TITLE:  WinStar Federal Services, B-284617; B-284617.2; B-284617.3, May 17, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284617; B-284617.2; B-284617.3
DATE:  May 17, 2000
**********************************************************************
WinStar Federal Services, B-284617; B-284617.2; B-284617.3, May 17, 2000

Decision

Matter of: WinStar Federal Services

File: B-284617; B-284617.2; B-284617.3

Date: May 17, 2000

Christopher R. Yukins, Esq., Frank K. Peterson, Esq., and David S. Black,
Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester.

Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Michael J. Farley, Esq., and
Lisanne S. Cottington, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for Bell Atlantic Federal
Integrated Solutions, Inc., an intervenor.

Michelle Harrell, Esq., Michael Ettner, Esq., and Lydia Kupersmith, Esq.,
General Services Administration, for the agency.

Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul E. Jordan, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Proposal for telecommunication services at prices below those in existing
tariffs was not improper where solicitation provided that awardee was
required to file necessary revisions to existing tariffs within a specified
period of time after award, and awardee's final proposal committed to submit
all required tariff filings.

2. In fixed-price contract to provide telecommunication services in the
National Capital Region where solicitation stated that agency would perform
price analysis to ensure that prices were fair, reasonable and realistic,
agency's price analysis was reasonable where it considered the overall
balance of proposed prices, the recent downward price trends in the
telecommunications industry, and the prices recently obtained under similar
contracts.

3. Discussions were adequate where agency led protester into the areas of
its price proposal that warranted amplification or clarification; agency was
not obligated to afford protester all-encompassing discussions regarding
each item of its proposal that could be improved.

4. Where agency reasonably determined, based on a comprehensive review of
protester's and awardee's evaluated strengths and weaknesses, that,
notwithstanding protester's slightly higher rating, the proposals were
essentially equal, agency properly considered evaluated price as the basis
for making its best value determination.

DECISION

WinStar Federal Services protests the General Services Administration's
(GSA) award of a contract to Bell Atlantic Federal Integrated Solutions,
Inc. (BAFIS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. WTT–98-PW-N-0001
for local telecommunication services to federal users in the National
Capital Region. WinStar protests that the terms of BAFIS's proposal were
inconsistent with the terms of existing tariffs; that the agency failed to
perform an adequate price realism analysis; that the agency failed to
conduct meaningful discussions; and that the agency failed to perform a
cost/technical tradeoff.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On August 7, 1998, the agency issued the solicitation for this procurement,
which contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
fixed-price contract for a 4-year base period and four 1-year option
periods. The contract is a follow-on to a contract, generally referred to as
the Washington Interagency Telecommunications System (WITS) contract, that
was awarded to Bell Atlantic (then the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company) in 1989. The current procurement, referred to as WITS2001, expands
the scope of the prior contract, requiring the contractor to provide
authorized users with all services that are commercially available in the
National Capital Region. [1]

Section C of the solicitation divided the contract requirements into eight
categories of services and features: switched voice service (SVS); circuit
switched data service (CSDS); dedicated transmission service (DTS);
teleconferencing service (TS); frame relay service (FRS); asynchronous
transfer mode service (ATMS); switched multi-megabit service (SMDS); and
Internet access service (IAS). The solicitation also expressed the agency's
intent to move from government ownership of facilities and equipment, to a
pure, contractor-provided service-based arrangement. Agency Report, Mar. 9,
2000 at 6 (Agency Report); RFP sect.sect. C, L, M. [2]

In light of the agency's stated intent to move away from its current
ownership of facilities and equipment, the RFP required offers to provide
services via three types of access arrangements: type A access (access
provided by government-owned serving offices and equipment via
government-owned local access transmission facilities); type A alternate
access (access provided by government-owned serving offices and equipment
via contractor-provided local access circuits); and type B access (access
provided by contractor-owned or leased serving offices, equipment and local
access transmission facilities). RFP sect. C.1.1 at C-5, C-6.

