TITLE:  DGR Associates, Inc., B-285428; B-285428.2, August 25, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285428; B-285428.2
DATE:  August 25, 2000
**********************************************************************
DGR Associates, Inc., B-285428; B-285428.2, August 25, 2000

Decision

Matter of: DGR Associates, Inc.

File: B-285428; B-285428.2

Date: August 25, 2000

Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore Hennessy & Freeman, for the protester.

Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Martin C. O'Brien,
Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's
and awardee's competing proposals under certain technical evaluation factors
is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable; the
protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's judgment
unreasonable.

2. Protester's contention that the evaluation of past performance was flawed
because the awardee's performance history is not relevant to the solicited
services is denied where the record shows that the solicitation anticipated
reviewing a broader level of prior experience than the solicited services,
and also shows that the assessment of the awardee's past performance was
reasonable and consistent with the evaluation factor.

DECISION

DGR Associates, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Chugach Management
Services, Inc. (CMSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F04700-99-R-0043, issued by the Department of the Air Force for military
family housing maintenance (MFHM) services at the Air Force Flight Test
Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California. DGR principally challenges the
evaluation of its own proposal as well as the awardee's proposal.

We deny the protests.

The solicitation was issued as a competitive procurement set aside for small
disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
section 8(a) program, 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(a) (1994). RFP sect. A. The RFP
contemplated award of a hybrid fixed-price/award-fee contract, with
fixed-price requirements as well as cost-reimbursement line items for a base
period with six 1-year options. RFP sect. B. As amended, the RFP required a
contractor to provide all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision to
perform the solicited services in accordance with the performance work
statement (PWS). The services to be provided include maintenance management,
24-hour service calls, change of occupancy maintenance, equipment
maintenance, cleaning of abandoned quarters, facility upgrade/maintenance,
and grounds maintenance. RFP attach. 1.

The RFP provided for award without discussions, on a best value basis, price
and other factors considered. RFP amend. 6, sect. M.B.1.1. The evaluation
factors were listed in descending order of importance as: mission
capability, price, past performance, and proposal risk. Id. sect. M.B.2.1. The
RFP further advised that the non-price factors were of equal importance and,
when combined, were significantly more important than price; however, price
was a substantial factor in award.
Id. sect. M.B.2.2. Under the RFP's evaluation scheme, mission capability was to
be assigned color/adjectival ratings of blue/exceptional, green/acceptable,
yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable, and assessed for proposal risk using
the ratings of low, moderate, and high. Id. sect.sect. M.B.7.1, M.B.7.3, M.B.6.0.

Past performance was to be evaluated through the assignment of a confidence
assessment rating based on an offeror's demonstrated performance which is
current, recent, and relevant to the mission capability factor and price.
[1] The evaluation would focus on the offeror's demonstrated performance
record in effective contract and subcontract management, responsive
scheduling, timeliness, workload fluctuations, customer satisfaction,
quality, government interface, effective use of resources, and environmental
and safety compliance. Id. sect.sect. M.B.5.1, M.B.7.4. The past performance
evaluation also would include a performance assessment of subcontractors who
would perform major or critical aspects of the

solicited services; the RFP cautioned offerors that the agency also would
consider information obtained from other sources. Id. sect.sect. M.B.5.3, L.II.5.1.
Price proposals were to be evaluated for affordability and reasonableness
based on the total price for the basic requirements and all options. Id. sect.
M.B.4.1.

The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and
requested that the offerors' proposals consist of three volumes. Volume 1
was to be organized to respond to the mission capability evaluation factor
and was limited to 50 pages. Volume 2 was to include, among other things, a
price proposal; there was no page limitation. Volume 3 was to describe the
offeror's relevant past performance, and was limited to 20 pages. RFP sect.
L.II.2.2.

As relevant here, offerors were instructed to include the following
information in addressing mission capability:

Provide a complete contract management structure identifying key positions.
As a minimum, the structure should address the Project Manager, Alternate
Project Manager(s), Quality Control Inspectors, Safety Officer . . . .
Identify the primary duties and responsibilities for each key position . . .
. Illustrate lines of authority/chain of command and channel of
communications. . . . Provide your resource management processes . . . .
Provide your methodology for schedule management . . . . Provide a draft
quality control plan for evaluation purposes, indicating specific quality
control and inspection system procedures and detailed processes, . . . to
include environmental, safety and subcontracts, for quality assurance . . .
[and] [d]escribe your methodology for customer satisfaction . . . .

