BNUMBER:  B-276064 
DATE:  May 7, 1997
TITLE: Analytical & Research Technology, Inc., B-276064, May 7, 1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Analytical & Research Technology, Inc.

File:     B-276064

Date:May 7, 1997

Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester.
Maj. Michael O'Farrell, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Katherine Riback, Esq. and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency did not conduct misleading discussions where the protester 
unreasonably interpreted agency's explanation regarding staffing 
requirements as permitting an approach that was inconsistent with the 
solicitation requirements.  

DECISION

Analytical & Research Technology, Inc. (ART) protests the Department 
of the Army's proposed award of a contract to J.G. Van Dyke & 
Associates, Inc. to provide computer network integration and automated 
data processing (ADP) operations support for the National Ground 
Intelligence Center (NGIC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAHC90-95-R-0036.  ART contends that the Army conducted misleading 
discussions with ART.    

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplates the award of a labor hours contract for a base 
year with four 1-year option periods to provide the NGIC with routine 
ADP technical assistance and hardware maintenance, installation and 
deinstallation of ADP support.  The RFP provided that offerors were 
permitted to propose any mix of labor categories to perform the 
required tasks provided that the proposed individuals "have the 
requisite years of experience in each of the skill areas listed below 
for the labor category for which they are proposed."  (Emphasis 
added.)  The skill areas were as follows:

     "Skill Area # 1- Experience in UNIX operating systems software 
     design, development and configuration management and specific 
     experience in Solaris 1.X and 2.X.

     "Skill Area # 2- Experience in Client-Server Relational Databases 
     and Software Applications and specific experience in Sybase, 
     Progress, and Oracle.

     "Skill Area # 3- Experience in Imagery Exploitation Software 
     Applications and specific experience in DIEPS.

     "Skill Area # 4- Experience in Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), 
     TCP/IP, Cisco and Newbridge Routers and Network Management 
     Software Applications and specific experience in Wollongon 
     Pathway.

     "Skill Area # 5- Experience in DEC OSF/1, installation, 
     utilities, configuration and specific experience in MIS, NFS, and 
     C2.

     "Skill Area # 6- Experience in Hardware/Software Configuration 
     Management and Software Applications and specific experience in 
     Autocad, Netcensus, Progress, Oracle, Applix-ware, and 
     Wordperfect for UNIX, cc:mail for UNIX.

     "Skill Area # 7- Experience in ADP systems operations and 
     specific experience in UNIX/Novell Fileservers, IBM/VM Mainframe, 
     Network Management Systems, Communications Security (COMSEC).

     "Skill Area # 8- Experience in MAC OS and Electronic Publishing 
     Software Applications and specific experience in MOSAIC, Web 
     Servers, Framemaker, QUARK, UNIX CorelDraw.

     "Skill Area # 9- Experience in Computer Security Support, 
     Computer Trusted Systems and Accreditations."    

The skill areas required by the RFP for each of the proposed labor 
categories were as follows:

Proposed Labor Category     Skill Area(s)

Systems Analyst             1, 2, and 3

Computer Specialist         1, 2, 3, 5, and 8

Communications Technician   4

Communications Engineer     1, 4, 7

Systems Administrator       1, 2, 4

Configuration Management Specialist6

Computer Security Analyst   9

Computer Shift Operator     7

The RFP provided that award would be made to the responsible offeror 
whose proposal represented the best value to the government, taking 
into consideration price and technical quality, with the technical 
factors being more important than price.  The RFP listed the following 
technical factors, in descending order of importance:  (1) technical 
skills, qualifications, and experience-personnel, (2) technical 
skills, qualifications, and experience-corporate, (3) technical 
approach, and (4) cost.  

On May 30, 1996, the agency received initial proposals from four 
offerors.  Each proposal included a labor category matrix for key 
personnel and corresponding resumes for individuals proposed to comply 
with the RFP's experience requirements.  ART's labor category matrix 
for its proposed key personnel indicated that ART interpreted the RFP 
as requiring that an individual proposed for a particular labor 
category had to be qualified in all of the skill areas and the 
applicable subskill areas listed for that particular labor category.  
For example, ART's initial proposal reflected ART's understanding that 
an individual proposed as a systems analyst must be qualified in all 
of the skill areas required for that labor category--that is, skill 
areas 1, 2, and 3, and each of the subskill areas contained 
thereunder.  In instances where ART could not find individuals that 
met the RFP requirements, it proposed individuals that most nearly 
satisfied the requirements in order to receive a portion of the 
available points.  

