TITLE:  D S Inc., B-289676, March 12, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-289676
DATE:  March 12, 2002
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: D S Inc.

File: B-289676

Date: March 12, 2002

Gary A. Wilson, Esq., Duane Morris, for the protester.

Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., and Jennifer C. Adams, Esq., Martin & Adams, for
Chenega Technology Services Corporation, an intervenor.

Maj. Edward E. Beauchamp, and Lucie Sterling, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel
Command, 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

Challenge to the exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive
range is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable
and consistent with the evaluation criteria announced in the solicitation,
and that exclusion of the proposal based on the evaluation ratings was
consistent with the evaluation scheme in the solicitation.

DECISION

D S Inc. (DSI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive
range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-01-R-L710, issued by the
U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) for support services at
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. DSI contends that CECOM improperly evaluated its
proposal.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

During November 2000, CECOM placed draft documents, including all
performance work statements (PWS) relevant to the procurement, on the
Interactive Business Opportunities (IBOP) web page. [1] The RFP, issued on
March 6, 2001 as a competitive section 8(a) total set-aside, contemplated
the award of a combined cost-plus-award-fee/fixed-price contract for a base
period with up to nine 1-year option periods. RFP sect. L-16. Section M of the
RFP listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of
importance (subfactors shown in parentheses): performance risk, cost/price,
management (approach and procedures, plans), technical (group 1 PWS, group 2
PWS). In evaluating the management and technical proposals, the RFP stated
that evaluators would consider the feasibility of the offerors' approach,
their understanding of the requirements, and the completeness of proposals.
With respect to the management and technical factors, the RFP stated that
evaluators would assign adjectival ratings ranging from unacceptable to
outstanding at the subfactor/PWS level only. The subfactor ratings would
then be rolled up to determine the proposals' overall factor ratings. Id.
sect. M, at 6. The RFP stated that, to be considered for award, proposals must
achieve at least a rating of acceptable under the management factor,
management approach and procedures subfactor, and the technical factor. Id.
para. 1.0. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal deemed to represent
the best value to the government.

A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the two initial
proposals CECOM received, and retained both proposals, including DSI's,
within the competitive range. Agency Report (AR) exh. 16, Competitive Range
Determination, May 29, 2001. Based on that initial evaluation, CECOM
developed and transmitted to DSI items for negotiations (IFN) reflecting the
SSEB's concerns with DSI's proposal. AR exh. 18, CECOM Letter to DSI, May
31, 2001. CECOM subsequently engaged in face-to-face, telephonic, and
written discussions with DSI on eight separate occasions over 3 months, from
June through mid-August, 2001. At the conclusion of those negotiations,
CECOM requested and DSI submitted its final proposal revision (FPR). [2] The
SSEB reevaluated DSI's FPR and found that, notwithstanding the several
rounds of discussions, minor and major weaknesses remained in DSI's FPR with
respect to PWS No. 6 (electrical plants and systems); PWS No. 9 (roads and
grounds maintenance); and PWS No. 27 (supply). Consequently, the SSEB rated
the proposal unacceptable under each of those subfactors, resulting in an
overall rating of unacceptable under the technical factor. Based on these
results, the contracting officer (CO) eliminated DSI's proposal from further
consideration. AR exh. 36, Interim Competitive Range Determination, Dec. 27,
2001. This protest to our Office followed a debriefing by the agency.

DSI challenges the evaluation of its proposal under PWS Nos. 6, 9, and 27,
where its proposal was found unacceptable. The protester primarily contends
that CECOM unreasonably determined that DSI had proposed insufficient labor
hours for each of those three functions. [3]

DISCUSSION

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

Evaluation of DSI's Proposal

For purposes of preparing and evaluating proposals under the technical
factor, the RFP listed separate PWSs numbered 1-32 (PWS Nos. 24 and 31 were
intentionally omitted), reflecting all of the functional areas covered by
the RFP. Offerors were required to demonstrate in their proposals an
understanding of the technical functions and requirements and the
feasibility of their approach for providing the required services. To
facilitate the evaluation of proposals, offerors were required to
specifically address technical personnel and performance methodology for
each separate PWS. For each PWS, offerors were required to provide competent
personnel capable of performing the required services, and develop and
execute a technical approach that would successfully and timely provide the
required services. RFP sect. M.2.4.

