were reserved for small disadvantaged businesses 
participating in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program.  
Awards under this RFP were for a period of 3 years, with a total 
combined value of all awards estimated at $250 million.  The RFP also 
advised that each contract would guarantee a minimum of $25,000 in 
orders.

The RFP advised that awards would be made without discussions, if 
possible, to the offerors whose proposals presented the best value to 
the government.  The RFP established that proposals would be evaluated 
in the following areas, in descending order of importance:  management 
(oral proposal), technical (sample task), and cost.  RFP  sec.  M.B.2.1.  
Within these areas, the RFP identified the following evaluation 
factors:

        Management (Oral Proposal)
          Factor M-1, Management Approach (includes key personnel)
          Factor M-2, Subcontract Management
          Factor M-3, Processes and Resources

        Technical (Sample Task)
          Factor T-1, Resources
          Factor T-2, Approach
          
        Cost
          Factor C-1, Composite Rate (composite weighted hourly labor 
rate)
          Factor C-2, Sample Task Total Cost

The evaluation factors within the management and technical areas were 
weighted equally with the other factors within their respective area; 
the factors within the cost area are listed in descending order of 
importance.  RFP  sec.  M.B.3.1-3.3.
     
The RFP explained that each proposal would be assigned a 
color/adjectival rating under each of the evaluation factors.  These 
ratings were blue, exceptional; green, acceptable; yellow, marginal; 
and red, unacceptable.  In addition, the RFP anticipated an assessment 
of both proposal and performance risk as either high, moderate, or 
low.  Proposal risk was to be assessed for each evaluation factor, and 
was to consider the risk associated with an offeror's proposed 
approach to accomplish the RFP's requirements.  Performance risk was 
to be assessed only at the area level--i.e., management, technical, 
and cost--and was to consider the risk associated with the offeror's 
relevant present and past performance.  RFP  sec.  M.B.2.2.

By the August 19 initial closing date, the Air Force received 16 
proposals--9 from small businesses and 7 from small disadvantaged 
businesses.  All of the proposals were evaluated by a source selection 
evaluation team (SSET), which prepared a Proposal Analysis Report and 
a briefing for the source selection authority (SSA).  The results of 
the evaluation are set forth below in approximate order of evaluated 
merit (offerors which are small disadvantaged businesses are marked 
with an asterisk; offerors which eventually received award are shown 
in bold; offerors which are protesters here are shown in italics; and 
offerors which did not receive award and have not protested are 
identified only by letter, such as "Offeror A"):

             M-1
           RATING
           Color/
            Risk      M-2
                    RATING
                    Color/
                     Risk      M-3
                             RATING
                             Color/
                              Risk      T-1
                                      RATING
                                      Color/
                                       Risk      T-2
                                               RATING
                                               Color/
                                                Risk    PROPOSED
                                                          COST
                                                        Composite
                                                          Rate
                                                         (hourly)

H.J. Ford*  green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                        low     green
                                                 low   $32.17 hr.
                                                             
SEMCOR      green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate   green
                                                 low   $31.58 hr.
                                                      
MTC         green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                                 low   $33.33 hr.
                                                      
RJO         green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                              moderate $32.06 hr. 

Offeror A*  green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                              moderate $37.64 hr.

INNO-
LOG*        green
             low     green
                      low     green
                            moderate  yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                                 low   $32.38 hr.

DRC         green
             low     green
                   moderate   green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                              moderate $29.84 hr. 

Offeror B   green
          moderate   green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                              moderate $32.30 hr.

Camber*     green
          moderate   green
                   moderate   green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate   green
                                                 low   $32.68 hr.

ITC*        green
          moderate   green
                   moderate   green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                              moderate $40.13 hr. 

Offeror C*  green
             low     green
                      low     green
                            moderate  yellow
                                       high    yellow
                                              moderate $33.90 hr.

Offeror D   green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                       high    yellow
                                                high   $31.14 hr.

Offeror E   green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low      red
                                       high     green
                                              moderate $34.19 hr.

Offeror F   green
             low     green
                   moderate   green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate    red
                                                high   $36.88 hr.

