TITLE:  Aerotek Scientific LLC, B-293089, January 23, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293089
DATE:  January 23, 2004
**********************************************************************
Aerotek Scientific LLC, B-293089, January 23, 2004

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Aerotek Scientific LLC
    
File:            B-293089
    
Date:              January 23, 2004
    
Richard P. Rector, Esq., and Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., Piper Rudnick, for
the protester.
W. Thomas Newell, Esq., for Top Echelon Contracting, Inc., an intervenor.
Barbara J. Stuetzer, Esq., Department  of Veterans Affairs, for the
agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Agency reasonably issued a blanket purchase agreement against a vendor's
Federal Supply Schedule contract where that vendor's higher technically
rated, low priced quotation was determined to represent the best value to
the government and where the protester, whose quotation was higher priced,
failed to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by some flaws in the agency's
technical evaluation.
DECISION
    
Aerotek Scientific LLC protests the issuance of a blanket purchase
agreement (BPA) to Top Echelon Contracting, Inc. under request for
quotations (RFQ) No. M8-Q11-03, issued by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) for non-personal staffing services for the Dallas
Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP)[1] facility in Lancaster,
Texas.  Aerotek, which submitted a higher priced quotation than Top
Echelon, challenges the VA's evaluation of quotations.
    
We deny the protest because, while there were some flaws in the agency's
technical evaluation, Aerotek failed to demonstrate prejudice.[2]
    
The RFQ was issued on September 5, 2003 to contractors with current
Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts that covered licensed pharmacists,
national certified pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy aides.  The RFQ
stated that the agency would issue the BPA to the responsible vendor whose
quotation was determined most advantageous to the government, considering
technical evaluation factors, past performance, and price.
    
The technical evaluation factors, which were worth a maximum of 96 points,
were listed in descending order of importance as follows:  (1) past
performance; (2) management (staff recruitment, retention, and management;
replacement plan; staff scheduling; and quality assurance); and
(3) corporate experience (key onsite management personnel; corporate
resources; and cost management).[3]  With respect to past performance, the
RFQ required a vendor to provide a list of companies and contracts under
which the firm has provided comparable staffing services within the past 3
years.  Among other things, the RFQ required the vendor to list the number
of *medical personnel* provided by classification, e.g., *pharmacists,
pharmacy technicians, pharmacy aides, etcetera.*  RFQ at 9.  With respect
to management and corporate experience, the RFQ required onsite management
personnel to be available 100 percent of the time and pharmacy staff to be
available 97 percent of the time.  (The RFQ defined these availability
rates as the percentage of time that required positions were staffed.) 
The RFQ required a vendor to disclose its employee availability rates for
the last 3 fiscal years.  The RFQ also required a vendor to list past
availability rates, *showing both the required and achieved rates,* for
similar projects.  Id. at 9.  The RFQ required a vendor to provide resumes
for its proposed onsite management personnel.  In this regard, the RFQ
required the vendor to provide two onsite project managers (one per
shift); the individuals proposed for these onsite management positions
were required to have 5 years of human resources experience and 3 years of
supervisory experience.   The RFQ further required a vendor to provide a
replacement plan for onsite management personnel in the event that the
onsite managers were absent from their jobs for any reason.     
    
In addition, a vendor's past performance, based on information reported by
references, would be evaluated under a separate past performance
evaluation factor that was worth a maximum of 75 points.  Finally, with
respect to price, which was worth a maximum of 57 points,[4] amendment No.
5 to the RFQ required a vendor to provide fixed discount percentages from
the corresponding unit prices in its FSS contract.  A vendor's proposed
discount would be applied to the FSS contract unit price to arrive at a
unit price for each RFQ line item and then this unit price would be
multiplied by the estimated quantity for each RFQ line item.  A vendor's
total price would be calculated by adding all discounted unit prices
together.
    
The RFQ stated that in determining the quotation most advantageous to the
government, the technical evaluation factors, including past performance,
would be considered significantly more important than price.  The RFQ
advised that the agency intended to evaluate quotations and issue the BPA
without conducting discussions.
     
