TITLE: B-298543.2, Maden Technologies, October 30, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298543.2
DATE: October 30, 2006
************************************************
B-298543.2, Maden Technologies, October 30, 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: Maden Technologies

   File: B-298543.2

   Date: October 30, 2006

   T. Michael Guiffre, Esq., Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Robert S. Brams, Esq.,
   and James N. Schwarz, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester.

   Paul E. Pompeo, Esq., Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Stuart W. Turner, Esq.,
   Holland & Knight LLP, for Beta Analytics, Incorporated, an intervenor.

   Mary E. Clarke, Esq., Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for the
   agency.

   Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Agency reasonably concluded that potential for conflict of interest
   stemming from awardee's proposed use of a subcontractor who had served as
   an evaluator for the agency in connection with a previous procurement was
   mitigated where the subcontractor had signed a non-disclosure agreement in
   connection with her performance as an evaluator and the agency reasonably
   found that the subcontractor did not aid the awardee in preparing its
   proposal other than to submit a subcontract proposal.

   2. Protest alleging "bait and switch" where awardee requested permission
   from the agency to substitute nine personnel after award is denied where
   the record does not establish that the awardee knowingly or negligently
   misrepresented its intent to furnish the nine individuals for whom
   substitution was sought.

   DECISION

   Maden Technologies protests the award of a contract to Beta Analytics,
   Incorporated (BAI) under solicitation No. HR0011-06-R-0001, issued by the
   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for support services for
   the Security and Intelligence Directorate, under the Office of Management
   Operations at DARPA. Maden argues that the agency failed to address an
   organizational conflict of interest affecting BAI; BAI engaged in a "bait
   and switch" by substituting less qualified personnel after award as
   compared to the more highly qualified personnel identified in its
   proposal; the agency improperly evaluated Maden's proposal; the
   discussions regarding its proposal were not meaningful; and the agency's
   source selection decision was flawed.

   We deny the protest.

   DARPA's mission is to serve as the central research and development
   organization of the Department of Defense with primary responsibility to
   maintain U.S. technological superiority over potential adversaries. As a
   consequence, DARPA is responsible for a number of secret and top secret
   programs. Agency Report (AR) at 2. DARPA's Security and Intelligence
   Directorate (SID) supports this mission by "planning, executing, and
   directing the information, personnel, industrial, information assurance,
   and physical security programs at DARPA and at specified contractor
   sites." RFP at 8.

   On February 13, 2006, DARPA issued the RFP, which provided for the award
   of a cost-plus-award-fee contract with 1 base year and four 1-year options
   for services in support of the mission of SID. Specifically, DARPA sought
   a contractor to provide a "high quality professional security staff" to
   partner with SID in accomplishing its mission. RFP at 8. To accomplish
   this goal, the RFP's statement of work identified and described a total of
   37 tasks required of the contractor in the areas of "security operations,"
   "program security," and "security program planning and execution." RFP
   9-21. Offerors were advised of the estimated level of effort needed to
   perform the tasks required under the statement of work and support SID in
   performing its mission for each contract period (base and options). In
   this regard, DARPA provided a list of required labor categories, the
   estimated hours for each labor category, and the estimated full time
   equivalents (FTE) for each labor category. In sum, DARPA estimated a need
   for 69 FTEs for the base and each option year. RFP at 75.

   Under the RFP, award was to be made on a "best value" basis with proposals
   evaluated under the following factors: (1) technical approach, (2)
   personnel, (3) past performance, and (4) cost/price. Regarding the
   non-cost factors, the RFP provided that the technical approach and
   personnel factors were of equal importance and both were more important
   than the past performance factor. As set forth in the RFP, the best value
   determination was to be made using a trade-off process where the non-cost
   factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.
   The importance of cost/price, however, would increase as non-cost factors
   were determined to be closer in merit. RFP at 77, 81.

