BNUMBER:  B-281453; B-281453.2; B-281453.3 
DATE:  February 17, 1999
TITLE: Orbital Technologies Corporation, B-281453; B-281453.2; B-
281453.3, February 17, 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:Orbital Technologies Corporation

File:     B-281453; B-281453.2; B-281453.3

Date:February 17, 1999

S. Gregg Kunzi, Esq., and Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., Hogan & 
Hartson; and David F. Grams, Esq., David F. Grams & Associates, for 
the protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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.  Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals 
submitted in response to solicitation for research and development 
support services is denied where the protest evidences the protester's 
mere disagreement with the results of the evaluation and there is no 
basis on which to find that the evaluation was unreasonable.  

2.  Allegation that agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of 
past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency 
evaluation was proper and in accordance with the solicitation's stated 
evaluation factors. 

3.  Protester's arguments that the cost realism adjustments made to 
the awardee's proposed labor costs were improper are denied where the 
record shows that the agency had a reasonable basis for its cost 
evaluation. 

DECISION

Orbital Technologies Corporation protests the award of a contract to 
ERC, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04611-98-R-0025, 
issued by the Department of the Air Force, as a total small business 
set-aside, for research in propulsion sciences (RPS) at Edwards Air 
Force Base, California.[1]  The protester argues that the agency's 
evaluation of proposals and selection decision were unreasonable or 
inconsistent with the solicitation.

We deny the protests.

A draft RFP, consisting of a statement of work (SOW) and sections L 
and M, was issued on March 17, 1998 to potential offerors.  The draft 
RFP advised that a reference library had been established by the 
agency to help prospective offerors prepare their proposals and that 
site observations would be provided, and solicited industry comments.  
The final RFP, issued on July 21, provided for the award of a 
multi-year (9-year) cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide RPS 
services to support the Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion 
Directorate in the area of space and missile rocket propulsion 
technologies.  RFP  sec.  L-I, L-II, M. 

As amended, the RFP provided for award on a best value basis and 
informed offerors that the non-cost factors combined were more 
important than cost.  The following evaluation factors and subfactors, 
listed in descending order of importance, were identified:

     1.  Mission Capability
        a.  Employee retention/attraction
        b.  Communications/coordination
        c.  Value added cost reduction processes
        d.  Program management
        e.   Scenario
     2.  Proposal Risk
     3.  Price/Cost
     4.  Past Performance

RFP  sec.  M-3.

Mission capability and proposal risk factors were of equal importance 
and of greater importance than the past performance and cost factors.  
The cost factor was of greater importance than past performance and 
all three non-cost factors when combined were significantly more 
important than cost; however, cost was considered a substantial factor 
in award.  Id.

Detailed instructions were provided for the preparation of technical 
and cost proposals.  RFP  sec.  L-II.  The RFP provided for a cost realism 
analysis and authorized the government to adjust offerors' proposed 
costs to reflect the government's estimate of the most probable cost 
(MPC) of performance.  The cost realism analysis would consider 
whether the costs proposed reflected the offeror's understanding of 
the requirement and were realistic in relation to the services to be 
provided.  RFP  sec.  M-3(e).  Offerors were required to provide a detailed 
breakdown of costs, including labor rates, labor escalation rates, 
indirect costs, and personnel relocation costs; in computing their 
proposed labor costs, offerors were directed to use the RFP's 
estimated labor hours.  RFP  sec.  L-II, at 12-15.   

Nine firms, including Orbital and ERC, submitted offers by the amended 
closing date for receipt of proposals.  As relevant here, Orbital's 
total proposed costs were [deleted] and ERC's were $35.1 million.  
Proposals were evaluated under the mission capability subfactors using 
a color/adjectival system to reflect how well the offeror's proposal 
met the specified performance or capability requirements.[2]  Proposal 
risk was evaluated to assess the risks associated with the offeror's 
proposed approach, weakness in the proposed approach, and weaknesses 
in the proposal itself; the risk ratings assigned were high, moderate, 
or low.  Performance risk was evaluated as a measure of the 
government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully 
complete the proposed effort based on the offeror's relevant present 
and past performance history.  RFP  sec.  M-3.  Proposals were also 
evaluated for cost realism and downward adjustments were made to ERC's 
and Orbital's proposed costs.  In performing the cost realism 
evaluation, the contract negotiator reviewed the firms' proposals and 
obtained rate verification, and other cost information from the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). 