Six vendors, including Aerotek (the incumbent contractor at the Dallas
CMOP facility) and Top Echelon, submitted quotations by the amended
closing date of September 19.  Both Aerotek and Top Echelon organized
their respective quotations by restating an individual RFQ requirement and
then narratively addressing the particular requirement.  As relevant here,
the quotations of Aerotek and Top Echelon received the following point
scores, which were supported by written evaluation narratives:
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                             |Aerotek           |Top Echelon            |
|-----------------------------+------------------+-----------------------|
|Technical                    |80                |96                     |
|-----------------------------+------------------+-----------------------|
|Past Performance             |73                |74                     |
|-----------------------------+------------------+-----------------------|
|Price                        |56.94             |57                     |
|-----------------------------+------------------+-----------------------|
|TOTAL POINTS                 |209.94            |227                    |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
Agency's Memorandum of Law at 5.
    
Top Echelon's low priced quotation received the maximum number of
available points for the technical evaluation factor and for price; Top
Echelon's quotation lost 1 point for past performance.  Aerotek's slightly
higher priced quotation lost a total of 16 points for the technical
evaluation factor because, in the agency's view, Aerotek failed to provide
the availability rates required to be maintained for similar projects;
Aerotek failed to demonstrate that its proposed onsite management
personnel each had 5 years of human resources experience and 3 years of
supervisory experience; and Aerotek failed to identify specific
individuals to serve as replacement onsite managers.  Aerotek's quotation
also lost 2 points for past performance.  Finally, because Aerotek's price
was approximately one-tenth of 1 percent higher than Top Echelon's price,
Aerotek's quotation lost a fraction of a point for price.  The agency
determined that Top Echelon's low priced, highest technically rated
quotation represented the best value to the government and, accordingly,
the agency issued the BPA to Top Echelon.
    
Aerotek challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of its
quotation, particularly in the areas described above where its quotation
received less than the maximum number of available points.  Aerotek also
challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of Top Echelon's
quotation. 
    
Under the FSS program, an agency is not required to conduct a competition
before using its business judgment in determining whether ordering
supplies or services from an FSS vendor represents the best value and
meets the agency's needs at the lowest overall cost.  Federal Acquisition
Regulation S: 8.404(a); Information Spectrum, Inc., B-285811, B-285811.2,
Oct. 17, 2000, 2001 CPD P: 133 at 4.  However, where, as here, an agency
conducts a competition, we will review the agency's actions to ensure that
the evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with
the terms of the solicitation.  Id.  In this case, contrary to Aerotek's
assertion, we believe that there is sufficient contemporaneous narrative
documentation in support of the points assigned to the vendors' quotations
for our Office to review the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of
quotations and the agency's decision that Top Echelon's quotation
represents the best value and meets the agency's needs at the lowest
overall price.  As we will discuss below, while it is evident from the
record that there were some flaws in the agency's technical evaluation,
Aerotek has failed to demonstrate prejudice, which is an essential element
of a viable protest.  Id. at 10-11.
    
Availability Rates[5]
    
As set forth above, the RFQ contained two requirements regarding a
vendor's reporting of its historical availability rates.  First, the RFQ
required a vendor to disclose its employee availability rates for the last
3 fiscal years and second, the RFQ required a vendor to list past
availability rates, *showing both the required and achieved rates* for
similar projects.  Aerotek restated both of these RFQ requirements,
verbatim, in its written quotation prior to providing its narrative
response to each requirement.  Aerotek's Technical Quotation at 10, 21.
    
The record shows that Aerotek complied with the RFQ's first requirement by
reporting, in percentage terms, the availability rates it achieved in each
of the last 3 fiscal years as the incumbent contractor at the Dallas CMOP
facility.[6]  Id. at 10.  With respect to the RFQ's second requirement,
the record shows that Aerotek listed two private companies (one involving
three media facilities and one involving a distribution center for a
national office supply retailer) for which it provided staffing considered
in its view to be very similar (because of the pace of the operations) to
the requirements of the RFQ.  Aerotek listed an average availability rate
it achieved for each of these efforts, but did not state, contrary to the
terms of the RFQ, the availability rate required to be maintained for each
of these efforts.  Id. at 21.  Since the RFQ required a vendor to list
past availability rates, showing both the required and achieved rates for
similar projects, we believe the agency reasonably downgraded Aerotek's
quotation (by deducting a total of 4 points) because Aerotek failed to
fully comply with the RFQ's second availability rate requirement.
    
