TITLE:  DeLeon Technical Services, Inc.; TekStar, Inc., B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3, December 12, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3
DATE:  December 12, 2001
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: DeLeon Technical Services, Inc.; TekStar, Inc.

File: B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3

Date: December 12, 2001

Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, for DeLeon Technical
Services, Inc., and Robert S. Gardner, Esq., for TekStar, Inc., the
protesters.

Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Kara L. Daniels, Esq.., Holland & Knight, for
Phoenix Management, Inc., an intervenor.

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

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protests relating to the propriety of an agency's evaluation of proposals
are denied where record shows that agency's evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the evaluation scheme outlined in the solicitation;
protesters' disagreement with agency's evaluation conclusions is inadequate
to show evaluation was unreasonable.

2. Protest that agency failed to engage in adequate discussions is denied
where record shows that offerors were led into areas of their proposals
requiring amplification or correction; agencies are not required to "spoon
feed" offerors with respect to each and every element of their proposals
found deficient.

DECISION

DeLeon Technical Services, Inc. and TekStar, Inc. protest the award of a
contract to Phoenix Management, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F05603-00-R0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for logistics
support services at several Air Force installations. Both protesters
maintain that the agency misevaluated proposals in several respects and
failed to engage in meaningful discussions.

We deny the protests.

The RFP contemplated the award of a contract to perform consolidated
logistics support services at four Air Force installations: Peterson Air
Force Base (AFB), F.E. Warren AFB, Malmstrom AFB, and Vandenberg AFB.
Performance is for a basic contract period of 1 year, with 5 option years,
and is to commence initially only at Peterson AFB, with the other
installations being phased in gradually over a period of approximately 4
years (as preexisting contracts at the other installations expire). Award
was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best
value to the government considering price and non-price factors. RFP sect. M-1.
There were three non-price evaluation factors: past performance/confidence,
proposal risk, and mission capability. Past performance/confidence and
proposal risk were equal in importance, and both were more important than
mission capability; each of the three factors was more important than price,
and the three combined were significantly more important than price. RFP sect.
M-3.

The Air Force received numerous proposals and, after an initial evaluation,
established a competitive range comprised of DeLeon, TekStar and Phoenix.
After engaging in discussions and obtaining final proposal revisions, the
agency rated the proposals as follows:

                    Phoenix            DeLeon             TekStar

 Past Performance/  Exceptional/High   Very Good/         Satisfactory/
                    Confidence
 Confidence                            Significant        Confidence
                                       Confidence

 Proposal Risk      Low                Moderate           Low

 Mission            Green/Acceptable   Green/Acceptable   Green/Acceptable
 Capability

 Price              $64,504,485        $57,517,350        $61,363,066

On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency concluded that
Phoenix's technically superior proposal offered the best overall value to
the government notwithstanding its higher cost, and therefore made award to
that firm.

TEKSTAR'S PROTEST

Mission Capability Evaluation

The RFP required the successful contractor to establish a
consolidated/integrated supply "back shop," where common supply functions
for all four installations would be performed, thereby eliminating
duplicative logistics and supply operations at the various locations. The
mission capability criterion included a subfactor under which offerors'
approaches to centralization and management of the supply back shops would
be assessed. RFP sect.sect. M-5.B, M-5.B.2.

TekStar contends that the agency improperly applied an unstated evaluation
consideration in distinguishing between its and the awardee's proposals
under the mission capability factor. Specifically, TekStar claims the agency
improperly highlighted the point in time when each firm proposed to
establish the consolidated supply back shop. [1] We note in this connection
that offerors were required to meet a minimum threshold for establishing the
centralized supply back shop--no later than the fourth option year--but
permitted offerors to exceed that minimum threshold. RFP sect. M-5.B.1; Agency
Report (AR) exh. 20, at 1238. The record also shows that Phoenix proposed to
establish its centralized back shop at [deleted], whereas TekStar proposed
to establish its centralized facility [deleted]. AR exh. 41, at 17, 20. The
agency viewed this as a relative strength for Phoenix. According to the
protester, however, once the agency considered the point in time when the
firms would establish their centralized back shops in the course of
assigning the adjectival ratings, it was improper for it to then highlight
that consideration in the narrative materials presented to the source
selection authority. In the protester's view, this amounted to using an
unstated or additional evaluation criterion.