   The technical approach factor contained four subfactors: (1) understanding
   of the statement of work; (2) management and execution of contract
   requirements; (3) staffing plan/teaming arrangements; (4) corporate
   support/facilities. The first three factors were of equal importance and
   were each more important that the last subfactor. Under the personnel
   factor, which did not include any subfactors, offerors were required to
   demonstrate that the personnel they proposed to staff the contract met
   minimum qualification requirements for education and experience. For
   example, the RFP provided for a "program manager" position, which was
   considered a key personnel position, and indicated that the individual
   proposed for this position was required to have a bachelor's degree as
   well as 10 years of "qualifying, related experience," 5 years of which
   "shall be in the direction and management of Government funded programs in
   industry or within government entities, with 20 or more individuals under
   their cognizance." RFP at 31. The RFP further provided that for the
   purpose of evaluating proposals under the personnel factor, where the
   quality of personnel was considered equal, an offeror proposing currently
   employed personnel would be deemed equal to an offeror proposing personnel
   under letters of intent or commitment.

   Past performance, the least important non-cost factor, included the
   following four equally weighted subfactors: (1) timeliness, (2) quality,
   (3) cost control, and (4) customer satisfaction. RFP at 80. The RFP
   directed offerors to submit past performance information concerning their
   performance of recent (within the past 5 years) and relevant contracts and
   subcontracts. For each contract identified, offerors were to include,
   among other things, total award value, contact information for the
   government technical point of contact and/or the contracting officer's
   representative for the contract, a brief description of the types of tasks
   involved under the contract, and details on the tasks under the contract
   that were relevant to the tasks of the RFP. RFP at 71. As provided in the
   RFP, past performance information was deemed relevant if the information
   related to the offeror's performance of "similar tasks found in this RFP's
   Statement of Work and was performed for [the Department of Defense], one
   of the services, or the intelligence community." RFP at 71.

   The solicitation further informed offerors that DARPA could obtain and
   consider past performance information from other sources such as the
   Defense Contract Management Agency, Contractor Performance Assessment
   Reporting System (CPARS), the Department of Defense's Past Performance
   Information Retrieval System, and "other past performance information
   provided by a Government employee (including those persons referenced in
   the Offeror's Past Performance proposal), etc.) to supplement or validate
   the information in the Past Performance proposal." RFP at 72.

   Regarding the evaluation of cost/price, the RFP, as amended, provided that
   DARPA would evaluate proposed cost/price for reasonableness and realism
   and indicated that a cost realism evaluation would be performed to
   determine each offeror's most probable cost to the government and to
   assess the offeror's understanding of the requirements of the RFP. The
   evaluated cost was to be the higher of either (a) the sum of the offeror's
   proposed total estimated cost and fee or (b) the government's
   determination of the offeror's most probable total cost and fee.

   Five offerors, including Maden and BAI, submitted timely proposals by the
   solicitation's March 16, 2006 closing date. To evaluate proposals, DARPA
   convened a technical evaluation panel (TEP), a past performance evaluation
   panel (PPEP) and a cost/price evaluation panel (C/PEP). With regard to the
   non-cost factors, the evaluators ranked each proposal under the various
   factors and subfactors utilizing the following color/adjectival ratings,
   blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, red/unacceptable, and
   grey/neutral (past performance only). Based on initial proposals, the
   agency rated Maden and BAI as "green" overall for "technical approach,"
   with each receiving "green" ratings for all of the "technical approach"
   subfactors.

   As it relates to the protest, under the subfactor "staffing plan/teaming
   arrangement," the TEP noted weaknesses with Maden's plan for addressing
   "surge" requirements. Specifically, the TEP noted that Maden proposed to
   address surge requirements by [deleted]. The TEP expressed concern with
   this plan since[deleted]. AR, Tab 10, Maden TEP Consensus Report, at 7.
   According to the TEP, this weakness was "slightly below
   standards/expectations."[1] Moreover, the TEP concluded that Maden's
   "ability to meet a temporary surge requirement lacks depth" due to its
   reliance on [deleted]. Id. In the TEP's view, this was "extremely short
   [sighted] because [deleted]. Id. This was "clearly below
   standards/expectations" in the TEP's view. Id.