The results of the evaluation of initial offers from Orbital and ERC 
were as follows:

FACTORS              ORBITAL       ERC

Mission Capability
   a.  Employee retention
       Proposal risk
       Past Performance
                     [deleted]
                     [deleted]
                     [deleted]     
                                   Blue
                                   Low
                                   Great Confidence

   b. Communications/Coord.
       Proposal risk
       Past Performance[deleted]
                     [deleted]
                     [deleted]     Blue
                                   Low
                                   Great Confidence

   c. Value added cost
       reduction processes
       Proposal risk
       Past Performance
                     [deleted]
                     [deleted]
                     [deleted]     
                                   Blue
                                   Low
                                   Confidence

   d. Program Mgmt.
      Proposal risk
      Past performance[deleted]
                     [deleted]
                     [deleted]     Green
                                   Low
                                   Confidence

   e. Scenario
      Proposal risk  [deleted]
                     [deleted]     Yellow
                                   LowPrice/Cost 
(in millions)
Proposed Cost
MPC                  
                     
                     [deleted] 
                     [deleted]     
                                   
                                   $ 35.1 
                                   [deleted] 
Source Selection Authority Decision Briefing Report, Oct. 13, 1998, at 
24-35.

The source selection evaluation team summarized its evaluation 
findings in a decision briefing report for the source selection 
authority (SSA), that detailed the strengths, weaknesses, and risks 
presented by each offeror's proposal.  The SSA reviewed the evaluation 
findings and concluded that ERC's proposal represented the best value 
to the government, given the qualitative differences among the 
offerors' approaches.[3]

In specifically comparing ERC's proposal to Orbital's, the SSA stated:

     While I find both ERC and [Orbital] to have exceptional merit 
     that substantially exceeds capability requirements in employee 
     retention/attraction and value added cost reduction processes, as 
     demonstrated by their strengths, I find ERC's proposal superior 
     to [Orbital] in communication/coordination.  ERC has clearly 
     demonstrated their ability to quickly, effectively and 
     efficiently communicate and coordinate through their team 
     initiative to explore new communication methods/avenues, 
     including numerous automated/diverse communication methods, which 
     will enhance the ability of researchers to conduct 
     state-of-the-art research.  Furthermore, ERC has an exceptional 
     Contract Performance Management/Measurement System and 
     understanding of the required level and type of communications 
     necessary to successfully perform the RPS effort.  I find ERC's 
     delegation of authority to the area managers for the quick 
     reallocation of resources and their joint 
     Government/Contractor/On-site Contractor weekly meetings of 
     particular benefit to RPS.  Although [Orbital's] communication/ 
     coordination is good and has merit which exceeds capability 
     through numerous diverse communication methods, daily 
     interactions with Government and other on-site contractors with 
     an in-depth understanding of the Air Force Research Laboratory 
     (AFRL) environment, it is my assessment that ERC's approach to 
     communication/coordination is superior to that of [Orbital].   

Source Selection Decision, Oct. 13, 1998, at 1-2.

In addition, the SSA found that ERC "has [deleted] price/cost, which I 
find affordable for successful performance" of the solicitation 
requirements and he considered "the [deleted] difference between the 
lower most probable cost (MPC) and ERC's proposed price/cost 
insignificant and, should the MPC be realized, of even greater 
affordability to the RPS effort."  Id. at 2.  Following this 
determination, a contract was awarded to ERC.  After receiving notice 
of the award and a debriefing, Orbital filed these protests.  The 
agency has stayed performance of the contract pending our resolution 
of the protests.     

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Orbital argues that the agency failed to follow the evaluation scheme 
in its evaluation of the proposals.[4]  For example, Orbital protests 
that it was unreasonable for the agency to assign [deleted] high 
rating, blue/excellent with low proposal risk,  to [deleted] the ERC 
proposal under the employee retention/attraction subfactor because 
[deleted] the ERC proposal included no express employment commitments 
or resumes from the incumbent employees.[5]  Since ERC merely stated 
its intention to hire the incumbent personnel if the firm was awarded 
the contract, Orbital maintains that the ERC proposal should have been 
rated lower [deleted] and assigned a higher proposal risk rating. 

