TITLE:  Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture), B-285247; B-285247.2, August 8, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285247; B-285247.2
DATE:  August 8, 2000
**********************************************************************
Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture), B-285247; B-285247.2,
August 8, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture)

File: B-285247; B-285247.2

Date: August 8, 2000

John W. Chierichella, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., Catherine E. Pollack, Esq.,
and Timothy W. Staley, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for
the protester.

Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Cheralyn S. Cameron, Esq., for DynCorp
Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor.

Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., and Robert D. M. Allen,
Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that awardee proposed specific individuals as key personnel that
it did not expect, or could not reasonably expect, to use--that is, a "bait
and switch," rendering the contract award improper--is denied where awardee
obtained agreement from named individuals to accept employment and disclosed
in its proposal that it intended to hire as many qualified incumbent
employees as possible.

2. Protest by incumbent against agency's past performance evaluation, in
which both protester and awardee were rated excellent/high confidence, is
denied where protester has not shown how, given awardee's highly-rated
relevant past performance, protester's additional, relevant past performance
would contribute to better satisfying agency's stated needs so as to warrant
a significantly higher rating under the past performance factor.

DECISION

Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture) (AWV) protests the
Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to DynCorp Technical
Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F44650-99-R0007, for
War Reserve Materiel (WRM) services in Southwest Asia. AWV, the incumbent
contractor, challenges the evaluation of DynCorp's past performance and
alleges that DynCorp proposed key personnel it did not intend to use in
contract performance.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract, for a base
year with 6 option years, for (1) asset receipt, accountability,
serviceability, storage, security, periodic inspection and test; (2)
maintenance, repair, outload, and reconstitution of prepositioned WRM in
several operating locations, including Oman, Qatar and Bahrain;
(3) establishment of a mobile repair team to perform scheduled maintenance,
inventories, condition sampling, and repair of WRM assets at storage
locations where a staff of technical craftsmen is not warranted; and (4)
support of scheduled exercises/events by assisting in the deployment of
assets/systems from storage sites, setting-up camp at the in-use location,
and assisting in camp tear-down and subsequent storage of assets/systems.
Performance Work Statement (PWS), Mission Statement.

Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to
the solicitation requirements and represented the best value to the
government. The solicitation provided for proposals to be evaluated based on
the following four evaluation factors: (1) mission capability (with
subfactors for program management/organization structure; receive/ship,
store and outload; maintain, repair and reconstitute; and quality control);
(2) proposal risk; (3) past performance; and (4) price/cost. The
solicitation stated that "[t]he first three factors are equal in value and
when combined are significantly more important than the fourth factor," that
is, price/cost. RFP sect. M-900, para.para. 3.0, 3.1.

Four proposals were received in response to the RFP; all were included in
the competitive range. After conducting two rounds of discussions with
offerors, the Air Force requested final proposal revisions (FPR). Based on
its evaluation of FPRs, the Air Force determined that DynCorp's proposal
represented the best value. Although AWV's successful performance as the
incumbent WRM contractor for the previous 14 years, and on other relevant
operation and maintenance contracts, led the agency to rate its past
performance as exceptional/high confidence, the evaluated most probable cost
of its proposal ($[DELETED]) was the [DELETED] of any of the proposals.

In addition, while AWV's proposal was rated low risk for mission capability
and received green/acceptable ratings under the mission capability
subfactors for program management/organizational structure and quality
control, the proposal was rated only yellow/marginal under the subfactors
for receive/ship, store and outload, and for maintain, repair and
reconstitute. The yellow/marginal ratings reflected the agency's
determination that AWV had not adequately described its approach to
determining proposed staffing, such that the agency could not validate its
staffing numbers. For example, the agency found that AWV had not adequately
discussed the staffing required to meet the PWS requirements with respect to
handling a total theater-wide outload of serviceable WRM, the worst case
planning scenario. Agency evaluators noted in this regard that the answers
provided by AWV during discussions indicated that AWV appeared to be relying
too heavily on past peacetime experience since 1996; they viewed this as an
insufficient baseline for estimating a requirement for theater-wide outload,
since the scale of material to be deployed and packaged during a
theater-wide scenario was vastly larger than during peacetime. Source
Selection Decision (SSD) at 3-4; Southwest Asia Prepositioned War Reserve
Materiel Contract Decision Briefing, Apr. 13, 2000, at 46-47; Consensus
Board Final Rating & Rationale Summaries, AWV, at 2-5. The evaluators also
expressed concern that the [DELETED] proposed by AWV to support theatre-wide
outloads were [DELETED] to enable 24-hour operations for an extended period
of time. Id. at 3.

