TITLE: B-296493.6, Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., October 6, 2006
BNUMBER: B-296493.6
DATE: October 6, 2006
**************************************************************
B-296493.6, Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., October 6, 2006

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Advanced Technology Systems, Inc.

   File: B-296493.6

   Date: October 6, 2006

   William A. Roberts III, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe Jr., Esq., and Michael
   S. Caldwell, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for the protester.

   Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., John S. Pachter, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq.,
   and Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Pyramid
   Systems Inc., an intervenor.

   R. Rene Dupuy, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
   Thedlus L. Thompson, Esq., General Services Administration, for the
   agencies.

   Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, particiated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. An ordering agency is not required to perform a responsibility
   determination when placing a task or delivery order under a Federal Supply
   Schedule (FSS) contract, since the General Services Administration
   performed a responsibility determination at the time of award of the
   underlying contract.

   2. When ordering services priced at hourly rates from vendors holding FSS
   contracts, and when a statement of work is required, an agency is required
   under Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 8.405-2(d) to consider a
   vendor's proposed level of effort and labor mix in its selection decision.

   3. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposed
   level of effort and labor mix is sustained where the agency failed to
   sufficiently document its determination that the awardee's proposed level
   of effort and labor mix were acceptable.

   DECISION

   Advanced Technology Systems, Inc. (ATS) protests the issuance of a task
   order by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Pyramid
   Systems Inc. (PSI) under that firm's General Services Administration (GSA)
   Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations
   (RFQ) No. R-OPC-23036 for operational support and corrective maintenance
   services in support of the HUD Tenant Rental Assistance Certification
   System (TRACS). ATS argues that HUD's evaluation of PSI's quotation was
   unreasonable. In addition, ATS challenges the agency's affirmative
   determination of PSI's responsibility.

   We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

   BACKGROUND

   TRACS is a computer system developed to help improve HUD's financial
   controls over agency-administered multifamily housing assistance programs
   by automating manual procedures and incorporating automated controls.
   TRACS represents HUD's official source of data on multifamily housing
   subsidy contracts, tenant rental assistance information, and voucher
   payments. TRACS is designed to collect tenant data, certify tenant
   eligibility for financial assistance under various project-based
   assistance programs, authorize payment, and then process requests for
   payment (vouchers) to project owners, management agents, and other
   third-party contract administrators. In fiscal year 2003, TRACS processed
   approximately 221,000 financial transactions worth approximately $4.7
   billion. Agency Report (AR), July 20, 2006, at 3-4.

   The RFQ, issued on June 22, 2006, to ATS and PSI, contemplated the
   issuance of a fixed-price task order for a 2-month base period with two
   1-month option periods.[1] The solicitation included a performance work
   statement (PWS), instructions to vendors regarding the submission of
   quotations, and the evaluation factors for award. The RFQ established two
   evaluation criteria of equal importance: qualifications of key personnel
   and price. With regard to the qualifications of key personnel factor,
   vendors were to submit the names and resumes for the five identified key
   personnel positions, demonstrating relevant knowledge of multifamily
   housing subsidy programs and funds control processes. RFQ attach. 1,
   Proposal Instructions, at 1. The RFQ also stated that vendors' price
   submissions were to include a complete pricing schedule with fixed prices
   for each contract line item number (CLIN), as well as "[s]upporting
   documentation of the breakout of each CLIN that identifies the labor
   categories proposed, the corresponding rates and the total number of hours
   proposed for each labor category." Id. at 3. The task order was to be
   issued to the vendor whose quotation was determined to be the "best value"
   to the government "in accordance with the [stated] evaluation criteria and
   FAR sect. 8.405-2, Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement
   of Work." RFQ at 1.