   Moreover, in assigning Maden's proposal a "green" rating under the
   "corporate support and facilities" subfactor within the technical approach
   factor, the TEP found no strengths and three weaknesses, which were
   "slightly below standards/expectations." Specifically, the TEP found that
   Maden had failed to articulate a corporate philosophy that supports the
   required effort, its support staff resources lacked commitment and seemed
   only to be available on a "crisis basis," and Maden had identified a
   budget position outside the scope of the solicitation. AR, Tab 10, Maden
   TEP Consensus Report, at 9. Overall, the TEP concluded that Maden had
   "proposed to provide Corporate Support/Facilities that meet the
   expectations of the RFP. . . [deleted] . . . [b]ased on the weighting of
   the subfactors, the consensus of the panel is that the Offeror's proposed
   technical approach is acceptable." Id..

   Under the past performance factor, Maden and BAI both received the highest
   overall rating of "blue" or "exceptional," with ratings under the various
   subfactors as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Offeror|Subfactor | Subfactor  |Subfactor|    Subfactor (d):    |Overall|
   |       |   (a):   |(b): Quality|(c): Cost|Customer Satisfaction |Rating |
   |       |Timeliness|            | Control |                      |       |
   |-------+----------+------------+---------+----------------------+-------|
   |  BAI  |   Blue   |    Blue    |  Green  |         Blue         | Blue  |
   |-------+----------+------------+---------+----------------------+-------|
   | Maden |   Blue   |    Blue    |  Blue   |        Green         | Blue  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR at 35.

   In reviewing BAI's past performance, the PPEP identified numerous
   strengths and no weaknesses under any of the subfactors. In evaluating
   Maden's past performance, DARPA determined that Maden's past performance
   had numerous strengths as well; however, under the customer satisfaction
   subfactor, the agency noted information concerning Maden's performance as
   the incumbent contractor, which it received from an interview with Robert
   Copeland, the director of SID and the government's on-site technical
   representative for the incumbent contract. In his assessment of Maden's
   incumbent performance, Mr. Copeland rated Maden as "exceptional" for
   timeliness and quality, but "marginal" for cost control and customer
   satisfaction. With regard to customer satisfaction, Mr. Copeland noted
   that Maden was, at times, "not reasonable, dismissing a qualified employee
   and suggesting a replacement costing three times as much"; and observed an
   "'overall' absence of support by the corporate office which led to
   qualified people leaving the contractor." AR, Tab 10, Maden's Contractor
   Past Performance Questionnaires.

   Under the personnel factor Maden and BAI were both initially rated as
   "yellow" or marginal, principally due to the fact that many of their
   proposed personnel did not meet qualification requirements set forth in
   the RFP. DARPA determined that [deleted] of Maden's 69 personnel did not
   meet the RFP's qualification requirements and that [deleted] of BAI's 69
   personnel were not qualified. Because none of the offerors met the RFP's
   qualification requirements for all 69 FTEs, and recognizing that, based on
   its knowledge of the labor market, "it is unlikely that any offeror can
   propose personnel for all 69 FTEs meeting the minimum requirements
   specified," DARPA amended the solicitation to specify that those offerors
   submitting "a preponderance of resumes meeting the FTE's position
   requirements" would be evaluated as "minimally compliant" under the
   personnel factor. RFP amend. 4.