ISN         green
             low     green
                      low     green
                            moderate    red
                                       high    yellow
                                              moderate $37.38 
hr.Offeror G*red
            high      red
                     high      red
                              high      red
                                       high      red
                                                high   $76.76 hr.
In addition to the assessments above, all of the offerors--with the 
exception of Offerors F and G--received low performance risk ratings, 
as judged from past performance, under all three of the evaluation 
areas--management, technical, and cost.  Since Offerors F and G were 
excluded from consideration for other reasons, performance risk, as a 
practical matter, was not used by the agency to discriminate between 
proposals.  

In making his selection decisions, the SSA first decided to exclude 
from consideration for award any offeror with a red rating, or with 
high proposal risk.  As can be seen on the table above, this decision 
removed ISN and Offerors C through G from further consideration.  
Since the RFP allowed, but did not require, up to two awards to small 
disadvantaged businesses, the SSA next concluded that the agency could 
appropriately make two such awards.

The SSA first selected H.J. Ford for one of the two awards earmarked 
for small disadvantaged businesses.  As shown above, Ford's proposal 
received the highest merit ratings in the competition, and offered the 
lowest composite rate of all 8(a) competitors, and the fourth lowest 
rate overall.  INNOLOG--the offeror with the second lowest composite 
rate for 8(a) offerors, and the fifth lowest overall--was selected 
after a cost/technical tradeoff wherein the SSA concluded that the 
slightly higher merit ratings for Offeror A's proposal were not worth 
its significantly higher composite hourly rates.  SSA Decision on 8(a) 
Awards, Oct. 29, 1997.[2]

For the remaining three awards, the SSA performed a detailed 
comparison of the evaluation results for all the remaining 
offerors--i.e., those not excluded from further consideration because 
of red ratings or high risk, and those not already selected.  After 
reviewing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each offeror, the 
SSA first selected SEMCOR, the remaining offeror with the 
highest-rated proposal (after the selection of H.J. Ford) and the 
second-lowest composite rate.  The SSA then selected RJO and DRC over 
MTC after making a cost/technical tradeoff which concluded that MTC's 
slightly higher-rated, but higher composite rate proposal was not 
worth the additional cost.  In addition, selection of DRC required a 
second cost/technical tradeoff between its proposal and the 
higher-rated, but significantly higher composite rate proposal 
submitted by Offeror A.  SSA Decision on Small Business Awards, Oct. 
29, 1997.

Accordingly, by notice dated November 7, the agency advised all 
unsuccessful offerors of its intent to make awards to H.J. Ford and 
INNOLOG, as 8(a) offerors, and SEMCOR, RJO, and DRC, as small 
businesses.  These protests followed.

MTC'S PROTESTS

MTC challenges nearly every facet of the evaluation process that led 
to the selection of SEMCOR, RJO, and DRC for awards.[3]  MTC argues 
that its ratings under the management and technical areas, in every 
instance, should have been higher, while the awardees' corresponding 
ratings should have been lower.  In addition, it argues that its 
performance risk rating should have been significantly better than the 
risk rating given the other offerors; that the cost review was 
significantly flawed; that the SSA's selection decision was 
misinformed; and that the agency misled it (and other offerors) about 
the level of risk that would be assessed for reciprocal teaming 
arrangements.

In considering a protest challenging an agency's evaluation of 
proposals, we will examine the record to determine whether the 
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation 
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  ESCO, Inc., 66 
Comp. Gen. 404, 410 (1987), 87-1 CPD  para.  450 at 7.  As part of our 
consideration of each of MTC's challenges, we have reviewed the 
pleadings, the evaluation materials, and the proposals, and conclude 
that the evaluation here was reasonable.  While we will not discuss in 
detail each of the challenges raised by MTC, we will discuss below 
several of the recurring themes and major challenges raised by MTC in 
its initial and two supplemental protests.