   ATS and PSI submitted quotations by the June 23 closing date. PSI's total
   price was $264,201.60, while ATS's total price was $529,626.76; both
   vendors' price submissions also included the firms' proposed labor
   categories, hours, and rates by CLIN as required by the solicitation. AR,
   Tab 3, PSI's Quotation, Vol. II, Price Proposal, at 1-7; Tab 4, ATS's
   Quotation, Vol. II, Price Proposal, at 2-2 to 2-9. An agency technical
   evaluation team (TET) evaluated vendors' technical submissions and found
   the ATS and PSI quotations to be technically equal (both vendors had
   proposed key personnel with outstanding credentials and capabilities that
   exceeded agency requirements).[2] Id., Tab 5, TET Report, at 11. The
   contracting officer subsequently accepted the TET's finding that ATS's and
   PSI's key personnel qualifications were technically equivalent and
   determined that, because PSI's price was substantially lower (more than 50
   percent) than that submitted by ATS, PSI's quotation represented the best
   value to the government.[3] AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at 5.
   This protest followed.[4]

   DISCUSSION

   ATS first protests that the agency failed to properly evaluate the
   reasonableness of PSI's price, contending that PSI's proposed price for
   the fixed-price task order here was unreasonably low. Protest, July 3,
   2006, at 2, 8-9. This argument is without merit. First, it is well-settled
   that price reasonableness concerns whether a price is unreasonably high,
   as opposed to unreasonably low. Cherry Road Techs.; Elec. Data Sys. Corp.,
   B-296915 et al., Oct. 24, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 197 at 18; Portfolio
   Disposition Mgmt. Group, LLC, B-293105.7, Nov. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD para.
   232 at 3. Second, ATS's allegation that PSI submitted an unreasonably low
   price provides no basis for protest because there is no prohibition
   against an agency accepting a below-cost quotation for a fixed-price task
   order.[5] See First Enter., B-292967, Jan. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 11 at
   5.

   ATS also protests that the agency failed to make a proper determination of
   responsibility for PSI. Specifically, the protester alleges that the
   contracting officer failed to consider available relevant information
   bearing upon PSI's responsibility. ATS maintains that a review of PSI's
   Dun and Bradstreet report indicates that "there is ample cause for grave
   concern regarding PSI's ability to finance a buy-in of this magnitude."
   Protest, July 3, 2006, at 11. ATS argues that the contracting officer was
   required to seek additional information showing that PSI had the requisite
   financial resources to perform the required work, or the ability to obtain
   them, in order to determine whether PSI should be found responsible.

   HUD contends that although the contracting officer did in fact determine
   that PSI was a responsible contractor here, the agency was not required to
   make a responsibility determination because it was simply placing an order
   under PSI's FSS contract in connection with which GSA had already made a
   responsibility determination. Agency Dismissal Request, July 12, 2006, at
   3.

   The protester responds that GSA's responsibility determination, made at
   the time of the award of the FSS contract, is only as valid as the facts
   before GSA at the time, and that changes to the indicia of responsibility
   may exist at the time orders are actually placed. In support of its
   argument, ATS contends that the large discounts being offered by PSI for
   the task order here required the ordering agency to question whether GSA's
   initial responsibility determination was still valid. In such situations,
   the protester argues, the contracting officer cannot ignore such evidence
   and simply rely on GSA's previous determination. Protester's Response to
   Agency Dismissal Request, July 12, 2006, at 8.

   Because GSA administers the FSS program, we solicited GSA's views on the
   responsibility determination issue. In its filing, GSA notes that the
   purpose of the FSS program, as set forth in FAR Part 38, is to provide
   federal agencies with a simplified process of acquiring commercial
   supplies and services. In furtherance of this goal, GSA states, it is
   responsible for awarding indefinite-delivery contracts in accordance with
   all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including compliance
   with the requirements relating to contractor responsibility (see
   FAR sect. 38.101(d), (e)).[6] GSA concludes that, because it is tasked
   with making determinations of responsibility pertaining to the award of
   FSS contracts, ordering agencies, while not precluded from doing so, are
   not required to make a responsibility determination prior to placing an
   FSS order. Letter from GSA to GAO, July 26, 2006, at 1-3. We agree.

