TITLE:  Alion Science & Technology Corporation, B-294159; B-294159.2, September 10, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294159; B-294159.2
DATE:  September 10, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Alion Science & Technology Corporation

   File:            B-294159; B-294159.2

   Date:              September 10, 2004

   L. James D*Agostino, Esq., Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., David T. Hickey,
Esq., and Natalia W. Geren, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, for the protester.

   Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., and Derek A. Yeo, Esq.,
Wiley Rein & Fielding, for Anteon Corporation, an intervenor.

   Lee W. Crook, III, Esq., and Erica V. Stigall, Esq., General Services
Administration, for the agency.

   Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest is sustained where solicitation indicated that agency desired
quotations not only for eight enumerated positions, but also for
unspecified additional support and where vendors provided technical and
price quotations for widely varying levels of additional support;
contracting officer had apparently intended additional support to be
addressed in technical, not price, section of quotations.  Record
indicates that solicitation may not accurately reflect agency*s needs and
its lack of clarity resulted in uncertainty about the total cost of each
vendor*s approach.

   DECISION

   Alion Science & Technology Corporation protests the issuance of a task
order to Anteon Corporation by the General Services Administration (GSA)
under request for quotations (RFQ) No. PPM5740005T6 for the United States
Army stability and support operations training program at Fort Sam
Houston, Texas. Alion argues that the contracting officer*s evaluation of
vendors* quotations was inconsistent with the terms of the RFQ, and that
Alion*s quotation represented the best value.  Alternatively, Alion argues
that the RFQ did not accurately state the Army*s staffing needs.

   We sustain the protest.

   The RFQ sought quotations from ten named vendors[2] holding GSA Federal
Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts on the Management, Organizational and
Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) schedule, also known as *Schedule
874.*  RFQ amend. 2.  GSA anticipated issuing a single time-and-materials
task order to the successful vendor for a 1-year base period and three
1-year option periods, for a total of 4 years. 

    

   The requirements for each of the eight Balkans Support Team personnel were
set forth in eight separate subsections of the RFQ SS 6.1.1 through 6.1.8,
respectively.  Immediately after the description of the eight Balkans
Support Team personnel, the RFQ described *additional personnel* as
follows:

   6.1.9  Additional personnel:  In addition to the eight in-house full time
contracted employees, the contractor will provide personnel necessary to
support each unit*s training events at the exercise location (to be
determined).  One of these will be the Joint Military Affairs SME [subject
matter expert] brought on-board by the contractor for specific events
only.  The Government will typically provide 30 days notice of increase or
decrease in personnel numbers and qualifications; however, some staff
modifications, in response to rapidly evolving requirements, may
necessitate resolution of short-term and permanent staffing issues in as
little as 48 to 96 hours.

   6.1.10   The contractor shall provide a project manager who shall be
accessible to the Government during normal working hours and [on] an
extended work schedule basis during training execution. . . . 

   6.1.10.1   In addition to the in-house contractors and if so required, the
contractor shall be responsible for overall management and coordination of
matters pertaining to contract requirements.  Conduct individual analysis
and participate in or lead group projects on specific issues associated
with SFOR/KFOR [Stabilization Force/Kosovo] and other SOSO [stability and
support operations] mission training plan development, training oversight,
certification, and deployments; or other taskings.  Conduct an advanced
distributed learning technology assessment of sites.  Provide back up and
support to other staff activities in support of SFOR/KFOR or other SOSO
missions. 

   RFQ SS 6.1.9 to 6.1.10.1.  In other sections, the RFQ also referred to
additional personnel (of which a few examples are quoted here):

   .A A A A A A A  The contractor shall provide JMA [Joint Military Affairs]
SME to accompany selected members of the MNB [multinational brigade] JMA
on one or more reconnaissance trips.  RFQ S 8.8.2. 

   .A A A A A A A  The contractor shall provide the JMA SMEs to train the MNB
JMA during selected IDTs [inactive duty for training] on the functional
areas listed below.  RFQ SA 8.8.3.3. 

   .A A A A A A A  Provide 24x7 on site automation help-desk support during
exercises.  RFQ SA 8.11.5. 

   .A A A A A A A  Provide training support to SFOR and KFOR units in the
basic operation and utilization of MS Windows and MS Office programs.  RFQ
SA 8.11.13. 

   The RFQ stated that the order would be issued to the vendor whose
quotation was deemed *most advantageous to the Government, price and other
factors considered.*  RFQ S 15.0.  The RFQ stated that non-price
factors--technical approach, key personnel, and past experience--were more
important than price.  Id.  The RFQ notified vendors that prices deemed to
be excessively high or low may be considered unrealistic and unreasonable,
and may receive no further consideration.  RFQ S 15.5.  Vendors also were
advised that their prices would be evaluated to determine price realism
and price reasonableness, and that vendors should provide *a spreadsheet
listing all labor categories, hourly rates, and extended labor costs.* 
Id.