A prevailing theme in MTC's protests is that the agency did not give 
MTC adequate credit for its successful incumbency under the 
predecessor contract.  In essence, MTC argues that its incumbency--or 
the lack of incumbency of other offerors--should have affected every 
facet of the evaluation.  For example, MTC argues that:  (1) its 
rating under the management approach subfactor (M-1) should have been 
blue, not green, because MTC's current successful performance shows 
its management skill; (2) its ratings under the subcontract management 
subfactor (M-2) and processes and resources subfactor (M-3) should 
have been blue, not green, because MTC did not need as many 
subcontractors, given its 11 years of experience performing this 
contract; (3) its ratings under the technical (sample task) factors 
should have been green, not yellow, to reflect the fact that MTC is 
currently performing work similar to the proposal's sample task; (4) 
its rating of performance risk should have exceeded any other 
offeror's rating because it should receive extra credit for its 
incumbent experience; (5) the management ratings given RJO and others 
were too high because the agency leniently gave credit to those 
offerors for proposed personnel not yet hired, while MTC (due to its 
status as an incumbent), already has those personnel on board; and (6) 
the management ratings given RJO and others should have included 
greater risk because those offerors proposed greater reliance on 
subcontractors, while MTC already employs most of the personnel needed 
to perform these services.

In our view, MTC asks too much of its status as an incumbent 
contractor.  Under the evaluation scheme here, an offeror's past 
performance was evaluated as performance risk.  This assessment was 
different from the consideration of proposal risk, which considered 
the risk associated with an offeror's proposed approach.  RFP  sec.  
M.B.2.2(1)-(2).  In its protest, MTC seeks credit for its past 
performance in both assessments--proposal risk and performance risk.  
In addition, MTC seeks extra credit in the assessment of performance 
risk based on the fact that it is the only offeror in this competition 
that has provided all of the services in this omnibus contract.

With respect to the assessments of proposal risk made for each 
evaluation factor, the appropriate point of departure for this 
assessment was the proposal, not the agency's experience with MTC, no 
matter how good it may have been.  Chek F. Tan & Co., B-277163, Sept. 
8, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  66 at 5.  In each of these instances, the 
evaluators made judgments based on MTC's proposal--or on the proposals 
of the other offerors--and assigned a risk to the approach.  
Similarly, in each of the assessments of proposal merit, the agency 
appears to have properly weighed the merit of the proposed approach, 
rather than considering MTC's experience--or another offeror's lack of 
experience--in evaluating the factor.  Id.  Nothing in MTC's 
contentions that all of these assessments should have been keyed to 
its past experience leads us to conclude that the evaluation was 
unreasonable.

With respect to the assessment of performance risk, the record here 
shows that MTC's past performance of this contract was considered 
relevant, and resulted in a low performance risk rating--the best 
rating available--but MTC did not receive extra credit for being the 
incumbent for these services.  In our view, there was nothing 
unreasonable about the agency's conclusion that other offerors had 
relevant past experience, even if the experience was not in performing 
this very contract for the Air Force.  Nor is there a requirement that 
an incumbent be given extra credit for its status as an incumbent.  
See Cubic Applications, Inc., B-274768 et al., Jan. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  
98 at 6 (denying protester's contention that the agency could not 
justify giving protester and the awardee equally favorable past 
performance ratings given the protester's status as the successful 
incumbent).  On the contrary, our review shows that the Air Force's 
evaluation of past performance was reasonable.

A second major theme in MTC's protests--and an issue also raised by 
Camber and ITC--is that the agency performed a flawed review of 
proposed costs.   According to MTC, the agency was required to perform 
a detailed cost analysis of each offeror's proposed costs because the 
RFP here anticipated award of a cost reimbursement contract, and 
because offerors were required to submit cost and pricing data with 
their proposals.  MTC claims the agency did not perform a detailed 
cost evaluation and, as a result, failed to properly assess cost risk 
for the awardees.

