TITLE:  SOS Interpreting, Ltd., B-287505, June 12, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287505
DATE:  June 12, 2001
**********************************************************************
SOS Interpreting, Ltd., B-287505, June 12, 2001

Decision

Matter of: SOS Interpreting, Ltd.

File: B-287505

Date: June 12, 2001

J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon
& Tolle, for the protester.

J. Michael Sawyers, Esq., Drug Enforcement Administration, 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. Contention that contracting officer's (CO) decision to reject initial
evaluations and convene a new technical evaluation panel was designed to
ensure that the protester was improperly eliminated from consideration is
denied, where there is no evidence in the record that the CO's decisions
were not made in good faith or that they were designed with the intent of
changing technical rankings or avoiding an award to the protester.

2. Challenge to the exclusion of protester's proposal from the competitive
range is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation.

DECISION

SOS Interpreting, Ltd. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-00-R-0020,
issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for translation,
transcription, and related support services for DEA's Chicago Field
Division. SOS argues that the contracting officer (CO) unreasonably rejected
the initial evaluations of proposals and reconvened a new evaluation panel.
The protester also contends that DEA improperly evaluated its proposal and,
thus, had no valid basis for eliminating SOS's proposal from the
competition. SOS also argues that the agency improperly failed to consider
the impact that discussions could have had on SOS's technical score. [1]

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on May 16, 2000, contemplated the award of an
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with up to
four 1-year option periods. Offerors were required to submit proposals in
separate volumes--a technical proposal and a business management proposal.
For each contract period, offerors were required to submit hourly and
extended labor rates for estimated minimum/maximum quantities of different
labor categories, a total price for each contract period, and a grand total
price. The RFP listed the following three technical evaluation factors
(maximum possible number of points for each factor shown in parentheses):
technical approach (45), qualified personnel/required services (30), and
past performance/risk assessment (25), for a maximum possible total of 100
points. Although price was not to be numerically scored, the RFP explained
that its degree of importance would increase as proposals were considered
equal in relation to technical factors. The RFP stated that technical
factors combined were substantially more important than price. Award was to
be made on the basis of the proposal deemed to represent the best value to
the government.

A technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated proposals DEA received from three
firms by the time set for receipt of proposals. The CO determined that the
results of the initial evaluations were not in line with historic scores
these offerors' proposals had earned under prior acquisitions for similar
services and rejected the TEP's

evaluation. Agency Report (AR), exh. 5, Competitive Range Determination,
Mar. 1, 2001, at 2. The CO then convened a new TEP which completed its
evaluation on February 23, 2001, with the following final results:

      Tech.   Pers.  Perf.  Total/Rating      Grand
                                              Price

 CTI  44      27     24     95/Acceptable     $
                                              8,572,938

 SOS  30      16     18     64/Conditionally  10,701,459

                            Acceptable

 A    10      21     19     50/Unacceptable   7,078,644

Id. at 3, 9.

Based on these results, the CO excluded SOS's and Offeror A's proposals from
further consideration and determined to hold discussions only with CTI. Id.
at 9-10. By letter dated March 13, DEA notified SOS that its proposal was
excluded from the competitive range, and this protest followed a debriefing
by the agency.

PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS

The protester contends that the CO's decision to reject the initial
evaluations and convene a new TEP was unreasonable. SOS also challenges the
CO's decision to exclude its proposal from the competitive range because,
according to the protester, the TEP misevaluated its proposal under the
technical approach and past performance factors. The protester also argues
that given that its proposal was highly rated, the CO's decision to exclude
its proposal from further consideration is especially unreasonable here
because it resulted in a competitive range of only one proposal.

DISCUSSION

Initial Evaluation and Reconvened TEP

After receipt of initial proposals, DEA convened a TEP comprised of three
members, all of whom were special agents from DEA's Chicago Field Division.
This TEP completed its evaluation and submitted a report to the CO on August
24, 2000. The results of that evaluation show that CTI's technical proposal
earned a total of 73 points and SOS's proposal earned 69 points; both
proposals were rated acceptable overall. The third offeror's proposal earned
41 points and was rated "conditionally acceptable." TEP Report, Aug. 24,
2000, at 2. Based on the results of that evaluation, the TEP recommended
award to CTI as "the most technically qualified company to perform" the
required services, noting, however, that both CTI's and SOS's proposals were
rated acceptable. Id. at 3.

