TITLE:  Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, B-292858.2; B-292858.5, April 7, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-292858.2; B-292858.5
DATE:  April 7, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Hanford Environmental Health Foundation

   File:            B-292858.2; B-292858.5

   Date:              April 7, 2004

   Harold G. Bailey, Esq., Richard D. Gluck, Esq., and John A. Knab, Esq.,
Garvey Schubert Barer, for the protester.

   Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S.
McNeish, Esq., Computer Sciences Corporation, the intervenor.

   Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., and Paul R. Davis, Esq.,
Department of Energy, for the agency.

   John L. Formica, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  Protest that the awardee*s staffing plan provides for fewer personnel
than will be required to perform the contract is denied where the agency
reasonably considered the offerors* differing technical approaches while
evaluating the proposed staffing plans and the protester*s assertion is
based solely on a comparison of the total number of personnel it proposed
to perform the contract to the total number of personnel proposed by the
awardee.

   2.  In cost reimbursement contract, protest that agency should have
upwardly adjusted the awardee*s proposed costs to account for the
awardee*s proposal of a lower fringe benefit rate than the rate previously
paid by the incumbent contractor is denied where the agency reasonably
determined, among other things, that the awardee*s proposed fringe benefit
rate was comparable to commercial rates in the region where the contract
will be performed.

   DECISION

   Hanford Environmental Health Foundation (HEHF)  protests the award of a
contract to AdvanceMed Corp., under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DE-RP06-03RL14383, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), for
occupational medical services.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP was issued for occupational medical services to support the
11,000A personnel currently working on or near DOE*s Hanford site.  The
Hanford site consists of 586 square miles of land in southeastern
Washington, and for almost 50A years *was dedicated to plutonium
production for the nation*s nuclear arsenal.*  Agency Report (AR) at 2. 
As a result of the plutonium production operations, Hanford has *become
the nation*s largest environmental cleanup project.*  Id. 

   The personnel working at Hanford are exposed to *chemical and radiological
hazards, as well as more typical construction-related hazards.*  AR at 2. 
Given Hanford*s history and the resultant health risks to which personnel
are exposed, the agency describes the occupational medical program as *an
integral component of the Site*s safety management system and is critical
for maintaining the health and safety of Hanford employees.*  Id.  The
medical services to be provided under this RFP include, among other
things, medical monitoring and qualification examinations, diagnosis and
treatment of injury or illness, employee counseling and health promotion,
field/facility visits, records and case management, and emergency and
disaster preparedness. 

   The contractor will be required to provide all personnel, facilities,
equipment, materials, and supplies (with the exception of identified
government resources) to perform the required occupational medical
services.  The RFP specified that *[t]he Contractor has the responsibility
for total performance under this contract, including determining the
specific methods for accomplishing the work effort, performing quality
control, and assuming accountability for accomplishing the work under the
contract.*  RFP S C.2.

   The RFP explained that the resultant contract will *reflect[] the
application of performance-based contracting approaches and techniques
that emphasize results/outcomes and minimize *how-to* performance
descriptions.*  RFP S C.2.  Consistent with this, the solicitation
provided certain *[d]esired [o]utcomes* and *[d]esired [o]bjectives* for
contract performance.  RFP SS C.3, 4.  For example, the RFP listed *[a]
Hanford Site occupational medical program that is cost-effective and of
good value to the DOE and the United States taxpayer* as one of the
desired outcomes, and the provision of *occupational medical service
processes and systems that are consistent with an efficient and effective
operation* as one of the desired objectives.  Id.

   The RFP provided for the award of a performance-based, cost-plus-award-fee
service contract, with the fee to be based upon the agency*s evaluation of
the contractor*s performance, as measured against specific evaluation
criteria set forth in the contract.  RFP SS B.3, F.1.  Award of the
contract was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined
to represent the best value to the agency based on the evaluation criteria
of technical/management and cost.  The RFP provided that the
technical/management criterion was comprised of the following six
sub-criteria, listed in descending order of importance:  experience;
medical approach; past performance; organization, controls, and systems;
small business; and transition plan.[1]  The solicitation provided
detailed descriptions of what would be evaluated under each sub-criterion,
and informed offerors that in determining best value, the
technical/management criterion would be of significantly greater
importance than cost/fee. 