RFP amend. 6, sect. L.II.3.3.

Eight firms, including DGR and CMSI, submitted proposals by the amended
closing date for receipt of proposals. The technical evaluation team (TET)
summarized its findings in a consensus evaluation report for the source
selection authority (SSA) that detailed the strengths, weaknesses, and risks
presented by each offeror's proposal. The performance risk assessment group
(PRAG) also prepared an evaluation report detailing its assessment of each
offeror's past performance.
The initial evaluation results, as well as the evaluated prices, were as
follows:

 Offerors    Mission           Proposal    Past              Total Price
             Capability        Risk        Performance       (in
                                                             millions)

 CMSI        Blue/Exceptional  Low         Exceptional/      $57.443
                                           High Confidence

 Offeror A   Blue/Exceptional  Low         Satisfactory/     [DELETED]
                                           Confidence

 Offeror B   Green/Acceptable  Moderate    Very Good/        [DELETED]
                                           Significant
                                           Confidence

 Offeror C   Green/Acceptable  High        Very Good/        [DELETED]
                                           Significant
                                           Confidence

 Offeror D   Green/Acceptable  High        Satisfactory/     [DELETED]
                                           Confidence

 DGR         Yellow/Marginal   Moderate    Exceptional/      [DELETED]
                                           High Confidence

 Offeror E   Yellow/Marginal   High        Exceptional/      [DELETED]
                                           High Confidence

 Offeror F   Yellow/Marginal   Moderate    Satisfactory/     [DELETED]
                                           Confidence

Agency Report (AR), Tab 28, Source Selection Decision, at 2-3; AR, Tab 31,
Price Competition Memorandum, at 3.

CMSI's blue/excellent rating under mission capability reflected the
evaluators' judgment that the firm demonstrated a thorough understanding of
the PWS requirements that would translate into effective and efficient
contract management; the evaluators identified a number of strengths that
CMSI had offered and only one weakness. For example, under contract
management, the TET noted that CMSI proposed a quality control (QC) manager
having independent authority. Under resource management, the TET found that
CMSI proposed an automated material inventory and acquisition system which
would reduce the likelihood of work being delayed due to supply shortages;
however, the evaluators noted that CMSI failed to address resource
estimating in its proposal. Under schedule management, CMSI proposed service
call response times better than those specified in the PWS. Under customer
satisfaction, the TET noted that CMSI proposed to share 35 percent of all
award fees earned with its employees, and also proposed an exceptional
employee incentive program.

CMSI's proposal risk rating reflected the evaluators' assessment that there
was little potential in CMSI's approach to cause disruption in contract
performance. AR,
Tab 24, CMSI's Technical Evaluation. In assessing CMSI's past performance as
exceptional/high confidence, the PRAG noted the firm's prior MFHM contracts,
which were evaluated as highly relevant, as well as the prior contracts
performed by CMSI's subcontractor, which were evaluated as relevant. AR, Tab
26, PRAG Evaluation Summary.

With respect to DGR's proposal, which received a yellow/marginal rating for
mission capability, the evaluators noted both strengths and weaknesses. AR,
Tab 25, DGR Source Selection Evaluation Document. For example, under
resource management, the TET noted as a strength DGR's [DELETED] and
identified as a weakness the firm's failure to address resource estimating.
Under contract management, the TET noted a significant weakness in DGR's
plan to use [DELETED] which, in their judgment, would cause "over-tasking"
and conflicts of interest. Under quality control, DGR's proposal was
assigned a deficiency rating because the firm had submitted a quality
control plan which exceeded the page limitation for the mission capability
volume and could not be evaluated. Id. DGR received a moderate proposal risk
rating as a result of the evaluated significant weakness and deficiency
identified in its proposal. AR, Tab 34, Post-Award Debriefing Charts, at 10.

