TITLE:  U-Tech Services
Corporation; K-Mar Industries, Inc., B-284183.3;
B-284183.4, October 6,
2000
BNUMBER:  B-284183.3;
B-284183.4
DATE:  October 6,
2000
**********************************************************************
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.
Decision

Matter of:   U-Tech Services Corporation; K-Mar Industries, Inc.

File:            B-284183.3; B-284183.4

Date:              October 6, 2000

Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for U-Tech Services
Corporation, and Marilyn H. David, Esq., for K-Mar Industries, Inc., the
protesters.
Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., and Jonathan M. Bailey, Esq., for Data Monitor
Systems, Inc., an intervenor.
Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protests that agency misevaluated proposals are denied where record shows
that agency's assessment of offerors' proposed staffing, past performance
and differing technical approaches was reasonable; protesters' disagreement
with evaluation results, without more, does not establish that evaluation
was unreasonable.

DECISION

U-Tech Services Corporation and K-Mar Industries, Inc. protest the award of
a contract to Data Monitor Systems, Inc. (DMS) under request for proposals
(RFP)
No. F34650-99-R-0044, issued by the Department of the Air Force for visual
information, information management, communications electronics maintenance
and technical order maintenance services at Tinker Air Force Base.  The
protesters assert that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an
unreasonable source selection decision.

We deny the protests.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation sought fixed-price offers to perform various skilled
services.  The solicitation did not require any particular staffing
configuration, but instead relied on offerors to propose staffing (outlined
in organizational charts) adequate to meet the RFP's performance work
statements and quality control plan requirements.

Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors:  mission capability,
past performance/proposal risk and price/cost.  Past performance/proposal
risk and mission capability were identified as equal in importance.  The
mission capability factor included four subfactors, listed in descending
order of importance:  manpower, program management, subcontractor and/or
teaming support capability, and quality control.  The technical factors
combined were more important than price/cost.  Award was to be made to the
firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the government the best overall
value considering cost/price and the technical evaluation factors.

The Air Force received several proposals, and after initially evaluating
them, engaging in discussions and soliciting initial and second final
proposal revisions (FPR), made award to DMS as the firm offering the best
overall value to the government.  Original Source Selection Decision
Document, Nov. 9, 1999.  After being advised of the award decision, U-Tech
and K-Mar filed protests in our Office (B-284183, B-284183.2) alleging
various improprieties in the evaluation and source selection.  Subsequently,
U-Tech, K-Mar and the Air Force entered into a settlement agreement, under
the terms of which the Air Force agreed to take corrective action, including
replacing the evaluators, contracting officer and source selection official;
the agency then would reevaluate the proposals without holding discussions
or permitting revisions, and make a new source selection decision. Agency
Report,
exh. 4, Settlement Agreement.  Based on the Air Force's proposed corrective
action, U-Tech and K-Mar withdrew their protests.

The agency put new evaluators in place and replaced the contracting officer
and source selection official with a single individual.  The agency
identified deficiencies in the proposals that necessitated opening limited
discussions and proposal revisions, notwithstanding the terms of the
settlement agreement.  These revised proposals--referred to by the agency as
?conformed? proposals--were scored by the new evaluators.[1]  Performance
Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) Report, Apr. 5, 2000, at 2.  The evaluation
results were as follows:[2]

EVALUATION AREA   DMS                 U-Tech             K-Mar
                  Rating/Risk         Rating/Risk        Rating/Risk

MISSION
CAPABILITY

Staffing          Green/Low           Green/Low          Green/Low

Program Mgmt.     Green/Low           Green/Low          Green/Moderate

Teaming Support   Green/Low           Green/Low          Green/Low

Quality Control   Green/Low           Green/Low          Green/Low

PAST PERF./ PERF. Satisfactory/       Satisfactory/      Very Good/
RISK              Confidence          Confidence         Significant
                                                         Confidence

PRICE             [deleted]           [deleted]          [deleted]

Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) at 3.  On the basis of these evaluation
results, the agency again made award to DMS as the offeror submitting the
best value proposal.  Source Selection Decision Document at 2-4.  These
protests followed.

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Both protesters allege that the Air Force breached the settlement agreement
entered into between the parties at the time of the earlier protests.  Among
the numerous arguments the protesters make in this regard, K-Mar contends
that consolidatng the functions of the contracting officer and source
selection authority into a single individual violated the agreement; U-Tech
argues that reopening discussions violated the agreement.  According to the
protesters, since they relied on the terms of the settlement agreement in
deciding to withdraw their initial protests, the agreement should be
enforced.