Van Dyke's proposal received the highest technical score of 150 points 
out of 350; FC Business's proposal received the second highest score 
of 120.9 points; ART's proposal received the third highest score of 
117.5 points; and a fourth offeror received the lowest technical score 
of 108.4  The source selection evaluation panel (SSEP) determined that 
all of the proposals were unacceptable with high risk ratings, but 
felt that each could be made acceptable with additional information.  
In evaluating proposals, the SSEP did not award any points for 
proposed individuals who did not meet all of the required skill areas 
for a particular labor category.  On February 29, the agency issued 
amendment No. 4, which changed the skill areas required for systems 
analyst from "1, 2 or 3" to "1, 2 and 3," and for computer specialist 
from "1, 2, 3, 5, or 8" to "1, 2, 3, 5, and 8."  (Emphasis added.)  
Offerors were requested to submit revised proposals.  The SSEP 
reconvened to evaluate the revised proposals responding to amendment 
No. 4.  The SSEP found the proposal of Van Dyke to be the technically 
superior proposal and recommended that award be made to that firm.  
However, the contracting officer rejected the SSEP's recommendation on 
the basis that any one of the three remaining offerors could be made 
capable of being awarded the contract if discussions were held.[1]  
The agency conducted written discussions in which each offeror 
received a list of clarifications and deficiencies concerning its 
initial and revised proposal.  The SSEP Chairman and the contract 
specialist then conducted telephone discussions with each offeror.  
ART's written discussion letter reflected the fact that various key 
personnel it proposed were not qualified in all of the required skill 
areas.  During oral discussions, the RFP requirements regarding key 
personnel requirements were addressed.  The specific content of the 
discussions with ART is the issue in this protest.  ART's main 
contention is that the SSEP Chairman expressly introduced a "team 
concept" during oral discussions, specifically informing ART that it 
was permitted to propose various individuals who each met some, but 
not all, of the skill area requirements for a particular labor 
category, and that together these individuals could constitute an 
acceptable "team" for that particular labor category.   
Best and final offers were subsequently requested and submitted.  ART 
fundamentally revised its BAFO based on its understanding of the oral 
discussions.  The final evaluated scores and proposed prices were as 
follows:

    Offerors          Technical Score (350 points maximum)Price

    ART               143.5             $17,551,097

    FC Business Systems129.2            $9,976,940

    Van Dyke          218               $13,069,300
Concluding from these results that Van Dyke's proposal represented the 
best value to the government, the Army made award to Van Dyke.  This 
protest followed.

As discussed above, ART contends that the agency affirmatively misled 
it during discussions, maintaining that it was informed during 
discussions that it was permissible to utilize a "team approach" to 
fulfill, in the aggregate, the experience requirements for each labor 
category.  ART contends that it was told that more than one individual 
could be proposed for a particular labor category in order to meet  
all of the skill area requirements for that labor category.  

ART also argues that neither the solicitation nor the discussion 
questions alerted it to the fact that the agency intended to give no 
evaluation credit for personnel who were qualified in some, but not 
all, of the required skill areas.  In this regard, ART contends that 
the agency conducted unequal discussions in that the agency  informed 
Van Dyke that individuals that did not meet all of the skill area 
requirements would not receive any scoring credit.

