TITLE:  SDS International, B-285822; B-285822.2, September 29, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285822; B-285822.2
DATE:  September 29, 2000
**********************************************************************
SDS International, B-285822; B-285822.2, September 29, 2000

Decision

Matter of: SDS International

File: B-285822; B-285822.2

Date: September 29, 2000

Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., James S. Phillips, Esq., Francis E. Purcell, Jr.,
Esq., and Rachel L. Smith, Esq., Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, for the
protester.

Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon,
for CBD Training, Inc., the intervenor.

Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Robert Allen, Esq., and Warren D. Leishman, Esq.,
Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency reasonably assigned a favorable past performance rating to
awardee's proposal based primarily on the experience of one key individual
where solicitation specifically stated that in assessing past performance,
the agency would consider the experience of key personnel; that individual
has extensive, relevant experience; and, as corporate vice president and
project manager, that individual will have substantial involvement in
managing and overseeing performance of the contract.

2. Protester's contention that the evaluation of proposals was unreasonable
is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance
with the criteria announced in the solicitation and reasonably supports the
ratings assigned the protester's and awardee's proposals.

3. Contention that agency improperly evaluated proposed staffing levels
against undisclosed staffing levels is denied. Agencies may properly
evaluate proposals against an undisclosed reasonable estimate of appropriate
staffing, where the solicitation notifies offerors that staffing is an
evaluation area and evaluation takes into account the offeror's approach and
unique features of the proposal.

DECISION

SDS International protests the award of a contract to CBD Training, Inc.
under request for proposals (RFP) No. F44650-00-R-0006, issued by the
Department of the Air Force for F-117 and T-38 aircrew training and
courseware development at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. SDS
challenges the evaluation of its and the awardee's proposals and argues that
the award decision was flawed.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued April 10, 2000 as a total small business set-aside,
contemplated the award of a fixed-priced contract for a phase-in period, a
base year, and up to six 1-year option periods. The statement of work (SOW)
divided the specific tasks into three categories: (1) contract aircrew
training (CAT), (2) courseware development (CWD), and (3) general tasks. The
RFP listed past performance, mission capability, risk, and price as
evaluation factors, with past performance and mission capability considered
of "primary and equal importance." SOW sect. 9, para. (a), at 31. Within the mission
capability factor, the RFP also listed the following three subfactors in
descending order of importance: personnel qualifications and management
(PQM), CWD approach and instructional systems development (ISD) management
plan, and phase-in process. The RFP explained that each subfactor within the
mission capability area would be assigned a color and adjectival rating
(red/unacceptable, yellow/marginal, green/acceptable or blue/exceptional).
The RFP further stated that in assessing each offeror's past performance,
evaluators would use a confidence rating scale ranging from
"unsatisfactory/no confidence" to "exceptional/high confidence." Proposals
would also be assigned risk ratings at the subfactor level (low, moderate or
high) to reflect the strengths and weaknesses associated with each offeror's
proposed approach. The RFP stated that price would not be numerically scored
but would be evaluated for reasonableness. The RFP warned that the
government might award a contract without conducting discussions and
cautioned offerors to submit their best proposals initially. Award was to be
made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to
the government.

Six offerors, including SDS and CBD, responded to the RFP by the time set on
May 4 for receipt of initial proposals, and a source selection evaluation
team (SSET) evaluated proposals with the following results for the protester
and the awardee:

 Mission Capability

      Past Perf./Conf.     PQM/Risk   ISD/Risk   Phase-in/Risk  Price

 SDS  Satisfactory/Conf.   Green/Low  Green/Low  Blue/Low       $6,634,127

 CBD  Exceptional/High     Blue/Low   Blue/Low   Blue/Low       $6,929,888

Based on the results of the evaluation, the SSET recommended that CBD be
awarded the contract. In reviewing that recommendation, the contracting
officer (CO), who was the source selection authority (SSA) for this
procurement, noted that CBD submitted the highest-rated proposal in all
evaluation areas. The SSA found that, although CBD's proposal was
higher-priced, CBD's technical approach supported the additional cost. The
SSA found, among other things, that CBD's proposal reflected the firm's
exceptional understanding of the workload by offering a staffing approach
that will effectively provide sufficient personnel, allow for
cross-utilization, and maintain flexibility to accommodate unforeseen
contingencies without degradation of required services. The SSA concluded
that CBD's proposal was most advantageous to the government and awarded the
contract to that firm. This protest followed a debriefing by the agency.

