TITLE: B-299086, Synectic Solutions, Inc., February 7, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299086
DATE: February 7, 2007
****************************************************
B-299086, Synectic Solutions, Inc., February 7, 2007

   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: Synectic Solutions, Inc.

   File: B-299086

   Date: February 7, 2007

   Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and Nicole S. Allen, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney &
   Harkaway, P.C., for the protester.

   Andre Long, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest challenging agency's technical and price evaluations is denied
   where the record supports the reasonableness of the evaluations.

   2. Protest challenging agency's determination not to conduct discussions
   is denied where the solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended
   to make award without conducting discussions, and the record establishes
   that the agency had a reasonable basis for making its source selection
   decision.

   DECISION

   Synectic Solutions, Inc. (SSI) protests the Department of the Navy's award
   of a contract to Evolving Resources, Inc. (ERI) pursuant to request for
   proposals (RFP) No. N68936-04-R-0023 to provide information technology
   (IT) support services at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Point Mugu,
   California. SSI challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors'
   technical and price proposals, the agency's determination not to conduct
   discussions, and the agency's cost/technical tradeoff.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP was issued on December 27, 2004, restricting competition to
   participants in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program for
   small, disadvantaged businesses, and seeking proposals for a
   cost-reimbursement contract to provide IT support services including "full
   spectrum development, systems engineering, systems integration, software
   support, and lifecycle support services for various communications,
   electronic, information technology, wireless technology, and command and
   control systems" for Navy fleet and range operational requirements. RFP,
   Statement of Work (SOW), at 62. As initially issued, the RFP established
   January 31, 2005 as the date for receipt of proposals. The agency
   subsequently amended the RFP to provide for receipt of proposals on
   February 11, 2005; a second amendment then changed the proposal due date
   to February 10, 2005.[1]

   The solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the
   basis of cost and the following equally-weighted non-cost evaluation
   factors: technical-management,[2] past performance, and experience.[3] The
   technical-management evaluation factor was comprised of four
   equally-weighted subfactors: technical approach, management structure,
   communications approach, and key personnel/ staffing. RFP sect. M, at
   107-09. The solicitation advised offerors that the non-cost evaluation
   factors combined were "significantly more important than cost," and
   provided that cost proposals would be evaluated for "fairness and
   reasonableness," as well as for cost realism. Id. Finally, offerors were
   advised that "[t]he Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a
   contract without discussions." Id.

   Eight offerors, including SSI and ERI, submitted proposals by the
   specified closing date. Thereafter the agency evaluated the offerors'
   various proposal submissions,[4] with the following final results
   regarding ERI's and SSI's proposals:[5]

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                 |     SSI     |          ERI           |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Technical-Management (Score/Risk |Satisfactory/|Highly Satisfactory/ Low|
   |Rating)                          |             |          Risk          |
   |                                 |  Low Risk   |                        |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Technical Approach               |Satisfactory/|Highly Satisfactory/ Low|
   |                                 |             |          Risk          |
   |                                 |  Low Risk   |                        |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Management Structure             |Satisfactory/|Highly Satisfactory/ Low|
   |                                 |             |          Risk          |
   |                                 |  Low Risk   |                        |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Communications Approach          |Satisfactory/|Highly Satisfactory/ Low|
   |                                 |             |          Risk          |
   |                                 | Medium Risk |                        |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Key Personnel/ Staffing          |  Marginal/  |Highly Satisfactory/ Low|
   |                                 |             |          Risk          |
   |                                 | Medium Risk |                        |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Past Performance                 |  Low Risk   |     Very Low Risk      |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Experience                       | Medium Risk |        Low Risk        |
   |---------------------------------+-------------+------------------------|
   |Evaluated Cost                   |  [deleted]  |      $23,695,334       |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR) at 6-7; Tab G, Source Selection Decision, at 4-6.