   Four vendors, including Alion and Anteon, submitted quotations.  The Army,
as the requiring activity, conducted a technical evaluation of the
quotations, which was furnished to the GSA contracting officer.  For the
non-price factors, Alion*s quotation received the highest technical rating
(with all non-price factors combined, [deleted] out of a possible 9
points).  Anteon*s quotation received the second highest combined
technical rating ([deleted] out of a possible 9 points).[3]  AR, Tab 7,
Scoring Sheet, at 1. 

   Each of the four vendors quoted prices for more than eight full-time
equivalents (FTE).  Specifically, the vendors* prices specified staffing
from [deleted] FTEs [4] for Anteon,[5] to [deleted] FTEs for Alion.[6] 
The other two vendors priced [deleted] FTEs and [deleted] FTEs.  AR, Tab
8, Best Value Determination, atA 4.  During her review of the quotations,
the contracting officer sent an e-mail to the Army, stating that *[t]he
hours and costs are all over the place.  There is obviously a
misunderstanding of the requirements.  I need to go back out to get all of
the contractors on track.*  AR, TabA 7, E-mail from GSA Contracting
Officer to Army (May 17, 2004, 2:26 p.m.).  Later in that e-mail, the
contracting officer inquired whether specific positions could be listed
for SA 6.1.9 of the RFQ, *additional support,* along with estimated hours
for evaluation purposes, and noted that *[t]here seems to be [a lot] of
confusion on this section [RFQ SA 6.1.9].* 

   At the videoconference hearing conducted by this Office, the contracting
officer described her intentions in including the additional personnel
provisions as follows:

   Let me go back.  On the additional--When we*re talking additional
personnel, the reason I set it up, again, because there were unknown
requirements and they wanted the flexibility to call up a person whenever
they needed it.

   What was unknown, again, were the hours and the labor rate and the type of
labor.  I didn*t--What I didn*t expect--or I didn*t ask for specifically
was pricing.  What I did expect them to do was to address it in their
technical proposal, but if they did price it, I didn*t expect anything
significant.

   Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 10-11.[7]  She also explained that

   What they [the Army] didn*t want to do is have to write a new requirement
every time a new position came up.  So they did want some flexibility
built into the solicitation to be able to call somebody up when they
required it.  So, yes, it had to be there, and that was the whole idea[:]
you had a T&M [time and materials] contract because of that uncertainty.

   Tr. at 37. 

   On May 19, 2004, the contracting officer proceeded to select a vendor
based on the quotations.  She prepared a 4-page *Best Value Award
Determination* which included a 1-page price summary, listing point
scores, hour totals, and prices for labor, travel, and other direct
costs.  The selection rationale stated that Alion*s quotation had the
highest technical score, but its price was *excessively high.*  The
contracting officer explained that Alion*s use of [deleted] and that
*[b]ased on [its] price, [Alion] [was] no longer considered for award.* 
AR, Tab 8, Best Value Determination, at 3.  The contracting officer then
selected Anteon*s quotation as providing the best value because of its
higher technical score and lower price (as compared to the other two
remaining vendors).  Id. 

   At the hearing conducted by our Office, the contracting officer explained
her method to resolve the previously identified confusion among vendors,
stating that *I deleted the additional personnel out of the proposals and
then I re-looked at them and then start--I re-evaluated it basically or
re-reviewed it based on those prices.*  Tr. at 19.[8]  After her review of
the quotations, the contracting officer issued the task order to Anteon. 

   In its initial protest, Alion argued that *GSA ha[d] not properly and
correctly evaluated the [vendors*] proposed prices on an
*apples-to-apples* basis,* or had accepted an unrealistically low price
from Anteon.  Initial Protest at 3.  Alion also argued that Anteon*s
technical proposal should have been rated marginal, at best, and therefore
should not have received the order under the selection criteria, which
specified that *[t]echnical approach, [k]ey personnel, and past experience
are more important than price.*  Id. at 7.

   In response to the initial protest, the contracting officer identified
three reasons why she decided to issue the order to Anteon on the basis of
the quotations submitted, rather than amending the RFQ and reopening the
competition.  The contracting officer stated as follows:

   First, Alion was the only [vendor] that proposed in a manner that was
difficult to evaluate and based on support that was not required in the
SOW.  Second, the SOW accurately described the government*s needs.  Third,
there were technically acceptable and reasonably priced [quotations] on
hand, which represented an excellent value to the Government.  Anteon*s
proposal met their [the Army*s] needs.

   Initial Contracting Officer*s Statement at 3. 