To the extent Aerotek argues that its compliance with the RFQ's first
availability rate requirement, where the firm reported the availability
rates it achieved for the last 3 fiscal years as the incumbent contractor
at the Dallas CMOP facility and where the firm reported that there was no
requirement under that contract to maintain a specific availability rate,
demonstrates compliance with the RFQ's second availability rate
requirement, we find this argument is without merit.  In this regard, it
is clear from Aerotek's quotation that the firm understood that there were
two separate RFQ requirements in terms of reporting availability rates. 
This is evidenced by the fact that, as noted above, Aerotek restated in
its quotation, verbatim, both of the RFQ requirements concerning
availability rates and provided a different narrative response to each of
these requirements.  We believe it is disingenuous for Aerotek to argue
that there was no RFQ requirement to report *required,* as opposed to
simply *achieved,* availability rates for similar projects where this is
belied by the contents of Aerotek's quotation.  On this record, we have no
basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of
Aerotek's availability rates.
    
Qualifications of Onsite Management Personnel
    
As stated above, the RFQ required a vendor to provide resumes for its
proposed onsite management personnel.  More specifically, the RFQ required
the vendor to provide two onsite project managers, each of whom was
required to have 5 years of human resources experience and 3 years of
supervisory experience.  Aerotek, which submitted resumes for two
individuals proposed as onsite management personnel, challenges the
reasonableness of the agency's decision to downgrade its quotation (by
deducting a total of 6 points) because its proposed onsite management
personnel allegedly did not meet the RFQ's experience requirements. 
Aerotek maintains that the two individuals it proposed for the onsite
management positions each had 5 years of human resources experience and 3
years of supervisory experience.[7]    
    
The resume of the first individual, Ms. A, shows that at the time Aerotek
submitted its quotation (in September 2003), Ms. A had been employed by
the parent company of Aerotek for just over 3 years, since June 2000. 
While employed by the parent company of Aerotek, Ms. A's resume shows that
from June 2000 through December 2000, Ms. A was a *commercial recruiter*;
from December 2000 through July 2001, she was an *internal recruiter*; and
beginning in July 2001, she was the *on-premise manager* at the Dallas
CMOP facility.  Thus, at the time of quotation submission, Ms. A had been
successfully performing as the onsite project manager at the Dallas CMOP
facility for over 2 years; prior to that, Ms. A had been a recruiter for
just over 1 year.  Based on the information in her resume, it is clear
that Ms. A did not have, in accordance with the terms of the RFQ, 5 years
of human resources experience and 3 years of supervisory experience.  On
this record, we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the
agency's evaluation of Ms. A's experience where Ms. A failed to
demonstrate compliance with the objectively stated experience requirements
contained in the RFQ. 
    
The resume of the second individual, Ms. J, shows that from November 1995
through May 2000, she was a *co‑proprietress* at the Fort Worth,
Texas location of a national retail specialty clothing store for women. 
In this position, Ms. J engaged in *training/staff development* (i.e.,
recruit, interview, screen, hire, schedule, train, supervise, evaluate,
develop, and promote a staff ranging from 10 to 40 employees);
*management* (i.e., manage daily sales and customer service operations);
*visual merchandising* (i.e., design and set up window displays);
*financial operations* (i.e., balance and audit cash registers daily;
prepare and deliver bank deposits; and investigate and resolve cash,
check, and credit discrepancies to ensure accurate financial records); and
*inventory control* (i.e., monitor and track inventory of merchandise and
supplies to control operating costs and to maximize profitability).
    
In addition, the resume of Ms. J shows that since May 2000, Ms. J has been
employed by the parent company of Aerotek as an *on premise
manager/recruiter* at the Dallas location of a leading worldwide
technology provider (which is based in Munich, Germany) where she
supervises and manages up to 95 employees.  In this position, Ms. J
specifically listed *human resources* experience (i.e., resolution of
human resource issues involving, for example, paycheck and timecard
discrepancies, retirement plan and 401(k) availability, and worker's
compensation issues; completion of new hire orientation and necessary
paperwork; and involvement with performance evaluations); *training/self
development* experience (i.e., counsels and advises contractors on their
performance evaluations, attendance, and training; monitors and evaluates
positions that require specific skills sets; and conducts new hire
orientation on safety and related regulations); and *management* (i.e.,
meets with managers to ensure performance, attendance, and training of
contract employees).
    
