TITLE:  Maytag Aircraft Corporation, B-287589, July 5, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287589
DATE:  July 5, 2001
**********************************************************************
Maytag Aircraft Corporation, B-287589, July 5, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Maytag Aircraft Corporation

File: B-287589

Date: July 5, 2001

J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester, for the protester.

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for Midwest Weather, Inc., an intervenor.

Capt. Charles T. Kirchmaier, and Col. Michael R. Neds, Department of the
Army, for the agency.

Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal
as marginal under one aspect of the technical evaluation is denied where the
record shows the proposal lacked information showing satisfaction of
experience requirements by one proposed key person even after agency
requested that the required information be provided.

2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated proposals with
respect to past performance is denied where the record shows the evaluation
was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria; awardee with no
Department of Defense past performance was properly given neutral rating for
this aspect of the evaluation.

DECISION

Maytag Aircraft Corporation protests the award of a contract to Midwest
Weather, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA90-00-R-0016, issued
by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to obtain meteorological services. Maytag
contends that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and failed to
conduct meaningful discussions with the firm.

We deny the protest.

The NGB issued this solicitation on November 2, 2000, to obtain weather
observation services for the Air National Guard at seven locations
throughout the United States, and weather forecasting services at two of
those locations. Award of a fixed-price contract was to be made to the
offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government,
considering the following evaluation criteria:

Area 1: Technical/Management

Item 1: Technical/Management

a. Understanding of Requirements

b. Contract Management

Item 2: Quality Control

Item 3: Training Plan

Area 2: Past Performance

Item 1: Relevant Department of Defense (DOD) Past Performance

Item 2: Relevant Other Federal, State and Local Government, or

Commercial Past Performance

Area 3: Cost [1]

The technical/management items were equally-weighted and, together, were
significantly more important than past performance. The first item in the
past performance area was significantly more important than the second item.

RFP sect. M.4.a. When combined, the non-price evaluation factors and subfactors
were significantly more important than price. RFP sect. L.4.b. The NGB planned
to assign adjectival ratings to the technical/management area items and
factors, and to assign past performance risk ratings equivalent to the
degree of risk evaluated in each proposal. RFP sect. M.6. Price was not to be
rated, but was to be evaluated as to completeness, reasonableness, and
realism. RFP sect. M.5.b.

The agency received five proposals in response to the solicitation. Based on
the results of the source selection committee's initial evaluation, the
contracting officer established a competitive range of three, including the
proposals of Midwest and Maytag, the incumbent contractor at five of the
seven locations. Discussions were conducted and revised proposals were
submitted and evaluated, with the following final results:

            Technical/Management       Past            Price
                                       Performance

 Firm A     Highly Acceptable          Low Risk        $[DELETED]

 Midwest    Fully Acceptable           Low Risk        $7,882,850

 Maytag     Fully Acceptable           Moderate Risk   $[DELETED]

Maytag's technical/management proposal received only one rating that was not
fully acceptable. Under the technical/management item, the firm's proposal
was rated marginal under the contract management factor because the NGB
found that it failed to adequately cover the hiring of personnel at one
location. The NGB concluded that there was no indication the firm would have
a qualified supervisor onboard as required; the resume for the person
proposed did not meet the minimum experience requirement set forth in the
performance work statement (PWS). Despite this marginal rating for one
factor under the technical/management item, the item itself was rated fully
acceptable overall, as was the technical/management proposal. Maytag's
proposal was rated marginal/moderate risk [2] under the past performance
area because the agency believed Maytag's past performance at [DELETED]
locations indicated a [DELETED] concern regarding the firm's ability to
recruit and retain highly qualified personnel.

The agency considered Firm A's proposal to be technically superior to both
other proposals, but acknowledged that it was also the most costly proposal.
The NGB believed that Midwest was the next most highly qualified offeror
based on the evaluation results, at the lowest price, and did not believe it
could justify award to Firm A over Midwest. Award was made to Midwest on
March 30, and this protest followed. Maytag contends that the NGB improperly
evaluated its proposal under the technical/management area, improperly
evaluated both proposals under the past performance area, and failed to
conduct adequate discussions with the firm.