Where an evaluation is challenged, we will examine the agency's 
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 
stated evaluation factors and applicable statutes and regulations, 
since the relative merit of competing proposals is primarily a matter 
within the contracting agency's discretion.  Advanced Tech. and 
Research Corp., B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  230 at 3.  The 
protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not 
itself render the evaluation unreasonable.  Medland Controls, Inc., 
B-255204, B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  260 at 3.  We find the 
evaluation here reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and 
the stated evaluation factors.      

The RFP at issue here provided that the agency would evaluate 
proposals under the employee retention/attraction subfactor in 
relation to each offeror's demonstrated approach to effectively 
attract, retain, and motivate its proposed research personnel.  This 
requirement is met when an offeror's proposal contains specific 
information regarding employee benefit packages and other forms of 
compensation,  and demonstrates the offeror's management practices and 
resources in providing an environment that promotes effective and 
efficient pursuit of research.  RFP        sec.  M-3(c)(1).  The RFP did 
not preclude proposing prospective incumbent hires nor provide that an 
offeror proposing firm commitments and resumes from incumbent 
employees would be given a higher rating for evaluation purposes than 
an offeror whose proposal did not include similar employment 
commitments.  Indeed, as the protester points out, the agency, in 
question 21 of the preproposal questions and answers, specifically 
recognized that proposals that did not include express employment 
commitments or resumes from the incumbent staff, would be "considered 
responsive."  Air Force Letter to Potential Offerors, July 30, 1998, 
at sixth unnumbered page.[6]   

Since the RFP did not require commitments from incumbent personnel, we 
see no basis to conclude that the agency was required to downgrade 
ERC's proposal because it did not obtain employment commitments or 
resumes from the incumbent staff.  In our view, the agency reasonably 
could conclude, based on ERC's presentation--including its proposal to 
hire the incumbent staff or other senior non-incumbent research staff 
who possess the experience and qualifications required by the 
solicitation to perform the contract services--that ERC's presentation 
warranted a "blue" rating.  Indeed, the record shows that the ERC 
proposal was evaluated as proposing a highly competitive employee 
benefit package that included profit sharing, health insurance 
reimbursement option, and transfer of seniority for benefit purposes; 
and as demonstrating an excellent history of retaining employees on 
contract changeover which, in the evaluators' judgment, indicated a 
strong likelihood that ERC could attract and retain research personnel 
for this RPS effort.  Further, ERC was evaluated as proposing an 
outstanding process for creating an environment to motivate 
researchers in their pursuit of research by providing a formula for 
sharing royalties with the inventor and the research team.  The 
evaluators favorably viewed ERC's proposal of a local purchase 
authority to provide the research personnel with material and 
equipment in a timely and efficient manner.  The evaluators also 
considered the outstanding qualifications and experience of ERC's 
chief executive officer as indicative of the firm's ability to attract 
and retain world-class researchers.

We also note that ERC included in its proposal a copy of an e-mail 
message from the chairman of the Raytheon employee committee (who was 
also the program manager under the Raytheon contract).  [deleted]

The protester insists that the best indicator of ERC's inability to 
attract and retain world-class researchers is the fact that ERC was 
not one of the five offerors who obtained commitments and resumes from 
the Raytheon employees, and it disagrees with the evaluators' judgment 
that ERC's proposed employee benefits and compensation package was 
highly competitive to attract and retain world-class researchers.  As 
shown above, however, the record establishes the reasonableness of the 
agency's evaluation under this subfactor.  In our view, the fact that 
the ERC proposal did not include employment commitments or resumes 
from the Raytheon employees does not render improper the agency's 
evaluation findings, given that employment commitments or resumes were 
not required.[7]  Nor does the protester's disagreement with the 
evaluators' conclusion that the ERC benefits and compensation package 
together with the firm's demonstrated employee retention and royalty 
sharing plan reflected an exceptional approach to attract, retain and 
motivate world-class research personnel render the evaluation 
unreasonable.  

Likewise, the record does not support Orbital's related argument that 
ERC's proposal should have been assigned either a moderate or high 
proposal risk rating under this subfactor simply because ERC did not 
obtain incumbent employee commitments.  As discussed previously, there 
was no requirement that an offeror obtain letters of commitment and 
the evaluators found that ERC's approach demonstrated an understanding 
of the solicitation requirements and contained specific information as 
to its ability to attract and retain world-class research personnel 
and we see no basis to conclude that the agency's low proposal risk 
rating assigned to the ERC proposal was not warranted.

