TITLE: B-297136.10; B-297136.11, TPL, Inc., June 29, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297136.10; B-297136.11
DATE: June 29, 2006
**************************************************
B-297136.10; B-297136.11, TPL, Inc., June 29, 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: TPL, Inc.

   File: B-297136.10; B-297136.11

   Date: June 29, 2006

   David P. Metzger, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., and Michele Mintz Brown,
   Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester.

   William R. Stoughton, Esq., Kristen G. Schulz, Esq., David A. Churchill,
   Esq., and Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for General Dynamics
   Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc., an intervenor.

   Robert R. Fleck, Esq., Tara C. Mack, Esq., and Leslie A. Nepper, Esq.,
   Department of the Army, for the agency.

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

   DIGEST

   1. A conflict of interest does not exist merely because the same
   contracting agency or contracting agency employees both prepare an
   offeror's past performance reference and perform the evaluation of
   offerors' proposals.

   2. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester's past performance
   is denied where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was
   reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria.

   3. Protest challenging the evaluation of technical proposals is denied
   where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable
   and consistent with the evaluation criteria; a source selection official's
   decision not to accept the findings and ratings of agency evaluators is
   unobjectionable if otherwise supported by the record.

   4. Price/technical tradeoff was reasonable where source selection official
   identified technical distinctions between competing proposals and
   specifically determined that higher technically rated proposal represented
   best value despite higher cost.

   5. Protest that the contracting agency was biased against the protester
   and conducted the procurement in bad faith is denied where the record does
   not contain any evidence of bias or bad faith on the part of the agency.

   DECISION

   TPL, Inc. protests the award of a contract to General Dynamics Ordnance
   and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS) under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. W52P1J-04-R-0179, issued by the Army Field Support Command (AFSC),
   Army Materiel Command, Department of the Army, for conventional ammunition
   demilitarization services. TPL argues that the agency's evaluation of
   offerors' proposals was unreasonable, and that the resulting award
   decision was improper. TPL also asserts that members of the agency's
   evaluation panel had impermissible conflicts of interest because they were
   also the source of a past performance reference regarding the offeror.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP, issued on November 17, 2004, contemplated the award of a
   fixed-price contract for conventional ammunition demilitarization and
   disposal services for a base year and four 1-year option periods. In
   general terms, the statement of work required the contractor to provide
   all the necessary material, equipment, property, and personnel to perform
   demilitarization and disposal by closed disposal technologies (CDT) for
   six families of conventional ammunitions: bombs; cluster bomb units (CBU);
   separate loading propelling charges; high explosive, improved conventional
   munitions (ICM); high explosive D; and pyrotechnics. Statement of Work
   (SOW) sect. C.1.

   The RFP set forth the following evaluation factors and subfactors:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |1. Small Business Utilization                                           |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |2. Technical                                                            |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |A. Program Management                              |
   |                    |---------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |B. Technical Approach                              |
   |                    |---------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |C. Safety                                          |
   |                    |---------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |D. Environment                                     |
   |                    |---------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |E. Security                                        |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |3. Past Performance                                                     |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |A. Program Management                              |
   |                    |---------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |B. Schedule/Timeliness                             |
   |                    |---------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |C. Quality                                         |
   |                    |---------------------------------------------------|
   |                    |D. Small Business Realism                          |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |4. Price                                                                |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   RFP sect. M.2.

   The solicitation stated that the small business utilization factor was the
   most important evaluation criterion, and would be evaluated on a pass/fail
   basis. The RFP also stated that the technical factor was less important
   than the small business utilization factor, but substantially more
   important than past performance, and that price was somewhat less
   important than past performance. All nonprice evaluation factors when
   combined were significantly more important than price. The RFP also
   established that, among the technical subfactors, program management was
   somewhat more important than technical approach, and that technical
   approach was in turn slightly more important than the safety, environment,
   and security subfactors, which were all equal in importance to each other.
   Within the past performance evaluation criterion, the program management,
   schedule/ timeliness, and quality subfactors were all of equal importance,
   and each was significantly more important than small business realism. Id.
   Contract award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal
   represented the "best value" to the government, based on the consideration
   of all evaluation factors. Id. sect. M.1.

   Four offerors, including GD-OTS and TPL, submitted written proposals by
   the February 4, 2005 closing date; oral presentations regarding each
   offeror's technical approach were subsequently held. An Army technical
   evaluation team (TET) evaluated offerors' proposals using an adjectival
   rating system: excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unacceptable
   for the technical factor and subfactors. A separate performance risk
   assessment group (PRAG) evaluated offerors under the past performance
   evaluation factor and subfactors using the following adjectival rating
   system: low performance risk, moderately low performance risk, moderate
   performance risk, high performance risk, or neutral.[1]

   After the evaluation of offerors' initial proposals, the contracting
   officer determined that all offers were in the competitive range. The Army
   then held two rounds of discussions, followed by the submission of final
   proposal revisions by June 15.[2] The final ratings for GD-OTS and TPL
   with regard to the evaluation factors and subfactors were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |             Factor             |      GD-OTS       |        TPL        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Small Business Utilization      |       Pass        |       Pass        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Technical                       |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Program Management              |     Excellent     |     Excellent     |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Technical Approach              |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Safety                          |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Environment                     |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Security                        |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Past Performance                |        Low        |     Moderate      |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Program Management              |  Moderately Low   |     Moderate      |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Schedule/Timeliness             |        Low        |  Moderately Low   |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Quality                         |        Low        |  Moderately Low   |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Small Business Realism          |     Moderate      | Moderately Low[3] |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Price                           |   $247,373,339    |   $211,858,108    |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Contracting Officer's Statement, Sept. 22, 2005, at 7-8.

   The source selection authority concluded that the evaluated superiority of
   GD-OTS's proposal under the past performance factor outweighed TPL's price
   advantage and, on that basis, selected GD-OTS for award; a contract was
   awarded to GD-OTS on August 18.