In contrast, DynCorp's proposal received green/acceptable and low risk
ratings under each of the mission capability subfactors. Also, the Air Force
viewed as strengths DynCorp's ability to mobilize a reconstitution team for
surge actions and its proposal to make its quality control program available
on-line to all employees as well as to government quality assurance
personnel. In addition, the agency found that DynCorp was the only offeror
that adequately described its approach to handling and staffing the PWS
requirements with respect to all of the WRM assets (including bare base,
transportation, supply, munitions, aerospace ground equipment (AGE), tanks,
racks, adapters, and pylons (TRAP), materiel maintenance handling equipment,
medical, and rations), thus demonstrating its complete understanding of the
effort required by the WRM PWS. SSD at 4; Consensus Board Final
Rating & Rationale Summaries, DynCorp, at 3-4. Further, DynCorp was rated
exceptional/high confidence under past performance, the same adjectival
rating given AWV, and the evaluated most probable cost of DynCorp's proposal
($[DELETED]) was the lowest among the proposals. As a result, the source
selection authority determined that DynCorp's proposal offered the best
value to the government and award was made to DynCorp on April 20, 2000.
After receiving a debriefing, AWV filed this protest with our Office.

KEY PERSONNEL

AWV alleges that DynCorp misrepresented the availability of its proposed key
personnel. In this regard, the RFP's key personnel clause stated that
"[c]ertain skilled, experienced professional and/or technical personnel are
essential for successful contract accomplishment of the work to be performed
under this contract." RFP sect. H-938, Key Personnel. The solicitation provided
for offerors to submit resumes for the personnel proposed for certain key
positions, as identified in the PWS, and indicated that the agency would
evaluate, under the program management/organization structure subfactor of
the mission capability evaluation factor, an offeror's "[d]emonstrate[d]
ability to attract, hire, and retain qualified key personnel that possess
levels of education and/or experience stipulated in the PWS, as evidenced by
resumes and letters of intent." RFP sect. M-900, para. 3.1.1.3.

AWV alleges that DynCorp proposed specific individuals to fill 36 key
positions identified in its proposal, even though it lacked any reasonable
basis to believe that they would be available to perform the contract. [1]
Indeed, according to the protester, DynCorp had an "internal, undisclosed
plan to switch the majority of its proposed personnel for the incumbent
contractor's employees--a plan which it promptly implemented after award by
soliciting alternative individuals for 21 of the positions." AWV
Post-Hearing Comments, July 20, 2000, at 3.

An offeror may not propose to use specific personnel that it does not expect
to use during contract performance; doing so would have an adverse effect on
the integrity of the competitive procurement system and generally provide a
basis for proposal rejection. CBIS Fed. Inc., B-245844.2, Mar. 27, 1992,
92-1 CPD para. 308 at 5. The elements of such a "bait and switch" rendering a
contract award improper, are as follows: (1) the awardee represented in its
proposal that it would rely on certain specified personnel in performing the
services; (2) the agency relied on this representation in evaluating the
proposal; and (3) it was foreseeable that the individuals named in the
proposal would not be available to perform the contract work. Ann Riley &
Assocs., Ltd.--Recon., B-271741.3, Mar. 10, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 122 at 2-3.

