TITLE:  Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc., B-285777, October 10, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285777
DATE:  October 10, 2000
**********************************************************************
Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc., B-285777, October 10, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc.

File: B-285777

Date: October 10, 2000

Robert Sonenthal, Esq., and Nina G. Nathani, Esq., Sonenthal and Overall,
for the protester.

Roy Goldberg, Esq., Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, for DPK Consulting, the
intervenor.

Diane A. Perone, Esq., Agency for International Development, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. General Accounting Office cannot find that the agency reasonably
evaluated the protester's oral presentation where the agency and protester
disagree as to the content of the oral presentation, the contemporaneous
record of the oral discussions and presentations--which consists only of the
protester's presentation materials and the evaluators' scoresheets--does not
support the evaluators' conclusions regarding the protester's approach, and
the agency did not act in accordance with the terms of the solicitation
where it disregarded the protester's previously submitted written proposal
in evaluating the oral presentation.

2. Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions where it did not
reasonably apprise the protester during discussions of significant
weaknesses that caused the protester's proposal to be eliminated from the
competition.

DECISION

Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc. protests the award of a contract to DPK
Consulting under request for proposals (RFP) No. 519-00-P-006, issued by the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), for technical assistance
and training to the government of El Salvador. Checchi contends that the
agency's evaluation and exclusion of its proposal from the competition and
the evaluation of DPK's proposal and its selection for award were
unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, and that
the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions.

We sustain the protest.

The RFP was issued to obtain technical assistance to "support El Salvador's
efforts to institutionalize the new Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal
Code . . . in order to establish timely, effective and fair legal processes
based on the rule of law." RFP at 8. The solicitation explained that the
contractor's efforts are "an integral component" of USAID's overall
strategic objective for "More Inclusive and Effective Democratic Processes"
in El Salvador. RFP at 14. The RFP set forth two "intermediate results" for
achieving the overall objective, [1] and described six "illustrative
activities" to be performed under the contract in an effort to achieve the
intermediate results. [2] RFP at 15-20.

The solicitation provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract,
for a base period of 2 years with one 1-year option, to the offeror whose
proposal represented the best value to the government. RFP at 24, 75. The
solicitation stated that the evaluation of proposals would be conducted in
three different phases. RFP at 72.

For the phase I evaluation, offerors were to submit technical and business
management proposals that would be evaluated under the following criteria:

Technical

1. Institutional Capability and Past Performance (20 points)

2. Management Plan and Key Personnel (30 points)

3. Technical Concept Paper (50 points)

Business Management

1. Cost Reasonableness (20%)

2. Policies and Procedures Reflect Cost Consciouness (15%)

3. Award Fee Structure (30%)

4. Past Performance in Contract Administration (30%)

5. Proposal Content and Preparation (5%)

RFP at 78-80. The solicitation explained that the technical evaluation
criteria were significantly more important than the business management
criteria, and that the contracting officer would determine based upon the
evaluation of the phase I proposals which firms would be requested to
participate in phase II of the evaluation process. RFP at 76.

The RFP stated that phase II of the evaluation would consist of "Discussions
and Oral Presentations" with those offerors "determined to have a reasonable
chance for award." RFP at 74. The solicitation set forth a general framework
for the "oral discussion/presentation" sessions and provided that "oral
presentations" would be evaluated under two factors: technical approach (60
points) and management/adminstrative approach (40 points). Id. at 74, 79.
The solicitation added that "business discussions" would "involve a
negotiation of the items presented in the [previously submitted written]
business management proposal[s]," and that "these discussions will take
place on the same day as the oral presentations." RFP at 74.

The RFP informed offerors that in phase III "[a] final revised proposal will
be requested from the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) continue to have a
reasonable chance for award." The solicitation specified that "[t]he written
proposal will include (1) amendment(s), if any to the original proposal; and
(2) first year workplan," as well as a revised business management proposal.
Id. The RFP, however, did not list any evaluation factors or criteria for
phase III. [3]

The agency received proposals from five offerors, including Checchi and DPK,
by the RFP's April 28, 2000 closing date. Agency Report, Tab 3, Negotiation
Memorandum, at 7. The offerors' technical and business management proposals
were forwarded to the technical evaluation committee (TEC) and business
committee, respectively. Id. at 5, 10. DPK's technical proposal received a
score of 80.60 out of 100 points, and its business management proposal
received 58 out of 100 points. Checchi's technical and business management
proposals received scores of 64.20 and 59 points, respectively. Id. at 8-9.