   On September 2, TPL filed a protest with our Office asserting that the
   agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals was unreasonable and the best
   value tradeoff determination improper.[4] TPL also protested that the Army
   had apparently relied upon biased sources of information when evaluating
   TPL's past performance, including the awardee GD-OTS.[5] Protest, Sept. 2,
   2005.

   On October 20, the Army provided notice that it was taking corrective
   action in response to TPL's protest by reevaluating offerors' proposals
   and making a new source selection decision. Letter from Army to GAO, Oct.
   20, 2005; Email from Army to GAO, Oct. 20, 2005. Based on the agency's
   announced corrective action, we dismissed TPL's September 2 protest
   without rendering a decision on the protest's merits. TPL, Inc.,
   B-297136.2, B-297136.4, Oct. 26, 2005.

   The Army then reevaluated offerors' technical and past performance
   proposals, with final revised ratings for GD-OTS and TPL as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |             Factor             |      GD-OTS       |        TPL        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Small Business Utilization      |       Pass        |       Pass        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Technical                       |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Program Management              |     Excellent     |     Excellent     |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Technical Approach              |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Safety                          |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Environment                     |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Security                        |       Good        |       Good        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Past Performance                |        Low        |     Moderate      |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Program Management              |  Moderately Low   |     Moderate      |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Schedule/Timeliness             |        Low        |  Moderately Low   |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Quality                         |        Low        |     Moderate      |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Small Business Realism          |     Moderate      |        Low        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Price                           |   $247,373,339    |   $211,858,108    |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Contracting Officer's Statement, Apr. 20, 2006, at 8.

   The Army appointed a new agency source selection authority, and that
   individual subsequently determined that, notwithstanding the TET's rating
   of TPL's proposal as excellent under the program management (technical)
   subfactor, TPL's proposal only merited a rating of good.

   On February 9, 2006, based upon the reevaluation of proposals, the source
   selection authority determined that GD-OTS's superiority under both the
   technical and past performance evaluation factors outweighed TPL's lower
   price, and that GD-OTS's proposal again represented the best value to the
   government. Id. at 11-12. TPL then filed a second protest with our Office,
   again challenging the contract award to GD-OTS. Protest, Feb. 25, 2006.

   On March 1, the Army again informed our Office that it intended to take
   corrective action. The agency stated that the source selection authority
   had not been provided with certain information submitted by the offerors
   and would reevaluate his award decision based on review of this material.
   We then dismissed TPL's February 25 protest. TPL, Inc., B-297136.8,
   B-297136.9, Mar. 2, 2006.

   On March 17, the Army announced for a third time its decision that
   GD-OTS's proposal was the best value to the government and, therefore, was
   selected for contract award: the source selection authority, having
   reviewed and considered all offerors' submissions, again concluded that
   GD-OTS's superiority under the technical and past performance evaluation
   factors outweighed TPL's lower price. On March 24, TPL filed its current
   protest.

   DISCUSSION

   TPL's protest raises numerous issues that can be grouped into five
   categories. First, the protester alleges that the Army's use of a past
   performance reference for TPL prepared by the agency employees who
   evaluated offerors' proposals constituted an impermissible conflict of
   interest. Second, TPL argues that the agency's evaluation of its past
   performance was unreasonable. Third, TPL contends that the Army's
   evaluation of TPL's technical proposal was improper. Fourth, the protester
   alleges that the Army's best value tradeoff determination was unreasonable
   and not adequately documented. Lastly, TPL alleges that the Army was
   biased against it, and that the evaluation of proposals and source
   selection decision were all conducted with a predetermination to award the
   contract to GD-OTS.[6] Although we do not here specifically address all of
   TPL's arguments about the evaluation of proposals and other agency
   actions, we have fully considered all of them and find that they afford no
   basis to sustain the protest of the selection decision here.

   Conflict of Interest

   TPL first argues that the procurement is fatally flawed by an
   impermissible conflict of interest. Specifically, TPL asserts that the
   same agency organization (if not the same agency employees) that provided
   the past performance evaluation of TPL's performance on the prior ID/IQ I
   contract also performed the evaluation of offerors' proposals here upon
   which the award decision was based. TPL argues that by providing a past
   performance evaluation to itself, instead of soliciting past performance
   references from other sources, the agency created an impermissible
   conflict of interest.[7]

   As relevant here, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides as
   follows:

     Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and,
     except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete
     impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions
     relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree
     of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule
     is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of
     a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships.

   FAR sect. 3.101-1.

   The Joint Munitions Command (JMC) is the Army activity charged with
   producing, storing, maintaining, and demilitarizing ammunition for all
   military services. JMC is in turn a part of AFSC, whose contracting
   activity issued the solicitation here. One of JMC's subordinate
   organizations is the JMC Demil Team, the office responsible for the actual
   demilitarization and disposal of conventional ammunition. It was the JMC
   Demil Team that oversaw the performance of the prior demilitarization
   contract, ID/IQ I, and will supervise the contract to be awarded here. As
   mentioned above, GD-OTS was the prime contractor for ID/IQ I, while TPL
   was a major subcontractor to GD-OTS.

   When performing the initial evaluation of past performance, the PRAG
   considered TPL's performance under the prior ID/IQ I contract by means of
   a past performance reference furnished by GD-OTS.[8] As part of its
   corrective action in response to the initial protests, the Army decided
   not to consider past performance information from sources that were also
   competing offerors and, thus, potentially biased.

   When reevaluating offerors' proposals, the Army employed a PRAG with a new
   chairperson who was not part of the initial evaluation; the new
   chairperson was an employee of the AFSC contracting activity, not JMC. AR,
   Tab 27, PRAG II Report, at 8. The new PRAG agreed that TPL's performance
   under the prior ID/IQ I contract was relevant to the evaluation of the
   offeror's past performance here.[9] Id. at 11. In contrast to the original
   past performance evaluation, the new PRAG sought an evaluation of TPL's
   performance on the ID/IQ I contract from the government "customer"--the
   JMC Demil Team.