   After issuance of the amendment, DARPA held discussions with the offerors,
   including Maden and BAI, during which DARPA specifically informed Maden
   and BAI of the proposed personnel who were deemed unqualified and the
   basis for that determination. In response, Maden and BAI both submitted
   revised proposals with revised personnel. Based on its evaluation of the
   revised personnel, DARPA rated both Maden and BAI as "green" or
   "acceptable" under the personnel factor. In rating Maden and BAI as
   acceptable, the TEP found that [deleted] of Maden's 69 revised proposed
   personnel met the solicitation's stated qualification requirements and
   that [deleted] of the 69 individuals proposed by BAI met the qualification
   requirements.

   The evaluation teams submitted their evaluation results to the source
   selection evaluation board (SSEB), which reviewed the reports and agreed
   with all of the ratings. Based on its assessment of the proposals, the
   SSEB concluded that BAI's proposal, with an evaluated cost of $65.8
   million, was the best value and that Maden's technical proposal did not
   offer any strengths worth its higher evaluated cost of $68.2 million. The
   source selection authority (SSA) agreed with the SSEB's recommendation for
   award to BAI, explaining that BAI and Maden both had "excellent" past
   performance records and various strengths; however, as compared to Maden,
   BAI proposed a greater number of qualified personnel and had a lower
   evaluated cost. In the SSA's view, Maden's evaluated strengths did not
   warrant its increased cost.

   Upon learning of the agency's decision to make award to BAI, and after
   receipt of a debriefing, Maden filed the subject protest with our Office.
   In its protest, Maden alleges that BAI should have been eliminated from
   the competition because of multiple improper conflicts of interest and
   that BAI engaged in an improper "bait and switch" by substituting less
   qualified personnel after award as compared to the more highly qualified
   personnel identified in its proposal. Maden also argues that the agency
   failed to properly evaluate its proposal, failed to hold meaningful
   discussions, and that the best value decision was unreasonable.

   CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

   With regard to the conflict of interest issues, Maden first contends that
   BAI had an "unfair competitive advantage" due to the fact that Robert
   Copeland, the director of SID, is a former BAI employee and supervised two
   of the evaluators who participated in the procurement. Maden further
   alleges, based on "information and belief," that Mr. Copeland or other
   DARPA employees granted BAI "special access" to the project site prior to
   the award of the contract. Maden also argues that DARPA failed to properly
   consider the fact that BAI had an unfair advantage due to its teaming with
   Marianne Carter; according to Maden, Ms. Carter had worked as an evaluator
   for DARPA on a previous procurement wherein Maden had submitted a proposal
   and thus had access to Maden's "proprietary information."

   Regarding Mr. Copeland's involvement in the procurement, contracting
   agencies, as a general matter, are responsible for reviewing potential
   conflicts of interest posed by relationships between evaluators and
   offerors in order to ensure impartiality in the evaluation and to preserve
   the integrity of the procurement process. Laerdal Med. Corp., B-297321,
   B-297321.2, Dec. 23, 2005, 2006 CPD para. 12 at 6-7; DRI/McGraw-Hill,
   B-261181, B-261181.2, Aug. 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 76 at 3. Where, as
   here, a protester infers that agency officials are biased because of their
   past experiences or relationships, we focus on whether the individuals
   involved exerted improper influence in the procurement on behalf of the
   awardee, or against the protester. See George A. Fuller Co., B-247171.2,
   May 11, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 433; Advanced Sys. Tech., Inc.; Eng'g and
   Prof. Servs., Inc., B-241530, B-241530.2; Feb. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD para.
   153 (no evidence of bias by evaluation panel member who was formerly
   employed by the awardee's subcontractor).

