TITLE:  The Arora Group, Inc., B-288127, September 14, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288127
DATE:  September 14, 2001
**********************************************************************
The Arora Group, Inc., B-288127, September 14, 2001

Decision

Matter of: The Arora Group, Inc.

File: B-288127

Date: September 14, 2001

Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for the protester.

Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., John E. Jensen, Esq., and Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq.,
Shaw Pittman, for CRAssociates, Inc., an intervenor.

Col. Michael R. Neds, and Maj. Karl W. Kuhn, Department of the Army, 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. In a negotiated procurement in which award was made to the offer
representing the best value to the government, a protester is an interested
party under the General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations to protest
the award and evaluation of proposals, even where the protester's offer is
ranked fifth of seven offers, since, if its protest were sustained, it could
be in line for award.

2. Terms incorporated into solicitation for designing outpatient clinics are
latently ambiguous and resulted in unequal competition where the record
shows that offerors prepared their proposals based on different, yet
reasonable, assumptions.

DECISION

The Arora Group, Inc. (TAG) protests the award of a contract to
CRAssociates, Inc. (CRA) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DADA10-00-R-0056, issued by the Department of the Army to operate two
primary outpatient care clinics supporting the DeWitt Army Community
Hospital, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The protester primarily argues that the
agency failed to consider whether proposals met a solicitation provision
establishing mandatory minimum room sizes for offices and various other
areas of the facilities.

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

Fort Belvoir's DeWitt Army Community Hospital is the central facility of a
comprehensive health care system serving active duty and retired military
personnel and beneficiaries in the Northern Virginia area. In addition to
the central facility, DeWitt operates four community-based primary care
clinics. These centers provide a wide array of routine and acute care,
including radiology, laboratory, immunization, and pharmacy services. The
RFP at issue here is for operating two of these centers in Virginia, one in
Woodbridge, the other in Fairfax/Burke.

The agency issued the RFP on December 13, 2000, as a total small business
set-aside, contemplating the award of a fixed-price,
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base period with up
to four 1-year options. For each contract period, offerors were required to
submit unit and extended prices for providing various services at each of
the two facilities, and a total price. Offerors were to submit written
proposals in six separate volumes covering the following areas:
administrative; facility drawings and service procedures; past/present
performance questionnaire; contractor quality control plan; cost/price; and
financial capability. RFP amend. No. 1, sect. L at L-1. In addition to written
proposals, offerors were required to make an oral presentation. Id. at
L.5-L.8.

The RFP stated that proposals were to be evaluated in three general
areas--technical, price, and past/present performance. Under the technical
area, proposals were to be evaluated by applying three factors--management,
approach to satisfying requirements, and quality control--each worth 30
points, for a total maximum score of 90 points. Within each factor, the RFP
listed subfactors as shown below (percentage weights for each subfactor
shown in parentheses were not provided in the RFP):

  A. Management

  1. Management Capabilities [DELETED]
  2. Recruitment [DELETED]
  3. Employee/Subcontractor Qualifications [DELETED]
  4. Employee relations [DELETED]
  5. Retention [DELETED]
  6. Training [DELETED]

  A. Approach to Satisfying Requirements
  B. Site Location [DELETED]

     Clinic Design/Facilities/Equipment [DELETED]

     Radiology Services [DELETED]

     Laboratory Services [DELETED]

     Wellness Services [DELETED]

     Appointment Services [DELETED]

     Nurse Triage Services [DELETED]
  C. Quality Control [1]

Identification/Documentation of Problems

Resolution/Prevention of Problems

Id. at M.2-M.3.

In addition to factors A, B, and C, the RFP listed past/present performance
and performance risk, financial capability, and price as factors D, E, and
F, respectively. The RFP stated that technical factors A, B, and C would be
numerically scored, and factors D and E would be evaluated for performance
risk. [2] The RFP further explained that technical factors A, B, and C were
of equal importance and combined were more important than price, which was
more important that factors D (past/present performance) and E (financial
capability). Id. sect. M.2. Price was to be evaluated for realism and adequacy.
Id. sect. M.6. The RFP stated that "to be considered for award, an offeror must
be determined to be acceptable in the technical portion" of the
solicitation. Id. Amend. No. 1, sect. M.2. Award was to be made on the basis of
the proposal deemed to represent the "best overall value" for the
government. Id. sect. M.6.