The consensus evaluation results were presented to the SSA. After
consideration of each proposal's relative strengths and weaknesses, the SSA
concluded that discussions were not necessary because they would not
materially enhance the potential for award of DGR and Offerors C, D, E and
F. In this regard, the SSA noted that "any revisions to their proposals
[those of DGR and Offerors C, D, E and F] would result in increases to their
prices in order for them to overcome mission capability shortfalls and/or
proposal risks for successfully performing the MFHM services." AR, Tab 28,
Source Selection Decision, at 2. The SSA then performed an integrated
assessment of the relative merits of the proposals of CMSI, Offeror A and
Offeror B. The SSA concluded that CMSI's proposal represented the best
overall value and selected CMSI for award. Id. at 2-4.

By letter dated May 1, 2000, the agency notified the unsuccessful offerors
of CMSI's selection. On May 4, DGR filed a size and 8(a) eligibility protest
with the contracting officer, who forwarded it to the SBA. On May 8, the SBA
found CMSI to be both size and 8(a) eligible for this acquisition. AR, Tab
2, Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement, at 2; AR, Tab 33, SBA Eligibility
Determination.

DGR requested and received a debriefing on May 11. [2] After reviewing the
debriefing slides, DGR questioned one of CMSI's evaluated past performance
references, a family housing maintenance contract at Elmendorf AFB, alleging
that Chugach Development Corporation (CDC), not CMSI, was the prime
contractor. The Air Force reviewed CMSI's past performance proposal and
found two contracts--the Elmendorf AFB and the Army Posts in Alaska--were
not performed by CMSI; thus, these contracts were not relevant references
for CMSI. [3] As a result, the PRAG removed both contracts from their
assessment of CMSI's past performance. On
May 12, the agency decided to take corrective action regarding the past
performance evaluation. AR, Tab 2, CO Statement, at 2-3.

Thereafter, the agency reviewed additional CMSI past performance information
provided by DGR as part of its May 4 size and eligibility challenge. The
agency obtained, through government sources, performance questionnaire
survey responses for CMSI's performance under two Simplified Acquisition of
Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contracts--contract No.
F45613-98-D-0002 at Fairchild AFB, and contract No. F65503-96-0006 at
Eielson AFB. The PRAG evaluated the survey responses, which gave CMSI high
ratings for its past performance, and found both contracts were similar in
scope to the solicited requirements; on that basis, the PRAG determined
these two contracts were relevant. The survey respondents assigned CMSI
strengths in the areas of contract management, resource management, schedule
management, quality control, customer satisfaction and technical
performance; as a result, the PRAG did not change the exceptional/high
confidence assessment rating for CMSI under the past performance evaluation
factor. AR, Tab 26, PRAG Evaluation Summary.

These findings were presented to the SSA who again determined that CMSI's
proposal represented the best value to the government. In this regard, the
SSA stated:

I find the exceptional/high confidence performance assessment rating [for
CMSI] stronger than previously briefed
to me. Wherein the previous assessment indicated that [CMSI] had highly
relevant versus relevant past performance histories, I now find that
[CMSI's] performance assessment to be exceptional in the areas of contract,
resource, and schedule management, quality control, and technical
performance. These exceptional strengths solidif[y] my previous decision
that, based upon [CMSI's] exceptional performance record, there is
essentially no doubt of their successfully performing the MFHM services.

AR, Tab 29, Supplemental Source Selection Decision, at 2.

In its initial and supplemental protests, DGR challenges the evaluation of
its own proposal and CMSI's proposal on several grounds. In reviewing
protests challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will not
substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of
proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it
was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria
and applicable statutes and regulations. Seair Transport Servs., Inc.,
B-252266, June 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 458 at 4. The protester must demonstrate
that the evaluation was unreasonable, a burden that is not met by mere
expressions of disagreement with that evaluation. CH2M Hill, Ltd., B-259511
et al., Apr. 6, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 203 at 4. We have examined the evaluation
record here and based on our assessment of the record, we find the
evaluation of DGR's and CMSI's proposals unobjectionable. We discuss some of
DGR's key arguments below. [4]

MISSION CAPABILITY

Contract Management

DGR argues that the agency improperly downgraded its proposal because the
protester proposed [DELETED], which the Air Force found would cause
"over-tasking" and conflicts of interest. Protest at 4. According to the
protester, nothing in the RFP requires that [DELETED]; DGR disputes the
agency's assessment that its [DELETED]may be overburdened with duties if he
also serves as the [DELETED]. Protester's Comments at 3-4.