PROTEST ISSUES

SDS argues that the agency unreasonably rated CBD's past performance as
"exceptional/high confidence," because CBD is a newly-formed entity that has
performed no significant, relevant contracts to provide CAT or CWD services.
SDS also argues that, in view of its successful performance and the
"exceptional" ratings it earned on other similar Air Force contracts, the
"satisfactory/confidence" past performance rating assigned its proposal is
not reasonably supported and should have been higher.

The protester also takes issue with the evaluation of CBD's technical
proposal under the PQM subfactor. In this regard, SDS contends that, even
though the RFP did not specify any desired number of personnel beyond that
which the SOW estimated would be required to perform the services, the
agency improperly gave CBD extra credit for proposing [DELETED]. In a
supplemental protest, SDS also alleges that the agency credited CBD's
proposal for offering incumbent personnel, but improperly failed to give
equal credit to SDS, even though it proposed [DELETED]. SDS further alleges
that the "green/acceptable" rating its proposal earned under the ISD plan
subfactor was inconsistent with the solicitation requirements and should
have been higher.

DISCUSSION

Evaluation of Proposals

Past Performance

SDS argues that the agency unreasonably rated CBD's past performance as
"exceptional/high confidence." SDS asserts that CBD is a newly-formed entity
that has performed no contracts to provide similar CAT or CWD services, and
argues that the agency's past performance rating of the firm was improperly
based on the experience of only one individual. SDS thus contends that,
since CBD has no relevant past performance history providing similar
services, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv) requires
that CBD's proposal be rated "neutral" under this area.

The evaluation of technical proposals, including the evaluation of past
performance, is a matter within the contracting agency's discretion, since
the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of
accommodating them. Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-260289, B-260490, May 24,
1995, 95-1 CPD para. 261 at 3. In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we
will not reevaluate the proposals, but will examine the record of the
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and in accordance with the
stated evaluation criteria. Id. As explained in greater detail below, the
record before us provides no basis to object to the evaluation of proposals.

As SDS correctly points out, FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv) provides that, for past
performance evaluations, in the case of an offeror without a record of
relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not
available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past
performance. In evaluating past performance, however, agencies are permitted
to take into account performance information regarding predecessor
companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or information about
subcontractors which will perform major or critical aspects of the
requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition in
question. FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii). In accordance with that authority, the
RFP specifically stated that, as part of the past performance evaluation,
the agency would consider key personnel, including current employees and new
hires proposed for this contract. RFP sect. 9 para. (c)(1)(b), at 31.

The record shows that the evaluators were aware that CBD is a newly-formed
company with no corporate past performance. AR exh. 9, Proposal Evaluation
Report (PER), attach. CBD Rating Team Worksheet, at 1. However, the SSET
took into account that CBD's vice president, who will play a key management
role in this contract, was the program manager on three recent, relevant Air
Force contracts identified in the record as "ACC UAV, A/OA 10, and U2
CAT/CWD," while employed by another firm. Id. The evaluators specifically
noted that the "[CWD] met the requirements of the previous contracts and
[was] rated as ‘Very Good' and ‘Exceptional'" on the relevant
performance assessment reports. Id. In reviewing those reports, the
evaluators further found that "[e]xceptional performance was noted meeting
the phase-in timeline," and "[e]xpertise also noted in working with the site
[quality assurance evaluators] to hire the most capable and qualified
personnel." Id. Based on these ratings, the SSET concluded that there was no
doubt that CBD would successfully perform the required effort, and
consistent with the definitions described in the RFP, rated the firm's past
performance proposal "exceptional/high confidence." Id.