A technical evaluation team (TET) rated proposals with the following
results:

[DELETED]

Based on these results, the source selection authority selected CRA as the
firm whose proposal represented the best value to the government. This
protest followed a debriefing by the agency. [3]

PROTEST ISSUES

TAG argues that the agency should have rejected CRA's proposal as
technically unacceptable because it failed to meet solicitation requirements
related to the minimum amount of space for physician offices, exam rooms,
and other areas of the Fairfax facility. TAG makes similar arguments with
respect to Offeror A. Alternatively, TAG contends that the Army failed to
consider room sizes in the evaluation. [4]

DISCUSSION

Interested Party

The Army argues that the protest should be dismissed because, under our Bid
Protest Regulations, TAG is not an interested party to maintain the protest.
4 C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a) (2001). In this regard, the Army points out since TAG's
proposal was ranked fifth, and the protest does not challenge the evaluation
of the proposals of Offerors B and C, it would not be in line for award even
if its challenge to the evaluation of CRA's and Offeror A's proposals were
sustained.

We think the Army's argument fails to take into account the substance of
TAG's protest. In addition to specifically challenging the technical
acceptability of CRA's and Offeror A's proposals, TAG alleged that the
agency improperly evaluated its own proposal with respect to the number of
offered examination rooms. Since an upward adjustment to TAG's own score,
together with success on its other protest grounds, might place TAG's
proposal in line for award, we consider TAG an interested party to maintain
this protest. See Pan Am World Servs., Inc., et al., B-231840 et al., Nov.
7, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 446 at 6.

Analysis

At the center of this protest is the following RFP provision:

The contractor shall comply with [Department of Defense (DOD)] Space
Planning Criteria and Medical Guide Plates as they relate to the primary and
the specialty care areas identified in this Statement of Work. This
information can be located at:

http://hfpa.otsg.amedd.army.mil/ref.html

The contractor shall submit the following:

  a. A concept of operation that addresses population to be served and
     specialty services to be provided.
  b. Program for Design (architectural tool that outlines the number, type
     and size of each room and provides conversion factor from net to
     gross).
  c. Equipment Plan (summarizing the quantity and type of equipment and
     furniture to be utilized).
  d. Single Line Architectural Design or S2 (room by room layout).

RFP sect. C.4.1.1, amendment No. 1 para. E.11, at 3 (the word "shall" was underlined
in the original). The referenced website is maintained by the U.S. Army
Health Facility Planning Agency.

The referenced DOD Space Planning Criteria and Medical Guide Plates
(hereinafter referred to as Guide Plates) listed numerous functions
associated with a medical facility, with corresponding required staff
offices and space criteria for each. For example, for offices for
physicians, physician assistants, and nurses, the Guide Plates listed 100
net square feet (NSF). The Guide Plates contained similarly specific
dimensions for numerous other clinic areas (e.g, conference rooms--280 NSF;
scientists--140 NSF).

The protester argues that the Army should have rejected CRA's proposal as
technically unacceptable because it failed to meet the RFP's minimum space
criteria as contained in the Guide Plates. For instance, TAG contends that
at the Fairfax facility, CRA proposed only cubicles, rather than private
physician offices as the RFP required, and that these cubicles are
substantially smaller than the required minimum space. TAG also questions
whether the agency even considered in the evaluation whether proposals met
these requirements.

The agency and the intervenor take the position that the Guide Plates did
not establish minimum space requirements, maintaining that the criteria
listed in the Guide Plates are discretionary in nature. According to the
agency, the Guide Plates and accompanying materials were provided merely as
tools for planning and budgeting purposes, and allow offerors considerable
flexibility to rely on their experience in determining the appropriate
physical layout of the facilities. The CO further explains that the Guide
Plates were intended to provide guidance in planning and designing new
facilities, not retrofitting an existing building. The CO maintains that
this interpretation is particularly reasonable here because the Army had
informed offerors during the preproposal conference that only one of the two
current clinic facilities would be acceptable. The agency and the intervenor
further maintain that the RFP's "shall comply" language was intended to mean
that offerors were to use only the computer-assisted design (CAD) software
and net-to-gross conversion factors provided with the Guide Plates in
planning their proposed clinics.

