BNUMBER: B-280969
DATE: December 14, 1998
TITLE: MCR Federal, Inc., B-280969, December 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:MCR Federal, Inc.
File: B-280969
Date:December 14, 1998
William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Wm. Craig
Dubishar, Esq., and Paul N. Wengert, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and
Howard, for the protester.
David R. Johnson, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for
PricewaterhouseCoopers, an intervenor.
John F. Ruoff, Esq., Defense Finance and Accounting Service, for the
agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest of proposal evaluation and source selection under solicitation
where technical factors are more important than price is sustained
where the contracting officer's determination that the awardee's
lower-priced proposal was technically superior to that of the
protester is inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme,
and where the record provides insufficient contemporaneous
documentation to either support agency's post-protest assertion that
the proposals are technically comparable--so that price would become
an appropriate discriminator for award--or show that the source
selection authority ever considered whether the protester's higher
rating in one area (key personnel) was worth the cost premium
associated with its proposal.
DECISION
MCR Federal, Inc. protests the award of contracts to KPMG Peat
Marwick, (KPMG) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) under request for
proposals (RFP) No. MDA220-98-R-0004, issued by the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) for contract reconciliation services.[1]
MCR challenges the agency's source selection decision as inconsistent
with the stated evaluation scheme for award.
We sustain the protest of the award to PWC, and deny the protest of
the award to KPMG.
The RFP, issued February 17, 1998, contemplated the award of multiple
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials technical
support services contracts to be performed over 1 base year, with up
to 4 option years. RFP sec. B, L.9. Award was to be made to the
offerors determined to have submitted the proposals most advantageous
(in terms of offering the best value) to the government, considering
price and other factors. RFP sec. M.3(b). Section M of the RFP provided
three criteria to be considered by the agency in its determination as
to which proposals offered the best value: technical factors, past
performance, and price. Section M.3(d) of the RFP provided that
"[w]hen combined, all evaluation factors other than cost or price are
significantly more important than cost or price."
The RFP provided the following technical evaluation factors for award,
listed in "descending order of importance": (1) technical approach
(where the first subfactor, sample tasks, was "substantially more
important" than the second subfactor, overall understanding and
approach in the tasking areas); (2) key personnel; and (3) management
plan. RFP sec. M.2(a). Adjectival ratings were provided for use as
"general guidance" in assessing the proposals under each technical
factor, and for rating the overall technical proposal.[2] RFP sec.
M.2(b).
Past performance, identified as an additional non-cost factor for
evaluation in the best value analysis, was to be considered as equal
in importance to technical approach, the most important of the three
stated technical evaluation factors. RFP sec. M.7(a). Past performance
evaluations were to be based on information provided by the offerors
in their proposals, detailing previous or current contracts of similar
scope, magnitude, and complexity, as well as additional information
obtained by the agency. RFP sec. L.4(c), M.7(c). The past performance
of proposed critical subcontractors was to be considered "to the
extent warranted by the subcontractor's involvement in the proposed
effort." RFP sec. M.7(b). An adjectival rating was to be assigned to
each proposal for past performance.[3] RFP sec. M.7(d).
Seven initial proposals were submitted by the April 30 closing time
for receipt of proposals; two proposals were found to be unacceptable
and were excluded from the competitive range. By letters of June 9,
the agency conducted written discussions with the remaining five
offerors, including MCR, KPMG, and PWC.[4] Each of the competitive
range technical proposals had been rated "marginal" overall, and the
discussion letters, tailored for each offeror, included questions
about those areas of their proposals that did not satisfy RFP
requirements. All offerors were also reminded during discussions
about certain price-related requirements, and some of the offerors
were requested to provide clarification in certain minor areas (e.g.,
although the firm's management plan proposal was found acceptable, MCR
was requested to clarify a reconciliation approach depicted in an
exhibit to that portion of the firm's technical proposal). The five
competitive range proposals' evaluated prices, prior to discussions,
ranged between $[deleted] and $[deleted].