   The solicitation included detailed instructions for the preparation of
proposals, and requested that proposals consist of three volumes,
including a technical/management proposal volume and a cost/fee proposal
volume.  RFP S L.4.  The proposal preparation instructions stated that
technical/management proposals were to *provide a separate description*
for each of the six sub-criteria that comprised the technical/management
evaluation criterion.  RFP S L.6(c).  For example, offerors were
instructed that, in their description addressing the medical approach
subcriterion (at RFP S L.6(c)(2)), they were to:

   Provide a description of [their] proposed medical approach, and how the
proposed approach will provide safe, high quality, efficient, and timely
delivery of the required occupational health services.  The summary shall
include a description of the methods, benefits, and rationale for the
Offeror*s proposed medical approach and quality assurance practices to
accomplish the required occupational health services.  Describe the
procedures to be used to perform routine evaluations of worker health
using medical surveillance data; and the approach and plans to conduct the
on-going comprehensive quality assurance program, with particular emphasis
on the self-assessment process to be used.  The approach shall describe
the methods in sufficient detail for the Government to assess the
effectiveness of the medical approach.

   To assist offerors in the preparation of their proposals, the RFP also
provided relevant information from previous years, as well as estimates of
the number of annual patient exams and visits.

   The agency received four proposals by the RFP*s closing date.  The
proposals were evaluated, and the agency included the proposals submitted
by three offerors, including HEHF (the incumbent contractor) and
AdvanceMed, in the competitive range.  AR, Tab 7, Source Evaluation Board
(SEB) Report, at 7.  Written discussions were held, and final revised
proposals (FRP) were requested, received, and evaluated.  HEHF*s proposal
received an evaluated score of 820 out of 1,000 total points, with a most
probable cost, as determined by the agency, of $119,509,516; AdvanceMed*s
proposal received 804 points with a most probable cost of $107,509,953. 
AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Statement, at 5-6.

   The source selection authority (SSA) concluded, based on his review of the
evaluation results, that the proposals of HEHF and AdvanceMed were
*essentially equal* with regard to technical merit.  The SSA noted that
*[t]o the extent that the slight difference in point scores (16 out of
1000) [between the proposals] reflects an advantage to HEHF, it is not
meaningful.*  AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Statement, atA 7.  The SSA
determined that the proposal submitted by AdvanceMed represented the best
value to the government, and a contract under the RFP was awarded to that
firm.  After requesting and receiving a debriefing, HEHF filed this
protest.[2]

   HEHF*s protest focuses on the differing staffing levels proposed by it and
AdvanceMed.  In this regard, HEHF*s staffing plan provided for a total of
84 full time equivalent (FTE) personnel; AdvanceMed*s staffing plans
provided for a total of 67A FTEs.  AR, Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of
Revised Cost Proposals, at 3-4.  HEHF first argues that *[g]iven the wide
disparity in staffing levels . . . there is no rational basis upon which
DOE could conclude that [AdvanceMed*s] proposed staffing structure could
be considered comparable to HEHF*s in performing the same work required
under the RFP,* and that the agency erred in evaluating AdvanceMed*s
staffing as *responsive to the RFP.*  Supplemental Protest at 3;
Protester*s Comments at 7.

   In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not
our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record
to determine whether the agency*s judgment was reasonable and in accord
with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.  Abt Assocs., Inc.,
B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD P 223 at 4. The protester*s mere
disagreement with the agency*s judgment does not establish that an
evaluation was unreasonable.  UNICCO Gov*t Servs., Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7,
1997, 97-2 CPD P 134 at 7.

   The RFP required that proposals include, among other things, a *complete
Staffing Plan, including the required labor categories, number and
qualifications of each non-key personnel needed to meet proposed
performance expectations.*  RFP SA L.6(c)(4)(i).  The solicitation also
provided data regarding the staffing levels of the current contractor
(that is, HEHF), by position and total number of staff, but specifically
advised offerors that this information was provided for *Information Only*
and stated that *[t]he proposed staffing levels and skills mix necessary
to accomplish the proposed work scopes, are at the discretion of the
offeror.*  RFP, attach. L-3. 