This assertion is without merit. Source selection officials are not
restricted to making award decisions based solely on adjectival ratings
(which are merely guides to intelligent decision making); they properly may
find one proposal superior to another based on features encompassed within
the stated evaluation criteria, regardless of the relative closeness of the
scores assigned to the proposals. F2M-WSCI, B-278281, Jan. 14, 1998, 98-1
CPD para. 16 at 7-8. Here, the agency merely highlighted the differences between
the TekStar and Phoenix proposals using narrative commentary that noted the
slight superiority of the Phoenix proposal in terms of when the firm offered
to centralize the supply back shops. This was entirely consistent with the
terms of the solicitation, and we have no basis to object to the agency's
action; the essence of any best-value determination is the agency's making
distinctions among the proposals based on judgments about the relative value
of particular features offered by one or another proposal. Id.

Past Performance Evaluation

The record shows that TekStar's rating was lowered to [deleted] under the
past performance factor based principally on a contractor performance
assessment report (CPAR) for a contract at [deleted], under which the
protester received [deleted] ratings for management of key personnel and
schedule. The protester maintains that the agency gave too much weight to
these [deleted] ratings, noting that it received an overall [deleted] rating
for its performance on the [deleted] contract.

An agency properly may base its evaluation of past performance on its
reasonable perception of the importance of certain inadequate prior
performance. 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 judgment was unreasonable.
Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD para.
129 at 5. [2]

The Air Force's reliance on the [deleted] ratings was reasonable. The record
shows that the agency considered the probity of the [deleted] ratings, and
specifically determined that the current requirement encompasses services
identical to those required under the prior contract, and that the problems
associated with the prior contract, if they arose in connection with the
current requirement, could negatively affect performance. AR exh. 40, at
11-13. In particular, the agency noted [deleted]. Id. at 11. The agency
concluded that [deleted]. Id. The same concern [deleted] was stated with
respect to the firm's ability to implement a particular program [deleted].
The agency concluded that these concerns were significant because, if
TekStar's past performance experience were to carry forward to the present
requirement, it would result in the need for additional government oversight
and might result in schedule disruption. Id.

TekStar has provided no evidence or argument demonstrating that the agency's
concerns were not legitimate or why the problems indicated could not have a
significant impact on successful performance of this requirement. As such,
its protest essentially amounts to disagreement with the agency as to the
relative importance assigned to the [deleted] ratings. Given the agency's
rationale, we find nothing improper in its focusing on the [deleted]
ratings, notwithstanding TekStar's overall [deleted] rating for the contract
and its higher ratings under other contracts.

TekStar contends that the agency improperly assigned only a [deleted] rating
for a contract it performed at [deleted]. The record shows, in this regard,
that the agency arrived at this rating based principally on responses to
several past performance questionnaires (PPQs). AR exh. 25, at 180-94.
TekStar maintains that the agency also should have considered the award fee
determinations that have been made under that contract, noting that these
ratings have been either "[deleted]" or "[deleted]."

We need not resolve this issue since, as noted above, the [deleted] CPAR
ratings assigned TekStar under its [deleted] contract were the primary
reason advanced by the agency evaluators for downgrading TekStar's proposal
in the past performance area, [3] and we have concluded that the evaluation
was reasonable in this regard. In any case, while the record does show that
TekStar received [deleted] and [deleted] ratings for purposes of the award
fee determinations under that contract, we do not think it was unreasonable
for the agency to rely on the results of the PPQs; the PPQs, unlike the
award fee determinations, were tailored to assess past performance as it
related to performance under this RFP. We conclude that this aspect of the
evaluation was reasonable.

Price Evaluation

TekStar contends that the agency improperly applied an unstated price
evaluation criterion by using an "average price per employee" figure (total
price divided by number of proposed employees) during its source selection
deliberations.

AR exh. 41, at 25. TekStar maintains that this was contrary to the RFP,
which provided that, in making its best value determination, the agency
would use the "total price" proposed for the basic period and all option
periods. [4] RFP sect. M.5.D. TekStar maintains that the agency's use of a price
per employee figure was prejudicial because it trivialized its price
advantage over Phoenix.