The agency's alleged violation of the settlement agreement is not a valid
basis of protest.  Our bid protest jurisdiction is limited to deciding
protests ?concerning an alleged violation of a procurement statute or
regulation.?  31 U.S.C. sect. 3552 (1994).  Thus, in cases such as this, we will
not consider an argument concerning compliance with a settlement agreement
except to the extent the protester asserts that an alleged breach resulted
in a prejudicial violation of procurement laws or regulations.  American
Marketing Assocs., Inc--Recon., B-274454.4, May 14, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 183 at
2-3.  Neither protester here has shown that the agency's alleged breach of
the settlement agreement resulted in a violation of procurement laws or
regulations and, further, there is no basis for finding that either
protester was prejudiced by any failure by the agency to abide by the
agreement terms.[3]  The protesters' reliance on the agreement in no way
precluded them from pursuing arguments concerning the reevaluation; we will
review the new protests to the extent the protesters assert that the
reevaluation--the only evaluation relevant here--was inconsistent with
procurement statutes, regulations or the terms of the solicitation, or was
otherwise improper.  See generally Dellew Corp., B-284227, Mar. 13, 2000,
2000 CPD para. 52 at 4.[4]

The protesters raise numerous arguments relating to the propriety of the
agency's evaluation of proposals.  We have considered all of the arguments
and find them to be without merit.  We address the most significant
contentions below.

THE K-MAR EVALUATION

K-Mar's Technical Proposal

K-Mar challenges several aspects of the agency's evaluation of its technical
proposal.
(K-Mar also challenges its past performance evaluation, which we discuss
separately below.)  K-Mar specifically asserts that the agency improperly
failed to recognize several strengths of its technical proposal.  We note
that K-Mar's assertions reflect its view that its proposal was superior--and
thus should not have been rated equal--to DMS's in several areas.  However,
as the agency correctly points out, it was required to evaluate the
proposals, not against each other, but against the evaluation criteria
included in the RFP.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.15.608.  Thus,
while
K-Mar may believe it offered features beyond those offered by DMS or beyond
the RFP requirements, those features would warrant a higher rating only to
the extent that they provided a material benefit to the agency as measured
against the evaluation factors.  The record supports the agency's position
that it reasonably concluded that K-Mar's proposal did not exceed the
requirements of the RFP in a way beneficial to the government, and that
K-Mar was not entitled to a higher rating.  We discuss two illustrative
examples below.

Offerors were required to provide a list of proposed equipment they would
use in support of the solicitation's visual information services
requirement.  RFP at 44.  While the RFP advised that the agency had on-hand
a combination of digital and analog equipment sufficient to perform the
requirements of the contract, it also provided that offerors were free to
propose using their own analog or digital equipment. RFP amend. No. 4,
Question No. 40, Offerors' Questions and Answers.  In response, K-Mar
proposed to use what it describes as ?state-of-the-art? digital equipment
that it intended to purchase for performance.  K-Mar contends that its
proposed use of this digital equipment was a strength that the agency
improperly failed to recognize in the evaluation.

The agency explains that it did not give K-Mar evaluation credit for the
additional digital equipment because using that equipment instead of the
agency's on-hand equipment would not provide any benefit to the agency.  We
find the agency's position reasonable and consistent with the RFP.  The RFP
expressly provided that it was not relevant whether the offerors proposed to
use digital versus analog equipment and that the agency's concern was solely
that the services called for under the RFP be provided.  RFP amend. No. 4,
Question No. 59, Offerors' Questions and Answers.  While K-Mar disagrees
with the agency's position, it has directed our attention to nothing in its
proposal--and we find nothing--demonstrating that use of the proposed
equipment would materially enhance its ability to meet the agency's
requirements.  We conclude that the evaluation in this area was
reasonable.[5]

Turning to a second example, the RFP called for the contractor to operate
the base postal service center, and provided that the contractor may close
the center from 10-11 a.m. to allow the contractor's employees to take a
lunch break.  K-Mar contends that it was not given evaluation credit for its
proposal to keep the postal center open during this time.  The agency
responds that this was not viewed as an enhancement that warranted a higher
proposal rating because, as a practical matter, most users of the facility
would be using it during their own lunch hour, which typically does not
commence until 11:30 a.m.  Again, while K-Mar disagrees with the agency's
position, we find the Air Force's explanation reasonable.  The evaluation in
this area, therefore, also was unobjectionable.