Section L.27 of the RFP directed offerors to submit technical, management,
business, and price proposals. With regard to price proposals, the RFP
directed offerors to indicate whether the WITS2001 equipment and services
would be offered under an existing tariff, under an anticipated tariff
filing, or under no tariff. RFP sect. L.27.4.3.2. Section M of the RFP provided
that award would be made on a best-value basis in which "[n]on-price factors
will be approximately equal to the price factor in the award decision." RFP
sect. M.1.1. Non-price factors were weighted as follows: technical (40 percent),
[3] management [4] (35 percent), past performance [5] (15 percent), and
experience [6] (10 percent), and offerors were advised that non-price
proposals would be rated on an adjectival basis using "excellent," "highly
satisfactory," "acceptable," "marginal," and "unsatisfactory." RFP, Table
M-1.

The RFP required offerors to submit proposed prices for over 2,500 contract
line item numbers (CLINs). Each CLIN has as many as five associated cost
elements, [7] and offerors were permitted to divide the WITS2001 service
area into as many as 20 different geographical groups, and to bid a unique
price for each group. Extending the number of CLINs by elements, by groups,
and over 8 years of the contract resulted in over 100,000 individual prices
that each offeror could propose. [8] To manage this large amount of price
data, the agency developed an automated bid model which it provided to each
of the offerors. The model became the repository for each offeror's proposed
prices and integrated the prices proposed with the government's estimate of
traffic so that, as each offeror entered or revised its unit prices, the
bottom-line prices were immediately available. Offerors were advised that
proposed prices would be evaluated on the basis of weighted total discounted
cost, [9] as well as on a comparison to government established estimates.
RFP sect. M.6.3.

Initial proposals were submitted by WinStar and BAFIS by the February 24,
1999 due date. Thereafter, the agency engaged in discussions with both
offerors, which consisted of multiple questions, responses and revisions to
the offerors' respective

proposals. Both offerors submitted non-price proposals by October 20.
Thereafter, the agency completed its non-price proposal evaluation with the
following results:

 Factor                  BAFIS                WinStar

 Technical (40%)         Highly               Highly
                         Satisfactory         Satisfactory

 Management (35%)        Highly               Highly
                         Satisfactory         Satisfactory

 Past Performance 15%)   Acceptable           Highly
                                              Satisfactory

 Experience (10%)        Highly               Acceptable
                         Satisfactory

Agency Report at 28.

Based on the agency's evaluation of all factors, subfactors and subfactor
components, the agency concluded that WinStar's and BAFIS's non-price
proposals were essentially equal.

Both offerors submitted final price proposals by October 29. Both offerors'
prices were substantially below the agency's estimate of approximately $1.3
billion. BAFIS's final evaluated price was $500,712,392; WinStar's final
evaluated price was [deleted]. Agency Report at 30. Based on BAFIS's more
than [deleted] price advantage, a contract was awarded to BAFIS on January
24, 2000. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Existing Tariffs

WinStar first protests that BAFIS's proposal contained prices and terms that
varied from those in Bell Atlantic's existing tariffs. [10] Referring to the
"filed rate

doctrine," [11] WinStar argues that BAFIS's proposal of prices below those
in the existing Bell Atlantic tariffs was "unlawful." Protest, Feb. 8, 2000,
at 18 (Protest); First Supplemental Protest, Mar. 6, 2000, at 4 (First Supp.
Protest). WinStar concludes that "[BAFIS] is prohibited by law from offering
services that are to be provided under tariff at rates and under terms and
conditions that vary from the tariff." Protester's Comments, Mar. 20, 2000,
at 8 (Protester's Comments).