   Here, the record reflects that Mr. Copeland was employed with BAI from
   2000 to 2003 and upon leaving BAI became an employee of the federal
   government. The record further reflects that Mr. Copeland has no financial
   interest in BAI. There is no evidence suggesting that the evaluators under
   Mr. Copeland's supervision knew of his former employment with BAI, or were
   improperly influenced by Mr. Copeland in performing their duties as
   evaluators. While Maden alleges that Mr. Copeland took direct action to
   benefit BAI by granting BAI "special access" to the project site, there is
   no evidence to support Maden's bare assertions in this regard. (Nor is
   there any indication of the advantage to be gained by such access,
   particularly given that Maden itself held the incumbent contract and had
   full access to the project site.) As explained by the agency, it conducted
   the procurement "off-site" via a secured network, Mr. Copeland did not
   have access to this site, and DARPA visitor logs reflect that BAI was not
   granted access to DARPA until after award. Since Maden has presented no
   evidence, and the record does not indicate, that Mr. Copeland exerted any
   improper influence for BAI or against Maden, we have no basis to object to
   DARPA's evaluation on the basis of any alleged conflict of interest.[2]

   Maden's argument that BAI's teaming arrangement with Marianne Carter
   presented an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) which should have
   resulted in BAI's exclusion from the competition, is similarly
   unsubstantiated and without merit. Contracting officers are required to
   identify and evaluate potential OCIs as early in the acquisition process
   as possible, and to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate potential significant
   conflicts of interest so as to prevent an unfair competitive advantage or
   the existence of conflicting roles that might impair a contractor's
   objectivity. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sections 9.504(a);
   9.505. OCIs, as addressed in FAR subpart 9.5 and the decisions of our
   Office, can be broadly categorized into three groups. The first group
   consists of situations in which a firm, as part of its performance of a
   government contract, has in some sense set the ground rules for the
   competition for another government contract by, for example, writing the
   statement of work or the specifications. FAR sect. 9.505-2; Aetna Gov't
   Health Plans, Inc.; Found. Health Fed. Servs., Inc., B-254397.15 et al.,
   July 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD para.129 at 13. The second group, which Maden
   alleges is relevant in this case, consists of "unequal access to
   information" situations in which a firm has access to nonpublic
   information as part of its performance of a government contract and where
   that information may provide the firm an unfair competitive advantage in a
   later competition for a government contract. FAR sect. 9.505-4; Aetna
   Gov't Health Plans, Inc.; Found. Health Fed. Servs., Inc., supra, at 12.
   The third group reflects concerns about a firm's "impaired objectivity"
   and comprises cases where a firm's work under one government contract
   could entail its evaluating itself or a related entity, thus undermining
   the firm's ability to render impartial advice to the government. FAR sect.
   9.505-3; Aetna Gov't Health Plans, Inc.; Found. Health Fed. Servs., Inc.,
   supra, at 13.

   The responsibility for determining whether an actual or apparent conflict
   will arise, and to what extent a firm should be excluded from the
   competition, rests with the contracting agency. RMG Sys., Ltd., B-281006,
   Dec. 18, 1998, 98-2 CPD para.153 at 4. Contracting officers are to
   exercise "common sense, good judgment, and sound discretion" in assessing
   whether a significant potential conflict exists and in developing
   appropriate ways to resolve it. FAR sect. 9.505; Epoch Eng'g, Inc.,
   B-276634, July 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 72 at 5. We will not overturn a
   contracting officer's determinations in this area except where they are
   shown to be unreasonable. SRS Techs., B-258170.3, Feb. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD
   para. 95 at 9.

