TITLE:  Advanced Communication Systems, Inc., B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3, December 16, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3
DATE:  December 16, 1999
**********************************************************************
Advanced Communication Systems, Inc., B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3,
December 16, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Advanced Communication Systems, Inc.

File: B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3

Date: December 16, 1999

William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., and Wm. Craig
Dubishar, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for the protester.

Rand L. Allen, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., and Daniel A Silien, Esq.,
Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., an intervenor.

Jean Lewis, Esq., Peter D. Butt, Jr., Esq., and Kevin Travis, Esq.,
Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Allegation that agency's cost realism analysis was flawed because it
failed to consider differences in direct labor rates between the awardee's
proposed rates and the protester's higher rates is denied, where the record
shows that the agency reasonably relied on reviews and recommendations by
Defense Contract Audit Agency of the awardee's direct labor hourly rates,
and the agency reasonably determined that the projected cost of awardee's
performance presented no technical risk.

2. Allegation that awardee engaged in prohibited "bait and switch" tactic is
denied where there is no showing that the offeror knowingly or negligently
made any misrepresentation regarding employees that it did not expect to
furnish during contract performance.

3. Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated its proposal is
denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with
the criteria announced in the solicitation and the record reasonably
supports the evaluators' ratings.

DECISION

Advanced Communication Systems, Inc. (ACS) protests the award of contracts
to the team led by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. under request for proposals
(RFP) No. N00039-99-R-3205(Q), issued by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Command (SPAWAR), Department of the Navy, for support services for systems
located at fixed sites and mobile platforms. [1] ACS challenges the
selection decision on numerous grounds, primarily arguing that SPAWAR's cost
realism analysis of Booz-Allen's proposal was flawed and that SPAWAR
misevaluated ACS's technical proposal. [2]

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on April 16, 1999, contemplated the award of up to five cost
reimbursement, level-of-effort type contracts, with fixed and award fee
provisions, for a base period with up to four 1-year option periods. RFP
sect. B. The RFP estimated the level of effort at 1.2 million direct labor hours
per year. Id. sect. L-2(h). Offerors were required to submit a written proposal
in two separate volumes and make an oral presentation. Id. sect. L para. 2.4, at 53.
Volume I of the written proposal was to consist of (1) corporate experience
and past performance information; (2) personnel resumes; (3) small, small
disadvantaged, and woman-owned small business participation; and
(4) briefing charts for the oral presentation. The oral presentation was to
address the offeror's technical and management approach; sample tasks; and
small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business participation.
Volume II was the cost proposal. Id. The RFP required that the functional
areas of the statement of work (SOW) be accomplished by a team of
contractors; each competing team was to describe in its proposal how the SOW
would be assigned among the various team members. Offerors were also
instructed to include a matrix in their proposals cross-referencing each
numbered SOW paragraph to a specific team member. [3]

The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate each team's proposal in the
following two areas: (1) team competence/composition and (2) cost. Within
the first area, the RFP listed the following factors of equal importance:
technical and management approach; sample tasks; small business
participation; corporate experience and past performance; and personnel
resumes. Id. sect. M-1. The RFP stated that the technical evaluation factors
would be considered significantly more important than cost, and that the
agency would select the responsible team whose proposal conformed to the
RFP's requirements and represented the best value to the government. Id. The
RFP explained that after the agency selected a team based on the results of
the evaluation, the government would award a separate contract to each
member of the selected team; the SOWs of each of those separate contracts
would be consistent with how the team divided the work in its proposal. Id.
sect. L.4.0.

Three teams, including teams led by ACS and Booz-Allen, submitted proposals
by the time set on May 24 for receipt of initial proposals. The teams
provided their responses to the technical and management approach, sample
tasks, and small business participation factors in oral presentations to the
technical evaluation board (TEB) and the contracting officer (CO); the
agency also conducted a question and answer session with each team during
the oral presentations. Following the oral presentations, the TEB evaluated
proposals from each team by assigning adjectival ratings of either marginal,
average, good, or excellent under each evaluation factor, and an overall
proposal rating. A cost evaluation board (CEB) reviewed cost proposals and
developed a most probable cost (MPC) for each team based on Defense Contract
Audit Agency (DCAA) audits and recommendations and information obtained from
the Department of Labor. The following chart shows the results of the TEB's
and CEB's evaluations for the teams led by the protester and the awardee:

 Evaluation      Booz-Allen         ACS
 Factor

 Tech./Mgmt.     Good               Average
 Approach

 Sample Tasks   Excellent   Average

 Small           Excellent          Excellent
 Business
 Particip.

 Corp.           Good               Good
 Exp/Past
 Perf.

 Personnel       Excellent          Average
 Resumes

 Overall         Excellent          Good
 Rating

 MPC             $257,161,635       $326,929,388

Agency Report (AR), Oct. 12, 1999, at 5, 9.