Upon reviewing the initial evaluations, the CO determined that "[m]any of
these companies have previously submitted [proposals] under other
solicitations for the same or similar requirement and received higher
scores." AR exh. 5, Competitive Range Determination, supra, at 2.
Accordingly, the CO rejected the TEP's initial evaluation and convened a new
panel. This new panel completed its evaluation and reported its findings to
the CO in March 2001.

SOS argues that the CO's decision to reject the initial evaluations and
convene a new TEP was unreasonable. SOS points out that following the
initial evaluations, SOS's and CTI's technical proposals were separated by
only four technical points. SOS further points out that upon reevaluation by
the reconvened TEP, the difference between the scores assigned CTI's and
SOS's proposals increased to 31 points. According to the protester, the CO's
decision was designed to ensure that there was a greater difference in the
technical scores assigned SOS's and CTI's proposals, reflecting DEA's desire
to eliminate the protester's proposal from the competition, leaving only
CTI's proposal in the competitive range.

We have recognized that it is within the CO's discretion to convene a new
evaluation panel where, for example, the CO, in good faith, determines that
such action is necessary to ensure the fair and impartial evaluation of
proposals, and the record shows that it was not made with the specific
intent of changing a particular offeror's technical ranking or avoiding an
award to that offeror. See Loschky, Marquardt & Nesholm, B-222606, Sept. 23,
1986, 86-2 CPD para. 336 at 5; Pharmaceutical Sys., Inc., B-221847, May 19,
1986, 86-1 CPD para. 469 at 5. Further, a procuring agency may convene a new
evaluation panel where the CO reasonably determines that the evaluation may
have been biased or where there is a potential for an appearance of a
conflict of interest. See, e.g., EBA Eng'g, Inc., B-275818, Mar. 31, 1997,
97-1 CPD para. 127 at 3-4; Louisiana Physicians for Quality Med. Care, Inc.
B-235894, Oct. 5, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 316 at 5.

In response to a request from our Office that the CO expand on her reasons
for rejecting the initial evaluations, the CO stated that she was "aware
that CTI routinely and historically scores substantially higher on similar
contracts." CO's Statement, May 14, 2001 at 1. The CO explained that she was
concerned that the inconsistent evaluation represented an inappropriate
evaluation of CTI's proposal. Id. The CO further stated that she determined
that "the TEP had not sufficiently documented the results of their
evaluations for the [CO] to make a decision to determine a competitive range
for all three proposals." Id. We then held a hearing in this matter limited
to obtaining testimony from the CO concerning her decision to reject the
initial evaluations and convene a new TEP.

At the hearing, the CO testified that she knew from her personal experience
with other similar procurements that CTI and SOS could do the work and,
thus, she was alerted by the initial TEP's relatively low scores that there
may have been a problem with the evaluations. Video Transcript (VT) at
13:07:55. For instance, the CO noted that although the TEP had downgraded
SOS's proposal in the technical approach area, the TEP's consensus report
did not identify any major deficiencies with the proposal. VT at 13:10:47.
With respect to the only identified weaknesses, the CO testified that she
found the TEP's report insufficient in that it did not provide details she
believed necessary to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm. [2]
VT at 13:08-13:11. The CO further testified that in her opinion, the TEP had
unduly focused its attention on a prior security violation, causing the
evaluators to significantly downgrade SOS's proposal in the past performance
area. VT at 13:01:13; 13:38:59. The CO testified that she believed that the
TEP's intense focus on this incident was unwarranted primarily because the
contemplated contract would not require the successful offeror to handle
classified information. VT at 13:02-13:09.

With regard to the CO's decision to convene a new TEP rather than provide
the panel members with more specific instructions, the CO testified that she
believed the errors in the evaluation were at least in part due to the fact
the TEP members were all special agents, and were thus more sensitive to
security violation issues. VT at 13:12:04. In other words, the CO was, in
our view, reasonably concerned that the agents' training and experience
handling sensitive information may have clouded the TEP's judgment regarding
the significance of SOS's recent security violation. The CO also explained
that since the TEP had not followed evaluation instructions she had provided
earlier--e.g., to not focus exclusively on the security violation--and given
the agents' extra sensitivity to security issues, she opted for convening a
new panel, rather than returning the evaluations to the original panel. VT
at 13:12:19-40.

