TITLE:  Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls, B-281287.10; B-281287.11, February 8, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-281287.10; B-281287.11
DATE:  February 8, 2000
**********************************************************************
Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls, B-281287.10; B-281287.11,
February 8, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls
World Services, Inc.

File: B-281287.10; B-281287.11

Date: February 8, 2000

Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon,
for Meridian Management Corporation, and Kathleen C. Little, Esq., David R.
Johnson, Esq., James R. Farnsworth, Esq., and Suzanne D. Reifman, Esq.,
Vinson & Elkins, for Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., the protesters.

Jacqueline B. Gayner, Esq., Ross, Suchoff, Hankin, Maidenbaum, Handwerker &
Mazel, and John A. Ordway, Esq., Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, for Citywide
Office Management Services, the intervenor.

Lorraine Lee, Esq., and Barbara Affeldt, Esq., Department of the Army, for
the agency.

Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency evaluation is unreasonable where the stated evaluation scheme
contemplates an evaluation of labor qualifications and mix for each contract
requirement, the agency did not so evaluate staffing for significant
contract requirements, and the record shows that the awardee did not propose
adequate staffing for those requirements.

2. Agency improperly relaxed the solicitation's minimum qualification
requirement that key personnel have experience in the operation and
maintenance of a comparable government functional activity of the same or
similar scope where many of the awardee's key personnel lack governmental
experience.

DECISION

Meridian Management Corporation and Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.
protest an award to Citywide Office Management Services under request for
proposals (RFP) No. DACA51-98-R-0007, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New York District, for base operations and maintenance services
at Fort Hamilton, New York. The protesters allege that the agency conducted
an unreasonable and unequal evaluation and award selection.

We sustain the protests.

The RFP, issued March 5, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price
contract (with some cost reimbursable items) for 1 year with 4 option years.
The agency received initial proposals from Johnson (the incumbent
contractor), Meridian, and Citywide by the June 5, 1998 closing date. The
agency conducted discussions, requested and received revised proposals, and,
on September 18, awarded a contract to Citywide. Johnson protested the award
alleging, among other things, that a conflict of interest involving one of
the technical evaluators improperly biased the source selection in favor of
Citywide. The Corps took corrective action in response to the protest and
convened a new source selection team that reevaluated proposals, requested
and received revised proposals by February 12, 1999, and again selected
Citywide's proposal for award. Johnson and Meridian protested that action.
Our Office sustained those protests in Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc.;
Meridian Management Corp., B-281287.5 et al., June 21, 1999, 2000 CPD para. ,
essentially because the agency's "best value" evaluation did not evaluate
the proposals for technical merit beyond meeting minimum requirements. In
response to that decision, the Corps modified its evaluation methodology,
reevaluated proposals, and once again selected Citywide's proposal for
award. The present protests challenge the agency's latest reevaluation and
source selection decision.

The RFP stated that award would be made based on the best overall proposal
with technical factors being "more important than price." RFP amend. 0002
sect.sect. M.1.b, M.2.B. The RFP listed, "in descending order of importance," three
technical factors: Factor I, Technical Approach; Factor II, Management; and
Factor III, Quality Control. RFP amend. 0002 sect.sect. M.1.g, M.2.A. Within each
technical factor, there were either three or four subfactors "listed in
descending order of importance." RFP amend. 0002 sect.sect. M.1.g, M.2.A. Factor I,
Technical Approach, had the following three subfactors: (1) Technical
Capability, (2) Labor Qualifications/Mix for Projects, and (3) Past
Performance. RFP amend. 0002 sect. M.2.A. The RFP also stated that technical
proposals "will demonstrate an understanding of the technical
function/requirements, the technical capability, the requisite labor
qualifications, and experience through past performance for providing the
following [11] functions:" [1]

  1. Work Reception and Management
  2. Buildings and Structures and Utilities Systems

3. Roads and Grounds

4. Pest Control

5. Refuse Collection

6. Housing and [Unaccompanied Personnel Housing] Operations

7. Supply and Storage

8. Elevator Maintenance and Repair

9. Logistical Support

 10. Personal Property Shipping Office (PPSO)
 11. Transportation Motor Pool

RFP amend. 0002 sect. M.A.1.a. Factor II, Management, had the following four
subfactors: (1) Organizational Procedures, (2) Operational Structure,
(3) Sub-Contract Plans, and (4) Management Qualifications. Id. Factor III,
Quality Control, had the following three subfactors: (1) Quality Control
Plan, (2) Corrective Action, and (3) Records and Reports. RFP sect. M.2.A.