The agency determined that DPK, Checchi, and a third offeror had a
reasonable chance for award. Id. at 10. By letters dated May 17, USAID
invited these three firms to participate in oral presentations and
discussions. These letters "recommended that all proposed key personnel
attend the presentation," and provided "a list of proposal strengths and
weaknesses as reported by the [TEC]" to "assist [each offeror] in being
fully prepared for the oral presentations." The letters also informed the
offerors that "[i]n the afternoon of the date of your oral presentation, the
business management proposal will be discussed." Agency Report, Tabs 9 and
10, Letters from USAID to Checchi and DPK.

DPK, Checchi, and the third offeror each participated in the phase II
discussions/oral presentations. According to the agency, during the portion
of the phase II discussions/oral presentations which addressed the offeror's
technical approach, "[q]uestions were made on an as needed basis." Agency
Report, Tab 3, Negotiation Memorandum, at 11. After the discussions/oral
presentations were completed, "the business/management issues were discussed
with the various contractors." Id.

The record of the discussion/oral presentation sessions consists only of the
individual scoresheets completed by the agency evaluators (which appear to
have been completed either during or shortly after each offeror's
discussion/oral presentation session) and the offerors' presentation
materials; the agency did not otherwise record the discussions/oral
presentations. Agency Report, Tab 18, DPK's Oral Presentation Materials; Tab
19, Evaluators Scoresheets for DPK's Oral Presentation; Tab 21, Checchi's
Oral Presentation Materials; Tab 23, Evaluator Scoresheets for Checchi's
Oral Presentation.

In accordance with the solicitation, which, as indicated, included
evaluation factors for only the portion of the discussions/oral
presentations regarding the offerors' technical and
management/administrative approaches (and not business management), the
evaluators assigned scores of 83 out of 100 points to DPK and 73 points to
Checchi. Agency Report, Tab 3, Negotiation Memorandum, at 11. In so scoring
the proposals, the evaluators considered only the phase II discussions/oral
presentations and did not consider the phase I proposals. Agency Report at
26-27. The agency determined, based upon the evaluation results of the
discussions/oral presentations, that "only DPK had a reasonable chance for
award," and that it would request a final revised proposal from only DPK for
consideration during phase III of the evaluation process. [4] Agency Report,
Tab 3, Negotiation Memorandum, at 13.

In deciding to remove Checchi from the competition for phase III, the agency
noted the following technical weaknesses in Checchi's oral presentation: (1)
Checchi had a "[h]eavy focus on human rights which is not a main focus of
the contract"; (2) Checchi "[e]mphasized activities with [the] Public
Defender's Office when the need to put the accent is in the Attorney General
Office and the Police"; (3) Checchi proposed an "[u]nbalanced combination of
local partners, which is not adequate to perform the project results.
Proposed institutions lack political balance to truly represent the justice
sector objectively"; and (4) the "proposed local institution to carry out
training activities, IDHUCA [Instituto de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad
Centroamericana] specializes in human rights not in legal reform training."
[5] Id. at 12-13.

Following the determination to include only DPK in the phase III evaluation,
USAID found that an individual proposed for one of the "key personnel"
positions identified in DPK's proposal--its Chief of Party (COP)--was
objectionable because the individual was not a citizen of the United States.
The record reflects that the contracting officer then reviewed DPK's
proposal and the evaluators' scoring of DPK's discussions/oral
presentation--which DPK's COP participated in as one of DPK's proposed "key
personnel"--and determined that, even without any individual designated to
fill the proposed "key personnel" COP position, "DPK remained as the only
firm with a reasonable chance for award." [6] Id. at 13.