This argument is without merit. The Air Force concedes that the RFP did not
specifically require that two individuals staff the [DELETED] positions.
However, given DGR's proposed approach to have one individual serve as
[DELETED], the agency found that "[c]onflicting or multiple roles [DELETED]
increases the risk of compromising [DELETED] in order to meet project
schedules and cost control." AR, Tab 2, CO Statement, at 7. The agency
concluded that "based on the magnitude of the MFHM requirements, [DELETED]
are too extensive to be adequately supported by one individual." Id. DGR has
not rebutted the agency's explanation in this regard and there is no basis
to question the adverse evaluation regarding DGR's approach to staffing
these positions. We conclude that the agency reasonably determined that this
area of DGR's proposal evidenced a significant weakness.

Nonetheless, the protester insists that "[t]here is no difference between
the scope of duties DGR intended to assign to the [DELETED], versus CMSI's
[DELETED]." Protester's Comments at 3-4. The record shows, contrary to the
protester's allegations, that while CMSI's [DELETED] would assume the
duties/responsibilities of the [DELETED] in his absence, the operations
superintendent would not also perform the [DELETED], which are important to
contract performance; rather, another individual would perform those
functions. Similarly, the record does not support DGR's allegation that
CMSI's proposal should have been downgraded because its proposed [DELETED]
would also oversee the warehouse manager, thereby creating a similar
conflict of interest and overburdening of duties, as noted by the evaluators
with regard to DGR's approach to staffing [DELETED]. Id. The record shows
that CMSI did not propose that the {DELETED} would perform the dual duties
of the warehouse manager; instead, CMSI proposed two individuals to fill
these two distinct and separate positions. AR, Tab 22, CMSI's Mission
Capability Proposal, at 4. Thus, CMSI's approach presents no conflict of
interest between the responsibilities of the [DELETED] and the warehouse
manager; likewise, the record does not indicate that the awardee's [DELETED]
would be overburdened by multiple duties.

As further evidence that the evaluation of DGR's proposal was inconsistent
with that of CMSI's proposal, DGR alleges that CMSI was attributed a
strength for proposing that its [DELETED]. Protester's Comments at 3-4. The
contemporaneous evaluation record belies this allegation. The only strength
assessed to CMSI's proposal in this area was based on the independent
authority given to the QC manager to stop work and initiate corrective
action. No strength was attributed to CMSI or to DGR based on [DELETED].
Thus, there is no basis to question the evaluation of proposals in this
area.

Resource Management

DGR alleges that its proposal and CMSI's proposal were evaluated unequally
in the resource management area, relying on the difference in terms used in
the individual evaluator analysis worksheets. Specifically, the protester
points out that the individual evaluator analysis worksheet gave DGR a
rating of "fail" for not addressing resource estimating whereas CMSI was
given a rating of "meets" although no resource estimating was included in
CMSI's proposal. Protester's Comments at 5.

The record shows that while the consensus evaluation reflects the overall
ratings that the individual members as a group agreed should be assigned to
DGR's and CMSI's proposals, their ratings did not precisely track the
terminology/rating used by individual evaluators on the evaluator analysis
worksheets. Supplemental AR, July 10, 2000, at 1. However, the record also
shows that the consensus evaluation report submitted to the SSA states that
CMSI's proposal did not address estimating and that this was a weakness in
CMSI's proposal. Our chief concern is whether the evaluation documentation
communicates the principal strengths and weaknesses to the SSA and whether
the record supports the evaluators' conclusions and the SSA's selection as
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. Marine Animal
Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 16 at 14. The
consensus evaluation report submitted to the SSA accurately conveyed the
fact that DGR's and CMSI's proposals failed to address resource estimating
and stated that for both firms this lack of information was a weakness. AR,
Tab 34, Source Selection Briefing Slides, at 11, 15. There is no basis to
question the evaluation in this regard.