This argument is without merit. While a price per employee calculation
obviously has a price aspect to it, the calculation here had nothing to do
with the price evaluation per se, which, the record shows, was based on the
offerors' total prices, as required by the RFP. AR exh. 43, at 3-4. Rather,
the calculation merely gave the agency another piece of information to use
in making its tradeoff decision. In this regard, the essence of every
best-value tradeoff determination is a judgment on the part of the agency
regarding whether the technical superiority of a higher-priced offer is
worth its added cost. Developing a price per employee is but one way of
assessing two proposals' relative value, and we find no basis for objecting
to an agency's using it in a tradeoff analysis. It certainly was not
inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DeLEON'S PROTEST

Adequacy of Discussions

The record shows that DeLeon's moderate risk rating related to the adequacy
of its proposed staffing. Specifically, the agency was concerned because
DeLeon's proposed staffing in option year 5 (the point in time when all
installations would be included under the contract) was only 83.5 percent of
the staffing under the government estimate. AR exh. 40, at 15-16. The agency
provided DeLeon discussion questions relating to its staffing, but DeLeon
increased its staffing only marginally in response to those questions.
DeLeon maintains that discussions in the area of staffing were inadequate.
It claims that the discussions were limited to the adequacy of staffing at
only three of the installations, even though the Air Force believed its
overall staffing posed a risk.

Discussions must be meaningful, equitable, not misleading, and fair. I.T.S.
Corp.,

B-280431, Sept. 29, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 89 at 6. While agencies generally are
required to conduct meaningful discussions by leading offerors into the
areas of their proposals requiring amplification, this does not mean that an
agency must "spoon-feed" an offeror as to each and every item that could be
revised or otherwise addressed to improve its proposal. LaBarge Elecs.,
B-266210, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 58 at 6.

The discussions here were unobjectionable. The record shows that the agency
tendered two written discussion questions to DeLeon relating to the adequacy
of its staffing. The first question provided: "Offeror's proposed savings is
based on the number of people cut, which is believed to be entirely too much
for most of the bases. Example: [Vandenberg AFB] is reduced from 60 to 30
personnel, that is fifty percent of [Vandenberg AFB] manning." AR exh. 38A,
at 3750. [5] The agency's second question relating to staffing provided:
"Low number of employees for Malmstrom, Warren, and Vandenberg lays the
foundation for disruption of schedule or services and increases in cost."
Id. at 3752. These questions, read together, put DeLeon on notice that the
agency had overall concerns relating to the adequacy of its staffing at
"most of the bases," as well as specific concerns relating to the adequacy
of its staffing at the three enumerated installations. Further, the second
question included a specific reference to the proposal risk evaluation
factor, and therefore clearly conveyed to DeLeon that the agency was
evaluating the adequacy of the firm's staffing within the context of its
evaluation of proposal risk. In addition to these written questions, the
agency engaged in oral discussions with DeLeon, during which the adequacy of
the firm's proposed staffing was again raised by the agency. In this regard,
the agency stated that an offeror proposing staffing below the government
estimates included in the RFP would have to identify innovations that would
support the reduced staffing, that proposal risk was more important than
price and that staffing was directly related to proposal risk. AR exh. 38B,
at 2.

These oral and written discussion questions were adequate to advise DeLeon
that the agency had concerns relating to the adequacy of the firm's proposed
staffing both overall and, in particular, at Malmstrom, Warren and
Vandenberg AFBs. We note, moreover, that while DeLeon focuses on its overall
staffing deficiency, the record shows that it was the firm's staffing
deficiencies at the three identified installations that were the focus of
the agency's concerns, as well as the specific basis for its risk rating. In
this regard, the proposal analysis report (PAR) states:

The low number of employees for Malmstrom AFB, F.E. Warren AFB and
Vandenberg AFB lays the foundation for a disruption of schedule or services
and increases in cost. . . . [DeLeon] responded with a proposed increase in
manning at Malmstrom, F.E. Warren and Vandenberg AFBs. However, the manning
levels were not increased enough to merit a low risk assessment.