   HEHF*s and AdvanceMed*s proposals each included staffing plans that
included narratives describing each offeror*s respective approach along
with charts summarizing each offeror*s proposed staffing level.  For
example, AdvanceMed*s proposal included, among other things, charts that
depicted its proposed organizational structure by labor categories,
detailed the specific qualifications associated with each category, and
identified the number of FTEs proposed within each category.  AR, Tab 12,
AdvanceMed*s FRP, Vol. II, at 83. 

   The record here includes comprehensive documentation of the detailed
staffing analysis the agency performed in connection with its evaluation
of proposals.  AR,A Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of Revised Cost
Proposals.  Among other things, this staffing analysis included a review
of the services required by the solicitation, including a review of the
*estimated annual medical patient visits* categorized by type, such as
*brief visit* or *complex visit.*  Id. at 2.  In evaluating proposals, the
agency also prepared a summary of each offerors* proposed staffing by
category (such as professional staff/health services), position (such as
occupational physicians), and number of FTEs. [3]  Id. at 2-4.

   The agency*s staffing evaluation document also includes various narrative
comments regarding the noteworthy aspects of each offeror*s proposed
staffing plan, observing that *[n]one of the offerors presented the same
approach to staffing* and attributing this in part to *differences in
individual program philosophies and patient care delivery models.*[4]  AR,
Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of Revised Cost Proposals, at 4.  The
agency*s staffing analysis sets out specific examples of where the
proposed staffing approaches differed from each other and explains why, in
the agency*s view, each of the offerors* differing staffing levels,
considered in conjunction with the approaches proposed, was
*sufficient.*[5]  Id. at 4-10.

   The agency*s staffing analysis also included *comparisons . . . with other
commonly used occupational health models as promulgated by various Federal
and national agencies.*  AR, Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of Revised Cost
Proposals, at 5.  Specifically, this aspect of the agency*s evaluation
included comparisons of the offerors* proposed staffing plans to the
estimated required staffing as calculated using occupational health model
formulas of entities including the United States Navy and American Medical
Association.  Id. at 5-9.  The agency concluded as a result of its
evaluation that the offerors* *proposed staffing levels are adequate and
appear reasonable to complete the scope of work.*[6]  Id. at 11.

   On the record here, HEHF*s assertion that it was unreasonable for the
agency to evaluate AdvanceMed*s lower proposed staffing levels as
acceptable suggests that HEHF misunderstands the clearly stated RFP
evaluation scheme.  As discussed above, the RFP did not establish any
particular staffing levels that were required or expected.  Rather, the
solicitation stated the agency*s requirements in terms of desired outcomes
and objectives, advised each offeror to prepare its proposal on the basis
of its own analysis and proposed approach, and specifically advised
offerors that staffing levels necessary to accomplish the contract
requirements *are at the discretion of the offeror.*  RFP, attach. L-3. 
Accordingly, it would have been inappropriate for the agency to downgrade
AdvanceMed*s proposal simply because it proposed fewer FTEs than HEHF
proposed. 

   HEHF*s protest makes much of the fact that its proposed staffing levels
were essentially equivalent to the staffing levels it has used to perform
the preceding contract.  In this regard, HEHF essentially maintains that
its own understanding of the required staffing is superior to that of any
other entity, including DOE.[7]  Accordingly, HEHF protests that any
proposal to perform the contract requirements using a total staffing level
lower than that proposed by HEHF should have been evaluated as
unacceptable.  Moreover, despite having access under our protective order
to the awardee*s proposal and all relevant evaluation documents, the
protester has failed to timely identify any specific aspect of
AdvanceMed*s staffing plan that was inadequate; rather, HEHF merely
asserts in conclusory terms that any proposal to perform the contract
requirements with staffing levels lower than those proposed by HEHF should
have been evaluated as inadequate.[8]   

   As discussed above, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
agency*s evaluation of the offerors* proposed staffing plans was thorough
and detailed, taking into consideration multiple aspects of each offeror*s
proposed approach.  Specifically, the agency considered the organizational
structures of the staffing plans, the number and type of personnel
proposed, as well as the relationship of the offerors* staffing plans to
their proposed medical approaches.  On this record, HEHF*s protest
challenging the agency*s evaluation constitutes, at best, mere
disagreement with the agency*s judgments.  Accordingly, we find no basis
to question the agency*s evaluation of AdvanceMed*s proposed staffing
plan.  See Decision Sys. Techs., Inc.; NCI Info. Sys., Inc., B-257186 et
al., Sept. 7, 1994, 94-2 CPDA P 167 at 9; Ogden Gov*t Servs., B-253794.2,
Dec. 27, 1993, 93-2 CPD P 339 at 9.