It is clear from Ms. J's resume that at the time Aerotek submitted its
quotation (in September 2003), Ms. J had been employed by the parent
company of Aerotek for just over 3 years as an *on premise
manager/recruiter,* but did not have in this position, in accordance with
the terms of the RFQ, 5 years of human resources experience and 3 years of
supervisory experience.  However, the RFQ did not in any way restrict
where an individual proposed for an onsite management position at the
Dallas CMOP facility gain human resources and supervisory experience.  For
this reason, we agree with Aerotek that Ms. J's experience for over 4
years as the *co‑proprietress* of a retail clothing store for women,
where Ms. J's responsibilities included, among other things, recruiting,
interviewing, screening, hiring, scheduling, training, supervising, and
evaluating personnel, should have been considered human resources and
supervisory experience.  On this record, we believe that the agency did
not reasonably evaluate Ms. J's experience based on the objectively stated
experience requirements contained in the RFQ.  Accordingly, for the
technical evaluation factor involving the qualifications of a vendor's
proposed onsite management personnel, we believe that since one of
Aerotek's proposed onsite project managers--Ms. J (but not Ms.
A)--satisfied the RFQ's experience requirements, Aerotek's quotation
reasonably should have received an additional 2 points, for a total of
4 points (out of a possible 8 points) for this aspect of the evaluation.
    
Replacement Plan for Onsite Management Personnel
    
As stated above, the RFQ required a vendor to provide a plan for replacing
onsite management personnel who were absent from their jobs for any
reason.  The record shows that Aerotek and Top Echelon each described in
their respective quotations such a plan.  In describing their replacement
plans, neither Aerotek nor Top Echelon identified specific individuals who
potentially could serve as replacement onsite project managers.  Aerotek's
Technical Quotation at 1; Top Echelon's Technical Quotation at 6.  Despite
this similarity in quotations, the agency downgraded Aerotek's, but not
Top Echelon's, quotation (by deducting a total of 6 points) because
Aerotek failed to identify specific individuals who potentially could
serve as replacement onsite project managers.
    
We conclude that the agency did not evaluate the quotations of Aerotek and
Top Echelon equally in this area.  In this respect, there was no
requirement in the RFQ for a vendor to identify, as part of its
replacement plan for onsite management personnel, specific individuals who
potentially could serve as replacement onsite project managers.  Rather,
the RFQ only required that a vendor describe a plan, or approach, for
replacing onsite management personnel who were absent from their jobs. 
The agency does not dispute that Aerotek, just like Top Echelon, complied
with this requirement, that is, both of these vendors described an
approach for replacing onsite management personnel who were absent from
their jobs for any reason.  Based on this record, for the technical
evaluation factor involving a vendor's replacement plan for onsite
management personnel, we think that Aerotek's quotation reasonably should
have been rated the same as Top Echelon's quotation and, as a result,
Aerotek's quotation reasonably should have received an additional
6 points, for a total of 8 points (out of a possible 8 points) for this
aspect of the evaluation.
    
Past Performance
    
As described above, the RFQ required vendors to provide a list of
companies and contracts under which the firm has provided comparable
medical personnel staffing services within the past 3 years.  The RFQ
further required vendors to list the number of medical, as opposed to just
pharmacy, personnel provided by classification, e.g., *pharmacists,
pharmacy technicians, pharmacy aides, etcetera.*  Aerotek argues that as
the successfully performing incumbent contractor, it should have been
rated higher than Top Echelon for past performance because, for example,
Top Echelon has never performed a VA CMOP contract and has never staffed a
medical facility with professionals at the level of a licensed
pharmacist.  Aerotek's argument, however, is not supported by the
underlying record.
    