AR exh. 40, at 15; see also AR, exh. 43, at 2.

DeLeon also asserts that the agency improperly failed to advise it of a
particular staffing deficiency later identified in the agency's evaluation;
specifically, by way of example, the PAR noted that DeLeon failed to propose
any truck driver staffing at the three specified installations for supply to
perform pick-up and delivery services. AR exh. 40, at 15. DeLeon contends
that the agency should have expressly brought this concern to its attention.
[6] However, as noted, agencies are only required to lead offerors into
those areas of their proposals requiring amplification; they are not
required to "spoon-feed" offerors with respect to each and every element of
their proposals that would benefit from revision. LaBarge Elecs., supra. As
already discussed, the agency advised DeLeon that it had concerns relating
to the adequacy of its proposed staffing at the three identified
installations; the Air Force was not obliged to further identify its concern
regarding truck driver staffing. [7]

Proposal Risk Evaluation

DeLeon asserts that the agency improperly assigned its proposal a moderate
risk rating. Specifically, the protester contends that the Air Force
determined proposal risk simply on the basis of whether a firm's proposed
staffing conformed to the government estimate, without regard to a statement
in the RFP that the estimated staffing did not represent any sort of ideal
staffing from the government's standpoint. See RFP sect. M-5.C. DeLeon asserts
that its proposed technical approach, which included using one of the
current incumbent contractors at Peterson AFB, and the fact that it is
successfully performing under other government contracts using reduced
staffing, mitigated any perceived risk in its proposed staffing. DeLeon also
asserts that it was improper for the agency to assign a moderate risk rating
to its proposal while at the same time assigning a low risk rating to
TekStar's proposal, which also used comparatively low staffing. [8]

In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of technical
proposals, we will not independently reevaluate the proposals; rather, our
review is limited to considering whether the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme and applicable
procurement statutes and regulations. McHargue Constr. Co., B-279715, July
16, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 21 at 5.

We find nothing improper in this aspect of the evaluation. DeLeon has not
directed our attention to any aspect of its proposed technical approach that
shows the agency's judgment was unreasonable or improperly critical. For
example, the firm has not shown that the agency's determination that it
failed to include truck driver staffing for three of the installations (a
total of 22 full time equivalents (FTEs) over the life of the contract,
according to the protester) was factually incorrect, or that some innovative
aspect of its technical approach somehow otherwise addressed this identified
deficiency.

In addition, DeLeon's reliance on the RFP's statement that the government's
estimate of required staffing did not necessarily reflect the agency's
determination of ideal staffing is misplaced because it fails to take
cognizance of the agency's advice during oral discussions that DeLeon would
have to identify innovations that would support its low proposed staffing.
AR exh. 38B, at 2. Again, DeLeon has not identified anything innovative in
its proposal aimed at supporting its low staffing that the agency ignored in
the evaluation.

Moreover, we note that a careful examination of DeLeon's proposed staffing
at the installations that were identified by the agency as being of concern
(Malmstrom, Vandenberg and Warren AFBs) reflects greater variation between
DeLeon's proposed staffing and the government's estimate than the variation
between DeLeon's overall staffing and the government estimate (DeLeon was
found to have proposed only 83.5 percent of the overall staffing used in
developing the government estimate for option year 5). For example, the
record shows that DeLeon's staffing for the supply functions at the three
installations (by far the largest component of staffing) was only 80 percent
of the government's estimate--20 FTEs (or 80 percent of the government
estimate) at Malmstrom AFB, 19 FTEs (or 84 percent of the government
estimate) at F.E. Warren AFB, [9] and 31 FTEs (or 77 percent of the
government estimate) at Vandenberg AFB. AR exh. 40, at 28. These figures
support the reasonableness of the agency's particular concern over the
adequacy of DeLeon's proposed staffing at the three installations. [10]
Further, while DeLeon may be performing at other installations with reduced
staffing, the agency found its staffing reductions at those installations
were only from 15 to 18 percent (AR exh. 40, at 15), versus the 20 percent
shortfall identified for this acquisition. Finally, as for DeLeon's claim of
disparate treatment vis-ï¿½ -vis TekStar, the record shows that TekStar
proposed 90.46 percent of the staffing under the government estimate,
considerably more than DeLeon. (We point out as well that TekStar's proposed
staffing for Malmstrom and F.E. Warren AFBs for supply actually exceeded the
government estimate.) We conclude that the agency reasonably assigned a
moderate risk rating to the DeLeon proposal for its staffing approach.

