BNUMBER:  B-280766.3 
DATE:  April 12, 1999
TITLE: E. L. Hamm & Associates, Inc., B-280766.3, April 12, 1999
**********************************************************************

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:E. L. Hamm & Associates, Inc.

File:     B-280766.3

Date:April 12, 1999

Howard W. Roth III, Esq., Michael L. Sterling, Esq., and Arthur 
Serratelli, Esq., Vandeventer Black, for the protester.
Capt. Joseph L. Fuller, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Evaluation of awardee's proposal for cost-reimbursement contract 
was unreasonable where awardee's cost proposal was based on use of 
personnel in labor category with wage determination labor rate 
substantially lower than that of labor category required to perform 
tasks set out in solicitation's performance work statement.

2.  Protest is sustained where agency did not assess the realism of 
the awardee's proposed overhead rate, which was significantly below 
its most recent Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) approved rate.

DECISION

E. L. Hamm & Associates, Inc. (Hamm) protests the award of a contract 
to Communication Technologies, Inc. (Comtek) under request for 
proposals (RFP)   No. DABT60-98-R-0014, issued by the Department of 
the Army for storage and warehouse services at the Army Training 
Support Center (ATSC), Fort Eustis, Virginia.  Hamm, the incumbent 
subcontractor, challenges various agency actions with regard to this 
procurement, including the agency's failure to perform a proper cost 
realism evaluation and the agency's source selection decision. 

We sustain the protest.

The primary mission of the ATSC is the storage and distribution of 
training materials.  These training materials include correspondence 
course books, tapes, compact discs, videotapes, posters, testing 
materials, training support plans, soldier handbooks, and other 
training materials.  These materials are shipped to the warehouse from 
all over the United States; upon arrival at the warehouse, they are 
unloaded and placed in storage locations by forklift operators and 
shippers/ receivers.  Thereafter, training materials are shipped on a 
scheduled and unscheduled basis worldwide to all components of the 
Army, authorized civilians, and foreign military.  This RFP is for a 
follow-on contractor to provide support services for the ATSC in six 
major areas of warehouse operations:  (1) receiving,  (2) storing, (3) 
pre-packaging, (4) inventory control, (5) shipping and mailing, and 
(6) destruction and recycling.  RFP  sec.  C.5. 

The RFP, a total small-business set-aside, was issued on March 19, 
1998, and contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for 
a base period with    4 option years.  RFP  sec.  L.6, F.3.  Proposals 
were evaluated on the basis of four evaluation factors with associated 
subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical, 
management, past performance, and cost (including options).  RFP  sec.  
M.3.  The RFP identified technical subfactors and sub-subfactors of 
equal importance, management subfactors of varying importance, and 
past performance subfactors of equal importance.  As relevant here, 
the technical subfactors were the offeror's degree of understanding of 
the six major areas of warehouse operations and the offeror's proposed 
level of staffing.  The latter subfactor included two sub-subfactors:  
the adequacy of the proposed skill types, including cross utilization 
of personnel; and the adequacy of the number of personnel proposed.[1]  
RFP  sec.  M.5.

The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of 
proposals, and requested that offerors submit separate 
technical/management and cost proposals corresponding to the four 
evaluation factors.  RFP  sec.  L.9.  Among other things, the 
technical/management proposal was to identify the offeror's proposed 
staffing by listing the number of personnel proposed to perform the 
required tasks, the mix of skill types, the personnel to be 
cross-utilized, and resumes for key personnel identified as the 
project manager and alternate project manager.[2]  RFP  sec.  L.9.B(2)(b).  
To assist offerors in estimating the number of personnel necessary to 
accomplish the anticipated workload, the RFP included actual workload 
data and related workload information for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.  
RFP  sec.  C.1 and Technical Exhibit 2 (TE-2).