   As shown in the table above, ERI's proposal was rated higher than SSI's
   proposal under each of the non-cost evaluation factors and subfactors.
   Specifically, with regard to the first technical-management subfactor,
   technical approach, the solicitation stated that proposals would be
   evaluated to determine an offeror's "understanding of the technical
   support requirements" and how well the proposal "demonstrates how the work
   will be performed." RFP sect. M, at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency
   evaluated ERI's proposal as "highly satisfactory" with "low" proposal risk
   on the basis that it "consistently demonstrated approaches that exceeded
   the solicitation requirements." AR, Tab C, Business Clearance Memorandum,
   at 144. The agency's evaluation elaborated that ERI's proposal:

     showed a clear understanding of how to support the SOW elements that
     might be classified as `traditional' IT support (i.e. management
     support, logistics, databases, CM/DM, training, computer security,
     etc.), and also demonstrated a comprehensive approach to supporting

     IT elements of the SOW tied to specialized engineering workgroups (i.e.
     testing and evaluation, engineering environment, and wireless security).

   Id.

   In contrast, the agency evaluated SSI's proposal as "satisfactory" under
   this subfactor, explaining that the proposal "falls short of demonstrating
   approaches that cover the full spectrum of engineering IT services this
   contract entails, particularly in some specialized areas of testing and
   evaluation, transition support, the engineering environment and wireless
   security." Id. at 145. The evaluators elaborated that SSI's proposal
   solutions "center[ed] almost exclusively on [deleted]," noting that the
   Naval Air Warfare Center "presently utilizes many other DBMS [data base
   management system] designs (i.e. [deleted])," and concluded that SSI's
   [s]ingular [deleted] solution . . . is a concern in determining how
   extensively they understand applicable software other than [deleted]." AR,
   Tab F, Competitive Award Panel Minutes, at 8.

   With regard to the second technical-management subfactor, management
   structure, the solicitation provided for evaluation of an offeror's
   "organizational structure and lines of authority, specifically, who
   reports to whom, and who is responsible for what under the contract
   statement of work." RFP sect. M, at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency
   again evaluated ERI's proposal as "highly satisfactory" with "low" risk,
   stating: "ERI and its subcontractors . . . provide[] both core personnel
   expertise as well as an extended consultant pool available for specialized
   technical expertise which is needed to handle rapidly evolving
   requirements inherent in working RDT&E [research development testing &
   evaluation] projects." AR, Tab C, at 144. In contrast, the agency
   evaluated SSI's proposal as "satisfactory" under this subfactor,
   explaining that "there are some concerns regarding [SSI's] having a thin
   management structure, [deleted]." Id. at 145.

   With regard to the third technical-management subfactor, communications
   approach, the solicitation provided for evaluation of the offeror's
   "method of addressing communications and operations challenges as they
   relate to the areas of avionics, threat simulation, and asymmetric
   warfare." [6] RFP sect. M, at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency again
   rated ERI's proposal as "highly satisfactory" with "low" risk,
   specifically addressing each of the three evaluation areas identified in
   the solicitation as follows:

     For avionics, [ERI's] approaches utilize existent system platforms . . .
     and established test methods to handle these challenges economically and
     provide added value to the contract. For threat simulation ERI's
     approaches utilize sophisticated modeling and simulation coupled with
     existent EW [electronic warfare] sensor systems to simulate real-world
     threats and stimulate sensors without requiring the presence of actual
     threats. This significantly lowers the cost of testing and evaluation
     and adds value to the contract. For asymmetric warfare ERI has developed
     expertise in handling special challenges involved in AW [asymmetric
     warfare], including simulation, network security and communications
     between multiple DoD and non-DoD agencies. This greatly reduces the cost
     of conducting full-scale asymmetric warfare exercises and adds value to
     the contract. ERI identifies the complexity of AW including the spiral
     nature of hardware and software management to support the AW exercises
     which the ERI Team clearly identifies as the most challenging area. ERI
     provides innovate comprehensive approaches to handling those AW
     operational and communications challenges, including realistic scenario
     driven exercises which provide added value to the government.

   AR, Tab C, at 144.

   In contrast, the agency evaluated SSI's proposal as "satisfactory" with
   "medium" risk under this subfactor, stating that although SSI's proposal
   "showed a clear understanding of the complex nature of asymmetric
   warfare," SSI "seemed to lack a detailed understanding of some aspects of
   avionics and threat simulation outside the area of communications, and
   also fell short in demonstrating well structured methods of handling the
   asymmetric challenges." Id. at 145.