The agency informed Checchi by telephone that it had been excluded from the
remainder of the competition and requested that DPK submit a revised final
proposal. Id. at 14. The agency subsequently awarded the contract to DPK at
its proposed total cost of $3,986,083, with the individual to fill DPK's COP
position designated as "to be determined" given that DPK had not found a
substitute for the individual it initially proposed as its COP. Id. at 14,
16. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, Checchi filed this protest.
[7]

Checchi protests that the agency's evaluation of its proposal, including its
discussions/oral presentation, was unreasonable. In reviewing an agency's
decision to exclude a proposal from the remainder of a competition, we look
first to the agency's evaluation to determine whether it had a reasonable
basis. Although in reviewing an agency's evaluation we will not
independently determine the merits of a proposal or presentation, we will
examine the record to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the evaluation criteria. J&J Maintenance, Inc., B-284708.2,
B-284708.3, June 5, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 106 at 3; Essex Electro Eng'rs, Inc.,
B-284149, B-284149.2, Feb. 28, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 72 at 6.

FAR sect. 15.102(e) requires that agencies maintain a record of oral
presentations. The source selection authority selects the method of
recording, and FAR sect. 15.102(e) gives the following examples: videotaping,
audio tape recording, written record, government notes, and copies of
offeror briefing slides or presentation notes. Although the FAR thus does
not require a particular method of establishing a record of what was said or
occurred during oral presentations, the fundamental principle of government
acountability dictates that an agency maintain a record adequate to permit
meaningful review. J&J Maintenance, Inc., supra; see Delta Int'l, Inc.,
B-284364.2, May 11, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 78 at 4; Telos Field Eng'g, B-253492.6,
Dec. 15, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 240 at 9.

Here, the contemporaneous record of the Checchi's discussion/oral
presentation session consists only of Checchi's presentation materials and
the evaluators' scoresheets. Although the agency has supplemented the
contemporaneous record with detailed declarations supporting its version of
what occurred during the discussions/oral presentation, the protester has
submitted detailed declarations that persuasively state, with references to
Checchi's phase I proposal and oral presentation materials, that its
discussions/oral presentation did not, as the agency contends, unduly focus
on human rights, or overemphasize the public defender's office instead of
focusing on the attorney general and police. As explained below, we cannot
find based upon this record that the agency acted reasonably in its
evaluation of Checchi's oral presentation.

As noted, Checchi contends it did not focus or otherwise emphasize human
rights in its technical proposal or during its discussions/oral
presentations. Protester's Comments at 33-34; Protester's Comments, exh.B,
Declaration of Checchi's Senior Associate/Home Office Project Manager, at
6-7. In support of this, Checchi points to the presentation materials it
furnished the agency at the discussion/oral presentation, and contends that,
contrary to the agency's characterization, its oral presentation did not
focus on human rights activities, but rather, in accordance with its
understanding of the solicitation, "focused on the need to strengthen police
and prosecutorial activities." Agency Report, Tab 21, Checchi Phase II
Presentation Materials; Protester's Comments, exh. C, Declaration of
Checchi's COP, at 2.

The protester also argues that the agency unreasonably concluded that
Checchi emphasized activities with the public defender's office instead of
the attorney general's office, contending that it clearly addressed and
placed the proper emphasis on the role of the attorney general's office in
both its written techical proposal and during its discussion/oral
presentation session. Protest at 10-11; Protester's Comments at 24-27. In
support of its position, the protester points to its phase I written
proposal, its phase II discussion/oral presentation materials, and detailed
declarations furnished by two of its proposed key personnel--its proposed
Home Office Project Manager and COP--who participated in Checchi's
discussion/oral presentation session. Agency Report, Tabs 7 and 21,
Checchi's Technical Proposal and Presentation Materials; Protester's
Comments at 24-27, exhs. B & C, Declarations of Checchi's proposed Home
Office Project Manager and COP.