Because the procurement is for services, it is subject to the Service 
Contract Act of 1965 (SCA), 41 U.S.C.  sec.  351-358 (1994).  Pursuant to 
that Act and the implementing provisions of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR), the contracting officer had advised the Department 
of Labor (DOL), through submission of Standard Form (SF) 98, "Notice 
of Intention to Make a Service Contract and Response to Notice," of 
the contracting agency's intent to award a service contract.  Pursuant 
to FAR  sec.  22.1008-2, the SF 98 submitted to DOL was required to list 
all classes of workers expected to be employed by the contractor; it 
listed only the following service employee classifications:  
[DELETED]; of significance to this protest is the fact that the SF 98 
did not list the [DELETED] labor category.  In response to the SF 98, 
the contracting officer received a wage determination from DOL, which 
was then included in the RFP.  Pursuant to the SCA, the RFP required 
offerors to pay non-exempt employees not less than the minimum wages 
and fringe benefits set forth in that wage determination.  RFP  sec.  I.34 
and amend. 0002, attach. 1.

Pursuant to FAR  sec.  22.1006(b), the agency included in the RFP the 
clause at FAR  sec.  52.222-42, which identified the classes of service 
employees expected to be employed under the contract and stated the 
wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they were paid by the 
contracting agency.  In that clause, the RFP listed warehouse 
specialist, shipping/receiving clerk, data entry, general clerk, stock 
clerk, and truck driver; again, of significance to this protest was 
that the clause did not list [DELETED] employees.  RFP  sec.  I.84.

Offerors were required to complete section B of the RFP, the 
price/cost schedules, for the base period and each option period of 
the contract by inserting the unit rate for each of the six areas of 
warehouse operations and extended costs based upon the number of 
months for each warehouse function.  RFP  sec.  B.  Cost proposals were 
required to include a cost breakdown with supporting data, including a 
direct labor cost matrix, a cost summary matrix, overhead, and general 
and administrative  costs.  RFP  sec.  L.9.C.  As relevant here, offerors 
were to identify the individual elements of cost making up the 
offeror's overhead pool, including separate breakouts of their home 
office overhead rate.  Id.  sec.  L.9.C(3)(h).   

The agency received [DELETED] proposals; only the [DELETED] 
highest-rated proposals (all of which had received an overall rating 
of exceptional) were determined to be in the competitive range.  
Following a protest by Hamm to our Office (B-280766), the Army revised 
the competitive range to include Hamm and [DELETED] other offerors 
whose proposals had received an overall rating of [DELETED].  Oral 
discussions were held with all competitive range offerors.  Most 
offerors, including Comtek and Hamm, were told that [DELETED].  Agency 
Memorandum for Record.  By letter of October 19, 1998, the agency 
requested final revised proposals from the competitive range offerors.  
As relevant here, the letter advised that the workload data in TE-2 
should be used for pricing section B, including the option years. 

Final revised proposals were evaluated and ranked as follows: 

           Rank    Offeror   Total Cost  Tech. Rating

             1    Offeror A   [DELETED]    [DELETED]

             2     Comtek     [DELETED]    [DELETED]

             3    Offeror C   [DELETED]    [DELETED]

             4      Hamm      [DELETED]    [DELETED]

             5    Offeror D   [DELETED]    [DELETED]

             6    Offeror E   [DELETED]    [DELETED]
Price Negotiation Memorandum at 2. 

Although several competitive range proposals received an overall 
consensus rating of exceptional, the evaluation record indicates that 
the proposals were not considered technically equal.  In this regard, 
the proposals of Offeror A, Comtek, and Offeror C each received 
[DELETED] rating under the three non-cost factors; Hamm's proposal 
received a rating of [DELETED] under the technical factor, and  
[DELETED] rating under the management and past performance factors; 
and Offeror E's received a rating of [DELETED] under each of the three 
non-cost factors. With regard to cost, the evaluators did not consider 
it necessary to make probable cost adjustments to any of the revised 
proposals; except for Offeror [DELETED],[3] the evaluators concluded 
that each of the revised cost proposals reflected the offeror's 
technical approach; that the offerors used the appropriate SCA wage 
rates; and that the cost proposals reflected the offerors' proposed 
performance.  Agency Cost Analysis-Final Revised Proposals at 2-5.

In its technical proposal, Comtek identified its staffing by 
functional areas corresponding to the six major warehouse functions in 
the performance work statement (PWS), including proposing [DELETED] to 
perform a variety of the tasks; the technical proposal made no 
reference to the use of [DELETED]. Comtek's cost proposal, however, 
shows that it intended to provide [DELETED] employees (whose wage 
determination rate is substantially lower than that of the [DELETED] 
position) to perform most of the warehouse functions.[4]  
Specifically, the Comtek proposal states:

     [DELETED]

Comtek Revised Cost Proposal,  sec.  2.1.