Based on the results of the evaluation, the TEB recommended to a source
selection advisory council (SSAC) that the Booz-Allen team be selected for
award. AR, exh. 50, MM, PMTO Brief to SSAC, Aug. 25, 1999, at 40. The SSAC
reviewed the TEB's and CEB's findings, concurred with the TEB's conclusions,
and recommended to the source selection authority (SSA) that the Booz-Allen
team be selected for award. Id. at 1. The SSA reviewed the TEB's and CEB's
findings and agreed with the SSAC's recommendation. Id., NN, Source
Selection for the PMTO Contract, Aug. 27, 1999. On September 2, SPAWAR
awarded five separate contracts, one to each member of the Booz-Allen team.
AR, Oct 12, 1999, at 9. This protest followed a debriefing by the agency.

PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS

ACS contends that the awards were improper on numerous grounds, primarily
arguing that the agency's cost realism analysis of Booz-Allen's proposal was
flawed. [4] The protester specifically maintains that SPAWAR failed to
properly consider Booz-Allen's allegedly unreasonable low hourly rates for
certain labor categories, and that it failed to evaluate Booz-Allen's
compensation structure. [5] ACS further contends that Booz-Allen engaged in
a prohibited "bait-and-switch" tactic. ACS further argues that SPAWAR
misevaluated its team's technical proposal, especially under the corporate
experience and past performance, and personnel resumes evaluation factors.

DISCUSSION

Cost Realism Analysis

ACS contends that SPAWAR failed to perform an adequate cost realism analysis
of Booz-Allen's proposal. Specifically, ACS argues that SPAWAR failed to
consider an in-house estimate of $400 million developed for the procurement,
in light of Booz-Allen's lower direct hourly rates for certain labor
categories and total MPC. In this regard, ACS argues that the agency failed
to consider risks associated with the awardee's cost proposal because
Booz-Allen will be unable to hire and retain its employees at the proposed
rates. [6]

When an agency evaluates proposals for the award of a cost reimbursement
contract, an offeror's proposed estimated costs of contract performance and
proposed fees are not considered controlling since the offeror's estimated
costs may not provide valid indications of the final actual costs that the
government is required, within certain limits, to pay. See ManTech Envtl.
Tech., Inc., B-271002 et al., June 3, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 272 at 8.
Accordingly, a cost realism analysis must be performed when a
cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated. Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) 15.404-1(d)(2). A cost realism analysis is the process of
independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's
proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost
elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear
understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique
methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical
proposal. FAR sect. 15.404-1(d)(1). The requirement to conduct a cost realism
analysis of proposals for a cost-reimbursement contract does not require the
agency to conduct an in-depth cost analysis, see FAR sect. 15.404-1(c), nor the
verification of each and every item in the conduct of such analysis. Rather,
the evaluation of competing cost proposals requires the exercise of informed
judgment by the contracting agency involved, since it is in the best
position to assess the realism of cost and technical approaches and must
bear the difficulties or additional expenses resulting from a defective cost
realism analysis. Because the contracting agency is in the best position to
make this cost realism determination, our review is limited to determining
whether the agency's cost realism analysis is reasonably based and not
arbitrary. The Warner/Osborn/ G&T Joint Venture, B-256641.2, Aug. 23, 1994,
94-2 CPD para. 76 at 5. As explained in greater detail below, ACS's contention
that the agency's cost realism analysis was flawed is without merit.

The RFP instructed offerors how to prepare their cost proposals.
Specifically, section L-2 listed 33 labor categories and a corresponding
number of hours for each, ranging from 2,000 to 140,000 estimated hours per
year. RFP sect. L-2(h), at 47-48. Offerors were required to propose a direct
labor rate for each labor category at the number of hours specified for each
category. In other words, offerors could not propose different labor
categories or a different mix of hours from that stated in the RFP. The
agency explains that the purpose of this requirement was to facilitate a
cost comparison among the competing teams. AR at 6. All offerors, including
subcontractors, were also required to submit current, actual, unloaded
direct labor rates for all proposed key personnel. RFP sect. L-2(a).

Regarding the cost evaluation, section M-3 of the RFP provided as follows:

The cost proposal must demonstrate realism and reasonableness. As part of
the evaluation, the Government will assess the [MPC] of the Offeror's
proposed approach. The realism evaluation will assess the compatibility of
the overall proposed costs with the scope of effort to be performed. The
evaluation will determine if the effort described in the Offeror's proposal
as linked to the SOW is appropriately reflected in the Cost Proposal. The
Offeror's costs, including direct and indirect rates, will be reviewed and
DCAA will be contacted to determine if the rates proposed are current. In
the event that DCAA can provide no information with regard to the offeror's
current rates, the offeror may be requested to provide documentation that
will verify that the rates proposed equal the offeror's actual current rates
for personnel, fringe benefits, overhead, [general and administrative],
and/or any other applicable indirect rates. Proposed costs may be adjusted
for purposes of evaluation, based upon the results of the cost realism
evaluation. This evaluation may include consideration of actual salaries
being paid for similar work under other contracts, salaries being paid for
comparable civil service employees, DCAA audit information and evaluation of
compensation for professional employees. When this cost realism is
performed, the resulting estimate or MPC shall be used in the evaluation of
cost reasonableness. A cost proposal which is determined to be unrealistic,
will be assessed as having high performance risk and the offeror's overall
proposal may be downgraded.