The RFP solicited prices for multiple contract line items (CLIN), including
indefinite-quantity work, encompassing the various PWS work requirements
together with sufficient data to evaluate price reasonableness. RFP
amend. 0002 sect.sect. L.9.6, M.2.B; amend 0006 sect. B.

The RFP also stated:

c. All proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government personnel to
determine the extent to which each offeror demonstrates a clear
understanding of the requirements of the RFP. The offeror shall submit a
proposal that completely addresses all evaluation areas, specifically
identifying how each proposed contractual requirement will be satisfied. The
evaluation team will rate each proposal strictly in accordance with its
content and will not presume that performance will include areas not
specified in the offeror's written proposal.

d. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of management, quality,
technical or have unrealistic prices will be deemed reflective of an
inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend
the complexity and risks of the proposed contractual requirements and may be
grounds for rejection of the proposal.

RFP amend. 0002 sect. M.1.

The agency's latest reevaluation was conducted using the offerors'
previously submitted proposals, as revised through the final proposal
revisions (FPR) submitted by February 12, 1999. Agency Report at 30. The
agency did not conduct additional discussions. Id. at 31. The agency's
source selection team was composed of the same members that conducted the
prior reevaluation. Id.

The technical evaluation was based on the same 900-point scale employed
throughout this procurement. Agency Report, exh. 90, Source Selection
Evaluation Plan, at 4-5. In the proposal reevaluation, points were assigned
under each evaluation criterion in accordance with a methodology which
awarded 70 percent of the points available under each criterion for meeting
the minimum requirements of the RFP, and awarded higher scores for proposal
strengths that offered significant advantages to the government or lower
scores for proposal weaknesses. Id. at 5; Agency Report at 29.

The technical evaluators evaluated proposals and then met to determine
consensus evaluation scores. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 528-29. The
technical evaluators then destroyed the record of the technical evaluation
that they had compiled but for the consensus scoring sheets. Tr. at 531-32.
The consensus scoring sheets identified a respective proposal's strengths or
weaknesses under some evaluation criteria; however, under most of the
criteria the scoring sheets merely stated that the proposal addressed the
minimum requirements of the RFP. Agency Report exhs. 102-104, Evaluation of
Proposals. The consensus evaluation assigned 701 points to Citywide's
technical proposal, 687.25 points to Johnson's, and 650.75 points to
Meridian's. Agency Report at 32; Agency Report, exh. 105, Award
Recommendation, at 2.

Citywide submitted the lowest price of [DELETED] for the base year
([DELETED] total including option years), followed by Meridian's price of
[DELETED] ([DELETED]), and Johnson's price of [DELETED] ([DELETED]). [2]
Agency Report at 9, 32; Agency Report exh. 105, Award Recommendation, at 2.
As was noted in the price evaluation of Citywide's proposal that led to its
earlier award selection, Citywide's price was so low that its costs were
considered insufficient to pay wages in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act
wage rates required by the RFP. [3] Id. at 4. Indeed, the agency asked
Citywide about its low price and Citywide responded that it did not take
exception to the required wage rates, and that its low price was due in part
to [DELETED], although Citywide declined to provide details of [DELETED] to
prevent its competitors from learning about it. Agency Report, exh. 42,
Amended Price Analysis, at 2; exh. 107, Investigation of [DELETED]. Because
our prior decision suggested that the agency, as part of its price analysis,
may want to review relevant evidence provided by Johnson during that protest
regarding [DELETED], the agency's price analyst investigated [DELETED], but
could not determine the existence of [DELETED], and determined "there is
still uncertainty as to the validity of Citywide's claim of [DELETED]."
Agency Report, exh. 107, Investigation of [DELETED]. The award
recommendation to the source selection authority (SSA) stated that there is
a risk that [DELETED] does not exist and that Citywide "will lose a
substantial amount of money performing the contract." Agency Report,
exh. 105, Award Recommendation, at 3. Nevertheless, considering that
Citywide's price was close to Meridian's, and that Citywide had confirmed
its price and intent to comply with the wage requirements, the report
determined that the agency "can not second-guess Citywide much more." Id. at
3-4.

