TITLE: B-297252.3, TruLogic, Inc., January 30, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297252.3
DATE: January 30, 2006
********************************************
B-297252.3, TruLogic, Inc., January 30, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: TruLogic, Inc.

   File: B-297252.3

   Date: January 30, 2006

   Theresa Armentrout for the protester.

   Igor Boris, Command Technology, Inc., for the intervenor.

   Maj. Jeffrey Branstetter, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Source selection authority's (SSA) disagreement with the majority of the
   evaluators and acceptance of the minority's recommendation that the
   awardee be selected for award is unobjectionable and does not evidence a
   lack of "impartiality," where the SSA reached a reasoned conclusion,
   supported by the record, that the awardee's lower-priced, lower-rated
   proposal deserved a higher technical rating than was assigned by the
   majority and represented the best value to the government.

   DECISION

   TruLogic, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Command Technology,
   Inc. (CTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8104-05-R-0414, issued
   by the Department of the Air Force for Interactive Electronic Technical
   Manual (IETM) systems development and Technical Order (TO) "sustainment."
   TruLogic challenges the agency's technical and price evaluation, and
   contends that the source selection authority (SSA) was biased.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   TruLogic previously protested an Air Force decision to award a contract
   for IETM system development to CTI under the RFP. We dismissed the protest
   after the Air Force notified our Office that it was taking corrective
   action. The agency then amended the RFP, sought and evaluated revised
   proposals, and once again selected CTI for award. This protest challenges
   the new award to CTI.[1]

   The RFP, set aside for small businesses, contemplated the award of a
   fixed-price contract for IETM systems development and TO sustainment
   support for specific Air Force engines. An IETM is a secure computer
   solution that distributes standards-based electronic technical data. RFP,
   Statement of Work (SOW), sect. 2.1. The required tasks in the SOW included
   developing IETM systems from government-furnished digital TO source files,
   converting TOs from legacy paper format to an Air Force-approved IETM
   system format, providing sustainment support for applicable TOs after the
   IETM systems are built, and providing improvements and enhancements to the
   IETM systems during the course of the contract. Id. sect. 1.1. The agency
   did not dictate how the IETM systems were to be built. Rather, it left to
   the offerors to determine which "methodology" and "processes" to use to
   develop the IETM systems. The SOW did state that the IETM and all
   deliverables had to be compliant with Air Force, Department of Defense,
   and other identified standards, as well as certain specified
   "functionality requirements." Id. sections 2.1.2, 2.2.

   The RFP provided that award would be made to a General Services
   Administration (GSA) contract holder under the firm's GSA Federal Supply
   Schedule contract for a base period with four 1-year options. The RFP
   stated that award would be made on a "best-value" basis, considering
   mission capability (including two equally weighted subfactors for program
   management[2] and technical performance[3]), proposal risk, past
   performance, and price. The first three factors were stated to be of equal
   importance and combined were "significantly more important than price;
   however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision."
   RFP, Evaluation Factors for Award, sections 2.1, 2.2.

   With regard to the program management subfactor of the mission capability
   factor, offerors were requested to "describe in detail a sound and
   rational approach to program management for the IETM [systems] program"
   that addressed "at a minimum" each of the identified "essential
   components" of the approach. With regard to the technical performance
   subfactor of the mission capability factor, offerors were instructed to
   "describe in detail a sound and rational approach to program management
   for the IETM [systems] program" and include with their proposals a
   "demonstration disk" to demonstrate "basic functionalities and
   enhancements" listed in the SOW. The RFP stated that "[i]f a functionality
   is not included in the disk, the proposal must state how the offeror
   intends to meet the required functionality." Offerors were informed that
   their "technical performance" would be evaluated to include their
   "technical approach as far as best value to the Government," and that
   "[t]his will include future enhancements, upgradeability, suitability,
   maintainability, and interoperability and integration with other systems."
   RFP, Instructions to Offerors, sect. 4.2.3.