The record shows that SPAWAR evaluated proposed costs for realism and
reasonableness, and that the agency's analysis involved several steps. A
cost realism analysis was performed on the costs proposed by each team
member, except for those subcontractors that submitted a cost proposal
valued at less than $500,000, or those subcontractors that submitted a
proposal based on a fixed price. AR, exh. 52, SS, Business Clearance
Memorandum, Aug. 30, 1999, at 10. Those proposals valued at less than
$500,000 were accepted as proposed, since the agency considered that any
adjustments would have been negligible in relation to the total estimated
cost for each team. [7]

The CEB contacted DCAA and requested a rate review for all of Booz-Allen's
team members, and for [DELETED] of the [DELETED] proposed subcontractors. If
DCAA did not have any current rate information available for a particular
firm, SPAWAR requested that an audit be conducted. Specifically, the agency
requested DCAA to verify the direct labor rates, direct labor escalation,
and indirect rates, and that the contractor had an adequate accounting
system to perform a cost-type contract. The CEB also requested that DCAA
verify the actual, current annual salaries for the proposed key personnel.

DCAA provided rate information for 16 of the 17 key personnel Booz-Allen
proposed. [8] AR, exh. 47, II. The CEB found that Booz-Allen submitted
actual labor rates for the 17 key personnel in accordance with the RFP's
instructions. DCAA verified that these direct rates were current as of April
1999, and took no exception to proposed indirect rates (fringe benefits,
overhead, general & administrative, and cost of money). AR exh. 47, II,
section 1, Fax from DCAA to SPAWAR, June 2, 1999.

The CEB further found that Booz-Allen proposed all key personnel at "100
percent participation" during the entire 5-year expected life of the PMTO
contracts using their actual salaries. AR, exh. 48, JJ, Tab 2.

The agency explains that in those instances for non-key personnel where DCAA
was unable to verify or make a recommendation regarding Booz-Allen's
proposed labor rates, the CEB compared the proposed labor rate to labor
rates published by BLS for the San Diego, California area for 1997. AR, Oct.
12, 1999, at 13 and exh. 52, SS, attach. 3. If the proposed labor rate was
equal to or greater than the minimum rate of the corresponding BLS wage
range, the CEB accepted the proposed labor rate for the purposes of cost
realism. On the other hand, if the proposed labor rate was less than the
minimum rate of the corresponding BLS wage range, the CEB adjusted the
proposed rate upwards to the minimum of the range. [9]

ACS's contention that the agency did not consider any performance risks
associated with Booz-Allen's cost proposal is without merit. After
evaluating Booz-Allen's proposal for cost realism, and taking into account
DCAA's recommendations, the CEB adjusted Booz-Allen's proposed costs upward
from $251,785,403 to $257,161,635, or approximately two percent (ACS's costs
were increased by less than one percent). The TEB considered the cost
realism adjustment to Booz-Allen's proposal to be immaterial and concluded
that it did not represent a performance risk. AR, exh. 52, SS, Business
Clearance Memorandum, Aug. 30, 1999, at 11. The CEB found that the
difference between Booz-Allen's proposed direct labor rates and the
DCAA-recommended rates would result in a change of less than one percent to
the total direct labor cost. Accordingly, the CEB concluded that for
purposes of the cost realism evaluation, Booz-Allen's direct labor rates
would be accepted as proposed. AR, exh. 48, JJ, Tab 2.

We find reasonable the methodology used by the agency to analyze
Booz-Allen's costs for realism. Such an analysis involves predictions of
future costs, and is thus by its nature imprecise. Accordingly, we think any
methodology employed by an agency need only provide some measure of
confidence that the costs proposed are realistic in view of other cost
information reasonably available to the agency from its own and outside
sources. See Radian, Inc., B-256313.2, B-256313.4, June 27, 1994, 94-2 CPD
para. 104 at 7. Here, the agency requested rate checks from DCAA, obtained
specific information for virtually all labor categories, and evaluated
proposals consistent with this information from DCAA. In this regard, an
agency reasonably may use rate checks from DCAA in connection with a cost
realism analysis. See Systems Research Corp., B-237008, Jan. 25, 1990, 90-1
CPD para. 106 at 5.

Further, the protester's suggestion that the agency failed to consider risks
associated with Booz-Allen's compensation structure because the protester
believes that Booz-Allen will be unable to hire and retain employees in the
San Diego area at the rates proposed, is similarly lacking in merit. As
already explained, SPAWAR obtained DCAA's verification that Booz-Allen's
proposed rates for key personnel were the current rates being paid by the
firm, its team members and proposed subcontractors, and the CEB concluded
that those rates were realistic. In the absence of evidence showing that the
rates Booz-Allen proposed were unrealistically low, the agency could
properly rely upon DCAA's advice in performing its cost realism analysis.
Systems Integration & Research, Inc.; Presearch Inc., B-279759.2,
B-279759.3, Feb. 16, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 54 at 12. With respect to non-key
personnel, as discussed above, the CEB compared the proposed costs with the
corresponding BLS rates and reasonably concluded that Booz-Allen's rates
were sufficiently high to hire and retain its personnel. Under these
circumstances, there is no basis to conclude that the agency failed to
consider risks associated with Booz-Allen's proposed rates.