AWV argues that DynCorp lacked any reasonable basis to believe that its
proposed key personnel would be available to perform the contract. In this
regard, DynCorp furnished with its proposal a resume for, and a
certification signed or approved by, each proposed key employee not already
employed by DynCorp. The certification was in the form of a letter from
DynCorp to the individual stating that DynCorp had reviewed the individual's
resume and determined that the individual met or exceeded the requirements
for employment on the contemplated Air Force contract for WRM positioned in
Oman, Bahrain and Qatar; each proposed employee signed or approved a
preprinted statement at the bottom of the letter that "I am interested in
being considered as a member of the DynCorp WRM Team." DynCorp Proposal,
vol. I, attach. A. During discussions, the Air Force issued an evaluation
notice (EN) to DynCorp stating that "[t]he letters of intent provided seem
to be letters of consideration. Please demonstrate the proposed key
personnel's intent to accept employment." EN No. 3422/3488. The record
indicates that DynCorp determined that, because the EN was issued during the
holiday season at the end of the year, the company would be unable to obtain
in the limited time permitted for response a further written certification
from each of its proposed key personnel. DynCorp instead contacted the
individuals by telephone--or, it appears, by e-mail--to ascertain their
continued interest in employment on the WRM contract. For each proposed key
person, including one substitute key person, DynCorp furnished to the agency
in its discussion response a certification signed by its recruiting manager
and its recruiter advising that one of the two had contacted the individual
in question and that "1) the individual authorized the use of their resume
in the proposal, and 2) agreed to accept employment with DynCorp." DynCorp
EN Response, Jan. 5, 2000. AWV questions whether the information submitted
by DynCorp amounted to the "letters of intent" contemplated in the RFP.

In our view, the certifications signed by the proposed key employees, in
conjunction with the responses furnished to DynCorp's recruiters during
discussions (as evidenced by the recruiters' certifications as submitted to
the agency), constituted an adequate indication that the individuals in
question would be available to perform. The RFP did not specify that the
letters of intent referred to had to be in any particular form or include
any particular information. The information DynCorp submitted showed that
the individuals were interested in being considered for the Air Force
contract, had agreed to the use of their resumes in DynCorp's proposal, and
had specifically "agreed to accept employment with DynCorp." Id. Given the
lack of anything in the RFP that required more to be included in the letters
of intent, there is no basis for concluding that the agency was required to
find that the information communicated to the agency was inadequate to show
that DynCorp would be able to properly staff the contract.

We note that testimony at the hearing our Office conducted in this matter
indicated that, prior to award, DynCorp's recruiters did not discuss salary
and benefits with the proposed key personnel, and did not advise them of the
specific positions for which they were being proposed. However, the fact
that future negotiations over the terms of employment were required in order
to conclude employment contracts with the proposed key personnel was not
inconsistent with their represented interest in the WRM contract;
finalization of the terms of employment, such as salary, generally is not
required to establish an offeror's good faith in submitting personnel
resumes in its proposal. See Potomac Research Int'l, Inc., B-270697,
B-270697.2, Apr. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 183 at 5; Agusta Int'l S.A., B-237724,
Mar. 21, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 311 at 11; Individual Dev. Assocs. Inc., B-225595,
Mar. 16, 1987, 87-1 CPD para. 290 at 5.

Further, the fact that a number of the proposed key personnel, when
contacted after award (in April 2000), have been unable or unwilling to
accept employment on the WRM contract does not establish that DynCorp's
representations in this regard were part of an improper employee
substitution scheme. Where there is no evidence that the agency was misled
into selecting an offeror it would not otherwise have selected, we will not
overturn a selection decision merely because the awardee ultimately employs
different individuals than those proposed, particularly where the
substituted employees have the same qualifications and skill levels as those
proposed. B & K Enters., B-276066, May 7, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 166 at 3-4; Ebon
Research Sys., B-261403.2, Sept. 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 152 at 5-7. DynCorp
has explained the circumstances of its inability to secure the services of
each of the unavailable proposed individuals; these explanations, which we
find to be credible, support the view that the employee substitutions were
not part of an improper "bait and switch" by DynCorp. We note, in addition,
that the Air Force has determined that the substituted personnel meet the
requirements of the PWS and are acceptable. Agency Comments, July 20, 2000,
at 2 n.2.

