TITLE:  DynCorp
International LLC, B-289863;
B-289863.2, October 6,
2000
BNUMBER:  B-289863;
B-289863.2
DATE:  October 6,
2000
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision

Matter of:   DynCorp International LLC

File:            B-289863; B-289863.2

Date:              May 13, 2002

Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., DynCorp, for the
protester.
C. Stanley Dees, Esq., Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and David M. Glynn, Esq.,
McKenna & Cuneo, and Peter H. Johnson, Esq., ITT Defense, for ITT Federal
Services International Corporation, an intervenor.
Richard C. Bennett, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 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.  Protest is sustained where source selection authority discounted
weaknesses in awardee's proposal identified by technical and cost
evaluators, and record does not establish that her disagreement had a
rational basis.

2.  Protest that agency improperly assigned high performance risk rating to
protester's proposal based on potential cost growth, while not assigning a
similar rating to awardee's proposal, is sustained where agency had concern
about cost growth as to both proposals.

DECISION

DynCorp International LLC protests the award of a contract to ITT Federal
Services International Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DACA78-01-R-0016, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain base
operation services at Camp As Sayliyah, in Qatar.  DynCorp maintains that
the agency misevaluated cost and technical proposals in making its award
decision.

We sustain the protest.

The RFP sought proposals to provide an array of support services on a cost
reimbursable basis for a base year, with four 1-year options.  Offerors were
advised that the agency would make award to the firm submitting the proposal
deemed to offer the best overall value to the government, in light of price
and non-price considerations.  The RFP included four non-price elements
(equal in importance):  management capability, technical capability,
experience and past performance.  (Each of the elements included subelements
that are not relevant here.)  The RFP advised that adjectival ratings of
outstanding, excellent, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory or
unacceptable would be assigned for each subelement and element, and that an
overall adjectival rating would be assigned to each proposal.  As for cost,
the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated to determine cost
reasonableness, cost realism, and completeness of the proposed costs (that
is, that every required element of cost has been addressed in the
proposal).  With respect to the completeness element, the RFP included a
cost breakdown sheet that specified cost elements for each of the various
contract line items (for example, direct labor, indirect rates, materials,
equipment and supplies).  Offerors were advised that they were not required
to use the cost breakdown sheet included with the RFP, but were nonetheless
required to provide the information called for.  Finally, the RFP provided
that the agency would assign a risk rating to each proposal based on
technical and cost considerations.

In response to the solicitation, the agency received five proposals,
including those submitted by DynCorp and ITT.  DynCorp's proposal received
excellent ratings from the technical evaluation team (TET) under all four
evaluation factors.  Initial Documents (ID), exh. 2A at 5-8.[1]  The TET
identified a total of 18 strengths in the DynCorp offer; it found no
weaknesses or risks.  ID, exh. 2A, DynCorp Consensus Evaluation Worksheet,
at 1-2.

ITT's proposal received satisfactory ratings in the management capability
and technical capability areas, an excellent rating in the experience area,
and an outstanding rating in the past performance area.  ID, exh. 2A, at
11-13.  The TET identified a total of eight strengths, six weaknesses and
one risk consideration.  ID, exh. 2A, ITT Consensus Evaluation Worksheet, at
1-2.  The evaluators were concerned primarily with ITT's proposed staffing
levels, which they described as ?minimally satisfactory.?  Id.  The TET
further noted that ITT did not seem to understand the number of people
required to meet the contract's requirements, and apparently misunderstood
the overall scope of work; that, while the firm's proposed staffing approach
might work, it would result in lower levels of response and services; and
that there was a particular concern with the adequacy of the staffing in the
security area of the requirement.  Id.  As for the risk consideration, the
TET noted that ITT intended to expand its workforce after contract award,
and that there was a risk that this might not be possible without
compromising the firm's ability to perform quality work in a timely manner
within the compressed timeframe available for startup of the contract.  Id.
at 2.

In the cost reasonableness and completeness  areas, the cost evaluation team
(CET) found the DynCorp proposal complete from an informational standpoint.
ID, exh. 2B, at 8.  The CET found the DynCorp proposal low as to cost
overall, and specifically identified the costs associated with several
functional areas as low, chiefly because the labor rates for some third
country nationals (TCN) were considered low. [2]  Id. at 8-10.  The CET also
concluded that some of the labor rates for United States nationals were low,
and that DynCorp had proposed inadequate staffing in several functional
areas.  ID, exh. 2B, at 9-10.