   The RFP stated that each of the mission capability subfactors would
   receive one of four adjectival ratings (blue, green, yellow, or red) based
   on the assessed strengths and proposal inadequacies within each offeror's
   proposal. The mission capability subfactor ratings were defined as
   follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Color |Rating      |Description                                         |
   |------+------------+----------------------------------------------------|
   |Blue  |Exceptional |Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability |
   |      |            |requirements in a way beneficial to the government; |
   |      |            |proposal must have one or more strengths and no     |
   |      |            |deficiencies to receive a blue.                     |
   |------+------------+----------------------------------------------------|
   |Green |Acceptable  |Meets specified minimum performance or capability   |
   |      |            |requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal;|
   |      |            |proposal rated green must have no deficiencies but  |
   |      |            |may have one or more strengths.                     |
   |------+------------+----------------------------------------------------|
   |Yellow|Marginal    |Does not clearly meet some specified minimum        |
   |      |            |performance or capability requirements delineated in|
   |      |            |the Request for Proposal, but any such uncertainty  |
   |      |            |is correctable.                                     |
   |------+------------+----------------------------------------------------|
   |Red   |Unacceptable|Fails to meet specified minimum performance or      |
   |      |            |capability requirements; proposal has one or more   |
   |      |            |deficiencies. Proposals with an unacceptable rating |
   |      |            |are not awardable.                                  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   RFP, Evaluation Factors for Award, sect. 2.4.

   In addition, the RFP provided that each of these subfactors would be
   assessed risk ratings of high, moderate, or low risk. The RFP further
   advised that in evaluating risk, the agency would focus on "risks and
   weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposal approach," including an
   assessment of the "potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost,
   degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government
   oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful performance." RFP,
   Evaluation Factors for Award, sect. 2.5.

   With regard to past performance, the RFP requested that offerors submit
   information on relevant contracts, performed within the 3 years prior to
   the issuance of the RFP, that would allow the agency to asses the
   offeror's probability of successfully performing the effort as proposed.
   From this information, the agency would assess "confidence" ratings of
   "high," "significant," "unknown," "little," or "no" confidence. Id. sect.
   2.6.

   With regard to price, the RFP contained numerous fixed-price contract line
   item numbers (CLIN) and subCLINs, for both the base period and each option
   year, covering IETM systems development and tasks related to the continued
   TO sustainment support, IETM improvements and additional functional
   requirements, and IETM source data files.[4] RFP, Schedule B. The RFP
   stated that "prices and rates" were to be provided for each CLIN, and that
   "no other rates will be allowed or considered for negotiating a price for
   each work request." RFP, Instructions to Offerors sect. 5.1(a). The
   offerors were also requested to state their prices "in exact amounts" and
   informed that prices "should not be rounded." Id. sect. 5.1.5.

   The RFP stated that each offeror's proposed price would be evaluated for
   reasonableness based on the total price proposed for the base period
   requirements and all options. The prices of the "line items and sub-line
   items" were also to be evaluated to determine if the pricing was
   unbalanced. While offerors were requested to provide "information other
   than cost or pricing data" to support price reasonableness and cost
   realism in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sections
   15.403-1(b), 15.403-3(a), and 15.403-5, id. sect. 5.1.4, according to the
   protester, at the "industry day" briefing for this procurement, offerors
   were instructed not to provide "cost build up" information and provide
   only CLIN pricing. Protest at 12.

   Eight offerors, including TruLogic and CTI, responded to the RFP.[5]
   Different members of the source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated
   different aspects of the technical proposals. For example, with regard to
   the mission capability factor, three individuals evaluated the program
   management subfactor and the configuration management aspect of the
   technical performance subfactor, and four individuals evaluated the
   remaining aspects of the technical performance subfactor, including the
   demonstration disk. Two individuals evaluated past performance, and the
   contracting officer and an advisor evaluated price. Proposal risk was
   considered by the evaluators throughout the evaluation. Hearing Transcript
   (Tr.) at 29-31.[6] Once initial evaluations were complete, the SSET
   members developed "Evaluation Notices" (EN) that were sent to the offerors
   regarding technical and price issues. After several rounds of ENs, the
   entire SSET met to evaluate the responses.

