TITLE: B-299806, AHNTECH, Inc., August 15, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299806
DATE: August 15, 2007
****************************************
B-299806, AHNTECH, Inc., August 15, 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: AHNTECH, Inc.

   File: B-299806

   Date: August 15, 2007

   Leigh T. Hansson, Esq., and Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., Reed Smith, LLP, for
   the protester.

   Brent Curtis, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

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

   DIGEST

   1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of technical proposals is
   denied where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and
   consistent with the evaluation criteria.

   2. Agency did not rely on unstated evaluation criteria when it excluded
   protester's proposal from further consideration for award based on
   deficiencies found under one technical subfactor and where the
   solicitation expressly provided that proposals would be rejected in this
   circumstance.

   DECISION

   AHNTECH, Inc. protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal under
   request for proposals (RFP) No. F38604-07-R-C022-01, issued by the
   Department of the Air Force for base operations support (BOS) services to
   Manas Air Base (AB), Kyrgyzstan. AHNTECH alleges that the Air Force
   improperly evaluated AHNTECH's proposal as not technically acceptable
   under one of the evaluation subfactors; treated offerors unequally by
   attributing deficiencies to AHNTECH's proposal for concerns that were
   identified as weaknesses in more highly rated proposals; and relied on
   unstated evaluation criteria by excluding AHNTECH's proposal from further
   consideration because it was assessed a deficiency under one technical
   subfactor.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   On March 24, 2007, the agency issued the RFP for the provision of BOS
   services, including dining services, at Manas AB, Kyrgyzstan.[1] The RFP
   is for performance-based, fixed-price services with
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity line items for a transition
   period, a 1-year base period, and four 1-year options. The RFP calls for
   award to be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to
   solicitation requirements, is considered technically acceptable, and will
   provide the best value to the Government considering past performance and
   price." RFP at 93.

   The performance work statement (PWS) describes the conditions under which
   the contract will be performed. Contractors are required to live and work
   "in the harsh environment of Kyrgyzstan, to include living off base and
   working in [tents]." RFP, PWS para. 1.4.3. Contractors will be "operating
   at a military location with a heightened level of threat," and the
   "government assumes no security liabilities for Contractor personnel
   traveling off base." Id. para. 1.4.4. The PWS further advises that
   "[p]ersonnel should anticipate working as effectively and efficiently as
   possible, but there may be extended periods of high pressure and stress
   which could negatively impact effectiveness and efficiency." Id. para.
   1.4.5.

   The PWS notes that the "Manas AB Appropriated Fund food service operation
   . . . [is] dedicated to providing full meal service." RFP, PWS para.
   2.1.1, Program Overview. The government will place the order for the food
   to be served with the prime vendor, with the labor to be supplied by the
   contractor. Meals are to be provided at the main "Ala Too" and the smaller
   "Ops Town" dining facilities. The RFP calls for "contingency services" to
   augment the "around-the-clock" dining services: "The contractor will
   provide service during military exercises, emergencies, natural disasters
   and other contingency operations . . . by extending serving hours as
   requested." Id. para. 2.1.13, Contingency Services.

   The primary customers are "Essential Station Messing (ESM) recipients,"
   that is, "military and civilian personnel who are allotted rations in
   government dining facilities at the expense of the government." Id. para.
   2.1.2 Customer Eligibility. The agency states that it does not utilize
   cashiers in forward deployment situations such as Manas, Agency Report
   (AR), Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts at 6, and that instead the
   contractor is required to track the number of meals served. In this
   regard, the RFP states that the government will provide and maintain Air
   Force (AF) Form 79, used for determining customer headcount, and that the
   forms are to "be placed on the cashier stands at the front entrance 24
   hours a day." Id. para. 2.1.3.15, Food Service Accounting. That form
   states that "[d]isclosure of [Social Security Number (SSN)] is voluntary.
   However, members otherwise entitled to Subsistence-in-Kind will not be
   provided a meal at no cost without the SSN." Protester's Comments on AR,
   attach. 2, AF form 79 at 1. In addition, the definitions section of the
   RFP states that the term "food handlers" does not include "cashiers." RFP
   app. A-1.