   The agency evaluation of TPL's performance on the prior ID/IQ I contract
   was prepared by the JMC Demil Team leader, who was not himself a TET or
   PRAG evaluator. Further, while the JMC Demil Team leader was the employee
   designated to provide a consolidated agency reference of TPL's performance
   for the ID/IQ I contract, he did so by collecting information from nine
   JMC Demil Team employees who had worked on the ID/IQ I contract and had
   direct dealings with TPL and knowledge of TPL's performance. Of the nine
   employees, four were TET evaluators but none were past performance
   evaluators.[10] Contracting Officer's Statement, May 19, 2006, at 1-2; AR,
   Tab 29b, JMC Past Performance Questionnaire for TPL.

   We have recognized that an actual or apparent conflict of interest may
   arise when an agency employee has both an official role in the procurement
   process and a personal stake in the outcome. For example, we found that at
   least the appearance of a conflict of interest existed where, in the
   course of a competitive sourcing study conducted pursuant to the
   procedures of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, 14 of the 16
   agency employees who were responsible for evaluating private-sector
   proposals also held positions that were subject to the study (and would be
   affected by the outcome of their evaluation). See DZS/Baker LLC; Morrison
   Knudsen Corp., B-281224 et al., Jan. 12, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 19 at 5. We
   have also determined that conflicts of interest exist when the same agency
   employees serve both in roles that require neutrality (such as drafting
   the ground rules of a competition) and roles where advocacy is permissible
   (such as assisting one side in the ensuing competition). In Department of
   the Navy--Recon., B-286194.7, May 29, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 76 at 8, we
   affirmed our view that having the same agency employee write both the
   performance work statement (PWS) and in-house proposal created an
   impermissible conflict of interest. We found in this regard that where one
   competitor (i.e., the agency) had established the ground rules applicable
   to all competitors by developing and drafting the PWS, there was a
   significant risk of at least a perception that the ground rules were
   written in a manner that skews the competition. Id.

   Contrary to TPL's assertions, we find no conflict of interest present
   here. The record reflects that none of the agency personnel who provided
   TPL's past performance reference or who evaluated TPL's proposal held a
   position that would be affected by the outcome of the procurement.
   Additionally, while certain JMC Demil Team employees did serve in multiple
   roles in the procurement process here--as both sources of past performance
   information and technical evaluators--both roles were ones that required
   neutrality and precluded advocacy. TPL has simply not demonstrated that
   because of these multiples roles, the agency employees here were somehow
   unable or potentially unable to provide impartial evaluations to the
   government. Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that any of the
   evaluators should have been precluded from participating in the evaluation
   on account of conflicts of interest.

   The protester also contends that the proximity between the agency
   employees who prepared the past performance reference for the ID/IQ I
   contract and those who evaluated that reference as part of the contract
   award determination is the source of the conflict of interest. TPL argues
   that because JMC is the procuring activity, it cannot avoid having
   impaired objectivity when it evaluates its own remarks regarding TPL's
   past performance. We disagree.

   Evaluators may consider and rely upon their personal knowledge in the
   course of evaluating an offeror's past performance.[11] See Del-Jen Int'l
   Corp., B-297960, May 5, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 81 at 7; NVT Techs., Inc.,
   B-297524, B-297524.2, Feb. 2, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 36 at 5. Thus, we have
   found nothing improper in an agency evaluator also serving as an offeror's
   past performance reference where there has been no showing of improper
   influence on the evaluation or award determination. NVT Techs., Inc.,
   supra. We know of no reason why an evaluator is precluded from considering
   past performance information whose source is another agency employee in
   the same organizational activity: as incumbent contractors usually submit
   proposals for follow-on contracts, it is quite common for one agency
   employee to evaluate past performance information that another agency
   employee in the same organization prepared. See PharmChem, Inc.,
   B-292408.2, B-292408.3, Jan. 30, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 60 at 12; Prime
   Envtl. Servs. Co., B-291148.3, Mar. 4, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 57 at 3-4. The
   fact that a contracting agency takes into account its own knowledge of
   offerors, and in effect "furnishes its own reference," simply does not
   constitute a conflict of interest and is not otherwise improper, so long
   as the agency's judgments are documented in sufficient detail to show that
   they are reasonable and not arbitrary. See Omega World Travel, Inc.,
   B-271262.2, July 25, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 44 at 4; G. Marine Diesel;
   Phillyship, B-232619, B-232619.2, Jan. 27, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 90 at 4-5.

   Evaluation of TPL's Past Performance

   TPL also protests that the agency's evaluation of its past performance was
   unreasonable. For example, the protester contends that, in addition to the
   alleged conflict of interest, the Army failed to give adequate
   consideration to TPL's mostly favorable past performance references in its
   evaluation ratings. TPL points to the fact that while there were four
   sources of adverse past performance information, there were nine favorable
   past performance references. TPL also contends that the Army failed to
   adequately consider the "extensive, cogent, [and] detailed" rebuttals it
   submitted in response to adverse past performance information. Protest,
   Mar. 24, 2006, at 22. The protester argues that had the agency properly
   considered all information, TPL should have received a past performance
   rating at least equal to that received by GD-OTS.

   Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of offerors' past
   performance, we will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that it
   was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria
   and procurement statutes and regulations, since determining the relative
   merits of offerors' past performance information is primarily a matter
   within the contracting agency's discretion. The MIL Corp., B-297508,
   B-297508.2, Jan. 26, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 34 at 10; Hanley Indus., Inc.,
   B-295318, Feb. 2, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 20 at 4. A protester's mere
   disagreement with the agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish
   that the agency acted unreasonably. Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing,
   B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 129 at 5. Our review of the record
   leads us to conclude that the agency's evaluation of TPL's past
   performance here was both reasonable and consistent with the RFP's
   evaluation terms.