SDS's contention that the agency unreasonably relied on the experience of
only one individual--the awardee's vice president--in evaluating CBD's past
performance is without merit. While CBD is a new entity, its vice president
is the project manager for this contract who will have substantial
management and oversight responsibilities. The record shows that this
individual brings a wealth of relevant experience managing other contracts
for the specific training services procured here. For example, prior to his
retirement from the Air Force in 1986, CBD's vice president gained extensive
flying training experience, including commanding an F-15 Tactical Training
Squadron. He was also trained as a CO during one of his Air Force
assignments. In addition, when the initial tactical air command CAT programs
were competed in 1987, CBD's vice president was a consultant for [DELETED],
where he was responsible for preparing competitive technical proposals. In
part due to his technical expertise and knowledgeable support, that firm was
awarded six of the original nine CAT contracts awarded, for which CBD's vice
president became project manager. The record thus shows that CBD's vice
president has been associated with CAT and CWD services for more than 13
years. In addition, here, CBD's vice president will have substantial
involvement in managing and overseeing the site manager, alternate site
manager, CWD manager, and schedulers. As such, CBD's vice president will
directly supervise all operational aspects of the contract, playing an
integral role working with and supervising CBD's employees--all of whom are
incumbent personnel--and working directly with government personnel. Based
on CBD's vice president's extensive unique recent and relevant experience,
and in view of the degree of his involvement in managing this effort, we
conclude that the SSET reasonably assigned the firm a high rating under the
past performance evaluation subfactor. [1]

SDS also argues that, in view of its successful performance and the
"exceptional" ratings it earned on other similar Air Force contracts, the
"satisfactory" past performance rating assigned its proposal is not
reasonably supported. In this connection, SDS points out that, according to
the RFP's definition, that rating meant that "some doubt exists that the
offeror will successfully perform the contract." RFP sect. 9 para. (a)(1)(c), at 32.
SDS asserts, however, that the SSET had no such doubt about SDS. The
protester also argues that the SSET failed to credit SDS's proposal for
positive comments the firm received on prior contracts, and alleges that the
CO improperly ignored her personal knowledge of SDS's improved recent
performance. SDS's contentions are without merit.

In evaluating the protester's past performance, the evaluators considered
primarily three recent, relevant Air Force programs--a contract for CAT and
CWD services for the U.S. Air Force's Weapons School (the USAF WS contract),
where SDS was the prime contractor; one for cockpit resources management
(CRM), where SDS was a subcontractor; and a third contract identified in the
record as the "USAFE CRM" contract. AR exh. 9, PER, attach. Rating Team
Worksheet, at 1. As discussed in greater detail below, the record shows that
in assessing SDS's past performance, the evaluators considered all of the
information contained in the contractor performance appraisal reports (CPAR)
SDS submitted with its proposal for these programs, including both favorable
and unfavorable adjectival ratings and comments.

The SSET reviewed the CPAR for the USAF WS contract and found that SDS's
performance rating ranged from "marginal/yellow" to "exceptional/blue" in
the various areas covered by the CPAR. In particular, the CPAR for that
contract rated SDS's performance as "marginal/yellow" in the CWD area. A
comment documented in the CPAR by the reporting official noted that numerous
site visits were required; that many scheduled deliverables were not up to
the USAF WS standards, requiring rework by SDS; and that the initial quality
of many deliverables under that contract was unacceptable. AR exh. 16, CPAR
for F44650-98-C-0005, Jan. 21, 2000, at para. 15. Although SDS was provided with
an opportunity to dispute the unfavorable rating and rebut the negative
comments, the reviewing official concluded that this area "required more
Government oversight [than] what is considered normal," and found that,
given other performance difficulties encountered, a change in the
unfavorable rating was not warranted. Id. at para. 21.