   Responsibility is a contract formation term that refers to the ability of
   a prospective contractor to perform the contract for which it has
   submitted an offer; by law, a contracting officer must determine that an
   offeror is responsible before awarding it a contract. See 41 U.S.C. sect.
   253b(c), (d); FAR sect. 9.103(a), (b). The concept of responsibility
   expressly applies to "prospective contractors"--not "current" or
   "existing" contractors--a limitation that is repeated throughout the
   applicable statutes and regulations, and that indicates that the
   requirement for a responsibility determination applies before award of a
   contract. See, e.g., 41 U.S.C. sect. 403 ("As used in this Act . . . the
   term `responsible source' means a prospective contractor . . . ."); FAR
   sect. 9.100 ("This subpart prescribes polices, standards, and procedures
   for determining whether prospective contractors . . . are responsible");
   FAR sect. 9.102(a) ("This subpart applies to all proposed contracts with
   any prospective contractor . . . ."); and FAR sect. 9.103(c) ("A
   prospective contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility .
   . . .").

   Consistent with this statutory and regulatory framework, once an offeror
   is determined to be responsible and is awarded a contract, there is no
   requirement that an agency make additional responsibility determinations
   during contract performance. E. Huttenbauer & Son, Inc., B-258018.3, Mar.
   20, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 148 at 2 (holding that a contracting officer was
   not required to make a new responsibility determination before deciding
   whether to exercise an option because the concept of responsibility has no
   applicability with respect to a contract once that contract has been
   awarded). Contrary to the protester's position, the extent of the
   requirement for a determination of responsibility is not tied to the type
   of contracting vehicle that the government elects to use for an
   acquisition; thus, there is no basis to conclude that the requirement for
   a responsibility determination is broader for orders placed under FSS
   contracts. In this regard, we note that FAR sect. 8.405 and sect. 8.406
   set forth the ordering procedures and ordering activity's
   responsibilities, respectively, with regard to FSS contracts; there is no
   requirement in these provisions to make a responsibility determination.[7]
   In sum, we conclude that the initial responsibility determination made by
   GSA in connection with the award of the underlying FSS contract satisfies
   the requirement for a responsibility determination regarding that vendor
   and that there is no requirement that an ordering agency perform separate
   responsibility determinations when placing orders under that contract. In
   view of our conclusion, ATS's challenge to HUD's consideration of PSI's
   responsibility here does not give rise to a valid basis of protest since
   HUD was not required to perform a responsibility determination.[8]

   Lastly, ATS alleges that the agency failed to properly determine whether
   PSI proposed a sufficient level of effort and an appropriate staffing mix
   to adequately perform the PWS tasks, as required by FAR sect. 8.405-2(d).
   Protest, July 3, 2006, at 2, 9. In support of its position, ATS points to
   the fact that PSI's proposed labor hours here, on a monthly basis, were
   less than half of what PSI itself had proposed in response to the earlier
   solicitation for the same TRACS work requirements, and that PSI's staffing
   mix also indicated greater use of labor categories with less stringent
   minimum qualifications. Protester's Comments, Aug. 21, 2006, at 6.

   FAR sect. 8.405-2, which the RFQ specifically applied to the selection
   decision here, sets forth the general procedures that agencies are to use
   when ordering services priced at hourly rates from vendors holding FSS
   contracts when a statement of work is required. Relevant to the protest
   here, when an agency issues an RFQ to vendors holding FSS contracts for
   the delivery of services at hourly rates, and, as here, a statement of
   work is required, the ordering agency must evaluate the quotations
   received consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. FAR sect.
   8.405-2(d). Additionally, as part of its evaluation, "[t]he ordering
   activity is responsible for considering the level of effort and the mix of
   labor proposed to perform a specific task being ordered, and for
   determining that the total price is reasonable."[9] Id.

   As set forth above, the RFQ here instructed vendors, as part of their
   price submissions, to identify the proposed labor categories,
   corresponding labor rates, and the total number of hours proposed by labor
   category for each CLIN. RFQ attach. 1, at 3. The solicitation also
   informed vendors that the agency's determination would be based on overall
   best value to the government in accordance with the stated evaluation
   criteria (i.e., qualifications of key personnel and price) and FAR sect.
   8.405-2. RFQ at 1.

   Both ATS's and PSI's price submissions included proposed labor categories,
   corresponding labor rates, and hours by labor category for each CLIN, as
   required by the solicitation. PSI's quotation proposed 2,000 hours for the
   base period and 3,840 hours total. AR, Tab 3, PSI's Quotation, Vol. II, at
   2-7. By contrast, ATS's quotation proposed 2,400 hours for the base period
   and 6,576 hours total (a 41 percent difference between vendors' total
   hours).[10] AR, Tab 4, ATS's Quotation, Vol. II, Price Proposal, at 2-6 to
   2-9.