   As an initial matter, in addressing this issue, we note that Maden fails
   to describe the nature of the prior procurement in which DARPA utilized
   the services of Ms. Carter as an evaluator, nor does Maden explain how the
   "proprietary information" it provided in connection with that procurement
   could have provided BAI with an advantage under the current solicitation.
   In any event, the record reflects that the contracting officer recognized
   the potential for a conflict resulting from BAI's use of Ms. Carter as a
   subcontractor, given her work as an evaluator on a prior DARPA
   procurement, and that he conducted an inquiry into her involvement in the
   preparation of BAI's proposal. Specifically, he solicited independent
   statements from both BAI and Ms. Carter to determine "exactly what
   information was shared between BAI and [Carter] and to confirm that no
   source selection information or proprietary information was released." AR,
   Tab 22, Source Selection Significant Event, SSP Deviations, and amend. 4
   Justification, at 3. Based on the statements received, the contracting
   officer was satisfied that Ms. Carter did not provide any information to
   BAI on how it should structure its proposal and found that her
   participation was limited to the submission of a subcontract proposal.
   Moreover, the contracting officer confirmed that Ms. Carter had signed a
   non-disclosure agreement in connection with her services as an evaluator
   for DARPA, which prohibited her from disclosing any source selection or
   proprietary information she may have obtained while serving as an
   evaluator. Upon reviewing the matter with the SSEB chairperson and agency
   counsel, the contracting officer concluded that the "potential OCI was
   effectively mitigated." AR, Tab 22, Source Selection Significant Event,
   SSP Deviations, and amend. 4 Justification, at 3-4). Based on this record
   there is nothing to support Maden's contention that BAI should have been
   excluded from the competition based on proposing Ms. Carter as a
   subcontractor, and Maden has not shown otherwise.

   "BAIT AND SWITCH"

   Maden next argues that BAI engaged in an impermissible "bait and switch"
   by substituting nine personnel identified in its proposal with less
   qualified personnel. To establish an impermissible "bait and switch,"  a
   protester must show that a firm either knowingly or negligently
   represented that it would rely on specific personnel that it did not
   expect to furnish during contract performance, and that the
   misrepresentation was relied on by the agency and had a material effect on
   the evaluation results. Computers Universal, Inc., B-292794, Nov. 18,
   2003, 2003 CPDpara. 201 at 3. Where an offeror provides firm letters of
   commitment and the names are submitted in good faith with the consent of
   the respective individuals, the fact that the offeror, after award,
   provides substitute personnel does not make the award improper. RONCO
   Consulting Corp., B-280113, Aug. 11, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 41 at 6.

   The record reflects that approximately 8 days after contract award, BAI
   requested permission from DARPA to substitute 9 of the 69 personnel whom
   BAI had proposed in its revised proposal with individuals who were
   originally proposed by BAI and found to lack the RFP's qualification
   requirements. In its proposal, BAI had provided supporting letters of
   commitment/intent signed by each of the nine individuals for whom
   substitution was proposed. In its letter to DARPA requesting approval of
   the substitution--all personnel changes required DARPA's
   pre-approval[3]--BAI explained its reasons for the substitutions,
   indicating that six of the nine personnel had decided to accept other
   employment or to remain with their current employer; in this regard, BAI
   noted that the contract announcement was delayed well beyond the original
   April 10 award date. Two of the nine requested substitutions were the
   result of movement of personnel within BAI; the record reflects that one
   of these substitutions was directed by DARPA. The final personnel
   substitution resulted from BAI's determination that it was more
   cost-effective to replace the proposed individual, who lived in California
   and thus required relocation expenses, with an incumbent employee who
   received a lower salary and did not require relocation. In its request to
   substitute personnel, BAI further highlighted the need to retain incumbent
   employees due to the compressed transition period implemented by the
   agency.[4] Given these facts, there is no basis to conclude that BAI
   knowingly or negligently misrepresented its intent to furnish the nine
   individuals sought for substitution.[5]

   PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS

   Maden challenges its green/acceptable rating under the past performance
   subfactor "customer satisfaction" arguing that DARPA improperly considered
   Mr. Copeland's negative assessment of its performance on the incumbent SID
   contract and that it was denied meaningful discussions because it was not
   afforded an opportunity to comment on Mr. Copeland's assessment. The
   record, however, shows that Maden received the highest rating under the
   past performance factor, "blue" or "exceptional", and there is no
   indication in the source selection record that the "customer satisfaction"
   past performance subfactor rating had any bearing on the selection
   decision.