Revised proposals and final proposal revisions were received and
evaluated. The following chart shows the final overall technical and
past performance ratings assigned to the final proposals:
Offeror Overall TechnicalPast PerformanceEvaluated Price
PWC Acceptable Better $[deleted]
KPMG Better Outstanding $[deleted]
MCR Acceptable Better $[deleted]
Offeror A Acceptable Satisfactory $[deleted]
Offeror B Better Satisfactory $[deleted]
Contracting Officer's Statement at 7. The overall technical ratings,
listed above, for the protester's and awardees' proposals were based
on the following underlying adjectival ratings assigned to the
proposals under each of the three technical evaluation factors:
MCR's Proposal PWC's Proposal KPMG's Proposal
Technical ApproachAcceptable Acceptable Better
-Sample Task 1 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Sample Task 2 Acceptable Acceptable Better
-Overall UnderstandingAcceptableBetter Outstanding
and Approach
Key Personnel Better Acceptable Acceptable
Management PlanAcceptable Acceptable Better
Id. The contracting officer ranked the offerors' proposals in terms
of technical merit in the following order: (1) Offeror B; (2) KPMG;
(3) PWC; (4) MCR; and (5) Offeror A. His written rationale for this
technical merit ranking was included as an itemized list in the
Business Clearance Memorandum prepared prior to award. That list
included the following noted discriminators with respect to PWC and
MCR:
[PWC's] proposal was rated higher than MCR's and [Offeror A's]
because they scored a "Better" in the overall understanding of
the technical approach. . . . MCR's proposal was rated higher
than [Offeror A's] proposal because they were rated "Better" on
their Key Personnel. [Emphasis added.]
Rationale for Ranking, Business Clearance Memorandum, Aug. 10, 1998,
Attachment 8 at 1.
The contracting officer then listed the overall ranking of proposals
for best value, which ranking is explained only in a general
descriptive heading to the list which provides that the order is based
on a consideration of the evaluated technical proposals, past
performance, and price. The proposals were ranked in the following
overall order in terms of offering the best value to the government:
(1) KPMG; (2) PWC; (3) MCR; (4) Offeror A; and (5) Offeror B. Id. at
2. The only other information provided in this best value overall
ranking was the technical proposal's overall adjectival rating, the
proposal's adjectival ratings for past performance (with separate
ratings for the past performance proposal submission and the client
survey responses), and the proposal's evaluated price. The source
selection authority (SSA) adopted the best value ranking of the
proposals presented by the contracting officer, without providing
additional comments about the merits of or differences between the
proposals. Business Clearance Memorandum at 2. The agency decided to
award two contracts, and the SSA selected the offers submitted by KPMG
and PWC for award. After a debriefing held by DFAS with the firm, MCR
filed this protest.
MCR contends that the agency's best value determination regarding the
PWC proposal, and the resulting award to that firm, is improper,
since, under the stated evaluation factors for award, it is based on a
determination of technical superiority that is inconsistent with the
stated evaluation scheme for award. Specifically, MCR points out
that, since, under the stated evaluation factors for award, key
personnel is more important than the subfactor of overall
understanding and approach, the protester's higher evaluation rating
for key personnel shows that its proposal should have been ranked
ahead of the PWC proposal for technical merit, requiring the SSA to
conduct a price/technical tradeoff analysis prior to awarding the
contract to PWC. MCR contends that the record does not include
contemporaneous documentation to either demonstrate that the PWC and
MCR proposals were technically equivalent, making price the
determinative factor for award, or to show that the SSA meaningfully
considered and differentiated between the merits of the proposals.
MCR argues that the evaluation record shows that the PWC proposal was
ranked as technically superior to the MCR proposal on an improper
basis. We agree.
In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is
not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the
record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and
in accord with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. All
Star Maintenance, Inc., B-271119, June 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 278 at 3.
In a negotiated procurement, contracting officials have broad
discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will
make use of technical and cost evaluation results. PharmChem Labs.,
Inc., B-244385, Oct. 8, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 317 at 4. However, they do
not have the discretion to announce in the solicitation that they will
use one evaluation plan, and then follow another; once offerors are
informed of the criteria against which their proposals will be
evaluated, the agency must adhere to those criteria in evaluating
proposals and making its award decision, or inform all offerors of any
significant changes made in the evaluation scheme. Dewberry & Davis,
B-247116, May 5, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 421 at 5.