   Next, HEHF protests that the agency failed to engage in meaningful
discussions, contending that the agency should have informed HEHF that its
proposed staffing and associated labor costs *were so high that its
proposal had no chance for award.*  Protester*s Comments at 2.

   When an agency engages in discussions with an offeror, the discussions
must be meaningful.  Training and Mgmt. Res., Inc., B-234710, June 29,
1989, 89- 2 CPD P 12. However, this requirement does not obligate an
agency to spoon-feed an offeror, ITT Fed. Sys. Int*l Corp., B-285176.4,
B-285176.5, Jan. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD P 45 at 7, nor does it create an
obligation for agencies to conduct successive rounds of discussions until
all proposal defects have been corrected.  OMV Med., Inc., B-281490, Feb.
16, 1999, 99-1 CPD P 38 at 7.  Rather, an agency*s discussion questions
must simply lead an offeror into the areas of its proposal that require
correction or amplification.  Creative Mgmt. Tech., Inc., B-266299, Feb.
9, 1996, 96-1 CPD P 61 at 4.

   Here, the record shows that, during discussions, the agency asked HEHF
certain questions regarding HEHF*s proposed staffing plan.  AR at 36. 
Among other things, the agency*s written discussions with HEHF included
the following:

   Your proposal could be altered to more effectively describe how your
proposed staffing mix relates to the accomplishment of the scope of work
described in the RFP Section C.  The Government requests additional
information to better understand how the proposed staffing mix will be
utilized to perform the occupational medical services and to better
understand what specific functions/activities and roles/responsibilities
the staff will perform.

   AR, Tab 7, SEB Report, at 12.

   Further, in the discussions with HEHF, the agency informed HEHF that its
*complete staffing plan . . . should provide a description and
justification of how each non-key person will be used.*  AR, Tab 6, HEHF
Discussion Questions, at 4.  We view these questions as reasonably leading
HEHF into the area of its proposal that it needed to address, that is, its
proposed staffing plan.  To the extent HEHF is suggesting that the agency
should have specifically advised HEHF that its proposed staffing level was
higher than that proposed by a competing offeror, HEHF is mistaken.  It
would have been inappropriate for the agency to assess and discuss HEHF*s
staffing levels on the basis of a differing technical approach proposed by
a competing offeror.  Ogden Gov*t Servs., supra, at 9.

   Alternatively, HEHF protests that the agency engaged in unequal
discussions, arguing that the agency *went out of its way to save
[AdvanceMed*s] bacon* by informing AdvanceMed during discussions that it
believed that AdvanceMed*s proposed principal manager did not meet certain
of the RFP*s minimum education and experience requirements for that
position.  Protester*s Comments at 10; see
AR, Tab 5, AdvanceMed Discussion Questions, at 3.  Contrary to HEHF*s
view, the agency*s identification during discussions that the principal
manager AdvanceMed initially proposed did not meet certain minimum
requirements for that position is evidence of meaningful, rather than
unequal, discussions.  In this regard, in order for discussions to be
meaningful, an agency must advise offerors of weaknesses or deficiencies
in their proposals to afford offerors an opportunity to revise their
proposals to fully satisfy the agency*s requirements.  Biospherics, Inc.,
B-285065,
July 13, 2000 CPD P 118 at 5.  The agency*s view that one of AdvanceMed*s
proposed key personnel--the principal manager--did not meet the minimum
requirements of the RFP was just such a deficiency that the agency was
required to identify during discussions.  See TSA Group, B-249217.2, Nov.
24, 1992, 92-2 CPD P 371 at 5.

   HEHF next protests that the agency*s evaluation of AdvanceMed*s cost
proposal was improper due to the fact that AdvanceMed proposed a lower
fringe benefit rate than that proposed by HEHF (which essentially
reflected the fringe benefit rate paid under HEHF*s incumbent contract). 
HEHF argues that, in order to retain the incumbent staff, AdvanceMed will
incur a fringe benefit rate comparable to that proposed by HEHF, and paid
by HEHF under its incumbent contract.[9]  Accordingly, HEHF maintains that
the agency should have significantly increased AdvanceMed*s proposed
fringe benefit rate in evaluating its cost proposal.  Supplemental Protest
atA 5; Protester*s Comments at 8.