   The RFP required offerors to submit past performance information as
   follows:

     Past performance data is required for the offeror, individual team or
     joint venture members, and major subcontractors performing critical
     functions/tasks (critical functions/tasks are defined as
     demilitarization operations). Relevancy will be determined by contracts
     of similar size, scope and complexity covering resource recovery,
     reutilization, recycling, neutralization, incineration, or any other
     treatment process used for munitions, propellant, pyrotechnics,
     explosives, or energetics. The time standards for relevant contracts
     that must be included are those 1) awarded within five years of the
     closing date of this solicitation, or 2) awarded more than five years
     ago, but completed within one year of the closing of this solicitation,
     and/or 3) ongoing contracts. All relevant Federal Government contracts
     meeting the stated time standards shall be included. State and local
     Government contracts and/or commercial contracts may be included if the
     Federal Government contracts do not demonstrate adequate relevant
     experience in all phases of this project.

   RFP sect. L.5.2. Regarding the evaluation of offerors' past performance,
   the RFP stated:

     The PRAG will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's
     likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements, as
     indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. When assessing
     performance risk, the PRAG will focus its inquiries on the offeror's
     record of performance as it relates to the performance of solicitation
     requirements. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment
     based on the quality, relevancy and recentness of the offeror's past
     performance, as well as that of its major or critical subcontractors, as
     it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the
     required effort. . . . A negative finding under any element may result
     in an overall high risk rating.

   Id. sect. M.4.2.

   The revised PRAG considered a total of 21 references for TPL (13
   references for TPL itself and 8 references for proposed subcontractors)
   when evaluating the offeror's past performance; this included additional
   references received from agency sources when the PRAG deemed the original
   past performance reference to be potentially biased. On those occasions
   when past performance references contained adverse information, the PRAG
   provided TPL with an opportunity to comment, and then took TPL's rebuttals
   into consideration in its evaluation. AR, Tab 27, PRAG II Report,
   at 26-28. The ratings that the PRAG assigned to TPL's proposal were:
   moderate risk as to the program management subfactor; moderately low risk
   as to the schedule/ timeliness subfactor; moderate risk as to the quality
   subfactor; low risk as to the small business realism subfactor; and
   moderate risk overall. Id. at 28.

   The PRAG prepared a detailed report with narratives for the past
   performance ratings it assigned. For example, with regard to the
   evaluation of TPL under the program management subfactor, the PRAG noted
   that all but one of the "good" and "excellent" ratings that TPL had
   received were for smaller demilitarization contracts, while the "fair"
   ratings which TPL had received were for its two largest referenced
   contracts. The PRAG found that TPL did not have experience in managing a
   series of projects over a period of time of the magnitude required here.
   This caused the evaluators some concern that TPL would have difficulty
   managing the scope and complexity of the current solicitation. Id., App.
   C, at 125. The PRAG's report contained similar detailed narratives for its
   ratings of TPL under the schedule/ timeliness subfactor, the quality
   subfactor, as well as the overall past performance factor. Id. at 126-33.
   We find that the agency's evaluation of TPL's past performance, under all
   subfactors as well as overall, was sufficiently documented to show that it
   was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

   TPL argues that the PRAG gave insufficient weight to the favorable past
   performance references (or conversely, excessive weight to the adverse
   past performance references). The protester points out that 9 of the 13
   references it received provided a majority of "good" and "excellent"
   ratings, but that the positive references were outweighed in the agency's
   evaluation by sources that provided "fair" or "marginal" ratings. TPL
   argues that by improperly weighting the adverse references, the PRAG's
   rating of TPL under the past performance factor and subfactors was
   unreasonably low. We disagree.

   It is reasonable for an agency to give differing weight to an offeror's
   prior contracts based upon their similarity or relevance to the required
   effort. See Chenega Tech. Prods., LLC, B-295451.5, June 22, 2005, 2005 CPD
   para. 123 at 6; SWR, Inc.--Protests & Costs, B-294266.2 et al., Apr. 22,
   2005, 2005 CPD para. 94 at 6. An agency may thus reasonably give less
   weight to prior contracts that are found to be less relevant, and greater
   weight to prior contracts that are found to have greater relevance. Court
   Copies & Images, Inc., B-277268, B-277268.2, Sept. 24, 1997, 97-2 CPD
   para. 85 at 5.

   As set forth above, the RFP established that the agency's evaluation would
   focus on both the quality and the relevance of an offeror's past
   performance as it related to the probability of successful performance of
   the required effort. RFP sect. M.4.2. The record here reflects that the
   PRAG considered the relevance and quality of each of TPL's references when
   performing its past performance evaluation. In most instances the PRAG
   considered TPL's prior contracts to be smaller in scope than (but
   nonetheless relevant to) the SOW here. By contrast, the PRAG considered
   TPL's largest reference--the ID/IQ I contract, valued at $23 million--to
   be of the "same size, scope and complexity" as the SOW here. The PRAG also
   found TPL's second largest reference--contract No. N00164-98-C-0063 for
   the reuse of gun propellant, valued at $2.9 million--relevant to the
   solicitation. The PRAG gave greater weight in its evaluation to these two
   references. We find nothing unreasonable about the PRAG's decision to give
   greater weight to the references it reasonably found more relevant.

   TPL also argues that the PRAG's key conclusion, that "some doubt" existed
   about the offeror's ability to successfully perform project management,
   was erroneous. The protester contends that the record plainly demonstrated
   its ability to simultaneously perform multiple multi-million dollar
   contracts successfully. TPL essentially argues that because it had ably
   performed multiple, smaller contracts simultaneously, the PRAG was
   required to conclude that this was the same as having managed the
   performance of a contract of the size, scope, and complexity of the SOW
   here. In our view, this amounts to mere disagreement with the agency's
   evaluation, which does not render it unreasonable. Birdwell Bros. Painting
   & Refinishing, supra.

   TPL also argues that the PRAG failed to adequately consider the rebuttals
   it submitted in response to adverse past performance references. The
   protester alleges that the rebuttals it submitted effectively and
   definitively addressed all the adverse past performance references. TPL
   contends that by failing to adequately consider its rebuttals, the PRAG's
   evaluation findings and ratings were unreasonable.[12]

   Contracting agencies are required to provide an offeror with an
   opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which the
   offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. See FAR sect.
   15.306(a)(2). There exists no requirement, however, that the agency find
   an offeror's rebuttals conclusive. See ACS  State Healthcare, LLC et al.,
   B-292981 et al., Jan. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 57 at 41.