Our review confirms that Checchi's presentation materials include no
specific mention of human rights. Nor, as argued by Checchi (and not refuted
by the agency) do the presentation materials appear to emphasize activities
with the public defender's office rather than with the police or attorney
general. In light of the content of Checchi's presentation materials, the
fact that Checchi maintains through, among other things, the declarations of
two of its proposed key personel who participated in its discussion/oral
presentation that its discussion/oral presentation did not focus on human
rights or emphasize the activities with the public defender's office rather
than with the police or the attorney general's office, and the lack of any
contemporaneous record of what Checchi actually said during its
discussion/oral presentation session, we cannot find that the agency acted
reasonably in downgrading Checchi's oral presentation for these perceived
weaknesses. [8] Agency Report, Tabs 7 and 21, Checchi's Technical Proposal
and Presentation Materials; Protester's Comments at 24-27, exhs. B & C,
Declarations of Checchi's proposed Home Office Project Manager and COP.

The agency's phase II evaluation of Checchi was also flawed because the
agency, by completely disregarding Checchi's phase I written proposal in
determining to exclude Checchi from phase III of the evaluation process,
failed to evaluate Checchi's submissions in accordance with the terms of the
solicitation. Specifically, with regard to Checchi's claim that the role of
the attorney general's office is clearly addressed and properly emphasized
in Checchi's technical proposal, the agency asserts that it "designed the
RFP so that the offerors' written proposals would be evaluated seperately
from their discussions/oral presentations." Agency's Reply to Checchi's
Comments, Sept. 8, 2000, at 2; Agency Report at 26-27. The agency explains
with regard to its evaluation of the discussions/oral presentations that "at
this point, the TEC was rating the Phase II offerors on their Phase II
discussions/oral presentations--not on their Phase I written technical
concept papers." Agency Report at 26.

Checchi asserts, and we agree, that the solicitation did not provide that
phase I technical proposals would be excluded from consideration during
phase II. First, the agency does not argue (and we are unaware of any basis
to claim) that the RFP informed offerors that the agency would completely
disregard the offerors' phase I technical proposals during its consideration
of the phase II discussions/oral presentations. Rather, as explained below,
the RFP can only be reasonably read as providing just the opposite. For
example, the RFP provided that the agency "would like to see," among other
things, a discussion of the offeror's organization/ corporation and its
technical and management/adminstrative approach. RFP at 74. This outline, by
tracking the outline provided for the submission of the offerors' phase I
technical proposals, which provided that the proposals were to address,
among other things, the "[o]rganizational experience and qualifications" of
the offeror, as well as the offeror's technical and management approach,
suggested that the discussion/oral presentation session was meant to
"augment" the offeror's phase I proposals. RFP at 72-73; see FAR sect. 15.102
(oral presentations "may substitute for, or augment, written information").

The solicitation also provided that, for phase III, the offeror(s)
continuing to have a reasonable chance for award were to submit a "revised
proposal," which was to include "amendment(s), if any to the original
proposal." RFP at 74. Given that the RFP specifically identifies the phase
III written proposals as revisions of the offeror(s) phase I proposals and
provides for their evaluation, the agency's position would appear to be that
the RFP provided for the consideration of the offerors' phase I proposals
only during phase I and III of the evaluation process, and their complete
exclusion from phase II of the evaluation process. Absent some express
language in the RFP, we do not agree with the agency that the RFP can
reasonably read as providing that the evaluation would be conducted in this
manner.

The RFP's indication that the discussion/oral presentation sessions were
meant to augment the offerors' phase I proposals was strengthened by the
agency's actions during the conduct of the procurement. As mentioned
previously, the agency invited the firms to participate in oral
presentations and discussions by letter, and these letters provided "a list
of proposal strengths and weaknesses as reported by the technical evaluation
committee" to "assist [each offeror] in being fully prepared for the oral
presentations." Agency Report, Tabs 9 and 10, Letters from USAID to Checchi
and DPK. In our view, the letters notifying offerors of the evaluated
weaknesses in their phase I proposals so that they could be better prepared
for their phase II oral presentations cannot be reconciled with the agency's
position that the offerors' phase I written proposals were in essence
irrelevant to phase II of the evaluation process.

