TITLE:  S3 LTD, B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3, September 10, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3
DATE:  September 10, 2001
**********************************************************************
S3 LTD, B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3, September 10, 2001

Decision

Matter of: S3 LTD

File: B-288195; B-288195.2; B-288195.3

Date: September 10, 2001

Robert A. Klimek, Jr., Esq., Darrell Craft, Esq., and Nicholas H. Cobbs,
Esq., Klimek, Kolodney & Casale, for the protester.

Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Walter T. Camp, Esq.,
and David W. Lannetti, Esq., Vandeventer Black, for Management Consulting,
Inc., an intervenor.

Barbara J. Amster, Esq., and Theresa A. Chesnut, Esq., Department of the
Navy, 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

Protests that contracting agency improperly evaluated offerors' past
performance are denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with the evaluation criteria; protester's disagreement with
the agency's interpretation of the facts surrounding its past performance
does not show that the agency's perception of that past performance was
unreasonable.

DECISION

S3 LTD protests the award of a contract to Management Consulting, Inc.
(MANCON) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-00-R-0028, issued by
the Naval Supply Systems Command's Fleet and Industrial Supply Center-San
Diego (FISC-SD) to obtain Regional Business Support (RBS) services. S3
contends that the Navy improperly evaluated proposals with respect to past
performance.

We deny the protests.

The Navy issued the solicitation on March 16, 2000 to meet anticipated labor
support needs of Department of Defense and other federal agency customers in
the southwest region of the United States. These anticipated needs include
support services in such varied categories as administrative and clerical,
technical, information technology, specialized technology, financial,
medical, industrial, and education and training.

The RFP contemplated the award of an
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials-type contract
under which federal customers could place task orders through FISC-SD for
specific services. The contract was to be awarded based on initial
proposals, without discussions, to the offeror whose proposal offered the
best value to the government. Proposals were to be evaluated under three
factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance, cost,
and small business subcontracting.

The Navy planned to evaluate the past performance of offerors and their
proposed subcontractors as it related to the probability of successful
accomplishment of the work. Each offeror was asked to submit a list of its
government contracts and a detailed description of each contract received or
in performance during the past 5 years that was in any way relevant to the
required effort. Offerors were also asked to forward risk assessment
questionnaires to respondents for their contracts, who were to send the
completed questionnaires to the government point of contact for this
solicitation. The Navy intended to evaluate the risks associated with an
offeror's past performance under seven factors: relevance, quality,
timeliness, cost control, business relations, customer satisfaction, and
subcontracting plans (if applicable). [1] Relevance was the most important
of these factors; the remaining factors were equally important. Each
performance risk assessment was to consider the number and severity of
problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken and the overall work
record. RFP sect. M.1.D.1.

The Navy received proposals from 15 offerors and the performance risk
assessment group (PRAG) commenced its past performance evaluation. In
addition to the information included in each proposal, the PRAG reviewed the
completed questionnaires it received and conducted telephone interviews with
respondents who failed to return questionnaires. After each PRAG member
reviewed each response and arrived at overall adjectival ratings for each
offeror, the PRAG met to develop consensus findings that are documented in
its past performance report.

The PRAG rated MANCON's proposal "outstanding" overall and ranked its past
performance first among all offerors. An "outstanding" rating was to be
assigned when "essentially no doubt existed" that the offeror would
successfully perform the required effort. Source Selection Plan (SSP) at 25.
The PRAG rated MANCON's proposal "outstanding" under each subfactor and
identified various strengths and no weaknesses. The PRAG stated that MANCON
had broad experience under three contracts that clearly demonstrated its
capabilities in all of the service categories of the RBS solicitation, and
that the firm's subcontractors brought diversified backgrounds in various
types of support services to the team. The PRAG concluded that MANCON's
successful background in managing numerous task/delivery order contracts and
its well-rounded relevant experience garnered it the highest standing. PRAG
Report at 1-2.