K-Mar's Past Performance Rating

K-Mar contends that the Air Force misevaluated its past performance.  The
focus of
K-Mar's argument is the agency's assignment of ?relevancy? ratings under the
past performance factor.  The RFP provided that the agency would assign
ratings of either ?very relevant,? ?relevant,? ?semi-relevant? or ?not
relevant? to the firms' past performance based on the relevance of the past
and present contracts reviewed.  RFP at 46-47.  The record shows that, in
evaluating the relevance of past and present contracts, the agency divided
the contracts among the three broad performance areas of the contract,
communications electronics maintenance (CEM), visual information services
(VI) and information management (IM), assigning a relevance rating for each
of the three areas before arriving at the offerors' overall past performance
ratings.  PRAG Report, Apr. 5, 2000, at 3, and attach. 1.  As noted above,
the agency assigned K-Mar an overall past performance/performance risk
adjectival rating of very good/significant confidence.  The PRAG report
specifically states that the only reason K-Mar did not receive an overall
rating of exceptional/high confidence in this area was its limited amount of
past performance experience in the CEM area.  Id. at 5.  The PRAG assigned
K-Mar a rating of ?relevant? in the CEM area.  Id. at attach. 1.

K-Mar asserts that the manner in which the agency assigned relevance ratings
was inconsistent with the terms of the RFP, which provided that those
ratings would be assigned at the factor level, RFP at 46, rather than for
each of the performance areas under the contract.  The agency's actions were
unobjectionable.  Offerors were clearly advised by the RFP that the
relevance of their past performance would be assessed, and we see nothing
unreasonable in the agency's approach of keying this assessment to each of
the performance areas under the contract.  Although K-Mar is correct that
the RFP did provide that relevance would be determined at the factor level,
we fail to see the significance of this discrepancy.  More specifically, we
see no possible competitive prejudice to K-Mar--and K-Mar identifies
none--that could have resulted from the approach the agency actually
followed.  We will not sustain a protest absent a showing of such
prejudice.  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3;
see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581
(Fed. Cir. 1996).

K-Mar also contends that it was improperly assigned a rating of only
?relevant? in the CEM area, contending that it should have received a rating
of ?very relevant.?  In support of its position, K-Mar directs our attention
to DMS's past performance, which was rated ?very relevant? in the CEM area;
K-Mar contends that its CEM experience is at least equivalent to DMS's, and
perhaps more relevant.

This argument is without merit.  Again, the proposals had to be rated
against the RFP's evaluation provisions, not against each other.  The RFP
provided that a ?very relevant? rating would be assigned where the
present/past contracts assessed involved a magnitude of effort and
complexity essentially the same as that required under the current
solicitation.  RFP at 46.  In contrast, ?relevant? ratings were to be
assigned where the contracts involved a lesser magnitude of effort and
complexity, including most of what the current solicitation requires.  Id.
The RFP further provided that CEM responsibilities included maintenance of a
large array of
agency-owned electronic communications equipment comprised of the facility's
intrusion detection system, public address system, cryptological equipment,
television equipment and ground radios.  RFP Technical Exh. 2.

The agency reviewed four previous contracts in arriving at its [deleted]
rating for
K-Mar.  Of those four, [deleted].  Under these circumstances, we conclude
that K-Mar reasonably was assigned a [deleted] rating in the CEM area.[6]

Given our conclusion, K-Mar's argument that its relevance rating in the CEM
area should have been higher than DMS's is essentially an argument that
DMS's rating was too high.  Even if we agreed with K-Mar that this was the
case, however, it would have no effect on K-Mar's chances of receiving the
award.  This is because, as discussed in more detail below, the record shows
that U-Tech, not K-Mar, would be in line for award if we concluded that the
award to DMS was improper.  This being the case, K-Mar was not competitively
prejudiced by any misevaluation of the relevance of DMS's past performance,
and is not an interested party eligible to challenge DMS's evaluation.[7]

In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the evaluation of K-Mar's
proposal was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme.

K-Mar also takes issue with numerous aspects of the evaluation of DMS's
proposal.  However, we conclude that K-Mar is not an interested party to
pursue these allegations because the record shows that U-Tech, not K-Mar, is
next in line for award after DMS, and K-Mar does not challenge U-Tech's
evaluation.