We have reviewed the entire solicitation, including the website containing
the Guide Plates, and conclude that the RFP contained a latent ambiguity
that materially affected how offerors prepared their proposals, and resulted
in an unequal competition. An ambiguity exists where two or more reasonable
interpretations of the terms or specifications of the solicitation are
possible. Moreover, a party's particular interpretation need not be the most
reasonable to support a finding of ambiguity; rather, a party need only show
that its reading of the solicitation provisions is reasonable and
susceptible of the understanding that it reached. Aerospace Design &
Fabrication, Inc., B-278896.2 et al., May 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 139 at 13.
Below we describe in greater detail the basis for our conclusion that some
RFP provisions provide support for the Army's and the intervenor's position,
while other provisions reasonably support TAG's interpretation of the RFP.
While the Army may have intended to clarify the RFP by responding to
offerors' questions, the Army's responses did not eliminate the ambiguities.
In fact, as explained further below, we conclude that latent ambiguities
remained.

There are two levels of ambiguity at issue here: first, whether the Guide
Plates are mandatory or merely discretionary; and second, what the Guide
Plates require, if they are mandatory. As to the first question, the parties
dispute whether compliance with the Guide Plates was discretionary (the
agency's and intervenor's position) or mandatory (the protester's view). As
already noted, amendment No. 1 stated that "[t]he contractor shall comply
with DOD space Planning Criteria and Medical Guide Plates . . . ." The use
of the term "shall" in amendment No. 1 is mandatory, not permissive in
nature. See Development Assocs., Inc., B-233221, Feb. 10, 1989, 89-1 CPD para.
140 at 4-5; Corbetta Constr. Co. of Ill., Inc. B-182979, Sept. 12, 1975,
75-2 CPD para. 144 at 13, recon. denied, Apr. 9, 1976, 76-1 CPD para. 240. In
addition, the language of the amendment requires that offerors comply with
the Guide Plates specifically "as they relate to the primary and specialty
care areas identified in the statement of work." Thus, TAG's view that the
RFP required offerors to comply with the specifications contained in the
Guide Plates, including space requirements, is a reasonable interpretation
of the provision.

Given the RFP's direction that the offerors "shall comply" with the Guide
Plates and the specificity of the space criteria listed there, it is
logically inconsistent to conclude that offerors "complied" by simply
"inputting their design ideas or plans into the tools contained in the Guide
Plates" (e.g., CAD software and space conversion ratios), as the agency
contends, and were free to disregard other aspects of the Guide Plates, such
as the specific space criteria at issue here. If that was the agency's
intent, it was not clearly spelled out in the solicitation.

Accepting the agency's position suggests the improbable conclusion that the
Army was not concerned with a proposed clinic's space design. In fact, the
following exchange between the CO and an offeror during the preproposal
conference shows the contrary. In particular, in response to an offerors'
question regarding the adequacy of the current Woodbridge facility, the CO
responded:

The Fairfax Clinic is adequate. The Woodbridge Clinic was the original
facility back in 1985/86. We have renovated that clinic extensively and [it]
is not laid out well. Space is cramped. Parking is not adequate. Because of
the population growth, it's not sufficient at all.

Amendment No. 1, Pre-Proposal Conference Minutes, Jan. 4, 2001, item No. 14.
The CO's response suggests that the Army was indeed concerned that the
facilities' design and size of rooms accommodate all of the services
contemplated to be provided at the clinics, which again supports the
reasonableness of the protester's reading of the RFP.

CRA and the Army also argue that the use of "should" instead of "shall" in
response to an offeror's question during the preproposal conference
regarding the solicitation requirements, shows that the agency did not
intend for offerors to comply with all of the "standards"--to use CRA's
term--in the Guide Plates, implying that some aspects of the Guide Plates
could be disregarded. While the Army may have intended to clarify the RFP by
responding to offerors' questions, the Army's responses did not eliminate
the ambiguity. In fact, as explained further below, we conclude that
ambiguities remained. [5]

Prior to the submission of initial proposals, the agency issued several
amendments to the RFP, including written responses to questions from
prospective offerors. On January 29, 2001, the agency issued amendment No. 1
with the following prospective offeror's questions (Q) and the agency's
answers (A):

Q. No. 17: Section C [para.] C.4.1.1. This section states that ‘[t]he
government will review and approve proposed primary care, mental health, and
special care clinic designs submitted with proposals for ease of access,
patient flow, and a provider team concept of patient care.' However, there
is no requirement in Section L to submit this information or a written
technical proposal. Please clarify.