Past Performance Evaluation

DeLeon maintains that the agency engaged in disparate discussions in the
area of past performance because it afforded TekStar an opportunity to
provide input relating to a [deleted] rating on one of its prior contracts,
but did not provide DeLeon the same opportunity with respect to a [deleted]
rating on one of its subcontractor's prior contracts at [deleted]. This
argument is academic. Even if DeLeon were correct that TekStar gained a
relative advantage over DeLeon by virtue of the discussions in question,
TekStar did not receive the award. Honeycomb Co. of Am., B-225685, June 8,
1987, 87-1 CPD para. 579 at 8. Any relative advantage gained by TekStar thus had
no effect on DeLeon's award chances.

DeLeon also asserts that the Air Force engaged in disparate treatment by
investigating the [deleted] rating on one of Phoenix's contracts, while at
the same time not investigating DeLeon's subcontractor's [deleted] rating.
This argument is without merit. After reviewing the questionaires for the
Phoenix contract in question (for vehicle maintenance) and comparing them to
the CPARs which had been received for the same contract, the Air Force
contacted the cognizant contracting officer to further inquire because of
inconsistencies between the questionaires and the CPARs. Specifically, the
CPARs all reflected much higher ratings than the PPQs, and the PPQs
themselves included an indication that Phoenix was performing at a level
better than [deleted]. AR exh. 30, at 4267-74; exh. 31, at 3139, 3149. In
particular, the CPARs consistently rated Phoenix either [deleted] or
[deleted] in all categories, AR exh. 30, at 4267-74, and the PPQs also
reflected that, although the firm was required to meet a
vehicle-in-commission rate of between 92 and 95 percent (depending on the
type of vehicle), Phoenix maintained a fleet-wide vehicle-in-commission rate
of [deleted] percent. AR exh. 31, at 3139, 3149. After discussing the matter
with the contracting officer, and considering all of the information
(including the CPARs and the PPQs), the agency assigned an [deleted] rating
to Phoenix's past performance on that contract. We find nothing unreasonable
in the agency's clarifying conflicting past performance information in this
manner.

In contrast, there was no similar disparity between the ratings assigned for
DeLeon's subcontractor in the CPARs and the PPQs. The record shows that
DeLeon's subcontractor received mixed CPAR ratings for its [deleted] AFB
contract, with a predominant number of categories being rated [deleted]
under each of the four CPARs (for the first CPAR, eight categories were
rated [deleted], one [deleted] and one [deleted]; for the second and third
CPARs, five categories were rated [deleted], three were rated [deleted] and
one was rated [deleted]; and for the fourth CPAR, five categories were rated
[deleted], four [deleted] and one [deleted]). AR exh. 24, at 2456-63. These
CPAR ratings were largely consistent with the [deleted] ratings assigned
under the [deleted] AFB PPQ, and thus did not reflect the same disparity
seen in the past performance materials for Phoenix's contract. Consequently,
there was no reason for the agency to further investigate the
subcontractor's performance of the [deleted] AFB contract.

Finally, DeLeon asserts that the agency improperly assigned Phoenix an
overall exceptional past performance rating, while rating DeLeon only very
good. The record shows that Phoenix and its subcontractor received [deleted]
ratings for four prior or ongoing contracts, and [deleted] ratings for two
other contracts, one of which the agency did not consider. AR, exh. 40, at
10. DeLeon claims it was improper for the agency to ignore the second
[deleted] rating. However, even had the agency considered this rating, given
the overall array of the ratings, there is no reason to believe that
Phoenix's exceptional past performance rating would have been lowered. As
for DeLeon, as discussed, the agency reasonably assigned a [deleted] rating
for its subcontractor's [deleted] AFB contract, and DeLeon does not
challenge its very good past performance rating on any other basis. We
conclude that the evaluation in this area was reasonable.