SDS's contention that the evaluators failed to consider positive comments
regarding its past performance is not supported by the record. In reviewing
the CPAR for the USAF WS contract, for example, the SSET noted that,
although the instruction area was rated "exceptional" for that contract,
"there were difficulties noted in the CWD effort," and that "[s]pecial
contractor emphasis and close government monitoring was required to overcome
difficulties." AR exh. 9, PER, SDS Rating Team Worksheet, at 1. The record
thus shows that, while the SSET took notice of the positive rating SDS
earned under the instruction area, that rating alone was insufficient to
overcome the documented performance problems encountered and lower ratings
assigned SDS's performance in other areas covered by that CPAR.

With respect to the two projects involving CRM, the SSET noted that SDS's
performance was rated as "very good" and "exceptional" in some areas,
further undermining the protester's argument that the evaluators failed to
consider favorable ratings in its performance. The evaluators were
concerned, however, with the limited scope of CAT and with the amount of
involvement SDS had with respect to CWD. The SSET also noted that the CPAR
documented some difficulty in SDS's meeting the phase-in timeline. Based on
these ratings, the SSET concluded that "some doubt" existed that SDS would
be able to successfully perform the required effort, and rated SDS's
proposal consistent with the RFP's rating definition. Although SDS disagrees
with this result, arguing that it overcame the difficulties initially
encountered, an agency's evaluation of past performance may be based upon
the procuring agency's reasonable perception of inadequate prior
performance, even where the contractor disputes the agency's interpretation
of the facts. Pannesma Co. Ltd., B-251688, Apr. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 333 at
6. Further, given the SSET's specific findings based on its assessment of
the CPARs, which are part of the record, we think that the CO did not abuse
her discretion in not questioning the evaluators' findings based on her
alleged personal knowledge of SDS's recent performance. In sum, this record
provides us no basis upon which to object to the Air Force's conclusion
regarding SDS's past performance. [2]

Mission Capability

PQM Subfactor

SDS contends that, in evaluating this area, the agency applied undisclosed
evaluation criteria. In this connection, SDS asserts that it proposed a
total of [DELETED] individuals, more than sufficient to perform the workload
requirements which, according to SDS, "required a maximum of [DELETED]
full-time personnel per year." Protest at 30. The protester maintains,
however, that it became clear from the debriefing materials that the Air
Force actually desired 14 full-time individuals, and, according to SDS, the
evaluators improperly credited CBD for proposing a number of personnel that
came closest to the government's unannounced desired staffing level.

As a preliminary matter, the agency explains that the SOW did not require
nor establish a maximum number of personnel to perform the required
services. Contrary to the protester's assertions, the record shows that
rather than requiring specific staffing levels, the RFP included workload
estimates of the "projected" programmed flying training, estimated number of
students taking various courses, events (e.g., training device brief and
debrief times per event), projected CAT and CWD hours, academic classroom
instruction, and estimated amounts of new and revised courseware materials
that the agency projected would be required in performing the contract. RFP
attach. 1, app. 1, Work Load Estimate, at 29-37. In our view, it is clear
that, while the RFP provided these historical and projected estimates of
workload data, it was up to the offerors to propose sufficient staffing
levels to perform the requirements of the SOW.

The record shows that, in evaluating the PQM subfactor, the SSET considered
proposed staffing levels and noted eight specific strengths and no
weaknesses in CBD's proposal. AR exh. 9, PER, attach. CBD Rating Team
Worksheet, Mission Capability Proposal Assessment, Subfactor 1: PQM, at 1.
For example, the SSET found that CBD's proposed staffing is capable of
meeting peak demands, while retaining the flexibility to accommodate
short-notice changes. Id. The evaluators also found that CBD proposed
[DELETED], further enhancing the flexibility that might be needed due to
retirements and replacements. Id. Overall, the evaluators found that CBD's
labor mix, including the flexibility to cover all contingencies and
[DELETED] needed for the CWD team, exceeded the RFP's minimum requirements
in a beneficial way to the government. The SSET concluded that CBD's
staffing approach had little potential for disruption of schedule, would
require only normal effort and monitoring, and assigned the proposal a
rating of "blue/exceptional" with low risk under this subfactor.