In its quotation, Aerotek listed its contract with the Dallas CMOP
facility, under which it has provided 42 pharmacists and 206 pharmacy
technicians.  Aerotek also listed its contract with a private mail order
pharmacy, under which it has provided 40 pharmacy technicians and 40
pharmacy aides.  Finally, Aerotek stated that it was not practical to
provide a total list of current contracts because it has over 500 current
clients nationwide; instead, Aerotek listed by name, with a point of
contact, four private companies--two pharmaceutical, one medical
diagnostic, and one clinical research--for reference purposes.  The record
shows that the agency was able to contact only two references for
Aerotek.  The reference for the Dallas CMOP contract rated Aerotek as
overall very good (as opposed to excellent), noting that the lack of
onsite personnel at times caused small problems.  The reference for
another VA CMOP facility, where Aerotek has provided 3 pharmacy
technicians, also rated Aerotek as overall very good (as opposed to
excellent), noting that the service provided was very responsive.  The
agency assigned 24 points out of a possible 25 points to Aerotek's
quotation for each of these references (for a total of 48 points out of a
possible 50 points).  In addition, the record shows that while the agency
made repeated, yet unsuccessful, attempts to obtain a third reference for
Aerotek, the agency nevertheless assigned Aerotek's quotation the maximum
of 25 points to allow for the missing reference.  Thus, for past
performance, based on information reported by references, Aerotek's
quotation received 73 points out of a possible 75 points.
    
In its quotation, Top Echelon provided a list of 808 companies for which
it has provided staffing services in the past 3 years.  In addition, Top
Echelon provided specific information for 11 healthcare contracts with the
government and private companies where it has provided various medical
personnel, for example, pharmacists, clinical research coordinators,
radiologic technology professionals, biomedical equipment technicians,
physical therapists, neonatal nurse practitioners, and registered nurses. 
The record shows that the agency was able to obtain three references for
Top Echelon.  The reference from the VA Medical Center in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, where Top Echelon has provided five pharmacists, rated the firm
as overall very good (as opposed to excellent), noting that in the future,
the agency would require personnel to be fluent in English and to have
computer skills.  The agency assigned Top Echelon's quotation 24 points
out of a possible 25 points based on this reference.  The reference from a
pharmaceutical company where Top Echelon has provided 30 clinical research
coordinators rated the firm as overall excellent, noting that Top Echelon
is very cost conscious; that Top Echelon uses innovative and knowledgeable
search methods to find excellent personnel candidates; that Top Echelon
has achieved rapid turnaround in locating viable candidates for open
positions throughout the United States; and that Top Echelon has been very
responsive to questions and issues regarding payroll and benefits.  The
agency assigned Top Echelon's quotation the maximum of 25 points for this
reference.  Finally, the reference from a medical technology firm, where
Top Echelon has provided 12 biomedical equipment technicians, rated the
firm as overall excellent, indicating satisfaction with the quality of
service rendered and noting no problems in Top Echelon's administration of
the contract.  The agency assigned Top Echelon's quotation the maximum of
25 points for this reference.          
    
In sum, the record shows that both vendors complied with the RFQ
requirement to provide past performance information for work involving
comparable medical personnel staffing services.  Contrary to Aerotek's
position, there simply was no requirement in the RFQ defining comparable
past performance in terms of VA CMOP contracts or restricting the agency's
consideration of past performance information to the furnishing of
pharmacy personnel, as opposed to other medical personnel.  Thus, to the
extent Aerotek is arguing, after the issuance of the BPA, that the RFQ
should have provided for special consideration of its past performance as
the successfully performing incumbent contractor and that the agency
should have restricted its consideration of past performance information
to contracts in which the vendor has staffed a medical facility with
pharmacy professionals, like Aerotek has done at the Dallas CMOP facility,
these arguments are untimely as they involve alleged solicitation
improprieties apparent from the face of the RFQ that were not timely
raised prior to the closing date for receipt of quotations.  Bid Protest
Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(1) (2003).
    
Further, the record shows that in assessing a vendor's past performance,
the agency attempted to consult three references per vendor.  For Aerotek,
the record shows that the agency was able to obtain two, but not three,
past performance references for the firm.  Nevertheless, the agency gave
Aerotek the benefit of the doubt concerning the third reference by
assigning Aerotek's quotation the maximum number of points--25--for this
missing reference.  Obviously, Aerotek does not challenge the agency's
evaluation in this regard.  The record further shows that where a
reference for either Aerotek or Top Echelon reported very good, but not
excellent, past performance, the agency was consistent in evaluating the
quotations of these firms by deducting 1 point for the particular
reference, i.e., by assigning 24, not 25, points for a very good past
performance reference.  Therefore, on this record, we believe the agency
reasonably evaluated the quotations of Aerotek and Top Echelon in the area
of past performance and Aerotek has failed to show otherwise.
    