Technical/Management Area

Maytag contends that the NGB improperly evaluated its proposal as marginal
under the contract management factor. Maytag asserts that an objective
review of the resume at issue shows that the person it proposed as a weather
supervisor for one location met the minimum requirements. [3]

We will review an agency's technical evaluation of proposals to determine
whether it was fair, reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation
criteria. HSQ Tech.,

B-279707, July 9, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 13 at 5. The technical evaluation of a
proposal is based on information submitted in it, and an offeror runs the
risk of having its proposal downgraded and rejected if the proposal
submitted is inadequately written. Id.; Research Analysis and Maintenance,
Inc., B-242836.4, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD

para. 387 at 5.

Proposals were required to include all data and information requested by the
solicitation instructions. RFP sect. L.1.a.(1). Among other things, these
instructions required offerors to provide information relevant to their
proposed technical approach and program execution for each requirement
outlined in the PWS, and to provide a staffing plan that explained how it
would ensure requirements are satisfied. RFP sect. L.5.a. Amendment No. 0001
specifically instructed offerors to include, with their proposals, resumes
for all site weather supervisors. Firm A's

Aug. 14 Question & Answer No. 3. According to the PWS, each resume for a
proposed weather supervisor was required to attest to the fact that the
person met relevant experience requirements; contain a chronological list of
past employment positions held substantiating work experience for the
position being applied for; and clearly indicate the work/tasks performed
and the inclusive period of time each position was held. PWS para. 1.2.2.6. At
issue here, weather supervisors are required to have, among other things, a
"minimum of 2 years management and supervisory experience in DOD weather
station operations as their primary job." PWS para. 1.2.2.9.

Maytag's initial proposal did not identify the persons it proposed as
weather supervisors at [DELETED] locations. During discussions, Maytag was
told that, for these locations, it had provided an inadequate staffing plan
that fell short of guaranteeing personnel there. Maytag explained that it
had supervisors lined up for these locations and would provide their resumes
with its revised proposal.

Maytag's revised proposal identified the person it proposed as the weather
supervisor at the site at issue, stated she was currently the weather
station supervisor at a major commercial airport, and attached her resume.
The resume appeared to have been faxed from this commercial airport, but did
not list any employment there. The most recent employment period, from 1996
to 1999, at two Marine Corps installations, did not identify a job title but
listed seven areas of responsibility. One of the evaluators subsequently
contacted Maytag's weather contracts manager and asked about this person's
post-1999 employment experience. Maytag faxed the agency an addendum to the
resume listing an additional position at this major commercial airport.

The record shows that the agency did not believe that the resume met the
requirement to have a minimum of 2 years supervisory experience at a DOD
weather station as this person's principal job. As a result, Maytag's
proposal was rated marginal for the contract management factor. Maytag
contends that the agency unreasonably assigned this marginal rating because
the resume meets the PWS requirement "on its face." Protester's Comments,
June 5, 2001, at 12.

Maytag cites four areas of responsibility listed under this person's Marine
Corps employment as evidence that she met the requirement at issue:
"[s]upervised and conducted Instrument Ground School brief for the Third
Marine Aircraft Wing aviators"; "[d]eveloped and implemented training
program in areas of weather forecasting, weather observation, meteorological
equipment operations and logistics"; "[m]anaged Marine Wing Support
Squadron-374 personnel and assets

co-located with the station weather office"; and "[s]upervised logistical
planning, embarkation and deployment of Meteorological Mobile Facilities in
support of West Coast deployments and exercises." Maytag asserts that these
responsibilities clearly indicate supervisory and management experience in
DOD weather station operations.

