THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON JUNE 13, 1994 _________________________________________________ DENIED: November 9, 1992 ________________________________________________ GSBCA 11962-P SYSTEM AUTOMATION CORPORATION, Protester, v. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, and APPLIED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Intervenor. Edward J. Tolchin of Fettmann & Tolchin, Fairfax, VA, counsel for Protester. Donald F. Hassell, Dennis C. Dambly, Brian T. Kildee, and Mary Patricia Siemien, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. David S. Cohen, Donn R. Milton, and Lisa Hovelson of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges HENDLEY, NEILL, and PARKER. HENDLEY, Board Judge. The protester, System Automation Corporation, contends that the respondent, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, improperly evaluated its proposal, and that consequently the award made to the intervenor, Applied Management Systems, should be canceled. We conclude that neither the evaluation of proposals nor award was so flawed as to violate statute or regulation, 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B) (1990), and deny the protest. Findings of Fact 1. In February 1992, respondent, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), issued solicitation number RS-IRM-92-203, to procure personnel who could provide, develop, maintain, improve, document, and manipulate the computer systems in respondent's Office of Information Management. Protest File, Exhibit 10. Respondent, in the solicitation, intended to purchase services that two contractors, intervenor and protester, had been per- forming under two separate contracts for a number of years. Id., Exhibit 11. Respondent intended to administer the contract by issuing task orders negotiated on a cost plus fixed fee basis. Id. at 9. The base period of the contract was to be three years, with options for years four and five. Id. at 8. 2. Respondent received eleven proposals, Protest File, Exhibit 12, and initially judged the intervenor's proposal to rank highest, with a technical score of 90.3 and a proposed cost of $29.9 million. Computech scored second highest technically with 86.4 points and an estimated cost of approximately $39 million, while protester scored third technically with 84.3 points and a proposed cost of $32.5 million. Id., Exhibit 27. Respondent placed intervenor's, protester's, and Computech's proposals in the competitive range. Id., Exhibit 19. 3. Respondent posed technical questions to the three offerors in the competitive range and conducted oral discussions with them between June 12 and 25, 1992. Protest File, Exhibit 20. The three submitted best and final offers (BAFOs) on June 29, 1992. Id., Exhibits 22-25. Respondent scored the BAFOs as follows: (1) intervenor - average technical score of 93.94 points, with an estimated cost of $24,606,914; (2) protester - average technical score of 86.54 points, with an estimated cost of $23,996,414; and (3) Computech - average technical score of 84.5 points, with an estimated cost of $26,359,327. Id., Exhibit 26. Respondent judged the $610,500 estimated cost difference between the intervenor's and protester's proposals to be negligible and found that the technical superiority of intervenor's outweighed any estimated cost advantage, id., an assessment that all three technical evaluators and the contract negotiator agreed with, Transcript at 643. Respondent awarded the contract to the intervenor on July 31, 1992. Protest File, Exhibit 28. The Solicitation 4. Section M of the solicitation, which set forth evaluation factors, advised offerors that technical merit would be a more significant selection factor than cost. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 94-95. Respondent amended the evaluation criteria twice before submission of initial proposals. Id., Exhibits 11, 12. In the solicitation's final form, four technical evaluation factors had these values, out of a total of 100 points: FACTOR A: Key Personnel Qualifications - 25 points FACTOR B: Technical Approach and Understanding of Requirements - 35 points FACTOR C: Corporate Experience - 25 points FACTOR D: Management Approach - 15 points Each evaluation factor included subfactors with separate point values. Id. 5. Factor A, "Key Personnel Qualifications," originally was worth ten points and included three subfactors: (a) Education (2 points); (b) Technical or Management Experience (as applicable) (See C.1.6) (4 points); (c) Match of experience to position functional requirements and to the job qualifications and professional development, including specific demonstrated experience with the techniques as identified in the Statement of Work (C.1.6, Methodology Document). (4 points) Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 95-96. Amendment One to the solicitation removed "Education" as a separately scored subfactor and increased the overall point value of this factor to twenty- five points. Id., Exhibit 11. Respondent, in part, removed education as a separate subfactor because educational degrees might not be germane to automatic data processing (ADP) work. Transcript at 608-09. Respondent included a sample resume format that had a block for a description of education, Protest File, Exhibit 11, and both intervenor and protester, using that format, noted educational attainment on their resumes. Amendment One also did not change section L of the solicitation, which stated that respondent would evaluate key personnel in the areas of education, technical, and managerial experience, based on the requirements of the Statement of Work. Id., Exhibit 10 at 87. 