   The PRAG report here indicates that, although it received many positive
   comments from TPL's references, it also received some negative comments
   demonstrating deficient performance by TPL in several functional areas
   required in the RFP. The past performance questionnaires from TPL's
   references show that TPL received a number of positive comments, which the
   PRAG identified as strengths in TPL's past performance. See AR, Tab 29,
   Past Performance Questionnaires for TPL. The PRAG also received a number
   of negative comments; for example, one reference stated that TPL had
   problems with the ability to conduct continuous improvement processes
   ("past experience and survey results indicates that they make improvements
   and then slip back, i.e., same safety findings noted on different
   occasions"), and another stated that "TPL appeared to experience
   difficulty in hiring and retaining qualified safety managers. This led to
   periods where little or no safety management existed at the operating
   location." Id., Tab 29c, Defense Contract Management Agency (Phoenix
   Office) Past Performance Questionnaire for TPL, Tab 29b, JMC Past
   Performance Questionnaire for TPL.

   TPL was given an opportunity during the competition to specifically
   comment upon its adverse past performance information. AR, Tab 30,
   Clarifications of Offerors' Past Performance Information. The PRAG found
   that although TPL offered a number of explanations and reasons for the
   negative comments of its references, it did not always refute the
   existence of the weaknesses identified by the PRAG and in some instances
   the information provided by TPL actually substantiated the circumstances
   where TPL's past performance was less than acceptable. For example, the
   PRAG noted that, in response to the negative comments regarding safety
   manager staffing, TPL admitted that safety managers were on site "80% of
   the time" during the life of the contract, and that, as it was the
   responsibility of the prime contractor to make sure that subcontractor TPL
   was in compliance, it was appropriate to blame the prime and not TPL for
   TPL's noncompliance. AR, Tab 27, PRAG II Report, at C-126. We see no basis
   to object to the PRAG's conclusion that TPL's rebuttals did not refute the
   existence of the identified problems and, therefore, we conclude that the
   agency's assessment of TPL's past performance was reasonable.

   Evaluation of TPL's Technical Proposal

   TPL also argues that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was
   improper. For example, the protester contends that the decision by the SSA
   not to accept the TET's rating of TPL's proposal as excellent under the
   program management subfactor, and to downgrade the protester's proposal
   here to a rating of good, was unreasonable. TPL points to the fact that
   the Army did not solicit any additional technical information from
   offerors when performing its reevaluation of proposals, and lacking any
   new information, there was no basis for the new SSA to come to a different
   conclusion than both the technical evaluators and original SSA.

   In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate offerors'
   proposals; instead, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that
   it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
   criteria and procurement statutes and regulations. Urban-Meridian Joint
   Venture, B-287168, B-287168.2, May 7, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 91 at 2. An
   offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is not sufficient
   to render the evaluation reasonable. Ben-Mar Enters., Inc., B-295781, Apr.
   7, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 68 at 7.

   As set forth above, the RFP informed offerors of the evaluation criteria,
   the agency's adjectival evaluation rating scheme, and the narrative
   definitions of the ratings themselves. With regard to the program
   management (technical) subfactor, the solicitation defined the criteria
   for an excellent rating as follows:

     The offeror's proposed program management plan thoroughly identifies how
     program management will integrate all processes, procedures and
     management tools necessary to manage risk and schedule, and perform
     demil of conventional ammunition in accordance with the statement of
     work. . . . The plan thoroughly describes technical program planning and
     implementation including quality programs and continuous improvement; .
     . . and program and process control measures and/or plans (addressing
     integrated program schedule, quality and performance) . . . The
     offeror's proposed program management system is capable of effective
     management as indicated by its exceptional program management experience
     in performing demil operations. In summary, the solicitation
     requirements are thoroughly addressed and the proposal exceeds specified
     performance or capability and offers significant strengths, innovative
     approaches leading to enhanced performance, or overall superior
     understanding and management approach; and is coupled with very little
     risk and no deficiencies.

   RFP sect.M.2.2.1. By contrast, the RFP defined the criteria for a rating
   of good under the program management (technical) subfactor as follows:

     The offeror's proposed program management plan substantially identifies
     how program management will integrate all processes, procedures and
     management tools necessary to manage risk and schedule, and perform
     demil of conventional ammunition in accordance with the statement of
     work. . . . The plan substantially describes technical program planning
     and implementation including quality programs and continuous
     improvement; . . . and program and process control measures and/or plans
     (addressing integrated program schedule, quality and performance) . . .
     The offeror's proposed program management system is capable of effective
     management as indicated by its superior program management experience in
     performing demil operations. In summary, the solicitation requirements
     are substantially addressed and the proposal has a high probability of
     meeting specified performance or capability and offers strengths, some
     innovative approaches leading to enhanced performance, or overall
     commendable understanding and management approach; and is coupled with
     low risk and no deficiencies.

   Id. The essential distinction between the ratings here was the level of
   thoroughness and detail in the offeror's program management plan: an
   excellent rating was warranted where a proposal thoroughly identified and
   addressed all aspects of program management, while a good rating was
   warranted where an offeror's program management plan substantially
   identified and addressed all program management aspects.

    

   Offerors submitted their technical proposals by means of oral
   presentations, which included the use and submission of slides. The TET
   then evaluated each offeror's proposal against the stated evaluation
   criteria. The TET rated TPL's proposal as excellent as to the program
   management subfactor, good as to the technical approach, safety,
   environment, and security subfactors, and good overall. AR, Tab 24, TET
   Report (July 2005). The original SSA accepted all of the TET's ratings
   here as part of his source selection decision. The agency subsequently
   conducted a reevaluation of offerors' technical proposals in response to
   earlier protests. The TET's ratings of TPL's technical proposal remained
   unchanged. Id., TET Report (Jan. 26, 2006).

