TITLE:  R. L. Campbell Roofing Company, Inc., B-289868, May 10, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-289868
DATE:  May 10, 2002
**********************************************************************
R. L. Campbell Roofing Company, Inc., B-289868, May 10, 2002

   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:    R. L. Campbell Roofing Company, Inc.
    
File:             B-289868
    
Date:              May 10, 2002
    
Michael H. Payne, Esq., Starfield & Payne, for the protester.
Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for Cram Roofing
Company, Inc., the intervenor.
Marilyn Walter Johnson, Esq., and Julia C. Novotny, Esq., Department of
the Navy, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Agency's evaluation of proposals, and selection of a higher-rated,
higher-priced proposal for award of a contract for roofing services, are
unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the
protester's proposal reflected significant weaknesses in safety, quality
control, and experience of key personnel, and that the awardee's proposal
represented the best value to the government. 
DECISION
    
R. L. Campbell Roofing Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
Cram Roofing Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N62467-01-R-3156, issued by the Department of the Navy, for roofing
repairs.  Campbell argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals, and
selection of Cram's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal for award, were
unreasonable.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base period of 1 year with
three 1-year options. 
The contractor will be required to furnish all labor, materials,
equipment, supervision, and transportation necessary to perform roofing
repairs and roofing
as directed by the agency at various Navy facilities in Alabama and
Florida. 
The solicitation stated that award would be made to the responsible
offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to
the agency, with total evaluated price and technical merit being equal in
importance.  With regard to the evaluation of technical merit, the RFP
listed the following technical evaluation factors, and stated that they
would be considered equal in importance:  technical qualifications, past
performance, scheduling, and small business subcontracting plan.
    
The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. 
Among other things, the solicitation specified that in response to the
technical qualifications factor proposals should *[p]rovide qualifications
of the Superintendent and Quality Control Manager to support this
project,* including *a list of three of the most significant construction
projects* that these personnel worked on and the relevant points of
contact.  RFP S: 00202 at 3.  With regard to the past performance
evaluation factor, the RFP provided a blank *customer evaluation form*
that was to be completed by three references, returned to the offeror, and
then attached to the offeror's proposal.  The solicitation informed
offerors that because the agency would be *attempting to evaluate the past
performance of the on site construction team submitted by the proposer,*
the three references (and completed customer evaluation forms) should, to
the extent possible, be for the same projects described under the
technical qualifications factor.  Id. at 4.
    
The agency received nine proposals by the RFP's closing date.  The initial
proposals of Cram and Campbell were evaluated as marginal overall, at
proposed prices of $20,419,968 and $19,334,100, respectively.[1]  Agency
Report (AR), exh. 5, Source Selection Board (SSB) Report, Nov. 5, 2001, at
2.  Three proposals, including those submitted by Cram and Campbell, were
included in the competitive range.  Id.
    
The agency initiated discussions with the competitive range offerors
through letters that informed the offerors of the specific weaknesses and
deficiencies in their respective proposals, and requested responses.  The
agency posed questions to Campbell regarding the length and type of
experience of its proposed quality control manager, and asked a number of
questions regarding quality and safety issues and problems on delivery
orders for roofing services that Campbell had performed for the agency
under another contract.  AR, exhs. 10-11, Agency Letters to Cram and
Campbell (Nov. 6, 2001). 
    
Responses to the discussion questions and final revised proposals were
received and evaluated.  Cram's final revised proposal was evaluated by
the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) as acceptable under the technical
qualifications, scheduling, and small business subcontracting factors,
exceptional under the past performance factor, and acceptable overall, at
a proposed price of $23,832,868.  Campbell's final revised proposal was
evaluated by the TEB as marginal under the technical qualifications
factor, acceptable under the past performance, scheduling, and small
business subcontracting factors, and marginal overall, at a proposed price
of $19,334,100. 
AR, exhs. 18-19, TEB's Reports of Cram's Revised Proposal and Campbell's
Revised Proposal (Nov. 19, 2001); exh. 20, SSB/Source Selection Authority
(SSA) Report (Dec. 20, 2001), at 2.
    