A. Section L will be revised to require this information be submitted as
part of the proposal. The following information should assist in
preparation:

  a. The contractors should comply with DOD Space Planning Criteria and
     Medical Guideplates at

http://hfpa.otsg.amedd.army.mil/ref.html.

* * * * *

Q. No. 84. Is [the current Fairfax facility] large enough to handle the
additional clinics as outlined in the RFP?

A. Yes. However, reference question 17 above. It requires the contractor to
submit specifications regarding the facilities it intends to build/use as
part of their proposal.

Amendment No. 1 at 3 and at 12.

In some contexts, the use of "should" (as in response to question No. 17)
expresses a requirement, see All Star Maint., Inc., B-244143, Sept. 26,
1991, 91-2 CPD para. 294 at 5 ("should" considered mandatory), while, in other
contexts, "should" indicates a preference or discretionary characteristic.
See Steelcase Inc., B-260781, July 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 41 at 4 ("should"
not considered mandatory). Here, particularly in light of the use of the
words "shall comply" in the amendment incorporating the Guide Plates into
the RFP, it is not clear whether the Army intended to indicate a preference
for offerors to use the Guide Plates as a reference and guidance, or whether
the Army intended the Guide Plates to be mandatory. Whatever the agency's
intent, the CO's responses did little to clearly convey the agency's
position.

In this regard, we note that section M of the RFP stated that "to be
considered for award, an offeror must be determined to be acceptable in the
technical portion" of the solicitation. Amendment No. 1, sect. M.2. Reading the
"shall comply" amendment language consistent with the quoted evaluation
provision suggests that the agency intended to first determine which
proposals complied with the specifications contained in the Guide Plates on
a "pass/fail" basis, and then evaluate acceptable proposals qualitatively.
The minutes of the preproposal conference, which were provided to all
offerors as an attachment to amendment No. 1, provide some support for this
interpretation. Specifically, in his introductory remarks explaining that
the current Woodbridge facility was not acceptable, the CO explained as
follows:

The main point is that you provide us the location you want to use as
replacement for the Woodbridge Clinic and you provide us some sort of blue
print or sketch or representation of what that building and surrounding area
looks like as far as your parking lot so we may get an idea. This portion of
the evaluation will probably be a ‘go or no-go' type of situation.
We're not going to rank it numerically as far as the alternate sites, but
look at it to determine if it is acceptable or not.

Preproposal Conference Minutes, Ft. Belvoir Community Hospital, Jan 4, 2001
at 1.

While the CO's comments suggest that the agency would first review proposals
for technical acceptability, neither the RFP nor the CO's comments at the
preproposal conference explain what "portion" would be subjected to a
"go/no-go" evaluation, what criteria the agency would apply in its
determination, or how it would determine technical acceptability. In
addition, the evaluation record is devoid of any indication that the TET
reviewed any portion of the proposals for technical acceptability.

Similarly, the Army's response to question No. 84 during the preproposal
conference regarding the adequacy of the current Fairfax facility did not
eliminate the ambiguity. Although responding that the current Fairfax
facility was large enough to accommodate the required clinics, the CO
qualified his response by referring offerors to question No. 17, emphasizing
that "it requires the contractor to submit specifications regarding the
facilities it intends to build/use . . . ." The agency states that its
response meant that the current Fairfax facility was acceptable. The
protester maintains, however, that it interpreted the Army's response as
allowing offerors to propose the current Fairfax facility, as long as it was
designed in accordance with the minimum space requirements contained in the
Guide Plates. In light of the "shall comply" language in the solicitation
and the repeated references to minimum square footage in the Guide Plates,
(discussed further below) we conclude that TAG's interpretation is not
unreasonable.