At a hearing held in connection with this protest, ART's President 
testified regarding the specific content of the oral discussions.  He 
stated that, during discussions, he communicated to the agency 
representatives that ART had found it very difficult to find 
individuals with the requisite experience in all of the required skill 
and subskill areas required for many of the labor categories.  Video 
Transcript (VT) 14:56:44.  ART's President testified that he then 
asked the SSEP Chairman, "[i]s that what we are supposed to do?"  VT 
14:57:01.  According to ART's President, the SSEP Chairman replied 
that it would be impossible to find one individual who met all of the 
skill area and subskill area requirements for a certain labor 
category, and went on to explain that offerors were permitted to meet 
the requirements of a particular labor category with a team.  
Specifically, ART's President testified that he was advised that ART 
could propose three individuals under the systems analyst labor 
category, one person that met all of the requirements for skill area 1 
(such as experience in 3 out of the last 5 years with UNIX operating 
systems, and specific experience in Solaris 1.X and 2.X.), but had no 
experience in skill areas 2 and 3, and another individual that met all 
of the requirements for skill area 2 (such as experience in Sybase, 
Progress and Oracle), but had no experience in skill areas 1 and 3, 
and a third individual who had all of the experience required in skill 
area 3 (which called for imagery exploitation software applications 
and specific experience in DIEPS), but had no experience in skill 
areas 1 and 2, and that these three individuals would form the 
"systems analyst team."  ART's President further testified that ART's 
representatives ran through several scenarios to ensure that they 
understood the teaming approach just introduced.  VT 15:02:45.  
Finally, ART's President testified that this team approach, as 
explained by the SSEP Chairman, clarified everything for them because 
this way the government would get all of the skill areas and subskill 
areas in a particular labor category, although not with a single 
person.  Based on the discussions, ART restructured its BAFO to 
reflect the permissible "team approach."  Due to its revisions, 17 of 
ART's proposed employees did not receive scoring credit.    

The agency takes the position that the language in the solicitation, 
combined with the clarification/deficiency comments, clearly put the 
offerors on notice that the solicitation required that individuals 
proposed for a labor category must have at least 3 years of experience 
in the last 5 years in each of the skill areas listed for a particular 
labor category, and that individuals who were proposed for a labor 
category who did not have the requisite experience for each skill area 
listed would not receive credit.  Regarding the language of the 
solicitation, the agency points to the language of amendment No. 1 
which states:  "[t]he individuals proposed must have the requisite 
years of experience in each of the skill areas listed below for the 
labor category for which they are proposed."  (Emphasis added.)  The 
agency also points to amendment No. 4 which changed the word "or" to 
"and" in the listing of skill areas for Systems Analyst and Computer 
Specialist, as further evidence of the agency's consistent position 
that individuals proposed for a given labor category must have at 
least 3 years of experience in the last 5 years in each of the skill 
areas listed for that labor category.  The agency maintains that the 
written clarification/deficiency questions provided to ART prior to 
oral discussions, which were the basis for oral discussions, 
specifically informed ART of deficiencies in skill areas 3 and 8.  For 
example, the agency notified ART of the following deficiency during 
written discussions:

     "8.  Skill Area 8:

     Deficiency - No individuals proposed for this skill area.  
     (Fowler cannot be counted for this skill area due to inadequate 
     recency of experience for skill area 5.)"

The agency views the written discussion questions as adequately 
advising ART that each individual proposed must be qualified in all of 
the listed skill areas in order to receive scoring credit.  Therefore, 
the agency contends the written clarifications/deficiency questions 
addressed to ART reinforced what was already stated in the RFP in 
amendment No. 1 requiring that "[t]he individuals proposed must have 
the requisite years of experience in each of the skill areas listed 
below for the labor category for which they are proposed."  

Regarding oral discussions, the SSEP Chairman states:  "[n]othing in 
the oral discussion negated or amended the written guidance in section 
L.21b(1) (amendment 0001) which stated that `[t]he individuals 
proposed must have the requisite years of experience in each of the 
skill areas listed below for the labor category for which they are 
proposed.'"  At the hearing, the SSEP Chairman testified:

     "I do not know how the question of individual employees versus 
     team contributions arose, I do not recollect, but it became 
     necessary to restate that first an employee, in accordance with 
     L.21(b), had to first have the requisite years of experience in 
     each of the skill areas identified in the solicitation for their 
     labor category, that, when we proceeded to actually do the 
     evaluation as set out in M.3 the evaluation would then look at 
     the composite or the team of individuals who were contributing to 
     skill area 1."  VT 11:01:05.[2]

The SSEP Chairman acknowledged that he introduced the concept of a 
"team approach" during oral discussions and that this concept did not 
appear in the RFP or in the written discussion materials.  VT 
11:01:29.[3]  

Discussions, when they are conducted, must be meaningful and must not 
prejudicially mislead offerors or be unequal.  Federal Acquisition 
Regulation,  sec.  15.610(c); Nova Research Co., B-270092; B-270092.2, Feb. 
8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  52 at 5.  In this case, the record establishes 
that the oral discussions were not misleading, and that the 
protester's interpretation of the agency's remarks stemmed from its 
own misunderstanding of the solicitation requirements.  See Peckham 
Vocational Indus., Inc., B-257100, Aug. 26, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  81 at 8. 