   The RFP contains three evaluation factors--past performance, technical,
   and price. The RFP states that the "[w]ritten technical proposal[s] shall
   be specific, detailed, and clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a
   thorough understanding of the requirements for the accomplishment of this
   effort." RFP at 91. The technical factor has three subfactors: subfactor
   1, organizational structure and manpower; subfactor 2, quality control
   program; and subfactor 3, phase-in plan.

   The RFP indicated that proposals were to be evaluated under each technical
   subfactor as either pass/technically acceptable (TA), neutral/reasonably
   susceptible of being made technically acceptable (RSTA), or fail/not
   technically acceptable (NTA). The RFP further provides that

     if an offeror's proposal demonstrates a failure to mention or meet a
     Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror's proposal.
     All proposals considered NTA will be eliminated from competition and
     will NOT be evaluated for past performance. The (3) technical
     sub-factors are considered equal in importance. The assessment criteria
     used will be understanding of the requirements/soundness of approach.

   RFP at 95. The RFP further provides that

     [o]fferors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as
     terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical
     requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors,
     to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and
     conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed
     from consideration for award.

   Id. at 96. The RFP states that "[f]ailure of an offeror's proposal to meet
   ANY given requirement of the RFP may result in the entire proposal being
   found to be unacceptable and eliminated from further competition." Id. at
   97.

   The agency received six timely proposals, including those from the
   protester and the awardee, and conducted technical evaluations of all six.
   For subfactor 1, two proposals were rated RSTA, received no NTA ratings
   for the other technical subfactors, and were further considered for award.
   Four proposals, including AHNTECH's, were rated NTA for subfactor 1 and
   were not further considered for award.

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |        Offeror        |                  TA/RSTA/NTA                   |
   |-----------------------+------------------------------------------------|
   |                       |Subfactor 1    |Subfactor 2     |Subfactor 3    |
   |-----------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------|
   |Offeror A              |NTA            |NTA             |NTA            |
   |-----------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------|
   |Offeror B              |NTA            |RSTA            |RSTA           |
   |-----------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------|
   |Offeror C              |NTA            |RSTA            |RSTA           |
   |-----------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------|
   |AHNTECH                |NTA            |TA              |RSTA           |
   |-----------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------|
   |Offeror D              |RSTA           |TA              |TA             |
   |-----------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------|
   |Offeror E              |RSTA           |TA              |TA             |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   The source selection evaluation team (SSET) identified four deficiencies
   in AHNTECH's proposal that it felt demonstrated a lack of understanding
   regarding the government's requirements and justified the proposal's NTA
   rating.

   First, the proposal stated that "[b]reakfasts and lunches will be served
   during normal operations. To support contingency operations, AHNTECH will
   also provide dinner and midnight meals, as required." AR, Tab 5, AHNTECH
   Proposal, vol. III, para. C.1.2, Food Preparation. The proposal also
   stated that "[d]uring contingency operations, our personnel will be
   augmented, as required, to ensure timely and efficient service for our
   customers." Id. para. C.1.4, Service of Food. The agency inferred from
   this language that the protester was only offering dinner during
   contingency operations. The agency asserts that its reading of AHNTECH's
   proposal was reinforced by proposed staffing levels that the agency
   maintains are clearly inadequate to accommodate the service of three meals
   a day.[2]

   Second, the proposal stated that "[c]ashier personnel will not be assigned
   other duties during meal service periods to ensure timely service to our
   customers. In addition, our cashiers will remain on duty until fifteen
   minutes after the end of the serving period to collect cash or to verify
   identification numbers from patrons." Id. para. C.1.5, Cashier Services.
   The proposal further stated that, when a customer comes to the cash
   register, the cashier will identify and record the menu items for sale,
   obtain the customer's signature, collect payment and make change, and
   provide a cash register receipt. The proposal included procedures for
   tracking funds throughout change of shifts and the general safekeeping of
   funds. The agency here read the protester's proposal as providing services
   not stated as a requirement in the PWS, and not needed. The agency
   determined that offering "extraneous" and "unnecessary" services indicated
   both "a lack of understanding of the [Dining Facilities Administration
   Center (DFAC)] requirement and not meeting the DFAC requirement." Agency
   Rebuttal, Decl. of Contracting Officer, para. 3.