In view of her conclusions regarding the TEP's initial evaluations, we think
that the CO's decision to reject the evaluations and convene a new panel was
reasonable. Following the initial evaluations which she rejected, the CO had
several options. For example, the CO could have returned the evaluations to
the TEP with questions or more specific instructions to better support its
findings. In view of the CO's conclusion that the TEP had not followed her
specific instructions the first time around, and her belief that the panel
was overly sensitive to security concerns, the CO reasonably decided to
reject this option. Alternatively, the CO could have conducted the
evaluations herself without the benefit of the TEP's technical expertise.
While this may be a viable option under other circumstances, we have no
basis to object to the CO's rejection of this option in favor of convening a
new panel, especially in view of the fact that the agency had sufficient
time, resources, and other personnel available with the necessary experience
to reevaluate proposals. Based on our review of the record, including the
CO's testimony at the hearing, and the parties' supplemental pleadings, we
find no basis for finding that the CO's decision to reject the initial
evaluations and convene a new panel was improper.

Moreover, the record is clear that SOS was not prejudiced by the CO's
decision to convene a new panel. 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). For the agency's actions to be prejudicial, there must be
some showing that had the CO accepted the initial TEP report, SOS would have
had a substantial chance of receiving the award. In this regard, the record
shows that SOS's proposal earned virtually identical scores from both TEPs
(69 points from the initial TEP and 64 points from the reconvened panel),
and the CO states that based on CTI's higher score and lower price, she
would have accepted the initial TEP's recommendation to award CTI the
contract.

SOS relies on our decision in Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2,
B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 91, to argue that the CO's
post-protest explanations for the decision to reject the initial evaluations
and convene a new TEP should not be accorded any weight. We disagree. The
Boeing case involved a post hoc reevaluation and cost/technical tradeoff
late in the protest process where no tradeoff had been made during the
initial source selection. Further, the agency continued to assert there was
no error, but in order to immunize itself against losing the protest,
submitted a reevaluation that it argued was not necessary. We concluded that
it was not appropriate to give weight to the agency's after-the-fact
decisional materials prepared for the purpose of ensuring that our Office
would conclude there was no prejudice to the protester.

In our view, the Boeing decision does not require that we disregard the CO's
post-protest explanations here. Post-protest explanations that provide a
detailed rationale for contemporaneous conclusions, as is the case here,
simply fill in previously unrecorded details, and will generally be
considered in our review of the rationality of selection decisions, so long
as those explanations are credible and consistent with the contemporaneous
record. See NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Labs., Inc., B-280988, B-280988.2, Dec. 17,
1998, 98-2 CPD para. 158 at 16; Northwest Management., Inc., B-277503, Oct. 20,
1997, 97-2 CPD para. 108 at 4 n.4. Unlike in Boeing, the CO's statement in
response to SOS's protest--as confirmed by her testimony at the hearing,
which we find credible--is not a new analysis based on hypothetical
assumptions to attempt to justify a post-protest decision in the face of a
protest. Rather, the CO's explanation reflects her conclusion upon reviewing
the initial TEP's report that it was insufficient, incomplete, inconsistent
with the evaluation instructions, and not in line with historical scores.
Accordingly, we view the CO's post-protest statement as a reasonable
memorialization of her contemporaneous analysis and judgment regarding the
adequacy of the TEP's initial evaluations.

Competitive Range Exclusion and Discussions

SOS challenges the evaluation of its proposal, and argues that its exclusion
from the competitive range was unreasonable because it resulted in a
competitive range of only one proposal. SOS further argues that discussions
with the firm would have permitted it to submit additional information to
answer the TEP's concerns and enhance its proposal.