Quality Control Plan

As stated previously, the RFP specified that a draft QC plan was to be
included as part of the 50-page mission capability volume and offerors were
instructed as to the type of information that should be addressed in the
quality control plan. RFP
amend. 6, sect.sect. L.II.3.3, L.II.2.2. DGR's QC plan was outside the 50-page
mission capability volume limitation and therefore the agency considered
only information concerning its QC plan that was included in the 50-page
limit. The agency rated DGR's proposal as deficient for lack of a QC plan.

DGR argues that this area of evaluated deficiency was unreasonable because
DGR's proposal was "replete with information about its quality control
‘plan' and it provides within the 50-page proposal essentially no more
and no less than CMSI's plan." Protester's Comments at 6. Had its QC plan
within the 50-pages been evaluated, DGR asserts that its proposal would have
been rated acceptable overall, rather than marginal, under the mission
capability evaluation factor. Protester's Supplemental Comments, July 14,
2000, at 3.

While the protester focuses on the "abbreviated" QC information in its
mission capability proposal, the record indicates that the evaluated
deficiency related to DGR's failure to provide a QC plan which addressed
specific quality control and inspection system procedures and detailed
processes for ensuring that services would meet contract performance
requirements. The agency found that while DGR's proposal references several
concepts that its QC plan would identify, implement and document, DGR's
proposal did not provide [DELETED]. For example, the agency notes that DGR
proposed "[DELETED]." AR, Tab 23, DGR's Proposal, at 10. The agency found
that DGR did not provide [DELETED]as required by the RFP; DGR does not rebut
this finding. Supplemental AR, July 10, 2000, at 3.

In contrast, CMSI's proposal provided specific, measurable time frames and
frequency for accomplishing its QC program and included a complete
inspection schedule outlining specific procedures, processes, time frames
and schedules, and a sample form for taking corrective action and reporting
discrepancies. AR, Tab 22, CMSI's Mission Capability Proposal, at 35-41. We
think the agency's evaluation of the two firms' QC programs was reasonable
and supported by the record. The protester is simply disagreeing with the
assigned deficiency rating based on its view that its "abbreviated" QC plan
should have received some evaluation credit; however, that disagreement
provides no basis to challenge the rating assigned by the evaluators.

Proposal Enhancements

DGR alleges that CMSI was not entitled to evaluation credit for the
enhancements identified in its mission capability proposal since the agency
did not incorporate CMSI's proposal into the resultant contract. Protest at
3. Since CMSI is not bound to honor the evaluated enhancements in its
mission capability proposals, the protester alleges, a lower mission
capability and/or higher proposal risk rating should have been assigned to
CMSI's proposal. Id. at 3-5.

The Air Force concedes that because of an administrative oversight, the RFP
inadvertently incorporated by reference Air Force Materiel Command Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement sect. 5352.215-9006, entitled "Intent to
Incorporate Contractor's Technical Proposal." Supplemental AR at 5. The
agency explains that it was never the government's intent to incorporate all
or part of the awardee's proposal in the resultant contract; rather, as a
matter of contract administration, the Air Force would utilize the award fee
to ensure quality contract performance by CMSI. Under the award fee plan for
this contract, the agency maintains that CMSI will be rewarded only for
exceeding contract standards and this would motivate the contractor to
exceed performance standards and deliver on the representations the firm
made in its technical proposal. Id.

DGR disputes the agency's position that the award fee process here would
provide an incentive for CMSI to perform as proposed in its mission
capability proposal. The protester argues that an enhancement should only be
considered a "strength" if the agency incorporated the benefit into the
contract or it was inherent in the offeror's process; as such, the protester
challenges the strength assessed CMSI for reducing the response times
specified in the PWS. Protester's Comments at 10-11.