PWS No. 6-Electrical Plants and Systems

Under this PWS, the contractor is required to inspect, test, maintain,
install, and repair electrical plants and systems at Fort Monmouth and
sub-posts. The PWS listed specific requirements and provided estimated
workload data totaling 25,965 annual labor hours (excluding preventive
maintenance work). CECOM calculated that DSI proposed a total of 18,900
annual labor hours, including preventive maintenance work. The SSEB found
that DSI had proposed insufficient labor hours for this PWS, and so advised
DSI during several rounds of oral and written discussions. Specifically, on
August 14, CECOM conveyed the SSEB's continuing concerns in this area in the
following IFN:

Your total hours to meet this requirement are significantly less than those
estimated by the Government (25,965 v. 18,990 [4]). In addition, the hours
provided for interior electrical work appear to be insufficient. Please
explain. Where hours, positions, duties, etc., will be reduced or eliminated
through efficiencies, please provide details of the proposed efficiencies.
If as a result of this IFN, you choose to revise any portion of your
proposal, please indicate any such change with a vertical bar, and provide a
detailed explanation of the change and its effect on any other portion of
your proposal.

AR exh. 30, IFN No. 6-A-2, Aug. 14, 2001.

In response to this IFN, DSI explained that it calculated proposed labor
hours based on observations reported by E.Z. Consulting (EZC), a
construction management consulting firm DSI hired to research the
productivity of the incumbent workforce and its management. DSI explained
that EZC had monitored employees' break and lunch patterns, including the
frequency of trips made to return to their central shops from the work sites
during the day. DSI stated that EZC reported that taking into account travel
to and from their central shops to the job sites, employees were taking
longer than the authorized 45-minute lunch break, and more than 30 minutes
for authorized morning and afternoon breaks. Based on EZC's findings, DSI
estimated that out of an 8-hour workday, the incumbent workforce's
productive time was approximately only 6 hours. The protester concluded that
it proposed a more effective workforce and management style that would
increase productivity by 27 percent.

The SSEB found DSI's explanation unconvincing for several reasons. [5] For
instance, the evaluators noted that while DSI made general assumptions
regarding the overall workforce, the data did not correlate EZC's
observations with the employees performing PWS No. 6 tasks. The SSEB also
noted that although DSI indicated that EZC's observations were made over a
1-month period, DSI did not indicate whether the observations coincided with
a low demand period. The SSEB concluded that given the unspecified timeframe
of the observed behavior, and limited sample size, DSI could not reasonably
extrapolate EZC's limited observations to the general workforce, or to the
employees performing PWS No. 6 tasks in particular.

In the SSEB's opinion, DSI did not convincingly explain the rationale for
the difference between the government's estimated total labor hours for this
PWS and DSI's proposed staffing levels, which the evaluators considered
significant. Notably, the SSEB found that, in its FPR, DSI had significantly
decreased the total number of hours for one element of PWS No. 6--interior
electrical system--which the evaluators considered to be a major weakness.
Specifically, DSI reduced the total number of labor hours it proposed in
this area from 4,140 to 3,140. In response to the IFN concerning this
weakness, DSI explained that the incumbent had been observed performing
these tasks with a mixed labor force, consisting of both licensed and
unlicensed electricians. According to DSI, the incumbent's approach was
inefficient because it required two employees to perform tasks that DSI
proposed to be performed with one electrician.

The SSEB noted that the RFP listed 21 separate components within the
interior electrical system component (e.g., cables, wires, and raceways;
conductors; sirens; and electric heaters, lamps, and clocks). RFP, PWS No.
6, para. 3.3. The evaluators noted that the contractor is required to inspect,
maintain, install and repair all of these electrical components at Fort
Monmouth and all of its sub-posts, comprising 500 buildings and residences
with a total of 5.5 million square feet of space. The SSEB concluded that
DSI could not successfully provide the required services at all of those
locations with the labor hours the firm proposed.

DSI argues that its approach is more efficient than the incumbent's. The
protester also maintains that CECOM improperly failed to inform DSI that the
incumbent subcontracted some of the electrical work.