As a preliminary matter, we have held that there is nothing inherently
improper in a competitive range of one. Cobra Techs., Inc., B-272041,
B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 73 at 3. In this connection, we have
concluded that Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.306 does not require that
agencies retain a proposal in the competitive range simply to avoid a
competitive range of one; conducting discussions and requesting proposal
revisions from offerors with no reasonable chance of award would benefit
neither the offerors nor the government. SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc.,
B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 59 at 6. Further, contrary to SOS's
position, agencies are not required to retain in the competitive range a
proposal that the agency reasonably concludes has no realistic prospect of
award, even if that proposal is, as here, the second-highest rated proposal.
SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., supra.

The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is
principally a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. Dismas
Charities, Inc., B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 84 at 3. Our Office will
review an agency's evaluation of proposals and determination to exclude a
proposal from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with
the criteria and language of the solicitation. Novavax, Inc., B-286167,
B-286167.2, Dec. 4, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 202 at 13. Here, as explained in
greater detail below, we conclude that the evaluation of SOS's proposal and
its elimination from the competitive range was reasonable and consistent
with the solicitation.

Evaluation of SOS's Proposal

Our review of the TEP's evaluation consensus report and the individual TEP
members' worksheets, shows that under all evaluation factors, the TEP
identified deficiencies, weaknesses, or both in SOS's proposal. Below we
highlight some of the TEP's more significant findings with which SOS takes
issue.

Technical Approach

The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated as follows in this area:

The offeror shall develop a quality control plan for this effort, and define
implementation of the plan that ensures that the services described in the
solicitation are accomplished accurately, capably, and timely as required by
the contract. The offeror shall describe its technical approach in
accomplishing the requirements of this contract. The Government will
evaluate the offeror's quality control plan with respect to successful
implementation to meet all the requirements under this contract, employee
training, management willingness to incorporate innovative changes to solve
problems, and incorporation of necessary changes to improve the process.

RFP sect. M.5.1, at M-3.

The TEP downgraded SOS's proposal in this area primarily because it did not
explain whether the firm had implemented an adequate plan to improve its
information handling process. The evaluators were particularly concerned
over this aspect of the proposal because the agency had earlier determined
that on a recent DEA contract, SOS had mishandled sensitive material, which
DEA considered to be a security violation. [3] The TEP also found that SOS's
proposal failed to explain how the protester intended to use an [DELETED]
form SOS included in its proposal, or how it would benefit DEA. The
evaluators also noted that SOS's proposal was unclear as to what method SOS
would use to manage the project. As a result of these noted weaknesses, the
TEP assigned a score of 30 points (out of 45) to SOS's proposal in this
area. AR exh. 4, TEP Report, Mar. 8, 2001 at 3. Except for its apparent
disagreement with the significance and degree of severity the TEP attributed
to the security violation as explained below, SOS does not take issue with
the TEP's other findings in this area.

SOS maintains that the TEP report shows that the alleged security violation
was not a major concern to the evaluators. The protester argues that this
was a relatively "minor" matter that did not warrant downgrading its
proposal in this area. SOS further implies that it was not aware until DEA
debriefed the firm in connection with its exclusion from the competitive
range of the agency's "apparent heightened" emphasis on the security
violation.

We disagree with the protester's reading of the TEP report and the
supporting documentation. The TEP consensus ratings of SOS's proposal, and
narrative explanations supporting those ratings, clearly show that the
evaluators were

concerned over SOS's recent security violation, specifically noting the
following deficiencies with the proposal:

No example of an improvement plan which has been implemented to show
demonstrated measured improvement in performance. Security plan cited on
page 40 [of SOS's proposal] is not expansive enough in view of SOS's
inability to maintain the required DEA document control of information.
[DELETED]. No illustration on flow chart to show proper document flow of job
task.

Id. at 22.

Regarding the security violation, the agency explains that in 1999, SOS was
an offeror on a solicitation DEA issued for linguistic services in support
of the agency's New York Division. As an exhibit to its proposal in response
to that solicitation, SOS included a training manual showing how it
conducted personnel training. According to the agency, a member of the TEP
that evaluated proposals for that acquisition recognized that the materials
in SOS's training manual included sensitive information. A subsequent DEA
investigation revealed that SOS had apparently obtained the information in
question from another DEA contract, which the agency characterizes as
"highly classified," and which SOS was performing in support of the agency's
Special Operations Division (the SOD contract). DEA's investigation
concluded that the material in SOS's training manual had been improperly
taken by SOS during its performance of the SOD contract. As a result of that
investigation, DEA eliminated SOS's proposal from further consideration for
the New York Division contract. In addition, the security violation caused
DEA to terminate the protester's SOD contract for default. [4] CO Statement,
Apr. 30, 2001, at 3.