The PRAG rated S3 's proposal "good" overall and ranked its past performance
thirteenth among all offerors. A "good" rating was to be assigned when
"little doubt existed" that the offeror would successfully perform the
required effort. SSP at 25. The PRAG rated the firm's proposal "outstanding"
under two subfactors and "good" under four subfactors, and identified
various strengths and weaknesses. The PRAG stated that S3 or its
subcontractors had performed under several contracts similar to the RBS
solicitation, but the proposal did not include any past performance data in
the education and training area, and there was very little verification of
past performance in the information technology area. The PRAG stated that
comments received from respondents also contributed to S3's ratings; these
comments resulted in the PRAG's identification of various weaknesses
associated with S3's management abilities. PRAG Report at 5-6.

The source selection board (SSB) adopted the PRAG's findings. The SSB found
that S3 was the only viable offeror to submit a lower cost than MANCON and
based its cost/technical tradeoff analysis upon these two offers,
notwithstanding its finding that numerous other offerors had better
performance than did S3. [2]

The SSB concluded that MANCON's proposal represented the best value to the
government. The SSB stated that MANCON's proposal was rated "outstanding"
under the past performance factor with no weaknesses, and that its team
clearly demonstrated exceptional experience under two relevant contracts
associated with support services programs similar to the RBS program, the
Inter-Service Supply Support Operations (ISSOP) and the Cooperative
Administrative Support Unit (CASU) programs. The SSB found that the firm's
performance in these programs demonstrated that there was essentially no
doubt it was capable of successful performance under the requirements, and
that its past performance history, organization and work history were
significantly better than those of S3. The SSB found that MANCON and S3
submitted virtually identical cost proposals--S3's cost was $191,718,352 to
MANCON's $192,011,610--and believed the one percent difference between the
two did not outweigh the significant past performance difference. The SSB
concluded that S3's past performance indicated an element of some
performance risk that would be avoided with an award to MANCON. SSB Report
at 34.

The contracting officer forwarded an acquisition summary, source selection
summary and business clearance memorandum reflecting these conclusions to
the Naval Supply Systems Command for its review and approval. Upon review,
the procurement analyst recommended that clarifications be sought from S3
regarding the Navy's concerns with its past performance. The Navy requested
clarifications from S3 by telephone and received additional written
information from the firm. The Navy also verified information regarding its
concerns from several sources from which it had previously heard, and
contacted several new sources recommended by S3 to obtain more information
about the firm's past performance.

The information obtained during clarifications did not change the SSB's view
of S3's past performance. The SSB stated that S3 still had limited past
performance information in the information technology area, and that its
education and training contacts indicated S3's experience was mostly in the
areas of training government employees on the repair of equipment and
machinery, which was not considered strong relevant experience for the RFP's
education and training categories. The SSB also found that the firm's
management capabilities remained significantly weak, as the contacted
respondents indicated there was a lack of management oversight and a lack of
local chain of command, which negatively affected contract performance. The
SSB concluded that all weaknesses were verified with the points of contact
and the issues and ratings were still valid concerns; although some of the
issues had since been corrected, at the time of the contracts they were
serious issues affecting performance. SSB Report at 26. The initial source
selection decision remained unchanged, and the Naval Supply Systems Command
approved award to MANCON. These protests followed.

S3 contends that the Navy improperly failed to consider the information it
received regarding the firm's past performance during clarifications. The
protester asserts that if this information had been considered, its proposal
would have had no significant weaknesses and received an "outstanding"
rating.

Where a protest challenges an agency's evaluation of offerors' past
performance, we will examine the 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. DGR 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. See Quality Fabricators,
Inc., B-271431, B-271431.3, June 25, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 22 at 7. 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 Navy's evaluation of proposals here was reasonable.

S3's past performance proposal listed four government support services
contracts: a [DELETED] contract; a [DELETED] contract; and two [DELETED]
contracts [DELETED]. For each contract, S3 identified "official contacts" in
a position to evaluate its overall performance, such as a program manager,
contracting officer, or contracting specialist. S3 also sent questionnaires
to numerous users of its services under various task or delivery orders. The
PRAG received questionnaires from or conducted telephonic interviews with an
official contact for each contract and with almost all of these users.