ACS next complains that SPAWAR did not compare Booz-Allen's proposed costs
with the significantly higher government estimate of the work. SPAWAR
responds that the figure ACS refers to was not an "independent government
estimate" (IGE), as ACS contends, but a preliminary estimate based on
information obtained in the early stages of the PMTO procurement, developed
solely for planning and budgeting purposes, before SPAWAR had definitized
the number of labor hours, labor categories, or labor mix described in the
RFP. AR, Nov. 8, 1999, at 10-12 and exh. 56, Tab JJJ, Declaration of SPAWAR
Supervisory Procurement CO, Nov. 8, 1999, para.para. 9-10. In any event, even
assuming that the $400 million estimate could be considered SPAWAR's IGE,
there is no requirement that the agency compare an offeror's proposed costs
with the government estimate. See ELS, Inc., B-283236, B-283236.2, Oct. 25,
1999, 99-2 CPD para. ___ at 10; EDAW, Inc., B-272884, Nov. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD para.
213 at 5-6; Energy and Envtl. Servs. Corp., B-258139.4, May 15, 1995, 95-2
CPD para. 32 at 4. Rather, the agency may employ various types of analyses in
determining what, in the agency's view, it would realistically cost the
offeror to perform given the offeror's technical approach. Here, as
described above, the agency performed a detailed and reasonable cost realism
evaluation of Booz-Allen's costs. The fact that Booz-Allen's proposed costs
were less than SPAWAR's preliminary estimate does not establish that
Booz-Allen's costs were unrealistic. See, e.g., Department of State--Recon.,
B-243974.4, May 18, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 447 at 7; United Eng'rs & Constructors
Inc., Stearns-Roger Div., B-240691, B-240691.2, Dec. 14, 1990, 90-2 CPD
para. 490 at 6. In fact, the record shows that all of the offerors' costs,
including ACS's, were less than that estimate even after adjustments for
cost realism purposes. In sum, we find that ACS's arguments do not provide
us with any basis to question the agency's evaluation of Booz-Allen's cost
proposal.

"Bait and Switch"

ACS contends that Booz-Allen engaged in an impermissible "bait and switch"
tactic because it appeared that it intended to substitute key personnel
after award. In support of this allegation, ACS states that within a few
days after award, a "headhunter" representing Booz-Allen solicited ACS
employees at the protester's facilities. ACS states that it immediately
reported the incident to SPAWAR.

To establish an improper "bait and switch," a protester must show that the
firm either knowingly or negligently made a misrepresentation regarding
employees that it does not expect to furnish during contract performance,
that the misrepresentation was relied upon in the evaluation, and that this
had a material impact on the evaluation results. USATREX Int'l, Inc.,
B-275592, B-275592.2, March 6, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 99 at 9-10. There is no
evidence of a prohibited bait and switch here.

The agency states that it immediately conducted an investigation into ACS's
allegations and found no basis for concluding that Booz-Allen knowingly or
negligently misrepresented its intent to furnish the employees specified in
its proposal. During its investigation into this allegation, SPAWAR learned
that the alleged "headhunter" was neither a personnel recruiter, nor an
employee of Booz-Allen or of any other awardee of a PMTO prime contract.
SPAWAR reports that the individual was merely an engineer employed by a
subcontractor to one of the members of Booz-Allen's team. SPAWAR's
investigation further revealed that, while the individual in question did
contact several ACS employees concerning potential opportunities with her
employer, this was done on her own volition, without Booz-Allen's knowledge
or consent. The individual has provided a signed statement further affirming
that she has "never acted on behalf of [Booz-Allen] in a business
development or personnel recruiting capacity." AR, exh. 53, WW, Statement of
[DELETED], Sept. 10, 1999. Finally, as a result of SPAWAR's investigation
into ACS's allegation, Booz-Allen confirmed that all of Booz-Allen's
proposed key personnel are currently employed either by Booz-Allen or
subcontractors of its team members. AR, exh. 53, XX. In this regard, the
record contains signed statements in which all proposed key employee attest
to their continued availability and dedication to performing the contract.
Under these circumstances, there simply is no basis upon which to conclude
that Booz-Allen made any misrepresentations regarding employees that it did
not expect to furnish during contract performance. As such, we conclude that
the record does not support ACS's allegation that Booz-Allen engaged in an
improper "bait and switch" tactic in this procurement.