The evaluators recommended award to Citywide, determining that its
highest-rated, lowest-priced proposal represented the best value to the
government. Agency Report, exh. 105, Award Recommendation, at 2-3. Except
for a discussion about the evaluation of subcontracting plans, the
evaluators did not meet with the SSA to discuss the evaluation results. Tr.
at 527-35.

The SSA reviewed the evaluation results. In the areas of past performance,
subcontracting plan, and the PPSO functional area, the SSA reviewed and
discussed the proposals' relative strengths and weaknesses, and changed the
technical scores to 696.25 points for Johnson's proposal, 687 points for
Citywide's, and 655.75 points for Meridian's. Agency Report, exh. 106, SSA
Decision, at 1-5. The SSA did not review the proposals under any other
evaluation criteria. Tr. at 104-05. The SSA assessed the risk of Citywide's
low labor rates as a business decision by Citywide to perform the contract
for the prices proposed, while paying its employees the minimum wage rates
required under the RFP, "at the risk of earning minimal profit." Agency
Report, exh. 106, SSA Decision, at 5. In determining that Citywide's
proposal represented the best value to the government, the SSA concluded:

Notwithstanding the fact that technical is more important than price, the
technical difference between the offerors is not significant enough to award
the contract to the higher priced proposal. The majority of the work effort
on this project is not highly complex (refuse collection, pest control, road
repair, etc.). Evaluating the risks/benefits of each approach dictates award
of the project to the second highest rated technical proposal (Citywide) due
to the large price savings to the Government on a yearly basis and over the
life of the contract.

Id. at 8.

The agency notified Meridian and Johnson that Citywide had been selected for
award. Agency Report, exh. 110, Letters to Unsuccessful Offerors. After
debriefings were conducted, these protests followed. The agency has
continued the stay on performance under Citywide's contract that was imposed
based on the earlier protests. Agency Report at 38.

Meridian and Johnson allege that the technical and price evaluations as well
as the resulting source selection decision are unreasonable. Both protesters
join in alleging that the technical evaluation largely did not assess
differences in technical merit between the proposals consistent with the
stated best value evaluation scheme. Meridian's Protest at 1-2; Meridian's
Comments at 18-20; Johnson's Protest at 11-15; Johnson's Comments at 8-13.
Meridian alleges that the technical evaluation of Citywide's and/or
Meridian's technical proposals was unreasonable, not consistent with the
terms of the RFP, and/or constitutes unequal treatment of proposals in the
areas of past performance, labor qualifications/mix, work reception and
management, building and structures, PPSO, transportation motor pool, and
experience of key personnel. Meridian's Protest at 1-3; Meridian's Comments
at 16-20. Johnson makes similar allegations in the areas of past
performance, labor qualifications/mix, experience of key personnel,
organizational procedures, operational structure, and technical capability.
Johnson's Protest at 12-15; Johnson's Comments at 8-15. Both protesters also
allege that the price evaluation was unreasonable because the agency did not
have adequate information to support the performance risk and price realism
analyses for Citywide's proposal. Meridian's Protest at 2; Meridian's
Comments at 14-16; Johnson's Protest at 15-21; Johnson's Comments at 14-16.
Additionally, Johnson alleges that the agency's source selection personnel
were unfairly biased in favor of Citywide. Johnson's Protest at 23;
Johnson's Comments at 17-19.

In reviewing a protest of an agency's evaluation of proposals, we examine
the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Ogden Support Servs., Inc.,
B-270012.2, Mar. 19, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 177 at 5. Based on our review, we find
that the agency unreasonably evaluated the proposals' labor
qualifications/mix and improperly relaxed the minimum personnel requirements
for Citywide.

Both protesters allege that Citywide's proposed staffing was severely
deficient for performing certain indefinite-quantity work requirements, and
that given this staffing deficiency and the RFP evaluation criteria
requiring the evaluation of labor qualifications/mix for projects to assess
the understanding of the work requirements, the agency could not reasonably
determine that Citywide understood the work requirements. Meridian's
Comments at 20; Meridian's Post-Hearing Comments,
at 2-8; Johnson's Comments at 14-15; Johnson's Post-Hearing Comments at
12-13.