As a preliminary matter, MTC's contention that a detailed cost 
analysis was required here is based on a flawed understanding of the 
anticipated contract type, and an incorrect reading of the 
requirements of the RFP.  First, the contracts to be awarded here are 
primarily T&M contracts, not cost reimbursement contracts.  RFP  sec.  B, 
Summary.  T&M contracts are fixed in price to the extent that offerors 
propose fully burdened (including profit) hourly labor rates for each 
major labor category for each of the 3 years of performance, RFP  sec.  J, 
Attachment 3 at 1, but reimbursable to the extent that varying numbers 
of hours will be required to perform each delivery order.[4]  
Accordingly, there is no per se requirement for a cost analysis when 
an agency uses a T&M contract.  Research Management Corp., 69 Comp. 
Gen. 368, 372 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  352 at 5-6.  Second, MTC's contention 
that cost and pricing data was required overlooks the RFP's express 
instruction that "[i]t is anticipated that pricing of this action will 
be based on adequate price competition:  therefore, offerors are not 
required to submit cost or pricing data."[5]  RFP  sec.  L.E (setting forth 
the text of Air Force Material Command Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) Supplement clause 5352.215-9014).  

Moreover, as we explained in Research Management Corp., supra, 69 
Comp. Gen. at 371, 90-1 CPD  para.  352 at 5, (and later in Hughes Missile 
Sys. Co., B-257627.2, Dec. 21, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  256 at 14-15) the 
requirement to perform a cost analysis is derived from the Truth in 
Negotiations Act, 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2306a (1994).  The Act requires 
submission of cost data for all negotiated contracts in excess of 
$500,000 except in certain circumstances.  When such data is required 
under the Act, a contracting officer must perform a cost analysis.  
FAR  sec.  15.805-1(b) (June 1997); Research Management Corp., supra; 
Hughes Missile Sys. Co., supra.  However, the Act (and the FAR 
provisions implementing the Act) specifically exempt contracts awarded 
with "adequate price competition" from the data submission 
requirement.  See 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2306a(b)(1)(A); FAR  sec.  15.804-1(a)(1)(i) 
(June 1997).  Since multiple offerors proposed fixed labor rates in 
response to the RFP, this procurement falls squarely within the 
definition of a procurement for which an agency has received adequate 
price competition, and there was no requirement for the kind of 
analysis MTC claims.  FAR  sec.  15.804-1(b)(1) (June 1997); Hughes Missile 
Sys. Co., supra. 

Although we conclude there is no requirement for a full-blown cost 
analysis here, contracting agencies should conduct a review of the 
proposals adequate to ensure that the proposed prices are reasonable 
and that the government will obtain the lowest overall cost.  Research 
Management Corp., supra, 69 Comp. Gen. at 372, 90-1 CPD  para.  352 at 5-6.  
Our review of the evaluations, and of the challenges raised by MTC, 
leads us to conclude that the analysis and review performed by the 
agency was, in fact, adequate to protect the government's interests, 
and reasonably applied.  As an example, we discuss below MTC's claim 
that the agency did not properly evaluate RJO's proposed intent to 
absorb some of the costs associated with performing this contract.  
Specifically, RJO proposed [deleted].

The record shows that RJO's proposal fully disclosed its intended 
approach, and offered a detailed rationale in support of the approach.  
RJO Proposal, Vol. IV at 2, 10.  The Air Force explains that it 
reviewed RJO's rationale for proposing reduced costs and found it 
convincing.  In addition, the agency's price analysis shows that the 
hourly composite rates are well within the range of rates proposed by 
the other offerors.  In short, we see nothing unreasonable about the 
decision to accept RJO's rates, or the decision not to assess 
additional risk against the proposal because of its cost containment 
measures.[6]  See Systems Eng'g & Management Co., B-275786, Mar. 26, 
1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  133 at 8 (protest alleging agency should have 
assessed greater risk against the awardee--RJO in this case as 
well--for its [deleted] was denied where the agency reasonably 
accepted the rationale in the proposal supporting the decision to 
propose [deleted].

One final issue raised by MTC--and also by Camber and ITC--is that the 
agency improperly evaluated a reciprocal teaming arrangement proposed 
by H.J. Ford and SEMCOR.