   The contracting officer reviewed the vendors' price submissions as part of
   the agency's best value determination and recognized that PSI's price was
   substantially less than that of ATS for both the base period and the total
   performance period. AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at 5. The
   contracting officer also concluded that, with regard to the PSI and ATS
   quotations, "[e]ach response had acceptable proposed level of efforts,
   mixture of labor categories & hours from their GSA Schedules, to meet the
   requirement." Id. Subsequent to the filing of ATS's protest here, the
   agency also submitted a statement from the contracting officer which
   provided as follows:

      As a part of my consideration of the offeror's [sic] quotes, I considered
      the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed by both offerors to
      perform the stated requirement. In addition to confirming the accuracy of
      the quotes, I determined the proposed level of effort and mix of labor of
      both offerors to be acceptable.

                                   * * * * *

      As the Contracting Officer, I had discussions with relevant HUD program
      and technical personnel regarding the level of effort and the mix of labor
      proposed. HUD's technical personnel apprised me that each vendor proposed
      appropriate technical labor categories to meet the requirement and a
      sufficient number of personnel and hours to demonstrate an adequate
      understanding of the technical requirement. PSI's proposed mix of full and
      part-time personnel was deemed acceptable.

   Contracting Officer's Statement, Aug. 8, 2006, at 2.

   HUD does not dispute that, in accordance with FAR sect. 8.405-2(d), it was
   required to consider each vendor's proposed level of effort and labor mix,
   even if these factors were not specifically set out in the evaluation
   scheme.[11] Rather, the agency contends that it did reasonably consider
   (and contemporaneously document) that PSI's proposed level of effort and
   labor mix were acceptable as part of its determination that PSI's
   quotation represented the best value to government. The agency points to
   both the source selection decision and contracting officer's statement in
   support of this conclusion. AR, Aug. 9, 2006, at 6-9.

   ATS argues that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate vendors'
   quotations in these areas, as the record is totally devoid of any support
   for the agency's conclusion that PSI's proposed level of effort and labor
   mix were acceptable. The protester also contends that given the other
   information readily available to the agency on this matter, HUD could not
   in fact reasonably conclude that PSI's proposed level of effort and labor
   mix were acceptable. Protester's Comments, Aug. 19, 2006, at 4-6.

   Given the clear language of FAR sect. 8.405-2(d)--"the [o]rdering activity
   is responsible for considering the level of effort and the mix of labor
   proposed to perform a specific task being ordered"--we conclude that HUD
   was required to consider each vendor's proposed level of effort and labor
   mix as part of its evaluation of quotations here. As explained below,
   however, while the record indicates that the agency did consider PSI's
   proposed level of effort and labor mix as part of its best value
   determination, the record also indicates a complete lack of support for
   the agency's conclusion that PSI's proposed level of effort and labor mix
   were sufficient to perform the specific tasks being ordered under this
   bridge contract.

   In order for us to review an agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations,
   an agency must have adequate documentation to support its judgment. See
   Northeast MEP Servs., Inc., B-285963.5 et al., Jan. 5, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 28 at 7. Where an agency fails to sufficiently document its
   evaluation findings, it bears the risk that there may not be adequate
   supporting rationale in the record for us to conclude that the agency had
   a reasonable basis for the source selection decision. Southwest Marine,
   Inc.; American Sys. Eng'g Corp., B-265865.3, B-265865.4, Jan. 23, 1996,
   96-1 CPD para. 56 at 10.

   The record here does not provide any basis to support the agency's
   determination that PSI's proposed level of effort and labor mix were
   sufficient to perform the PWS requirements. The agency's source selection
   decision provides no support for the contracting officer's
   determination--it is simply a conclusion without explanation.[12]
   Similarly, in the statement submitted after the filing of ATS's protest
   here, the contracting officer merely reiterates his conclusion that PSI's
   proposed level of effort and mix of labor were determined acceptable,
   again without providing an explanation of how this determination was made.
   The only additional information provided in the contracting officer's
   statement is that he spoke with other HUD personnel who also concluded,
   again without explanation, that PSI had proposed an acceptable level of
   effort and labor mix.