   After receiving the agency report, Alion filed a supplemental protest
arguing that *GSA should have realized that the SOW was materially flawed
and misleading* because it was clear from GSA*s review of the quotations
that multiple vendors *believed and understood that the [task order] would
require a greater level of effort than the eight core positions
indicated.*  Supplemental Protest at 3.  In response to the supplemental
protest, the contracting officer explained that *[a]fter consulting with
[the Army], I determined that no further information could be provided to
[vendors] in discussions than [what was] stated in the SOW.*  Supplemental
Contracting Officer*s Statement at 4.[9] 

   Notwithstanding the contracting officer*s reasons for not amending the
RFQ, we think it is clear from the record that the RFQ did not clearly
convey the Army*s staffing requirements.  Although the contracting officer
stated, as quoted above, that she expected to receive technical and price
quotations for eight positions only, with the additional personnel being
addressed only in the technical portion of each quotation, we believe the
RFQ did not make this distinction. [10]  As described above, the RFQ
solicited staff over and above the *eight core positions* and, as
evidenced by the quotations of all four vendors, all of them understood
that the RFQ required additional support.  In this regard, the
vendors--albeit to varying degrees--quoted prices for these additional
personnel, since there was nothing in the RFQ that even suggested that the
vendors were not supposed to price the additional support.  In fact, the
RFQ stated that vendors should provide a spreadsheet listing all labor
categories, hourly rates, and extended labor costs.  RFQ S 15.5.  If, as
the contracting officer now argues, the RFQ was intended to seek prices
for only the eight core positions, then the RFQ did not reasonably convey
this intent.  Where an agency invites firms to submit quotations, it has
an obligation to describe its needs accurately, so that all vendors may
compete on a common basis.  Nautica Int*l, Inc., B-254428, Dec. 15, 1993,
93-2 CPD P 321 at 5. 

   GSA*s failure to accurately reflect in the RFQ the Army*s perceived need
for only eight positions, in our view, created confusion among the
competitors and uncertainty about the total cost of each vendor*s
approach.  This lack of clarity in the RFQ led to a flawed evaluation. 
Since each vendor addressed the additional support differently, the
contracting officer had no way to meaningfully compare the total cost of
each vendor*s quotation to the other quotations.  Thus, the contracting
officer eliminated from consideration Alion*s quotation based on its
*excessively high* price, which included the *additional support* that was
required under the terms of the RFQ.  The contracting officer*s decision
was improper, absent a determination by the contracting officer that
Alion*s total price was unreasonable in light of its technical approach. 

   In short, here, the contracting officer never meaningfully evaluated the
total prices quoted by Alion and the other vendors in the context of their
proposed technical approaches to meet all of the RFQ requirements, but,
rather, based the evaluation on the eight core positions only.  We
conclude that the contracting officer*s actions were unreasonable.  See
Symplicity Corp., B-291902, Apr. 29, 2003, 2003 CPD PA 89 at 7 (agency
must meaningfully assess total cost to government when evaluating
quotations). 

   Moreover, the RFQ called for the selection of a vendor on a *best value*
basis and provided that the non-price factors were more important than
price.  While Alion submitted the highest priced quotation, even for the
eight core positions, the agency rated its quotation higher than Anteon*s
quotation under each of the more important non-price factors.  The
contacting officer did not conduct any trade-off involving Alion because
she, as discussed above, unreasonably found that Alion*s quotation was
*excessively high* priced.  AR, Tab 8, Best Value Award Determination, at
3.  In our view, the record presents a reasonable possibility that Alion
was prejudiced by the agency*s actions because its quotation was superior
on the more important non-price factors and could have been selected in
the context of a cost/technical trade-off.  We, therefore, believe that
Alion, which submitted the highest technically rated quotation, would have
had a substantial chance of receiving the task order.  McDonald Bradley,
Ba**270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD P 54 atA 3; see Statistica, Inc., v.
Christopher, 102A F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

   In fashioning the appropriate remedy in this case, we have some concern on
this record whether GSA has obtained a reasonable description of what the
Army*s staffing needs are for this requirement.  As we understand the
Army*s position, it may need additional staff, beyond the eight positions
listed in RFQ SSA 6.1.1 through 6.1.8, *depending on the expertise of the
full time contractors on board and the experience of our military staff on
board,* in order to perform the functions described in RFQ SA 8, and to
the extent that *the mission is already changing.*  AR, Tab 7, E-mail from
Army Contact to GSA Contracting Officer (May 18, 2004, 11:11 a.m.). 