   With regard to the technical performance subfactor of the mission
   capability factor, the SSET members agreed that TruLogic's proposal
   demonstrated that its proposed IETM system provided "basic functionalities
   and several enhancements [that were] fully developed and available for
   immediate incorporation," was "extremely user-friendly," and presented a
   low risk solution. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7A, SSET Majority Report, Slide
   24.

   The SSET members also agreed that there were no "inadequacies" in CTI's
   proposal under the technical performance subfactor. However, the majority
   of the SSET determined that there remained "uncertainties" whether CTI's
   proposal met some of the functionality requirements of the SOW, for
   example, those concerning graphics display, bookmarking and annotation
   capability, and search functions. Id., Slides 17-19. The majority view
   that CTI's proposal had "significant system uncertainties" was based on
   their belief that CTI's demonstration disk did not fully demonstrate these
   capabilities, and reflected the majority's concern that the screen
   appearance and layout of some of the features were not "user-friendly" and
   thus would require "system improvement with Government direction." Id.,
   Slide 24; Tr. at 14, 109; see AR, Tab 6C, Source Selection Decision (SSD),
   at 6. The minority of members disagreed, noting that CTI fully explained
   how it met the functionality requirements of the SOW in its EN responses,
   and that ease of use was not an RFP requirement; rather appearance,
   formatting, and layout could be worked out during the initial "Guidance
   Conference" after award.[7] AR, Tab 7B, SSET Minority Report, Slides
   16-19; Tr. at 35, 173; see AR, Tab 6C, SSD, at 6-7.

   The majority SSET members drafted a final evaluation report, and the
   minority SSET members drafted a separate evaluation report documenting
   their disagreement. The resulting reports (both of which were presented to
   the SSA) reflected different ratings for CTI under the technical
   performance subfactor of the mission capability factor. In all other
   respects, the members agreed.[8] The proposal ratings assigned by the
   majority and minority SSET members were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |             |      TruLogic       |                CTI                 |
   |             |---------------------+------------------------------------|
   |             | Majority | Minority |  Majority SSET   |  Minority SSET  |
   |             |   SSET   |   SSET   |                  |                 |
   |-------------+----------+----------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Mission      |          |          |                  |                 |
   |Capability   |          |          |                  |                 |
   |-------------+----------+----------+------------------+-----------------|
   | |Program    |Green/Low |Green/Low |    Green/Low     |    Green/Low    |
   | |Management |          |          |                  |                 |
   | |-----------+----------+----------+------------------+-----------------|
   | |Technical  | Blue/Low | Blue/Low | Yellow/Moderate  |Green/Moderate[9]|
   | |Performance|          |          |                  |                 |
   |-------------+----------+----------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Proposal Risk|   Low    |   Low    |   Low/Moderate   |  Low/Moderate   |
   |-------------+----------+----------+------------------+-----------------|
   |Past         |   High   |   High   |   Significant    |   Significant   |
   |Performance  |Confidence|Confidence|    Confidence    |   Confidence    |
   |-------------+---------------------+------------------------------------|
   |Price        |     $4,163,946      |             $3,283,235             |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 7A, SSET Majority Report, Slides 10, 12, 17; Tab 7B, SSET Minority
   Report, Slides 11, 16. The majority SSET report recommended TruLogic for
   award based on TruLogic's superior technical rating. AR, Tab 7A, SSET
   Majority Report, Slide 25. The minority SSET report recommended CTI for
   award, finding that CTI's proposal met the requirements of the RFP and was
   the "better value," given the firm's lower cost and essentially "equal"
   past performance. AR, Tab 7B, Minority SSET Report, Slide 27.

   The SSA (who was also the contracting officer), in the SSD, agreed with
   the SSET's evaluation and "blue" rating of TruLogic's proposal under the
   technical performance subfactor of the mission capability factor, and with
   the assessment that TruLogic's proposal was technically superior to CTI's
   under this subfactor. In so doing, he set forth the various strengths in
   TruLogic's proposal that supported that rating. AR, Tab 6C, SSD, at 4-5.