To determine whether the technically superior, highest-ranked proposal 
provided the greatest benefit to the government, the evaluators 
reviewed and compared the added benefits offered in Offeror A's and 
Comtek's proposals.  The evaluators concluded that the added benefits 
offered by Offeror A [DELETED] were not worth the estimated cost 
premium of approximately [DELETED] and therefore recommended that 
award be made to Comtek as the offeror proposing the next 
highest-ranked, technically superior offer with the lowest evaluated 
cost.  Agency Cost Analysis--Final Revised Proposals at 5-6.  The 
contracting officer concurred, and preaward notices dated November 25, 
1998 were sent to the unsuccessful offerors.  Price Negotiation 
Memorandum at 2-3.  A written preaward debriefing was provided to 
Hamm.  On December 10, the contract was awarded to Comtek and this 
protest followed.

The protester contends that the agency's cost realism evaluation of 
Comtek's proposal was flawed.  Protester's Response to Agency Comments 
at 2.  The protester specifically objects to the agency's acceptance 
of the awardee's labor and overhead rates, which it asserts are 
unrealistically low.  Id. at 4-12.

With regard to labor rates, the protester argues that a proper cost 
realism analysis would have revealed that Comtek's proposed labor 
rates were unrealistically low, primarily because the firm proposed to 
use an inappropriate category of employees to perform most of the 
warehouse functions.  Specifically, under Comtek's proposal, most of 
the warehouse functions will be performed by employees designated as 
[DELETED] rather than [DELETED], which, in the protester's view, is 
the appropriate labor category that should be used.  As support for 
this position, Hamm notes that the category of employees performing 
most of the work under current and past contracts is the [DELETED].  
Hamm claims that Comtek's costs should have been adjusted upward to 
reflect more realistic rates because the [DELETED] labor category wage 
determination rate is substantially higher than that of the [DELETED] 
labor category (i.e., [DELETED] per hour versus [DELETED] per hour).  
Protester's Comments at 20-22. 

The purpose of a cost realism analysis by an agency under a cost 
reimbursement contract is to determine whether the estimated proposed 
cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a 
clear understanding of the requirement; and are consistent with the 
unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's 
technical proposal.  FAR  sec.  15.404-1(d)(1).  In considering a challenge 
to an agency's cost realism analysis, our Office considers whether the 
analysis was reasonable.  DCT, Inc., B-253545, B-253545.2, Sept. 28, 
1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  230 at 5.  Here, the reasonableness of the cost 
realism analysis with respect to the labor categories proposed turns 
on whether the agency had a reasonable basis for concluding that the 
work under this contract is appropriately covered by the [DELETED] 
labor category, on whose lower wage determination rates the awardee's 
cost proposal was premised.

The categories of employees at issue here are described in the DOL's 
Directory of Occupations[5] as:

     [DELETED]

SCA Directory of Occupations at [DELETED] (4th ed. 1993 & 2nd Supp. 
1995).

The Army points out that the RFP did not require Comtek to utilize the 
same staffing mix as currently employed by the incumbent contractor 
([DELETED]); instead, the Army stated it was the offeror's 
responsibility to propose a labor mix that could most efficiently 
perform the solicitation requirements.  Agency Legal Memorandum at 
4-5.  Essentially, it is the Army's position that offerors were free 
to use either the [DELETED] category or the [DELETED] category to 
perform the tasks at issue.

In support of its position, the agency submitted a statement from its 
cost analyst, who states that he is very familiar with the work 
currently being performed and who was also a member of the technical 
evaluation team.  The cost analyst states that, as part of the 
agency's cost realism analysis, the contracting specialist questioned 
whether Comtek's proposed [DELETED] labor category was an appropriate 
classification.  The cost analyst states that he then reviewed the SCA 
classification for [DELETED] and [DELETED] in light of the PWS tasks, 
and concluded that the [DELETED] category was an appropriate class of 
employee to perform the required tasks.  He further concluded that the 
tasks for which Comtek proposed the [DELETED] category employees, such 
as [DELETED], fit within the [DELETED] description of duties.  Agency 
Supplemental Report, Statement of Army Cost Analyst, at 2nd and 3rd 
unnumbered pages.