Maytag is correct that these responsibilities clearly indicate supervisory
and management experience in DOD weather station operations, but that is not
the requirement. The requirement is, rather, a "minimum of 2 years
management and supervisory experience in DOD weather station operations as
their primary job." PWS para. 1.2.2.9. As the agency explains, the resume does
not include a job title that might have provided a managerial context for
these responsibilities. As a result, it is unclear whether these
responsibilities were part of this person's primary job as a manager or
whether they were merely incidental to a non-managerial job. It is also
unclear whether these responsibilities were ongoing tasks that met the
requirement to have 2 years of management and supervisory experience or
whether they were occasional tasks that took place at some point in the
1996-99 timeframe. While Maytag objects to this "microscopic scrutiny" of
the resume," Protester's Comments, June 21, 2000, at 2, it has provided us
no basis to find the agency's assessment unreasonable.

The record shows that after award, Midwest proposed this person as a weather
supervisor for the same location. For the same reasons outlined above, the
agency did not believe she met the experience requirements based on her
resume, and so advised Midwest. This person subsequently provided additional
information explaining her employment history, and the agency accepted her
as a weather observer for Midwest, not a weather supervisor. The fact that
Midwest later provided information about this person sufficient to qualify
her as a weather observer--or even a weather supervisor--is not relevant to
the question whether the agency reasonably evaluated Maytag's proposal. The
only relevant fact is that Maytag failed to provide the agency with
sufficient information about this person's experience during the evaluation
process. There is no support for Maytag's allegation that the agency did not
approve this person as Midwest's weather supervisor in order to avoid
compromising its position in the protest. Government officials are presumed
to act in good faith, and we will not attribute unfair or prejudicial
motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference and supposition
such as that presented by Maytag. Ready Transp., Inc., B-285283.3,

B-285283.4, May 8, 2001, 2001 CPD para. at 6 n.5.

Maytag contends that the agency improperly failed to tell the firm the
resume was deficient. We do not agree. For discussions to be meaningful,
they must lead offerors into the areas of their proposals requiring
amplification or revision, but the agency is not required to "spoon-feed" an
offeror as to each and every item that could be revised so as to improve its
proposal. Du and Assocs., Inc., B-280283.3, Dec. 22, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 156 at
7-8. During discussions, Maytag was told that its staffing plan was
deficient because it failed to provide adequate resumes. When the agency
received a resume that it still believed was deficient, it was under no
further obligation to raise the issue. [4]

Past Performance

The agency evaluated Maytag's past performance as presenting moderate risk.
Although the agency believed the overall indications from its survey showed
that Maytag's performance had been satisfactory, it found that the firm's
past performance at [DELETED] locations raised a [DELETED] concern about its
ability to recruit and retain highly qualified personnel. Since this
contract is to provide weather support to flight operations at seven
locations, the agency believed that staffing concerns could affect the
safety of flight.

Maytag alleges that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as
presenting moderate risk. Maytag contends that an objective review of the
past performance information evaluated by the agency and the pertinent facts
regarding these [DELETED] locations shows that the agency "attempted to
manufacture bogus deficiencies in order to downgrade Maytag's past
performance." Protester's Comments, June 5, 2001, at 16.

Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of offerors' past performance,
we will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable
and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, since determining the
relative merits of offerors' past performance information is primarily a
matter within the contracting agency's discretion. DRG Assocs., Inc.,
B-285428, B-285428.2, Aug. 25, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 145 at 11. An agency may
base its evaluation of past performance upon its reasonable perception of
inadequate prior performance, regardless of whether the contractor disputes
the agency's interpretation of the facts. Ready Transp., Inc., supra, at 5.
A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment is not sufficient
to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Birdwell Bros. Painting &
Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 129 at 5. Our review of the
record leads us to conclude that the NGB's evaluation of Maytag's proposal
with respect to past performance was reasonable.

Offerors were required to provide a summary of relevant past performance
relating to the PWS and performed within the past 5 years for DOD and for
other federal, state, and local governments or commercial entities. The
purpose of the past performance assessment was to determine the probability
that each offeror would comply with and meet all of the commitments in its
proposal; the risk assessment was to be based on the probability of an
offeror's success in meeting its proposal commitments. Source Selection Plan
(SSP) para. 5.5.2.