In considering Campbell's proposal for award, the SSB and SSA noted that
despite
its lower price, Campbell's *technical proposal indicated significant
weaknesses
in safety, quality control, and experience of key personnel,* and found
that Cram's higher-priced proposal represented the best overall value to
the government. 
AR, Exh. 20, SSB/SSA Report (Dec. 20, 2001).  After requesting and
receiving a debriefing, Campbell filed this protest.
    
Campbell argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal as marginal
under the technical qualifications evaluation factor and marginal overall
were unreasonable.
    
The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the
contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs
and the best method of accommodating them.  In reviewing an agency's
evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals, but instead will examine the
agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with
the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and
regulations.  An offeror's mere disagreement with the agency does not
render the evaluation unreasonable.  Encorp-Samcrete Joint Venture,
B‑284171, B-284171.2, Mar. 2, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 55 at 4.
    
The record reflects that the marginal rating under the technical
qualifications factor was due to the agency's view, as mentioned above,
that Campbell's proposal evidenced significant weaknesses in safety,
quality control, and experience of key personnel.  Based on our review, we
find that the agency concerns were reasonably based.
    
With regard to Campbell's approach to safety, the agency, during
discussions, posed a number of questions based upon its experience with
Campbell during that firm's performance of delivery orders for roofing
services under another contract with the agency.  The agency considered
Campbell's responses, and found Campbell's explanations regarding the
*deficiencies on specific delivery orders* that Campbell had performed for
the agency under another roofing contract *unconvincing.* 
AR, exh. 19, TEB's Report of Campbell's Revised Proposal (Nov. 19, 2001),
at 2. 
The record provides a relatively detailed explanation of the agency's
views in this regard.  For example, one of the discussion questions posed
by the agency regarding the delivery orders was:
    
Please provide details on safety problems with Delivery Order #5 where
roofers were[] found not using safety lines.  When they were told to tie
off, they got a rope and just laid it over the roof without securing to
anything.  Again, please explain.
AR, exh. 11, Agency Letter to Campbell (Nov. 6, 2001).  Campbell
acknowledged in its response to the discussion questions that this
*incident regarding the apparent lack of response to [the contracting
representative's] legitimate concern with our safety procedure is not
excusable.*  Campbell, while conceding *poor judgment,* stated that the
superintendent responsible had been removed from the staff, and that
Campbell had *implement[ed] an enhanced safety program.*  AR, exh. 13,
Campbell's Response to Discussions Questions, at 2. 
    
The record reflects that the agency considered Campbell's responses, and
concluded that they did not alleviate the agency's concerns regarding the
level of attention paid by Campbell to safety issues.  The agency noted in
this respect that similar matters of noncompliance with the required
safety procedures occurred during the performance of a subsequent delivery
order.  Although the protester asserted in
its response to discussions that this second incident was the result of a
*mis[]communication,* it explained that it nevertheless *subsequently
conformed to the Navy's safety standards,* thereby effectively conceding
that it was not initially in compliance with the requisite safety
standards.  Id. at 3.  Moreover, as pointed out by the agency and not
contested by the protester, the alleged *miscommunication* that Campbell
asserts was the cause of its noncompliance with the required safety
procedures was between Campbell personnel and the government *customer,*
who Campbell knew or should have known was not authorized to instruct
Campbell on appropriate safety procedures.  AR, exh. 19, TEB's Report of
Campbell's Revised Proposal (Nov. 19, 2001) at 2; Agency Supplemental
Report (ASR) at 4.  The agency asserts that Campbell's explanation here
indicates its willingness to *take instructions from a customer, and not
the [appropriate government contract personnel],* and that this *indicates
a serious lack of understanding of the contractual relationship.*  ASR at
4.  Finally, as noted by the agency, Campbell only promised to take
actions to prevent recurrence of the problem, but did not specify what
specific actions it had taken, and the agency was *unwilling to assume the
significant risk* without an explanation of *how these deficiencies would
be corrected.*  AR, exh. 20, SSB/SSA Report (Dec. 20, 2001), at 2.  In
view of the foregoing, we find the agency's concerns regarding Campbell's
approach to safety,
as reflected in its evaluation of Campbell's proposal, to be reasonable.
    