The protests are denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. In its initial protest, TekStar asserted that Phoenix was improperly
permitted to consolidate several installation supply back shops prior to the
date permitted under the RFP. In its comments responding to the agency's
report, TekStar makes no mention of this assertion, and we deem it
abandoned. See Teledyne-Commodore, LLC, B-278408.5, B-278408.6, Mar. 8,
1999, 99-1 CPD para. 60 at 6 n.8.

2. The record shows that TekStar was afforded an opportunity to comment on
the [deleted] ratings at the time they were being assigned, and was also
afforded an additional opportunity to comment on those ratings during
discussions conducted in connection with this acquisition. AR exh. 25.

3. In fact, the wording of the agency's source selection decision document
(SSDD) suggests that these ratings were deemed so significant that, but for
higher-rated past performance under its other contracts, TekStar may not
even have received a satisfactory rating for past performance. In this
regard, the SSDD provides: "This marginal rating was considered to increase
the risk . . . . But, we kept their overall quality rating at satisfactory
considering [the ratings assigned for its other contracts]." SSDD at 3.

4. DeLeon makes the same argument in its protest; we deny that aspect of its
protest for the same reasons discussed here.

5. Although this question was identified as relating to the centralization
and management of the supply back shops plan, and referenced RFP section
L-505B2a, its reference to the total staffing at Vandenberg AFB indicates
that the agency also was referring to the firm's overall proposed staffing.
It appears DeLeon clearly understood that this was a reference to its
overall staffing because, in answering the question, DeLeon referenced the
second discussion question, which specifically referenced the proposal risk
factor. AR exh. 38A, at 2.

6. To the extent that DeLeon's protest amounts to a contention that the
agency should have discussed the matter a second time after reviewing the
firm's revised staffing, it is without merit. Agencies are under no
obligation to engage in successive rounds of discussions until proposal
deficiencies or omissions are corrected. OMV Med., Inc., B-281490, Feb. 16,
1999, 99-1 CPD para. 38 at 7.

7. DeLeon asserts that the agency engaged in disparate treatment during
discussions because it advised Phoenix of two specific staffing
deficiencies. This argument is without merit. The record shows that the two
staffing questions the agency asked Phoenix were specific because these were
the agency's only concerns relating to the firm's proposed staffing which,
overall, was found to be adequate. AR exh. 36, at 38. Applicable regulations
contemplate that discussions will be tailored to each offeror's particular
proposal weaknesses in this fashion. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.
15.306(d)(1); CHP Int'l, Inc., B-266053.2, Apr. 29, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 142 at
6-7.

8. DeLeon also asserts that the agency's evaluation ignores differences
between the government estimates included in the RFP and the actual staffing
currently being used at Peterson AFB. DeLeon bases this assertion on the
activities of its subcontractor, TECOM, which it claims has been performing
at Peterson AFB using significantly less staff than that called for under
the RFP. This assertion is dismissed as untimely. To the extent DeLeon
thought that such a solicitation deficiency existed, it was required to
raise the issue prior to the deadline for submitting proposals. See Bid
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2001).

9. The record is unclear regarding what precisely DeLeon proposed for F.E.
Warren AFB in terms of the supply function. The PAR suggests that DeLeon
raised its proposed staffing for this function from 15 FTEs to 19 FTEs
during discussions, but that it offered only 15 FTEs in its final proposal
revision. AR exh. 40, at 23, 28. On the other hand, the copy of DeLeon's
proposal which we have been provided reflects 19 FTEs for this function. AR
exh. 26, at 2-6. To the extent that the PAR is correct (and DeLeon offered
only 15 FTEs for this function at F.E. Warren AFB), DeLeon's proposed
staffing would be only 66 percent of the government's estimate at that
installation, and this would reduce its staffing for the supply function at
all three installations to only 75 percent of the government estimate.

10. While DeLeon contends that its use of the incumbent contractor at
Peterson AFB mitigates any perceived risk, it is not apparent (and DeLeon
does not explain) why the use of a particular contractor would be expected
to eliminate the agency's concern based on inadequate staffing.