The agency evaluated 11 past performance questionnaires for Maytag,
including 2 from quality assurance evaluators (QAE) who also served as
members of this source selection committee, and conducted telephone
interviews with four of Maytag's references. As reflected in the evaluation
documentation, most of the questionnaires and phone surveys contained
favorable information about Maytag's past performance, with adjectival
ratings ranging from satisfactory to excellent. At issue here is the past
performance information received from [DELETED] sources, including two of
the evaluators here.

One evaluator is the QAE for Maytag's contract at a site at issue here. He
gave the firm ratings that generally ranged from satisfactory to very good,
but rated the firm marginal on its "ability to meet appropriate staffing
levels with qualified personnel in order to provide required services." The
QAE made two points in his narrative remarks. First, he stated that
[DELETED] contract discrepancy reports (CDR) had been issued to Maytag
during fiscal year 2000, all for services that were slightly below standard.
He stated that this was a noted decrease in the quality of Maytag's work
when compared to the prior fiscal year, but that the firm's performance was
good overall. Second, he stated that the firm had great difficulty
recruiting qualified personnel in the past year. He explained that this led
to staffing shortages that lasted several months and undoubtedly contributed
to an increase in CDRs and therefore a decrease in the quality of its
services. If this trend continued, he stated, it could be cause for concern
due to its impact on the customer's mission.

Maytag disputes this assessment of its performance, but our review of the
questionnaire, the underlying documents, and affidavits provided by Maytag's
contracts manager gives us no basis to question either the contents of the
questionnaire or the agency's evaluation of its import. Maytag principally
contends that the CDRs involve a relatively small number of discrepancies,
and that only three of those discrepancies could have had an operational
impact. Maytag's position is consistent with the QAE's statement that
Maytag's services were "slightly below standard" and its overall performance
"good," but the record shows the agency's concern was not grounded in this
aspect of the CDRs but, instead, in the staffing shortages. In that regard,
Maytag's implication that the QAE has no support for its comments that the
firm had staffing shortages is belied by Maytag's contemporaneous
explanations of the causes of some CDRs. As Maytag stated, for example, "the
personnel were also working long hours due to shortages of personnel," and
"[t]hese errors were caused by carelessness on the part of the forecaster
due to the long hours and the shortage of personnel." Maytag CDR Nos.
FY01-02 and FY01-03. Maytag's proffered reasons for the staffing shortages
and its assertion that it acted promptly to increase the pool of part-time
fill-in personnel to prevent a recurrence of the shortages do not persuade
us that the agency's fundamental concern was misplaced or unreasonable.

Another evaluator is the QAE for Maytag's contract at a second site at issue
here. She gave the firm ratings that were mostly very good, but rated the
firm marginal on its "ability to meet appropriate staffing levels with
qualified personnel in order to provide required services." In her narrative
remarks, the QAE stated that the quality of the firm's work was very good;
it had had minor discrepancies but none that resulted in a CDR. She also
stated that she did have some concern regarding the firm's management of key
personnel. She explained that, on [DELETED] occasions in the prior 6 months,
she had been asked to waive certain requirements that individuals seeking
employment lacked. She stated that, with this contract, there were seven
sites to be staffed and she was concerned that the firm might not have a
qualified pool of applications to fill positions, especially since stricter
qualifications of personnel would be enforced. Her narrative regarding these
waivers is supported by contemporaneous memoranda to the file.