   As set forth above, the agency utilized a new SSA as part of its
   reevaluation of offerors' proposals. The new SSA has a master's degree in
   procurement and acquisition management and additional post-graduate level
   training specifically in program management.[13] AR, Apr. 20, 2006, at 26;
   Declaration of New SSA, Apr. 13, 2006, at 1. While the new SSA adopted the
   TET's conclusions regarding TPL's proposal under the technical approach,
   safety, environment, and security subfactors, he rejected the TET's views
   as to the program management subfactor. AR, Tab 10, Source Selection
   Decision, at 30. Regarding that factor, the SSA stated:

     This assigned rating [of good] differs from the technical team's rating
     based on the limited information provided regarding program and process
     control measures and/or plans as well as the level to which TPL
     demonstrated that they were capable of effective, efficient program
     management. For example, TPL provided a notional Integrated Master
     Schedule (IMS) as part of their supplemental proposal, but did not go
     into detail as to its constituency, standards to which it will be
     developed and updated, and how it will be used as a program management
     tool. Furthermore, there were several discrepancies in both demil task
     durations and start/finish times noted between the IMS and the
     individual family schedules provided by TPL's subcontractors. In
     addition, TPL scheduled "PMRs" on the IMS, but did not indicate if these
     were indeed Program Management Reviews, nor did they indicate if there
     would be participation by the Government, nor did they provide any other
     detail as to what constituted the PMR and how it would be used as a
     program management tool. TPL made mention of a Demil data management
     program, however they did not go into detail as to what its capabilities
     are and how it will be used as a program management tool. Further, in
     their supplemental proposal, TPL documented that they do not yet have
     the program in place. TPL also indicated that they will use Microsoft
     Project as a scheduling tool, but did not demonstrate that they, or
     their subcontractors, are currently capable of using it. . . . Further,
     while TPL addresses continual improvement, they indicated that they do
     not yet have Six Sigma Process Improvement plan in place. . . . In
     accordance with the solicitation criteria for a rating of Good, the
     solicitation requirements have been addressed, but not thoroughly
     addressed, the risks are low, any weaknesses are manageable without
     Government oversight, and there are no deficiencies.

   Id. at 5.

   In its protest TPL argues that the SSA improperly disregarded the TET's
   evaluation of its technical proposal and unreasonably lowered its rating
   under the program management subfactor. The protester contends that its
   numerous slides provided a detailed discussion of program and process
   control measures. TPL argues that the SSA's unilateral reduction of its
   rating here, which differed from the careful review of proposals performed
   by the TET, lacks a valid rationale.[14]

   Adjectival ratings and point scores are but guides to, and not substitutes
   for, intelligent decision making. SAMS El Segundo, LLC, supra, at 17. They
   are tools to assist source selection officials in evaluating proposals;
   they do not mandate automatic selection of a particular proposal. Jacobs
   COGEMA, LLC, supra, at 31; PRC, Inc., B-274698.2, B-274698.3, Jan. 23,
   1997, 97-1 CPD para. 115 at 12. Those officials have broad discretion in
   determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of, not only
   the adjectival ratings or point scores, but also the written narrative
   justification underlying those technical results, subject only to the
   tests of rationality and consistency with the evaluation criteria.
   Development Alternatives, Inc., B-279920, Aug. 6, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 54
   at 9; Midwest Research Inst., B-240268, Nov. 5, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 364
   at 4. Where, as here, a higher-level official determines that the
   lower-level evaluators' ratings do not reflect the actual technical value
   of proposals and the selection decision is protested, the agency must show
   that its ultimate determination is reasonable, with sufficient detail to
   permit our Office to review the determination for reasonableness.[15] See
   KPMG Consulting LLP, B-290716, B-290716.2, Sept. 23, 2002, 2002 CPD para.
   196 at 13; Chemical Demilitarization Assocs., B-277700, Nov. 13, 1997,
   98-1 CPD para. 171 at 6.

   Contrary to the protester's assertions, we find that the SSA's decision
   here to rate TPL's technical proposal as good under the program management
   subfactor was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation
   criteria. Under most of the RFP's technical evaluation criteria, SSA
   determined that the TET's evaluation ratings accurately reflected the
   relative merits of TPL's proposal. As to the program management subfactor,
   the SSA provided a detailed written explanation for his decision not to
   accept the TET's rating of TPL's technical proposal. The SSA properly
   looked behind the adjectival ratings to determine whether the identified
   strengths reasonably supported the assigned rating, and whether the
   offeror's proposal reasonably supported the identified strengths. The SSA
   reasonably determined that TPL's proposal did not have the level of detail
   necessary to warrant an excellent rating. While TPL argues that its
   proposal did set forth the level of detail necessary to warrant an
   excellent rating, and that the deficiencies identified by the SSA in
   certain areas (e.g., its Integrated Master Schedule, PMRs, Microsoft
   Project capability, and lack of an existing Six Sigma Process Improvement
   Plan) were all insignificant ones, in our view, this amounts to mere
   disagreement with the agency's evaluation, which does not render it
   unreasonable.[16]

   The Best Value Determination

   TPL also challenges the Army's source selection decision. The protester
   asserts that the agency failed to perform a meaningful price/technical
   tradeoff as required by the solicitation. In support of its position, TPL
   contends that GD-OTS's "miniscule" technical superiority over TPL, as
   demonstrated by the evaluation factor and subfactor ratings, failed to
   justify the $35 million (or 17 percent) price advantage TPL had over
   GD-OTS. The protester also contends that the Army's source selection
   decision fails to document why the supposed technical superiority of
   GD-OTS's higher-priced proposal warranted the additional cost involved.