Of course, agencies may make cost/technical tradeoffs in deciding
between competing proposals; the propriety of such a tradeoff turns
not on the difference in technical scores, per se, but on whether the
contracting agency's judgment concerning the significance of that
difference was reasonable in light of the solicitation's evaluation
scheme. Dayton T. Brown, Inc., B-229664, Mar. 30, 1988, 88-1 CPD para.
321 at 4-5. However, where cost is secondary to technical
considerations under a solicitation's evaluation scheme, as here,
selection of a lower-priced proposal over a proposal with a higher
technical rating requires an adequate justification, i.e., one showing
the agency reasonably concluded that notwithstanding the point or
adjectival differential between the two proposals, they were
essentially equal in technical merit, or that the differential in the
evaluation ratings between the proposals is not worth the cost premium
associated with selection of the higher technically rated proposal.
Dewberry & Davis, supra; Dayton T. Brown, Inc., supra, at 6-7. Where
there is inadequate supporting rationale in the record for a decision
to make award to a lower-priced offeror with a lower technical ranking
notwithstanding a solicitation's emphasis on technical factors, we
cannot conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for its
decision. Dewberry & Davis, supra.
MCR's proposal is approximately [deleted] percent higher in price than
PWC's. The RFP provided, however, that non-cost factors were more
important than price. MCR's and PWC's proposals received identical
ratings for all technical factors and subfactors, with two exceptions.
MCR's proposal received a "better," while PWC's received an
"acceptable," for key personnel. For overall understanding and
approach, the situation was reversed: PWC's proposal was rated
"better," while MCR's was "acceptable." Key personnel was the second
most important technical evaluation factor, and it was more important
than overall understanding and approach, the less important subfactor
of the technical approach factor.[5] There is no discussion, or even
acknowledgment, in this record that reflects the fact that the MCR
proposal received a higher rating than the PWC proposal under a more
important evaluation factor than the subfactor under which the PWC
proposal was more highly rated. Rather, the record plainly shows that
the PWC proposal was found to be technically higher rated overall
because of its higher rating under that single subfactor. Whether the
evaluators, the contracting officer, or the SSA meant something other
than what the record clearly states--that "[PWC's] proposal was rated
higher than MCR's . . . because they scored a 'Better' in the overall
understanding of the technical approach,"--is not apparent from any
document in the record. As it stands, however, this judgment is
squarely inconsistent with the stated evaluation scheme.
The record shows that the SSA was unaware of this improper basis for
technically ranking these two proposals, and that this ranking, once
combined with past performance and price information, led to the best
value overall ranking. There is no other documentation in the
evaluation or source selection record that shows any comparison of (or
any discussion of the differences between) the proposals to establish
how the selection of PWC for award was consistent with the RFP's
evaluation scheme, which provided that technical merit was more
important than price. There is no support for either of the agency's
post-protest suggestions: that the proposals were viewed as
technically comparable, so that low price could become an appropriate
determining factor for award; or, alternatively, that an award on the
basis of MCR's technically higher-rated proposal would not be worth
the cost premium involved. While we recognize that either of these
approaches could have reasonably been adopted, neither was. Moreover,
given this evaluation record and the RFP's evaluation scheme, which
ranked key personnel as an important technical evaluation factor for
award, the agency could have made award to MCR if it determined that
the protester's proposal was technically superior, due to its higher
key personnel rating, and that it was worth the cost premium
associated with it. Instead, the record shows that the agency ranked
the proposals in a way inconsistent with the stated evaluation
factors, and failed to discuss its overall comparison of the proposals
and what effect the price difference would have had in a proper
price/technical tradeoff. Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270012.2,
Mar. 19, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 177 at 6-7; Dewberry & Davis, supra, at 6-7.
Accordingly, we sustain this aspect of the protest.