   However, the SSA did not concur in the majority SSET's yellow rating of
   CTI's proposal under this subfactor and instead adopted the minority SSET
   views that CTI's proposal met the requirements of the RFP in all areas
   identified by the majority SSET members as "uncertainties" and that it
   should be rated "green" under this subfactor.[10] Id. at 6. In addition,
   he found a number of strengths in CTI's proposal that were overlooked by
   the majority SSET members in their report. For example, he noted that CTI
   possessed experience converting TOs into the S1000D[11] format, which
   would be "beneficial to the Air Force in terms of decreased oversights and
   costs" and would "decrease the time required to field Technical Order
   systems in S1000D format." Id. at 7. Another strength was found in CTI's
   database system, which would make it "easier and less costly to make
   future upgrades when moving to a Type 2 IETM system," id. at 11, and would
   make it easier to transfer data to existing systems and gather and analyze
   engine operational and maintenance data. Id. at 7. The SSA also found
   additional strengths in CTI's configuration management and storage,
   backup, and security plan. Id. Accordingly, the SSA rated CTI's proposal
   green under the technical performance subfactor of the mission capability
   factor.

   Under the program management subfactor of the mission capability factor,
   the SSA found that both of these offerors had excellent management
   structures and described the strengths of each proposal that supported
   this determination. He also stated that while TruLogic had "more
   experience in Air Force Technical Order sustainment than CTI," this was
   "balanced by" CTI's experience with the Navy and its "extensive commercial
   experience" with building IETM systems, as well as the fact that CTI's
   team members were "highly experienced" with Army, Navy, Air Force, and
   commercial entities. The SSA also determined that the personnel teams of
   each offeror were "equal." Based on the foregoing, the SSA rated both
   proposals green under the program management factor. Id. at 3.

   Under the proposal risk factor, the SSA found that TruLogic's proposal
   presented the "least risk to the schedule and performance" because of the
   firm's experience on Air Force TO systems. However, the SSA found that
   CTI's proposal also deserved a low risk rating, rather than the moderate
   risk rating assigned by the majority SSET members under the technical
   performance subfactor, because, in his view, CTI's proposal did not
   contain the "uncertainties" identified by the majority SSET members in
   their report, and thus there was "little doubt" as to CTI's ability to
   perform. Id. at 8-9.

   Under the past performance factor, the SSA found TruLogic's performance to
   be slightly superior to CTI's, but found that CTI also presented past
   performance examples that were "highly rated and very relevant in
   magnitude and complexity to this effort." As a result, the SSA concluded
   that he had "no doubt that either TruLogic or CTI could perform this
   requirement on schedule per the [SOW]." Id. at 11.

   The SSA selected CTI for award, based on his belief that that "CTI will
   successfully perform the requirement, and at a significantly lower price"
   than TruLogic and that CTI's proposal provided the "best overall value" to
   the Air Force. The strengths identified in TruLogic's proposal, in the
   SSA's opinion, did not "offer sufficient advantage over the features
   proposed by CTI such as to merit a 27% price premium." Id. at 12. The SSA
   notified TruLogic that CTI was selected for award, and this protest
   followed.

   DISCUSSION

   TruLogic challenges the agency's evaluation and source selection decision.
   Where an evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate
   proposals, but instead will examine the record to determine whether the
   agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation
   criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Sam Facility Mgmt.,
   Inc., B-292237, July 22, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 147 at 3. A protester's mere
   disagreement with the agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish
   that an agency acted unreasonably. Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, Mar. 9,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 70 at 3.

   TruLogic first argues that the SSA failed to act with "impartiality."[12]
   It asserts that the SSA unreasonably ignored the SSET majority view,
   instead relying on the minority view, and "manipulated" the evaluation to
   support his selection of CTI for award. TruLogic further contends that the
   SSA either ignored or only mentioned in a cursory way TruLogic's proposal
   strengths, while dedicating several paragraphs of the SSD to emphasize
   CTI's proposal strengths.