As explained above, information regarding this procurement, including 
the RFP, was issued electronically using the agency's Pre-Award 
Information Exchange System site on the Internet.  After initially 
posting a notice warning potential offerors to avoid reciprocal and/or 
multiple teaming arrangements in which more than one team member was 
also an offeror, the agency posted an April 15 notice designed to 
clarify the earlier notice.  The April 15 notice advised that there 
would be no restriction on teaming, but that teaming would be 
evaluated with an eye towards ensuring that the proposed effort is 
supported by sufficient resources.  The notice also included the 
following example of how such arrangements would be evaluated:

     A proposal based on an Exclusive Teaming Arrangement in which the 
     Prime and Sub-Contractors are exclusive to one another and can 
     clearly show that they have all the resources needed, both by the 
     total number of employees and by functional type of employees, is 
     at the LOW end of the risk continuum.  On the HIGH end of the 
     risk continuum are proposals with Non-Exclusive Teaming 
     Arrangements that share a subcontractor who clearly only has 
     resources, either in total number of people or functional type of 
     people, to support one teaming arrangement; but is teaming with 
     five Primes [both 8(a) and Small Business Primes].  All proposals 
     with this type of subcontract arrangement would be rated high 
     risk.  

In addition, the RFP at section M.B.2.2(1) advised that the assessment 
of proposal risk would include a judgment about "the offeror's ability 
to support the proposed effort with the resources proposed to meet the 
effort, to include multiple teaming arrangements."  

When the agency reviewed the initial proposals, it became clear that 
H.J. Ford and SEMCOR had proposed each other as subcontractors, and 
that both relied on the same two other subcontractors.  The Air Force 
explains that it reviewed the number of employees available to both 
offerors, both in total and in functional type, and concluded that 
both H.J. Ford and SEMCOR had the necessary resources to perform the 
contracts.  As a result, both were given a rating of low proposal risk 
under each of the management evaluation factors.  MTC, Camber, and ITC 
argue that this rating was unreasonable and inconsistent with the 
prior instructions given by the agency.  We disagree.

First, despite arguments to the contrary by MTC, the April 15 notice 
expressly advised that there would be no restriction on teaming 
arrangements.  While we agree with the protesters that the teaming 
arrangement of these two awardees raises questions about their ability 
to perform if both are selected for award, the record shows that the 
agency considered the independent capabilities of both H.J. Ford and 
SEMCOR and concluded that both possessed substantial capacity to meet 
the government's requirements.  In fact, a close review of the April 
15 notice shows that the agency reviewed precisely the attributes it 
said it would review if faced with this kind of proposal.  
Specifically, the Air Force looked at the number and type of employees 
available to the offeror, as well as other available information, 
before concluding that the proposals presented low proposal risk.  In 
short, this is a matter the agency clearly considered, and our review 
of the record, and of the protesters' contentions, does not lead us to 
conclude that the agency's assessment was unreasonable or inconsistent 
with the RFP.

CAMBER'S PROTEST

Camber's protest challenges the evaluation in three general areas.  
First, Camber argues, with MTC and ITC, that the agency misevaluated 
the teaming arrangements of H.J. Ford and SEMCOR, after warning 
potential offerors that such arrangements would be assessed as high 
risk.  Second, Camber argues that the SSA overlooked its status as an 
8(a) contractor, and thus deprived it of award.  Third, Camber mounts 
various challenges to the agency's selection of color ratings and/or 
assessments of proposal risk for its own proposal, and for each of the 
awardees' proposals.  We will not address here all of Camber's 
arguments, but will address the issue of Camber's status as an 8(a) 
contractor, and two representative samples of Camber's challenges to 
the specific evaluation judgments.  (Camber's challenge to the 
evaluation of H.J. Ford's and SEMCOR's teaming arrangement has already 
been addressed in our discussion of MTC's allegations.)