During discussions the agency also posed a number of questions, based upon
its experience with Campbell, regarding the quality of the work Campbell
performed.  For example, the agency asked the following question in this
regard:
    
Please provide details on quality problems with Delivery Order #2. 
We found all counter flashing was not fabricated or installed as required
by the spec[ification]s.  The job went 65 days into liquidated damages
primarily due to the repair of these issues.
AR, exh. 11, Agency Letter to Campbell (Nov. 6, 2001).  In response,
Campbell first *clarified* that only a certain portion of the flashing
*was fabricated in error,* and that it *acknowledge[d] this fabrication
error.*  The protester continued by asserting that it had taken
*corrective measures* to prevent such errors in the future, explaining
that it had *acquired a more highly skilled sheet metal superintendent and
a project engineer who will assist with quality assurance and control,*
and that it would now *[DELETED].*  AR, exh. 13, Campbell's Response to
Discussions Questions, at 3. 
    
The agency considered Campbell's responses in its evaluation of Campbell's
final revised proposal, and concluded that they did not alleviate the
agency's concerns regarding the level of attention paid by Campbell to
quality issues.  The evaluation record suggests that the agency doubted
the veracity of Campbell's claim that it had hired new personnel, noting
that *[n]o new employees showed up on the job site.*  The evaluators also
noted that in any event, the quality deficiencies were *fairly
significant,* and that Campbell's explanations and corrective measures
amounted to an assertion that Campbell would *do better* in the future. 
AR, exh. 19, TEB's Report of Campbell's Revised Proposal (Nov. 19, 2001),
at 2-3.
    
The protester argues here only that the agency's comment doubting the
veracity of Campbell's assertion that it had hired new personnel *is
disingenuous because the [sheet metal] superintendent is not an on-site
worker; he is at the shop.*  Protester's Supplemental Comments at 7.  This
argument, considered most favorably to the protester, only substantiates
the protester's claim that it hired a new sheet metal superintendent; it
does not respond in any way to the agency's questions regarding Campbell's
asserted hiring of a new project engineer.  Given that the protester has
again conceded that its performance under a delivery order was deficient,
has not contested the accuracy of the agency's characterization of the
quality deficiencies as *fairly significant,* and has not shown that the
agency's concerns as to whether Campbell had actually hired a new project
engineer were misplaced, we cannot find the agency's evaluated concerns
regarding Campbell's approach to quality control unreasonable.
    
With regard to the experience of Campbell's proposed key personnel, the
record reflects that although Campbell's proposed superintendent was found
by the agency to have *excellent credentials,* its proposed quality
control manager was considered lacking both in length and quality of
experience.[2]  In this regard, the agency found, based upon Campbell's
proposal, the agency's discussions with past employers of Campbell's
proposed quality control manager, and Campbell's responses to discussions,
that while the proposed quality control manager claimed to have 11 years
of experience, much of it was in *general trades* (rather than roofing)
construction, and was neither as a quality control manager or related to a
quality control manager's duties.  The agency concluded here that while
*[i]t was difficult to tell how much experience Campbell's proposed
quality control manager had that was *roofing related,* it appeared that
Campbell's proposed quality control manager's *[t]otal experience . . .
appears to be 5 years or so max.*  AR, exh. 19, TEB's Report of Campbell's
Revised Proposal (Nov. 19, 2001), at 1-3.
    
The agency evaluators also noted that the agency *had a lot of trouble
with [Campbell's proposed quality control manager] . . . on current
work.*  The evaluators specifically noted, for example, that Campbell's
proposed quality control manager had been responsible for safety during
Campbell's performance of delivery order No. 5, where, as noted above,
Campbell's personnel were not using safety lines as required.  The
evaluators noted that Campbell's proposed quality control manager had also
failed to notice that the counter flashing was not fabricated or installed
as required during Campbell's performance of delivery order No. 2 for the
agency (discussed above), and that the project was not completed in a
timely manner *primarily due to fixing issues that should have been caught
by [Campbell's proposed quality control manager].*  The evaluators also
commented that, during Campbell's performance of the delivery orders, the
proposed quality control manager *never seem[ed] to be on the job site.*
Id.
    