   The record, however, shows a well-documented, reasoned evaluation and
   award decision without evidence of bias. Despite TruLogic's insistence
   that the SSA should have adopted the majority view, source selection
   officials are not bound by the evaluation judgments of lower level
   evaluators; they may come to their own reasonable evaluation conclusions.
   MW-All Star Joint Venture, B-291170.4, Aug. 4, 2003, 2004 CPD para. 98 at
   3 n.3. Here, we find that the SSA reasonably concluded that the minority
   view was a more accurate assessment of CTI's proposal.[13] The record
   confirms that CTI's EN responses and final proposal revision adequately
   address the functionality requirements at issue, and supports the minority
   SSET report and the SSA's conclusion that CTI's proposal met the
   functionality requirements of the RFP.[14] The SSA did not "manipulate"
   the evaluation, as alleged, but documented in detail his disagreement with
   the majority of the SSET. To the extent that TruLogic complains that the
   SSD contains more paragraphs discussing CTI's proposal than TruLogic's,
   the agency explains that this was because the SSA was explaining his
   disagreement with the majority of the SSET, not because the SSA was
   ignoring the benefits of TruLogic's approach or over-emphasizing CTI's
   proposal strengths. In sum, our review of the record reveals that the SSD
   fairly considered the benefits and drawbacks of both TruLogic's and CTI's
   proposal features, and reasonably concluded that CTI's proposal provided
   the better value.

   TruLogic challenges the assessment of strengths and weaknesses in its and
   CTI's proposals. For example, it complains that the agency unreasonably
   assessed a strength in CTI's proposal for its database system. The record
   shows that the agency reasonably concluded that CTI's database system
   offered advantages to the agency, not offered by TruLogic's system,
   including the ability to transfer and gather data more easily, make it
   easier to upgrade in the future to a "Type 2" IETM system, and to provide
   more interactivity with existing and future systems. Tr. at 61-62, 83-84.
   Although TruLogic asserts that the agency misevaluated the offerors'
   systems in this regard, it has not demonstrated that the evaluation of
   this aspect of the proposals was unreasonable.[15]

   TruLogic also complains that the agency evaluated unstated criteria by
   giving credit to CTI's proposal for its database system, asserting that a
   database system was not required by the RFP. However, the SOW contemplates
   that a database IETM system could be provided.[16] RFP, SOW, sect. 2.2.1.a
   (citing MIL-PRF-87268A-A1, which references requirements for a database
   system); Tr. at 70-71. Since the RFP informed offerors that their
   technical approaches would be evaluated for "future enhancements,
   upgradeability, suitability, maintainability, and interoperability and
   integration with other systems," RFP, Instructions to Offerors,
   sect. 4.2.3, we find no error in the Air Force's assessment that CTI's
   database system was deserving of a strength for providing benefits in
   these areas.

   TruLogic next complains that the agency assessed CTI's proposal a strength
   for the firm's S1000D experience, but ignored TruLogic's "RCM" (that is,
   Reliability Centered Maintenance) experience.[17] However, the agency
   reasonably concluded that CTI's experience converting TOs to S1000D format
   for the Navy was easily transferable to the Air Force and provided a
   benefit to the Air Force since the RFP contemplated that future IETM
   systems would be S1000D compliant. AR, Tab 6C, SSD, at 7; see RFP, SOW,
   sections 2.2.2.a, 2.3.1. In contrast, TruLogic had not performed S1000D
   conversion efforts, and had not provided any deliverables under its RCM
   contract at the time of the evaluation such that the agency could have
   evaluated this work. Tr. at 99-102.