In these proceedings, SOS attempts to downplay the severity of the
violation, and questions the TEP's focus on its significance. The
protester's arguments, however, are undermined by SOS's own admission of the
violation and its recognition of the seriousness of the incident. In this
regard, in its proposal in response to the instant RFP, SOS listed the
terminated SOD contract as part of its past performance history. The
protester explains SOS's own understanding of the circumstances leading up
to the termination, in part, as follows:

The [SOD contract] was terminated [for default] in May, 2000 due to the
mishandling of information at the site. SOS developed a training program
that inappropriately included diagrams of the [DELETED]. . . . SOS made a
terrible error in assuming that the manual could be used in other DEA sites,
and removed it from the SOD without prior approval from the [contracting
officer's technical representative].

AR exh. 6, SOS Proposal, July 10, 2000, vol. II, at 56-57.

Based on SOS's own description of the events that formed the basis for DEA's
decision to terminate the SOD contract for default, it is clear that SOS was
amply aware that DEA considered the mishandling of sensitive information a
serious problem. [5] The protester's contention, therefore, that it was not
aware until the debriefing here that DEA considered the security breach
related to the SOD contract to be a significant performance problem that
warranted downgrading its proposal, is simply not supported by the record.
The record further shows that the evaluators here were aware of the security
violation, and properly took it into account in the evaluation. Although SOS
stated in its proposal that the firm is committed to preventing a similar
situation from occurring in the future, the evaluation record shows that
SOS's corrective actions did not convince the TEP that SOS could
successfully prevent a similar incident in the future.

The CO states that while the successful contractor here is not required to
handle classified material, the work involves "sensitive" information
related to DEA's law enforcement mission. CO Statement, Apr. 30, 2001, at 1.
Given the type of work contemplated by the contract and the possibility that
the successful contractor will handle sensitive information, the improper
handling of which could compromise DEA's mission, we think that the
evaluators were justifiably concerned with SOS's security violation, and
reasonably downgraded the proposal for this reason. To the extent that SOS
simply disagrees with the TEP's downgrading its proposal under the technical
approach factor, that disagreement with the agency's conclusion does not
render the evaluation unreasonable. Calian Tech. (US) Ltd., B-284814, May
22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 85 at 3-4. In any event, the record shows that,
consistent with the CO's instructions for the evaluators to not focus
exclusively on the security violation, the TEP identified other weaknesses
and deficiencies in SOS's proposal unrelated to the security violation which
reasonably resulted in downgrading SOS's proposal overall in this area.

Personnel

The TEP downgraded SOS's proposal in the personnel/required services area
primarily because the evaluators concluded that SOS's proposal did not show
that the firm could meet the RFP's core personnel requirements. In addition,
the TEP found that SOS's proposal did not mention a required court
certifier, nor explain how the firm intended to recruit and hire an
individual to fill that position as required by RFP sect. C.6.2.b. The
evaluators also noted that SOS had not provided any details as to the
educational qualifications of three individuals proposed to fill core
positions. In sum, the TEP concluded that SOS had not adequately
demonstrated how it would provide proper staffing levels for the
solicitation. AR exh. 4, TEP Report, supra, at 3.

The only TEP finding with which the protester takes issue is with respect to
the minimum educational qualifications of three core personnel SOS proposed.
In this connection, the protester does not dispute that the resumes it
provided for these individuals lacked the level of detail the RFP required,
but argues that based on the information provided in the resumes, the
evaluators could have deduced the educational backgrounds of these
employees.

The RFP contained minimum qualifications, experience, and educational
requirements for certain core personnel. For example, for linguists, site
supervisor, and the court certifier, the RFP stated as follows:

All linguists, including the Site Supervisor and the Court Certifier, shall
have a high school diploma and two years experience in the
translation/transcription field, as a minimum. In addition, linguists shall
have demonstrated strong communications and administrative skills, both oral
and written.