The protester, in contending that the agency's concerns with Campbell's
proposed quality control manager are not reasonably based, does not show
or otherwise demonstrate that the agency's discussion of its experience
with the quality control manager under another contract is inaccurate. 
Rather, the protester points out that its proposed quality control manager
has an undergraduate degree in civil engineering, and a graduate degree in
environmental engineering.  The protester also contends that the agency's
evaluation evidences unequal treatment in that Cram's proposed quality
control manager does not have a college degree or more actual experience
as a quality control manager than Campbell's proposed quality control
manager. 
    
The protester's arguments here miss the point.  In our view, the record
does not evidence that the evaluators' determination that Campbell's
proposed quality control manager's roofing experience totaled 5 years was
the agency's primary concern regarding Campbell's proposal under the
technical qualifications factor.  Nor did the solicitation require that a
quality control manager hold a college degree in any particular
discipline--thus, the fact that Cram's proposal (which included a quality
control manager who does not hold a college degree) received an acceptable
rating under the technical qualifications factor does not suggest unequal
treatment of the proposals.  Rather, the record evidences that the
agency's primary criticism of Campbell's proposed quality control manager
resulted from the agency's experience with this individual during
Campbell's performance of various delivery orders for the agency.  Given
that Campbell has conceded that a number of aspects of its performance of
the delivery orders was deficient, and has not argued that its proposed
quality control manager cannot fairly be faulted by the agency for such
deficiencies, we find reasonable the agency's criticism of the experience
of Campbell's proposed quality control manager.
    
In sum, because the record here demonstrates that the agency's
determination that Campbell's proposal evidenced significant weaknesses in
safety, quality control, and experience of key personnel was reasonably
based, the agency's evaluation of Campbell's proposal as marginal and
Cram's proposal as acceptable under the technical qualifications factor
was reasonable. 
    
Campbell next contends that the agency acted unreasonably in evaluating
its proposal as marginal overall.  The protester points out in this regard
that its proposal was evaluated as acceptable under three of the RFP's
four equally weighted evaluation factors, and marginal under only the
technical qualifications factor. 
    
The agency responds that in its view, the proposal's marginal rating under
the technical qualifications factor *jeopardized the entire proposal.* 
The agency explains here that according to the source selection plan, a
marginal proposal is one that *does not fully meet the requirements of the
RFP,* and that because of the significant deficiencies in Campbell's
proposal under the technical qualifications factor (as discussed above),
Campbell's *proposal taken as a whole [does] not meet the minimum
requirements of the RFP.*  AR at 9; ASR at 5-6.
    
In our view, the parties' positions overstate the importance of the
agency's overall rating of Campbell's proposal as marginal in the source
selection process.  The record reflects that the SSA was provided with and
considered the TEB's report on its evaluation of the revised proposals of
the competitive range offerors, which summarized the TEB's views of the
proposals and identified the adjectival ratings received by the proposals
under each evaluation factor.  AR, exhs. 18-19, TEB's Report of Cram's
Revised Proposal and Campbell's Revised Proposal (Nov. 19, 2001).  More
importantly, the SSA's source selection decision, in noting that
*Campbell's technical proposal indicated significant weaknesses in safety,
quality control, and experience of key personnel,* reflects that the SSA
was aware and considered the primary evaluated weaknesses in Campbell's
proposal in making the award decision.  AR, exh. 20, SSSB/SSA Report (Dec.
20, 2001).
    
While adjectival ratings, like scores, may be useful as guides to
intelligent decision-making, they are not binding on the SSA, who has
discretion to determine the weight to accord them in making an award
decision.  Porter/Novelli, B-258831, Feb. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD P: 101 at 5. 
Of concern to our Office is whether the record as a whole supports the
reasonableness of the evaluation results and the source selection
decision.  Orbital Techs. Corp., B-281453 et al., 99-1 CPD P: 59 at 9. 
Here, as discussed above, the record demonstrates the reasonableness of
the agency's evaluation of Campbell's proposal, and that the SSA, in
making the source selection, was aware of the TEB's findings with regard
to Campbell's proposal, the ratings Campbell's proposal received under
each of the evaluation factors, and that the proposal was considered
deficient with regard to Campbell's approach to safety, quality control,
and experience of key personnel.  As such, it is of little or no
significance whether the agency's overall rating of Campbell's proposal as
marginal was reasonable. 
    