   TruLogic also contends that the agency rated CTI's proposal too high under
   the program management subfactor for the firm's commercial and Navy
   experience, and rated TruLogic's proposal too low given TruLogic's
   assertedly more relevant Air Force experience. However, the record shows
   that, although the offerors' experience is discussed in the SSD, the
   essential bases for both firms' green ratings under this subfactor were
   the firms' "excellent" management plans as set forth in their respective
   proposals and discussed in the SSD. Although it is not clear why the SSD
   compared the firms' experience under this subfactor, given that the RFP
   did not state that experience would be evaluated under this subfactor, the
   record nonetheless shows that both offerors had comparable and valuable
   experience, as reasonably considered by the agency. In this regard, as
   stated above, the agency favorably considered TruLogic's Air Force
   experience, but reasonably found that this was "balanced by" CTI's
   experience with commercial entities and the Navy, and by the broad
   experience of CTI's team members.[18] AR, Tab 6C, SSD, at 3.

   TruLogic also asserts that in order to accomplish the contract work, CTI
   must employ labor categories for technical writers, illustrators, and
   quality assurance personnel that are not identified in its GSA Schedule
   contract. However, as pointed out by the Air Force, technical writers and
   illustrators are not required under the RFP and their services are not
   being purchased by the agency here. Tr. at 52, 57; Contracting Officer's
   Statement (Nov. 16, 2005) at 5. According to the SOW, these tasks are
   being performed by the Air Force. RFP, SOW, sections 2.5, 3.2. With regard
   to quality assurance, the agency reasonably determined that tasks
   requiring this skill could be accomplished within the labor categories
   identified in CTI's GSA Schedule contract. See Tr. at 53, 170-71.

   TruLogic also challenges the agency's evaluation of price, arguing that
   the agency deviated from the stated evaluation criteria, failed to
   evaluate price reasonableness,[19] and overlooked CTI's assertedly
   unbalanced prices. The record demonstrates, however, that the agency
   adhered to the RFP's evaluation criteria in evaluating price. In this
   regard, the agency compared each offeror's overall price and the price for
   each CLIN and sub-CLIN to other offerors' prices and to the government
   estimate for each year of the contract (including option years). Where the
   evaluators found unexplained outliers in price (that is, prices that
   deviated substantially from the other offerors or the government
   estimate), the agency issued ENs to the offeror to better understand the
   offeror's approach. From this analysis, which the agency explained in
   detail at GAO's hearing, we find that the agency reasonably concluded that
   CTI's price was reasonable and not unbalanced.

   TruLogic raises a number of other specific concerns about CTI's price. For
   example, it asserts that CTI's price must be unbalanced since CTI did not
   alter its CLIN pricing based on the number of pages that must be
   processed. However, as the agency reasonably explains, CTI's proposed IETM
   system is not dependent on page counts and will not lead to additional
   costs for CLINs with a greater number of pages. See Tr. at 144-47.

   TruLogic also complains that CTI's price contains "hidden" costs, that is,
   costs necessary to render CTI's proposal compliant with the RFP's
   functionality requirements identified by the majority SSET report as
   "uncertainties." However, as discussed above, we find that the SSA
   reasonably concluded that CTI's proposal met these functionality
   requirements and thus there are no "hidden" costs.

   TruLogic also complains that CTI's prices for some CLINs were "per seat"
   unit prices prohibited by the RFP. In this regard, the SOW stated that
   "[t]he Government will not accept a per-seat licensing solution for the
   IETM program. The contractor's solution must provide the authority for
   unlimited Government distribution of the IETM system." RFP, SOW, sect.
   2.1. TruLogic misinterprets CTI's pricing. CTI's CLIN price was developed
   from multiplying its unit price (which was "per seat") by some multiple to
   arrive at a total fixed price amount for "unlimited seats." Tr. at 163;
   AR, Tab 9A, CTI's Price Proposal, Vol. III, Schedule B. CTI thus offered
   an unlimited seat solution, not a "per seat" solution as TruLogic argues.