   With regard to the fourth technical-management subfactor, key
   personnel/staffing, the solicitation provided for evaluation of personnel
   with regard to "qualifications, educational levels, experience, licenses
   and/or certificates, technical skills, familiarity with avionics and
   asymmetric warfare communication systems, and availability." RFP sect. M,
   at 108. Under this subfactor, the agency again evaluated ERI's proposal as
   "highly satisfactory" with "low" performance risk, stating that: "[ERI's]
   key personnel possess very specialized knowledge in areas of avionics,
   secure communications and asymmetric warfare. These sources of expertise
   are rare which is an enhancing feature that benefits the government." AR,
   Tab C, at 144. In contrast, the agency evaluated SSI's proposal as
   "marginal" with "medium" risk, stating: "[SSI's] lack of key personnel
   having relevant expertise in specialized areas of Avionics and Asymmetric
   Warfare present a risk in being able to successfully perform some areas
   specified with the SOW. This risk could potentially cause some disruption
   of schedule, increase in cost or degradation of performance." Id. at 145.

   With regard to the past performance evaluation factor, the solicitation
   provided for evaluation of an offeror's prior performance of "the same or
   very similar" requirements, specifically advising offerors that the agency
   "will give more consideration, and a more favorable rating, to information
   that demonstrates quality of performance for requirements with the same or
   very similar scope, dollar value, and complexity relative to the
   procurement under consideration." RFP sect. M, at 108. Under the past
   performance factor, the agency evaluated ERI's proposal as "very low"
   risk, noting that, as the incumbent contractor, ERI's past performance has
   been exceptional and that the prior work it has performed has been very
   similar to the solicited requirements with regard to scope, dollar value,
   and complexity. AR, Tab C, at 147. In contrast, although SSI's prior
   performance was generally assessed by SSI's prior customers as reflecting
   "very low performance risk," the agency concluded that SSI's prior work
   was only "somewhat similar" to the solicited requirements. Id. at 148.
   Accordingly, SSI's proposal was rated as "low," rather than "very low,"
   risk.[7] Id.

   Overall, the agency concluded that ERI's proposal was "clearly superior"
   to SSI's under each of the non-cost evaluation factors, and "especially in
   the critical areas of avionics, threat simulation and asymmetric warfare
   systems." Id. at 151. The agency further recognized that "[t]here is a
   premium of [deleted] for cost as compared to SSI's proposed cost," but
   concluded that, in light of the greater weight afforded by the
   solicitation to non-cost factors, ERI's proposal offered the best value to
   the government. Id. Accordingly, ERI's proposal was selected for award;
   this protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   Technical-Management Evaluation

   SSI first protests that the agency's evaluation of SSI's and ERI's
   proposals reflected unstated evaluation factors, complaining that it was
   improper for the agency to criticize SSI's failure to meaningfully address
   asymmetric warfare because the asymmetric warfare requirements constituted
   only "a minor, if not insignificant part" of the total contract
   requirements. Protest at 8.

   The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the agency's
   discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the
   best method for accommodating them. U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, Dec.
   19, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 218 at 2. In reviewing a protest against an
   agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will examine the record to
   determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with
   the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
   regulations. See Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc.,
   B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 169 at 3. A protester's mere
   disagreement with the agency's judgment in its determination of the
   relative merit of competing proposals does not establish that the
   evaluation was unreasonable. C. Lawrence Constr. Co., Inc., B-287066, Mar.
   30, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 70 at 4.

   Here, contrary to SSI's assertion that solicitation requirements regarding
   asymmetric warfare constituted only a "minor" or "insignificant" portion
   of the contract, two of the four subfactors under the technical-management
   evaluation factor specifically identified asymmetric warfare as one of a
   very limited number of areas in which proposals would be evaluated. As
   discussed above, under the third technical-management subfactor,
   communications approach, the solicitation provided for evaluation of the
   offeror's "method of addressing communications and operations challenges
   as they relate to the areas of avionics, threat simulation and asymmetric
   warfare." RFP sect. M, at 108. Similarly, under the fourth
   technical-management subfactor, key personnel/staffing, the solicitation
   specifically stated that an offeror's key personnel would be evaluated
   with regard to their "familiarity with avionics and asymmetric warfare
   communication systems." Id. Accordingly, there is no merit to SSI's
   assertion that, in identifying weaknesses in its proposal regarding
   asymmetric warfare, the agency applied unstated evaluation factors.[8]

   SSI also protests that the agency improperly evaluated SSI's proposal for
   having "a thin management structure, [deleted]." Id. at 145. SSI does not
   dispute the accuracy of the agency's description;[9] rather, SSI asserts
   that the agency's assessment was "inappropriate," because "it is
   recognized that this is an 8(a) procurement, and offerors are not expected
   to have a deep management structure." Protester Comments, Dec. 11, 2006,
   at 8.