The protester also claims that the agency's selection of Cram's proposal
for award was not reasonably supported because the evaluation record was
inconsistent with regard to the rating of Cram's proposal under the past
performance evaluation factor.  In this regard, while the TEB report
provides that Cram's proposal received a rating of exceptional under the
past performance factor, the *executive summary* included as an attachment
to the source selection decision lists Cram's past performance rating as
acceptable.  AR at 4; exh. 18, TEB's Report of Cram's Revised Proposal
(Nov. 19, 2001), at 2; exh. 20, SSB/SSA Report (Dec. 20, 2001), Executive
Summary.
    
The agency, while conceding an error was made in the executive summary,
asserts (with supporting statements from the chairpersons of both the TEB
and the SSB) that as shown by the TEB report, Cram's proposal was
reasonably evaluated as exceptional under the past performance factor, and
that this exceptional rating was considered when selecting Cram's proposal
for award.  ASR, encls. 1 & 2, Statements of TEB and SSB Chairpersons.
    
The protester raises two arguments in response to the agency's position. 
The protester first points out that according to the record, Cram's
proposal was initially evaluated as acceptable under the past performance
factor, and that no new information was received by the agency that would
justify raising the proposal's rating to exceptional under this factor. 
The protester also argues that, in any event, an evaluation by the agency
of Cram's proposal as exceptional under the past performance factor would
be unreasonable.  We disagree.
    
Cram's proposal included *customer evaluation forms* completed by two
references, and a more detailed *past and present performance
questionnaire* completed by a third reference.  The two references that
completed the customer evaluation forms rated Cram as *exceptional* under
each rating category.[3]  One of these references commented that *[a]ll
work accomplished under the present IDIQ contract has been done
exceptionally well,* and that Cram *has done an exceptional and
professional job throughout this contract.*  The third reference rated
Cram as either *very good/significant confidence* or *exceptional/high
confidence* under each of the numerous evaluation areas.[4]  The third
reference characterized Cram's performance as, for example, an
*[o]utstanding effort in all areas,* and noted that *[o]nly minor
improvements needed in areas indicated with [very good/significant
confidence], but in no way do these marks detract from an outstanding
effort and a super roofing contractor.*  The reference concluded the
evaluation by commenting that *[m]anagement philosophies, the hiring of
skilled personnel, the completion of the work in a quality, safe and
timely manner, and the cooperation with Government managers and inspectors
make this contractor the tops in his field.*  AR, exh. 3, Cram's Initial
Proposal, at 16-30. 
    
The record reflects that the references' evaluations were considered by
the TEB, with the TEB concluding that Cram's references *were pleased with
the work.*  The TEB found the evaluation of the third reference
*[p]articularly noteworthy,* noting that this customer was *apparently
very pleased with Cram's performance.*  Notwithstanding these comments,
the record reflects that the Cram's initial proposal was rated by the TEB
as acceptable under the past performance evaluation factor.  AR, exh. 7,
Initial TEB Report for Cram's Proposal (Oct. 24, 2001).
    
The TEB subsequently amended its evaluation of Cram's past performance by
noting that it had *contacted* Cram's third reference, who *told [the TEB]
that Cram was outstanding* and *was one of the best that he had done work
with.*  The TEB noted that *[t]his seemed outstanding,* and accordingly,
raised Cram's rating under the past performance evaluation factor to
exceptional.  AR, exh. 18, TEB's Report of Cram's Revised Proposal (Nov.
19, 2001).
    
Based on the foregoing, we find that the record here supports the agency's
position that the *executive summary,* which provided a rating of
*acceptable* for Cram's proposal under the past performance factor, was
incorrect, and, more importantly, that the agency's evaluation of Cram's
proposal under the past performance factor as exceptional was reasonable
and was properly considered in the source selection decision.
    
