TITLE:  AHNTECH Inc., B-291998, April 29,  2003
BNUMBER:  B-291998
DATE:  April 29,  2003
**********************************************************************
AHNTECH Inc., B-291998, April 29, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    AHNTECH Inc.
    
File:             B-291998
    
Date:              April 29, 2003
    
Sam Ahn for the protester.
Richard R. Kolkoski, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Agency's rejection of protester's proposal for failing to meet two
solicitation requirements was unobjectionable where record shows that
proposal was unacceptable.
DECISION
    
AHNTECH Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for
proposals (RFP) No. F26600-02-R-B004, issued by the Department of the Air
Force for automation support services at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 
AHNTECH asserts that its proposal met the RFP requirements and should have
been considered for award.
    

   The protest is denied.
    
The RFP sought proposals to provide personnel and supervision to perform
all training and testing operations using the Nellis Air Combat Training
System and the Nellis Combined Air Operations Center.  The support
includes analysis, evaluation, graphics, computer programming, data entry,
retrieval and processing, computer maintenance, technical library,
software development, administrative support, and facility maintenance. 
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year,
with 4 option years. 
    
Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was considered most
advantageous to the government, considering three factors:  technical,
past performance and price.  The RFP identified four technical subfactors,
two of which--security and operations support/range training officer
(RTO)--are relevant to this protest.  The technical factor was to be
evaluated on a pass/fail basis and a proposal found to be unacceptable
under any factor or subfactor would result in an overall technically
unacceptable rating.  Proposals found to be acceptable under the technical
factor would be evaluated under the past performance and price factors. 
Discussions with offerors were not contemplated. 
    
The agency found AHNTECH's proposal unacceptable under the security
subfactor for failing to provide a copy of its Defense Security Service
Facility Clearance (DSSFC) letter, and under the RTO subfactor for
proposing an RTO lacking the requisite experience; the agency thus
rejected the proposal as unacceptable. 
    
AHNTECH asserts that the evaluation was flawed because it was based on an
erroneous interpretation of the RFP requirements.  In AHNTECH's view, its
proposal met *the only possible, logical and grammatical interpretation*
of the two requirements in question.[1]  Comments at 2. 
    
Evaluation and award in negotiated procurements must be in accordance with
the terms of the solicitation.  Industrial Data Link Corp., B-248477.2,
Sept. 14, 1992, 92-2 CPD P: 176 at 4.  Where a protester and agency
disagree over the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the
matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives
effect to all its provisions; to be reasonable, and therefore valid, an
interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a
whole and in a reasonable manner.  Fox Dev. Corp., B‑287118.2, Aug.
3, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 140 at 2.
    
SECURITY SUBFACTOR
    
The security subfactor stated as follows:
    
(i) *SECURITY (MUST PASS THIS FACTOR)  Must have a Top Secret Facility
Clearance (must provide a copy of their [DSSFC] letter).*  RFP at 11. 
AHNTECH asserts that the first part of this provision simply requires an
offeror to possess the requisite clearance.  AHNTECH apparently possesses
this clearance, but claims it did not submit the appropriate letter with
its proposal because it read the second, parenthetical, portion of the
requirement as not requiring it to do so.  In this regard, AHNTECH claims
that, since the agency used the plural possessive pronoun *their* to
identify the entity that was required to submit the letter, and AHNTECH is
a single entity, it concluded that the language must refer only to
subcontractors (AHNTECH did not propose any subcontractors).  AHNTECH
therefore did not submit its DSSFC letter. 
    