The agency compared both K-Mar's and U-Tech's proposals to DMS's in making
its source selection.  The agency favored DMS's proposal over K-Mar's
technically higher-rated proposal because of DMS's significantly lower
price.  Source Selection Decision Document at 3.  It appears from the record
that the agency gave little weight to K-Mar's single higher rating--it
received a rating one level higher under the past performance/performance
risk factor--in opting to take advantage of DMS's significant cost
advantage.  Rather, the source selection decision document focused on the
fact that ?even though [price is] not as important as the [other two
evaluation criteria], as stated in section M of the solicitation, it 'will
still contribute substantially to the best value award decision.'?  Source
Selection Decision Document at 3 (emphasis in original).  The agency favored
DMS's proposal over U-Tech's for the obvious reason that the proposals were
considered technically equivalent, and DMS's offered what the source
selection authority termed ?significant? cost savings over U-Tech's.  Id.
While the agency did not directly compare U-Tech's and K-Mar's proposals,
had it done so, it appears there would be no change in the agency's
preference for a substantial cost savings.  U-Tech's technical proposal was
equivalent to DMS's, and its price, while higher than DMS's, still would
provide the agency with savings of more than $1 million compared to K-Mar's
price.  Accordingly, we find that K-Mar lacks the direct economic interest
necessary to pursue its assertions relating to the evaluation of DMS's
proposal, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a) (2000), and dismiss those aspects of its
protest.  See U.S. Constructors, Inc.,
B-282776, July 21, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 14 at 4-5.[8]

THE U-TECH PROTEST

Multiple Rounds of Discussions

U-Tech asserts that the agency acted improperly during the reevaluation by
reopening negotiations with DMS to discuss issues which U-Tech maintains had
already been addressed during earlier rounds of discussions; the protester
maintains, essentially, that it was improper to give DMS another ?bite at
the apple.?  This argument is without merit.  Under the current version of
the FAR, there is nothing improper in an agency's conducting multiple rounds
of discussions pertaining to an issue that remains unresolved in a
proposal.  Dynacs Eng. Co., Inc., B-284234 et al., Mar. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD para.
50 at 4.

Alleged Disparity in Staffing Approaches

U-Tech takes issue with several aspects of the agency's evaluation of its
and DMS's proposed staffing.  U-Tech maintains that it proposed superior
staffing in certain areas, and that some of DMS's staff were inadequately
qualified to perform the functions for which they were designated.  The
agency responds that the firms' proposed staffing levels, while they
differed, were broadly comparable and met the requirements of the
solicitation; it claims it had no basis to find that either firm's proposed
staffing merited a higher rating.

We have reviewed all of U-Tech's allegations in this respect and find no
basis to object to the evaluation in this area.  The record shows that
[deleted]; nothing in the record establishes, however, that one approach was
clearly superior to the other.  We discuss two of U-Tech's assertions for
illustrative purposes.

U-Tech contends that, [deleted].  U-Tech contrasts its approach with DMS's,
which,
U-Tech asserts, did not propose [deleted].  According to the protester, this
will result in [deleted], with the result that the agency's requirements
ultimately will go unmet.  In a related contention, U-Tech asserts that,
overall, it offered [deleted].

The record supports the agency's position that U-Tech and DMS simply
differed with respect to their proposed [deleted], with both firms offering
to cross-utilize staff across substantive areas.  U-Tech proposed to meet
the entire [deleted].  Agency Report, exh. S7, Agency Manning Spreadsheets.
In contrast, DMS proposed [deleted].  Id.  Overall, aside from specialized
personnel, the record supports the view that the firms' proposed staffing
was [deleted], with U-Tech offering [deleted].  Id.  We find nothing
inherently unreasonable in the agency's conclusions that both offerors met
the RFP requirements without offering anything in their proposed approach
that merited a superior rating.  Additionally, we conclude that there is
nothing in the protester's proposed staffing approach-[deleted]--to
necessarily indicate that its performance of the requirement would be
superior to DMS's performance using [deleted].

U-Tech's Alleged Proposal Strengths

U-Tech contends that it offered several strengths in its technical approach
that should have resulted in its receiving higher technical ratings.  First,
U-Tech contends that it should have received evaluation credit [deleted].
U-Tech alleges that the agency's understanding of this enhancement is
reflected in the fact that the agency asked a discussion question about it.

The agency responds that it perceived no material benefit from U-Tech's
proposed [deleted] because it does not represent a meaningful enhancement
beyond [deleted].  The agency further asserts that, if anything, the use of
two largely overlapping [deleted].