Regarding discussions, ART appears to have misapplied the "team 
approach," as it was explained by the agency.  The record indicates 
that the "team approach" described by the SSEP Chairman during 
discussions reflected the view that individuals from different labor 
categories could form a team to fulfill the requirements of a 
particular skill area, and that ART misunderstood this concept as 
outlined above.[4]  

On the basis of the record before us, it is clear that the "team 
approach," as explained by the agency, is consistent with the terms of 
the solicitation, specifically the solicitation provision that 
personnel would only be evaluated by skill areas, not by labor 
categories.  Nowhere in the solicitation are labor categories 
mentioned, except as a mechanism to "categorize" a proposed individual 
at a specific labor rate.  The record before us demonstrates that the 
agency has been consistent throughout the evaluation process in its 
interpretation of the experience requirements for labor categories.  
For example, amendment No. 4 which changed the word "or" to "and" in 
the listing of skill areas for certain labor categories, demonstrates 
that the agency interpreted the solicitation to require that 
individuals proposed for a given labor category must have experience 
in each of the skill areas listed for a particular labor category.  
ART's stated interpretation of the "team approach" is directly 
contrary to the solicitation's requirements regarding experience for 
each of the listed skill areas for given labor categories. 

Moreover, ART has failed to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the 
alleged misleading discussions.  Our Office will not sustain a protest 
unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was 
prejudiced by the agency's actions, that is, unless the protester 
demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a 
substantial chance of receiving the award.  McDonald-Bradley, 
B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. 
Christopher, No. 96-1148, slip op. __ (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 1996).  At 
the hearing ART's President specifically testified that ART could not 
provide many of the personnel which met what it originally understood 
to be the RFP's stated requirements.  In its protest ART states that 
when it submitted its BAFO it relied on the "team approach" concept 
that was introduced by the agency during oral discussions by replacing 
personnel originally proposed who were "very expensive" due to their 
extensive experience, with several "significantly less expensive" 
individuals whose combined experience met the requirements of the RFP.  
In these circumstances, it is only reasonable to conclude 
that, in order for ART to have provided the more highly skilled and 
experienced personnel necessary to meet the actual RFP requirements, 
ART's already high price, well above that offered by Van Dyke, would 
have further increased.[5]
  
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States    

1. One proposal was determined to be unacceptable and excluded from 
the competitive range after the evaluation of revised proposals, 
leaving a competitive range of three offers.  

2. In other words, under the teaming concept, as explained by the SSEP 
Chairman at the hearing, the agency required that one individual 
satisfy the skill area requirements for a particular labor category, 
but that individual did not have to meet every subskill requirement 
for each skill area.  The agency would then examine all of the 
individuals that were proposed for various labor categories that 
required a particular skill area, for example skill area 2, which 
required specific experience in Sybase, Progress, and Oracle.  The 
systems analyst, computer specialist, and systems administrator labor 
administrator labor categories all require skill area 2.  An offeror 
could proposed a systems analyst with Sybase experience, a proposed 
computer specialist with Oracle experience, and a systems 
administrator with Progress experience.  Then the agency would look 
and see that, as a team, these individuals met all of the various 
requirements of skill area 2.  

3. The contracting specialist, who also participated in the 
discussions with ART, could not recollect any of the technical 
discussions between the SSEP Chairman and ART.  VT 14:35:40.  

4. At the hearing, ART also introduced testimony from a representative 
of FC Business indicating that he, too, misunderstood the 
solicitation's requirements.  

5. ART also argues that the agency improperly failed to score a 
certain employee who was proposed for the systems analyst labor 
category.  This allegation is factually incorrect.  This individual 
was scored under the skill areas 1, 2, and 3 to support his 
designation as a systems analyst.  However, the employee's score for 
skill area  3 was downgraded because the agency determined that he 
lacked the required three years of experience in DIEPS to satisfy the 
DIEPS portion of the requirements for skill area 3.  Even if this 
individual had received the maximum score under skill area 3, there 
would have been no material effect in the outcome of this procurement.