With respect to Camber's status as an 8(a) contractor, there is no 
disagreement among the parties that Camber's status was reflected in 
its proposal, yet--for reasons not relevant here--was overlooked when 
the SSA selected 8(a) awardees.  As explained above, when the SSA 
began his selection process, he first eliminated from further 
consideration any offeror with a red rating, or with high proposal 
risk.  After selecting H.J. Ford for award (based on its proposal's 
high merit ratings and the lowest composite rate of all 8(a) 
offerors), the SSA next selected INNOLOG.  The SSA's selection of 
INNOLOG was based on the conclusion that Offeror A's slightly 
higher-rated proposal was not worth its significantly higher composite 
hourly labor rate.  SSA Decision on 8(a) Awards, Oct. 29, 1997.  In 
the second selection decision, wherein the SSA selected the three 
remaining (non-8(a)) awardees, Camber simply did not make the cut.  
SSA Decision on Small Business Awards, Oct. 29, 1997.

When Camber learned of the selection decisions, and pointed out that 
it had participated in this procurement as an 8(a) offeror, the SSA 
acknowledged his error, and revisited his selection decision.  As 
explained above, the SSA compared Camber's proposal with the proposal 
of INNOLOG, and again selected INNOLOG.  Addendum to Source Selection 
Decision on 8(a) Awards, Nov. 26, 1997.  Camber filed its protest 9 
days later on December 5, arguing that it was prejudiced by the SSA's 
failure to include its proposal with those of the other 8(a) offerors 
in making his selection decision.  We disagree.

Despite Camber's arguments to the contrary, the SSA's addendum to his 
initial selection decision offers a detailed analysis of the relative 
standings of Camber and INNOLOG.  At the end of this analysis, the SSA 
concludes that INNOLOG's slightly lower composite rate in the cost 
area is a basis for discriminating between the two proposals.  

There is nothing unreasonable about the SSA's revised selection 
decision.  To illustrate, we set forth below the evaluation 
results--taken from the table earlier in the decision--for the four 
highest rated 8(a) offerors--H.J. Ford, Offeror A, INNOLOG, and Camber 
(as before, the awardees are shown in bold):

             M-1
           RATING
           Color/
            Risk      M-2
                    RATING
                    Color/
                     Risk      M-3
                             RATING
                             Color/
                              Risk      T-1
                                      RATING
                                      Color/
                                       Risk      T-2
                                               RATING
                                               Color/
                                                Risk    PROPOSED
                                                          COST
                                                        Composite
                                                          Rate
                                                         (hourly)

H.J. Ford   green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                        low     green
                                                 low   $32.17 hr.

Offeror A   green
             low     green
                      low     green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                              moderate $37.64 hr.

INNO-
LOG         green
             low     green
                      low     green
                            moderate  yellow
                                     moderate  yellow
                                                 low   $32.38 hr.

Camber      green
          moderate   green
                   moderate   green
                               low    yellow
                                     moderate   green
                                                 low   $32.68 hr.
While Camber and INNOLOG are close in their evaluations, the table 
shows that Camber had a higher risk rating than INNOLOG under two of 
the three management evaluation factors, while INNOLOG had a higher 
risk rating under one of three management factors.  Even though Camber 
had a higher rating under one of the technical evaluation factors, we 
note that the management area was more important than the technical 
area, so that the SSA could reasonably find that this slight advantage 
under technical did not offset INNOLOG's advantage under management.   
Finally, as the SSA pointed out, INNOLOG had a lower composite labor 
rate.  Thus, the revised selection decision is based on a reasonable 
judgment about the relative merits of these proposals.  Under these 
circumstances, we conclude that Camber was not prejudiced by the 
agency's oversight of its disadvantaged status at the time the initial 
selection decision was made.[7]  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 
F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (our Office will not sustain a 
protest unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's 
actions, it would have a substantial chance of receiving the award). 

With respect to the evaluation, Camber, like MTC, mounts a challenge 
to the evaluation assessments that provided a basis for distinguishing 
between it and the awardees.  Set forth below are two examples of 
Camber's challenges.

Camber argues that its rating under the M-1 evaluation 
factor--management approach--should have been green with low risk, 
rather than moderate risk.  According to Camber, the Air Force 
unreasonably assessed moderate risk under this factor for two reasons:  
(1) because it wrongly concluded that Camber's proposal was not clear 
on when a task leader was selected--i.e., before or after the award of 
a task order; and (2) because the proposal identified more than one 
person who appeared to have authority for contract actions.  In both 
instances, our review shows nothing unreasonable about the Air Force's 
conclusions.