   Where solicitations provide for award on a "best value" or "most
   advantageous to the government" basis, it is the function of the source
   selection authority to perform a price/technical tradeoff, that is, to
   determine whether one proposal's technical superiority is worth the higher
   price, and the extent to which one is sacrificed for the other is governed
   only by the test of rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation
   criteria. Remington Arms Co., Inc., B-297374, B-297374.2, Jan. 12, 2006,
   2006 CPD para. 32 at 15; Chenega Technical Prods., LLC, B-295451.5, June
   22, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 123 at 8. Where a price/technical tradeoff is
   made, the source selection decision must be documented, and the
   documentation must include the rationale for any tradeoffs made, including
   the benefits associated with the additional costs.[17] FAR sections
   15.101-1(c), 15.308; All Star-Cabaco Enter., Joint Venture, B-290133,
   B-290133.2, June 25, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 127 at 8-9.

   In conducting the tradeoff here, the SSA first premised his determination
   upon review of the relative importance of the RFP's evaluation criteria,
   including that all nonprice factors, when combined, were significantly
   more important than price. AR, Tab 10, Source Selection Decision, at 3.
   The SSA then reviewed the evaluation findings and ratings of the offerors'
   proposals under all stated evaluation factors and subfactors. As set forth
   above, the SSA accepted the evaluation findings and ratings in most
   instances, and on certain occasions (e.g., TPL's proposal under the
   program management (technical) subfactor) the SSA reached a different
   determination. Id. at 3-29.

   The SSA then performed a head-to-head comparison of the highest
   technically-rated proposal (GD-OTS) against each of the three other
   proposals. In comparing GD-OTS to TPL, the SSA found that GD-OTS's
   proposal went into far more detail in the program management (technical)
   subfactor, and demonstrated a better grasp of the tools and techniques
   required to manage a series of projects over time than did TPL's. Id. at
   32. In terms of past performance, the SSA found that GD-OTS's proposal
   demonstrated the offeror's effectiveness in managing complex,
   multi-faceted projects over time while TPL's proposal demonstrated that it
   was challenged by such endeavors. Id. at 34. The SSA concluded as follows:

     [T]he GD-OTS proposal was technically superior and offers less
     performance risk than does that of TPL. GD-OTS has a more detailed and
     thorough program management plan, which is of significant value in
     monitoring the status and health of the program in order to perform on
     schedule and at cost. In addition, GD-OTS has demonstrated their ability
     to manage a complex demil program over time with an enviable delivery
     record of 99.5% on time. In contrast, TPL has had problems managing some
     of their more complex programs in the past, and have had schedule
     problems caused by staffing issues. Further, they have received multiple
     safety and security violations at their facility. All of these are
     indicators that TPL may require more government oversight to say on
     schedule and at cost, which we are not currently staffed to do. In
     summary, GD-OTS provides both superior program management effectiveness
     and efficiency as well as a much higher probability of program success
     as demonstrated by their past performance. In my opinion, this merits
     the 17% price premium over TPL's price.

   Id. at 35-36.

   Contrary to TPL's assertions, we find that the source selection decision
   adequately documented the agency's rationale for the tradeoff made,
   including the benefits associated with the higher price. The propriety of
   such a price/technical tradeoff decision turns not on the difference in
   the technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the source
   selection official's judgment concerning the significance of the
   difference was reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP's
   evaluation scheme. Remington Arms Co., Inc., supra, at 16-17; Johnson
   Controls World Servs., Inc., B-289942, B-289942.2, May 24, 2002, 2002 CPD
   para. 88 at 6. Here, the SSA properly looked behind the evaluation ratings
   and considered the underlying qualitative merits that distinguished the
   offerors' proposals--program management ability and performance risk.
   Consistent with the RFP's provision that nonprice factors when combined
   were significantly more important than price, the SSA reasonably concluded
   that the price premium associated with GD-OTS's proposal was justified by
   its greater technical merit. Under these circumstances, we see no basis to
   question the agency's decision to make award to GD-OTS.

   TPL's Allegations of Agency Bias

   Throughout its protest TPL alleges that the Army was biased against it. In
   support thereof, TPL points to an internal agency email message written
   prior to the issuance of the RFP, where the JMC Demil Team leader set
   forth the problems (e.g., environmental, cash-flow, instances of
   non-demilitarized ammunition rounds being shipped as scrap) previously
   encountered by small business prime contractors, including TPL, when
   recommending that the procurement not include a partial small business
   set-aside.[18] TPL Comments, May 19, 2006, exh. A, JMC Email Regarding
   Draft Solicitation, at 2. Based upon this email message, TPL contends the
   agency intentionally sought out adverse and biased sources of past
   performance information for TPL (and when it could not obtain them,
   furnished them itself), intentionally manipulated the evaluation record
   and evaluation ratings, intentionally created artificial distinctions
   between the proposals of GD-OTS and TPL in order to justify the $35
   million price premium associated with an award to GD-OTS, and undertook
   the reevaluation of offerors' proposal with a predetermined outcome (i.e.,
   maintaining the original award to GD-OTS). Protest at 3-4, 12, 14, 16, 28.

   Government officials are presumed to act in good faith; we will not
   attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the
   basis of inference or supposition. Saturn Landscape Plus, Inc.,
   B-297450.3, Apr. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 70 at 3; Pride Mobility Prods.
   Corp., B-292822.5, Dec. 6, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 72 at 5. Further, where a
   protester alleges bias, it not only must provide credible evidence clearly
   demonstrating a bias against the protester or for the awardee, but also
   must demonstrate that this bias translated into action that unfairly
   affected the protester's competitive position. ABIC Ltd., B-286460, Jan.
   12, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 46 at 7-8; Advanced Scis., Inc., B-259569.3, July
   3, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 52 at 17.