Tradeoff
    
Aerotek argues that the agency improperly issued the BPA to Top Echelon
based on its submission of a technically acceptable, low priced quotation,
rather than considering that the technical evaluation factors, including
past performance, were significantly more important than price in
determining the best value.  We disagree.
    
As stated above, the RFQ provided that the technical evaluation factors,
including past performance, were significantly more important than price. 
The record shows that the agency determined that Top Echelon's higher
technically rated (based on points and supporting narratives), low priced
quotation represented the best value to the government.  The record
further shows that even if 8 points were added to Aerotek's higher priced
quotation for the areas, as discussed above, where there were some flaws
in the agency's technical evaluation, Aerotek's quotation still would
receive a lower technical rating than Top Echelon's quotation because, for
example, Aerotek did not comply with the RFQ provision requiring that a
vendor report not only achieved, but also required, availability rates for
similar projects and Aerotek proposed an onsite project manager who did
not satisfy the RFQ's human resources and supervisory experience
requirements.  In our view, these examples support the reasonableness of
the agency's decision to downgrade Aerotek's quotation. 
    
Moreover, reading the record in the light most favorable to Aerotek, that
is, assuming that Aerotek's higher priced quotation received the same
number of points as Top Echelon's low priced quotation, these quotations
would be deemed essentially technically equal.  In such circumstances,
price appropriately would become the determining factor in making the
selection decision, notwithstanding that under the terms of the RFQ, price
was assigned less importance than the technical evaluation factors,
including past performance.[8]
    
Based on this record, we conclude that Aerotek has failed to demonstrate
how it was prejudiced by the flaws in the agency's technical evaluation
where Aerotek's price is higher than Top Echelon's price and Aerotek's
quotation is, at best, technically equal to Top Echelon's quotation.[9] 
We further conclude that the agency reasonably determined to issue the BPA
to Top Echelon, which submitted the higher technically rated, low priced
quotation that was determined to represent the best value to the
government.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] The CMOP system is the principal means by which prescriptions are
dispensed to veterans and other authorized persons.
[2] This decision addresses the primary issues presented in Aerotek's
protest.  Aerotek raised a number of collateral issues that we have
considered and find to be without merit; these collateral issues do not
warrant detailed analysis or discussion.  In addition, we note that in its
supplemental comments on the agency's supplemental report, Aerotek
withdrew allegations involving the materially unbalanced nature of Top
Echelon's price and Top Echelon's proposed use of project managers who
were not available.
[3] There were 24 technical evaluation factors/subfactors/requirements,
each of which could receive from 0 to 4 points, for a maximum total of 96
points.  Each point corresponded to one of the following adjectival
ratings:  4--exceptional; 3--highly acceptable; 2--acceptable;
1--marginally acceptable; and 0--unacceptable.
[4] The vendor submitting the lowest priced quotation would receive 57
points and the other vendors would receive a percentage of these points
based on a ratio of the low priced vendor's quotation to the other
vendors' higher priced quotations.
[5] Aerotek and Top Echelon each committed in their respective quotations
to satisfy the RFQ's 100-percent availability rate for onsite managers and
the RFQ's 97-percent availability rate for pharmacy staff.
[6] In its quotation, Top Echelon also reported, in percentage terms, the
availability rates it achieved in each of the last 3 fiscal years.  Top
Echelon's reported rates were higher than those reported by Aerotek. 
Contrary to Aerotek's position, the RFQ did not require a vendor to do
more than report its availability rates.
[7] Aerotek does not challenge the qualifications of Top Echelon's five
proposed onsite management personnel. 
[8] We also point out that even with the stated flaws in the agency's
technical evaluation, Aerotek has not shown that its higher priced
quotation was technically superior to Top Echelon's quotation, thereby
justifying the payment of a price premium.
[9] After supplemental comments on the agency's supplemental report were
filed, counsel for Aerotek requested that GAO advise the parties of the
status of the pending protest.  Accordingly, with the agreement of the
parties, GAO conducted outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution
in which GAO advised Aerotek, as discussed above, that while there were
some flaws in the agency's technical evaluation, our review of the record
showed that Aerotek failed to demonstrate prejudice in terms of being in a
position, as a higher priced vendor, to argue that it reasonably was
entitled to be issued the BPA.