Notwithstanding WinStar's apparently broad assertion regarding the
limitations on what BAFIS could lawfully propose, WinStar expressly
acknowledges that BAFIS was not precluded from offering prices and terms
other than those published in existing tariffs--provided BAFIS's proposal
committed to properly file revisions to such tariffs. Specifically, WinStar
clarifies its protest as follows:

This is not to say that Bell Atlantic could not offer services such as DTS,
FRS, ATMS, and SMDS [for which there were existing tariffs] to customers
except at the rates and under the terms and conditions of its then published
tariffs. New, specially tailored tariffs could be filed to serve customers
with unique requirements. This, however is not what BAFIS proposed to do.
Rather, it proposed to serve the WITS2001 customers using existing tariffs.

Protester's Comments, at 8 n.3.

In short, Winstar's protest regarding the effect of existing tariffs
challenges the award on the basis that BAFIS's proposal should have been
interpreted as having offered to provide certain regulated services to
WITS2001 customers without filing revisions to existing tariffs.

The agency responds that, contrary to WinStar's assertion, BAFIS did,
indeed, commit to file necessary revisions to existing tariffs. Regarding
the proper interpretation of BAFIS's proposal, the agency first references
RFP sect. H.11, which not only contemplated, but mandated, that offerors agree
to revise existing tariffs within a specified period after contract award in
order to conform existing tariffs to the contract. Specifically, that
section of the RFP stated:

H.11 Tariff Filing Requirements

1. The contractor shall make all tariff filings that are required by law or
regulation and that are necessary for contract performance. . . . The
contractor shall certify that all terms, conditions, and prices in the
tariff are as stated in the contract and that the tariff contains nothing
inconsistent with the contract. The initial tariff filing(s) and any
subsequent tariff revision filings shall contain all price and
price-affecting components of the contract (e.g., Section B price schedules;
H.6) to the extent required by law and regulation.

2. The contractor shall make the initial filing required to implement the
contract within 30 calendar days after the date of contract award.

Both BAFIS and the agency maintain that BAFIS's final revised proposal
clearly committed BAFIS--consistent with the mandate of RFP sect. H.11--to
submit all necessary revisions to conform existing Bell Atlantic tariffs to
the terms of the contract. [12]

In pursuing this portion of the protest, WinStar refers to specific
communications between BAFIS and the agency that took place during
discussions. Specifically, in clarification request No. BCCT0197, the agency
sought information from BAFIS regarding RFP sect. L.27.4.3.2, which, as noted
above, required offerors to indicate whether equipment and services would be
provided under an existing tariff, under an anticipated tariff filing, or
under no tariff--and requested that BAFIS submit draft tariffs for those
services where post-award tariff filings were contemplated. BAFIS responded
to this clarification request on September 28, providing draft tariffs for
two of the eight services (SVS and CSDS) where existing tariffs needed to be
revised to incorporate additional contract requirements. Agency Report,
Clarification Request No. BCCT0197, Sept. 28, 1999. The agency followed up
BAFIS's September 28 response, requesting further information regarding the
tariff filing requirements for the other six services. BAFIS responded to
the agency's follow-up request on October 8, providing another draft tariff
revision for one other service (ATMS), identifying certain types of services
that were not regulated and thus involved no tariffs, and concluded its
response by stating: "DTS, SMDS, and FRS services offered under this
proposal are provisioned under existing tariffs and do not require any
revisions." Agency Report, Clarification Request No. BCCT0197, Oct. 8, 1999.

Based on BAFIS's October 8 statement that the tariffs for DTS, SMDS, and FRS
"do not require any revisions," along with the "filed rate doctrine,"
WinStar argues that BAFIS's proposal could only have been properly evaluated
on the basis of the prices and terms contained in the existing tariffs for
those services. Based on our review of the record as a whole--including
BAFIS's subsequently submitted final revised proposal--we disagree.