Second Supplemental Protest

In a second supplemental protest, ACS alleges that SPAWAR did not conduct or
document the required risk assessment of Booz-Allen's technical and
management approach. In this connection, ACS asserts that the PMTO
solicitation required SPAWAR to perform more than a risk assessment limited
to costs, arguing that SPAWAR did not follow the "multi-step" risk
assessments established by the solicitation associated with non-cost
factors. ACS Second Supplemental Protest, Oct. 25, 1999, at 4.

Where a protester files supplemental protest grounds, each new ground must
independently satisfy the timeliness requirement of our Bid Protest
Regulations, which do not contemplate the piecemeal presentation or
development of protest issues. QualMed, Inc., B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995,
95-1 CPD para. 94 at 12-13. This includes the identification of "examples" of
flaws in the evaluation generally alleged in the initial protest. Id. Such
new issues must be filed within 10 calendar days after the protester knew or
should have known the basis for its protest. Bid Protest Regulations, 4
C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2). The fact that an initial protest includes a general
allegation of impropriety provides no support for the timeliness of more
specific allegations. GE Gov't Servs., B-235101, Aug. 11, 1989, 89-2 CPD
para. 128 at 4.

ACS argues that its second supplemental protest, filed October 25, is timely
because it was filed within 10 days of when ACS learned of the inadequate
documentation surrounding SPAWAR's risk assessment. ACS Comments, Nov. 17,
1999, at 29-30. ACS further argues that its initial protest allegations
"clearly encompass SPAWAR's flawed risk assessment as required by the PMTO
solicitation." Id. at 30. The protester then points out that its initial
protest referenced various solicitation provisions that allegedly required
SPAWAR to conduct a multi-step risk assessment, thus arguing that its second
supplemental protest is "in addition to, and not in substitution for ACS's"
initial protest. Id. at 31. ACS asserts that its initial protest was broadly
worded to subsume an assessment of technical risk.

In its initial protest, ACS titled the first general ground of protest in
broad terms, "SPAWAR Relaxed The Solicitation's Risk Assessment Evaluation
Requirements for [Booz-Allen's] Benefit." ACS Protest, Sept. 13, 1999, at 9.
ACS then quoted several sections of the RFP which allegedly required the
agency to conduct risk assessments. For instance, ACS stated that "[u]nder
Corporate Experience and Past Performance, the Solicitation stated that the
‘performance risk assesses the probability of the Offeror successfully
accomplishing the proposed effort based on the Offeror's demonstrated past
and present performance.'" Id. Except for quoting from the RFP, however, ACS
did not articulate any specific challenge to SPAWAR's risk assessment of
Booz-Allen's technical proposal; nor did the firm provide any factual basis
in support of its general allegation. Instead, ACS quoted several other RFP
sections regarding cost risk assessments. ACS then stated that it proposed
[DELETED] id. at 10, and that Booz-Allen did not propose actual direct labor
rates in its proposal. These were the only specific allegations ACS made in
its initial protest regarding SPAWAR's risk assessment of Booz-Allen's
proposal. Because of the general nature of ACS's initial protest ground,
SPAWAR was unable to respond, except for addressing the cost realism
analysis, and did not address any risk assessment of Booz-Allen's technical
proposal.

ACS then supplemented its initial protest on October 25, arguing that SPAWAR
did not conduct the required risk assessment of Booz-Allen's technical and
management approach. ACS stated that it first learned of the grounds for
this protest from reviewing SPAWAR's document production of October 13, 21,
and 22, in response to its initial protest which, according to ACS, failed
to show "how SPAWAR analyzed the performance and other risks inherent in the
proposal submitted by Team [Booz-Allen]." Second Supplemental Protest,
Oct.25, 1999, at 4.

In our view, ACS's general allegation in its initial protest--that SPAWAR
relaxed the RFP's risk assessment evaluation for Booz-Allen's benefit,
without more--simply cannot reasonably be read to encompass a challenge to
the risk assessment of Booz-Allen's technical proposal. As already
explained, this portion of the protest consisted primarily of various
quotations from the RFP, mainly having to do with the assessment of risks
associated with costs, and assertions by ACS that it proposed [DELETED]
while Booz-Allen proposed hypothetical rates. In its comments on the agency
reports responding to ACS's initial and first supplemental protests, ACS
stated that "SPAWAR confirmed at ACS' debriefing that SPAWAR improperly
evaluated Team [Booz-Allen's] technical proposal." ACS Comments, Oct. 28,
1999, at 7. In support of its position that its second supplemental protest
is timely, ACS repeats this point in its comments on the agency report
responding to the second supplemental protest--that its "initial protest
attacked SPAWAR's acknowledged failure to conduct the required RFP
‘multi-step' risk assessment (based on what ACS was told by SPAWAR at
the debriefing regarding SPAWAR's failure to conduct the risk assessments
required by the solicitation)." ACS Comments, Nov. 17, 1999, at 29. The
protester's own statements thus show that it learned of the basis of its
second supplemental protest from the information it received at its
September 9, 1999 debriefing. ACS was required, therefore, to provide the
factual and legal basis for this allegation in its initial protest.