It is not our Office's role to determine the appropriate staffing levels
required to successfully perform a particular task. Instead, our role here
is to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the agency's
determination that DSI's proposed staffing level is insufficient. Here,
based on the SSEB's concerns, the agency specifically questioned DSI's
proposed labor hours to perform PWS No. 6 during discussions. The record
further shows that the evaluators concluded that DSI's staffing levels in
this particular area were inadequate. DSI's mere disagreement with the
SSEB's conclusion in this regard does not render the evaluation
unreasonable. Calian Tech. (US) Ltd., B-284814, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 85
at 3-4. Further, there is no requirement for contracting agencies to inform
offerors of an incumbent's particular approach, especially since offerors
are expected to use their professional expertise and business judgment in
deciding what technical approaches and solutions should be proposed and at
what cost. See C3, Inc., B-241983.2, Mar. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 279 at 4.
Given the anticipated number and type of required tasks, the SSEB reasonably
concluded that DSI could not successfully perform these functions with the
labor hours proposed, and properly rated DSI's proposal "unacceptable" under
PWS No. 6.

PWS No. 9--Roads and Grounds Maintenance

The work required under this PWS is grouped into six general areas: paved
areas, fence maintenance, grounds maintenance, storm drainage system, the
marina, and sweeping areas. The contractor is required to maintain and
repair grounds and surfaces at Fort Monmouth and its sub-posts. The required
tasks include grounds maintenance at specified intervals at headquarters
complexes and other locations identified in the RFP. These tasks include
"policing" the grounds (i.e., collecting and disposing of litter, debris,
and fallen tree limbs in accordance with applicable trash and recycling
regulations). Some of the other tasks specified in the RFP include repairing
damaged turf and playground areas, maintaining fences, tree and stump
removal, and planting. The contractor is also required to maintain and
repair paved surfaces, maintain and repair storm drains, maintain traffic
signs and signals, remove snow and ice, and maintain recreation facilities.
PWS No. 9, para.para. 3.1.1--3.13. Where appropriate, the RFP specified the
frequency of the task by location and amount of space covered. See, e.g.,
PWS No. 9, Tables No. 09-2, Sweeping Frequency, and 09-4 Sweeping Areas; Id.
para.para. 5.1-5.5. The RFP estimated that all of the work covered by PWS No. 9
would require approximately 38,420 labor hours or about 20 full-time
equivalents (FTE) annually. Id. para. 5.0.

The SSEB found that DSI's proposed 20,680 annual labor hours (or 11 FTEs)
were insufficient for this PWS, and so advised DSI during several rounds of
oral and written discussions. For instance, by electronic transmission on
May 1, 2001, CECOM requested that DSI "[p]rovide the rationale for the
man-hours proposed for all functions identified in paragraph 5.0 of PWS No.
9," and specifically requested DSI to "[e]xplain in more detail the
methodology used to determine the man hours proposed for Snow and Ice
Removal as identified in paragraph 3.8 of PWS No. 9." AR exh. 18, IFNs No.
9-A-2, 9-A-3. In response, DSI provided a technical performance matrix which
DSI states shows how it reallocated some labor hours. However, that
reallocation did not change the total number of labor hours DSI proposed
under this PWS. In response to IFN No. 9-A-2, DSI explained:

We recognize that the man-hours in our proposal is less than the
Government's workload estimates provided in [para. 5 of PWS No. 9]. We evaluated
each requirement carefully and assessed actual performance techniques and
procedures of the incumbent workforce. We are convinced that more efficient
and effective use of personnel will result in significant productivity
improvement. We have used this IFN to carefully re-analyze this requirement.
We surveyed the entire grounds to be maintained. We could not find certain
softball fields that are part of the requirement . . . . In any event, we
have re-allocated hours based on this analysis. The results are provided in
the technical performance Matrix above. The total number of man years
remains at 11 [FTEs].

AR exh. No. 21, DSI Response to IFN No. 9-A-2, June 15, 2001, at 55.