   Third, the proposal stated that the monthly "inventory will be reconciled
   against the [Air Force's Services Information Management System (SIMS)]
   count and any variance will be reported, in writing, to the government
   representative." AR, Tab 5, AHNTECH Proposal, vol. III, para. C.1.8.2,
   Inventory Control. The RFP did not call for the offeror to supply SIMS or
   any other software. The SSET expressed concern that the protester would
   propose what the SSET regarded as obsolete software, whose use was phased
   out by the agency in 2002. Agency Rebuttal, Decl. of Contracting Officer,
   para. 4. In addition, the SIMS software, no longer available at Manas AB,
   would be incompatible with the software by which the agency is linked to
   the prime vendor. The agency evaluation concluded that providing this
   inventory service "with an incompatible antiquated software [reflected]
   both a lack of understanding of the DFAC requirement and not meeting the
   DFAC requirement."  Id.

   Lastly, the proposal stated that an "Administrative Clerk will be assigned
   to [the front desk] function and will also be responsible for: inventory
   control and purchasing for the lodging and dining facilities. The Clerk
   will utilize the Subsistence Total Order and Receipt Electronic Systems
   (STORES) program for all subsistence purchases." AR, Tab 5, AHNTECH
   Proposal, vol. III, para. C.3.1, Front Desk. As noted above, the
   government, not the contractor, was to place the subsistence order. The
   SSET concluded that "this provision purporting to provide an extraneous
   service . . . [showed] both a lack of understanding of the DFAC
   requirement and not meeting the DFAC requirement." Agency Rebuttal, Decl.
   of Contracting Officer, para. 5.

   While the SSET noted no deficiencies in the protester's proposal for
   subfactors 2 or 3, it did identify weaknesses under subfactors 1 and 3.
   Those weaknesses included: the failure to state the personnel, management
   and organization needed to meet the requirements for the drop-arm barrier
   maintenance and washer and dryer maintenance; insufficient staffing in the
   dining facility function; a lack of clear demonstration of the
   qualifications of key personnel; failure to make mention of the hoods and
   ducts requirement; and an unclear understanding of the Ops Town DFAC site
   manager position.[3] AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Decision Memorandum, at
   14.

   The proposals of offerors D and E, which were rated RSTA for subfactor 1,
   had no deficiencies for that subfactor and shared two weaknesses. Of both
   of their proposals, the SSET said that they were "not clear on the
   proposed manning and the quantity of personnel assigned" and that the SSET
   would like to know how those two firms would "increase [the] manning if
   needed." Id. at 15, 19. The SSET identified one further weakness in
   offeror E's proposal, requesting that offeror E "clarify the DFAC
   Maintenance requirement personnel." Id. at 19.

   DISCUSSION

   The agency maintains that the four deficiencies in the protester's
   proposal--the failure to offer dinner (except as a contingency option) and
   the three defects that reflected a lack of understanding of the
   requirements--rendered the proposal NTA. The protester challenges each of
   these four findings of deficiencies.

   An offeror must submit a proposal that is adequately written and that
   affirmatively establishes its merits or run the risk of having the
   proposal rejected as technically unacceptable. Source AV, Inc., B-234521,
   June 20, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 578 at 3. In reviewing whether a proposal
   was properly rejected as technically unacceptable for informational
   deficiencies, we examine the record to determine, among other things,
   whether the RFP called for detailed information and the nature of the
   informational deficiencies, for example, whether they tended to show that
   the offeror did not understand what it would be required to do under the
   contract. BioClean Med. Sys., Inc., B-239906, Aug. 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD
   para. 142 at 3; DRT Assocs., Inc., B-237070, Jan. 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD para.
   47 at 3. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the
   discretion of the contracting agency. Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc.,
   B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 16 at 9. We will not reevaluate
   a proposal but, rather, will consider whether the agency's evaluation was
   reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme in the RFP.
   Communications Int'l, Inc., B-238810, B-238810.2, July 3, 1990, 90-2 CPD
   para. 3 at 3.