By contrast, the SSET identified only two specific strengths and one
weakness in SDS's proposal. The weakness related primarily to the
evaluators' concern that SDS's [DELETED].

There is no merit to the protester's contention that the agency applied an
unstated evaluation criterion to evaluate the PQM subfactor. To ensure that
its need for adequate staffing will be met, it is proper for an agency to
evaluate technical or price proposals against an undisclosed reasonable
estimate of the appropriate staffing needed to perform the solicitation
requirements where the RFP notifies offerors that staffing is an area of
evaluation. Gemini Indus., Inc., B-281323, Jan. 25, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 22 at
3. Here, contrary to the protester's contention, there is no basis to
conclude that the SSET either credited CBD for offering more personnel than
the SOW estimated would be required to perform the tasks described in the
SOW or downgraded SDS's proposal for offering fewer staff. What the record
shows is that the evaluators considered each offeror's labor mix and unique
approach, together with the in-house estimates of what the agency determined
would be optimal staffing required to successfully perform the contract,
reasonably determined that CBD's approach provided a better mix and greater
flexibility than SDS's approach, and rated the proposals accordingly.

Further, there is no merit to SDS's contention that the agency credited
CBD's proposal for offering [DELETED], but improperly failed to give SDS
equal credit even though it proposed the [DELETED]. As already explained,
the evaluation record shows that the evaluators noted eight specific
strengths in CBD's proposal under the PQM evaluation factor with no
weaknesses. The evaluators identified only two strengths and one weakness in
SDS's proposal in this area. Contrary to the protester's contention, none of
the specific strengths noted in CBD's proposal under this factor were based
on the firm's proposing [DELETED]. Instead, it is clear from the SSET's
narrative explanations supporting each strength that the evaluators credited
CBD's proposal for, in addition to its proposed personnel qualifications and
expertise levels, its labor mix and flexibility to cover contingencies, and
rated CBD's proposal accordingly.

ISD Plan Subfactor

SDS alleges that the "green/acceptable" rating its proposal earned under the
ISD plan subfactor was unreasonable. In this connection, the protester
contends that two of the three weaknesses assigned its proposal were based
on the SSET's misunderstanding of its proposal, which SDS could have
clarified had the agency asked SDS to submit explanatory information. [3]

Offerors were instructed to submit proposals in three separate volumes: past
performance (volume 1), technical (volume 2), and price (volume 3). RFP sect. 8,
Preparation of Proposals--General Information, para. c, at 27. Volume 2 was to
include several required plans, including the ISD management plan. The RFP
warned offerors that proposals were to comply with the SOW requirements and
must reflect a thorough understanding of the required services. Id. para. a. The
RFP essentially reiterated this instruction with respect to preparing the
technical volume, warning offerors that volume 2 should be specific,
detailed, and clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a clear understanding
of the actions required to perform the contract. Id., Preparation of
Technical Proposal (volume 2) para. (b), at 29.

With respect to the evaluation of the ISD management plan, the RFP stated as
follows:

DESCRIPTION: This subfactor will be evaluated to assess the offeror's
understanding of and application of the principles and processes outlined in
the Air Force's current model of ISD throughout the life cycle of the
training system. This subfactor evaluates the entire ISD Management Plan.
Specific methods and procedures used in the application of the ISD process
including tracking of [CWD] milestones and methods of validating courseware
effectiveness will be evaluated (refer to SOW paragraph 1.5 and Section 2,
Service Delivery Summary).

RFP sect. 9, para. (c)(2)(b), at 33.

The SOW required offerors to develop, produce, and provide an ISD management
plan with their proposals. SOW, attach. 1 para. 1.6.4, at 5. The RFP stated that
the principal use of the ISD management plan was to provide the agency with
a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of applying the ISD process during
the life-cycle of the training system. Id.

The SSET identified three specific weaknesses in SDS's proposed ISD
management plan, two of which are discussed here. Specifically, the SSET
found that [DELETED] AR exh. 9, PER, attach. SDS Rating Team Worksheet,
Subfactor 2: ISD, at 2. The evaluators were especially concerned that, given
the Air Force's intense ISD requirement, [DELETED].