DSI's response to IFN No. 9-A-3, regarding snow and ice removal, stated that
the number of hours depended on the number and severity of snowfalls (based
on five significant snowfalls and five dustings/icing conditions annually).
Id., DSI Response to IFN No. 9-A-3, at 56.

The SSEB found that DSI's explanations did not overcome its concerns.
Specifically, the evaluators compared the quantity and type of work required
under each of the six major task categories with the total number of hours
DSI proposed for each of these functions. The SSEB determined that a major
weakness still existed in DSI's proposal primarily because, based on the
SSEB's analysis, it concluded that the labor hours DSI had proposed for each
of the six areas were insufficient to perform the work requirements of PWS
No. 9. AR exh. 33, Interim Evaluation, PWS No. 9, July 20, 2001.

To further convey to DSI the SSEB's specific concerns regarding the firm's
proposed labor hours for PWS No. 9, CECOM provided DSI with the following
IFN:

In your previous response to IFNs regarding this PWS you have indicated that
the reason for the significant difference between the Government estimate
for [21 FTEs] and your estimate for [11 FTEs] is due to projected
efficiencies in and effective use of personnel. Please provide details. In
addition, the hours provided for snow/ice removal appear to be insufficient.
Please explain. Where hours, positions, duties, etc. will be reduced or
eliminated through efficiencies, please provide details of the proposed
efficiencies.

AR exh. 30, IFN No. 9-A-3, Aug. 14, 2001.

In response to this IFN, DSI explained that the staffing levels it proposed
(based on EZC's observations), would improve productivity by more than 33
percent. The protester also maintained that it had analyzed the requirement
and concluded that significant parts of the requirement included in the
incumbent's original contract were no longer required. For example, DSI
believed that grounds and surface maintenance at locations referred to as
"NWS Earle" and "Camp Evans," was no longer required. DSI also believed that
a large portion of the maintenance required under the PWS was no longer
required because the government had planted over 100 acres of wildflowers,
which need no maintenance. DSI also explained that with these reductions,
the sweeping required would be reduced. DSI further stated that it assumed
that two baseball fields were closed, further reducing grounds maintenance
requirements. As for its proposed labor hours related to snow and ice
removal, DSI reaffirmed its position that these incidents could not be
predicted, that the RFP did not provide any labor hour estimates in this
area, and that DSI essentially considered snow and ice removal to be
emergencies for which it would provide necessary personnel. AR exh. 31, DSI
Response to IFN No. 9-A-3, Aug. 21, 2001.

The SSEB reviewed DSI's response to the IFN and found that DSI had made
several unwarranted assumptions. The evaluators noted that DSI had
incorrectly assumed that Camp Evans was closed, when, in fact, it is still a
component of Fort Monmouth, and tasks are currently being performed at that
site. Similarly, CECOM states that DSI incorrectly assumed that two baseball
fields are closed, even though all athletic fields to be maintained by the
contractor are listed under the PWS. The evaluators also noted that the area
planted with wildflowers covers only 10, not 100, acres, as DSI assumed. The
SSEB noted that any effect on required tasks resulting from planting the
wildflowers would be to reduce grass cutting, which is covered by a
different PWS. With respect to the area DSI referred to as "NWS Earle," the
evaluators questioned why DSI referenced that area since it is not covered
by this PWS. The SSEB also noted that although DSI had made several
assumptions regarding its expected improved productivity, the firm provided
insufficient details explaining how it would achieve the expected
performance efficiencies.

With respect to snow and ice removal requirements, the record shows that the
evaluators were not convinced that the total number of annual labor hours
DSI proposed were sufficient to cover an estimated five significant
snowfalls and five dustings/icing conditions, as DSI assumed. In particular,
the SSEB noted that given that the requirement calls for the contractor to
maintain approximately 37 miles of roads and 872,494 square yards of parking
lots free of snow and ice, DSI's proposed total labor hours are
insufficient. The SSEB concluded that DSI's approach was not feasible and
did not provide CECOM with any confidence of successful and timely
performance. The SSEB further concluded that DSI's insufficient labor hours
indicated that DSI did not have a clear understanding of the requirements
for PWS No. 9, and rated the proposal unacceptable under this PWS. AR exh.
33, DSI Interim Evaluation, App. B, July 20 and Nov. 29, 2001.