Again, Maytag has provided us no basis to question either the contents of
the questionnaire or the agency's evaluation of its import. Maytag does not
dispute that it requested these waivers. Instead, the firm contends that the
requirements at issue were soon to become obsolete, either for technical
reasons or because they were not in the new solicitation, and that the QAE
approved the requests and expressed no concern. This explanation for the
waivers does not address or diminish the agency's concern that the firm
lacked a qualified pool of applicants from which to draw. As the QAE
explains, if Maytag had a pool of qualified people to select from to fill
these positions it would not have had to ask for waivers and she was
concerned that, if Maytag could not find [DELETED] qualified people to work
at one site, it might be difficult for it to find qualified people to fill
positions at seven sites, especially the two new sites. We cannot find this
concern unreasonable.

The final source of information at issue here is a telephone interview with
the quality assurance specialist (QAS) on another Maytag contract. In
response to the question whether Maytag had staffing problems, such as not
having a reasonable number of personnel under the contract for extended
periods of time, the QAS stated that, for a month in the fall of 2000, both
the contract manager and the site supervisor had to work shifts due to a
staffing shortage. In response to the question whether Maytag had ever
requested waivers of qualifications or experience for personnel it intended
to hire, the QAS stated that Maytag had asked about deleting the requirement
for the site supervisor to have a degree in meteorology.

Maytag states that, during the time at issue, a weather observer quit
without notice and the contract manager and supervisor had to work several
shifts to fill in. Maytag contends that the minor delay in filling the
position was not due to a recruiting problem but resulted from its decision
to "hold" the position for a particular person. While this incident might
not reflect a recruiting problem, the agency's concern was with Maytag's
ability to both recruit and retain personnel. Maytag has not addressed that
concern, which we find reasonable. Maytag also states that it did not
request a waiver under this contract but merely discussed the idea of
deleting a requirement. This position is entirely consistent with that taken
by the QAS here, and there is no evidence that the agency misinterpreted the
QAS's statement to mean a waiver was requested. The record shows that the
agency's concern about requested waivers were based on the first-hand
knowledge of two of its evaluators, as discussed above.

In conclusion, the fact that Maytag disputes the agency's interpretation of
the facts surrounding its past performance does not establish that the
evaluation was unreasonable. Maytag's allegation that the agency "attempted
to manufacture bogus deficiencies in order to downgrade Maytag's past
performance" is wholly unsupported. Again, government officials are presumed
to act in good faith, and we will not attribute unfair or prejudicial
motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference and supposition
such as that presented by Maytag.

Maytag also contends that the agency improperly failed to raise these issues
with the firm during discussions. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
requires that contracting officers discuss with each offeror being
considered for award "significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other
aspects of its proposal . . . that could, in the opinion of the contracting
officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's
potential for award." FAR sect. 15.306(d)(3). The scope and extent of
discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment. Id. The statutory
and regulatory requirement for discussions with all competitive range
offerors means that such discussions must be meaningful, equitable, and not
misleading.

Du and Assocs., Inc., supra.

The contracting officer explains that she did not conduct discussions on
these matters because she did not believe the associated weakness could be
"altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for
award." She based this conclusion on the fact that the problems were
well-documented by both the agency and Maytag, and the fact that two of the
three references at issue were evaluators on the source selection committee
with first-hand knowledge of the general trends in Maytag's past
performance. She did not believe discussions would have changed the facts
known to these evaluators. Contracting Officer's Statement at 4-5. Under the
circumstances, we have no basis to question the contracting officer's
judgment here. The record shows that these problems, which were factual in
nature, were well-documented by the agency; Maytag was given a chance to
respond to the agency's concern;and its input was taken into consideration.
Our view is underscored by the fact that, during the course of the protest,
Maytag was afforded ample opportunity to recast its past performance in
these areas to show the agency's view was unreasonable, and has been unable
to do so. As a result, even if the agency should have raised these matters
during discussions, it is clear from the record that Maytag was not
prejudiced by its failure to do so. See Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication,
Inc., B-279793, July 23, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 29 at 5-6.

Maytag finally contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated Midwest's
past performance as presenting low risk. Maytag asserts that, under the RFP,
DOD past performance was significantly more important than other past
performance but Midwest has no past performance with DOD. In addition, the
PWS requires the contractor to perform weather forecasting services at two
of the seven locations but Midwest has no past performance with weather
forecasting.