   The RFP here clearly states that the "assessment criteria used will be
   understanding the requirement/soundness of approach," and the agency
   maintains that the aspects of the protester's proposal that it identified
   as deficiencies indicate a failure to address a requirement or a lack of
   understanding of the requirement. The protester disagrees, arguing that,
   in each case, the proposal defects identified by the agency cannot
   reasonably be considered deficiencies because the protester either
   obligated itself to meet the government's requirements or was offering to
   supplement the RFP requirements. As discussed below, the record shows that
   the agency reasonably concluded that AHNTECH's proposal had deficiencies
   in the four areas identified.

   Evening Meals

   The protester disputes the agency's reading of AHNTECH's proposal as
   offering to supply dinner on a contingency basis only, asserting that the
   "plain meaning of Ahntech's statement that other meals will be provided
   `as required' should have been sufficient to overcome any question
   regarding whether [AHNTECH] will meet the DFAC meal requirements," Protest
   at 6, and that use of the phrase "as required" obligated the protester to
   meet the terms of the RFP. The agency argues that the protester, not the
   agency, created a distinction between breakfasts and lunches that "will be
   served during normal operations," and dinner and midnight meals that will
   be provided "to support contingency operations. . . as required." Together
   with a staffing level that the agency asserts would not have supported
   full meal service for the evening meals, the agency argues that it
   reasonably concluded from the language in the protester's proposal that it
   was offering limited evening meal service. We agree with the agency.

   The protester could easily have worded its proposal so as to make clear
   that it offered breakfast, lunch, and dinner and midnight meals during
   normal operating hours, and dinner and midnight meals as required by
   contingency operations. Instead, the protester's proposal offered to
   provide, without qualification, breakfasts and lunches, and "[t]o support
   contingency operations . . . [to] provide dinner and midnight meals, as
   required." Moreover, the agency concluded that AHNTECH's proposed staffing
   levels were clearly inadequate to accommodate the service of three meals a
   day. Based on the record here, we think that the agency reasonably
   concluded that the protester's proposal failed to clearly offer full
   evening meal service.

   Because the agency cites as support for its reading of the proposal the
   fact that the agency considered the proposed staffing to be inadequate,
   and because the agency assessed weaknesses, not deficiencies, for staff
   shortcomings, the protester argues that on this issue the agency should
   have assessed the protester's proposal a weakness rather than a
   deficiency. We disagree. As discussed above, the agency noted a deficiency
   in AHNTECH's proposal not, as the protester argues, because the staffing
   levels were judged insufficient, but because the agency considered the
   inadequate staffing levels, together with the proposal language, an
   indication that the protester misunderstood the scope of food service
   required under the RFP and failed to offer all of the required food
   services. The population that the contractor will serve is dependent on
   the base dining services for meals, and is entitled to receive them. The
   agency thus reasonably determined that a failure to clearly offer full
   meal service to them warranted the assessment of a deficiency against the
   protester's proposal.

   Understanding the Requirements

   The protester asserts that the other three elements of its proposal
   identified as deficiencies--use of cashiers, obsolete software, and the
   contractor placing the food order with the prime vendor--merely constitute
   offers to supplement the requirements of the RFP. As discussed below, we
   think that the agency reasonably concluded that these areas of the
   protester's proposal reflected a lack of understanding of the RFP's
   requirements and constituted deficiencies.

   With respect to the issue of cashiers, the protester argues that the
   reference in the PWS to cashier stands--as the location on which the
   headcount forms will be placed--and the definition of food handlers as
   excluding cashiers "demonstrate that the inclusion of Cashiers as a labor
   category does not indicate a lack of understanding regarding DFAC
   requirements." Protester's Comments on AR at 9. The protester also argues
   that the language in AF Form 79 (quoted above) indicates that some
   customers in fact are paying for meals. However, the fact that customers
   will not be served free meals without disclosing their SSNs does not
   necessarily mean, as the protester has concluded, that those customers
   would then have the option of paying. In addition, as noted above, the
   agency has asserted, without challenge, that it does not utilize cashiers
   in forward deployment situations such as Manas and that no cashiers were
   in evidence during the site inspection, which the protester attended. In
   any event, the protester's proposal tasks cashiers with taking payment and
   making change, and suggests that the cashiers will do this for every
   customer. The proposal also includes processes for tracking money
   collected from customers. These functions are unnecessary and not called
   for in the PWS, which makes clear that the customers in the dining halls
   are entitled to the dining services, without charge, and the contractor's
   only responsibility is to ensure that headcount forms are available and
   accurately filled out. In our view, the agency reasonably concluded that
   the offer of cashiers to serve in a cashless operation reflected a lack of
   understanding of the RFP requirements.