In our view, the record provides a reasonable basis for the evaluators'
concerns regarding the adequacy of the labor hours offered by DSI. In light
of DSI's failure to adequately address those concerns--specifically, its
failure, despite several rounds of discussions, to show in any meaningful
way that its labor hours were adequate to meet the requirements of the PWS,
coupled with the incorrect assumptions DSI apparently made in several areas
of required work--we have no basis to object to the SSEB's rating of DSI's
proposal as unacceptable under this PWS.

PWS No. 27--Supply

Under this PWS, the contractor is to receive, classify, store, issue,
transfer, and dispose of military supplies at the Fort Monmouth Central
Supply Warehouse (CSW) in building Nos. 116 and 117, and operate two
self-service supply centers (SSSC) located in building No. 117 and the Myer
Center. PWS No. 27, Rev. 1, para. 3.1, at 1. The PWS specifies that the CSW is
to operate from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
federal holidays. Each of the two SSSCs is to operate Monday through Friday,
from 8:00 to 11:30 a.m., and from 12:30 to 3:30 p.m. Id. para. 3.1.2. The RFP
also listed estimated annual workload data for all tasks covered by PWS No.
27, such as receiving, shipping, issuing documents, average sales at the
SSSCs, central issue facility, cataloging and editing. Id. Table No. 27-4.

As relevant here, one of the functions associated with the CSW requires the
contractor to process and generate various documents related to excess
materiel. The contractor is to verify all paperwork for accuracy and
completeness; inspect, classify, and assign codes to excess materiel; store
the excess materiel in a warehouse; and transport excess materiel to
designated locations. PWS No. 27, para.para. 3.6-3.6.4.

After the initial evaluation, the SSEB identified no strengths in DSI's
initial proposal, and identified one major and one minor weakness, primarily
related to DSI's proposed staffing levels for this PWS. This led the
evaluators to initially conclude that DSI had failed to demonstrate in its
proposal how the firm would perform the required functions, but that DSI's
proposal was susceptible of being made acceptable in this area through
discussions. AR exh. 13, DSI's Initial Evaluation, May 7, 2001. The record
shows that CECOM then conducted several rounds of telephonic and
face-to-face negotiations with DSI where the major and minor weaknesses
regarding this PWS were raised. For example, CECOM raised the SSEB's
concerns regarding DSI's proposed staffing in the following IFN:

It appears that you have not provided sufficient staffing to operate two
[SSSCs], each with daily operating hours of [8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.]. In
addition, it appears that you have not provided sufficient staffing to meet
the requirements for excess material [PWS No. 27] para. 3.6. Please explain.

AR exh. 30, DSI's IFN No. 27-A-5, Aug. 14, 2001.

In response to this IFN, DSI stated as follows:

Please refer to PWS 27, [para.] 5, [at] 9, under [SSSC]. Quote estimated average
monthly value of sales not expected to exceed $150,000.00. Estimated
stockage of 900-1,100 line items with approximately 8,900 annual machine
ring up sales at the main store, 6,000 at the Myer Center and 5,200 at the
CECOM Office Building. We note, however that the government has not been in
the CECOM building for five years.

We know of two [SSSCs]. One in the [Myer building] which we have staffed,
and one in building No. 117, which is subcontracted by the government to
Office Max.

If there is another [SSSC], please identify the location and we will staff
accordingly.

With respect to the requirements for excess material, we are going to
support this effort with other employees within this PWS who are not busy
eight hours a day.

AR exh. 31, DSI Response to IFN No. 27-A-5, Aug. 21, 2001.

DSI's response did not allay the SSEB's concerns regarding the major
weaknesses in the proposal regarding PWS No. 27. For instance, the
evaluators found that DSI had not explained how DSI intended to operate two
SSSCs with only 1,880 annual labor hours. The SSEB found this a major
weakness, particularly since CECOM had calculated that, even after taking
into account federal holidays, operating two SSSCs at two separate locations
in accordance with the PWS requirements would require a total of more than
4,400 annual labor hours.