In sum, the agency did not act in accordance with the terms of the
solicitation when it disregarded Checchi's phase I technical proposal during
its consideration of Checchi's phase II discussion/oral presentation, and
its conclusion that Checchi's approach included an undue emphasis on human
rights and on activities with the public defender's office instead of the
attorney general's office and the police is not reasonably supported by the
record. [9]

Checchi also argues that it was not provided with meaningful discussions.
Discussions must be meaningful, equitable, and not misleading; in order for
discussions to be meaningful the agency is obligated to point out
significant weaknesses, excesses, and deficiencies in the proposals. In
reviewing whether an agency conducted meaningful discussions with a
protester, our Office looks to whether, among other the things, the agency
gave the offeror reasonable notice of its

specific concerns regarding the offeror's proposal. Professional Performance
Dev. Group, Inc., B-279561.2 et al., July 6, 1998, 99-2 CPD para. 29 at 5.

Checchi contends that it was not informed by the agency in either the letter
to Checchi that invited the firm to participate in discussions/oral
presentations or during the discussion/oral presentation of the perceived
weakness concerning the alleged lack of political balance of its local
partners. Protest at 9-10. The agency responds only that its May 17 letter
to Checchi addressed this issue by listing as a weakness the agency's
assessment that Checchi's "[l]ocal [non-governmental organization] partners
are not focused on prime issues of contract." Agency Report at 29; Tab 9,
Letter from USAID to Checchi. The agency has not explained how this comment
reasonably apprised Checchi of the agency's concern that its "[p]roposed
institutions lack political balance," and we agree with the protester that
it did not do so. Thus, the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions in
this respect.

In response to Checchi's contention that meaningful discussions were not
conducted regarding Checchi's alleged undue emphasis on human rights, the
agency claims that it commented during Checchi's discussions/oral
presentation that one of Checchi's proposed partner's "heavy focus on human
rights does not parallel the main focus of the RFP." Agency Report at 28;
Tab 5, Declaration of TEC Member, at 3-4. Because, as discussed above, the
record of the discussions/oral presentations consists only of Checchi's
presentation materials and the evaluators' scoresheets, the agency can only
point to the scoresheets of two of the evaluators who attended the
discussions/oral presentations in support of its assertion that it did raise
this issue with Checchi. However, the fact that two of the evaluators noted
that Checchi's approach focused on human rights does not equate to
contemporaneous documentation that this perceived weakness was discussed
with, or in any way conveyed to, Checchi.

Although the agency has also furnished the declaration of one of these
evaluators recalling that during the discussion/oral presentation session
with Checchi two TEC members made "the point that [one of Checchi's
partners'] heavy focus on human rights does not parallel the main focus of
the RFP," we note that this declaration was prepared by the agency solely
for the purpose of defending this protest. Agency Report, Tabs 5 and 23,
Declaration of TEC Member, at 4; Evaluator Scoresheets. Given Checchi's
contention that its perceived focus on human rights was not mentioned or
otherwise raised by the agency during the discussion/oral presentation
session, and the fact that Checchi's presentation materials do not contain
any specific mention of human rights, as well as the lack of any
contemporaneous documentation or record establishing or otherwise showing
that this issue was raised with Checchi, we cannot find that this matter was
raised with Checchi based solely on an evaluator's declaration prepared for
the purpose of defending this protest. See Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc.,
B-272388.2, Dec. 9, 1996, 97-2 CPD para. 89 at 6 (our Office accords greater
weight to contemporaneous evaluation and source selection materials than to
the parties' later explanations, arguments, and testimony).

We conclude that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions because
it did not reasonably apprise the protester of significant weaknesses that
caused the protester's proposal to be eliminated from the competition.

The protest is sustained.

We recommend that the agency review the terms of the RFP and, should the
agency still want to refrain from considering the offerors' phase I written
proposals during consideration of the offerors' phase II discussions/oral
presentations, it should amend the solicitation accordingly. As discussed
above, the agency should also review and amend the RFP to provide for the
consideration of cost/price as a significant evaluation factor, to state the
phase III evaluation factors, and to state the U.S citizenship requirement
for the COP. The agency should then request and evaluate proposals in a
manner consistent with the solicitation as amended, and make a new source
selection decision. If a proposal other than DPK's is selected for award,
the agency should terminate the contract previously awarded to DPK. We also
recommend that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing
and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1)
(2000). The protester should submit its claim for costs, detailing and
certifying the time expended and cost incurred, with the contracting agency
within 60 days after the receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. The intermediate results are "Increased use of the Justice System" and
"Improved Court Case Preparation and Management." RFP at 15.