On the first issue, despite its arguments, Camber admits that its oral 
presentation charts--the highlights of the management proposal were 
presented during the oral presentation--contained an error.  The error 
was that the charts expressly stated that the team leader was selected 
upon award of the task order.  Camber Proposal, Vol. IV, Charts 87 and 
88.  The record shows that Air Force evaluators preferred that an 
offeror's team leader be identified prior to the issuance of an order, 
and assessed a weakness against the proposal under the M-1 evaluation 
factor.  Proposal Analysis Report at 13.  

Although Camber argues, and the Air Force concedes, that the Camber 
presenter orally stated that the word "select" should be "confirm" 
when showing chart 87, we fail to see how the agency's conclusion that 
the proposal was unclear about when a team leader would be selected 
was unreasonable.  The chart itself, and either word
--"select" or "confirm"--leaves room for a reasonable conclusion that 
the agency could award an order, and then learn the identify of the 
awardee's team leader.  Since this was a situation the agency hoped to 
avoid, we conclude the moderate risk assessment was reasonable.

On the second issue, Camber again is forced to admit that its proposal 
does identify more than one individual responsible for contract 
authority.  Although Camber argues in great detail that the proposal 
was clear, and in some ways similar on this front to one of the 
proposals selected for award, our review does not support Camber's 
contentions--i.e., Camber's proposal is not as clear as it claims, and 
the selected proposal is neither as similar to Camber's as urged, nor 
as vague.  Simply put, Camber has failed to show that the agency's 
assessments of risk and merit were unreasonable, or inconsistent with 
the evaluation criteria.

ITC'S AND ISN'S PROTESTS

ITC argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to fail to convene 
discussions to give offerors an opportunity to improve their 
proposals.  In addition, ITC joins MTC and Camber in challenging the 
agency's assessment of the teaming arrangements of H.J. Ford and 
SEMCOR as low risk, and in arguing that the agency should have 
performed a cost analysis, and should have rejected any proposal that 
did not include cost and pricing data. 

We have previously addressed ITC's challenge regarding the teaming 
arrangements of H.J. Ford and SEMCOR, and its contention that the 
agency was required to perform a cost analysis.  As part of the cost 
analysis discussion, we explained that the RFP contained a clause 
expressly advising offerors that cost and pricing data was not 
required here.  RFP  sec.  L.E.  Accordingly, the Air Force could not 
reject proposals that did not include this information, as ITC urges.  

With respect to whether the Air Force was required to hold discussions 
here, we conclude it was not.  The RFP advised potential offerors that 
the agency reserved the right to make award without discussions or 
negotiations.  RFP  sec.  M.B.2.0(5).  While we review the exercise of an 
agency's discretion not to convene discussions 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, this discretion is quite broad.  International 
Data Prods., Corp.; I-NET, Inc.; and Dunn Computer Corp., B-274654 et 
al., Dec. 26, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  34 at 16.  Here, where the record shows 
receipt of 16 proposals, the majority of which offered substantial 
merit, as evaluated, at competitive prices, we see nothing 
unreasonable about the agency's decision to continue with its stated 
intent of awarding without discussions.  Id. at 16-17.

ISN argues that the evaluation assessments made of its proposal 
violate general acquisition streamlining initiatives.  It also argues 
that the evaluators were unreasonable in downgrading its proposal for 
not including resumes of individuals with engineering experience 
since, in its view, engineers are not required to perform the services 
procured here.

ISN's protest explains that recent acquisition initiatives have sought 
to reduce the government's role in weapons systems acquisitions, and 
that its proposal was consistent with this reduced oversight role.  
ISN Protest, Nov. 25, 1997, at 6.  Thus, ISN argues that it was 
unfairly evaluated for providing less effort than the Air Force 
evaluators thought necessary.  In our view, even if we accept that 
ISN's arguments correctly reflect current Air Force management views, 
internal agency guidance on general matters such as these does not 
establish legal rights and responsibilities such as to make actions 
taken contrary to those statements illegal.  Reflectone Training Sys., 
Inc.; Hernandez Eng'g, Inc., B-261224, B-261224.2, Aug. 30, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  95 at 6.  The alleged failure to comply with initiatives like 
the ones raised by the protester is a matter for consideration by the 
agency.  Talon Mfg. Co., Inc., B-261687, B-261687.2, Oct. 19, 1995, 
95-2 CPD  para.  184 at 3.  For our purposes, the relevant inquiry is 
whether the agency adhered to law and regulation by evaluating 
proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme announced in the 
RFP.   Reflectone Training Sys., Inc.; Hernandez Eng'g, Inc., supra.