RFP sect. C.6.1.a

Offerors were further instructed to demonstrate their ability to acquire the
required qualified linguists and appropriately credentialed personnel. Id.
sect. L.15.2.1. To assist the TEP in evaluating proposals in this area, offerors
were also required to provide resumes for core unit of linguists and the
designated site supervisor using a format included as an attachment to the
RFP. Id. sect. L.15.2.2. The RFP cautioned offerors to include sufficient
information in their proposals to demonstrate that the proposed core
personnel are fully qualified to adequately perform the required services.
The RFP further advised that the evaluators would assess the quality and
extent of the qualifications of the core personnel based on a review of
their resumes. Id. sect. M.5.2.

In its proposal, SOS submitted resumes for three core personnel. For each of
the three individuals, the resumes contain information under the headings
education and testing, clearance status, and employment experience. The
evaluators found that notwithstanding the RFP instructions, the resumes for
two key individuals did not show whether those individuals met the minimum
2-year experience requirement in the translation/transcription field, or
whether they had earned a high school diploma, and downgraded SOS's proposal
accordingly. AR exh. 4, TEP Report, supra, at 23.

SOS's contention that the evaluators should have deduced the missing
information from other data in the resumes is without merit. Since an
agency's evaluation is dependent upon the information furnished in a
proposal, it is the offeror's burden to submit an adequately written
proposal for the agency to evaluate, and a protester's failure to fulfill
its obligation in this regard does not render the evaluation unreasonable.
See Robotic Sys. Tech., B-278195.2, Jan. 7, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 20 at 9. Based
on our review of the evaluation record, including the TEP members'
individual worksheets and the resumes, we conclude that the TEP reasonably
found SOS's proposal lacking detailed information regarding the minimum
educational qualifications and work experience for key personnel sufficient
to cause the evaluators concern as to SOS's ability to provide qualified
individuals. We have no basis to question the evaluation of DEA's proposal
in this area.

SOS also argues that discussions with the firm would have provided SOS an
opportunity to submit further information that would have materially
improved its technical proposal. In this connection, SOS points out that the
TEP rated its proposal conditionally acceptable overall, which meant that
its proposal "[d]oes not meet all of the solicitation requirements, but is
capable of being made Acceptable with minor adjustments and without
requiring a major rewrite." AR exh. 4, TEP Report, supra, at 2. However,
agencies need not conduct discussions with offerors whose proposals properly
have been eliminated from the competitive range. Wirt Inflatable
Specialists, Inc., B-282554 et al., July 28, 1999, 99-2 CPD para.  34 at 6.
Accordingly, since SOS's proposal was properly eliminated from the
competitive range, DEA was not required to hold discussions with the firm.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. SOS also initially argued that DEA improperly excluded its proposal from
the competitive range based on its assumption--later shown to be
incorrect--that the decision to exclude was made without regard to its
price. See Meridian Management. Corp., B-285127, July 19, 2000, 2000 CPD
para. 121. The agency report included the CO's analysis of prices as part of her
competitive range determination, and SOS did not pursue this argument 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.

2. SOS disagrees with the CO's conclusion in this regard, arguing in its
post-hearing comments that the initial TEP report provided sufficient
details of weaknesses in SOS's proposal to permit the CO to conduct
discussions. A CO has broad discretion, however, concerning the amount of
detail that she would deem necessary in order to advise unsuccessful
offerors why they were excluded from the competitive range, and to conduct
meaningful discussions with offerors included within the competitive range.
CSR, Inc., B-205776, Sept. 20, 1982, 82-2 CPD para. 237 at 8. Here, the record
provides no indication that the CO abused her discretion regarding the level
of detail she deemed necessary to conduct meaningful discussions.

3. This is the same security violation referred to earlier in this decision
in connection with the first evaluation. While the CO reasonably concluded
that the first TEP had improperly focused too greatly on this violation in
downgrading SOS's proposal, as explained below, the reconvened TEP properly
considered the violation and gave it appropriate weight.

4. SOS has challenged DEA's decision to terminate that contract in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims. According to the agency, that litigation is still
ongoing.

5. Further undermining SOS's contention that it was not aware of the
significance of the breach, the CO states, and the protester does not deny,
that following this incident, DEA's Office of Chief Counsel briefed an SOS
representative on the nature of the security breach.