   OTHER ISSUES

   In its initial protest, Maden challenges the agency's evaluation of its
   technical proposal, alleging that the agency misevaluated its proposal
   under the subfactor "staffing plan/teaming arrangement" by identifying a
   weakness in its plan to provide "surge" staffing, and by failing to
   identify strengths under the subfactor "corporate support/facilities"
   based on its proposing an [deleted]. Protest at 7. In its comments
   responding to the agency report (in which the agency provided a specific
   response to these assertions), Maden did not rebut the agency's position
   and, indeed, made no mention of these issues. In such circumstances, we
   deem the initially-raised arguments abandoned.[6] Citrus College; KEI
   Pearson, Inc., supra. For the first time in its supplemental comments,
   Maden also raised several issues concerning DARPA's evaluation of its
   cost, personnel, and staffing. These issues are untimely since they were
   evident from the agency's initial report, but Maden did not raise these
   issues until more than 10 days later in its supplemental comments. 4
   C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2).[7]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The evaluators identified each weakness as: (1) "slightly below
   standards/expectations"; "clearly below standards/expectations"; or
   "significantly below standards/expectations." For each strength, the
   evaluators indicated whether it was: "slightly above
   standards/expectations in a way that benefits the agency"; "clearly above
   standards/expectations in a way that benefits the agency"; or
   "significantly above standards/expectations in a way that benefits the
   agency." TAB 8, Source Selection Plan, at 24.

   [2] As noted above, Mr. Copeland also was the government's technical
   representative for the incumbent contract and in that capacity provided
   information which the PPEP used in the evaluation of Maden's past
   performance. In challenging its past performance evaluation, Maden argues
   that Mr. Copeland's bias was reflected by his rating of Maden's
   performance on the incumbent contract as "marginal." This assertion,
   however, is belied by the fact that Mr. Copeland rated Maden as "marginal"
   under only two of the four factors he considered. Under the other two
   factors, he rated Maden as "exceptional." These facts do not suggest that
   Mr. Copeland acted with bias to skew the evaluation in favor of BAI or
   against Maden. In any event, Maden received the highest rating of "blue"
   "exceptional" under the past performance factor.

   [3] The RFP expressly stated that "replacements for all personnel shall be
   approved by the [Contracting Officer's Representative] and Contracting
   Officer prior to their assumption of duties on the contract." RFP, Amend.
   0004 para. C.9.1(b).

   [4] The RFP contemplated a 1-month "transition period" during which the
   incumbent and awardee would be under contract and performing contract
   duties. However, upon award, BAI was instructed to begin full performance
   of all contractual duties within 5 business days.

   [5]In arguing that BAI engaged in a "bait and switch," the protester
   maintains that DARPA improperly allowed BAI to substitute the nine
   individuals identified in its proposal with less qualified personnel.
   Maden does not argue, and there is no indication in the record, that, at
   the time DARPA evaluated BAI's proposed personnel, DARPA's evaluation was
   inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria, or that DARPA waived the
   RFP's personnel requirements with respect to BAI. Rather, Maden bases it
   protest on DARPA's and BAI's actions during BAI's performance of the SID
   contract, specifically, DARPA's approval of BAI's request to substitute
   certain personnel identified in its proposal, with less qualified
   individuals. The propriety of this approval, however, presents a matter of
   contract administration which our Office will not review. 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.5(a) (2006); RONCO Consulting Corp., supra, at 6.

   [6] In supplemental comments on a supplemental agency report, Maden
   essentially restated these original bases of protest. Nonetheless, where,
   as here, an agency provides a detailed response to a protester's
   assertions and the protester provides a response that merely restates the
   original allegation without substantively rebutting the agency's position,
   we deem the initially-raised arguments abandoned. Citrus College; KEI
   Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 104 at 8 n.4.
   We therefore will not consider these arguments.

   [7] Because we conclude that Maden's evaluation challenges are without
   merit or otherwise not for consideration, Maden's objection to the best
   value decision--based solely on the alleged evaluation
   improprieties--likewise is without merit.