   When an agency evaluates proposals for the award of a cost reimbursement
contract, an offeror*s proposed estimated costs are not considered
controlling, because regardless of the costs proposed, the government is
bound to pay the contractor its actual and allowable costs.  Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) SS 15.305(a)(1); 15.404-1(d).  Consequently,
a cost realism analysis must be performed by the agency to determine the
extent to which an offeror*s proposed costs represent what the contract
should cost, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.  FAR
SA 15.404a**1(d)(2); TRW, Inc., B-282162, B-282162.2, June 9, 1999, 99-2
CPD P 12 at 5.  A cost realism analysis is the process of independently
reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror*s cost estimate
to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic
for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the
requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance
and materials described in the offeror*s proposal.  FAR S 15.404-1(d)(1);
Advanced Communications Sys., Inc., B-283650 et al., Dec. 16, 1999, 2000
CPD P 3
at 5.  The evaluation of competing cost proposals requires the exercise of
informed judgment by the contracting agency involved, since it is in the
best position to assess the realism of cost and technical approaches and
must bear the burden resulting from a defective cost realism analysis. 
Because the contracting agency is in the best position to make this
determination, we review an agency*s judgment in this area only to see
that the agency*s cost realism evaluation was reasonably based and not
arbitrary.  TRW, Inc., supra, at 5-6.

   The record reflects that, in its initial proposal, AdvanceMed proposed a
fringe benefit rate of [DELETED] percent.  AR, Tab 23, AdvanceMed Initial
Proposal/Cost, at 2. 
In evaluating AdvanceMed*s proposed costs, the agency noted that the
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which reviewed the labor rates
proposed by AdvanceMed for the performance of this contract, did not take
exception to AdvanceMed*s proposed fringe benefit rate.  AR, Tab 7C,
AdvanceMed Price Analysis Report, at 6.  Nevertheless, in evaluating
AdvanceMed*s initial proposal, the agency noted that the proposed fringe
benefit package reflected a rate *at the low end of the range for the
industry average for the eastern Washington area,* and that AdvanceMed*s
initial proposal did not sufficiently address the risk this might pose for
recruiting and retaining qualified staff, informing AdvanceMed of this
concern during discussions.  AR, Tab 5, AdvanceMed Discussion Questions,
at 6. 

   AdvanceMed responded by explaining in its FRP, as it had similarly stated
in its initial proposal, that its fringe benefit package was *designed to
provide ample time away from the job for relaxation, as well as protection
against unforeseen hardships,* was based on DCAA approved forward pricing
rates, and was intended to *keep the Company competitive in the labor
market.*  AR, Tab 13, AdvanceMed FRP/Cost, at 2-3.  Nevertheless,
AdvanceMed*s FRP also provided that AdvanceMed*s fringe benefit package
would *transition* to its parent company*s (Computer Sciences Corporation
(CSC)) fringe benefit package on January 1, 2004.[10] 
AR, Tab 13, AdvanceMed FRP/Cost, at 3.

   In evaluating AdvanceMed*s FRP, the agency determined, based on
information provided by DCAA, that CSC had a *corporate fringe benefit
rate of [DELETED] [percent].*  AR, Tab 7C, AdvanceMed Price Analysis
Report, at 7.  Based on publicly available information regarding
commercial fringe benefit rates, the agency determined that this rate was
*comparable to current commercial fringe benefit rates in the local
area.*  Id.  Accordingly, because the [DELETED] percent rate would be
effective on January 1, 2004, the agency upwardly adjusted AdvanceMed*s
proposed costs by [DELETED], to account for this higher fringe benefit
rate.  Id.