   As noted above, the solicitation provided for evaluation of an offeror's
   "organizational structure and lines of authority, specifically, who
   reports to whom, and who is responsible for what under the contract
   statement of work." RFP sect. M, at 108. Further, the solicitation stated
   that proposals would be evaluated to determine whether it "clearly
   demonstrates the Offeror's ability to meet all of the requirements." Id.
   On this record, we have no basis to question the agency's expression of
   concern regarding SSI's proposed management structure, notwithstanding the
   fact that this is an 8(a) procurement. In sum, we have reviewed all of
   SSI's arguments regarding the agency's technical-management evaluation and
   find no merit in them.

   Past Performance

   Next, SSI protests the agency's evaluation with regard to the past
   performance evaluation factor. In this regard, SSI asserts that the agency
   improperly evaluated its proposal as "low" risk, rather than "very low"
   risk.

   The evaluation of an offeror's past performance, including the agency's
   determination of the relevance and scope of an offeror's performance
   history, is a matter of agency discretion, which we will not find improper
   unless unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria,
   undocumented, or inconsistent with applicable statutes or regulations.
   Family Entm't Servs., Inc., d/b/a/ IMC, B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 2004
   CPD para. 128 at 5.

   Here, as discussed above, the solicitation specifically provided that in
   evaluating past performance, the agency would "give more consideration,
   and a more favorable rating" for performance of prior work "with the same
   or very similar scope, dollar value and complexity relative to the
   procurement under consideration." RFP sect. M, at 108. The record further
   shows that the agency concluded that the prior work on which SSI relied
   for its past performance evaluation was only "somewhat similar" to the
   contract requirements at issue here. SSI has not meaningfully challenged
   the agency's characterization of its prior work. Accordingly, we find
   nothing unreasonable in the agency's assessment of "low" risk with regard
   to SSI's past performance.

   Price Reasonableness Determination

   Next, SSI protests that the agency failed to properly perform a price
   analysis as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.
   15.404-1. In this regard, SSI does not dispute that the agency conducted a
   proper cost realism analysis, during which the agency evaluated various
   elements of the offerors' proposed costs; nonetheless, SSI asserts that
   the procurement was flawed based on the agency's alleged failure to comply
   with the separate FAR requirements regarding price analysis. We disagree.

   Here, the agency received eight proposals and concluded that at least
   three of these proposals, including SSI's and ERI's, met the solicitation
   requirements. The agency noted during its evaluation that all three of the
   proposals meeting the solicitation requirements offered prices that were
   lower than the independent government cost estimate and, further, that
   these three proposals were priced within a [deleted] percent range of each
   other. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR), Tab A, Declaration of Contracting
   Officer; Tab D, Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). On this
   record, assuming a separate price reasonableness analysis was required,
   there is no basis to assert that the agency failed to comply with any FAR
   requirements since the agency compared proposed prices between the three
   acceptable proposals, as well as the IGCE.

   ERI's 8(a) Status

   SSI also complains that award to ERI was improper because the date for
   receipt of proposals was 2 days before ERI's 8(a) status was to expire.
   The agency set an initial date for receipt of proposals on January 31,
   2005, then modified that date to February 11, 2005, and again to February
   10, 2005. RFP, amends. 1, 2. The protester states that ERI's 8(a) term of
   participation was due to expire on February 12, 2005.