As for ITT, the CET found that its cost proposal was incomplete from an
informational standpoint because it did not include the RFP's cost breakdown
sheets,[3] and instead presented cost information in such a way that the CET
could not adequately evaluate whether the proposal included costs for each
element of the requirement.  ID, exh. 2B, at 10.  Additionally, the CET,
like the TET, found that ITT's proposed staffing was inadequate to perform
the requirement in 5 of the 10 functional areas, and that the staffing in 2
other functional areas indicated a misunderstanding of the scope of work.
Id. at 11.  In the three remaining functional areas, the CET either could
not determine the adequacy of ITT's proposed rates or staffing, or could not
evaluate the rates because necessary information was omitted from (or could
not be identified in) the firm's proposal.  Id.

For cost realism purposes, the CET adjusted both firms' proposals upward to
account for shortfalls in staffing.  In this connection, the record shows
that the CET independently established composite labor rates for the various
skill categories required to perform the contract, and also developed
minimum staffing levels that the agency thought were necessary to perform
the requirement.  First AR, exh. 5; SAR, exh. 7.  Where a firm proposed
fewer than a minimum acceptable number of staff (in the agency's view), the
CET added staff to the offer to bring it up to the minimum, and derived the
cost to be added by multiplying the composite hourly rates by the number of
additional hours.  As a result of these adjustments, the CET added [deleted]
staff positions to the DynCorp proposal and adjusted its cost upward by
[deleted], to a total evaluated cost of [deleted].  ID, exh. 2B, at 18; SAR,
exh. 7, at 1.  For ITT, the CET added [deleted] staff positions and adjusted
its cost upward by [deleted], to a total evaluated cost of [deleted].  ID,
exh. 2B, at 18; SAR, exh. 7, at 2.  The CET made no adjustments to the
proposals to account for labor rates deemed too low; according to the agency
it did not make this adjustment because of time limitations.

The cost and technical evaluation results were provided to the source
selection authority (SSA), who reviewed the materials and the proposals.
The SSA took exception to certain of the evaluators' conclusions in making
her source selection decision.  She concluded, for example, that the DynCorp
proposal should have been assigned weaknesses in the area of subcontracting,
and also assigned the proposal a performance risk based on her conclusion
that its low labor rates could result in cost growth over the course of the
contract.  ID, exh. 7, at 3-4.  As for ITT, the SSA discounted several of
the weaknesses identified by the TET, primarily those relating to ITT's
proposed staffing, and also concluded that the performance risk identified
by the TET (relating to the need for ITT to expand its workforce shortly
after contract award) was not a legitimate concern.  Id. at 5.  The SSA also
specifically discounted the CET's concern relating to the completeness of
ITT's cost proposal, finding instead that all necessary information was
included in the proposal, simply not in the form specified in the RFP's cost
breakdown sheets.  Id.  On the basis of these considerations, the SSA made
award to ITT without discussions, finding that the firm's proposal
represented the best overall value to the government, notwithstanding its
higher cost.

THE SSA'S DISAGREEMENT WITH THE EVALUATORS' CONCLUSIONS

DynCorp contends that the agency's source selection decision was
unreasonable.  DynCorp chiefly maintains that the TET's and CET's
evaluations of the proposals accurately reflected the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the offers, and that the SSA's disagreement with the
evaluators' conclusions was unreasonable.

In reviewing source selection decisions, we examine the supporting record to
determine whether the decision was reasonable, consistent with the
evaluation scheme and adequately documented.  AIU North America, Inc.,
B-283743.2, Feb. 16, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 39 at 7-8.  Although source selection
officials may reasonably disagree with the ratings and recommendations of
evaluators, they are nonetheless bound by the fundamental requirement that
their independent judgments be reasonable, consistent with the stated
evaluation scheme and adequately documented.  Id.  For the reasons discussed
below, we find the SSA's conclusions here unreasonable.