For instance, according to the cost analyst, the tasks that will be 
performed by Comtek's [DELETED] employee include removing pre-wrapped 
books from shelves, carrying them in a shopping cart to a location for 
labeling, then simply placing a gum back envelope label on the books 
since each book is delivered to the warehouse pre-wrapped and ready 
for mailing; the employee will primarily deal with individual books 
being mailed, and will not handle books being mailed in heavy boxes or 
in bulk or prepare the mailing label.  Likewise, the cost analyst  
states that under the SCA classification, a [DELETED] category 
employee is required to keep inventory forms of merchandise stocked 
and merchandise returned to storage, and the cost analyst noted that 
keeping track of inventory is the major clerical duty performed in the 
Ft. Eustis Warehouse.  Id.  Based on that review, the agency reports, 
it reasonably concluded that Comtek's proposed use of the [DELETED] 
classification was in compliance with the SCA.  Id. at 1st and 2nd 
unnumbered pages.  As a result, the agency found that it had no basis 
to adjust Comtek's proposed costs upward.

Our analysis leads us to conclude that the use of employees in the 
[DELETED] category in Comtek's cost proposal was not appropriate.  
Accordingly, we find that the Army's determination that Comtek's costs 
are realistic is unreasonable.

Determining which wage determination labor category applies to work to 
be performed under a contract has a significant effect on the 
competition since one offeror can clearly gain a competitive advantage 
if it is allowed to use a labor category with lower minimum wages.  
More importantly, however, allowing one firm to do so risks defeating 
the purpose of the SCA and negating DOL's role in implementing that 
Act, since the SCA and DOL's implementing actions are meant to set the 
minimum wages to be paid for performance of the work.  Here, the 
effect of the Army's actions was that DOL's minimum wage rates were 
not applied equally to all offerors:  Comtek was permitted to pay its 
employees, doing the very same work, substantially less than the wage 
determination rates that served as the minimum wages governing all 
other offerors.

We conclude that a comparison of the language of the PWS with the 
definitions in the Directory demonstrates that it was unreasonable for 
the agency to agree that the [DELETED] labor category is an 
appropriate class of service employees to perform the tasks at 
issue.[6]  While we recognize the importance of permitting offerors to 
propose innovative staffing approaches, the staffing approach must 
include staff that appropriately can be used to perform the PWS.   
Here, the combination of the language of the PWS and the labor 
category descriptions in DOL's Directory rendered unreasonable the 
cost analyst's position that the positions of [DELETED] could properly 
be filled by employees in the [DELETED] labor category, with its 
relatively low wage rate.

The various tasks specified in detail in the PWS are similar to the 
duties to be performed by a [DELETED], as set forth in the Directory.  
For example, under the PWS one of the six warehouse operation tasks 
involves inventory control and some of the duties to be performed by 
the contractor's staff under this warehouse operation task include (1) 
performing an inventory of training materials, providing the results 
by the required suspense date, and performing recounts when 
discrepancies are identified; (2) performing an inventory on materials 
remaining in warehouse after completion of pre-packaging requirements; 
and (3) the use of a government-furnished computer to enter the 
location, quantity, receipt date, inventory adjustments, and materials 
returned to stock for all training products.  RFP  sec.  C.5.5.  These 
tasks fall squarely within the Directory's description of the 
[DELETED] category, quoted above.

In contrast, the Directory description of the [DELETED] category 
begins by stating that the category applies to tasks performed 
[DELETED].  This alone renders suspect the Army's conclusion that this 
labor category was appropriate for the contract.  Virtually the entire 
balance of the Directory's description is equally inapplicable to the 
work to be performed under this contract.  For example, under this 
solicitation, the employees will not be required [DELETED].  While 
some of the duties to be performed by a [DELETED] employee in a 
[DELETED] may be similar to some of the required tasks identified in 
the PWS, the overwhelming majority of the duties described in the 
Directory for this labor category will not be performed at the Fort 
Eustis warehouse.