6. Amendment One also made minor changes to two remaining "Key Personnel" subfactors: (1) "Technical and Management Experience," and (2) "Match of Experience." Protest File, Exhibit 11 at M.3. The introduction to the amended "Key Personnel" section reads as follows: The personnel designated to perform under this contract are considered critical to the success of the NRC ADP program. The contractor shall provide a fully-trained staff with combined in-depth experience in current technologies including, but not limited to, Data Repositories, Data Modeling, Rapid Prototyping, the use of CASE tools, Structured Methodologies, Data Base Administration, Application development using Data Base Management systems, LAN application development, and text/image/document processing systems. Id. 7. Amendment One also clarified the language of the last subfactor, "Match of Experience," to stress experience with the NRC hardware and software. Transcript at 614. As amended, this "Match" subfactor read as follows: (2) Match of experience to position functional requirements, including specific demonstrated experience with the platforms as identified in the Statement of Work (C.1.4) (C.1.6.1 - C.1.6.10) (15 points). Protest File, Exhibit 11. 8. Factor B, "Technical Approach and Understanding of Requirements," was valued at 35 points and included these six subfactors: (a) Demonstrated understanding of the scope of work (3 points); (b) Approach to designing, developing, maintaining, improving, and implementing ADP systems using methodology similar to that specified in the statement of work. Address specific technologies, such as CASE, Rapid Prototyping, Program Generation, and number, size, and complexity of the cited systems (10 points); (c) Approach to interaction with NRC staff, hardware, and software at the various Headquarters and Regional offices when developing, enhancing, or maintaining systems (6 points); (d) Approach to responding to ADP systems failures (4 points); (e) Adequacy of quality assurance plan and method to plan, manage, and measure work (5 points); (f) Approach to react to changing NRC requirements resulting from changing business requirements or changes in technology (7 points). Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. 9. Factor C, "Corporate Experience," was valued at 25 points and included four subcriteria, with only two subcriteria at issue here, C(1) and C(4): (1) Demonstrated specific technical experience with developing, maintaining, improving, documenting, implementing and otherwise manipulating automated computer systems, as outlined in the Statement of Work (15 points); . . . . (4) Experience with task-order-type contracts of comparable size and diversity (4 points). Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 4. 10. Factor D, "Management Approach," valued at 15 points, stated the following: Management capabilities and approach will be evaluated on the potential effectiveness of the offeror's proposed organization to accomplish assigned tasks according to the following criteria: (1) Project Management Plan a. Upper management review procedures (4 points) b. Cost monitoring capability (3 points) (2) Personnel Management Plan (8 points) Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 4. 11. As to cost, offerors were to estimate yearly prices based on the estimated maximum level of effort of 71 full time equivalents. Protest File, Exhibit 11 at 2. Both offerors only estimated their costs without including fixed rates or ceilings. The Evaluation Process 12. Respondent formed a Source Evaluation Panel (SEP) comprised of three technical evaluators: Mr. U, Mr. M, and Mr. H. Protest File, Exhibit 3. Mr. W, the designated contract negotiator, would oversee the entire process and evaluate the final estimated costs for offerors in the competitive range, but did not participate in the technical evaluation of proposals. Transcript at 728. 13. To evaluate proposals, the three technical evaluators considered the proposals, the solicitation, evaluation instructions, and a scoring worksheet that included a restatement of all the section M technical evaluation criteria, Transcript at 732, together with a 10-point scoring guideline. Protest File, Exhibit 15; Transcript at 593-94. Under the scoring guideline, a "good" response addressed all the requirements in an adequate or average manner and should receive a score of 6 or 7 points, while an "excellent" response would be above average, contain strong points, and receive a score of 8 to 9 points. An "outstanding" response would be considered superior and innovative and receive a score of 10 points. The evaluators converted 10-point scores to percentages of the total points for each subcriteria (e.g. a 9-point score for a subcriteria worth 3 points would be 90% of 3 points or 2.7 points). Transcript at 596-97. The evaluators did not use any additional scoring matrix because the respondent believed that another matrix would omit certain qualitative matters and might produce an unfair result. Transcript at 607-08. 14. The evaluators considered the BAFOs one at a time over several days. Transcript at 594. While reading the proposals, the evaluators added comments and scores to the evaluation worksheets. Protest File, Exhibit 18; Transcript at 595. The comments noted strengths and weaknesses but did not necessarily describe all factors affecting scoring for particular subcriteria. Transcript at 595. 15. At the conclusion of the technical evaluation of BAFOs, the three evaluators had each scored the intervenor higher than the protester, as follows: The Intervenor The Protester Mr. H 94.3 84.5 Mr. U 95.1 87.73 Mr. M 92.42 87.39 When averaged, the intervenor's final score was 93.93 points and the protester's was 86.54 points, a difference of 7.39 points; the intervenor's score is 8.7 percent higher than the protester's. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. 16. All three evaluators scored the intervenor higher than the protester for the four technical factors. Respondent and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. Of the ninety separate scores assigned (the three evaluators' scoring of fifteen subcriteria [3 x 15 = 45] for each of two proposals [45 x 2 = 90]), the protester received a higher score than the intervenor only three times. Id. Factor A: Evaluation of Key Personnel 17. Factor A, "Key Personnel," was valued at 25 points, with protester receiving an overall score of 20.35 points and the intervenor receiving 23.12 points, 2.77 points higher. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. a. Data Base Administrators 18. The solicitation set out an approximate mix of personnel, consisting of one Project Manager, three "Data Base Administrators (including Senior/Junior)," thirteen "Systems Analysts (including Senior/Junior)," and a variety of others. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 19-20. At the pre-proposal conference, the respondent's contract negotiator told offerors that NRC was "looking for you to identify which you feel should be senior or junior." Id., Exhibit 11 at 7. 19. Section L of the solicitation instructed offerors to submit resumes for all employees proposed for positions identified as "Key Personnel" in the Statement of Work. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 87. The Statement of Work at Section C.1.6.3 stated: The Project Manager, the Data Base Administrator (Senior) and all Senior Systems Analysts shall be designated as Key Personnel. This is a Task Order type contract. Additional key personnel may be identified for each task order. Id. 20. The question of senior/junior designation of the key positions arose again. Written questions and answers provided to offerors with Amendment One included the following: 12. Key Personnel are identified in RFP paragraph C.1.6.3. Only 1 Project Manager, 1 Senior Level Database Administrator, and 1 Senior Level Systems Analyst are identified in RFP paragraph C.1.6.2. Can we assume this means there are only 3 Key Personnel in this solicitation? The offeror may make his own assumptions concerning the Junior/Senior designation. The offeror must then determine how many key personnel he intends to propose. Protest File, Exhibit 11, Questions and Answers (emphasis added). The Questions and Answers also advised offerors: 35. "Para. C.1.6.3, Key Personnel - This paragraphs [sic] states that the only key personnel categories are Program Manager, Data Base Administrator (Senior) and Senior Systems Analyst. However, this paragraph also states that additional key personnel may be identified for each task order." Does this mean that additional labor categories from the ones stated in the RFP will be designated "key" or does it mean that additional people in these three key categories already identified will be required for new task orders? Either. Id. (emphasis added). 21. The intervenor proposed three senior Database Administrators (DBAs) as key personnel, Protest File, Exhibit 16, while Computech proposed two senior DBAs, id., Exhibit 29 at A-9, and KENROB Associates proposed two senior DBAs, id., Exhibit 31 at A-2. The protester proposed one senior DBA and a deputy project manager/Senior Systems Analyst in its initial proposal and BAFO. Id., Exhibit 17 at A-2, A-3, A-11, A-17; Exhibit 23 at A-2, A-3. In its technical questions to the protester, the respondent asked protester to clarify its proposal of one DataBase Analyst (Administrator). Id., Exhibit 20. In its BAFO, the protester clarified that it had proposed only one key DBA because it believed the solicitation "suggests" one senior and two non-senior DBAs. Id., Exhibit 23 at 31. The protester further stated that although one senior DBA would be insuffi- cient, one senior plus two junior DBAs could do the job, and reminded respondent that "[w]e have included resumes for several DBAs both in the key and non-key pool." Id. 22. The intervenor received no extra points for proposing more than one senior DBA. Transcript at 598. Both the protester and the intervenor proposed sixteen total key personnel, and NRC evaluated each of those key resumes, id., with the same number of possible points available for each resume, regardless of the position designated on it, id. at 604. Respondent averaged the scores for all sixteen resumes to arrive at a final key personnel score. Id. at 598. b. Education 23. Both the protester's and intervenor's key personnel resumes listed education and training. Protest File, Exhibits 16-17, 23. A comparison of their resumes reveals no particular difference in how they addressed education in their resumes. Id. The intervenor provided a separate summary of its key personnel's education and training backgrounds with its proposal, however. Id., Exhibit 16 at A-30 to -37. 24. One evaluator, Mr. M, considered the education and training stated in the resumes but did not consider it significant in his evaluation. Transcript at 608. Mr. U noted "degrees" for some of the resumes he evaluated, but there is no evidence as to whether, or how, such information affected his scoring. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 26-28. With respect to Mr. H, the record shows only that, in commenting upon why he gave protester's Dr. M a high rating, he perhaps had a "bias toward Ph.D.'s." Deposition of Mr. H at 19. c. Experience with Structured Methodologies 25. The awardee would need its work to conform to a structured methodology attached to the solicitation. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at C.1.3, C.1.3.8, Attachment 5. The Statement of Work specifies under the heading "Personnel" that "the contractor shall provide a fully-trained staff" with "experience in current technologies including, but not limited to . . . Structured Methodologies . . . ." Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 16 ( C.1.6). 26. In evaluating the protester's and the intervenor's proposed senior systems analysts as to their technical or management experience, Mr. M considered, among other factors, their experience with structured methodologies. Transcript at 565. Mr. M not structured methodology experience as a strength for three of the protester's proposed personnel--R.K., O.D., and J.F. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 50-51. Out of a possible 10 points, Mr. M scored these protester proposed personnel, as follows: R.K. (9.5), O.D. (8), and J.F. (9). Id. Mr. M noted what appeared to be a lack of structured methodology experience for two of the protester's proposed personnel--R.E. (7 points) and C.S. (6.5 points). Id. With reference to C.S., Mr. M also noted that C.S. "appears to be responsible for production systems, not design or analysis." Id. Mr. M referenced structured methodology experience for one of the intervenor's sixteen proposed personnel. Id. at 129. For S.S., Mr. M's evaluation notes state: "solid analysis/design background w/structured methodology exper. 