The ITT Proposal

As noted, both the TET and the CET had reservations relating to the adequacy
of ITT's proposed staffing; the TET described it as minimally satisfactory,
while the CET raised specific concerns about the adequacy of ITT's proposed
staffing in each of the 10 functional areas of contract performance, either
because the data available in ITT's proposal showed that the staffing was
inadequate, or because the data were inadequate to evaluate the staffing.
In making her source selection decision, however, the SSA disagreed with the
evaluators' conclusions, stating as follows:

Some of the weaknesses noted by the technical team was the offeror did not
have a very good understanding of the overall scope of work.  The offeror
appears to have understaffed for the security responsibilities.  Another
weakness noted was the offeror does not fully understand the full extent of
what is asked in the statement of work.  After carefully reviewing this
offeror's technical proposal, I disagree with all of the weaknesses.  The
weaknesses noted by the technical team are in direct conflict with the
strengths noted by the same individuals.  The strengths noted above [the
SSA's decision document enumerated 5 strengths found by the TET] best
describe this firm's technical proposal.  The plan to use [deleted] on the
base strengthens their proposal even more, since this project is a carry on
of what is currently on going during normal time frames at this base.  The
performance risk noted on the technical proposal was the offeror intends to
expand its workforce as soon as the contract is awarded.  I do not feel this
is a performance risk.  This offeror currently has the base support contract
at this base for everything except security and dining facility
requirements.  They have first hand knowledge of what work is required and
the staffing required to perform in a satisfactory manner.  This eliminates
any performance risk for this offeror.
ID, exh. 7, at 5.

As an initial matter, we point out that, while the TET's conclusions were
based to a great extent on a finding of inadequate staffing, none of the
strengths noted by the SSA to explain her departure from the evaluators'
conclusions relates to the adequacy of ITT's staffing.  Given the importance
of ITT's inadequate staffing to the TET's conclusions, it is not apparent
how the SSA could have questioned the weaknesses identified by the TET
without considering its staffing concerns.  There is nothing else in the
record that provides a basis for questioning the weaknesses identified by
the TET (and the CET) relating to the adequacy of ITT's proposed staffing.
In this connection, the CET, in performing its cost realism evaluation,
added [deleted] full time equivalents (FTEs) to the ITT proposal, thereby
increasing the firm's proposed staffing-[deleted] full time equivalents
(FTE)--by more than [deleted].  SAR, exh. 7, at 2.  The SSA does not explain
why she did not consider such a large underestimation of required staffing
to be a significant weakness.

It also is not clear how--as the SSA found--ITT's use of [deleted]
alleviated the staffing shortfall weakness noted by the evaluators.  First,
the record shows that, overall, subcontract personnel comprised only
[deleted] (or [deleted] percent) of the agency's projected [deleted] FTEs
required to perform the contract.  ITT Proposal at 1-5.  Moreover, the
evaluators actually found it necessary to add [deleted] FTEs for cost
realism purposes to those areas where ITT proposed to use subcontractors;
this indicates that, rather than alleviating ITT's staffing deficiency, the
proposed subcontractors exacerbated it.  (The record also shows that
[deleted]--ITT is the incumbent contractor for many of the installations
functional areas, excluding food service and security).  ITT Proposal at
1-2, 1-3.

We also find no reasonable basis for the SSA's discounting of the
performance risk identified by the evaluators.  As noted, the evaluators
assigned a proposal risk to the ITT offer because it showed that the firm
intended to expand its workforce after contract award, and there was a
concern that this might not be possible within the time available for
contract start-up.  ID, exh. 2A, ITT Consensus Evaluation Worksheet, at 2.
The SSA discounted this risk, finding that ITT, the incumbent contractor for
all of the functional areas except security and full food service, had
first-hand knowledge of the work involved and the staffing required.  The
SSA's position is untenable.  First, her finding does not directly address
the evaluators' concern--that the expansion of ITT's workforce might not be
possible in the start-up time allowed.  This concern would seem to go beyond
the question of ITT's knowledge of the work and staffing requirements
themselves, the only factor cited by the SSA.  In any case, the record shows
that the security functional area alone comprises approximately [deleted]
percent of the overall staffing requirement for ITT (as calculated by the
agency),[4] [deleted] is the incumbent for this functional area (rather,
DynCorp is the incumbent).  We conclude that the SSA has provided no
rational basis for discounting the risk found by the technical evaluators in
arriving at her conclusions.