The agency evaluated Midwest's past performance as highly acceptable, with
all indications showing a low risk of substandard performance and a good
chance of success if awarded the contract. To arrive at this determination,
the agency evaluated questionnaires concerning five Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) contracts for weather observation services. Two
questionnaires contained "satisfactory" and "very good" ratings; two
contained "very good" and "excellent" ratings; and one contained almost
exclusively "excellent" ratings. None of the questionnaires contained
negative comments about Midwest's past performance.

The RFP merely required offerors to provide a summary of relevant past
performance--with DOD and with other entities--relating to the PWS. RFP sect.
L.5.b. The SSP advised the evaluators that the purpose of the past
performance assessment was to determine the probability of each offeror's
ability to comply with and meet all of the requirements in its proposal. SSP
para. 5.5.2. Risk ratings were to be assigned based on the probability of
success in meeting proposal commitments; a low risk rating reflected very
little risk to the government related to compliance with terms, conditions,
and standards. Id. para. 4.2.6.4. The two past performance items, DOD past
performance and non-DOD past performance, were intended to determine the
degree of success and customer satisfaction each offeror had achieved as
expressed by previous and current customers. Id. para. 5.5.3. Consistent with
the requirement of FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iv) (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), the evaluators were to give offerors
without any or significant past performance in an assessment area a neutral
rating for that assessment area, which was to result in neither a penalty
nor favorability for the firm. SSP para. 5.5.3.3.

The agency explains that since Midwest had no DOD past performance, it was
given a neutral rating for that item. The agency believed, however, that
Midwest's past performance on five FAA contracts covering numerous sites,
and its customers' very favorable assessment of that performance, were
sufficient to rate the firm as presenting a "low risk" overall when averaged
with the neutral rating. Evaluator A Affidavit at 1-2; Evaluator B Affidavit
at 1. The agency explains that while there are differences in format between
DOD and other federal agencies when it comes to reporting the weather, they
are not sufficient to outweigh Midwest's extensive and favorable FAA
experience. Evaluator A Affidavit at 1. The agency also reiterates that,
pursuant to the SSP, it was evaluating past performance in a more general
sense to see if negative feedback would be forthcoming from current
contracts regardless of the source. Our review of the record shows that the
agency did not read the DOD past performance item out of the solicitation,
as Maytag contends, but factored in Midwest's lack of DOD past performance
as part of its evaluation, consistent with the SSP and FAR sect.
15.305(a)(2)(iv). As a result, we cannot find the agency's actions
unreasonable with respect to Midwest's lack of DOD past performance.

The agency concedes that Midwest has no weather forecasting past
performance, but states that Midwest addressed forecasting services in
detail in its technical proposal and proposed key personnel with significant
DOD forecasting and observation experience in its staffing plan. On balance,
and considering that weather observation services were the bulk of the
required services, the agency believed that Midwest's past performance
merited a "low risk" assessment. Evaluator B Affidavit at 1; see also
Evaluator A Affidavit at 1. Our review of the record affords us no basis to
find this assessment unreasonable. The SSP advised the evaluators that the
purpose of their past performance assessment was to determine the
probability that each offeror would comply with and meet the commitments in
its proposal, and weather forecasting services were to be provided to only
two of the seven locations at issue here. While Midwest had no past
performance with weather forecasting services, the agency considered its
overall exemplary past performance record and appropriately considered the
fact that Midwest proposed key personnel with relevant experience in weather
forecasting. FAR sect. 15.305(a)(2)(iii). Under the circumstances, we cannot
find the firm's "low risk" assessment objectionable. [5]

In any event, even if the agency unreasonably evaluated Midwest's past
performance as presenting a low risk, there is no evidence to suggest that
the firm should have received a rating lower than moderate risk, the same
rating received by Maytag. If we assume that both firms should have been
rated moderate risk, we are not persuaded that Maytag has suffered any
prejudice. 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).