   TruLogic further asserts that CTI's proposal did not comply with the
   requirement for "exact" rather than "rounded" pricing, noting that many of
   CTI's CLINs are identically priced and are rounded to whole dollar
   amounts. The agency explains that CTI's prices were not rounded, but were
   based on its GSA Schedule pricing, which was stated in whole dollars. Tr.
   at 163-64. According to documents included with CTI's price proposal,
   however, CTI's GSA Schedule pricing is not stated in whole dollars and its
   pricing, therefore, appears to be rounded. AR, Tab 9A, CTI's Price
   Proposal, Vol. III, GSA Schedule Price List. Although it appears from the
   record that the agency may have waived the requirement for "exact" pricing
   with regard to CTI's proposal, the record does not show that the
   competition was in any way compromised by the agency's acceptance of CTI's
   proposal or that TruLogic was otherwise prejudiced as a result. There is
   no evidence, and it is not otherwise apparent, that the agency's waiver of
   the requirement would in any way materially affect any offerors' proposed
   overall price (TruLogic does not claim, for example, that this would allow
   it to materially lower its overall price), such that TruLogic could
   overcome the substantial price differential between its and CTI's
   proposals in order to have a reasonable chance for award. In the absence
   of prejudice, the protest cannot be sustained on this ground. See Citywide
   Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13,
   Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 10 (waiver or violation of solicitation
   requirements does not provide basis to sustain protest where there is no
   prejudice).

   Finally, TruLogic complains that CTI's price for the travel CLIN ($32,400)
   was underpriced and should have been accounted for in the price
   evaluation, especially given TruLogic's higher price ($166,903) for this
   CLIN. Protest at 13-14; see CLIN Summary Sheet. In contrast to the
   fixed-priced CLINs for the other contract work, travel was to be evaluated
   based on estimated travel costs for two people making 27 trips from the
   offeror's place of business to Tinker Air Force Base (in Oklahoma) or San
   Antonio, Texas, using Joint Travel Regulation rates. RFP, Evaluation
   Factors for Award, sect. 2.7. The agency evaluated CTI's pricing based on
   the assumption of only one individual making the trip, since the agency
   was aware from CTI's proposal that CTI's teaming partner (which could
   provide the second individual) was located locally in Oklahoma and this
   would substantially reduce travel costs. Tr. at 151, 159, 162-63. Our
   review of the record confirms that CTI's teaming partner will be
   contributing support to the performance of this contract, such that it is
   reasonable to assume that CTI's travel costs will be less than those of an
   offeror such as TruLogic, which does not have such a local partner and
   which will necessarily have significantly higher travel costs.
   Consequently, we find that the Air Force's evaluation of this CLIN
   provides no basis to sustain TruLogic's protest.[20]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The protester here proceeded pro se and thus did not have access to
   certain information in the record. Accordingly, our discussion in this
   decision is necessarily general in order to avoid reference to protected
   information. Our conclusions, however, are based on our review and
   consideration of the entire record.

   [2] The program management subfactor included the evaluation of management
   structure, quality plan, safety plan, management of funds, and personnel
   staffing and training.

   [3] The technical performance subfactor included the evaluation of a
   demonstration disk; storage, security and backup; configuration
   management; and hardware and software requirements.

   [4] As discussed later in this decision, there were also CLINs for travel
   for which offerors were to submit estimated costs.

   [5] Four offerors were later eliminated from the competitive range.

   [6] Our Office conducted a hearing on the protest on January 5, 2006. Both
   the SSA and the author of the minority SSET report (discussed later in
   this decision) testified at the hearing.

   [7] The SOW provided that a "Guidance Conference" would be held with the
   awardee within 15 days of award to discuss such issues as "style, work
   package format, illustrations, data that requires amplification, and
   missing data." RFP, SOW, sections 6.3, 6.4.

   [8] The minority did not disagree with the evaluation of Tru-Logic's
   proposal.

   [9] Although the minority SSET report did not change the risk rating from
   moderate to low for the technical performance subfactor, the discussion in
   the report regarding proposal risk addressed and rejected each of the
   concerns raised by the majority SSET members that led to the moderate risk
   rating.

   [10] Contrary to TruLogic's interpretation of the redacted report, the
   agency does not admit that CTI's proposal deviates from solicitation
   requirements.

   [11] S1000D is an international standard from the ISO 9001 area. Tr. at
   93.