At the hearing GAO conducted in connection with this protest, the chairman
of the price evaluation team (who authored clarification request No.
BCCT0197), testified that the reason for the agency's questions in this
clarification request was to ensure that BAFIS was prepared to expeditiously
proceed, after contract award, with whatever tariff filing requirements
would be necessary. Tr. at 124-25, 128-29, 134. Further, he noted that the
clarification request was not intended to--and did not--elicit any proposed
pricing information, since final proposed prices were to be subsequently
submitted with the offerors' final price proposals. Tr. at 133.

More significantly, the record shows that BAFIS's final proposal
submission---submitted on October 29, three weeks after its second response
to clarification request No. BCCT0197--unequivocally committed BAFIS to make
any tariff filings necessary to conform the tariff prices and terms to its
proposal. Specifically, in the portion of BAFIS's final revised proposal
which specifically responded to RFP sect. L.27.4.3.2--the RFP section referenced
in the clarification request No. BCCT0197–BAFIS stated: "Bell Atlantic
will make any initial filings that might be required to implement the
WITS2001 contract after contract award." BAFIS Final Revised Proposal, Oct
29, 1999 at 4-93.

Where an offeror's final proposal submission contains terms or provisions
that vary from statements or representations made during prior discussions,
a procuring agency properly relies on the final proposal submission as the
controlling statement regarding how the offeror intends to perform. See,
e.g., Marylou's Transp. Serv., B-261695, Sept. 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 154 at 3
(best and final offer supersedes prior proposal).

Here, to the extent BAFIS's responses to the agency's clarification request
regarding RFP sect. L.27.4.3.2 indicated an intent to perform the contract
without revising existing tariffs, BAFIS's statement in its final revised
proposal that it intended to make any tariff filings required to implement
the contract superseded those earlier responses. On this record, we deny
WinStar's protest that BAFIS's proposal improperly offered to perform the
contract under existing tariffs without revision to the prices and terms of
those tariffs.

Price Realism

WinStar next protests that the agency "failed to assess the price realism of
BAFIS's prices." [13] Protest, at 18. WinStar notes that the RFP stated that
"[t]he Government will perform a price analysis to ensure fair, reasonable,
and realistic prices," [14] RFP sect. M.6.1, and maintains that BAFIS's lower
prices were not properly evaluated for realism. More specifically, WinStar
complains that "BAFIS's price proposal set forth [deleted] prices that would
drop off precipitously in the latter years of the contract," First Supp.
Protest, at 13, and concludes that BAFIS's proposal reflected its "gaming of
the bid model with the expectation that the Government's stated requirements
were unrealistic." Id. at 3.

Where, as here, the award of a fixed-price contract is contemplated, the
"realism" of offerors' proposed prices is not ordinarily considered since a
fixed-price contract places the risk and responsibility for contract costs
and resulting profit or loss on the contractor. Human Resource Sys., Inc.;
Health Staffers, Inc., B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 21, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 35 at 5.
However, an agency may, at its discretion, provide for the use of a price
realism analysis in a solicitation for the award of a fixed-price contract
to assess the risk in an offeror's approach. PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters
of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD para.
366 at 5. The FAR provides a number of price analysis techniques that may be
used, including a comparison to prices previously obtained for similar end
items. FAR sect.sect. 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii), (vi). The nature and extent of an agency's
price realism analysis are matters within the sound exercise of the agency's
discretion. Cardinal Scientific, Inc., B-270309, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD
para. 70 at 4.

Here, the record shows that the agency performed an extensive evaluation of
both offerors' proposed prices, and that this evaluation included multiple
calculations and considerations. Among other things, the agency calculated
the offerors' proposed prices under various alternative assumptions
regarding the quantities of services, features and equipment that would be
required–from which the agency determined that BAFIS's pricing was
more "balanced" than WinStar's. Supp. Agency Report at 6, 11-23. The agency
also considered the overall pricing strategy of each offeror's proposal,
noting that BAFIS's [deleted] pricing more accurately reflected economies of
scale that were likely to be obtained. Id. at 20-21. Further, the agency
considered the increasing levels of automation that have been incorporated
into performance of various contract functions, leading to decreased labor
costs, as well as recognized that technology advancements have generally
resulted in a downward trend in the cost of telecommunication hardware and
software–and noted that that these trends are likely to continue. Id.
at 28-30, 33-35. Finally, the agency considered its recent experience in
obtaining prices under similar Metropolitan Area Acquisition (MAA)
telecommunication contracts that were significantly lower than expected. Id.
at 50.