10 years exper. w/ solid IDMS, 5 yrs w/ NRC systems." Mr. M assigned S.S. a score of 9.5. Id. 27. The protester's key personnel resumes included numerous mentions of structured methodology experience. Transcript at 293-95; Protest File, Exhibit 23 at A-27, -29, -36, - 37, -38, - 39. However, the protester decided not to propose one person proficient in structured methodologies as a senior systems analyst because she was not strong in the hardware and software platforms specified in the solicitation. Transcript at 410. The record does not establish whether Mr. U or Mr. H, the two other technical evaluators, considered structured methodology experience in scoring this subfactor. d. Resume Scoring 28. To score subfactor A(1), "Technical or Management Experience," and subfactor A(2), "Match of experience to position functional requirements," the evaluators did not rely on a checklist or any other quantitative assessment of years of experience. Transcript at 607. Rather, the three men conducted a more qualitative evaluation of the types of experience described in the resumes. Deposition of Mr. H at 13-14. However, the team relied only on information actually presented in the resumes rather than any personal knowledge they might have of individuals or their work. Id. at 15-16. 29. The intervenor generally provided more detail in its resumes of proposed employees than did the protester. Transcript at 615-18. This fact was clearest in the one instance where both offerors proposed the same individual, Mr. G. The intervenor explained Mr. G's specific work experience and types of platforms and systems used from 1988 to the present in great depth, while protester summarized the material in its submitted resume. Transcript at 617-18; Protest File, Exhibits 16 at A.2.8.1, 17 at A-42. After the team realized that they were scoring the "same guy," they gave him the same high score. Transcript at 618. However, one team member commented that it was often difficult in reviewing the protester's resumes to "extract out exactly what the guy was working on." Id. at 615. 30. Both offerors highlighted their previous NRC experi- ence. For example, the protester emphasized its "hands-on" experience at NRC and its knowledge of NRC's "existing systems" and directed attention to studies showing that "prior experience with the software applications improves the efficiency of the software team by up to 47%." Protest File, Exhibit 25. The individual resume scores for subfactor A(1), "technical and management experience," and A(2), "match of experience," were as follows: THE PROTESTER'S SCORES LEGEND: PM = PROJECT MANAGER; DPM = DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER; DBA = DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR; SSA = SENIOR SYSTEMS ANALYST Position Employee Evaluators and Scores Mr. H Mr. U Mr. M PM K 9/9 9/9 9.5/8.7 DPM B 9/8 9/8 9/8.3 DBA McM 8/9 9/9 8/8.33 SSA D 7/7 8/8 8/4 L.S 8/9 9/9 8/8 J 9/8 9/9 9/7.7 R 8/7 6/5 8/7.3 F 9/9 10/10 9/7 G 10/10 10/10 9.5/9.3 M 9/9 10/10 10/8.3 E 8/8 7/7 7/5.3 P 7/7 5/3 9/9 T 9/9 10/10 9.5/9.3 C.S 9/9 9/9 6.5/7 H 7/7 8/8 6.5/6 R 7/7 9/7 8/6 PROTESTER'S OVERALL KEY PERSONNEL SCORES: A-1 8.42 A-2 11.93 THE INTERVENOR'S SCORES Position Employee Evaluators and Scores Mr. H Mr. U Mr. M PM P 10/10 10/10 9/9.6 DBA M 10/10 10/10 9/9.6 DBA S 9/9 9/9 9/9.6 DBA B 10/10 9/9 8.5/8.6 SSA W 10/10 10/10 8.5/9 D 9/10 10/10 8.5/8.6 C 10/9 10/10 9/9.6 P 9/10 10/10 7.5/8 J 9/9 10/10 9/9.3 G 10/10 10/10 9.5/9.3 N 8/9 8/8 7.5/7.6 S 10/10 10/10 9.5/9.3 M 8/8 8/8 7.5/7.3 B 9/10 10/10 8/8 S 9/9 8/8 9/8.6 B 10/10 10/10 8.5/8.3 INTERVENOR'S OVERALL KEY PERSONNEL SCORES A-1 9.16 A-2 13.96 Factor B: Evaluation of Technical Approach and Understanding of Requirements 31. Factor B was valued at 35 points, with protester receiving an overall score of 29.36 points, and the intervenor 31.66 points, or 2.3 points more. Respondent'S and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. Mr. M's Review of Offerors' Understanding of Requirements 32. The solicitation stated that respondent would evaluate six subfactors under Factor B, the "technical approach and understanding of requirements." Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 96. Evaluator Mr. M looked at--among other things-- examples of the proposed approach being implemented by the offeror previously or currently, since he believed that examples showed that the offeror actually knew how to implement a solution. Transcript at 447-48, 623-24. The protester's proposal references examples of past or current implementation of various approaches, Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-15, -76, -95, -117, -125, and Mr. M considered those references in the protester's proposal in the same light as similar references in the intervenor's proposal, i.e. "that they were trying to provide something that would give us an indication that they fully understand the scope of work." Transcript at 628-29. Subfactor B(1): Demonstrated Understanding of the Scope 33. All three evaluators made notations indicating that the protester did not demonstrate as well as it could a knowledge of non-IDMS, i.e., nonmainframe and personal computer (PC), work. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 9, 33, 56. While the protester's proposal described some of the systems on PCs and other nonmainframe platforms at NRC, these are only the perimeter of the NRC's PC-based systems. Transcript at 532. With reference to the intervenor, the evaluators noted that the intervenor's demonstrated understanding of the scope was "full" and "thorough." Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 82, 132. The intervenor received 3 of 3 possible points for subfactor B.1. Respondent and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. The protester received 2.33 of 3 possible points for B.1. Id. Subfactor B(2): Proposed Approach to Design, Develop, Maintain, etc. 34. The evaluators' notes on their scoring sheets reveal the protester's understanding of the requirements for designing, developing, maintaining, and implementing NRC's ADP systems. On his evaluation worksheet, Mr. H noted as a weakness that "Difference in approach for different sized systems not detailed enough." Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 10. Mr. M noted that the protester "could have supplied more specific references to number, size, & complexity of cited systems." Id. at 57. Mr. U's initial comments included a statement that the protester's development approach "was centered on large applications. No mention of small application, PC application or variations to the life cycle approach to include such." Id. at 34. 35. The protester's proposal focused on a baseline methodology described as being "appropriate to most complex, multi-user systems, regardless of platform." Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-18 to -65. The most complex, multi-user system currentrly operating at NRC is its SINET application, written in IDMS and running on large IBM mainframes. Transcript at 1071. The protester's recently expired contract with NRC involved support of that SINET application. Id. at 522; see also Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-117. The protester's proposal describes an approach for "small improvement and maintenance tasks," as follows: Most projects will fall between these two extremes. In these cases, the SA development team will work closely with the NRC Project Officer and Task Manager to implement the specific project lifecycle activities which are needed to maintain control and ensure quality without incurring unnecessary cost. Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-18. As protester stated, most NRC projects fall between the two extremes. Transcript at 1072. The protester in its initial proposal explained only that it will address "most projects" by committing itself to "work closely" with NRC for purposes to tailor any of the methodology steps to particular projects. 36. During negotiations, respondent asked the protester to clarify its design and development process, particularly as it relates to PC development tasks. Protest File, Exhibit 20. In its BAFO response, the protester addressed "Development of Small Systems" in approximately two-and-a-half pages to be added to its B(2) development discussion. Id., Exhibit 23 at 33-36, change pages B-81 through 81-ii. Mr. U evaluated the supplemental information provided by the protester but continued to have concerns that "[t]he substance I was looking for" in the identifying steps was lacking. Id.; Transcript at 1078. Mr. U nevertheless raised his initial score for the protester from 7 points to 8 points for B(2). Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 34. 37. Both Mr. H and Mr. U assigned the protester a final score of 8 out of a possible 10 points for B(2). Mr. M assigned the protester a score of 9 points for B(2) resulting in an overall B(2) score of 8.33 points for the protester. Subfactor B(3): Proposed Approach to Interact with NRC 38. Section L instructed offerors to: discuss ability to interact with the NRC's ADP and user staffs at the NRC's various Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area locations on a daily basis as well as providing regional support on an occasional basis. The offeror shall discuss methods that will be utilized to deal with data communications between its staff and the LAN and computer facilities used by the NRC. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 88 (B(4)). This subfactor was worth six points total. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. 39. Both the intervenor and the protester addressed interaction with NRC in their proposals. Protest File, Exhibits 16 at 149-52, 17 at B-82-B-86. Both offerors received relatively high scores (the protester 5.27; the intervenor 5.1), and the protester's overall average score exceeded intervenor's. Respondent and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. Evaluators Mr. H and Mr. U assigned the protester and the intervenor the same scores (5.4) for this "interaction" subfactor. Id. Mr. M assigned the protester 5 points and the intervenor 4.5 points. Id. Subfactor B(4): Proposed Response to ADP Systems Failures 40. The "response" subfactor, B(4), was worth a total of 4 points. The respondent evaluated the offerors' proposed approaches to providing immediate response to ADP systems failures. The intervenor received an average of 3.47 points and the protester 3.27 points for this subfactor. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. 41. In their discussions of response to system failures, both offerors referenced their experience in responding to system failures while working on their then-current NRC contracts. For example, the protester noted the inability to access the system (e.g. SINET) had been a frequently reported problem. Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-117. In discussing how it would respond to applications problems, the protester stated: (This is similar to what has happens [sic] under SA's current contract for SINET support with the Project Manager designated as back-up when IRM personnel are not available.) Id. As to providing database support, protester referred again to its then current contract with NRC: "SA currently provides and will continue to provide emergency database support during off-hours." Id. at B-119. 42. Likewise, the intervenor referenced its current methods for responding to NRC emergencies and stressed its past immediate response to problems on a 24-hour basis. Protest File, Exhibit 16 at B-152 to -155. The intervenor further noted that: Since many of the NRC's applications have actually been implemented or significantly enhanced by Applied Management Systems, Inc. personnel, we are in an excellent position to troubleshoot such software. The Applied Management Systems, Inc. staff couples this knowledge of the applications with thorough technical expertise in the underlying micro, mini and mainframe environments of these systems. Thus, when a failure occurs the Applied Management Systems, Inc. personnel responsible for that system can quickly pinpoint the relevant processing area of the system and then perform whatever diagnostic tests are necessary to isolate the offending software routine or data error. Simple corrections to production software and/or data are usually made that day, and once completed, are immediately available. Id. at B-153. The intervenor's proposal also noted that it had backup personnel trained on all systems: If the primary support person is unavailable the backup person will respond to any NRC emergency call. Both the primary and backup person have in-depth knowledge of the application systems they are supporting. This knowledge lets our staff rapidly pinpoint the course of failure and take corrective actions. Id. at B-152. 