Orbital next complains that under the second most important subfactor, 
communications/coordination, the agency's rating of the ERC proposal 
as blue/exceptional with low proposal risk was undeserved.  The 
protester asserts that since ERC was not one of the five offerors to 
whom the Raytheon employees "provided resumes and other information 
(including information regarding communications at the site), ERC 
simply had no institutional knowledge of how government personnel, 
contractor personnel, and other on-site contractors communicated and 
coordinated with each other in practice."  Protester's Comments, Dec. 
23, 1998, at 13. 

The RFP stated that this subfactor would be evaluated by assessing 
offerors' "ability to effectively communicate and coordinate 
management activities to all team members including government 
personnel, contractor personnel, and other on-site contractors within 
a team environment."  RFP  sec.  M-3(c)(2).  Offerors were instructed to 
describe in their proposal how they would implement internal 
communication between the technical areas within the organization as 
well as communication with the research community.  In addition, 
offerors were to demonstrate their approach to coordinating key 
activities.  Id.;  sec.  L-II.4.2.2.

From our review of the record, ERC addressed each of these 
requirements in detail, and the agency determined that ERC's proposal 
provided a detailed integration plan for effective communication and 
coordination.  For instance, the evaluators favorably considered ERC's 
proposal to initially adopt the current communication techniques and 
to then institute a team initiative to explore new communication 
avenues.  They believed that ERC's approach would be nondisruptive to 
current operations and would present an opportunity for the government 
personnel to be directly involved in any subsequent communication 
improvements.  The evaluators also noted the sound communication 
methods proposed by ERC; the delegation of authority to ERC's area 
manager to coordinate and allocate resources; and its exceptional 
understanding of the required level and types of communication.  The 
evaluators concluded that under this subfactor, the ERC proposal 
warranted a rating of blue/excellent with low proposal risk.  The 
record supports the agency's evaluation ratings.  Although Orbital 
argues that the ERC proposal could not exceed the solicitation 
requirements because the firm did not obtain inside information from 
the incumbent employees, no such inside knowledge was either required 
or necessary.  As previously stated, at least 5 months prior to the 
receipt of initial proposals, the agency provided on-site observations 
for all prospective offerors which included meetings with the Raytheon 
employees and agency personnel and access to an extensive reference 
library that included project publications, the existing contract with 
all modifications, and historical information for materials and 
supplies.  Thus, the agency provided ample opportunity for prospective 
offerors to obtain the "institutional knowledge" necessary to prepare 
their proposals.  Orbital's allegations provide no basis to object to 
the agency's evaluation in this regard.  

In a similar vein, Orbital argues that the agency erred in evaluating 
ERC's proposal as green/good with low proposal risk under the program 
management subfactor of the mission capability factor.  Based on our 
review of the record, we believe the evaluation in this area was 
reasonable.  Under this subfactor, offerors were required to 
demonstrate that their on-site, dedicated program manager has the 
experience and capabilities to understand the technologies identified 
in the SOW.  RFP,  sec.  L.4.2.4, M-3(c)(4).  Orbital takes issue with the 
fact that [deleted] ERC's [deleted]  rated green/good with low 
proposal risk although ERC, unlike Orbital which had the commitment of 
the Raytheon program manager, had not furnished a personal commitment 
from the incumbent program manager nor from an otherwise qualified 
program manager with the requisite experience and capability.[8]  The 
record shows that ERC's proposal was rated green/good because the 
evaluators reasonably believed that ERC would be able to hire the 
current Raytheon program manager to fill this key position.  While the 
Raytheon program manager had provided his written employment 
commitment to Orbital and four other offerors, as discussed above, he 
had expressed an interest in working for ERC should that firm be the 
successful offeror.  Furthermore, this subfactor asked offerors to 
provide additional information, including an organizational chart, 
lines of authority, chain of command, and the program manager's 
ability to transition resources and personnel into the program,  see 
RFP  sec.  L-II.4.2.4, and the record indicates that the agency concluded 
that ERC's approach to meeting the program management requirements was 
good.  For instance, the evaluators found ERC's proposed on-site 
management and organizational approach would promote rapid response to 
agency needs, and that its transition plan--that included establishing 
a transition team, recruiting off-site during after-work hours, and 
detailed orientation briefings--was well thought out.   Contrary to 
Orbital's contentions, the agency's evaluation of ERC's proposal as 
green/good under this subfactor was reasonable.