As discussed previously, the record shows that both offerors were assigned
evaluation strengths in areas where their proposals demonstrated the
potential to exceed specified performance standards. CMSI had several
evaluated strengths; DGR was assessed a strength in [DELETED]. To the extent
DGR argues that the agency should not have rated either firm's proposal as
offering a technical strength because their proposals would not be
incorporated into the contract, the firms were not prejudiced by the
agency's evaluation in this regard since both were given credit for their
respective technical strengths. [5]

PAST PERFORMANCE

DGR raises a series of allegations in which it essentially disagrees with
the re-evaluation of CMSI's past performance as exceptional/high confidence.
DGR claims that CMSI's assessment rating is "totally unjustified" because
the two SABER contracts evaluated by the PRAG have limited relevance to the
services covered by the solicitation here. According to the protester, both
SABER contracts are "nowhere near the same or similar in scope, magnitude or
complexity" as the solicited requirements since neither contract includes
any residential housing maintenance, service calls, change of occupancy
maintenance, interior/exterior maintenance or grounds maintenance.
Protester's Comments at 12. Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of
offerors' past performance, we will examine an agency's evaluation only to
ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation
criteria, since determining the relative merits of offerors' past
performance information is primarily a matter within the contracting
agency's discretion. See Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, Inc.,
B-279793, July 23, 1998,
98-2 CPD para. 29 at 3. We conclude that the past performance assessment
challenged by DGR was reasonable.

As noted above, the RFP informed offerors that the agency would evaluate
information provided by each offeror concerning contracts for "the same or
similar" services to determine relevancy. Consistent with this advice, the
agency evaluated the degree of similarity between CMSI's SABER contracts and
the RFP requirements. Based on this analysis, the PRAG found that the
awardee's SABER contracts were relevant because they were similar in scope
and magnitude to the solicited requirements. AR, Tab 26, PRAG Evaluation
Summary.

We think the agency could reasonably decide that these two SABER contracts
were relevant to the proposed effort. Nothing in the definition of
relevance, quoted above, limits offerors to precisely the same effort as
covered by the solicitation here; rather, the solicitation anticipates
review of a fairly broad range of experience in housing maintenance/minor
repair construction. Therefore, to the extent the referenced SABER contracts
were somewhat different from the scope of the solicited effort, the Air
Force recognized the differences and concluded that CMSI's performance
history was sufficiently close to be relevant. In short, the agency
reasonably determined that CMSI's SABER contracts were relevant and we find
no error with respect to the evaluation of CMSI's past performance.

Here, we conclude the SSA's decision to award to CMSI on the basis of a
proposal that was higher rated and lower priced than DGR's proposal was
reasonable. As discussed above, DGR's proposal reasonably was downgraded in
several areas, for example, [DELETED], resulting in DGR's proposal being
rated lower than CMSI's proposal under the mission capability evaluation
factor. DGR's proposal also

reasonably warranted a moderate risk rating as compared to CMSI's. Further,
there is no basis to question the past performance rating given to CMSI. On
this record, we have no basis to object to the award to CMSI, the firm
submitting a higher rated, lower priced proposal.

The protests are denied.

Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

Notes

1. The RFP stated that current and relevant performance would have greater
importance in the performance confidence assessment than less recent and
less relevant performance. Current and recent performance was described as
ongoing contracts with a performance record of at least 1-year and contracts
completed within 3 years from the solicitation's issuance date. Relevance
was defined as services that are the same or similar in scope, magnitude and
complexity as that described in the PWS. Id. sect. M.B.5.2.

2. On May 10, in preparation for the scheduled telephonic debriefing, the
agency sent DGR, by facsimile, DGR's source selection briefing slides to the
SSA, redacted CMSI slides, and redacted SSA source selection decision
documents. AR, Tab 2, CO Statement, at 2.

3. For the record, we note that CMSI's past performance volume clearly
identified CDC as the prime contractor for contract No. F65501-97-D-0016
(the Elmendorf AFB contract), and CDC as the managing partner of the joint
venture (CDC and The Andrews Group) for DAHC76-96-D-0002 (the Army Posts
contracts). AR, Tab 22, CMSI's Past Performance Proposal.

4. DGR identifies a number of examples of alleged unreasonable evaluation
ratings and other flaws in the evaluation of proposals. We have reviewed
them all and find that none provides any basis to disturb the award.

5. We also note that since offerors were on notice that their technical
proposals would be incorporated into the contract, (even though ultimately
this did not happen), in preparing their technical proposals, the offerors
had no reason to believe that their promises would not be incorporated into
the contract.