As noted above, the parties also dispute what the Guide Plates require, if
they are viewed as mandatory. Some of the provisions appear to establish
mandatory dimensions for various locations. For instance, the space criteria
for physician and other staff offices are listed under the heading "Clinic
Space Requirements," indicating that the criteria listed were the Army's
requirements, not merely guidelines. Id. sect. 5.0 SPACE CRITERIA. Under this
particular section, the Guide Plates listed dimensions for physician
offices, assistants, and other facility staff, and stated as follows:

Physician's Offices--Each physician, Physician's assistant, clinical nurse
practitioner, and allied scientist on the staff will be provided a private
office based on the following criteria: (excluded offices are provided under
other criteria, such as Radiologists, Pathologists, Anesthesiologists,
Commanders, etc.). [6]

 Chiefs of major departments in  150 NSF
 teaching hospitals

 Conference Room                 280 NSF

 Chiefs of specialty services    140 NSF
 in teaching hospitals/Dental
 activities

 Chiefs of major services in     140 NSF
 other hospitals/Dental
 activities

 All other physicians,           100
 physician assistants and        NSF/office
 clinical nurse practitioners
 who do not require a
 combination office-exam room

 Allied scientists who require   140/NSF
 a combination office-exam room  office/exam

 Conference Area--Provided in    200-250 NSF
 each clinic for group teaching  as required

AR exh. K, Guide Plates, sect. J.5.0 Space Criteria.

We think that except for the last item (conference area), offerors could
reasonably understand this chart as establishing minimum space requirements
for each area listed; even the conference area item could be interpreted as
requiring a conference room of a size not less than 200 NSF, and not to
exceed 250 NSF.

This same section contained specific space criteria for various functions
such as administrative offices, cardiology, dermatology, infectious
diseases, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatric clinics, and numerous other
areas and specialties in outpatient clinics. Each of these different
functions and medical specialties was further broken down by areas generally
found in a clinic (e.g., reception, waiting area, bathrooms, and exam rooms,
to name a few). Next to each of these functions the Guide Plates listed
specific space criteria and comments indicating that some of the
specifications listed were relatively flexible. Some examples are shown
below:
 FUNCTION      NSF AUTHORIZED  PLANNING RANGE/COMMENTS

 Central       150             Minimum or 16 NSF per
 Clinic                        seat. Maximum 500 NSF.

 Lobby

 ADP terminal  20              Per terminal device.

 Appointment   110             May be provided with 3 or
 Clerk Lounge                  more clerks. Add 10 NSF
                               per clerk greater than
                               10. Maximum 150 NSF.

 Doctor's      100             1 per doctor programmed
 Office

 Exam Room     100             2 per doctor programmed

 Immunization  200             Minimum. If immunizations
 Area                          are administered, see the
                               immunization criteria.
                               140 NSF per station

AR exh. K, Guide Plates sect. J.5.0, Space Criteria.

The agency argues that since the space criteria are listed under the heading
"NSF AUTHORIZED," the only reasonable interpretation is that the NSF figures
are flexible, may be adjusted depending on the circumstances, and do not
establish minimum space requirements. Essentially, the Army's position seems
to be that the criteria for the functions listed under the "NSF AUTHORIZED"
heading reflect, if anything, a maximum authorized space. While the Army's
position may not be unreasonable, it is not the only reasonable
interpretation of the figures under this column heading. Another at least
equally reasonable interpretation, is that the amounts listed establish the
minimum space required for that category.

For some functions, the language in the third column makes this latter
reading more reasonable. For instance, for the central clinic lobby area,
for which the second column lists 150 NSF, the third column states "minimum
or 16 NSF per seat. Maximum 500 NSF." Id. Those comments could reasonably be
interpreted to mean that planners have authorized the minimum space
dedicated for a clinic lobby to be 150 NSF, but lobby space could be
increased to a maximum of 500 NSF. Similarly, the comments in the third
column for other functions and areas clearly indicate that the NSF figures
establish minimum space requirements which could be exceeded under certain
circumstances by applying formulas described in the comments. See, e.g.,
Outpatient records clerk, 80 NSF "minimum. 80 NSF per station, 1 for each
clerk programmed"; reception, "100 NSF minimum. 1 per clinic"; dressing
cubicle, "60 NSF minimum, 40 NSF per cubicle;" specimen toilets, "50 NSF
minimum."