Based on this analysis, we conclude that Comtek's proposed use of a 
[DELETED] to perform the majority of the duties identified in the PWS 
under the shipping/mailing warehouse task was inappropriate.  On the 
other hand, Hamm's proposed use of a [DELETED] to perform most of the 
shipping/mailing warehouse duties was an appropriate class of 
employees.  See Comtek Revised Cost Proposal at Table 2.2-2.1; Hamm 
Revised Cost Proposal,  sec.  IV, at IV-3.

We note several other indications in the record that support our 
conclusion about the reasonableness of proposing [DELETED] employees 
to do the majority of the duties described in the PWS.  First, unlike 
its cost proposal's extensive reliance on lower-paid [DELETED] 
employees, Comtek itself in its technical proposal indicated its 
intent to staff positions with [DELETED].  This inconsistency suggests 
that either the cost proposal did not cover the costs inherent in the 
technical proposal, or that the technical evaluation did not take into 
account the labor category that Comtek intended to use for performing 
the tasks at issue.  See TRW, Inc., B-254045.2, Jan. 10, 1994, 94-1 
CPD  para.  18 at 11.

Second, the record shows that, prior to receipt of Comtek's proposal, 
the agency itself did not believe that the [DELETED] labor category 
was appropriate for this procurement.[7]  While an agency is not 
precluded from accepting a proposal based on unanticipated, innovative 
approaches, here the record indicates that, prior to receipt of 
Comtek's proposal, the agency believed that the detailed description 
of the tasks set out in the PWS accurately described the work to be 
performed, and, the agency has not offered any persuasive explanation 
why Comtek's staffing approach is appropriate under these 
circumstances.  As explained above, we find that detailed description 
irreconcilable with the use of [DELETED] employees.

Finally, our review of the proposals submitted by the other 
competitive range offerors also shows that none of those proposals was 
based on the use of [DELETED] employees.  Again, while offerors are 
generally permitted to be innovative in staffing approaches, the 
absence of the use of such employees by other offerors at least 
suggests that the PWS descriptions were viewed as precluding their 
use.

Even if we assume that the Army cost analyst was justified in 
concluding that the [DELETED] labor category was appropriate, this 
does not justify the agency's actions.  If the tasks were really as 
limited as the cost analyst stated in his post-protest statement 
(involving simply removing books from shelves, carrying them in a 
shopping cart to be labeled, and placing a label on them), so that the 
[DELETED] category might be appropriate, this suggests that the far 
more sophisticated tasks set out in the PWS did not accurately 
describe the nature of the work to be performed.[8]

In addition to the protest issue regarding the use of the [DELETED] 
category, Hamm also challenges the agency's acceptance of Comtek's 
proposed overhead rate of [DELETED], which is substantially below its 
[DELETED] DCAA approved overhead rate of [DELETED], without any 
evidence or basis to conclude that the proposed [DELETED] rate was 
realistic.[9]  See Agency Cost Analysis--Final Revised Proposals.  
Comtek's cost proposal does not explain or justify why its proposed 
overhead rate for this contract was significantly less than its 
[DELETED] approved rate.  Instead, the only explanation provided by 
Comtek to the agency on this issue states:

     [DELETED]

The contemporaneous record contains no justification or support for 
the agency's determination that Comtek's proposed [DELETED] overhead 
rate was realistic.  The contracting officer's rationale for accepting 
this rate, quoted above, submitted in response to the protest, 
provides no meaningful basis for accepting this rate, which is 
significantly lower than the one approved by DCAA.  Instead, he simply 
states that he accepted the rate proposed by Comtek without any 
realism evaluation.  Critical to our conclusion in this regard is 
[DELETED].  See Vitro Corp., B-247734.3, Sept. 24, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
202 at 7.  Here, nothing in the record establishes that the low 
proposed rate will be the one that the government's reimbursement will 
actually be based on.  In the absence of any support for the agency's 
acceptance of the realism of Comtek's proposed overhead rate, we 
conclude the evaluation lacked a reasonable basis.  See The Futures 
Group Int'l, B-281274.2, Mar. 3, 1999, at 3-8 (protected decision; 
redacted version not yet available for public distribution); Coleman 
Research Corp.,  B-278793, Mar. 16, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  111 at 4-5; WMP 
Security Servs. Co.; E.H. White & Co., B-232133, B-232133.2, Nov. 29, 
1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  528 at 2-4.  