The agency did not evaluate Citywide's proposed staffing plan by specific
contract requirements, but rather looked at staffing in terms of the
"overall picture" for contract performance. Tr. at 489-90, 496. The agency
states that the RFP did not require the agency to evaluate staffing or
staffing mix/qualifications proposed for individual CLINs. Agency's
Post-Hearing Comments at 23.

The RFP stated that in order to evaluate "the extent to which each offeror
demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of the RFP,"
proposals must "completely" address "all evaluation areas, specifically
identifying how each proposed contractual requirement will be satisfied."
RFP amend. 0002 sect. M.1.c (emphasis added). The RFP further identified "labor
qualifications/mix for projects" as one of the most important technical
evaluation criteria. RFP amend. 0002 sect. M.2.A. The RFP also stated:

Organizational structures shall show clear understanding of the size and
scope of the functions included in the specifications. Sufficient numbers
and appropriate type of supervisory, skilled and nonskilled personnel are
identified to meet the requirements of the specification.

RFP amend. 0002 sect.sect. L.9.5, M.2.A.1.b. All three offerors' technical proposals
included detailed lists of proposed personnel broken down for the various
contract requirements. [4]

We find that the terms of the RFP's stated evaluation scheme set out above
clearly contemplated an evaluation of the number and type of personnel
proposed for each project/contractual requirement. See Pacifica Servs.,
Inc., B-280921, Dec. 7, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 137 at 4-8; State Technical Inst.
at Memphis, B-250195.2, B-250195.3, Jan. 15, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 47 at 7-9. The
fact that all offerors' proposals included detailed staffing levels and mix
for individual contract requirements indicates that all offerors similarly
anticipated such an evaluation. See State Technical Inst. at Memphis, supra.

Furthermore, the agency selectively performed such a staffing evaluation of
one of the functional areas, PPSO, to assess offeror understanding, and
concluded that Meridian's proposal was deficient for this function.
Specifically, in the SSA's decision, she discusses in some depth the
offerors' staffing approaches regarding this function and based on her
analysis of Meridian's staffing reasonably found that that offeror did not
show a "complete understanding of the PPSO function," while Citywide's and
Johnson's staffing approaches showed that they did understand this function.
Agency Report, exh. 106, SSA Decision, at 2-4. She testified that staffing
was an important consideration in evaluating the PPSO function. Tr. at 54;
see Tr. at 359. The SSA's evaluation of the proposals to perform the PPSO
function evidences that an evaluation of staffing mix was essential under
the RFP to assess an offeror's actual understanding of a particular
function. [5]

The agency's failure to perform a labor qualifications/mix evaluation of the
contract work items is significant here because the record demonstrates that
Citywide has not proposed staff with the skills necessary to perform the
indefinite-quantity work requirements for maintenance and repair labor
(CLINs 0002AB, 0002AD) and new construction labor (CLINs 0003AA through
0003AD). The RFP estimate of work for these six CLINs was 68,000 hours for
the base year; [6] this constitutes 20 to 30 percent of the contract value.
RFP amend. 0006 at B-5, B-6; Johnson's Post-Hearing Comments at 12 n.12;
see, e.g., Agency Report, exh. 7, Johnson's Proposal Revisions sect. B; exh. 8,
Citywide's Proposal Revisions sect. B.

The technical evaluator selected by the agency to testify at the hearing
identified the categories of skilled labor that will be needed to perform
this work and stated that Citywide did not propose the skilled labor needed
to perform this work. Tr. at 487-96. For example, under CLIN 0003AA
("provide construction labor only for buildings, structures, and
utilities"), the technical evaluator stated:

You would need individuals capable to provide all the services that come
under new construction. You're going to need mechanics. You're going to need
[heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)] mechanics, You're going
to need plumbers. You're going to need carpenters. You're going to need all
the various skilled workers to perform this function.