The responses from two "official contacts" were generally positive but
lacked supportive detail indicating superior performance. The contract
specialist for the [DELETED] contract said S3 provided satisfactory
logistics support but her only supporting statement was that the firm
conducted its quarterly site visits with no problem. She rated the firm's
overall technical performance as "outstanding," but her only support for
this rating was that the firm quickly corrected employee tardiness problems.
She responded "yes," with no explanation, to other management- and customer
satisfaction-related questions. The contracting officer's representative
(COR) for both [DELETED] contracts stated that S3's management had been
effective but his only supporting statement was that all of the firm's tasks
were managed satisfactorily. He responded "yes," with no explanation, to
other management- and customer satisfaction-related questions, and rated
S3's overall technical performance as both "good" and "acceptable." The
third "official contact" was more critical. The [DELETED] program director
believed the firm's management was not effective, citing the firm's poor
records and its high turnover in program managers. She responded "no," with
no explanation, to such questions as whether S3 demonstrated a business-like
concern for customers' interests and was committed to customer satisfaction.
She rated the firm's overall technical performance as "fair."

Most users gave outstanding marks to S3's personnel and its overall
technical performance, but responded "yes," with no explanation, to the
various management and customer satisfaction-related questions. Some users
did provide positive comments, such as the user who said S3 was very
concerned with customer service and that he was "very, very pleased" with
his experience, but other users were critical. One stated that S3 did not
provide adequate assistance in turnover to the new contractor or information
to employees at the completion of its contract; another stated that no
employee was fully qualified to perform the work unless she had referred
them to the firm; and a third said S3's logistics support was not
satisfactory because the firm had no local office with site management
responsibilities, which meant the government was forced to act as a
clearinghouse for employee questions back to their employer. This user
stated that S3 said all the right things to indicate concern with customer
satisfaction but that it is difficult to manage unless there is a management
presence close enough to the actual operation to understand employee and
performance issues; he indicated that S3 had made one site visit in 2 years.

S3's proposal was rated "good" under the relevance subfactor, with the
weaknesses discussed above concerning its lack of past performance data in
the education and training area and the inadequate verification of its past
performance in the information technology area. S3's proposal was rated
"good" under the quality, business relations, and customer satisfaction
subfactors, [3] with several related weaknesses based on the user comment
that performance and customer satisfaction were negatively affected by its
lack of site management or local chain of command; the user comment that
none of S3's personnel were qualified to perform the requested tasks unless
she referred them to the firm; the user comment that S3 did not provide any
turnover to the new contractor at the end of the contract; and the [DELETED]
program director's statements that S3 had poor records and a high turnover
in program managers, her negative view of the firm's customer satisfaction,
and her rating of the firm's overall performance as "fair."

Turning first to the relevance subfactor, S3 advised the Navy during
clarifications that it had not included information on its education and
training experience because the contract under which it gained that
experience ended prior to the cut-off time for past performance set forth in
the solicitation. S3 later provided written information about work done
under that contract and more recent education and training work.

S3's contention that the agency did not consider this information is belied
by the SSB report, which found that the firm's information indicated its
experience was "mostly in the areas of training government employees on the
repair of equipment and machinery, which is not considered strong relevant
experience for the RFP Education and Training categories." SSB Report at 26.
The initial agency report elaborated on this finding in detail, and S3, in
its comments on that initial report, did not dispute the agency's position.

S3's contention that the Navy waived the requirement for past performance
experience in the education and training area for MANCON is without basis.
MANCON's proposal includes a list of the labor categories it has provided
the government in support of its contracts, which shows it has fielded
numerous employees with more than 50,000 hours of experience in education
and training labor categories. The firm's narrative description of its work
also includes several tasks associated with these labor categories. [4] In
conclusion, S3 has given us no basis to find that the ratings assigned to
either proposal under the relevance subfactor are unreasonable.