Based on our review of the record reflecting the agency's incorporation of
the above calculations and considerations into its price realism analysis,
we find no basis to question that analysis.

Meaningful Discussions

WinStar next protests that it was denied meaningful discussions with regard
to its price proposal. WinStar argues that the agency should have advised
WinStar that its prices were too high to be competitive and, therefore,
maintains that the discussions WinStar received were inadequate. [15]

In negotiated procurements, contracting agencies generally must conduct
discussions with all offerors whose proposals are within the competitive
range. FAR sect. 15.306(d)(1). Agencies are not obligated to afford
all-encompassing discussions; rather discussions must be meaningful, leading
an offeror into the areas of its proposal requiring amplification or
revision. Johnson Controls, Inc., B-282326, June 28, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 6 at
4. Although an agency may inform an offeror during discussions that its
price is considered to be too high or too low, FAR sect.15.306(e)(3), the
government has no responsibility to do so where the offeror's price is not
considered excessive or unreasonable. Akal Sec., Inc., B-271385, B-271385.3,
July 10, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 77 at 3; Applied Remote Tech., Inc., B-250475,
Jan. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 58 at 3. Further, an agency is not required to
conduct price discussions with an offeror solely because its price is higher
than that of other offerors. Akal Sec., Inc., supra.

Our review of the record shows that the agency conducted appropriate and
meaningful discussions with WinStar during successive rounds of written and
oral discussions. In this regard, the record shows that WinStar's total
price exceeded the agency's estimate at only two points during the
procurement: the first point reflected an error by WinStar in loading its
prices into the price model, and the second point was followed by a
clarification request identifying specific elements of WinStar's price that
were considered unreasonably high. Otherwise, WinStar's proposed prices were
significantly lower than the agency's estimate. Agency Report, exh. 43, at
5-1, 5-5.

At various points during discussions, the agency advised WinStar that it
should consider lowering its proposed prices. Specifically, on July 28, 1999
at the close of face-to-face discussions with WinStar, the agency advised
Winstar that it needed to "learn[] from experiences gained with the recently
awarded MAA contracts [for New

York, Chicago, and San Francisco]," and suggested that Winstar should
"review ‘sharpening' [its] pencil." Agency Report, exh. 22 at 2. [16]
Additionally, in correspondence dated August 5, the agency advised Winstar
of numerous specific prices which "significantly exceed[ed]" the
government's estimates. [17] Agency Report, exh. 24. Further, in a
subsequent, October 4, clarification request, the agency again identified
several proposed prices "that significantly exceed the Government's
estimates and should be verified for accuracy." Agency Report, exh. 29.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the agency reasonably
led WinStar into the areas of its proposal that needed improvement.

Best Value Determination

Finally, WinStar protests that the agency failed to conduct a best value
analysis, which WinStar maintains was required due to the "superiority" of
its non-price proposal. Protest at 14. WinStar's protest regarding this
issue is based on the fact that its proposal was rated as "highly
satisfactory" under evaluation factors constituting 90 percent of the total
non-price score and "acceptable" under factors making up the remaining 10
percent, while BAFIS's proposal was rated as "highly satisfactory" under
evaluation factors constituting only 85 percent of the total score and
"acceptable" under factors making up the remaining 15 percent. WinStar
maintains that it was improper for the agency to rely on proposed price as
the discriminator for award after "perfunctorily concluding" that the two
proposals were essentially equal regarding non-price factors, arguing that
its "documented advantage" in non-price factors required the agency to
perform a cost/technical tradeoff. Protest at 14, 16. We disagree.