   Accordingly, we recommend that GSA first obtain from the Army, the
requiring activity, an accurate statement of the Army*s staffing needs and
that GSA amend the RFQ to reflect those staffing needs.  For example, if
the Army advises that it only requires eight staff, the RFQ should be
amended to delete any requirement for additional support.  In addition, we
recommend that GSA amend the RFQ so that it receives pricing information
adequate to ensure that the agency accurately understands the costs
associated with each vendor*s technical approach and so that the total
cost of each vendor*s approach can be meaningfully assessed and compared
to the other vendors* approaches.[11]  We further recommend that GSA
request revised quotations and conduct discussions, if necessary, with
vendors based on the amended requirements.  In the event that its
evaluation of revised quotations results in the determination that a
quotation other than Anteon*s represents the best value, the agency should
terminate Anteon*s order.  We also recommend that GSA reimburse Alion for
its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including
attorneys* fees.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. SA 21.8(d)(1) (2004). 
Alion*s certified claim for costs, detailing the time expended and the
costs incurred, must be submitted to the agency within 60 days of
receiving this decision.  4 C.F.R. SA 21.8(f)(1).

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

   [1] GSA conducted this acquisition on behalf of the Army. 

   [2] According to the post-award debriefing provided to the protester, *GSA
solicited 11A vendors.*  Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, E-mail Debriefing
from Contracting Officer to Protester (May 28, 2004). 

   [3] Anteon*s rating for the non-price factor of key personnel was
[deleted] than the ratings of the other three vendors for this factor. 

   [4] Consistent with the contracting officer*s *Summary Comparison of
Contractor[s*] Proposals,* which was attached to her Best Value
Determination (as well as the practice of several of the vendors), we have
calculated 1 FTE as equivalent to 1,920 hours.  AR, Tab 7, Ea**mail from
Army Contact to GSA Contracting Officer (May 18, 2004, 11:11A a.m.). 

   [5] Our Office totaled the hours listed in Anteon*s quotation for the base
year, including the *additional support option,* as the contracting
officer said she had done, for a total of [deleted] hours (or [deleted]
FTEs).  AR, Tab 4B, Anteon Quotation, at 6, 18; Tr at 55-57.  The
contracting officer*s *Summary Comparison of Contractor[s*] Proposals*
specified that Anteon had proposed only [deleted] hours in the base year. 
That total results if [deleted] hours from Anteon*s *additional support
option* had been omitted.  We note that Anteon [deleted], and the
contracting officer*s lower total could have resulted by omitting the
larger portion of those hours. 

   [6] Our Office totaled the hours listed in Alion*s quotation for the base
year, including all *additional support* hours, for a total of [deleted]
hours (or [deleted] FTEs).  AR, Tab 3B, Alion Quotation,  at 2-9.  The
contracting officer*s figure, which is lower than our calculation, would
result if the hours for the final two labor categories ([deleted] hours
and [deleted] hours) had been omitted. 

   [7] Although it appeared that agency counsel sought to elicit a statement
from the contracting officer during the hearing that the RFQ sought *eight
types of functions* that could have been staffed with more than eight
FTEs, Tr. at 62, the agency now appears to concede that *[t]he SOW
[statement of work] detailed the . . . Army*s present need for the eight
core positions.*  Agency*s Post-Hearing Comments at 6 (citing RFQ SS 6.1.1
through 6.1.8).

   [8] That effort was not documented in the contemporaneous record produced
in this protest. 

   [9] The record includes an e-mail from the Army explaining that
*[b]asically our justification is . . . the highest technically rank[ed]
was so out of line in price that we cho[se] the second technically
ranked.  I*m sure this contract will be amended as time go[es] on . . . .
the mission is already changing.*  AR, Tab 7, E-mail from Army Contact to
Contracting Officer (May 18, 2004, 11:11 a.m.) (ellipses in original). 
Later in the same e-mail, the Army contact explained that *[i]f we knew
the SME requirements we would have specified.  May not need any at all
depending on the expertise of the full time contractors on board and the
experience of our military staff on board.*

   [10] By noting this, we do not endorse the structure of the RFQ that the
contracting officer evidently intended here, which would have requested
quotations providing a technical approach for meeting additional personnel
requirements, but failed to include a means to evaluate the associated
cost of competing vendors* proposed approaches.  We address this point in
our recommendation below. 

   [11] The RFQ provided that *price proposals will be evaluated to determine
price realism and reasonableness.*  RFQ SA 15.5.  The record reflects
confusion over what GSA may have intended in its reference to price
reasonableness and price realism.  The contracting officer explained,
*It*s the same question.  Same reasonable, realism.*  Tr. at 47.  An
agency may, at its discretion, provide for the use of a price realism
analysis in a solicitation for the award of a fixed-rate or fixed-price
contract for various reasons, such as to assess the risk in an offeror*s
approach.  PharmChem, Inc., B-291725.3 et al., JulyA 22, 2003, 2003 CPD
PA 148 at 7.  The contracting officer is responsible for evaluating the
reasonableness of offered prices.  See, e.g., FAR SA 15.404-1(a)(1);
Symplicity Corp., supra., at 7.  The agency should consider whether a
price realism analysis is intended here. 

   [12] Although Alion*s protests raise several additional grounds, we find
it unnecessary to address these in light of our recommendation for
corrective action.