The agency's position is reasonable.  During the reevaluation, the agency
did question U-Tech about [deleted].  Evaluation Notice D3.  This question
apparently was prompted by the fact that, from a reading of U-Tech's
proposal, it appeared that the firm intended to [deleted].  Id.; U-Tech
Proposal, Vol. 2, at 33-34.  In response to the question, U-Tech revised its
proposal, stating that [deleted].  U-Tech Response to Evaluation Notice No.
D3.  An examination of the solicitation, however, shows that the contractor
was required to [deleted].  RFP Performance Work Statement,
sect. 5.3.2.5.1.  Thus, rather than offering an enhancement beyond the agency's
requirements that might be beneficial to the Air Force, the record shows
that, in fact, [deleted] was simply being offered to meet a different RFP
requirement; U-Tech thus offered nothing that could be considered an
enhancement to [deleted].  Accordingly, the evaluation in this area was
unobjectionable.

U-Tech also takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its and DMS's
quality control plans.  According to the protester, it offered [deleted].
U-Tech asserts that this higher ratio entitled it to a higher rating under
the Quality Control subfactor (under the Mission Capability factor).

The agency responds that the ratio of quality control personnel to
production personnel was only one of numerous considerations involved in
evaluating this aspect of the proposals.  The Air Force takes the position
that both U-Tech and DMS offered quality control plans that adequately
addressed the RFP requirements, with neither offering identifiable strengths
that would merit a higher rating.  According to the agency, U-Tech's
argument ignores the qualitative differences in the offerors' approaches,
including the method and frequency of quality inspections, and the feedback
mechanisms used by the offerors to identify and resolve problems.

We have no basis to object to the evaluation in this area.  While the
protester is correct that it offered a higher ratio of quality control
personnel as compared to DMS, there is nothing in the record to show that,
standing alone, these additional personnel will necessarily result in an
enhanced level of performance.  U-Tech has offered no argument or evidence
to rebut the agency's explanation that it was not only the number of quality
control personnel, but also the proposed methodology and approach to meeting
the RFP requirements that formed the basis for the agency's evaluation
conclusions.  We again point out that the question for purposes of
determining the appropriate ratings is not how these two approaches compare
to one another but, rather, whether any approach included an enhancement
beyond the requirements of the RFP that would provide the agency with some
material benefit.  U-Tech has not demonstrated that its proposed approach
exceeded the solicitation requirements in a way beneficial to the Air Force,
and in the absence of such a showing, we find the evaluation in this area
reasonable.

Past Performance

U-Tech takes issue with the evaluation of both its and DMS's past
performance for the VI portion of the requirement.  Regarding its own
evaluation, the PRAG found that, while U-Tech had experience operating the
Tinker Air Force Base multimedia support center (as the incumbent under a
prior contract), U-Tech did not have any relevant past performance in the
areas of [deleted].  U-Tech asserts that the agency failed to consider the
experience of [deleted].

This argument is without merit.  While the proposed [deleted] experience was
discussed in U-Tech's proposal, an examination of that discussion shows that
his experience was being offered for the specific purpose of demonstrating
U-Tech's experience in the area of [deleted].  In this regard, the proposal
states:  ?We have provided [this individual's] resume as his personal
experience is brought to bear in determining U-Tech's [deleted].?  U-Tech
Proposal, Vol. 3, at 11. There are numerous other aspects of the VI
requirement that are unrelated to [deleted], including [deleted].  RFP,
Performance Work Statement, 72nd Communications Squadron Services, at
19-23.  Under these circumstances, given U-Tech's own lack of [deleted], the
agency reasonably concluded that U-Tech's experience was limited and did not
include extensive prior performance in the areas of [deleted].

U-Tech also complains that the agency improperly downgraded its past
performance rating for [deleted], since those problems were remote in time,
have been completely corrected and are not indicative of any potential
future performance risk.  The record shows that the problem experienced by
U-Tech consisted of [deleted].  We simply see no reason why the agency could
not take these [deleted] into consideration in U-Tech's past performance
evaluation; they clearly relate to U-Tech's past performance, and the
problems did not occur so far in the past that the agency was required to
ignore them (U-Tech's performance difficulties appear to have occurred
during the [deleted] timeframe, PRAG Report at 12).  We note, moreover, that
U-Tech's performance even after resolution of these problems was described
as only ?[deleted].?  PRAG Report at 12.[9]

As for DMS's evaluation, U-Tech challenges DMS's satisfactory/confidence
rating under the past performance/performance risk factor.  According to the
protester, DMS's major subcontractor, WP Photographic Services (offered to
perform the VI portion of the requirement), has had recent, severe
performance problems on its contracts that warranted a lower rating.