The fact that the title of the first general allegation in ACS's initial
protest was broadly worded to subsume an assessment of technical risk, as
ACS contends, is not sufficient. As already explained, ACS provided no
reference to Booz-Allen's technical proposal nor explained the factual basis
for its allegation in the initial protest. Including such a broadly stated
allegation in an initial protest does not permit the protester to later
present any specific, and otherwise untimely, argument having some relevance
to that initial general allegation. See Global Eng'g and Constr. Joint
Venture, B-275999.4, B-275999.5, Oct. 6, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 125 at 4; GE Gov't
Servs., supra at 5. This timeliness rule is clearly applicable where, as
here, the protester asserts that SPAWAR provided it with the information
that formed the basis for this protest ground at its debriefing. An offeror
who receives specific information in its debriefing, but ignores it when
drafting its initial protest, does so at its peril. Cornet, Inc., Datacomm
Management Servs., Inc., B-270330, B-270330.2, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 189
at 4. Thus, if ACS concluded from its debriefing that SPAWAR failed to
conduct the allegedly required "multi-step" risk assessment of Booz-Allen's
technical proposal, to be timely, ACS was required to provide the legal and
factual basis for this protest ground, at the latest, within 10 days of its
September 9 debriefing, or by September 19. Since ACS did not raise this
issue with any specificity until it filed its second supplemental protest on
October 25, 1999, 47 days after its debriefing, this issue is untimely and
will not be considered. 4 C.F.R. 21.2(a)(2); Ralph G. Moore & Assocs.,
B-270686, B-270686.2, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 118 at 2-3 n.2, recon.
denied, B-270686.3, June 5, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 268.

Evaluation of ACS's Technical Proposal

ACS contends that SPAWAR improperly assigned its proposal an overall rating
of "good," rather than "excellent," primarily due to the agency's
unreasonable evaluation under two factors--corporate experience and past
performance, and personnel resumes. ACS maintains that its proposal was
entitled to a rating of "excellent" under the corporate experience and past
performance factor because more than half of the references consulted rated
its team's past performance as [DELETED]. The protester also notes that ACS
itself held three of the previous service contracts that were consolidated
under the PMTO RFP. With respect to the evaluation of its proposal under the
personnel resumes factor, the protester argues that the resumes ACS included
in its proposal for key personnel exceeded SPAWAR's evaluation criteria,
thus its proposal should have received a rating of "excellent" under this
factor.

Our Office will not engage in an independent evaluation of proposals nor
make an independent determination of their relative merits. Litton Sys.,
Inc., B- 239123, Aug. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 114 at 9. Rather, we review the
agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent
with applicable statutes and regulations as well as with the terms of the
solicitation. Sensis Corp., B-265790.2, Jan. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 77 at 6. A
protester's mere disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render
the evaluation unreasonable. ESCO, Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD para.
450 at 7. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the evaluation
of ACS's proposal is reasonably supported.

Corporate Experience and Past Performance

The RFP required offerors to demonstrate their recent experience with work
of a nature, scope, magnitude, complexity, and difficulty similar to that
contemplated under the solicitation. RFP sect. L para. 4.4, at 61. The RFP explained
that the objective of the evaluation in this area was to determine the
degree to which the offeror has previously encountered the kinds of work,
uncertainties, challenges, and risks that they are likely to encounter under
the contemplated contract. Id. The performance evaluation was to determine
the government's level of confidence in the offeror's ability to perform
based on that offeror's work record. To assist the agency in the evaluation
of past performance, offerors were required to submit completed Past
Performance Data Sheets provided as attachments to the RFP to describe in
detail the past performance of up to three relevant contracts (ongoing or
completed within the past 3 years) referenced for each team member. Id.

The criteria the TEB applied for assigning proposal ratings of either
"excellent" or "good" in this area stated as follows:

EXCELLENT: Outstanding in all respects, consistently met and frequently
exceeded customer expectations. All team members have a wide-ranging breadth
and depth of experience in performing similar efforts for comparable
customers. The team has the highest probability of meeting the Government's
requirements.

GOOD: There are a few problem areas reported by current or former customers;
however, they were reported as corrected promptly and/or to the customer's
satisfaction. Many of the team members have performed similar efforts for
comparable customers. The team shows a high probability of meeting the
Government's requirements.

AR, exh. 52, LL, TEB Summary Report for PMTO Contract, Aug. 24, 1999, at 4.

The TEB assigned an adjectival rating of "good" to ACS's proposal under the
corporate experience and past performance evaluation factor. The TEB
evaluated all of the contracts provided by ACS, including its team members
and subcontractors, based upon their similarity to the five functional areas
contemplated by the RFP. Id. at 16. Based on its evaluation, the TEB found
that all of ACS's team members had at least [DELETED] experience within all
of the five functional areas identified in the RFP.