Tr. at 491. However, Citywide proposed [DELETED] "general maintenance
mechanics" and no other classifications of personnel for CLIN 0003AA. Agency
Report, exh. 40, Citywide's FPR, at 163. In fact, Citywide proposed only
general maintenance mechanics and "laborers" to perform all of the work
under all six of these CLINs. Id. at 162-63. The technical evaluator
testified that general maintenance workers are not skilled laborers; skilled
laborers would be identified according to the specific trade category
required (e.g., plumbers). [7] Tr. at 487-88.

Thus, the record demonstrates that Citywide's proposed staffing for these
contract requirements is an apparent proposal deficiency that was not
considered in the evaluation, and does not support a finding that this
offeror understood or can successfully perform a substantial portion of the
solicited requirements. [8] This conclusion is corroborated by a memo
prepared by the agency's district labor advisor analyzing proposed labor
categories and the prices for these six CLINs as follows:

The work assumed by Citywide cannot be ascertained by the information
available, but it does not seem realistic to expect that workers in these
two classifications [i.e., general maintenance mechanic and laborer] can
perform the required work.

Agency Report, exh. 108, Service Contract Act/Davis Bacon Act Wage Analysis,
at 2. [9]

The agency also contends that it was reasonable to evaluate Citywide's
proposal higher than Johnson's under the labor qualifications/mix for
projects evaluation criterion because Citywide proposed more personnel with
New York City certifications and proposed [DELETED] to adjust to changes in
contract work requirements. Agency's Post-Hearing Comments at 23. These were
the reasons the technical evaluators gave for evaluating Citywide's proposal
higher than Johnson's under the labor qualifications/mix for projects
evaluation subcriterion. Compare Agency Report, exh. 103, Evaluation of
Citywide's Proposal, at 4-6 with Agency Report, exh. 104, Evaluation of
Johnson's Proposal, at 4-6. In this case, New York City certifications were
regarded as more desirable than New York State certifications. Tr. at 386.
As for [DELETED], Citywide's proposal generally stated [DELETED].

However, neither of these strengths addresses Citywide's proposed staffing
in terms of the specific personnel positions that are needed for the
indefinite-quantity work requirements. Based on the lack of such information
in Citywide's proposal and this protest record, we conclude that the agency
did not reasonably evaluate whether Citywide's proposal was even acceptable
in terms of staffing for the work requirements in question, which
constitutes 20 to 30 percent of the contract value, much less have a
reasonable basis to rate Citywide's proposal higher than Johnson's under
this evaluation criterion. [10] In light of the importance of staffing under
both the technical approach and management evaluation factors, and given
that this marked difference between proposals was not considered by either
the evaluators or the SSA, we cannot find the evaluation or source selection
decision reasonable and consistent with the evaluation plan stated in the
RFP. See Pacifica Servs., Inc., supra, at 6-8 (proposal is unacceptable
where solicitation requires and proposal fails to demonstrate adequate
quantity and appropriate allocation of staff for each PWS task); DynCorp,
B-245289, B-245289.2, Dec. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 575 at 10 (where staffing is
an important evaluation criterion and proposals differ materially in
proposed staffing plans, agency's failure to consider the specific staffing
differences between proposals renders selection of lower-rated, lower-priced
proposal unreasonable).

The agency also improperly relaxed terms of the solicitation for Citywide.
Specifically, the RFP states that a minimum qualification requirement for
key personnel is experience in the operation and maintenance of "a
comparable Government functional activity of the same or similar scope." RFP
amend 0002 sect. M.2.A.d (emphasis added); RFP sect. H.4 (emphasis added). Although
Citywide's proposal received a higher rating than either of the other
proposals for management qualifications, Agency Report, exhs. 102-104,
Evaluations of Proposals, at 9, the majority of Citywide's proposed key
personnel do not have comparable government experience. Agency Report, exh.
40, Citywide's FPR, at 139-43. In contrast, all of Johnson's proposed key
personnel have comparable government experience. [11] Agency Report, exh. 7,
Johnson's Proposal Revisions, at 2-41--2-49.

The technical evaluators determined that government experience was not
critical, and considered the word "comparable" in the requirement to mean
"something that compares to a government functional activity of this type."
Tr. at 399, 439. The agency's position is that any other interpretation of
this qualification requirement would render meaningless the term
"comparable." Agency's Post-Hearing Comments at 25-26. We disagree.