Our standard of review for prejudice requires that the protester 
demonstrate a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the 
agency's actions, that is, but for the agency's actions, it would have 
had a substantial chance of receiving the award.  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).  Hamm has provided 
an unrebutted submission from its consultant showing that these two 
evaluation errors could require an upward adjustment of Comtek's 
proposed costs by approximately [DELETED].  Protester's Comments, Exh. 
1, Declaration of Consultant, at 1-4.  We conclude that Hamm has 
demonstrated that it would have had a reasonable possibility of 
receiving the award but for the agency's failure to reasonably 
evaluate Comtek's proposal.  Therefore, we conclude that the agency's 
actions prejudiced the protester and we sustain the protest.

In crafting our recommendation, we recognize that, in the first 
instance, the Army needs to determine whether, in its view, the skills 
and duties of the [DELETED] labor category suit its needs.  If the 
agency determines that this labor category is acceptable, we recommend 
that the agency revise the PWS and list of labor categories in the RFP 
accordingly, and request revised proposals.  Alternatively, if it is 
determined that the [DELETED] labor category is not appropriate here, 
we recommend that the Army reevaluate Comtek's proposal consistent 
with the terms of the current version of the RFP and with our 
decision, hold discussions with all competitive range offerors, and 
then request and evaluate final revised proposals.  In any event, the 
agency must perform a proper cost evaluation, including a cost realism 
analysis.

If Comtek is not the successful offeror following corrective action, 
we recommend that the agency terminate Comtek's contract for the 
convenience of the government and make award as appropriate.  We also 
recommend that Hamm be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and 
pursuing the protest, including attorneys' fees.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(d)(1) (1998).  The protester should submit its certified claim 
for costs, detailing the time expended and the costs incurred, 
directly to the contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of 
this decision.

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Prior to the RFP's issuance, the ATSC Resource Management 
Directorate conducted a storage and warehouse contract workload 
analysis (RMD study) to establish a new baseline staffing level for 
use in developing the independent government cost estimate (IGCE).  
[DELETED].

2. The RFP permitted offerors to propose a project manager or a 
designated representative to act with full authority for the 
contractor.  RFP  sec.  C.1.5.1.  

3.[DELETED]

4. As explained in detail below, while the contemporaneous evaluation 
record makes no reference to Comtek's proposed use of the [DELETED] 
labor category, as part of its supplemental response to the protest, 
the agency reported that it had identified and evaluated the impact of 
this aspect of Comtek's proposal.  See Agency Supplemental Report, 
Statement of Army Cost Analyst at 1st unnumbered page.

5. The Directory contains standard job titles and descriptions for 
many commonly utilized service employee occupations.  FAR  sec.  
22.1008-2(b)(1).

6. While we recognize that selecting the appropriate wage 
determination is an area in which DOL must be accorded deference, we 
note that the record contains no evidence that DOL would agree with 
the Army's view that the [DELETED] labor category, with its 
substantially lower wage determination, is appropriate for the work at 
issue here.  The only indication in the record of DOL's view is an 
April 2, 1997 informal opinion from DOL in response to an inquiry from 
Hamm regarding the classification of employees for this effort; that 
informal opinion, while not definitive, is consistent with our 
conclusion that the [DELETED] category is the appropriate match for 
this type of work.  Letter from DOL to Hamm 1 (Apr. 2, 1997).

7. As explained above, on the SF 98 that it submitted to DOL, which 
was required to identify all classes of service employees to be 
utilized under the contract, the agency listed several labor 
categories, including [DELETED], but did not list [DELETED].  
Similarly, when the agency was required, under FAR  sec.  22.1006(b), to 
inform prospective offerors of the classes of service employees 
expected to be employed under the contract, the Army listed several 
labor categories, but not [DELETED] employees.

8. Hamm also points out that although Comtek's technical proposal 
indicates that the firm will provide [DELETED]. 

9. Consistent with the RFP's instructions for the preparation of 
proposals, Comtek's cost proposal listed the various elements of cost 
in its overhead pool which  support its DCAA approved overhead rate of 
[DELETED]; it also identified the far fewer elements of cost which 
would be included in its proposed [DELETED] overhead rate for this 
contract.  Comtek Revised Cost Proposal at Table 2.7-1.