The protester's claimed interpretation of the RFP language is
unreasonable.  While the security subfactor provision does not expressly
state that *offerors* must submit the DSSFC letter, it is plain that this
is what it required.  In this regard, since it was the offeror--not some
other entity--that was to establish compliance with the RFP requirements
in its proposal, there was no basis for reading any part of the subfactor
language as referring to some other entity.  We note that the work
statement referenced in the evaluation subfactors provides that the
*contractor shall have a Top Secret Facility clearance prior to the start
date of the contract.*  RFP, attach. 5, at 6.  Certainly, there was no
basis for AHNTECH to assume that the word *their* was meant to refer to
subcontractors, a term that was not even used in the provision.  As for
the protester's purely grammatical argument, if the provision is read as a
requirement to be met by *offerors* (rather than an *offeror*)--again, the
provision did not specify one or the other--the use of a plural possessive
pronoun in describing the requirement was in fact grammatically correct. 
In any case, it is the plain meaning of language, not necessarily
technical grammatical correctness, that dictates whether we will consider
an interpretation of a solicitation to be reasonable.  We conclude that
the RFP here required offerors to submit the DSSFC letter with their
proposal.  Because AHNTECH did not do so, the agency properly found its
proposal unacceptable under the security subfactor.
    
RTO SUBFACTOR
    
The RTO subfactor (as well as the other subfactors) were listed under the
heading *EXPERIENCE AND/OR PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (AS SPECIFIED IN THE
WORK STATEMENT).*  The RTO subfactor instructed offerors that they *must
pass one factor listed below,* identified as follows:
    
Any of the following experience:

     Fighter Pilot, 500 hours military aircraft experience (provide proof of
experience with DD 214 or other official documentation), or
     Fighter Weapons System Operator (WSO), 500 hours military aircraft
experience (provide proof of experience with DD 214 or other official
documentation), or
     Weapons Controller [WC] experience, with a minimum 300 missions  
controlled, and Large Force controlling experience[.]
RFP at 12. 
    
AHNTECH states that the *AND/OR* language in the heading, together with
the *or* at the end of the first paragraph and the comma separating
*fighter pilot* from *500 hours military aircraft experience,* led it to
conclude that the comma was intended as a *coordinating conjunction,*
making the proper reading of the provision, *fighter pilot or 500 hours
military aircraft experience.*  Protest at 5.  AHNTECH asserts that its
interpretation that the requirement gave offerors a choice is supported by
the reference in the heading to experience *and/or* personnel
qualifications--under its interpretation, *fighter pilot* comprised the
personnel qualifications alternative, and 500 hours of military aircraft
experience comprised the experience alternative.  Id.  AHNTECH claims it
met the requirement by proposing personnel with more than 500 hours of
military aircraft navigator experience.[2] 
    
AHNTECH's reading of the subfactor language is unreasonable.  Again,
notwithstanding the protester's view as to the grammatically correct
reading of the provision, we think the listing of the
experience/qualifications alternatives in three separate paragraphs,
separated by the word *or,* made the agency's intent clear.  This
structuring of the provision, along with the absence of the word *or*
within each paragraph separating the position descriptions from the hours
of experience, plainly indicated that personnel meeting the position
description must also possess the specified hours of experience.  Thus, we
agree with the agency that the provision gave offerors three--not
six--alternatives for meeting the requirement.  We see no reasonable basis
for AHNTECH's reading that offerors had the choice of proposing personnel
meeting either the position description or the hours of experience.[3]  We
note that our reading is consistent--and AHNTECH's is inconsistent--with
the RFP's work statement, which provides:  *RTOs shall have fighter pilot,
fighter weapons system operator with 500 hours military aircraft
experience, or weapons controller experience with a minimum 300 missions
controlled, and Large Force controlling experience.*  RFP, attach. 5,
P: 1.2.7.  We conclude that AHNTECH's proposal was reasonably rejected as
unacceptable. 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] Notwithstanding AHNTECH's view of the clear meaning of the challenged
provisions, we note that all other offerors submitted compliant proposals
based on the agency's interpretation of the RFP's requirements.
[2] In support of its argument, AHNTECH alleges that, at its debriefing,
agency officials acknowledged that the protester's personnel satisfied the
requirement.  The agency denies making the acknowledgment and, in any
case, such an acknowledgment would not alter our view as to the only
reasonable reading of the provision.  
[3] AHNTECH's interpretation also is undermined by the fact that only two
different experience levels were listed--the 500 hours military aircraft
experience requirement is listed twice, once after fighter pilot and once
after WSO.  Under AHNTECH's interpretation, the separate listings
requiring 500 hours of experience would be redundant.