Finally, we find that the SSA unreasonably discounted the CET's finding that
the ITT proposal was incomplete.  As noted, the evaluators found that,
because of the manner in which ITT presented its cost information (it did
not include the cost breakdown sheets provided with the RFP), it was not
possible to determine whether ITT had proposed costs for each element of the
requirement.  ID, exh. 2B, at 10-11.  The SSA disagreed with this
conclusion, finding that, although the data were not presented in the format
provided in the RFP, the firm's proposal was nonetheless complete.  ID, exh.
7 at 5.  However, the SSA made no attempt, either in her source selection
decision document, or elsewhere in the record, to explain the basis for her
disagreement with the CET (she has not, for example, pointed to the areas of
ITT's proposal containing this information or shown that the information
included in the ITT proposal could be used to derive the cost elements
missing from the CET's analysis.[5])  Under the circumstances, we cannot
find that the SSA was reasonable in her rejection of the CET's concern.

In sum, we find that the SSA's disagreement with the TET and CET evaluation
conclusions relating to ITT is not explained in or supported by the record;
it therefore was not reasonable.

The DynCorp Proposal

The record shows that the SSA found a weakness with the DynCorp proposal for
failing to provide information relating to proposed subcontractors.  In this
respect, she found:

The only weakness noted in the technical proposal was the identification of
any subcontractors.  The solicitation evaluation criteria states
?Subcontractor's Experience (an element):  In accordance with the request
for information pertaining to the offeror's experience (see the element
described immediately above), the offeror should provide similar experience
information for identified subcontractors anticipated to perform more than
five percent of the work on-site.?  The offeror states their corporate
policy for managing, and selecting subcontractors and how they are planning
on using subcontractors for this project.  They do not provide any
information on the experience of these proposed subcontractors nor state if
they will perform more than five percent of the work on-site.  The technical
evaluators rated this element as satisfactory with a met in each of the
items being rated.  Two of the items which were rated met, I feel should
have been failed.  These items are ?(b) the precise services and functions
to be performed by each proposed subcontractor: and (c) identification of
subcontractors by name to the maximum extent possible:?  In some areas of
this project the offeror indicates he will be using subcontractors; however,
he fails to provide the information requested.  The third element rated was
?Key Management and Personnel Positions?.  The first sub-element asks for
qualifications of subcontractor clearly identified as such.  The technical
evaluators stated this was not applicable for the reason that this offeror
did not identify the subcontractors that it intends to use.  This item
should have been rated failed.  Again, the offeror indicates he will be
using subcontractors; however, he fails to provide the information
requested.
ID, exh. 7 at 3.

DynCorp takes issue with the SSA's conclusion, maintaining that it did not
propose any subcontractors, and therefore was not required to provide any
information.  DynCorp adds that, to the extent it may use subcontractors in
the course of performance, it would be for minor, contingency-type
requirements (such as architectural and engineering requirements that may
arise, minor construction and surge capacity requirements) which cannot be
anticipated in advance, and which would be below the 5 percent threshold in
the RFP; DynCorp interpreted that threshold to mean that subcontractor
information would be required only where an individual subcontractor would
exceed the 5 percent threshold.  DynCorp's proposal provides:  ?No DynCorp
subcontractor will meet or exceed the 5 % threshold for submission of
contract data.?  DynCorp Proposal at 164.  In preparing its proposal,
DynCorp thus interpreted the requirement as it now states that it did.

The agency, on the other hand, takes the position that the RFP required
submission of subcontractor experience information where a firm's
subcontractors, either individually or collectively, were to perform more
than 5 percent of the requirement.  The agency concludes that the SSA
reasonably downgraded DynCorp for failing to provide subcontractor
information.

We think that DynCorp's interpretation is reasonable.  The information to be
provided was for each subcontractor and, accordingly, we think it was
reasonable for offerors to assume that the provision was intended to apply
for each subcontractor (as opposed to all combined).  If we assume that the
agency's view is also reasonable, this indicates a latent ambiguity in the
RFP with respect to the 5 percent threshold.  An ambiguity exists where two
or more reasonable interpretations of the terms or specifications of the
solicitation are possible.  Moreover, a party's particular interpretation
need not be the most reasonable to support a finding of ambiguity; rather, a
party need only show that its reading of the solicitation provisions is
reasonable and susceptible of the understanding that it reached.  Aerospace
Design & Fabrication, Inc., B-278896.2, et al., May 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 139
at 13.