   The source selection board and SSA noted that although AdvanceMed*s
adjusted fringe benefit rate was comparable to the local area commercial
rate, it was lower than the rate under the incumbent contract, and that
because of this, there was a *risk that AdvanceMed may have difficulties
in retaining current staff.*  AR, Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of Revised
Cost Proposals, at 25; see Tab 8, Source Selection Statement, at 6.  In
this regard, the agency recognized that *[i]ncumbent employee reaction is
dependent upon how they perceive the benefits package and the labor market
at the time of contract transition.*  AR, Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of
Revised Cost Proposals, at 25.  The agency further reasoned that, although
the area in which Hanford is located *is growing and as such, fields such
as nursing, physician assistants and medical technicians are in demand,*
this consideration was *offset . . . [by] the increased enrollment and
expanded coursework in nursing programs within the region.*  Id.  In
short, the agency concluded, after considering a variety of factors and
recognizing certain risks, that AdvanceMed*s proposed fringe benefit rate
was reasonable. 

   HEHF*s cost proposal provided for a fringe benefit rate of [DELETED]
percent, which the agency found to be *significantly higher than the
regional healthcare industry norm of 33-37 [percent].*  AR, Tab 7A, HEHF
Price Analysis Report, at 4.  Because of this, the agency noted in
discussions with HEHF that *HEHF has proposed a fringe benefit package
that is at a rate significantly higher than the industry average for the
eastern Washington area without explaining why this rate is necessary for
performance of the [contract].*  AR, Tab 6, HEHF Discussion Questions, at
4-5.  In response, HEHF declined to revise its proposed rate, maintaining
that the rate was *realistic and appropriate.*  AR, Tab 14, HEHF FRP/Cost,
at 28.

   HEHF argues that because AdvanceMed*s fringe benefit rate is significantly
lower than the rates proposed by HEHF (and lower than the rates previously
paid by HEHF under the predecessor contract), it was unreasonable for the
agency to accept AdvanceMed*s proposed fringe benefit rate without
adjustment.[11] 

   Here, as discussed above, the record reflects the agency*s reasonable
review and consideration of various factors affecting AdvanceMed*s
proposed fringe benefit rate, and its determination that the corporate
fringe benefit rate of AdvanceMed*s parent company was reasonable and
realistic; this determination was based, in part, on the agency*s
conclusion that a [DELETED] percent fringe benefit rate was comparable to
the area commercial rates.  The fact that HEHF, the incumbent contractor,
proposed a higher fringe benefit rate than AdvanceMed provides no basis,
standing alone, to conclude that the agency*s determination was
unreasonable.  Wyle Labs., Inc., B-288892, B-288892.2, Dec. 19, 2001, 2002
CPD P 12 at 17;
see Calspan Corp.; Ba**255268, Feb. 22, 1994, 94-1 CPD P 136 at 8, recon.
denied,
B-255268.2, July 5, 1994, 94-2 CPD P 6.  Additionally, HEHF*s assertion
that the evaluation was flawed because the agency failed to recognize that
AdvanceMed may have some difficulty retaining incumbent personnel given
its lower fringe benefit rate is contrary to the record.  As noted above,
the agency evaluators, as well as the SSA, specifically recognized the
existence of risk created by AdvanceMed*s proposed fringe benefit rate in
the context of AdvanceMed*s ability to the retain incumbent personnel. 
AR, Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of Revised Cost Proposals, at 25; Tab 8,
Source Selection Statement, at 6. 

   Finally, HEHF protests that the agency*s cost realism analysis reflected
certain mathematical errors resulting in improper additions to HEHF*s cost
proposal totaling $1,550,102.  Protest at 3.  Competitive prejudice is
necessary before we will sustain a protest; where the record does not
demonstrate that the protester would have had a reasonable chance of
receiving award but for the agency*s actions, we will not sustain a
protest, even if deficiencies in the evaluation process, such as the
unreasonable or unequal evaluation of proposals, are found.  Leisure-Lift,
Inc., Ba**291878.3, B-292448.2, Sept. 28, 2003, 2003 CPD P __ at 10;
Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, B-285394.2 et al., Dec. 1, 2000,
2001 CPD P 97 at 9.  In light of our determination, above, that the agency
reasonably evaluated HEHF*s and AdvanceMed*s proposals as *essentially
equal* with regard to technical merit, even if HEHF*s evaluated cost
should have been $1,550,102 lower, there was no competitive prejudice to
HEHF because HEHF*s evaluated price was reasonably found to be
approximately $12 million lower than AdvanceMed*s.  

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The organization, controls, and systems and small business
sub-criteria were considered equal in importance.

