BNUMBER:  B-279361; B-279361.2; B-279361.3    
DATE:  June 8, 1998
TITLE: SDS International, Inc., B-279361; B-279361.2; B-279361.3,
June 8, 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:SDS International, Inc.

File:B-279361; B-279361.2; B-279361.3   
        
Date:June 8, 1998

James S. DelSordo, Esq., and Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Kinosky, 
Phillips & Lieberman, for the protester. 
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 
Christine F. Davis, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably evaluated the awardee's proposed level of effort as 
technically acceptable, where it comports with the government estimate 
and the level of effort expended under prior contracts for these 
services.

DECISION

SDS International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Avtech 
Research Corporation, the incumbent contractor, under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. F26600-98-R-0003, issued by the Department of the 
Air Force, to provide data analysis and technical expertise for 
Foreign Materiel Exploitation, Special Access Required Program testing 
and Air Force Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures publications.

We deny the protest.

The RFP performance work statement (PWS) listed 13 general tasks to be 
performed by the contractor in support of advanced tactical fighter 
and other developmental programs.  PWS  sec.  5.1.  Twelve of these tasks 
required the contractor to plan and execute tests; to produce reports, 
publications, and briefing materials (including classified documents 
and CD-ROM versions of publications); and to attend meetings and 
conferences.  PWS  sec.  5.1.1 to 5.1.12.  The remaining task required the 
contractor to provide automated data processing (ADP) support services 
for approximately 50 computers with peripheral equipment; the required 
support included making repairs, recommending software and hardware 
upgrades, and installing software upgrades furnished by the 
government.  PWS  sec.  5.1.13.  The RFP instructed offerors to describe in 
their technical proposals their approach to the PWS tasks.  RFP  sec.  
L-900-2.a.(1)(c), (e).

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base 
period with 4 option years on a low-priced, technically acceptable 
basis.  RFP  sec.  B, L-65C, M-16C(b).  The RFP stated five equally 
important evaluation factors:  (1) Management, (2) Production, (3) 
Quality, (4) Past Performance, and (5) Price, including options.  RFP  sec.  
M-16C(a), M-72.  The production factor provided for an evaluation of 
the offeror's proposed staffing chart, which was to reflect the number 
of employees proposed for contract performance.  RFP  sec.  
L-900-2.a.(2)(a).  None of the evaluation factors provided for an 
evaluation of the offeror's technical approach to the PWS 
requirements.  RFP  sec.  L-900-2.a.(2), M-16C(a).  

The RFP provided workload data to assist offerors in estimating their 
staffing needs, including a technical exhibit showing the expected 
number of tests, briefings, and CD-ROM volumes to be required per 
year.  PWS Technical Exhibit 2.  The workload estimates were based 
upon the government's historical requirements for these services.  
Although not disclosed in the RFP, the Air Force estimated a need for 
two employees to perform the contract, for an overall estimated 
contract price of $750,000.[1]  The government estimate was based upon 
the assumption that two employees have performed these services for 
more than 5 years, first under a General Services Administration (GSA) 
contract and then under a 6-month interim contract awarded to Avtech 
by the Air Force.

Avtech and SDS submitted proposals in response to the RFP.  Avtech 
proposed to perform the contract with [deleted] employees for a total 
price of $736,014, which closely approximated the government estimate.  
SDS proposed to perform the contract with [deleted] employees[2] for a 
total price of $1,719,012.  The Air Force evaluated both proposals as 
technically acceptable.  That being the case, award was made on the 
basis of Avtech's lower-priced proposal.

SDS protests that the Air Force should have rejected Avtech's proposal 
as technically unacceptable because it allegedly did not address a 
mandatory PWS requirement and did not propose sufficient personnel to 
perform the PWS tasks.

The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility 
of the contracting agency; the agency is responsible for defining its 
needs and the best method of accommodating them and must bear the 
burden of any difficulties arising from a defective evaluation.  
Avogadro Energy Sys., B-244106, Sept. 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  229 at 5.  
In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate 
the proposals; we will only consider whether the agency's evaluation 
was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria listed in 
the solicitation.  Herndon Science and Software, Inc., B-245505, Jan. 
9, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  46 at 3.  A protester's disagreement with the 
agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted 
unreasonably.  Id.