   With regard to the award to ERI, SBA regulations state that an offeror's
   status as an 8(a) contractor is determined as of the date the offeror
   submits a written self-certification that it is small to the procuring
   activity as part of its initial offer. 13 C.F.R. sect. 121.404(a), (b).
   SBA regulations further state that an award may be made to an offeror
   whose 8(a) program term has expired, provided that it was an 8(a) program
   participant eligible for contract award on the initial date specified for
   receipt of offers.[10] 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.507(d). Here, ERI's timely
   submitted proposal was eligible for award.[11]

   Source Selection Determination

   Next, SSI protests that the agency's source selection was improperly based
   on a "mechanical" comparison of offerors proposals that failed to justify
   ERI's higher cost. We disagree. As discussed above, the SSD explained
   that, in addition to the ERI's higher ratings for all evaluation factors
   and subfactors, ERI's proposal had specific advantages over SSI's proposal
   in the critical areas of avionics, threat simulation and asymmetric
   warfare systems, and that ERI's past performance and experience were
   superior to SSI's based on its very low risk ratings for very similar
   contract work. Id. at 14. Further, the agency specifically concluded that
   the technical advantages of ERI's proposal were worth the [deleted]
   percent cost premium as compared to SSI's proposal.

   Where, as here, the RFP allows for a cost/technical tradeoff, the agency
   retains discretion to select a higher-priced, higher technically rated
   proposal if doing so is reasonably found to be in the government's best
   interest and is consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
   scheme. 4-D Neuroimaging, B-286155.2, B-286155.3, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 183 at 10. Based on the record, the agency's selection of ERI's
   proposal for award was reasonable

   Discussions

   Finally, SSI contends that the agency improperly decided not to conduct
   discussions with offerors. SSI asserts that, had discussions been
   conducted SSI could have addressed the various weaknesses in its
   proposal.[12]

   Where, as here, an RFP provides for award on the basis of initial
   proposals without discussions, an agency may make award without
   discussions, unless discussions are determined to be necessary. FAR sect.
   15.306(a)(e). While discussions are necessary where the solicitation
   provides for award on a best value basis and the source selection official
   is unable to determine without further information which proposal
   represents the best value to the government, an agency may dispense with
   discussions where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the
   proposal of the intended awardee represents the best overall value.
   Facilities Mgmt. Co., Inc., B-259731.2, May 23, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 274
   at 8. The contracting officer has broad discretion in deciding whether to
   hold discussions, which our Office will review only to ensure that it was
   reasonably based on the particular circumstances of the procurement.
   Incident Catering Servs., LLC, B-296435.2 et al., Sept. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD
   para. 193.

   Here, as discussed above, the agency had a reasonable basis for evaluating
   proposals, for performing a meaningfully comparison of the those
   proposals, and for making a determination regarding which proposal offered
   the best value to the government. See Sierra Military Health Servs., Inc.;
   Aetna Gov't Health Plans, B-292780 et al., Dec. 5, 2003, 2004 CPD para. 55
   at 6-7 n.5. The decision not to conduct discussions was reasonable under
   the circumstances.

   The protest is denied.[13]

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The amendment explained that February 11 was a "Compressed Work
   Schedule regular day off for personnel at Point Mugu, CA," and that "the
   naval base contracting office will be closed that day." RFP Amend. 2, at
   2.

   [2] Offerors were advised that, under the technical/management factor,
   proposals would be qualitatively evaluated as "outstanding," "highly
   satisfactory," "satisfactory," "marginal," or "unsatisfactory," and that
   performance risk assessments of "low," "medium," or "high" would also be
   made. RFP sect. M at 107. Of relevance to this protest, the agency defined
   a "highly satisfactory" rating as applicable to a proposal that "exceeds
   requirements in a way that benefits the [g]overnment or meets requirements
   and contains enhancing features which benefits the Government"; a
   "satisfactory" rating was defined as applicable where a proposal "meets
   requirements" and "[a]ny weaknesses are acceptable to the Government." AR,
   Tab F, Competitive Award Panel Minutes, at 6.

   [3] With regard to the past performance and experience evaluation factors,
   offerors were advised that the agency would make risk assessments of "very
   low," "low," "moderate," "high," "very high," and "unknown." RFP sect. M
   at 107.