   FAR sect. 8.405-2(d) does not elaborate on the method or extent of
   consideration an agency is responsible for giving to a vendor's proposed
   level of effort and labor mix in the circumstances here. In our view,
   agencies are not required to conduct a formal evaluation of the kind
   typically performed in a negotiated procurement under FAR Part 15.
   However, here, in light of the significant differences both between PSI's
   and ATS's proposed levels of effort, and between PSI's own prior and
   current proposed levels of effort and labor mixes for the identical TRACS
   requirements, the conclusory statements in the record simply are not
   adequate to demonstrate that HUD reasonably considered whether PSI's level
   of effort and labor mix were sufficient to perform the specific tasks, as
   required by FAR sect. 8.405-2(d). We, therefore, sustain the protest on
   this basis.

   RECOMMENDATION

   In situations where, as here, an agency fails to sufficiently document its
   evaluation findings, such that there is not an adequate supporting
   rationale in the record on which we can conclude that the agency had a
   reasonable basis for its source selection decision, our Office ordinarily
   recommends that the agency reevaluate vendors' quotations and make a new
   source selection decision. See, e.g., Coastal Mar. Stevedoring, LLC,
   B-296627, Sept. 22, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 186 at 10. However, as mentioned
   above, the task order issued to PSI here as a bridge contract was
   terminated by HUD after our denial of ATS's June 19 protest permitted the
   agency to lift the stay of performance for the BPA that had been
   previously established with PSI. Given that there is no other relief
   available (HUD also does not now plan to issue another solicitation for
   the TRACS operational support and corrective maintenance services
   requirement), we recommend that the protester be reimbursed its quotation
   preparation costs. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(2). We also recommend that the
   agency reimburse the protester the costs of filing and pursuing the issue
   on which we sustain the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 4
   C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1). The protester should submit its certified claim
   for costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the
   contracting agency within 60 days after the receipt of this decision.
   4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).

   The protest is sustained in part and denied in part.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] On June 19, 2006, ATS filed a separate protest with our Office
   challenging HUD's decision to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA)
   with PSI for up to 5 years for TRACS operational support and corrective
   maintenance services (B-296493.5). HUD then stayed performance under the
   BPA and conducted a limited competition here pursuant to Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 8.405-6. The 4-month period of
   performance contemplated under the RFQ here was intended as a "bridge
   contract" to acquire the TRACS services during the pendency of ATS's
   June 19 protest. AR, Aug. 9, 2006, at 4.

   [2] The TET limited its evaluation to vendors' key personnel
   qualifications, and did not evaluate vendors' price submissions. See AR,
   Tab 5, TET Report, at 1-11.

   [3] The contracting officer also determined that PSI's history of
   observable performance on current contracts with HUD was good, and
   concluded that PSI was a responsible contractor in accordance with the
   standards set forth in FAR sect. 9.104. AR, Tab 6, Source Selection
   Decision, at 6.

   [4] HUD subsequently determined that, in accordance with FAR sect.
   33.104(c)(2), it was in the best interests of the United States to
   authorize PSI's performance of the bridge contract, notwithstanding ATS's
   protest here. Letter from HUD to GAO, July 11, 2006, at 2-4. On September
   26, 2006, we denied ATS's June 19 protest of the long-term BPA that HUD
   established with PSI. Advanced Tech. Sys., Inc., B-296493.5, Sept. 26,
   2006, 2006 CPD para. __. The agency then lifted the stay of performance
   under PSI's BPA, and simultaneously terminated for convenience the task
   order issued here to PSI. Letter from HUD to GAO, Oct. 4, 2006.

   [5] While an agency may elect to perform a realism analysis in connection
   with the issuance of a fixed-price task order, in order to assess a
   vendor's risk or to measure a vendor's understanding of the solicitation's
   requirements, it need not do so unless required by the solicitation, AST
   Envtl., Inc., B-291567, Dec. 31, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 225 at 2, which is
   not the case here.