SDS first argues that Avtech's proposal was technically unacceptable 
because it allegedly did not discuss how Avtech would perform ADP 
support for the 50 required computers, 1 of the 13 tasks listed in the 
PWS.  Although the RFP in this case instructed offerors to describe 
their technical approach to the PWS requirements, none of the RFP 
evaluation criteria contemplated an evaluation of an offeror's 
technical approach, nor has the protester alleged that they did.  See 
RFP  sec.  L-900-2.a.(1)(c), (e); L-900-2.a.(2); M-16C(a).  In any event, 
we disagree with SDS that Avtech's proposal failed to acknowledge the 
ADP requirement.  Avtech addressed the requirement by asserting its 
technical capability to provide the required ADP support.  Given that 
the PWS described the ADP requirement with specificity, giving 
offerors little latitude to define a technical approach, it was 
reasonable for Avtech to address the requirement by reference to its 
technical capability.  Indeed, we note that SDS's technical proposal 
adopted the same approach to the ADP support requirements.  Thus, the 
agency reasonably concluded that Avtech submitted an acceptable 
proposal in this respect.[3]

SDS also contends that the Air Force should have rejected Avtech's 
proposal as unacceptable because the awardee cannot perform the 
contract with only two employees as proposed.  We disagree.  Avtech's 
level of effort comported with the government estimate, which 
reflected the fact that two employees have successfully performed the 
required services for more than 5 years, first under a multi-year GSA 
contract and then under Avtech's 6-month interim contract.  Even 
though the protester does not dispute that two employees performed the 
predecessor GSA contract, SDS questions the validity of the government 
estimate on grounds that Avtech employed more than two people to 
perform the 6-month incumbent contract; specifically, an SDS 
representative stated in an affidavit that, in preparing SDS's 
proposal, he spoke to "Avtech's President and [Chief Executive 
Officer] who informed [him] that Avtech employed four people to do the 
incumbent effort."  Even assuming that SDS received such information, 
the information came, not from the contracting officer or other 
government official, but from a competitor during the proposal 
preparation period (moreover, SDS does not allege that it was told 
that four employees worked full-time on the contract).  In any case, 
the record reflects that there were only two employees on the 
incumbent contract, as indicated by the organizational chart presented 
at the pre-proposal conference, and as confirmed by Avtech's proposal 
(stating that its interim contract was a follow-on to a "five-year, 
two person, GSA contract"), and the contracting officer's 
responsibility determination.

SDS alleges that the government estimate understates what is required 
by the PWS.  Based upon its own workload estimates, SDS alleges that 
the RFP data analysis and reporting tasks alone will require the 
effort of [deleted] employees, which excludes the effort required for 
computer maintenance, CD-ROM production, contract management, and 
administrative support.

As noted above, SDS offered to perform the contract with [deleted] 
employees, only [deleted] of whom are proposed to perform the data 
analysis and reporting tasks.  However, it is apparent that the data 
analysis and reporting tasks are the central tasks that the contractor 
will be expected to perform under this contract; only 2 of the 13 PWS 
tasks (the ADP support and the CD-ROM production support) do not 
involve data analysis or reporting.  SDS has not explained why the 
[deleted] employees needed to perform the principal work of the 
contract will require the assistance of [deleted] more employees to 
fulfill the residual PWS tasks and to provide managerial and 
administrative support.  For example, while SDS alleges that the 
computer maintenance function will consume [deleted] labor hours per 
year [deleted], the staffing chart in SDS's proposal does not reflect 
that the protester offered this [deleted] level of effort for the 
computer maintenance task, nor has SDS explained why so many labor 
hours are necessary to perform this task, which involves relatively 
few computers and is only peripheral to the overall purpose of the 
contract.  Therefore, it would seem that SDS's estimate that [deleted] 
employees are needed to perform the RFP data analysis and reporting 
functions supports, rather than undermines, the agency's conclusion 
that Avtech's proposed staff of [deleted] employees was acceptable.

In sum, based on our review of the record, we find that the 
government's staffing estimate relied upon accurate historical 
information and served as a valid basis for finding Avtech's staffing 
proposal to be acceptable.[4]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency states that it disclosed during the pre-proposal 
conference that the incumbent employed only two persons.  The 
protester denies that any such thing was said.  On the second page of 
the minutes of the pre-proposal conference, it is indicated that there 
are two contractor employees who are attached to the section of the 
Air Force's 57th Wing Detachment responsible for this contract work.

2. More precisely, SDS proposed to perform the contract using 
[deleted] labor hours annually, which translated to [deleted] 
employees.

3. Contrary to SDS's contention, the RFP did not require Avtech to 
propose a computer maintenance technician or to state in its proposal 
that its fixed-price included ADP support to render its proposal 
acceptable.

4. The protester also states that the government estimate is 
understated because it assumes 2,080 hours per year per employee 
rather than 1,776 hours per year.  However, since the protester states 
that this would merely raise the estimate to  2.34 (rather than 2) 
employees per year, this contention, even if valid, is immaterial.