   With respect to the software, the protester's proposal, the agency argues,
   offered an obsolete software system, the use of which would have hindered
   the agency's ability to use that inventory to place food orders
   efficiently. Even if the SIMS software it proposed is outdated, the
   protester argues, the agency improperly deemed the offer to use SIMS a
   deficiency without showing "that any particular system is required and
   Ahntech failed to propose its use." Protester's Comments on AR at 10.
   Moreover, AHNTECH asserts that it "could have easily developed a revised
   information management system or purchased a commercially-available system
   with no hindrance to contract performance or cost." Id. In our view, the
   protester's argument ignores the agency's central concern--that proposing
   outdated and incompatible software at a minimum reflects a lack of
   familiarity with the performance requirements under the RFP.

   Lastly, AHNTECH challenges the agency's assessment of a deficiency for
   AHNTECH's proposed use of a lodging clerk for "inventory control and
   purchasing for the lodging and dining facilities." While the protester
   asserts that even if it assigned work to contract personnel that the PWS
   assigns to the government, "there has been no allegation that Ahntech
   failed to address any requirement in the Solicitation," id., we agree with
   the agency that the assignment of the food purchasing function to the
   contractor clearly represents a lack of understanding of the requirements.

   We find unpersuasive the protester's argument that each of these three
   defects results from the protester's supplementing the RFP requirements,
   and that therefore the proposal shortcomings do not meet what the
   protester asserts is the RFP's only definition of deficiency: a proposal
   that demonstrates a failure to mention or meet a government requirement.
   The evaluation criterion was "understanding the requirements/soundness of
   approach." As the PWS makes clear, conditions on the ground at the site of
   contract performance will be harsh. Contract personnel will be working in
   tents in a remote location, and the customers of the dining facilities
   will require around-the-clock food service, with the food provided by the
   government at no charge. A high percentage of those meals will be consumed
   outside of normal operating hours, which will include scheduled times for
   breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The protester's proposal, which might be
   appropriate for more routine dining services procurements, does not
   reflect an understanding of the conditions at Manas AB. Even when
   performance risk is not specifically listed in the solicitation as an
   evaluation criterion, an agency may always consider risk that arises from
   an offeror's demonstrated lack of understanding. Ridoc Enter., Inc.,
   B-292962.4, July 6, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 169 at 7. On the record here, we
   conclude that the agency reasonably found deficiencies in the protester's
   proposal under subfactor 1, based on the protester's failure to offer
   evening meals and to otherwise demonstrate an understanding of the
   requirements of the RFP.

   The protester argues that because the deficiencies in its proposal are
   similar to weaknesses in the proposals that were rated RSTA under
   subfactor 1, AHNTECH's proposal also should have been rated RSTA under
   subfactor 1. The agency's failure to rate the protester's proposal RSTA,
   the protester argues, reflects unequal treatment of offerors. We disagree.
   The record supports the finding that the weaknesses in the proposals from
   offerors D and E are similar in nature not to the deficiencies in
   AHNTECH's proposal, but to the weaknesses. Offeror D's and offeror E's
   proposals shared weaknesses concerned staffing levels--the agency sought
   clarity on the level of staffing and the means to increase staffing if
   necessary--as did the weakness unique to offeror E--the need for
   clarification of the DFAC personnel maintenance requirement. These
   weaknesses are similar in nature to the weaknesses identified in AHNTECH's
   proposal, specifically: the failure to state the personnel for the
   drop-arm barrier maintenance requirement; insufficient staffing in the
   dining facility function; a lack of clear demonstration of the
   qualifications of key personnel; and an unclear understanding of the Ops
   Town DFAC site manager position. Each of these weaknesses involved
   personnel qualifications or other staffing issues. None of these
   weaknesses reflects the potential that an offeror has failed to understand
   the essential elements of any required service. Given the nature of all of
   these concerns, it was reasonable for the agency to identify each of them
   as weaknesses in the respective proposals, and, as a result, we see no
   basis on which to conclude that the agency engaged in unequal treatment of
   the offerors.