MCR raises additional evaluation challenges which we have reviewed,
but have found to provide no independent basis for sustaining the
protest. MCR alleges that the evaluation of its past performance
(overall "better" based upon a "better" rating for proposal
information and an "outstanding" rating for client survey), and that
of PWC (overall "better" based upon "better" ratings for both
subfactors) is flawed. In essence, MCR contends its subfactor past
performance ratings should have been "rounded up," while PWC's should
have been lowered for alleged personnel retention problems and
concerns about its management interaction with the agency. Our review
of the record does not support the protester's contentions regarding
the past performance evaluation.
First, although requested, no client survey was received for MCR
itself; only one survey response was received, and it described the
outstanding past performance of a [deleted] subcontractor to MCR. In
accordance with the RFP's evaluation scheme, at sec. M.7(b), a
subcontractor's past performance could be considered only to the
extent warranted by the subcontractor's involvement in the performance
of the contract. Since the subcontractor here will be performing only
[deleted] of the overall work required under the RFP, we do not find
reasonable the protester's contention that MCR's overall past
performance rating should be increased (to "outstanding") solely on
the basis of this subcontractor's favorable performance survey.[6]
The protester contends that PWC's proposal should be downgraded due to
alleged personnel retention problems, and a notation in the evaluation
record regarding the failure of PWC management to interact with the
agency. However, our review of the record shows that the protester
has not provided any credible support for the claimed personnel
retention problems; and as for the cited management interaction
concern, the record reasonably shows that this was appropriately
considered by the agency--in fact, the PWC past performance rating
would have been "outstanding" but for the reduction for this stated
minor concern.[7]
MCR also contends that the evaluation of the proposals was improper
because, although its proposal was rated at times on the basis of a
straight averaging of subfactor ratings, the ratings of other
offerors' proposals were, at times, "rounded up." For example, MCR's
proposal received two "better" ratings and three "acceptable" ratings
for the five items targeted for consideration by the evaluators under
the least important technical evaluation factor, management plan, for
which factor its proposal was rated as "acceptable" overall. MCR
contends that, instead, the agency should have rated MCR's management
plan as "better" overall. To support its argument, MCR points out
that the evaluation record shows another offeror's rating was rounded
up where similar ratings were received under a different evaluation
area--the example MCR provides involves the evaluation of the KPMG
proposal under the sample task 2 sub-subfactor of the technical
approach factor, where for the five items targeted for consideration
by the evaluators, the KPMG proposal received three "acceptable" and
two "better" ratings, but a rating of "better" overall for the
sub-subfactor.
To the extent MCR seeks a mathematical or mechanical application of
evaluation ratings for all offerors' proposals, its contention is
without merit, since evaluation ratings are for use only as general
guides to intelligent decision-making, and need not be mechanically
applied to reach an overall assessment rating; rather, it is the
documented qualitative findings about the proposals that govern the
reasonableness of an agency's overall proposal assessment. See Wesley
Med. Resources, Inc.; Human Resource Sys. Inc., B-261938.5,
B-261938.6, Nov. 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 230 at 9, n.2. Here, our review
of the record confirms the reasonableness of the evaluation of the
protester's proposal under the management plan factor--while MCR
submitted a favorable, complete management plan, it simply did not
significantly exceed many of the RFP requirements, as required for the
higher evaluation rating. As for MCR's challenge, by comparison, to
the "rounded up" rating received by the KPMG proposal under the sample
task 2 sub-subfactor, we think the strengths of that proposal for
sample task 2 support the favorable rating received, which, with the
KPMG proposal's unchallenged "outstanding" rating under the overall
understanding and approach factor, amply support the reasonableness of
that proposal's higher technical approach rating.[8]
MCR also challenges the adequacy of discussions held with the firm.[9]
The protester essentially contends that the agency should have
discussed with it those areas in which its proposal could have
received a higher rating, since any higher ratings may have materially
improved its potential for award. The protester also generally
alleges that discussions were unfair, since the awardees were
questioned about certain areas of their initial proposals that were
found "marginal" (where MCR's proposal had been found "acceptable" in
those areas, and the areas were not discussed with MCR), and those
offerors' revised proposals' ratings improved to equal or exceed MCR's
proposal's ratings.
This solicitation was issued after the January 1, 1998 effective date
of the revised discussion rules of Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation. Those revised rules, in pertinent part, provide, at sec.