Finally, with respect to ISN's complaint that the agency unreasonably 
downgraded its proposal for not including resumes for engineers, we 
think its contention is untimely.  The RFP set forth extensive 
educational requirements for offerors to use in collecting resumes for 
their proposals, and many of the positions identified in the RFP 
required engineering backgrounds.  RFP  sec.  J, Attach. 2.  If ISN 
believed these requirements overstated the need for engineers, it was 
required to challenge the terms of the solicitation prior to the time 
set for receipt of initial proposals.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1997).  

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. This RFP was issued electronically on the agency's Pre-Award 
Information Exchange System (PIXS) located at 
http://www.pixs.wpafb.af.mil.  Other information relevant to this 
protest, as discussed below, was posted at this site prior to issuance 
of the RFP.  

2. As will be discussed below, the record shows that when the SSA 
selected H.J. Ford and INNOLOG for award, he was unaware that Camber 
had also participated in the procurement as an 8(a) offeror.  When 
Camber brought its status to the agency's attention after not 
receiving an award, the SSA revisited his selection decision.  In a 
document prepared prior to Camber's December 5 protest, the SSA 
compared Camber's proposal with the proposal of INNOLOG, and again 
selected INNOLOG.  Addendum to Source Selection Decision on 8(a) 
Awards, Nov. 26, 1997.

3. Since MTC is not eligible for one of the 8(a) awards, the awards to 
H.J. Ford and INNOLOG are not at issue in MTC's protest.

4. For the record, we recognize that there is one CLIN, CLIN 0004, 
which anticipates the payment of travel expenses and computer time on 
a cost reimbursable basis.  This CLIN, however, covers incidental 
expenses and is not the predominant effort or expense for these 
contracts.  RFP  sec.  B, Summary.  

5. MTC claims the submission of such data is required by sections 
L.III.3.4.1.1 and 3.4.2.3 of the RFP.  These paragraphs, however, only 
provide instructions for submitting such data when it is otherwise 
required.  In fact, to avoid any uncertainty the RFP also advises 
(later in the same section cited by the protester) that "[t]he 
instructions for preparation of the content of the Cost Volume shall 
not take precedence over requirements of the other clauses of the 
contract . . . ."  RFP  sec.  L.III.3.4.2.7.

6. We also reject MTC's contention that the agency could not 
reasonably select RJO for award, given RJO's higher evaluated cost for 
its sample task.  The record shows that while RJO's composite labor 
rate was lower than MTC's, MTC had a lower evaluated cost for its 
sample task.  The Air Force points out that the RFP advised that an 
offeror's composite labor rate would be more important than its 
evaluated cost for the sample task.  In addition, despite MTC's claim 
that the Air Force did not consider sample task costs, the evaluation 
record shows that such costs were reviewed and presented to the SSA.  
Accordingly, we conclude that the selection of RJO for award was 
reasonable, even though RJO's sample task costs were higher than 
MTC's.

7. We also disagree with Camber's assertion that the SSA's 
reconsideration of his selection decision should be given no weight 
because it is a "redetermination prepared in the heat of an 
adversarial process," as we stated in our decision in Boeing Sikorsky 
Aircraft Support, B-277263.2, B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  
91 at 15.  Unlike in Boeing, the agency here admitted its error, and 
did so before the protest process was initiated.  Given these facts, 
and the fact that the redetermination appears reasonable and 
consistent with the evaluation criteria, we have no basis to reject 
the SSA's conclusion that he still would have selected INNOLOG, rather 
than Camber, for award here.