Where an evaluation is challenged we will examine the record to determine
whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated
evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. AmClyde
Eng'g. Prods. Co., Inc., B-282271, B-282271.2, June 21, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 5
at 5. A finding of technical equality need not be based on strict equality
in terms of point scores. Teledyne-Commodore, LLC, B-278408.5, B-278408.6,
Mar. 8. 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 60 at 7; The Gerard Co., B-260495, June 22, 1995,
95-1 CPD para. 290 at 2. The significance of a given difference in scores
depends upon all the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular
procurement; the adjectival scores themselves are not controlling, but are
useful as guides to intelligent decisionmaking. Earle Palmer Brown Cos.,
Inc., B-243544, B-243544.2, Aug. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 134 at 10.

As noted above, both offerors' proposals were rated equally (highly
satisfactory) under the two most important factors--technical and
management--while WinStar's proposal was more highly rated under the past
performance factor (worth 15 percent of the total score) and BAFIS's
proposal was more highly rated under the experience factor (worth 10 percent
of the total score). The record contains extensive documentation regarding
the factors, subfactors, and subfactor components that the technical
evaluation panel considered and evaluated. Specifically, the evaluation
record reflects a comprehensive narrative discussion of evaluated strengths
and weaknesses, along with an evaluation summary, for each of some 54
individual assessments the agency made for each proposal.

Following completion of the evaluation, the source selection evaluation
board briefed the acquisition oversight council, summarizing the results of
the evaluation, including a detailed discussion of the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each proposal, concluding there was "little difference"
between the evaluation of non-price proposals. Agency Report, exh. 40, at
66. Finally, the source selection evaluation board presented a briefing to
the source selection authority (SSA), again summarizing the evaluation and
concluding that the proposals were "approximately equal." Agency Report,
exh. 42. The SSA agreed with the prior evaluation and conclusions regarding
the technical equality of the two proposals. Agency Report, exh. 44.

Proposals have properly been viewed as essentially equal from a technical
standpoint notwithstanding scoring differentials similar to or significantly
greater than the one here--BAFIS's technical rating could be construed as
being approximately 5 percent lower than WinStar's. Ogilvy, Adams &
Rinehart, B-246172.2, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 332 at 5-6 (a difference of
approximately 6 percent reasonably found approximately equal); Lockheed
Corp., B-199741.2, July 31, 1981, 81-2 CPD para. 71 at 6-9 (differential of more
than 15 percent). Based on our review of the evaluation record here, we find
no basis to question the agency's determination of technical equality. [18]

Finally, upon the agency's reasonable determination that the two non-price
proposals were essentially equal, price properly became the determinative
factor. Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, supra. Accordingly, there is no basis to
question the determination that BAFIS's proposal offered the best value to
the government on the basis of its lower evaluated price.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Potential users include all federal agencies, authorized contractors,
agency-sponsored universities and laboratories and, as authorized by law or
regulations, state, local and tribal governments and other organizations.
RFP sect. C.1.3.1.

2. For example, the RFP advised offerors that the agency's evaluation of
proposed prices would be performed in a manner "to ensure its attainment of
objectives to migrate into a service-based environment." RFP sect. M.6.1.

3. The technical factor was divided into three subfactors--approach to
delivering required services via type A and type A alternate access
arrangements, approach to delivering services via type B access
arrangements, and the proposed WITS2001 network architecture--with various
components identified under each subfactor. RFP sect. M.2.

4. The management factor was divided into four subfactors--support systems,
program management, personnel and subcontractor plan--with various
components identified under each subfactor. RFP sect. M.3.

5. The past performance factor was divided into two subfactors--offeror's
past performance and proposed subcontractors' past performance--with various
components identified under each subfactor. RFP sect. M.4.