   The protester also asserts that the agency used unstated evaluation
   criteria to find AHNTECH's entire proposal technically unacceptable based
   on an assessed deficiency under subfactor 1, because "[n]owhere in the
   solicitation was it established, implied, or stated that the evaluation of
   one subfactor as NTA would or could render the entire proposal as
   unacceptable." Protest at 7. Rather, the protester argues that because
   "all subfactors were to be evaluated as equal in importance, there was no
   indication in the Solicitation that the evaluation of any one subfactor as
   NTA would or could then render the entire proposal as NTA." Id. at 8.
   Moreover, the protester argues that even if the agency properly found
   AHNTECH's proposal NTA for the one operational area of DFAC, that was but
   one of 14 operational areas included in the RFP. Because the RFP does not
   provide for any operational area to assume a higher level of importance
   than any other, the protester asserts that the emphasis placed on the DFAC
   operational approach amounts to application of an unstated evaluation
   criterion. Id. at 7.

   An agency may properly find that a deficiency in one non-price evaluation
   factor is critical enough to render an entire proposal technically
   unacceptable. Pacifica Servs., Inc., B-280921, Dec. 7, 1998, 98-2 CPD
   para. 137 at 8; All State Boiler, Inc., B-277362, Oct. 3, 1997, 97-2 CPD
   para. 144 at 6. Likewise, a proposal that contains numerous material
   deficiencies which indicate that the offeror does not understand the
   solicitation requirements may properly found to be unacceptable. SWR,
   Inc., B-286229, B-286299.2, Dec. 5, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 196 at 6.

   The protester's claim is essentially summed up in its reading of this RFP
   statement (quoted above without the protester's emphasis): ". . . if an
   offeror's proposal [emphasis added] demonstrates a failure to mention or
   meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror's
   proposal. All proposals [emphasis added] considered NTA will be eliminated
   from competition and will NOT be evaluated for past performance . . ."
   Protest at 8. According to the protester, every aspect of a proposal would
   need to be rated NTA before the agency could properly eliminate it from
   further competition. This reading is wholly inconsistent with the RFP's
   explicit statement that the failure of an offeror's proposal to meet "ANY"
   requirement of the RFP could result in the proposal's elimination from the
   competition. Given that the RFP included a clear statement that a
   proposal's failure to meet any requirement could result in its exclusion
   from further competition, we find that the agency reasonably excluded the
   protester's proposal from further competition after finding it NTA for
   subfactor 1.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Other operational areas include, for example, laundry services,
   transportation services, lodging and linen exchange services, and fitness
   center maintenance.

   [2] The agency report provides additional explanations as to why the
   protester was assessed the four deficiencies for subfactor 1. Although the
   explanation for the evaluation provided by the agency in the report is
   more detailed than the evaluation summaries in the contemporaneous record,
   we conclude that they are consistent with the contemporaneous evaluation
   and the protester's proposal. Therefore we do not conclude, as AHNTECH
   suggests we should, that the agency has provided improper post-hoc
   information that should be excluded from the record. NCR Gov't Sys. LLC,
   B-297959, B-297959.2, May 12, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 82 at 10 n.5.

   [3] The record shows that the protester had, in fact, addressed the
   personnel, management, and organization relating to the drop-arm barrier
   maintenance and washer and dryer maintenance requirements, as well as the
   hoods and ducts requirement. AR, Tab 5, AHNTECH Proposal, vol. III, paras.
   C.2.12, Drop-Arm Barriers Maintenance; C.2.3, Washer/Dryer Repair and
   Maintenance; C.2.2, Hoods and Ducts. The protester was not prejudiced by
   the agency's evaluation error here, however, given that proposals were
   rendered NTA based on assessed deficiencies, not weaknesses. See Kearney &
   Co., B-298436.2, Oct. 4, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 149 at 3-4.