   [12] TruLogic also complains that the agency did not make a "new" source
   selection decision, as it promised in its corrective action letter to our
   Office that led to our dismissal of its prior protest, but merely
   reselected CTI for award. However, the agency's promise of making a new
   decision did not mean that CTI was ineligible for award or that CTI could
   not be selected after the reevaluation, as is here suggested by TruLogic.
   In addition, TruLogic complains that, when taking corrective action, the
   agency amended the solicitation to alter requirements solely for the
   benefit of CTI. However, to the extent that TruLogic now complains about
   the RFP amendments, its protest is untimely, as challenges to defects in
   solicitation amendments must be raised before the date set for receipt of
   proposal submissions following the amendment, and these were not timely
   raised. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2005).

   [13] TruLogic asserts that the majority SSET report presented the more
   accurate view since the majority members were "high ranking enlisted
   representatives" and managers, and were more qualified and experienced
   than the minority SSET members. In this regard, TruLogic speculates that
   the minority SSET report author was not an "actual `user'" and only held
   an "administrative/management" position. However, the SSA explains, and
   the record confirms, that the minority members had more "direct"
   experience with TOs than the majority members whose experience was more
   "administrative." Tr. at 15-25, 40. TruLogic also contends that the
   majority view was more credible since the majority SSET members (or at
   least some of the majority members, as the record shows) reviewed the
   demonstration disk, and the minority members did not review the disk.
   However, the minority members discussed with the rest of the SSET the
   majority's concerns, and credibly explained why they did not need to
   review the disk to determine from CTI's EN responses and final proposal
   revision that CTI's proposal met the functionality requirements of the
   solicitation. See Tr. at 28-29. While TruLogic disagrees with the SSA's
   determination to give more weight to the minority report, it has not shown
   the SSA's judgment to be unreasonable. See Entz Aerodyne, Inc., supra.

   [14] Although TruLogic contends that CTI's proposal should have been found
   technically unacceptable because its demonstration disk did not
   sufficiently address the functionality requirements and that the SSA
   should not have considered CTI's EN responses, the RFP provided that an
   offeror could explain how it would address the functionality requirements
   of the solicitation that were not addressed in its demonstration disk.
   RFP, Instructions to Offerors, sect. 4.2.3.

   [15] For example, TruLogic asserts that the agency misinterpreted its
   proposal as offering a "Type 1" IETM system and that these categories are
   applicable only to the Navy and not the Air Force. However, as the agency
   explains, the classifications are applicable throughout the Department of
   Defense and, because TruLogic's proposed system did not offer the
   "interactivity" required of higher-level systems, the agency reasonably
   concluded that TruLogic's system was only a "Type 1" IETM system. Tr. at
   78-79. Although we do not address all of TruLogic's numerous other
   arguments contesting the nature and relative capability of its and CTI's
   IETM systems, we have reviewed all of the arguments and find that they do
   not demonstrate that the evaluation of the proposals in this respect was
   unreasonable.

   [16] Although TruLogic states that all IETM systems are database systems,
   the agency persuasively explains why, in its view, this is not the case.
   See Tr. at 70-71, 76-77.

   [17] RCM refers to a program or system for collecting equipment
   inspection, maintenance, and failure data, so that the agency can better
   forecast the need for the acquisition or replacement of parts. Tr. at
   84-85, 98.

   [18] TruLogic also disputes the agency's determination that the firms'
   personnel were essentially "equal" under the program management subfactor.
   However, the record shows that the two firms offered personnel with
   similar years and range of experience.

   [19] TruLogic complains that price reasonableness cannot be determined
   without "bulk rate and build up costs," which were not provided by CTI (or
   TruLogic, for that matter) or required by the agency. Since TruLogic was
   aware from the industry day briefing that this information was not
   required and did not protest prior to the closing date for receipt of
   proposals, its protest now that this information should have been required
   is untimely. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (alleged solicitation defects must
   be protested prior to due date for receipt of proposals).

   [20] While TruLogic argues that travel costs should not have been included
   in the price evaluation because they are too uncertain, this constitutes
   an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation. 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.2(a)(1).