This argument is without merit.  The agency was fully aware of WP's
performance problems, and considered them in arriving at DMS's rating.  In
this regard, the PRAG report states:

WP has some very positive past performance but also has some more recent
negative past performance relating to financial problems.  The financial
problems affected contract performance and resulted in [contract deficiency
reports] and monetary deductions from the contract.  Negative findings were
addressed [during discussions].  DMS's response to [these discussions] did
not alleviate the concerns of this PRAG team.  DMS would warrant a
Significant Confidence rating; however, based on the financial problems of
WP, and since Visual Information is a sizable portion of this entire effort,
the PRAG determined that a Satisfactory/Confidence rating was a more
appropriate reflection of the performance risk.

PRAG Report at 7.  The record thus shows that DMS's rating reflects WP's
past problems, and was lower than the rating it would have received had it
not been for those problems.  While U-Tech generally disagrees with the
agency's evaluation conclusion based on its reading of the deficiency
reports relating to WP included in the record (suggesting that WP's
difficulties are more pervasive), such disagreement is inadequate to show
that the evaluation was unreasonable.

The protests are denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
Acting General Counsel

-------------------------

[1] For the subfactors listed under the mission capability factor, the
agency assigned adjectival/color ratings of either blue/exceptional,
green/acceptable, yellow/marginal or red/unacceptable, and risk ratings of
either high, moderate or low.  In the area of past performance/performance
risk, single adjectival ratings of either exceptional/high confidence, very
good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown,
marginal/little confidence or unsatisfactory/no confidence were assigned.
[2] We show the evaluation results for only the protesters and the awardee.
Although there were two other offerors, the evaluation results for those
firms are irrelevant to the protests.
[3] While the protesters assert that they withdrew their original protests
in reliance on the agreement, this action on their part actually had no
practical effect.  In this regard, the agency's agreement to reevaluate the
proposals had the effect of nullifying the original evaluation and source
selection, and thus rendered the protesters' arguments concerning the
original evaluation academic; we would have dismissed the protests on this
basis had the protesters not withdrawn them.
[4] Both protesters also allege that the agency was biased in its
reevaluation of proposals and, in support of this allegation, have tendered
a document--referred to as the ?watcher? e:mail--that allegedly was drafted
by one of the original evaluators and purports to describe irregularities in
the original evaluation.  The protesters maintain that this document
provides reason to believe that the reevaluation was similarly biased.  This
argument is without merit.  The document is of dubious origin--there is no
way to tell who sent it to the protesters or, for that matter, whether it
has any degree of authenticity--and, in any case, since it describes alleged
irregularities in the original evaluation, has no bearing on the propriety
of the current evaluation performed by an entirely new group of evaluators.

[5] U-Tech raises essentially the same argument in its protest.  For the
reasons discussed, we also find no merit to this aspect of its protest.
[6] We note that K-Mar also challenges the [deleted] proposal risk rating it
received under the program management subfactor.  We need not consider this
aspect of its protest because the record shows that this rating did not have
a negative effect on   K-Mar's evaluation.  In this regard, the source
selection decision document states     ?[K-Mar's] Mission Capability is
considered comparable to [DMS's, which was assigned a ?low? proposal risk
rating] notwithstanding the [deleted] rating assigned to [K-Mar's] Program
Management subfactor.?  Source Selection Decision Document at 3.  Thus, the
rating, even if incorrect, did not prejudice K-Mar.
[7] In contrast, U-Tech (whose rating K-Mar does not challenge) was assigned
a ?very relevant? rating on the basis that its prior contracts concerned the
precise requirement being solicited; U-Tech was the incumbent contractor
for, among other things, the CEM requirements of the current solicitation.
U-Tech also referenced several additional contracts, each of which involved,
in one manner or another, the maintenance of communications equipment.  PRAG
Report at 12-13.

[8] K-Mar casts some of its arguments in terms of alleged disparate
treatment  in the evaluation of its proposal versus DMS's.  However, since
we conclude that K-Mar's proposal was properly evaluated, these arguments
essentially amount to a challenge to the agency's evaluation of DMS's
proposal.
[9] The PRAG report also appears to indicate that U-Tech experienced
[deleted]  PRAG Report at 12.