The responses the TEB obtained to the past performance questionnaires [10]
on ACS indicate that while they generally were positive, the TEB could
reasonably conclude that the team was not "[o]utstanding in all respects,"
and that it failed to "consistently [meet] and frequently exceeded customer
expectations," as required to earn an "excellent" rating. For instance, on
four of the six questions, respondents rated the team as "excellent" on
[DELETED] percent of the responses; of the two remaining items (quality and
business relations), [DELETED] percent of the responses were "excellent"
while [DELETED] percent were only "good." In view of the criteria described
above, the responses the agency obtained to the performance questionnaires
reasonably support the agency's evaluation in this area.

With respect to the similarity of the referenced contracts to the work
contemplated by the RFP, the TEB found that the contracts of the ACS team
were rated "highly similar" in all five areas; the composite of all
responses was [DELETED] percent "excellent" and [DELETED] percent "good."
When viewed as a whole, however, these ratings reflect the respondents'
assessment that [DELETED]. In addition, the agency explains that the three
contracts ACS referenced for itself did not require the scope of management
similar to its responsibility under the PMTO RFP. In this connection,
Booz-Allen points out that under the PMTO contract, ACS would be responsible
for managing [DELETED] other contractors, including small businesses which
comprise [DELETED] percent of the total contract value. Booz-Allen Comments,
Oct. 28, 1999, at 42. Booz-Allen also points out, and the record shows, that
the three contracts ACS identified as references for itself were valued at
considerably less than the value of the portion of the contract ACS assigned
itself under the PMTO RFP. Contrary to ACS's suggestion, performance on
three smaller contracts with significantly different management
responsibilities and lesser in scope, is not a definitive indicator of a
firm's corporate ability to perform one contract, larger in complexity,
scope and magnitude as that contemplated under the PMTO RFP. See, e.g.,
Chem-Services of Ind., Inc., B-253905, Oct. 28, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 262 at 4.
In sum, applying the evaluation criteria the evaluators used to rate this
area, we think that the TEB's rating of "good" is reasonably supported.

Personnel Resumes

Offerors were required to submit resumes for 17 key personnel comprising
five labor categories (program manager, deputy program manager, senior
project manager, project manager, and project administrator) and several
non-key personnel. RFP sect. L, para. 4.5, at 62. The RFP required that the resumes
specifically identify the education and pertinent experience of the proposed
personnel, demonstrating that they were capable of performing the area of
the SOW to which they were assigned. The SOW specifically stated that all
personnel must have experience with Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems,
or other experience in Navy systems acquisition and life cycle support. RFP
attach. 2, SOW, sect. 3.0.2. In addition, the SOW stated that the Program
Manager and Project Manager were to have a minimum of 15 years experience
with complex Navy C4ISR programs, at least 5 of which were in positions
having authority over the management, formulation, design, test, and
evaluation of complex C4ISR programs. Id. sect. 3.0.2.c. The SOW further stated
that the Program Manager and the Project Manager should have a thorough
knowledge of the Department of Defense (DOD)/Navy budgeting and acquisition
process. Id. The RFP stated that substituted experience should be recent and
clearly relevant to the work proposed, and that SPAWAR would not infer or
presume qualifications. RFP sect. L, at 53-54.

ACS contends that the TEB unreasonably evaluated its personnel resumes
because they exceeded the RFP's requirements. ACS also argues that the TEB
unreasonably downgraded its proposal in this area because the TEB improperly
equated the requirement for key personnel to have a thorough knowledge of
DOD acquisition with having actual experience.

The TEB assigned ACS's proposal an adjectival rating of "average" under the
personnel resumes factor. The TEB identified no strengths in the proposal in
this area and several weaknesses. For example, the TEB found that, contrary
to the RFP requirements, the resumes consistently indicated that ACS's
proposed personnel [DELETED]. Of particular concern to the TEB was the
[DELETED] demonstrated for the proposed program manager and the deputy
program manager for operations, both of which were identified as key
positions in the RFP. AR, exh. 50, LL, TEB Summary Report for PMTO Contract,
Aug. 24, 1999, at 17. The TEB further found that, with one exception,
notwithstanding the RFP's specific instructions, ACS's proposed senior
project managers' resumes [DELETED]. Id. In addition, one project manager's
resume indicated [DELETED] background, but little in the way of [DELETED].
The TEB found that another project manager's experience was not tied to
SPAWAR or to C4ISR, and that individual's resume also [DELETED]. Since the
SOW required that all personnel have experience in Navy systems acquisition,
ACS's argument that the TEB unreasonably evaluated these individuals'
resumes is without merit.

With respect to project administrator positions, which were also designated
as key personnel, RFP sect. L-2(e), the solicitation required that these
individuals have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or
university, and expressed a preference for degrees in computer science,
engineering, mathematics, or business administration. Alternatively, 4 years
of equivalent, recent experience in clearly relevant work could be
substituted. RFP attach. 2, SOW, sect. 3.0.2.e. Notwithstanding these specific
requirements, the TEB found that [DELETED]. Given the RFP's specific
instructions and requirements concerning key personnel, we have no basis to
object to the rating assigned ACS's proposal in this area.