S3's related contention that the Navy failed to treat the relevance
subfactor as more important than the other past performance subfactors, as
required by the solicitation, is also without basis. While the Navy did not
use any quantitative means to weight the subfactor as more important than
the others, the record is replete with evidence that the Navy made its
decisions with this fact in mind, and the PRAG and SSB reports place
particular emphasis on relevance. [5]

We now turn to S3's "good" ratings under the remaining past performance
subfactors at issue here. During clarifications, S3 addressed the [DELETED]
program director's comments by stating that the contract as awarded did not
allow for a program manager function and would have to be modified to permit
the firm to charge such costs to the contract. S3 stated that the program
director did not agree with its personnel coverage and advised that there
were "differing personalities" between the program director and the firm.
Clarifications Memorandum at 3. S3 asked the Navy to contact the contracting
officer for more information because there were "issues" between the program
director and the firm. [6] Id. S3 also gave the Navy written information
about the tenure of its [DELETED] program managers showing that the firm had
three program managers in 4 years.

The Navy did contact the [DELETED] contracting officer. He stated that the
contract as awarded did not account for the cost of a program manager, but
the contract grew larger than anticipated and S3 had to bring in more people
to support the number of task orders. S3 had not included the cost for a
program manager in its proposal and there was not enough money for such
costs. An audit resulted in the conclusion that the costs were allowable,
and he modified the contract accordingly. The contracting officer stated
that, "[t]hereafter, there were disagreements between S3 program managers
who worked closely with [the program director]" and that she "did not get
along" with them. He stated that, in his opinion, S3 did an outstanding job.
Summary of Clarification Phone Contacts at 5-6. The Navy also contacted the
[DELETED] program manager for her opinion. After advising the Navy that they
should talk to the program director because her response might differ, she
stated that there may have been problems in the earlier years of the
contract before she arrived (several years into the contract) but that she
had experienced no performance problems and the customers were extremely
happy. Id. at 6.

S3 also addressed the user comments about its lack of on-site management. S3
stated that the contract did not permit it to have an on-site supervisor
unless it had a larger staff than it did at this location. S3 stated that
its clients indicated it would be nice to have an on-site supervisor but the
[DELETED] program director had denied the client's request. S3 conceded that
its customers knew it had no local management and turned to the government
for answers. S3 also stated that it had a current contract at this location
under which its management was highly regarded. When contacted for
verification, the user did not revise his original comments but merely
confirmed that, on its current supplies contract, S3 had a local office with
a manager so the issues under the [DELETED] contract were not a problem.

S3 contends that the Navy improperly failed to consider the information it
received during clarifications concerning the responses from the [DELETED]
program director and this user. [7] S3 contends that the Navy should have
disregarded their responses because information provided during
clarifications should have put it on notice that the problems raised by the
[DELETED] program director resulted from a contract dispute and the problems
raised by the user were the government's fault. We do not agree.

The PRAG was concerned about the [DELETED] program director's comment that
S3 had poor records and a high turnover in program managers. The protester
does not dispute the comment regarding the firm's poor records. As for her
comment about the high turnover in program managers, the information
provided by S3 during clarifications shows that the firm had three program
managers over the 4-year span of the contract, and information elsewhere in
S3's proposal showed that one of these program managers served for just 4
months. The Navy did not believe that this information addressed its
concerns with S3's past performance, and we cannot find fault with the
program director's view that its program manager turnover was high.

The PRAG was also concerned about the [DELETED] program director's negative
opinion of S3's commitment to customer satisfaction and her overall fair
rating of the firm. During clarifications, S3 essentially advised the Navy
that there was ill will between the firm and the program director based upon
a disagreement as to whether the costs of a program manager could be charged
to the contract. S3 asserts that, after the contract was modified to resolve
the issue, the contracting officer informed the Navy that the program
director "still believed she was correct and continued to denigrate S3."
Protester's Comments, Aug. 7, 2001, at 4. S3 further asserts that both the
contracting officer and program manager "told [the Navy] that [the program
director] was prejudiced." Protester's Supplemental Comments, Aug. 29, 2001,
at 8. S3's characterization of the responses from these individuals is
simply wrong.