6. The experience factor was divided into two subfactors--corporate
experience providing telecommunication services and corporate experience
operating, administrating and maintaining telecommunication facilities. RFP
sect. M.5.

7. The five cost elements associated with each CLIN were: monthly recurring
charge; service initiation charge; cancellation charge; disconnect charge;
and hard change charge.

8. The agency states that WinStar's final revised proposal contained over
[deleted] unique price elements and BAFIS's proposal contained over
[deleted] unique price elements. Supplemental Agency Report, Apr. 5, 2000,
at 17 (Supp. Agency Report).

9. The RFP contained multiple formulas explaining the manner in which the
agency would calculate the evaluated prices. RFP sect. M.6.

10. At the hearing GAO conducted in connection with this protest, BAFIS
representatives stated that BAFIS is acting as an agent of Bell Atlantic for
purposes of providing regulated telecommunication services, and indicated
that, in a regulatory context, BAFIS's provision of regulated
telecommunication services is subject to the Bell Atlantic tariffs. Hearing
Transcript (Tr.) at 88-93.

11. The "filed rate doctrine" provides that the filed tariff rate of a
regulated carrier is the only permissible charge for services covered by the
tariff. See American Tel. & Tel. v. Central Office Tel. Inc., 524 U.S. 214,
222 (1998).

12. WinStar agrees that "when you file a tariff, it will take effect
automatically if a state or federal commission doesn't stop it." Tr. at 80.

13. Among other things, WinStar argues that BAFIS's prices were unrealistic
because BAFIS "offer[ed] to provide tariffed services at prices below those
legally mandated by the tariffs." First Supp. Protest at 3. As discussed
above, we have rejected this argument.

14. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines "price analysis" as
"the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating
its separate cost elements and proposed profit." FAR sect. 15.404-1(b).

15. In a related argument, WinStar argues that the agency improperly
"reopened" price negotiations with BAFIS just prior to submission of final
revised proposals without similarly "reopening" discussions with WinStar.
Second Supplemental Protest, Mar. 13, 2000, at 16 (Second Supp. Protest).
The agency explains that the final issue discussed concerned only BAFIS;
thus, there was no reason to conduct further discussions with WinStar. An
agency properly may tailor its discussions for each offeror. FAR
sect. 15.306(d)(1). There is no requirement that offerors receive identical
discussions when an agency has concerns with only one of the offerors.
Federal Data Corp., B-236265.4, May 29, 1990, 90-1 CPD para.  504 at 5. Based on
our review of the record here, and because all discussions were conducted
and concluded prior to the due date for final proposal revisions, we find no
merit in this portion of WinStar's protest.

16. The agency explains that the specific reference to the recently awarded
MAA contract in New York was intended to remind WinStar, a competitor in
that procurement, that the awardee won that contract with a price proposal
significantly lower than WinStar's or any other offeror's.

17. These "outlier" prices represented price elements in Winstar's proposal
which were at least [deleted] higher than the agency's estimate. Agency
Report at 86.

18. WinStar's protest identifies various portions of the evaluation record
which, it argues, supports WinStar's conclusion that its non-price proposal
was superior to BAFIS's. We have reviewed each of these arguments, along
with the comprehensive evaluation record, and find that WinStar's assertions
generally constitute mere disagreements with the agency's judgments. For
example, in its March 20, 2000 comments, WinStar alleges that the rating for
BAFIS's proposal should have been lowered because BAFIS ultimately
[deleted]. This issue concerns an initial BAFIS proposal to [deleted]; the
technical evaluators noted that [deleted]. Upon learning that GSA did not
intend [deleted], BAFIS's final revised proposal stated that BAFIS would
perform to the RFP's requirements. Accordingly, the agency found no basis to
conclude that BAFIS's decision [deleted] would have a detrimental effect on
contract performance. Supp. Agency Report at 48. We find nothing
unreasonable in this determination.