AWV asserts that DynCorp's representations in its proposal were inconsistent
with an undisclosed intention to hire AWV's incumbent employees. In this
regard, the testimony at the hearing indicated that, when preparing its
proposal, DynCorp contemplated substituting incumbent employees for its
proposed key personnel, or at least for key personnel other than top
management (such as the program manager and the five site managers), in the
event that the incumbents were better qualified than the individuals
proposed by DynCorp and were willing to accept employment with DynCorp.

AWV's argument is without merit. DynCorp's proposal specifically described
its intention to recruit incumbent employees, stating as follows:

Except for senior management positions, all incumbent employees except those
not meeting our standards, will be integrated into our hiring process. . . .
The DynCorp policy is to utilize as many incumbents as possible in order to
maintain stability and continuity. . . . We estimate that we will fill at
least 90% of the required positions with incumbent personnel.

DynCorp Proposal, vol. I, sect. 1.1.3 at 57. AWV notes that DynCorp also stated
in its proposal, when describing its phase-in plan, that "[i]mmediately upon
contract award we will start hiring the more than 41 key personnel whose
resumes were presented as part of the DynCorp proposal." DynCorp Proposal,
vol. IV, sect. 1.9 at 17. AWV asserts that this indicated that DynCorp's stated
intention to hire incumbents did not extend to filling the key personnel
positions. In our view, it is not clear from the proposal that DynCorp's
plan to hire incumbents is so limited; it is just as reasonable, we think,
to read the latter quoted provision as being subject to DynCorp's general
intention to hire as many qualified incumbent personnel as possible. At a
minimum, AWV's interpretation of DynCorp's proposal is not the only
reasonable one such that DynCorp can be charged with misrepresentation in
this area. Further, we have previously held that the substitution of
incumbent employees with an agency's permission, and where there has been no
misrepresentation, is not an improper "bait and switch." A&T Eng'g Techs.,
VECTOR Research Div., B-282670, B-282670.2, Aug. 13, 1999, 99-2 CPD
para. 37 at 8; USATREX Int'l, Inc., B-275592, B-275592.2, Mar. 6, 1997, 98-1 CPD
para. 99 at 10; Ebon Research Sys., supra, at 5. Given the emphasis in DynCorp's
proposal on hiring qualified incumbent employees, there is no basis for
finding that DynCorp misrepresented its intention.

PAST PERFORMANCE

AWV challenges the evaluation of past performance. In this regard, the
solicitation provided for evaluation of both the quality and relevance of an
offeror's past performance. Specifically, past performance was to be
"evaluated as a measure of the Government's confidence in the offeror's
ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract
efforts and offeror's effectiveness in performing similar contracts"; a
rating of either exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant
confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence,

marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence was to be
assigned. RFP sect. M-900, para. 3.3. According to the solicitation, "[t]he recency
and relevancy of past performance information is critical to the
Government's evaluation." Id. The RFP required offerors to submit past
performance references for the last eight current and completed "contract
efforts similar to the Government's [Southwest Asia] Prepositioned WRM";
"explain what aspects of the contract are deemed relevant to the proposed
[Southwest Asia] Prepositioned WRM effort"; and specifically "address
contracts for the same or similar services and explain similarity of
services, considering such areas as: the nature and complexity of the
service involved, contract environment, contract type, and location of work
to be performed." RFP sect. L-908, para. 1.5.1.

The Air Force assigned a rating of exceptional/high confidence to DynCorp
based upon numerous excetional and very good ratings (as well as favorable
narrative comments) in questionnaires returned by DynCorp's past performance
references for a number of contracts. These contract efforts included: (1)
the transition phase to assuming responsibility, under the Department of the
Army's Prepositioned Stocks Afloat Program (APS-3), for maintaining Army
prepositioned stocks in an operational status at Charleston, South Carolina
and aboard ships that store and transport Army war reserve assets; (2)
aircraft operations maintenance and logistics support for Department of
State (DOS) anti-narcotics enforcement operations in Central and South
America; (3) aircraft maintenance, modification and logistics support for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and (4) contractor
maintenance services and engineering technical services in support of Kuwait
Air Force F/A-18 aircraft. The Air Force's evaluation under the past
performance factor noted that:

the majority of DynCorp's contracts seem to emphasize aircraft maintenance.
However, even though they are aircraft maintenance contracts there are many
similar efforts that are relevant to the WRM requirement. These efforts
range from efficient organization structures, to maintenance efforts on
vehicles and AGE, to operating major supply/inventory systems. In addition,
DynCorp had one contract that is very relevant, an Army contract for
‘maintenance of Army prepositioned stocks afloat.' Although the
government rater gave DynCorp high marks, this contract is still in its
infancy stage. When the team inquired why such good ratings were given for a
new contract, the government rater indicated the transition stage was
exceptional . . . .

Past Performance Evaluation Report, DynCorp, sect. 3.

AWV generally asserts that it possesses vastly more relevant experience than
DynCorp, such that the agency could not reasonably assign the same past
performance rating to both offerors. In addition, AWV specifically claims
that the agency improperly ignored two cure notices issued to DynCorp under
its APS-3 contract.

We find that the Air Force reasonably rated DynCorp's past performance as
exceptional/high confidence. As noted above, DynCorp received numerous
excellent and very good ratings from its past performance references, and
the Air Force determined that aspects of DynCorp's performance under these
contracts were directly relevant to the contract requirements here. For
example, according to the agency, DynCorp's contracts demonstrated its
ability to successfully manage contracts in fluid environments in foreign
countries, utilize large inventory control systems, manage parts supply and
accountability, perform operations at dispersed locations, adhere to
government maintenance directives, and perform at the quality levels
required on the WRM contract. [2] In this regard, the agency reports that
DynCorp demonstrated the ability to meet program requirements in a fluid
environment in foreign countries under its DOS contract for aircraft
operations maintenance and logistics support for anti-narcotics enforcement
operations in Central and South America; according to the agency, this
ability is relevant to performing the WRM contract requirements in the
highly fluid political and military environment which the WRM contractor
must deal with. The agency reports that DynCorp also demonstrated under the
DOS contract an ability to manage large inventory control systems with high
levels of accuracy and to conduct operations at dispersed, remote locations.
Further, according to the agency, DynCorp demonstrated under its Kuwaiti
F/A-18 aircraft contract the ability to manage parts supply and
accountability, as well as control sand intrusion, salt corrosion and the
impact of high heat in the same region as the WRM contract is to be
performed. Agency Comments, June 30, 2000, at 2-8; Agency Comments, June 20,
2000, attach., SSET Team Chief's Memorandum for Record, July 14, 2000.

We find no basis for objecting to the agency's evaluation of DynCorp's
proposal in this area. The agency rated DynCorp based on the considerations
identified in the RFP for the past performance factor, and the rationale for
its conclusions is well documented. There is nothing inherently unreasonable
in its conclusion that DynCorp's performance of different aspects of various
types of contracts--similar to aspects of the current contract--warranted
the highest possible rating.

We recognize that, as asserted by AWV, that company possesses extensive,
relevant experience. For example, AWV is not only the incumbent Air Force
WRM contractor in Southwest Asia; it has also provided base operations and
maintenance services for Air Force bases in Turkey; training, logistics and
related support to the Saudi Arabian National Guard; and personnel support
services for United States personnel in Egypt. However, AWV received the
highest possible rating under this factor, reflecting the high quality and
relevance of its past performance, and the agency was not obligated to
reduce the rating reasonably assigned to DynCorp even if, as AWV contends,
AWV's past performance was even better. Agencies are not required to give
evaluation credit for proposal features it determines will not contribute in
a meaningful manner to better satisfying the agency's needs. Consolidated
Eng'g Servs., Inc., B-279565.5, Mar. 19, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 76 at 3-4; see
Tecom, Inc., B-275518.2, May 21, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 221 at 7 (agency
reasonably concluded that offeror was not entitled to higher rating where
requirements were not exceeded in a manner that would provide increased
benefit to agency); Computer Sys. Dev. Corp., B-275356, Feb. 11, 1997, 97-1
CPD para. 91 at 7-8. Here, given DynCorp's highly-rated relevant past
performance, it is unclear how AWV's additional, relevant past performance
would contribute to better satisfying the agency's stated needs so as to
warrant a significantly higher rating under the past performance factor. In
any event, in view of DynCorp's higher rating under two of the four mission
capability evaluation subfactors and AWV's higher evaluated cost, there is
no basis for concluding that a marginally higher rating for AWV under the
past performance factor would affect the outcome here. See McDonald-Bradley,
B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3 (GAO will not sustain a protest
unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility of prejudice,
that is, that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial
chance of receiving the award); see also Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher,
102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