Nowhere in his response does the contracting officer advise the Navy that
the program director ever "denigrated" S3 or that she was "prejudiced"
against the firm. He merely states that there were unspecified disagreements
between S3 program managers and the program director, and that they did not
get along. The mere existence of such disagreements is not indicative of
prejudice. Similarly, the program manager never said that the program
director was prejudiced against S3, but merely acknowledged that there may
have been problems between the firm and program director before she came to
work on the program. Again, the mere existence of such problems is not
indicative of prejudice. Government officials are presumed to act in good
faith; we will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to such officials
on the basis of inference or supposition. See ABIC Ltd., B-286460, Jan. 12,
2001, 2001 CPD para. 46 at 7.

S3 has given us no basis to conclude that the program director's comments
were tainted by the contractual dispute or based upon any reason other than
S3's performance under the [DELETED] contract, and there is no reason to
find that the Navy should have disregarded her response. Her view of S3's
poor records is unrebutted; her opinion that S3 had high program manager
turnover is reasonable; and her other negative comments are consistent with
responses from several [DELETED] users. The fact that the contracting
officer and program manager did not share her opinion of S3's performance
does not render her opinion invalid. Neither attempted to impugn her
response despite the opportunity to do so, and the program manager in
particular took care to acknowledge both that their views might differ and
that she had no knowledge of events from the earlier stage of performance.

S3 next contends that the source of the problem cited by the user was the
[DELETED] office. The protester states that it was unable to get the program
director's approval for an on-site office but would have done so if
authorized by contract. As the Navy points out in its supplemental agency
report, however, there is no evidence that S3 itself sought to solve the
problem by obtaining direct compensation for a supervisor, and no evidence
that the firm took any other steps to address the user's concerns, such as
making more on-site visits than one in 2 years.

As for S3's contention that the Navy did not consider the fact that this
user is very happy with its current contract as "corrective action," the
Navy explains that it did not think that performance under a subsequent, and
apparently unrelated, supply contract outweighed its risk assessment
associated with the oversight and supervision problems at this site. S3 uses
this explanation to complain that the requirement to undertake quick
corrective action in the current task order or contract was an unstated
evaluation factor. We do not agree. Agencies are required to identify the
major evaluation factors in a solicitation, but are not required to identify
all areas of each factor which might be taken into account provided that the
unidentified areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated
criteria. Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics, B-276576, July 1, 1997, 97-2 CPD para.
132 at 3-4. In our view, when considering past performance in the context of
such subfactors as business relations and customer satisfaction, the notion
of "effective corrective actions" reasonably encompasses the timing and
nature of such actions. Here, there is no indication that S3 took any
corrective action in response to the identified problem over the life of the
task order despite being on notice of its existence. Under the
circumstances, the Navy reasonably found that the problem was not resolved
or mitigated by S3's subsequent performance on a different contract.

Turning to the evaluation of MANCON's past performance proposal, S3 contends
that since three of its responses came from the same person, and contained
nearly identical "glowing" comments, Supplemental Protest at 10, the Navy
should have questioned the validity of the responses. We do not agree. As
the deputy director for all of these contracts, this person was an
appropriate contact, and the near identity of his responses does not trouble
us, given the detailed nature of his comments, the similarity of the
contracts, and the absence of any contradictory information in the record.
S3's assertion that this individual, who provided a response for S3 that was
bereft of "glowing" comments such as those made about MANCON, is prejudiced
against the firm is wholly without basis. See ABIC Ltd., supra.

S3 argues that the Navy divided past performance questionnaires into those
that contained amplifying information and those that did not, and used these
categories to mechanically analyze past performance. S3 has misinterpreted
the SSB chair's statement, which simply explains that the Navy had more
confidence in responses that included detail in support of their conclusions
than those that did not, and conducted its evaluation accordingly. This
explanation is borne out by the record and entirely reasonable. S3 has also
misinterpreted a passage from this statement to argue that the Navy
conducted a mechanical analysis based upon the presence or absence of
weaknesses in an offeror's past performance. The statement that
"[u]nresolved weaknesses, no matter how minor, cast some doubt as to the
successful performance of the contract and, therefore, eliminated the
possibility of an Outstanding rating being assigned," SSB Chair Statement at
2, is consistent with the requirement to assign an "outstanding" rating when
"essentially no doubt existed" that the offeror would successfully perform
the required effort. SSP at 25. In any event, the notion of a mechanical
analysis is belied by the extensive discussion of offerors' past performance
in the PRAG report. [8]