The plain meaning of "comparable government activity" is a government
activity comparable to the government activity defined in the RFP. Moreover,
the agency was asked whether the minimum qualification requirements were
flexible and permitted substitutions, and the agency responded as follows:

No. Only the requirements contained in the solicitation will be considered.

RFP amend. 0003, at 2.

Thus, Citywide's proposal did not meet the minimum personnel qualification
requirements as stated and the agency improperly relaxed the requirement
without amending the RFP; this deficiency is exacerbated by the fact that
Citywide's noncompliant proposal was rated higher for management
qualifications than Johnson's compliant proposal. See For Your Info., Inc.,
B-278352, Dec. 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 164 at 4.

We recommend that the agency amend the RFP as needed to state the agency's
actual minimum requirements for personnel qualifications, convene a source
selection team, conduct discussions with the offerors, request final
technical and price proposal revisions, reevaluate proposals consistent with
the terms of the RFP, and make a new source selection decision. [12] If an
offeror other than Citywide is selected for award, Citywide's contract
should be terminated. We also recommend that the agency reimburse the
protesters their reasonable costs of filing and pursuing

these protests, including attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1) (1999). The
protesters should file their claims for costs, detailing the time expended
and costs incurred, with the contracting agency within 60 days of receiving
this decision. 4 C.F.R.
sect. 21.8(f)(1).

The protests are sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The functions are described in the RFP's performance work statement
(PWS). RFP sect. C.5.

2. The government estimate is $10,247,592 for the base year and $54,816,436
overall. Agency Report, exh. 42, Amended Price Analysis, at 1.

3. The RFP required payment of minimum labor rates applicable under the
Davis Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act. RFP sect.sect. I.37, I.57; Amend. 006,
Attachs. J.7, J.8.

4. Citywide's and Meridian's lists break down proposed personnel by number
and category for each CLIN with cross-references to the PWS. Agency Report,
exh. 40, Citywide's FPR, at 160-64; Agency Report, exh. 68, Meridian's
Proposal Revisions, at 1.87. Johnson's list breaks down proposed personnel
by individual work requirements with cross-references to the PWS. Agency
Report, exh. 7, Johnson's Proposal Revisions, at 2-25.

5. The selective application of evaluating staffing for one particular
function to find Meridian's proposal deficient while not evaluating the
staffing approaches for the other functions where Citywide's staffing was
deficient is evidence of unequal treatment. See U.S. Property Management
Serv. Corp., B-278727, Mar. 6, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 88 at 6.

6. The estimates for these work requirements throughout the option years
were the same as for the base year.

7. Citywide's proposal did so identify specific trade labor categories for
other work requirements in the RFP. See Agency Report, exh. 40, Citywide's
FPR, at 160-61.

8. The evaluator admitted that Citywide had no apparent experience in
performing such indefinite-quantity work. Tr. at 461. This suggests that
Citywide's technical approach, including staffing, should be considered to
assess whether it understands the work. We note that when similar questions
were raised about Meridian's PPSO experience, such an analysis was
performed.

9. The agency argues that this memo was not provided to the source selection
team members or the SSA, and played no role in the evaluation and selection
decision, and thus should not be afforded any weight. Agency's Post-Hearing
Comments at 3. Although this memo was prepared prior to the selection
decision, it apparently was submitted only to the agency's district counsel,
and the agency offers no explanation as to why this document, with its
obvious relevance to the evaluation of proposals, was not given at least to
the SSA. While we do not consider this memo part of the source selection
record, it does corroborate our conclusion.

10. It is undisputed that the protesters' proposals proposed sufficient
skilled personnel for these requirements. See Agency Report, exh. 7,
Johnson's Proposal Revisions, at 2-25; Agency Report, exh. 68, Meridian's
Proposal Revisions, at 1.87.

11. Meridian's key personnel include one person, the quality control
manager, who apparently has no comparable government experience. Agency
Report, exhs. 68, 84, Meridian's Proposal Revision and FPR, at 2.34-2.39.

12. As noted, the protesters have made numerous other contentions that we do
not consider here since we recommend that the solicitation be amended and
revised proposals be submitted. While we do not decide these issues, our
review disclosed evidence that suggests unequal treatment by the evaluators
in favor of Citywide that we think makes it advisable to convene a new
source selection team.