   [2] HEHF filed an initial protest on January 6, 2004.  Following receipt
of various documents provided by the agency in response to the protest,
HEHF filed a supplemental protest on February 12.

   [3] The agency noted that all of the offerors* proposals reflected
staffing levels that were lower than the RFP*s *example* of an acceptable
staffing plan.  Id. at 4, n.1.

   [4] Among other things, the agency*s analysis shows that HEHF and
AdvanceMed proposed nearly the same level of FTEs with regard to
healthcare professionals (that is, physicians, nurses, physician
assistants, etc.), but that HEHF proposed more management, administrative,
and support staff.  AR, Tab 7F, Technical Evaluation of Revised Cost
Proposals, at 2-4.

   [5] For example, with regard to variations in proposed management staff,
the agency stated, *[t]his variation may be accounted for by differences
in corporate structure, such as organizations with home offices [being]
capable of providing some necessary management or support functions,* and
adding, *[i]t is recognized that some are *working* managers and have dual
roles fulfilling both a management and technical function.*  Id. at 10. 

   [6] The record reflects that both AdvanceMed*s and HEHF*s proposals were
evaluated as *adequate* with regard to their proposed staffing, and that
AdvanceMed*s and HEHF*s proposal received 67 and 70, respectively, out of
the 100 total points available under the organization, controls and
systems evaluation sub-criterion.  AR, Tab 7, SEB Report, at 27-28.

   [7] HEHF*s comments (at 7) responding to the agency report contains the
following statement regarding its understanding of the contract
requirements:

   The DOE Report repeatedly chastises HEHF for thinking it knows more about
the RFP requirements than DOE.  Frankly, this is indeed the case. . . .
DOE has little insight into the staffing needed to perform the
requirements of the RFP, which of course itself is shaped by HEHF*s
38A years of contract performance.

   [8] In its comments responding to the agency report, submitted to our
Office on MarchA 8, 2004, HEHF argues, for the first time, that
AdvanceMed*s staffing is inadequate in two specific respects--the number
of personnel proposed for senior management positions and the number of
personnel proposed to schedule medical examinations.  Protester*s Comments
at 7.  These specific allegations were not timely submitted.  In order for
our Office to meaningfully consider protest allegations, our Bid Protest
Regulations require that protest issues such as these be presented within
10 days after the basis for protest is known, or should have been known. 
4 C.F.R. S 21.2(a)(2) (2004).  The piecemeal presentation of protest
issues is not permissible; rather, each protest ground must independently
satisfy the timeliness requirements.  Armstrong Motorcycles Limited,
B-238436, June 5, 1990, 90a**1 CPD P 531 at 3-4.  Here, counsel for HEHF
received the awardee*s proposal, along with all evaluation and source
selection documents, by February 2.  However, HEHF failed to identify any
specific alleged flaws in AdvanceMed*s staffing plan until HEHF made its
final record submission on March 8.  Since these issues were not raised in
any preceding submission, the agency had no opportunity to meaningfully
address these specific allegations.  Accordingly, this aspect of HEHF*s
protest is untimely and will not be considered.  See Sierra Military
Health Servs., Inc.; Aetna Gov*t Health Plans, B-292780 et al., Dec. 5,
2003, 2004 CPD P ___ at 13 n.9; see LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
B-283825, Ba**283825.3, Feb. 3, 2000, 2000 CPD P 35 at 11-12.

   [9] The RFP required that, with regard to non-management positions, the
successful offeror must *provide the right of first refusal in hiring
qualified employees . . . from the workforce of the incumbent contractor,*
and added that if the positions for which the incumbent employees are
hired *entail duties and responsibilities substantially equivalent to the
positions last held with the incumbent contractor,* the employees are to
be paid *salary/pay rates equivalent to the base salary/pay rates paid by
the incumbent at the time of the offer.*  RFP S H.12.  Id.  However, in
response to offeror*s questions, the agency specifically advised offerors
that the solicitation did *not require [that the] awardee offer the same
or an equivalent benefits package.*  RFP Questions & Answers.

   [10] CSC had recently purchased DynCorp, AdvanceMed*s parent company.

   [11] Alternatively, HEHF contends that the agency erred in that it *made
no change in its technical evaluation of [AdvanceMed*s] proposal to
account for staff retention risks.*  Protester*s Comments at 8.