S3 finally contends that the entity on whose behalf the contract was signed,
"MANCON, Inc.," is not the entity with past performance experience,
"Management Consulting, Inc. (MANCON)." In this regard, while the firm's
proposal makes it clear that "Management Consulting, Inc." does business as
"MANCON," and the past performance data uses the two interchangeably, the
offer form was signed on behalf of "MANCON, Inc." by the person identified
elsewhere in the proposal as the vice-president of "Management Consulting,
Inc. (MANCON)."

The name of an offeror need not be exactly the same in all of the offer
documents, although the offer documents or other information available must
show that differently-identified offering entities are in fact the same
legal entity. See Trandes Corp., B-271662, Aug. 2, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 57 at 2.
Our review of the record confirms the Navy's position that the available
information was sufficient to make the requisite showing. While the offer
form is signed on behalf of "MANCON, Inc.," it is signed by the same
individual listed as the vice-president of "Management Consultants, Inc.
(MANCON)" elsewhere in the proposal and lists the same address as that given
for "Management Consultants, Inc. (MANCON)." The record also

shows but one data universal numbering system (DUNS) number and one taxpayer
identification number (TIN). The fact that an offeror has only one TIN or
DUNS

number and only one address is often a reliable indicator of the offering
entity. [9] See Dick Enters., Inc., B-259686.2, June 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD para.
286 at 2, recon. denied, Dick Enters., Inc.--Protest and Recon., B-259686.3,
Nov. 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 223.

The protests are denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. Neither the subcontracting plan subfactor nor the small business
subcontracting factor, evaluated on a pass/fail basis, is at issue here.

2. All other technically acceptable offerors proposed costs that were
substantially higher than those proposed by either S3 or MANCON.

3. Quality was defined as "compliance with contractual requirements,
accuracy of reports, retention of employees and key personnel, and training
of personnel, and quality awards"; business relations as "effective
management and communications with customers and business associates,
business-like concern for the customer's interest, assistance and
cooperation in problem solving"; and customer satisfaction as "concern for
the interests of customers and satisfaction of the end users with the
contractor provided services." RFP sect. M.1.D.1.(a).

4. Since S3 did not rebut the agency's evaluation of its proposal with
regard to its education and training experience in its initial comments,
S3's later-raised allegation in this regard, in its supplemental comments,
is untimely. Global Eng'g & Constr. Joint Venture, B-275999.4, B-275999.5,
Oct. 6, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 125 at 10 n.11. In any event, S3's later-raised
allegation--that several of its [DELETED] task orders reflect education and
training experience comparable to that of MANCON--is unpersuasive because it
is not clear how the work described is related to the RFP's education and
training labor categories in view of the fact that S3's proposal lists no
past performance labor hours in any of these labor categories.

5. In any event, S3's standing would obviously not improve if more
importance were placed on its "good" relevance rating as compared with
MANCON's "outstanding" rating.

6. At S3's request, the Navy also contacted the deputy program manager for
the [DELETED] contracts for his views of S3's past performance and verified
the response from the COR for these contracts. Both individuals essentially
stated that S3 had performed adequately or successfully with no major
problems.

7. S3 does not dispute the accuracy of the comments made by two other users
whose responses were the basis of evaluated weaknesses under several
subfactors.

8. In addition to lacking a valid basis, S3's related argument that the Navy
improperly rated all offerors as "outstanding" or "good" and did not use
other available ratings is untimely. The July 24 agency report put S3 on
notice of all offerors' ratings, but S3 did not raise this allegation until
August 31, more than a month later. Protests not based upon alleged
solicitation improprieties must be filed within 10 days after the basis of
protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2001).

9. The intervenor has provided evidence showing it does operate under the
name "MANCON, Inc." in some states. While S3 asserts that an ambiguity
regarding the

offering entity exists simply because a firm called "ManCon, Inc." is
registered in the same state as the intervenor, neither the name "ManCon,
Inc." nor its address appear anywhere in the offer documents.