43. The protester's proposal stated that it was "committed to responding to emergencies within two hours of notification, including off-hour periods." Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-116. Mr. H, in evaluating this commitment, noted on his worksheet that "[Two] hrs is a bit long. Don't mention feedback during off-hours." Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 12. Mr. H's comment regarding the two-hour response time related primarily to his belief that during working hours responses should be more immediate than two hours. Deposition of Mr. H at 56. Mr. H assigned the protester a 3.2 out of a possible 4 points for this "response" subfactor. 44. Mr. M assigned the protester 3 points for this "response" subfactor and commented that protester's proposal was "geared to mainframe" environment with "little or no regard for stand-alone PC application problems." Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 59. Protester in fact had not mentioned PCs in this section of its proposal. Protest File, Exhibit 17 at 117-20. Mr. M testified that he was not convinced that the protester fully understood the PC environment, in part because it referred to "test environments" and "production environment" in its proposal, phrases not typically used to refer to stand-alone PC systems. Transcript at 503, 511. Subfactor B(5): Adequacy of QA plan 45. Subfactor B(5), "QA plan adequacy," was valued at 5 points. The only evaluator's score at issue is Mr. H's score of 4 points for protester. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 3 at 11. The technical team evaluated proposals for adequacy of the Quality Assurance ("QA") plan and for their methods of planning, managing, and measuring work. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. The protester received an average score of 4.33. Id. 46. To address quality assurance, protester's proposal highlighted the background of two individuals. Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-106-B-07. The resume of one, "O.D.," showed that he had extensive quality assurance experience in inspecting welding in the nuclear industry. Id., Exhibit 23 at A-26. Protester's proposal also stated that it would base its QA Approach on NUREG/CR-4640, the "Handbook of Software Quality Assurance Techniques Applicable to the Nuclear Industry." Id. at B-108. Mr. H noted on his evaluation worksheet that "O.D.," protester's top QA person, was weak for ADP QA and that the cited NUREG standard was aimed more at software for nuclear power plants as opposed to the types of software that will be developed under the subject contract. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 13. Subfactor B(6): Proposed Approach to Changing Requirements 47. Subfactor B(6), concerning how offerors would react to changing NRC requirements, was worth 7 points, and protester received an average score of 5.83. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. The only evaluator's score at issue is Mr. M's score of 5.6 points for the protester. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 3 at 12. Mr. M noted on his worksheet that the protester "could have provided specific corporate experience on change oriented projects." Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 61. Mr. M testified that: It's my responsibility as an evaluator to determine without a doubt that the technical -- that this proposal has a valid technical approach and under- standing. One way of making that determination is when they cite examples of where they've applied this before. That's one way of being sure that this guy really understands this. Transcript at 447. 48. In this "reacting to change" section of its proposal, the protester emphasized that its approach was based on "proven systems integration and applications development experience." Protest File, Exhibit 17 at B-121 (emphasis added). The protester also claimed that its approach provides "proven management activities for planned diversions and adaptability," id. at B-125, and that it will provide the NRC with "proven methods for management of technical activities and management of the change process," id. at B-132. In addition, the protester stated that: The SA Team provides leaders in information management who are experienced in successful performance of systems integration, application of innovative technologies, and appropriate solutions for support of the NRC and IRM. Project descriptions and references are available that cite project after project involving application of new methods and technologies that have been successfully completed by the team members. Id. at B-125. Thus the protester's proposal offered "proven experience," but provided no specific detail as to where or how its approach had been "proven." Factor C: Evaluation of Corporate Experience 49. Factor C, "corporate experience," was valued at 25 points, and the protester received an total of 22.89 points and the intervenor 24.52 points, which was 1.63 points higher than protester's score. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. The solicitation instructed offerors to describe their "experience in providing services similar to those defined in the Statement of Work," i.e., to focus on their experience in developing similar applications and performing similar federal contracts. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 90-91. Under this "corporate experience" factor, the first two subfactors related to application development experience and the last two related to the offerors' contract experience. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. The offerors' scores for the second and third, C(2) and C(3), are not at issue. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 3. Subfactor C(1): Demonstrated Technical Experience with Developing Systems 50. Subfactor C(1), valued at 15 points, concerned the offerors' demonstrated technical experience in developing ADP systems. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. All three evaluators assigned the protester 13.5 of 15 points, for a total score of 13.5 points. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. 51. Section L specifically instructed offerors to describe their corporate experiences that are similar to those defined in the Statement of Work. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 90. In evaluating protester's experience with developing applications, Mr. H noted as a strength that the protester had significant experience on mainframe systems development, but as a weakness he noted that "[M]ost SAC projects are narrow in scope - smaller & without the complexity of NRC's." Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 15. Mr. H assigned the protester 13.5 points. Id. 52. Mr. M noted on his worksheet's C(1) section that protester's proposal was weak in that "more specific examples could have been provided," and he referenced page D 2-3 of the protester's proposal next to this comment. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 62. Mr. M's practice in filling out his worksheets was to list page numbers next to his comments so that he knew generally where to look in the proposal when re-examining his comments, but Mr. M. did not create a separate list of each page of each proposal that he evaluated. Transcript at 432. Mr. M read and evaluated all pages in the protester's proposal relating to evaluation subfactor C(1), id. at 432, 635, and, like Mr. H, assigned the protester 13.5 points. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. 53. Mr. U also assigned the protester 13.5 points for subfactor C(1) and noted as a weakness that only two of the five applications are for the protester. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 39. Subfactor C(4): Experience with Similar Task-Order Contracts 54. Subfactor C(4), valued at 4 points, concerned offerors' experience with task-order-type contracts of comparable size and diversity. The intervenor's score was .13 points higher than protester's. Protest File, Exhibit 26. Mr. U assigned 3.6 points to protester, and his score is not at issue. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibits 2, 3 at 15. Mr. H assigned 3.2 points to the protester for this subfactor, and Mr. M assigned 3.96 points. Id. Thus, protester's average score for this subfactor was 3.59. Id. 55. In noting both the strengths and weaknesses of protester's proposal, Mr. M referenced on his worksheet the sections of protester's proposal discussing contracts and applications. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 65. It is not known whether Mr. M's score would increase or decrease if he had confined his review to only the contracts described by the protester, but we do know that his score for protester is only 1% less than perfect. 56. In evaluating the protester for this "experience with similar task order contracts" subfactor, Mr. H noted that protester had not managed a task order contract of the same size or complexity as the one NRC was soliciting. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 18; Deposition of Mr. H at 62. Factor D: Evaluation of Management 57. Evaluation factor D, Management Approach, was valued at 15 points, and protester received 13.94 points, while the intervenor received 14.63 points, or .69 more than protester did. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. The solicitation's introduction to this section stated that: Management capabilities and approach will be evaluated on the potential effectiveness of the offeror's proposed organization to accomplish assigned tasks according to the following criteria. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. 58. This "management approach" factor included three subfactors, and protester only challenges Mr. H's scoring of the first two subfactors for his failure to write comments on his worksheets. Respondent and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 3 at 16-17. Still, Mr. H's scores for these subfactors are closely aligned with the unchallenged scores of the other evaluators. See Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 2. Subfactor D(2): Personnel Management Plan 59. For subfactor D(2), Personnel Management Plan, worth 8 points, protester received 7.47 points, while intervenor received 7.73 points, or .26 points more than the protester. Respondent's and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 3-4. 60. The solicitation instructed offerors to describe fully their personnel management plan and "demonstrate clearly to the NRC that the offeror has a realistic plan and adequate resources . . . ." Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 89. Offerors also were to discuss "sources of all proposed personnel." Id. 61. The protester's proposal addresses its personnel sources and resources by referring specifically to the protester and subcontractor personnel. Protest File, Exhibit 17 at C-31 to -34. Mr. U assigned protester 7.2 out of 8 points and noted on his worksheet that "the entire team put together by SA is not exceptionally strong. Their approach was good but the result was not." Respondent and Intervenor's Hearing Exhibit 1 at 45. Mr. H also assigned the protester 7.2 points for subfactor D(2) and added no comments on his worksheet. Id. at 21. 62. The intervenor's considerably more detailed, thirteen- page section on its personnel management plan covered these areas: Sources of Proposed Personnel, Internal Staff, Recruiting, Personnel Management Capabilities, Responding to Changing Workloads, Staff Resource Utilization Histogram, Monitoring Day-to-Day Work Progress and Taking Corrective Action, Producing Audit Trails, Productivity and Other Specialized Work Monitoring Reports, Personnel Training, Formal Training, Scheduling Training, Training Sessions, Employee Retention, Personnel Policies, Performance Monitoring, Career Development Opportunity, Assignment Rotation, Other Incentives and Motivational Arrangements. Protest File, Exhibit 16 at C-21 to -33. Cost Evaluation 63. The offerors based their cost proposals on their estimated total costs for all five contract years. Since the contract will be administered on a cost plus fixed fee basis, the offerors were not bound by these proposal estimates. The