Finally, the TEB found sufficient errors in the resumes in ACS's
proposal-specifically regarding dates of employment for key personnel-to
cause the evaluators concern as to the ability of the team to provide
quality deliverables. In this regard, offerors have the burden of submitting
adequately written proposals, and an offeror's disagreement with the
agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted
unreasonably. Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767, B-242767.2, June 5,
1991, 91-1 CPD para. 530 at 6. In sum, the record shows that ACS's proposal
earned ratings of "average" under three evaluation factors; and ratings of
"good" and "excellent" under the remaining two factors. Based on these
ratings, which are reasonably supported, the TEB's assigning an overall
rating of "good" to ACS's proposal is unobjectionable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The agency explains that the RFP consolidates seventeen support services
contracts, referring to this concept as the Program Management Team Omnibus
(PMTO) RFP. The PMTO RFP called for services in the following five
functional areas: project management, engineering services, system test and
evaluation, site/platform installation support, and integrated logistics
support. RFP attach. 2, para. 1.0.

2. In this decision, unless indicated otherwise, we use the names ACS and
Booz-Allen to refer to the teams headed by those companies.

3. With respect to costs, the RFP instructed offerors to submit one cost
proposal, which was to contain the rates proposed for the base year and each
option period for each team member and for all subcontractors. Id. sect. L.5.5,
at 64.

4. Analogizing to several decisions of our Office where we have stated that
a joint venture, not any individual firm, is the appropriate "interested
party" to protest the contracting agency's action, see, e.g., Comark Bldg.
Sys., Inc., B-259515, Apr. 10, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 188 at 2 n.1; H.J. Group
Ventures, Inc. B-246139, Feb. 19, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 203 at 1 n.1; Robert R.
Nathan Assocs., Inc., B-230707, June 28, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 615 at 1 n.1.,
SPAWAR and the intervenor requested that we dismiss the protest, arguing
that ACS is not an interested party because it did not file the protest on
behalf of "Team ACS." We are not persuaded by these arguments. There was no
requirement for team members to create a joint venture in order to compete,
and ACS is an actual offeror whose direct economic interest was affected by
not being awarded a PMTO contract. See 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a) (1999). In any
event, ACS has provided signed statements from each of its team members
agreeing that ACS should pursue the protest on their behalf. ACS Comments to
SPAWAR's Reply to ACS's Opposition to SPAWAR's Request for Dismissal, Oct.
5, 1999, attach. 2. Based on the agency's arguments, however, ACS
supplemented its protest, arguing that the agency misled it during the
procurement by not announcing that SPAWAR was seeking proposals from joint
ventures, and alleging that the teaming approach contemplated by the RFP was
improper. SPAWAR's analogy to joint venture cases in support of its request
for dismissal provides no basis to conclude that SPAWAR was seeking
proposals from joint ventures and there is no other evidence in the record
to support ACS's contention. To the extent that ACS challenges the RFP's
teaming approach, this issue, raised for the first time in its first
supplemental protest, filed on September 28, 1999, well after closing, is
untimely and will not be considered. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1).

5. In its initial protest, ACS also argued that the agency improperly
applied unstated evaluation criteria, and that SPAWAR should have conducted
discussions. Following receipt of the agency report, ACS withdrew these
allegations. ACS Comments, Oct. 28, 1999 at 5 n.2.

6. In its initial protest, ACS alleged that SPAWAR's cost realism analysis
of Booz-Allen's proposal was flawed because SPAWAR applied an improper
escalation rate, "mismapped" some of the labor categories, and failed to
take into account that Booz-Allen proposed uncompensated overtime. SPAWAR
responded to these allegations and ACS did not rebut the agency's response.
Accordingly, we consider these issues abandoned. Appalachian Council, Inc.,
B-256179, May 20, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 319 at 8 n.8.

7. The agency reports that due to the size of the procurement and the
teaming approach, the CEB performed a total of 131 separate cost realism
analyses. AR, Oct. 12, 1999, at 6.

8. For the one key person for whom DCAA could not provide rate information,
the CEB relied on Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
information to assess the realism of that individual's proposed labor rate.
The CEB's comparison shows that the proposed labor rate was higher than that
of a similar BLS labor rate. The CEB thus determined that individual's rate
was realistic and made no adjustments to Booz-Allen's proposal with respect
to this individual.

9. The CEB's use of the BLS data was a reasonable method of assessing the
realism of Booz-Allen's labor rates and it was consistent with the RFP's
stated evaluation scheme. By comparing the proposed labor rates of non-key
personnel to the BLS rates for each category, the agency concluded that
Booz-Allen's proposed rates were reasonable, realistic, and sufficiently
high to hire and retain the necessary personnel in the San Diego area. See,
e.g., ENMAX Corp., B-281965, May 12, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 102 at 10.

10. The questionnaire contained six items concerning the following areas:
quality, timeliness, experience and technical capability of personnel, cost
control, business relations, and overall customer satisfaction. For each
item, respondents could assign adjectival ratings of either marginal,
average, good, excellent or "N/A" for not applicable.