Given this conclusion, we need not decide whether the SSA reasonably
downgraded DynCorp on this basis; where there is a latent ambiguity, both
parties' interpretation of the provision may be reasonable.  Under these
circumstances, the appropriate course of action is to clarify the
requirement and afford offerors an opportunity to submit proposals based on
the clarified requirement.  Allied Signal, Inc; Elec. Sys., B?275032,
B-275032.2, Jan. 17, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 136 at 11.

As for whether the SSA reasonably downgraded DynCorp's proposal under the
other evaluation subelements, we find that DynCorp's proposal is unclear
regarding the role of subcontractors.  On the one hand, DynCorp's proposal
seems to provide that the firm will perform the entire requirement by
itself.  DynCorp Proposal at 15.  At the same time, however, DynCorp's
proposal also states that it will use subcontractors whenever cost savings
will result, DynCorp Proposal at 55, and goes on to enumerate various
functional areas where the firm states it is considering subcontracting.
DynCorp Proposal at 56.  Although, strictly speaking, DynCorp thus did not
?propose? any subcontractors, nonetheless the firm appears to have reserved
the right to subcontract where it will be advantageous to do so.
Accordingly, the SSA may have had a legitimate concern over the apparent
possibility that DynCorp would employ subcontractors at a later time.[6]

RISK RATING

DynCorp also asserts that the SSA improperly assigned a high risk rating to
its proposal based on low proposed hourly rates for some of its employees.
In this regard, the source selection decision document states:

The overall estimated price is reasonable; however, the staffing appears
to[o] low in some functional areas which do not make this proposal
realistic.  Also, the low labor rates indicate the estimated price as
unrealistic.  The cost growth due to actual rates for qualified staffing and
compliance with local labor laws could be extremely high and presents a high
performance risk with the pricing proposal.
ID, exh. 7, at 3-4.  While DynCorp disputes that its rates were low, it
maintains that the cost associated with raising the allegedly low labor
rates to rates deemed reasonable by the agency would, in any event, be
smaller than the difference between its and ITT's costs.  DynCorp concludes
that its evaluated cost would have been lower than ITT's, and since its
technical proposal would be at least equal to ITT's, it would be entitled to
award.  Alternatively, DynCorp asserts that it was unreasonable for the
agency to assign a high performance risk to its proposal because of
potential cost growth while not assigning a similar rating to the ITT
proposal, which the agency also found was understated.  According to
DynCorp, if the agency had properly accounted for its allegedly low hourly
rates in its cost realism evaluation, as well as its allegedly low staffing,
it would have found that the DynCorp and ITT proposals were understated by
similar amounts.

While agencies are not required to conduct in-depth cost analyses to verify
each and every proposed cost element in conducting a cost realism
evaluation, ManTech Envtl. Tech., Inc., B-271002 et al., June 3, 1996, 96-1
CPD para. 272 at 8, agencies may not engage in disparate treatment when
evaluating proposals for the award of a cost reimbursement type contract.
United Int'l Eng'g, Inc. et al., B-245448.3 et al., Jan 29, 1992, 92-1 CPD
para.122 at 13.

Here, the record shows that, on the one hand, the agency quantified its
concerns relating to the offerors' low staffing by making upward adjustments
in their cost proposals, but did not assign risk ratings based on this
potential cost growth.  In the area of DynCorp's low proposed labor rates,
on the other hand, the agency did not quantify its concern relating to
potential cost growth by increasing DynCorp's evaluated cost, but instead
assigned a risk rating based on the potential for cost growth--precisely the
concern associated with the offerors' low proposed staffing.  Indeed, unduly
low labor rates would appear to be a particularly appropriate circumstance
for a quantified cost realism adjustment (especially where, as here, the
agency has already prepared composite labor rates that it considers
realistic); it appears the only reason one was not performed on DynCorp's
labor rates was a lack of time.  First AR, Legal Memorandum at 15-16.  The
result, however, was unreasonable.  The agency compared DynCorp's
performance risk (due to potential cost growth) to ITT's quantified
potential cost growth (with no associated performance risk).  As a result of
this disparate treatment, the agency could not reasonably determine which
offeror's cost-driven performance risk was higher, or alternatively, which
offeror's potential cost growth was greater.