   [6] GSA also states that, in addition to making an initial responsibility
   determination, it reviews the responsibility of FSS contractors at each
   option period. Further, GSA monitors contractor performance on key aspects
   of contract compliance throughout the life of the contract. GSA states
   that, in instances where an ordering agency has information that may
   indicate a reason to question the responsibility of an FSS contract, the
   ordering activity should bring it to the attention of the GSA contracting
   officer. Letter from GSA to GAO, July 26, 2006, at 2.

   [7] Similarly, FAR sect. 16.505 sets forth the ordering procedures with
   regard to indefinite-delivery contracts generally; again, there is no
   requirement to make a responsibility determination.

   [8] The agency and intervenor also argue that ATS's challenge to HUD's
   responsibility determination regarding PSI should be dismissed because it
   does not satisfy our threshold requirement that the specific evidence
   identified raise serious concerns that the contracting officer may have
   failed to consider available relevant information in reaching the
   responsibility determination. As we conclude above, the agency was not
   required to perform a responsibility determination. Nevertheless, none of
   the information to which ATS refers (PSI's cash on hand and declining net
   worth as reflected in the firm's Dun & Bradstreet report) rises to the
   threshold level of specific evidence that, by its nature, would be
   expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found
   responsible as contemplated by our Bid Protest Regulations. See 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.5(c) (2006); Transcontinental Enters., Inc., B-294765, Nov. 30,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 240 at 3; Universal Marine & Indus. Servs., Inc.,
   B-292964, Dec. 23, 2003, 2004 CPD para. 7 at 2.

   [9] While GSA has already determined that the rates for services offered
   at hourly rates under FSS contracts are fair and reasonable (and, thus,
   ordering activities are generally not required to make a separate
   determination of fair and reasonable pricing), in situations where a
   statement of work is required, the ordering agency must perform a price
   evaluation and determine that the vendor's total price is reasonable. FAR
   sections 8.404, 8.405-2(d). We note that the regulatory requirement here
   that agencies consider the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed
   to perform specific tasks came after consideration of GAO audit report
   findings that reliance on labor rates alone did not provide agencies with
   a meaningful basis for assessing which vendor was providing the best and
   most cost-effective services. See 68 Fed. Reg. 19,294, 19,296 (Apr. 18,
   2003); GAO Audit Report, Contract Management: Not Following Procedures
   Undermines Best Pricing Under GSA's Schedule (GAO-01-125, Nov. 2000).

   [10] As ATS notes, in response to the earlier solicitation PSI had
   proposed a total of 1,717 hours per month--in comparison to a total of 736
   hours per month here--for the same TRACS operations support CLIN (a
   58 percent difference). AR, Tab 3, PSI's Quotation, Vol. II, Price
   Proposal, at 2-3; Tab 10 (B-296493.5), PSI's Quotation, Vol. II, Price
   Proposal, at 4. Additionally, 150 of the 736 (20 percent) of the monthly
   labor hours that PSI proposed here for TRACS operations support were for a
   "Network Administrator," a labor category that PSI's GSA schedule contract
   described as having "[t]wo (2) years experience in communications,
   including installation and administration of local and wide area networks
   using communications protocols." AR, Tab 3, PSI's Quotation, Vol. II,
   Price Proposal, at 2-3; Tab 10 (B-296493.5), PSI's Quotation, Vol. II,
   Price Proposal, Attach. A, GSA Schedule Contract, at 27. By contrast, in
   response to the earlier solicitation, PSI did not utilize the Network
   Administrator labor category, but instead proposed other labor categories
   with higher minimum qualifications. AR, Tab 10 (B-296493.5), PSI's
   Quotation, Vol. II, Price Proposal, at 4.

   [11] The agency states that, "[a]lthough this is a firm fixed-price
   contract, FAR 8.405-2(d) directs that HUD is responsible for considering
   the level of effort and labor mix proposed by each vendor. Presumably this
   FAR provision was intended as an aid in determining whether the proposed
   resource mix raises technical capability or other performance issues." AR,
   Aug. 9, 2006, at 8-9.

   [12] As noted above, the contracting officer's decision simply stated that
   each vendor's "response had acceptable proposed level of efforts, mixture
   of labor categories & hours from their GSA Schedules, to meet the
   requirement." AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at 5.