Overall, based on our review of the record, we think that TAG's position
that compliance with the Guide Plates was mandatory and that the Guide
Plates establish minimum square footage requirements, as well as the Army's
and the intervenor's view that the Guide Plates were discretionary and
provided mere guidance for planning and budgeting purposes, are both
reasonable interpretations of the RFP. We thus conclude that the RFP was not
sufficiently clear, leading offerors to make different, yet reasonable,
assumptions with respect to the Army's requirements, particularly with
respect to the specifications contained in the Guide Plates and, thus, did
not permit competition on an equal basis. Sciaky, Inc. B-261787.2, Nov. 8,
1995, 95-2 CPD para. 269 at 6-7. Under these circumstances, the requirement
should be resolicited. See Allied Signal, Inc., Electronic Sys., B-275032,
B-275032.2, Jan. 17, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 136 at 11.

RECOMMENDATION

Where, as here, an agency determines that it is in the best interest of the
government to proceed with contract performance in the face of a protest in
our Office, and we sustain the protest, we are required by CICA, 31 U.S.C. sect.
3554(b)(2) (Supp. IV 1998), to make our recommendation for corrective action
without regard to any cost or disruption from termination, recompeting or
reawarding the contract.

We recommend that the agency amend the RFP to clearly state its
requirements, particularly with respect to the Guide Plates incorporated
into the RFP by amendment No. 1; clarify which aspect, if any, of the
proposals will be subjected to a "pass/fail" type evaluation; and clearly
state which factors will determine technical acceptability. The Army should
then request new revised proposals based on the amended RFP, reevaluate
proposals and determine which proposal represents the best value to the
government. If, upon reevaluation, the agency determines that CRA's proposal
no longer represents the best value, we recommend that the Army terminate
CRA's contract for the convenience of the government, and make award to the
offeror whose proposal is found to offer the best value.

We further recommend that TAG be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing
and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorney's fees. 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.8(d)(1). TAG's certified claim for costs, detailing the time spent and
cost incurred, must be

submitted to the agency within 60 days of receiving this decision. 4 C.F.R.
sect. 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The agency states that due to their close interrelationship, the
subfactors within this area were not separately evaluated. Agency Report
(AR), July 24, 2001, at 4 n.3.

2. Initially, the evaluators assigned 10 points to factor D--past/present
performance and performance risk. In response to TAG's argument that this
factor was to be evaluated only for risk, the agency deleted the numerical
ratings assigned factor D, making 90 points the maximum number of technical
points available. The agency's recalculations are reflected in the table
below. The Army pointed out that the revised scores do not materially affect
the relative standing of TAG's technical proposal. TAG did not take issue
with the agency's conclusion in this regard and did not pursue this issue in
its comments.

3. The head of the contracting activity determined that contract performance
was in the best interest of the government notwithstanding the protest,
pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C.
sect. 3553(d)(3)(C)(i)(I) (1994).

4. TAG also argued that the Army improperly downgraded its proposal with
respect to the number of examination rooms the firm proposed. During the
course of the protest, the Army conceded this issue and recalculated TAG's
proposal's score by assigning the protester's proposal all available points
under the applicable subfactor, resulting in an increase of four weighted
points to TAG's score, from [DELETED] to [DELETED] points. The change in the
technical score does not affect TAG's proposal's relative standing to CRA's
and Offeror A's proposals, but supports our conclusion, discussed below,
that if TAG prevailed in its assertion that the RFP included mandatory
minimum room sizes, it might be in line for award. Since TAG agreed with the
Army's calculations and did not pursue this issue in its comments, we need
not address it further.

5. It is significant that the ambiguities that remained in the RFP were
latent, since, if they were patent (i.e, obvious from the face of the
solicitation) they would have had to be protested prior to proposal
submission date. See Motorola, Inc., B-277862, Dec. 3, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 155
at 7.

6. We also note an inconsistency in the solicitation which apparently caused
CRA and TAG to make different assumptions regarding clinic design. On the
one hand, the RFP required that, at a minimum, clinic design support
"adequate writing area(s) to allow [health care professionals] to annotate
findings on patient medical records." RFP, sect. C.4.1.3. On the other hand, the
"Space Criteria" section of the Guide Plates quoted clearly required that
health care professionals be provided private offices. It is not clear
whether the agency intended that private offices would be acceptable in lieu
of writing areas, as TAG apparently believed, or whether [DELETED] would be
acceptable, as apparently CRA concluded.