Setting aside past performance, the record shows key distinctions between
the two proposals. Under the most important area, technical/management,
Midwest's proposal was evaluated as having no weaknesses and five strengths:
the firm's corporate management had a good meteorological background from
the top down; the firm had a good focus on its recruiting base and methods;
the firm had a good focus on targeting prior Air Force personnel who would
provide the best support with less training; the firm had a good
understanding of required products and their accuracy; and the firm had a
well-detailed training plan. In contrast, Maytag had a weakness associated
with its inadequate resume, discussed above, and its sole strength was that
it was the incumbent contractor at five of the seven contract locations.
Midwest was also the lowest-priced offeror, by $[DELETED].

Given the technical superiority of Midwest's proposal, and its [DELETED]
lower price, we do not believe that Maytag would have a substantial chance
for award even if both proposals were rated moderate risk for past
performance. Our view is reinforced by the fact that the source selection
authority did not believe she could justify award to Firm A, the most highly
rated offeror, because its price was $[DELETED] more than that of Midwest;
the difference in price between the proposals of Maytag and Midwest,
$[DELETED], is nearly the same amount.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. Although the RFP uses the term "cost," the solicitation anticipated the
award of a fixed-price contract and the agency conducted a price analysis of
proposals.

2. The contracting officer states that the reference to a marginal/moderate
rating is a typographical error since the RFP's rating scheme called for
either a marginal/high risk rating or a fully acceptable/moderate risk
rating. Since the evaluation document refers to Maytag's proposal as fully
acceptable, the agency meant to say, according to the contracting officer,
that the proposal was rated fully acceptable/moderate risk. Contracting
Officer's Statement at 5-6.

3. Maytag's allegation that the agency improperly evaluated Midwest's
proposal under the technical/management area, raised for the first time in
its comments, is untimely. In its protest, Maytag generally alleged that the
agency improperly evaluated proposals, but the sole specific allegation it
made regarding Midwest's proposal concerned the evaluation of its past
performance. Since a broadly stated protest allegation does not permit the
protester to later present a specific, and otherwise untimely, argument
having some relevance to that initial general allegation, Advanced
Communication Sys., Inc., B-283650 et al., Dec. 16, 1999, 2000 CPD para. 3
at 12, Maytag was required to file its specific allegation regarding the
evaluation of Midwest's technical/management proposal within 10 days of the
time it received the agency report. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2001); Ralph G.
Moore & Assocs.--Recon.,

B-270686.3, June 5, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 268 at 2-3. In this case, Maytag
appropriately requested, and was granted, an extension of time to file its
comments under our rules, see 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.3(i), and filed its comments on
June 5, 19 days after it received the agency report. However, an extension
of time to file comments does not, and cannot, waive the timeliness
requirements for filing new bid protest issues. Oceaneering Int'l, Inc.,
B-287325, June 5, 2001, 2001 CPD para. at 7.

4. That the evaluator receiving the faxed resume addendum may have
responded, "no, this will be fine," to Maytag's request whether anything
else was needed (as Maytag contends) should not have misled Maytag into
believing the resume was acceptable, since the purpose of the transmission
was to give the agency information about this person's post-1999 employment,
not to explain her 1996-99 employment.

5. Maytag contends that, after award, certain personnel proposed by Midwest
did not take those positions and other individuals are now performing. The
determination of which among competing offerors will be selected for award
must be based on their proposals as submitted, and the agency's evaluation
of resumes of the key personnel named in the offeror's proposal is not
objectionable provided the resumes were submitted in good faith with the
consent of the respective individuals and the agency is reasonably assured
that the personnel are committed to the offeror in the event the offeror
receives the award. Bionetics Corp., B-221308, Dec. 24, 1985, 85-2 CPD para. 715
at 2-3. There is no evidence that Midwest submitted these resumes in bad
faith or without consent or that the agency had any basis for questioning
the availability of Midwest's proposed personnel.