The evaluators also noted that DSI had incorrectly assumed that the
government would obtain the services provided at one SSSC from a different
vendor, such as Office Max. In its comments, DSI concedes that the PWS
requires the contractor to operate two SSSCs, but continues to maintain, as
it did in response to the IFN, that since one of those centers is contracted
out to Office Max, it proposed to operate only one SSSC in its proposal. The
SSEB found, and the record shows, that PWS No. 27 does not assume that CECOM
would obtain any of the required services performed by the SSSCs by a
separate contract, and that, as DSI recognizes, the PWS clearly requires the
contractor to operate the two SSSCs identified in the solicitation. Thus,
DSI's insistence during discussions that CECOM would contract out one SSSC
is based on a factually incorrect assumption.

Based on the estimated workload data provided in the PWS, and accounting for
holidays, the evaluators calculated that approximately 3,717 annual labor
hours would be required to successfully operate the CSW and process excess
materiel. AR exh. 33, DSI Interim Evaluation, PWS No. 27, app. B, Nov. 29,
2001. DSI proposed a total of only 1,112 annual labor hours for this task,
or approximately 30 percent of the hours CECOM estimated would be required.

The SSEB also noted that CECOM's calculations did not take into account
additional labor hours for loading and transporting excess materiel to the
Defense Reutilization Management Office at the Naval Air Station in
Lakehurst, New Jersey (approximately 75 miles round-trip from Fort
Monmouth), or to other designated areas as required by the PWS. See PWS No.
27, para. 3.6.3. In this connection, the evaluators noted that DSI had not
proposed a truck driver or a heavy equipment operator for this task. The
SSEB concluded that DSI's proposed approach was not feasible, and that DSI
had not demonstrated that it had a clear understanding of all of the
requirements of PWS No. 27. Consequently, the SSEB assigned DSI's proposal a
rating of unacceptable under this subfactor.

As with its challenges to its evaluation under PWS Nos. 6 and 9, DSI has
provided no basis for us to object to the evaluation under PWS No. 27. The
numerous reasonable concerns with DSI's approach raised by the evaluators,
and DSI's failure to demonstrate that those concerns were unfounded, support
the agency's conclusion that DSI's proposal was unacceptable under this PWS.

In accordance with the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation,
since DSI's proposal was rated unacceptable on three PWSs, the SSEB assigned
the proposal an overall rating of unacceptable under the technical factor.
Given that the SSEB concluded that DSI's explanations during discussions
concerning PWS Nos. 6, 9, and 27 did not remove the major weaknesses the
SSEB identified in the protester's proposal under these areas, we think that
the overall rating of unacceptable under the technical factor is reasonably
supported. Since the overall unacceptable rating under the technical factor
was reasonable, and since, as noted above, the RFP stated that a proposal
found unacceptable under the technical factor would be ineligible for award,
we conclude that the agency's exclusion of the proposal from the competitive
range was proper. See Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.306(c)(1); Ervin &
Assocs., Inc., B-280993, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 151 at 3.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. CECOM uses the IBOP web page to issue solicitations, communicate with
potential offerors concerning procurements, and encourage industry comments.
Internet users may access the IBOP web page at
https://abop.monmouth.army.mil.

2. To the extent that the protester argues that CECOM should have requested
further information regarding the weaknesses identified in DSI's proposal,
we conclude that the agency's several rounds of discussions accurately
reflected the SSEB's concerns about DSI's proposal, and adequately pointed
out those areas of DSI's proposal requiring further explanation. See ITT
Fed. Servs. Corp., B-250096, Jan. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 6 at 8. The fact that
DSI's "unacceptable" ratings did not change following several rounds of
discussions does not mean that CECOM's discussions were flawed.

3. DSI argues that as a result of various changes that have occurred at Fort
Monmouth since the incumbent's contract was awarded in 1995, the workload
estimates contained in the RFP, particularly with respect to PWS Nos. 6 and
9, were inaccurate. This allegation, raised nearly 9 months after the time
set for receipt of initial proposals, is untimely, and will not be
considered. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2001).

4. The agency explains that this figure is incorrect and should have been
18,900. Contracting Officer's Statement, Feb. 13, 2002, at n. 6.

5. The SSEB also noted that DSI did not provide a copy of the consultant's
report to CECOM.