The APS-3 cure notices also do not provide a basis to question the past
performance evaluation. APS-3 contracting officials advised the Air Force in
September 1999 that DynCorp's performance during the transition phase of the
APS-3 contract had been "exceptional" and "outstanding"; the two cure
notices were not issued to DynCorp until February 15 and March 3, 2000, that
is, after the Air Force's past performance evaluation had been completed. In
support of its claim that the cure notices nevertheless were improperly
ignored by the Air Force, AWV notes that the cover letter to a March 20 FPR
submitted by another offeror in this procurement, stated as follows:

[DELETED]

[DELETED] FPR, Cover Letter, Mar. 20, 2000.

Our Office has recognized that in certain limited circumstances an agency
evaluating an offeror's past performance has an obligation (as opposed to
the discretion) to consider outside information bearing on the offeror's
past performance, as where the information in question was simply too close
at hand to require offerors to shoulder the inequities that spring from an
agency's failure to obtain, and consider, the information. See International
Bus. Sys., Inc., B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 114 at 5; G. Marine
Diesel, B-232619.3, Aug. 3, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 101 at 5-6. However, the "close
at hand" information in these cases concerned contracts for the same
services with the same procuring activity, or at least information
personally known to the evaluators. See TRW, Inc., B-282162, B-282162.2,
June 9, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 12 at 4-5; Morrison Knudsen Corp., B-280261, Sept.
9, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 63 at 5-6. There has been no showing that such
circumstances are present here. The record includes statements from agency
evaluators and source selection officials indicating that they either did
not read [DELETED]'s FPR cover letter or did not understand it to refer to
DynCorp, and stating that, in any case, they were unaware of the cure
notices until after award. Agency Comments, June 30, 2000, attachs. AWV has
pointed to no evidence establishing that the contracting officials in fact
knew of the cure notices and, moreover, the evidence on which the argument
is founded consists solely of a statement that was submitted with a
competitor's proposal and that neither identified DynCorp by name nor
referred to cure notices. Thus, although an agency generally may not ignore
negative past performance information of which it is aware, see G. Marine
Diesel, supra, the record here does not establish that contracting officials
were on notice of potential problems in DynCorp's performance of the APS-3
contract such that they were required to investigate further. [3]

The protest is denied.

Robert P. Murphy

General Counsel

Notes

1. Although DynCorp submitted resumes for 38 individuals, whom it described
in its proposal as key personnel, it appears that only 36 were in fact key
personnel as defined in the RFP. Air Force Comments, July 20, 2000, at 2
n.1.

2. In fact, according to the Air Force, the most demanding maintenance
aspect of the WRM requirement--a generator repair facility--is significantly
less demanding from a technical perspective than the aircraft maintenance
and repair requirements DynCorp had been successfully performing. Agency
Comments, July 20, 2000, attach., SSET Team Chief's Memorandum for Record,
July 14, 2000, at 2.

3. The Air Force reports that, when it again contacted the Army APS-3
contracting officials in April 2000, after the award here, the Army advised
that DynCorp is "a little behind schedule" in one case, because it is
awaiting spare parts from the government supply system, and (although "a
little behind schedule") is currently responsive to performance requirements
otherwise. Agency Report, Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts, at 10-11
and attach. 2, Air Force Memorandum for the Record, Apr. 27, 2000, and Army
Confirming E-Mail, May 1, 2000.