In any case, Orbital's argument overstates the importance of the 
color/adjectival ratings in relation to the source selection process.  
While adjectival ratings may be useful as guides to intelligent 
decision-making, they are not binding on the source selection 
official, who has discretion to determine the weight to accord such 
scores in making an award decision.  Porter/Novelli, B-258831, Feb. 
21, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  101 at 4-5.  Of concern to our Office is whether 
the record as a whole supports the reasonableness of the evaluation 
results and source selection decision.  PCL/Am. Bridge, B-254511.2, 
Feb. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  142 at 5-6.  Here, the  evaluation record 
shows that, consistent with the terms of the final RFP, the SSA 
reasonably decided not to weigh Orbital's proposal more heavily than 
ERC's simply because it offered firm commitments and resumes from the 
incumbent employees.  Instead, as discussed previously, the SSA (and 
evaluators) examined how well the ERC proposal met the evaluation 
factors and subfactors.  The SSA ultimately concluded that ERC's 
proposal offered the better overall value and provided greater 
confidence of successful performance because of its relative 
superiority and higher performance risk assessment under the 
communication/coordination subfactors, the second most important 
subfactor of the mission capability factor.  This determination is 
supported by the evaluation record.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the past performance 
of offerors who demonstrated that they had performed at least four 
relevant contracts or subcontracts of a similar size and nature within 
the past 5 years.  In addition, offerors were required to explain what 
aspects of these four contracts/subcontracts they considered to be 
relevant to the proposed effort.  RFP  sec.  L-II.7.0, M-3(f).  To 
determine relevance, the agency would consider such things as product 
similarity, product complexity, contract type, program phase, contract 
environment, division of company proposing and subcontractor 
interaction.  Draft AFFARS 5315.305 (a)(2)(iii).  

Orbital challenges the Air Force's past performance review, asserting 
that the agency (1) unreasonably concluded that two of the four 
contracts identified in its past performance proposal were not 
relevant to the proposed effort and were not further  considered, and 
(2) improperly considered a NASA contract awarded to ERC which was too 
remote in time to be relevant.  Protester's Comments, January 15, 
1999, at 5-7.  Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of 
offerors' past performance, the agency has discretion to determine the 
scope of the offerors' performance histories to be considered, 
provided all proposals are evaluated on the same basis and the 
evaluation is consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  Wind Gap 
Knitwear, Inc., B-261045, June 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  124 at 3; Federal 
Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-250135.4, May 24, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  398 at 12.  

Orbital claims that the Air Force improperly determined that Orbital's 
contract [deleted] was not relevant because it was more production 
oriented than the RPS effort.  Likewise, Orbital's [deleted] was 
considered more operational in nature than the research and 
development effort required under this solicitation.  Protester's 
Comments, December 23, 1998, at 20-23.

We have no basis to disagree with the evaluators' judgment that these 
two Orbital contracts were not relevant.  The record indicates that 
relevance was judged on the basis of contract type, period of 
performance, contract value, and type of effort  using 
offeror-provided documentation or information from other sources.  
With regard to Orbital's [deleted] The evaluators concluded, based on 
the protester's explanation as to the relevance of this contract, that 
the contract involved production and hardware development, rather than 
basic and applied research, or other research related disciplines that 
could be applied to this RPS program.

As to [deleted] the record further shows that the evaluators deemed 
the information presented in Orbital's proposal for this contract bore 
little correlation to the basic and applied research activities 
required under the RPS contract. [deleted] We think the agency could 
reasonably decide this contract was not relevant to a contract for 
basic and applied research activities.  The fact that Orbital 
characterizes its performance under these two prior contracts as very 
successful and states that the contract effort performed under both 
contracts is very similar to the type of effort required by this RFP 
does not, in our view, make the agency's conclusion here unreasonable.  

With regard to ERC, Orbital argues that the contracts selected as 
relevant and evaluated under the past performance factor impermissibly 
included NASA Contract No. NAS8-97278 (Contract 97278) which was 
awarded in April 1993, more than       5 years prior to the date the 
instant solicitation was issued.  We find no merit to this allegation.  
While ERC had identified the period of performance for this contract 
as April 1993 through September 30, 1998, the narrative discussion 
makes it clear that it is Phase III of Contract 97278, a fixed-price 
task order, which was listed as one of ERC's four relevant contracts.  
ERC Proposal, Vol. V, at V-5-8.   The past performance survey 
responses received from NASA contract officials indicate that the 
responses relate to a task order which was issued in June 1997; this 
task order was clearly within the past 5 years.  In short, this record 
provides us no basis upon which to object to the Air Force's 
evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor.