The protester challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff
determination, contending that its and Cram's proposals were unreasonably
evaluated and should have had *very close technical ratings,* and that the
determination was inadequately documented.  Protester's Comments at 14. 
However, as discussed above, the record supports the agency's evaluation
of the proposals and the determination that Cram's proposal was clearly
technical superior.  Also, contrary to the protester's arguments, the
agency's source selection decision adequately documents and reasonably
explains the rationale for the agency's determination that Cram's proposal
represented the best value.  See Federal Acquisition Regulation
S: 15.308.  In this regard, the source selection decision explains why an
award to either Campbell
(the lower-rated, lower-priced proposal) or a third offeror (the
highest-rated, highest-priced proposal) was not in the government's
interest.  Specifically, the SSB/SSA noted, among other things, that
despite the proposal's lower price, Campbell's *technical proposal
indicated significant weaknesses in safety, quality control, and
experience of key personnel,* and that these evaluated weaknesses in
Campbell's proposal were of particular concern because during performance
of the contract *multiple task orders will be going on simultaneously,*
with some of the work being required *at remote locations as stated in the
RFP.*  The SSB/SSA concluded that the agency was *unwilling to assume the
significant risk* associated with the weaknesses set forth in Campbell's
proposal, and that because of this, Cram's next higher-rated,
higher-priced proposal represented the best value to the agency.[5] 
AR, exh. 20, SSB/SSA Report (Dec. 20, 2001).  We find this determination
to be reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme.  
    
The protester finally contends that *although the agency seeks to couch
its conclusion in terms of a performance rating, the agency has determined
that Campbell lacks sufficiently experienced personnel, and a satisfactory
history of safety and quality, to perform this contract.*  Campbell argues
that the agency *effectively has determined that Campbell is
nonresponsible,* and because Campbell is a small business, the agency
should have referred this *nonresponsibility finding* to the Small
Business Administration (SBA) for review under SBA's certificate of
competency procedures.  Protester's Supplemental Comments at 9. 
    
An agency may use traditional responsibility factors, such as experience,
past performance, and personnel qualifications, as technical evaluation
factors, where, as here, a comparative evaluation of those areas is to be
made.  Medical Info. Servs., B‑287824, July 10, 2001, 2001 CPD P:
122 at 6; Dynamic Aviation--Helicopters, B‑274122, Nov. 1, 1996,
96-2 CPD P: 166 at 3.  Where a proposal is determined to be deficient
pursuant to such an evaluation, the matter is one of relative technical
merit, not unacceptability, which would require a referral to the SBA. 
Advanced Res. Int'l, Inc.--Recon., B‑249679.2, Apr. 29, 1993, 93-1
CPD P: 348; Aerospace Design, Inc., B‑247793, July 9, 1992, 92-2 CPD
P: 11 at 3.
As discussed above, Campbell's proposal was not rejected as technically
unacceptable and there was no determination of nonresponsibility.  The
agency simply used the results of the technical evaluation in a
comparative analysis of all the proposals to determine which proposal
would be most advantageous to the government.  Because the agency did not
conduct a responsibility determination, but a comparative evaluation of
the competing proposals, the agency was not required to refer the matter
to the SBA.  See A & W Maint. Servs., Inc., B-258293, B-258293.2, Jan. 6,
1995, 95-1 CPD P: 8 at 3; Advanced Res. Int'l, Inc.--Recon., supra.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] The following adjectival ratings were used in the evaluation of
proposals:  exceptional, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.  AR, exh.
2, Source Selection Plan.
[2] The record does not support Campbell's allegation that the evaluators
were confused about the identity of the proposed superintendent and
proposed quality control manager.
[3] The forms provided for ratings of exceptional, acceptable,
unacceptable but susceptible to being made acceptable, and unacceptable. 
[4] This form provided for ratings of exceptional/high confidence, very
good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown
confidence, marginal/little confidence, and unsatisfactory/no confidence.
[5] The protester argues for the first time in its supplemental comments,
received by our Office on April 1, 2002, that the agency's evaluation of
proposals under the scheduling factor was unreasonable, and that the
agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with regard to the
agency's concerns with Campbell's proposed quality control manager.  These
contentions are based upon information set forth in the agency report,
which was received by Campbell on March 8, and are therefore untimely
filed and will not be considered because they were not filed with our
Office until more than 10 days after Campbell knew or should have known of
these bases of protest.  4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(2) (2002).