The agency explains, however, that [DELETED]. CO Statement, para. K.a, at 8. In
this regard, the offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written
proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment
concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to establish that
the agency acted unreasonably. Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767,
B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 530 at 6. Based on our review of the
record, including SDS's proposal, we have no basis to question the
evaluators' assessment in this regard, particularly where, as here, the RFP
warned offerors to provide clearly-written, detailed proposals that
demonstrated the offerors' understanding of the requirement.

Another weakness the SSET noted under the ISD plan subfactor related to
SDS's proposed [DELETED]-percent response to all emergency and mission/event
essential requirements. AR exh. 16, SDS Proposal, sect. 2, ISD Management Plan,
at 43. The agency points out in the report that the SOW required a
100-percent response. See SOW, attach. 1 para. 1.5.2.2(3), at 4; and Service
Delivery Summary, para. (3), at 13. While SDS argued in its initial protest that
the figure "[DELETED]" in its proposal was merely a typographical error, SDS
does not take issue with the assessment of this specific weakness in its
comments. Accordingly, we consider this issue abandoned. See Rockwell Int'l
Corp., B-261953.2, B-261953.6, Nov. 22, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 34 at 12 n.14.

The evaluators were also concerned that the SOW required that the software
proposed to perform the CWD requirement be "royalty free" and preferably be
useable in hypertext markup language (HTML) format and/or Microsoft
PowerPoint. SOW attach. 1, para. 4.6.1. The evaluators determined that SDS
proposed neither and noted this as a weakness. In its comments, the
protester argues that this particular weakness was improper because its
proposal stated that the courseware was useable in HTML and was provided
"royalty-free," adding that any doubt the evaluators had in this regard
could have been clarified had the agency requested additional information.

We need not address this contention since it is clear from the record that
SDS did not suffer competitive prejudice as a result of the alleged
evaluation error. In this regard, our Office will not sustain a protest
unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was
prejudiced by the agency's actions, that is, unless the protester
demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a
substantial chance of receiving the award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb.
8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d
1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, even assuming that SDS is correct
regarding [DELETED] it proposed, given the other weaknesses the SSET found
in its proposal under this subfactor--primarily related to the
[DELETED]--there is no reason to conclude that the "green/acceptable" rating
assigned its proposal under the ISD plan subfactor could have improved. [4]

In sum, given the purpose of evaluating the ISD plan as described in the
RFP, and the weaknesses identified by the SSET, we find no basis to object
to the ratings assigned SDS's proposal in this area.

Price Reasonableness Determination

The protester also argues that the agency failed to make an adequate price
reasonableness determination. Specifically, SDS contends that the agency's
price reasonableness analysis was insufficient because CBD proposed
[DELETED] than the next closest offeror in terms of price (which proposed
[DELETED]), but the difference between those two firms' prices was only
approximately $100,000 over the life of the contract, including options. SDS
maintains that the relatively small difference in prices strongly suggests
that CBD's plan was not realistic, maintaining that the agency should have
engaged in a detailed price analysis. We find no merit to this argument.

Where, as here, the RFP contemplates award of a fixed-price contract, the
contracting agency is not required to conduct a detailed cost or cost
realism analysis. See PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters of Charity of the
Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 366 at 5-6. An
agency may properly make a determination on the reasonableness of prices
based upon a comparison of such prices with the government estimate and
other offered prices. See Astro Pak Corp., B-256345, June 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD
para. 352 at 5.

Here, the agency compared CBD's price with the in-house government estimate
and with other prices proposed and concluded that given its approach, CBD's
price was realistic and reasonable. Specifically, the record shows that in
assessing CBD's price, the evaluators noted that CBD's price was the highest
proposed, but concluded that the firm's technical proposal included the
[DELETED] and noted that CBD's price was below the government's independent
estimate for this effort. Consistent with the evaluator's conclusion, in her
selection decision, the SSA acknowledged that a comparison of CBD's proposed
price with the next highest-rated proposal revealed a difference of
approximately $110,000 per year. AR exh. 9, PER, sect. IV, at para. C. The SSA
concluded, however, that the additional price supports CBD's technical
approach, which, based on the results of the evaluation, exceeded the
government's performance requirements. Id. While SDS contends that CBD's
price is unrealistic, the protester has not shown that the agency's
assessment was unreasonable. The protester's mere disagreement with the
evaluators' and SSA's determination does not provide a basis to question the
agency's determination in this regard.