Prejudice to the protester is an essential element of a viable protest,
since our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester
demonstrates a reasonable possibility of prejudice, that is, unless the
protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had
a substantial chance of receiving the award.  McDonald Bradley, B-270126,
Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see Stastistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102
F.3d. 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir 1996).  Here, the dollar impact of the cost
growth associated with DynCorp's low labor rates is not clear from the
record, since the agency never performed the analysis because of alleged
time constraints.  However, there is nothing in the record that establishes
that DynCorp's cost growth based on an adjustment to its allegedly low labor
rates would be substantially greater than the cost growth associated with
the ITT proposal (based on DynCorp's own calculations, its cost growth would
be lower than ITT's-[deleted] million for DynCorp and [deleted] million for
ITT[7]).  With these cost adjustments, DynCorp's evaluated cost would remain
lower than ITT's, which suggests that DynCorp could have been selected for
award.  We conclude that the agency's disparate treatment of the offerors
was prejudicial.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, we sustain DynCorp's protest.  We recommend that
the agency amend the RFP to clarify its subcontractor data requirements and
obtain revised proposals.  The agency should evaluate those proposals
consistent with the above discussion and make a new source selection
decision.  (Should the agency engage in discussions during this
resolicitation, we recommend that it address at least the subcontracting
issue (for DynCorp) and the cost data issue (for ITT).)  If the agency
concludes that a firm other than ITT is properly in line for award, we
recommend that the agency make award to that other firm and terminate ITT's
contract for the convenience of the government.  We also recommend that
DynCorp be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its bid
protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees.  4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8 (d)(1)
(2002).  DynCorp should submit its certified claim, detailing the time spent
and the costs incurred directly to the agency within 60 days of receiving
our decision.
4 C.F.R.sect. 21.8 (f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

-------------------------

[1] The agency has made three submissions in connection with the protest, an
initial package of documents, an agency report that included some additional
documents, and a supplemental agency report that included still more
documents.  In this decision, we use the phrase ?initial documents? (ID) to
refer to exhibits furnished with the agency's initial package of documents;
?first agency report? (First AR) to refer to documents included with the
agency's initial report; and ?supplemental agency report? (SAR) to refer to
documents provided with the agency's second report.
[2] TCNs are workers from countries other than Qatar or the United States
that are hired by the contractor to perform work.
[3] The cost breakdown sheet included with the RFP is a 25-page matrix that
cross-references each functional area and sub-requirement (for example, the
camp medical services functional area is further divided between ambulance
and all equipment; and all tasks, services and supplies) with labor hours,
direct labor costs, direct equipment costs, material costs, subcontractor
costs, overhead and indirect costs and fee for each year of contract
performance.  RFP at exh. 1.
[4] For the security functional area, the record shows that ITT intended to
assign [deleted] of its employees, [deleted].  ITT Proposal at 1-5.  The
agency added [deleted] FTEs to ITT's proposal in the security area for cost
realism purposes.  Accordingly, by the agency's own calculations, ITT will
need to use [deleted] non-incumbent employees to meet the security function
alone, which is [deleted] percent of the [deleted] FTEs the agency
considered necessary for ITT to perform adequately.
[5] We note in this regard that the record includes a spreadsheet prepared
by the CET that displays each offeror's cost information for every
subelement of cost associated with each functional area of performance.  The
spreadsheet contains only a gross dollar figure for ITT for each functional
area, without any information relating to the subelements of the functional
areas.  SAR, exh. 6.
[6] Our conclusion respecting DynCorp's proposed key and supervisory
personnel is the same, that is, although DynCorp proposed to use DynCorp
personnel to fill the enumerated key and supervisory personnel positions, it
also states in its proposal that ?[s]ome supervisors and workers will be
hired, paid and administered by the subcontractor . . . .?  DynCorp Proposal
at 58.
[7]Specifically, DynCorp maintains that if the agency had adjusted its
allegedly low proposed rates upward to rates deemed reasonable by the
agency, it would have added only an additional [deleted] to its evaluated
cost.  DynCorp Supplemental Comments, Apr. 5, 2002, exh. 1.  If this amount
were added to the DynCorp cost proposal, it would result in a total upward
adjustment of [deleted] for evaluation purposes, which would mean that
DynCorp's total evaluated cost would remain lower than ITT's.