2. The illustrative activities include, for example, "Greater understanding
of the roles and responsiblities of the new Criminal Procedure Code and
Criminal Code by all judicial operators," and "Successful establishment of
rural legal centers to improve access to legal services in selected sites."
RFP at 15, 18.

3. The RFP was deficient in that it did not include any evaluation factors
for phase III revised proposals. 41 U.S.C. sect. 253a(b)(1) (1994 & Supp. IV
1998); Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.304(d). Since we sustain
Checchi's protest on other grounds, we recommend that the agency, as part of
its corrective action, amend the solicitation so that it includes phase III
evaluation factors.

4. It is unclear from the record whether the agency considered DPK's
proposed costs at any time prior to selecting DPK for award or ever
considered the proposed costs of offerors other than DPK. Cost or price to
the government must be included in every RFP as a significant evaluation
factor, and agencies must consider cost or price to the government in
evaluating competitive proposals. 41 U.S.C. sect. 253a(c)(1)(B) (1994); FAR sect.
15.304(c)(1); Kathpal Techs., Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc.,
B-283137.3 et al., Dec. 30, 1999, 2000 CPD para. 6 at 9; see Electronic Design,
Inc., B-279662.2, et al. Aug. 31, 1998, 98-2 CPD para.69 at 8. This requirement
means that an agency cannot eliminate a technically acceptable proposal from
consideration for award without taking into account the relative cost of
that proposal to the government. Kathpal Techs., Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech
Management, Inc., supra. Because we sustain Checchi's protest, we recommend
that the agency, as part of its corrective action, ensure that cost is a
significant evaluation factor under the RFP and that it is considered in the
evaluation. See Electronic Design, Inc., supra (an evaluation and source
selection that fails to give significant consideration to cost or price
cannot serve as a reasonable basis for award).

5. USAID identified two additional technical weaknesses in Checchi's oral
presentation that are not protested.

6. Checchi protests that the removal of DPK's COP from its proposal rendered
the agency's evaluation and selection of DPK's proposal for award improper.
Because we sustain the protest and recommend that the agency amend the
solicitation, we need not decide this issue. We note, as does the agency in
its administrative report, that the RFP did not specify that an offeror's
COP had to be a citizen of the United States, and we recommend that the
agency review the RFP and amend it, if necessary, to reflect the agency's
actual requirement.

7. As a preliminary matter, the agency contends that Checchi's protest is
untimely because USAID's telephonic notification to Checchi that it had been
excluded from the remainder of the competition constituted an attempt to
debrief Checchi, which failed only because of Checchi's negative reaction to
the agency's notification that Checchi was being excluded from the
competition. Agency Report at 18-19. Contrary to the agency's
characterization in its report, the record reflects that the agency's
telephonic notification that Checchi was being excluded from the remainder
of the competition was intended and served only as such a notice and not as
an attempt to debrief the protester, and that the agency debriefed Checchi
by letter dated June 21, 2000. Agency Report, Tab 4, Declaration of the
Regional Contracting Officer at para. 46-48; Tab 29. Accordingly, there is no
basis to find the protest untimely.

8. The agency does not contend that Checchi's phase II presentation
materials support the agency's conclusion that Checchi overemphasized human
rights or the public defenders office.

9. For much the same reasons, the record also does not support USAID's
determination that Checchi planned to use IDHUCA "as a lead institution for
Checchi's training activities." Agency Report at 27, Tab 3 Negotiation
Memorandum, at 13. The agency's conclusion that IDHUCA would carry out
Checchi's training activities is unsupported by the record, given that it is
inconsistent with Checchi's phase I proposal, its phase II presentation
materials, and the declarations of the individuals who participated in
Checchi's oral presentation. Agency Report, Tabs 7 and 21, Checchi's
Technical Proposal and Presentation Materials; Protester's Comments at
29-32, exh. B, Declaration of Checchi's Senior Associate/Home Office Project
Manager, at 5-6.