15.306(d)(3), that:
The contracting officer shall . . . indicate to, or discuss with,
each offeror still being considered for award, significant
weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal . . .
that could, in the opinion of the contracting officer, be altered
or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for
award. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of
contracting officer judgment.
Discussions must be meaningful, equitable, not misleading, and fair.
I.T.S. Corp., B-280431, Sept. 29, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 89 at 6. We have
reviewed each of the protester's alleged discussion improprieties and
conclude that they lack merit--the record shows that the agency's
actions were reasonable and proper.
MCR contends that, if the agency had raised any question (MCR does not
identify which question it believes would be appropriate) about its
proposal's sample task 2 response, it might have been able to improve
its proposal rating for the subfactor to "better," as KPMG had done in
response to discussions with the firm about its "marginal" response to
sample task 2.[10] MCR is essentially arguing that, since this is an
area where its proposal received less than a perfect rating (even
though not a "marginal" one), it should have been discussed to place
its proposal in a more advantageous competitive position for award.
We do not read the revised Part 15 language to change the legal
standard so as to require discussion of all proposal areas where
ratings could be improved.[11] See DAE Corp., B-259866, B-259866.2,
May 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD 12 para. at 4-5 (an agency is not required to
discuss every aspect of an offeror's acceptable proposal that receives
less than the maximum score).
We recommend that the DFAS document a reasoned source selection
determination that, in accordance with the stated evaluation factors
for award, considers the comparative merits of the technical and past
performance proposals, as well as the offerors' proposed prices, to
determine which offer is the most advantageous to the government. If
an offeror other than PWC is selected for award of the contract that
has been awarded to PWC, the DFAS should terminate PWC's contract for
the convenience of the government and make award to that offeror. We
also recommend that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable cost of
filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sec.
21.8(d)(1) (1998). The
protester should submit its claim for costs, detailing and certifying
the time expended and costs incurred, with the contracting agency
within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.8(f)(1).
The protest of the award to PWC is sustained; the protest of the award
to KPMG is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The contractor is to provide reconciliation and special studies
services to DFAS and other Department of Defense entities to reconcile
accounting, finance, and contractual records, including out-of-balance
conditions, problem financial records, and contract close-out
requirements.
2. The RFP provided the following adjectival ratings: "outstanding"
(proposal very significantly exceeds most or all solicitation
requirements); "better" (proposal fully meets all solicitation
requirements and significantly exceeds many of the solicitation
requirements); "acceptable" (proposal meets all solicitation
requirements); "marginal" (proposal is deemed less than acceptable,
but has a reasonable chance of becoming at least acceptable after
discussions); and "unacceptable" (proposal has many deficiencies or
gross omissions). RFP sec. M.2(b).
3. The RFP provided the following adjectival ratings for past
performance: "neutral" (no relevant past performance information was
available for evaluation); "outstanding" (past performance information
demonstrates no risk anticipated with delivery, quality, degradation
of performance, or lack of customer satisfaction); "better" (very
little risk is anticipated); "satisfactory" (some potential risk
exists); and "marginal" (significant potential risk in performance of
the contract requirements). RFP sec. M.7(d).
4. PWC's proposal and discussion responses were submitted by Coopers &
Lybrand, LLP, the incumbent contractor of these services; that firm
merged with Pricewaterhouse, LLP, on July 1, to form PWC. Although
references in the evaluation record are made to Coopers & Lybrand, we
reference them in this decision as PWC.
5. As the protester points out, the RFP language suggests that the key
personnel factor may be as much as three times as important as the
subfactor for overall understanding and approach. While the RFP
provided no point formula for weighing each factor and subfactor, it
did provide that the factors were listed in a descending order of
importance. In a reasonable descending progression of factor
importance, where the second factor (here, key personnel) is not
substantially less important than the first factor (technical
approach), a substantially less important subfactor of that first
factor necessarily must be of less weight than the second factor. For
example, assuming a 50-30-20 point differential among the three
technical evaluation factors here, since the RFP provides that the
first subfactor (sample tasks) is substantially more important than
the second subfactor (overall understanding and approach), the 50
points for technical approach reasonably may be divided into a 30-20
(or even 40-10) point split between the two stated subfactors. In
this example, the 30 points for key personnel clearly outweigh the 20
(or even 10) points for the subfactor for overall understanding and
approach of the technical approach factor.