   [4] On July 14, 2005, the agency requested that offerors extend their
   proposals through November 30, 2005. On November 2, 2005, the agency
   requested that offerors extend their proposals through February 30, 2006.
   On February 7 and July 20, 2006, the agency requested that offerors
   provide updated proposal information and extend their proposals through
   August 31, 2006. SSI has not argued that any of the agency's actions
   constituted discussions, specifically stating that the Navy "refused to
   conduct discussions." Protest at 12.

   [5] The agency's evaluation of the six other offerors' proposals are not
   relevant to resolution of this protest; accordingly, those proposals and
   the agency's evaluation of them are not further discussed.

   [6] Asymmetric warfare refers to threats outside the range of conventional
   warfare, including terrorism. AR at 15.

   [7] Similarly, under the experience evaluation factor, for which the
   solicitation stated that offerors would be evaluated on the "depth and
   breadth" of their prior experience involving work with the "same or very
   similar scope, dollar value, and complexity as this requirement," RFP
   sect. M at 109, SSI's proposal was rated as presenting a higher risk than
   ERI's proposal due to the agency's conclusions that: "SSI did not
   sufficiently demonstrate that they have extensive engineering systems
   experience in communications hardware & software related to avionics
   systems, asymmetric warfare and wireless security"; SSI's "breadth of
   experience in asymmetric warfare is minimal"; and that SSI was "lacking
   significant experience within some areas of engineering, avionics,
   asymmetric warfare and security." AR, Tab C, at 149.

   [8] SSI similarly protests that the agency applied unstated evaluation
   criteria in criticizing SSI's proposal for focusing on [deleted] software
   and failing to recognize other required software tools, complaining that
   the solicitation did not specifically mention the other software tools for
   which support will be required. SSI Comments, Dec. 11, 2006, at 8. As
   noted above, the solicitation specifically advised offerors that, in
   evaluating their proposed technical approach, the agency would assess the
   extent to which an offeror's proposed approach "demonstrates an
   understanding of the technical support requirements." RFP sect. M, at 108.
   SSI does not dispute that support for software tools other than [deleted]
   will be required during contract performance including, as stated in the
   SOW, various agency legacy systems; nor does SSI dispute the agency's
   assessment that its proposal failed to meaningfully address these other
   tools. On this record, we have no basis to question the agency's criticism
   that SSI's proposal failed to demonstrate an understanding of technical
   support requirements for software tools other than [deleted].

   [9] Indeed, in response to a similar agency criticism that SSI lacked
   relevant expertise in specialized areas of avionics and asymmetric
   warfare, SSI effectively acknowledged that only [deleted] of SSI's
   [deleted] key personnel provided information regarding experience in
   avionics. Protester Comments, Dec. 11, 2006, at 8.

   [10] Although offerors submitted proposal revisions to extend their offers
   and update proposal information, such proposal submissions do not affect
   the validity of an offeror's initial proposal and 8(a) eligibility
   certification. 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.507(d).

   [11] To the extent the protester argues that the agency's selection of the
   proposal due date reflected bad faith on the part of the agency, the
   record does not support this allegation. That is, the record does not
   establish that the agency acted with a malicious and specific intent to
   injure the protester. See, e.g., Bannum, Inc., B-298281.2, Oct. 16, 2006,
   2006 CPD para. 163.

   [12] SSI also notes that, if the agency had conducted discussions and
   sought revised proposals, ERI would have had to recertify its 8(a) status
   and, apparently, would have been eliminated from the competition.

   [13] In pursuing this protest, SSI has raised various collateral issues.
   For example, SSI notes that the positions of contracting officer and
   source selection authority (SSA) were held by the same person, and that
   this individual participated in the evaluation of proposals, and was the
   sole member of the panel which advised the SSA. Thus, the protester
   complains, "the SSA advised himself!" Protester's Comments on the Agency
   Report, Dec. 11, 2006, at 6. There is, however, no prohibition on an SSA's
   or contracting officer's participation in the evaluation of proposals.
   Moreover, an SSA is required to exercise independent judgment in making a
   reasonable and adequately-documented source selection decision, and has
   broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which technical
   and cost evaluation results are used, subject only to the tests of
   rationality and consistency with the evaluation criteria. KPMG Consulting
   LLP, B-290716, B-290716.2, Sept. 23, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 196 at 13. We
   have reviewed all of the protester's arguments, and conclude that none
   provides a basis for sustaining the protest.