Best Value Determination

SDS's contention that the agency's best value determination was flawed is
predicated on the assumption that the award decision resulted from defective
underlying technical and price evaluations. Given our conclusion that the
evaluation of proposals was reasonably supported by the record, there is no
basis to object to the agency's award decision on the grounds asserted by
SDS.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. We further note, and SDS acknowledges, that CBD proposed [DELETED] who
will be responsible for phase-in and all aspects of contract performance--as
key personnel. As already noted, the RFP specifically stated that the
proposed key personnel would be considered in evaluating the offerors' past
performance. The protester does not argue, and there is no evidence in the
record, that suggests the agency was in any way concerned with [DELETED].
Accordingly, there is no basis to object to the SSET assigning a high rating
to CBD's proposal under the past performance factor.

2. SDS also argues that the past performance rating its proposal earned
under this RFP was inconsistent with the evaluation of a virtually identical
proposal it submitted under a different RFP, also issued by the Air Force
for CAT and CWD services involving different aircraft. The agency explains
that these were independent procurements conducted by different program
offices, different evaluators, and SSAs, and involved unique programs. In
this regard, we do not find it unusual or improper that different evaluators
have different perceptions of the merits of proposals, especially where, as
here, the work involves different aspects of the program. See, e.g., SRS
Tech., B-270341.2, Mar. 1, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 120 at 4 n.4; Centex Constr.,
Co., Inc., B-238777, June 14, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 566 at 6. Moreover, each
acquisition stands on its own, and the evaluation and relative ranking of
SDS's proposal under another procurement is irrelevant to determining the
reasonableness of the evaluation here. See Renic Corp., Gov't Sys. Div.,
B-248100, July 29, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 60 at 5. We note that SDS filed a
separate protest challenging the evaluation of its proposal under the other
solicitation, and we have addressed SDS's contentions in a separate
decision, B-285821, Sept. 21, 2000.

3. In its comments, SDS asserts for the first time that the agency
improperly failed to downgrade CBD's proposal for multiple weaknesses in its
ISD plan. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests not based upon alleged
solicitation improprieties must be filed not later than 10 days after the
basis for protest is known. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2000). Where a protester
initially files a timely protest and supplements it with new and independent
grounds of protest, the new allegations must independently satisfy these
timeliness requirements; our Regulations do not

contemplate the unwarranted piecemeal presentation of protest issues. Litton
Sys., Inc., Amecom Div., B-275807.2, Apr. 16, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 170 at 4 n.1.
Here, while SDS's initial protest was filed in a timely manner, SDS did not
challenge the evaluation of CBD's proposal under the ISD subfactor. SDS
became aware of this basis of protest, at the latest, upon its receipt of
the agency report, but did not raise this new issue within 10 days
thereafter. Rather, the new issue was first raised in SDS's comments on the
agency report, which were filed more than 10 days after SDS received the
report. While the comments themselves were timely filed because we had
granted SDS's request for an extension of the 10-day period for filing
comments prescribed by our Regulations, see 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.3(i), an extension
for purposes of filing comments does not waive the timeliness rules with
regard to new grounds of protest. SDS Petrol. Prods.,Inc., B-280430,
Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 59 at 4 n.3. Accordingly, this protest issue is
untimely, and will not be considered.

4. SDS's argument that it could have corrected these matters had the agency
raised them with SDS is without merit. An offeror has the burden to submit a
proposal adequate for evaluation, especially, where, as here, the offeror is
on notice that the agency intends to make award based on initial proposals
without discussions. Titan Corp., B-260557.2, July 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 89
at 9.