6. MCR generally alleges that PWC's proposal should be assessed as
having greater risk, since the awardees' price is low compared to the
actual costs of the predecessor contract and the government estimate.
The record shows, however, that the agency reasonably had no concern
about the realism of PWC's lower price, since [deleted], were
adequately supported in the PWC proposal. MCR also contends that the
awardee's previous personnel retention problems warrant a higher risk
assessment for the PWC proposal. However, the protester fails to
provide persuasive evidence of the existence of any such problems,
which otherwise are not documented in the record; in fact, the agency
reports that substituted personnel under the prior contract were
commended for having improved qualifications.
7. There is much discussion in the record between the parties
concerning whether the agency was required to assign an overall
adjectival rating to each proposal after combining the technical and
past performance evaluation ratings. Our review of the record shows
that the RFP did not expressly require such an overall rating, and the
agency did not assign an overall rating to the proposals, but the
Business Clearance Memorandum, June 9, 1998, at 12, did refer to an
"overall" (although not necessarily adjectival) rating. In any event,
the protester's argument is based upon its allegation that its past
performance rating should be higher, which, MCR contends, would boost
its proposal's overall rating higher than that of PWC's proposal,
since past performance is as important as the technical approach
evaluation factor. In light of our above discussion confirming the
reasonableness of the "better" past performance ratings assigned to
both the MCR and PWC proposals, we consider the protester's argument
academic; the "better" past performance ratings in effect cancel each
other out (since the evaluation scheme gives past performance as much
importance as the technical approach factor), because both proposals
were also rated "acceptable" for technical approach.
8. MCR only generally challenges the agency's determination to award a
contract to KPMG, and has not provided any persuasive basis to
question the award to KPMG, the higher technically rated, lower-priced
offeror. The propriety of the award to KPMG based on its proposal's
technical superiority over the MCR proposal in both the most important
and least important technical factors, as well as its higher past
performance rating, and lower price, is reasonably supported by the
record.
9. MCR also protests that the evaluation was flawed by the use of an
unstated evaluation factor favoring the so-called "Fabulous Five"
accounting firms, which include KPMG and PWC. MCR's offered proof of
this impropriety consists of certain investigative reports that it has
recently learned about that examined earlier DFAS awards that were
questioned on this basis. DFAS explains that the reports concern
procurements unrelated to the current one and were conducted prior to
recent agency controls to prevent any such bias. We have reviewed
this record separate from the reports, which do not include review of
the current procurement, since each procurement stands on its own.
The record provides no support for the protester's allegations of
improper bias toward the awardees.
10. Although MCR contends discussions were unequal, there is no
showing in the record that KPMG was treated more favorably than MCR in
discussions. Just as with MCR, KPMG was told of those areas of its
proposal that were considered "marginal."
11. The protester also contends that if the agency had mentioned that
an evaluator thought MCR's experience was [deleted], Technical
Evaluation Consensus Report for MCR, June 26, 1998 at 6, that its
[deleted] failed to significantly exceed many requirements, or that
its past performance proposal had not been rated "outstanding"
overall, it could have materially improved its potential for award.
As discussed above, the record does not support the protester's
contention that discussions were required in these relatively minor
aspects of the evaluation record. Specifically, our review shows:
there is no indication that the firm's proposal was downgraded for the
[deleted] comment of one evaluator--in fact, the evaluation record
shows that this was a very minor point expressed about the firm's
overall understanding and approach, which otherwise was viewed
favorably by the evaluators; given the firm's high ratings for past
performance (which, related to the above discussion, specifically
included credit for MCR's [deleted], there is no credible basis for
the protester to contend the agency was required to discuss how the
protester could improve its rating to the highest possible overall
rating of "outstanding"; and, as for the acceptable [deleted]
submitted by MCR, there is no showing in the record that more detailed
discussions were warranted in this area, which had, in fact, been
identified in discussions with MCR as an area to address in the firm's
final proposal.