COST EVALUATION 

The protester alleges that the agency improperly based the downward 
adjustment of ERC's proposed labor costs on the incumbent's current 
rates rather than accept the higher rates proposed by ERC.  Orbital 
notes in this regard that ERC proposed to hire the incumbent Raytheon 
staff and proposed to pay them at labor rates equal to ERC's corporate 
salary rates for the [deleted] area, increased by approximately 
8 percent to reflect the higher prevailing rates in the Edwards AFB 
area.  Since nothing in the ERC proposal indicated that the firm 
planned to pay its employees the incumbent rates, the protester 
insists that the agency's downward adjustment to the exact level of 
those incumbent rates was unreasonable.  Protester's Comments on 
Second Supplemental Agency Report, January 15, 1999, at 2-4.

We need not address the propriety of the agency's decision to adjust 
downward ERC's proposed labor rates.  As discussed above, the SSA 
found ERC's proposal to offer the best overall value to the 
government.  In our view, since even ERC's proposed (that is, 
unadjusted) cost is lower than [deleted] we do not see that ERC's MPC 
adjustment had any impact on the award decision.  In fact, as noted 
above, the SSA specifically considered ERC "affordable" even at its 
proposed cost.  In these circumstances, we do not see how Orbital was 
prejudiced by the agency's cost evaluation.  See Conwal, Inc., 
B-279260, B-279260.2, May 26, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  153 at 3.

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States    

1. This acquisition was conducted under the test case program for the 
proposed draft Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
(AFFARS)  sec.  5315.1, entitled "Source Selection Processes and 
Techniques," dated November 21, 1997, and the draft AF Source 
Selection Procedures, dated November 14, 1997 (both hereinafter 
referred to as Draft AFFARS).  RFP  sec.  M-2. 

2. The color/adjectival ratings are:  (1) blue/excellent, reflecting 
that the offer has exceptional merit and substantially exceeded the 
solicitation requirements; (2) green/good, the offer has merit and 
exceeded the solicitation requirements; (3) yellow/satisfactory, the 
offer met minimum solicitation requirements; and (4) 
red/unsatisfactory, the offer does not meet one or more of the 
solicitation requirements.  Proposals assigned a "red" rating would 
not be considered for award. Draft AFFARS  sec.  5315.305.

3. Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  52.215-1(f) (Oct. 10, 1997), 
incorporated in the RFP, informed offerors that the agency might award 
a contract without discussions.  RFP  sec.  L-I.

4. Orbital identifies a number of examples of unreasonable evaluation 
ratings and other flaws in the evaluation of proposals.  We have 
examined them all and find that none has any substantive merit.  This 
decision will address only the more significant allegations. 

5. The research and development support services had been provided to 
the Air Force by Raytheon, a large business.  When the agency decided 
to set aside the procurement for small business, the Raytheon research 
employees who wanted to continue working at the AFB Rocket Propulsion 
Laboratory contacted prospective offerors and obtained a variety of 
information from each offeror, including information on wages and 
fringe benefits.  Thereafter, the Raytheon employees decided to submit 
resumes and give firm employment commitments to only five offerors.  
Orbital was one of these five offerors; ERC was not. 

6.          Question 21:  Would a proposal that bids incumbents as key 
personnel without personal commitments from the incumbents or the 
inclusion of their resumes in the proposal be considered responsive . 
. . under Subfactor D?

            Response 21:  Yes.  Reference page L-10 of the RFP, 
            section 4.2.4, Subfactor D:  Program Management, paragraph 
            d., "If you propose a key position for which you have not, 
            or cannot at this time, identify a specific employee, 
            state the qualifications for the position and the 
            recruitment approach you will use to fill it."

7. The protester had alleged that either ERC had misrepresented in its 
proposal that the firm had received commitments from Raytheon 
personnel when in fact it had not, or the agency improperly rated the 
ERC proposal blue/excellent because ERC had not obtained letters of 
commitments from the incumbent staff.  [deleted] 

8. As relevant here, the ERC proposal stated that:

[deleted]