   TPL has furnished no evidence to support its allegations; it merely infers
   bias based on its assumption that one agency official who disfavored small
   business concerns as prime contractors improperly skewed the entire
   procurement process against TPL based on that opinion. The record
   indicates that the JMC employee who authored the email upon which TPL
   relies entirely as its proof of bias was not a TET or PRAG evaluator (nor
   was he the initial or ultimate SSA) and played no part in the evaluation
   of TPL's proposal. Contracting Officer's Statement, May 19, 2006, at 1.
   The record also indicates that while the JMC employee here compiled the
   JMC Demil Team reference of TPL's performance on the prior ID/IQ I
   contract, he did so without adding or deleting any of the comments he
   received from those agency employees with first-hand knowledge, and did
   not add any comments or scores of his own. Id.; Declaration of JMC Demil
   Team Leader, May 9, 2006, at 1. We conclude that TPL has presented no
   evidence that the identified individual was motivated by bias against it,
   or that any bias was somehow translated into prejudicial action. In sum,
   TPL's repeated allegations of agency bad faith in the conduct of the
   procurement here are no more than inferences, which do not rise to the
   level of proof required to demonstrate that the agency was biased against
   it.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency's technical and past performance evaluation rating schemes,
   as well as narrative definitions of the ratings themselves, were set forth
   in the solicitation.

   [2] The other two offerors' proposals are not relevant to the protest here
   and will not be discussed further.

   [3] The source selection authority subsequently changed TPL's ratings
   under the small business realism subfactor from moderately low to neutral,
   and the offeror's overall past performance rating from moderate to
   moderately low. Contracting Officer's Statement, Sept. 22, 2005, at 9-10.

   [4] A second unsuccessful offeror also filed a protest with our Office of
   the original contract award to GD-OTS.

   [5] TPL was a major subcontractor to GD-OTS under the prior Army
   conventional ammunition demilitarization contract, commonly referred to as
   "ID/IQ I."

   [6] TPL's original protest also raised two additional issues: (1) that the
   Army never provided TPL with an adequate opportunity to address the
   adverse past performance references; and (2) that the Army's discussions
   with TPL regarding the technical aspects of its proposal were not
   meaningful. In a conference call conducted with all parties, TPL
   subsequently informed our Office that these issues had been abandoned.

   [7] TPL also alleges that the Army was motivated by bad faith and bias
   regarding both the past performance information furnished and the agency's
   evaluation of proposals. Our review of TPL's allegations of agency bias is
   set forth separately below.

   [8] The PRAG was aware that GD-OTS was also a competitor here, but
   considered TPL's performance on ID/IQ I to be relevant to the evaluation
   of the offeror's past performance. We note that TPL's proposal listed
   GD-OTS as both its customer and point of contact for the work performed on
   the ID/IQ I contract. AR, Tab 7, TPL's Proposal, Vol. III, at 17.

   [9] TPL's proposal indicated the dollar value of its ID/IQ I contract to
   be $23 million, while its next largest past performance reference was less
   than $3 million. AR, Tab 7, TPL's Proposal, Vol. III, at 17. By contrast,
   TPL's proposed price under the RFP here was $211 million.

   [10] TPL also originally argued that the PRAG's consideration of a past
   performance reference provided by the Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) constituted
   an impermissible conflict of interest because TEAD was an actual
   competitor to TPL for demilitarization work. In its report to our Office
   responding to the protest, the agency provided the evaluation record,
   indicating that the PRAG elected not to use TEAD's reference for TPL (the
   PRAG believed that because TEAD had been a subcontractor for GD-OTS under
   the ID/IQ I contract, there was a potential for bias in its rating). AR,
   Tab 27, PRAG II Evaluation Report, at 33. In its comments to the agency
   report, TPL failed to address the agency's response. As a result, we
   consider this issue to be abandoned and will not address it. See
   Symplicity Corp., B-297060, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 203 at 5 n.6.

   [11] Indeed, in certain circumstances we have concluded that evaluators
   are prohibited from ignoring past performance information of which they
   are personally aware. See GTS Duratek, Inc., B-280511.2, B-280511.3, Oct.
   19, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 130 at 14; International Bus. Sys., Inc.,
   B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 114 at 5 (past performance
   information that was personally known to the evaluator but not within an
   offeror's proposal was "simply too close at hand" to be ignored in the
   agency's evaluation of proposals).

   [12] The protester also argues that the SSA failed to acknowledge all of
   its "definitive rebuttals" in the source selection decision. Protest, Mar.
   24, 2006, at 22. There is no requirement, however, that an SSA restate
   each of an offeror's strengths or past performance rebuttals when
   comparing proposals and making an award determination. See SAMS El
   Segundo, LLC, B-291620, B-291620.2, Feb. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 44 at 18;
   Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2, B-290125.3, Dec. 18, 2002, 2003 CPD para.
   16 at 22. The record here indicates that, in considering whether any of
   the evaluation findings and ratings of the offerors' proposals amounted to
   discriminators, the SSA reviewed the PRAG report, which described TPL's
   rebuttals. The source selection decision also evidences that the SSA was
   fully aware of TPL's rebuttals. Quite simply, the SSA did not fail to take
   this aspect of TPL's proposal into account; instead, he found it
   unnecessary to restate every rebuttal when accepting the PRAG's findings
   and ratings of TPL's past performance and making his award determination.

   [13] This individual was also certified by the Department of Defense in
   program management and his experience included serving as an assistant
   program manager for several major systems acquisitions. Id.

   [14] TPL also argues that the SSA failed to credit TPL for program
   management strengths it shared with GD-OTS for which the awardee received
   recognition. In support thereof, TPL points to the SSA's recognition of
   GD-OTS's senior management commitment to the contract, but not that of
   TPL. Protest, May 1, 2006, at 22-23. We find the single instance cited by
   TPL here does not evidence unequal treatment such that the agency's
   evaluation of proposals was unreasonable.

   [15] The mere fact that a source selection official's determination is
   different from that of the agency evaluators (or even a prior source
   selection official's determination) does not by itself make it
   unreasonable or improper.

   [16] We have also considered TPL's challenges to the agency's evaluation
   of proposals under the other technical evaluation subfactors and find them
   to be without merit.

   [17] This explanation can be given by the source selection authority in
   the award decision, or it can be evidenced from the documents on which the
   source selection decision is based. TRW, Inc., B-260788.2, Aug. 2, 1995,
   96-1 CPD para. 11 at 4.

   [18] The email message also stated, "Knowing the past, the program manager
   does not want to return to the situation where these small businesses with
   problems in the past are once again prime contractors." Id.