intervenor based its final evaluated cost on a percent annual escalation of its costs, Protest File, Exhibit 24, while protester based its final cost proposal on a percent annual cost escalation, id., Exhibit 25. Had both proposals been evaluated using the same percent escalation, the protester's total evaluated costs would have risen at least $ to $ , or $ higher than the intervenor's total evaluated costs. With the fee (a percentage of costs) escalated percent, the protester's total cost increases to $ or $ higher than the intervenor's. 64. In evaluating protester's cost proposal, Mr. W consulted a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit report that questioned whether protester had understated some proposed costs, including its proposed percent escalation rate. Transcript at 741-42; Protest File, Exhibit 37. Based on its review of the protester's initial cost proposal, DCAA determined that the proposal was "potentially under priced in the estimated amount of $ " due to subcontract handling and general and administrative costs. Protest File, Exhibit 37 at 3-5. In addition, DCAA found that due to the proposed percent escalation, the protester's direct labor costs were potentially underpriced by $ . Id. at 4. At the protester's urging, Mr. W performed an independent evaluation of the protester's costs, Transcript at 742, but he only conducted a preliminary review of the protester's cost for purposes of analyzing cost realism after NRC decided not to award to protester, id. at 757. Discussion The award process is a zero-sum game. There can be but one winner, even if the winner leads the pack by but a fraction of a point. All the other participants lose. When the final evaluations are close, as in the instant case, every real or perceived peccadillo in the evaluation process can, perforce, assume immense importance. Under such circumstances, each of the numerous and unrelated scoring points used in tabulating the total scores can become determinative of the winner, and hence hotly litigated. Thus, in the instant case, we were required to conduct a de novo review of the bulk of the original evaluation. One factor in the instant case which aggravates the diffi- culties inherent in evaluating complex detailed proposals involving necessarily subjective evaluations is that, in order to insure impartiality, the technical portions of the solicitations are written primarily by technical personnel. Although the evaluating personnel are quite competent in the technical aspects of the supplies and services being procured--as in the instant procurement--and are of sound and impartial judgment, they are understandably not particularly expert in the rules governing procurement, nor in the legalistic nuances of semantics and grammar. In many respects, they arrive at their conclusions very much as does a jury. In a subsequent de novo review, the aggrieved party attacks those bits and pieces of the evaluator's scoring which are detrimental to its cause. When, as in the instant procurement, the evaluations are of necessity largely subjective, selected portions of an evaluator's scoring may appear less than perfect when placed under the spotlight of an adversarial detailed de novo review. Other scores which are more favorable to its case are carefully ignored. This case turns on the protester's disagreements with some of the evaluators' scoring decisions. The protester has the burden of persuasion and must first show that the particular evaluation result challenged is erroneous, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion. After having so shown, it must also show that the protested award would not have otherwise been made had the defect in evaluation not occurred. We conclude that the protester has not met this burden. In almost every instance, acceptance of the protester's contentions would only result in negligible score adjustments of less than a half a point in a 7.4 point total differential. In fact, were we to accept all but one of the scores the protester claimed it should have received, the awardee would still have the higher total technical score. The protester's burden of persuasion is heightened by the fact that its proposal presents no cost advantage to the respondent. In a realistic cost comparison in which the inflation rate is presumed the same for both, the estimated total costs for the protester actually exceed those for the intervenor. Thus, the protester is in the unenviable position of having, vis- a-vis the intervenor, the low-tech, high-cost proposal, albeit the proposals are relatively close in cost and technical standing. In this case, where the cost differences are so negligible as not be considered, there is no supportable scenario that would result in an award to other than the awardee. The technical evaluation involved scoring (for the protester and the intervenor alone) thirty-two individual resumes, and thirty separate subcriteria. Each of the three evaluators scored the intervenor higher than the protester for every technical evaluation factor. There was no disagreement among the evaluators that the intervenor provided the superior proposal. It is against the backdrop of this unanimous consensus that we view the protester's contentions that the evaluation was somehow fatally flawed. We have long held that the law vests considerable discretion in the conduct and judgment of technical evaluators. Computer Sciences Corp., GSBCA 11497-P, 92-1 BCA 24,703, at 123,297, 1992 BPD 6, at 32. Their evaluations will be upheld unless the protester proves that the evaluation results were "clearly erroneous," "unreasonable," or constitute "an abuse of discretion." Corporate Jets, Inc., GSBCA 11049-P, 91-2 BCA 23,998, at 120,118, 1991 BPD 111, at 17; American Computer Educators, Inc., GSBCA 10539-P, 90-2 BCA 22,919, at 115,075, 1990 BPD 110, at 9; Advanced Technology, Inc., GSBCA 8878-P, 87-2 BCA 19,817, at 100,272, 1987 BPD 16, at 33. Mere disagreement with a particular evaluator's judgment or narrative assessment of its proposal is insufficient to prove the evaluation score was flawed. The protester must show an "abuse of discretion" through evidence showing a "gross disparity or unfairness." Health Systems Technology Corp., GSBCA 10920-P, 91-2 BCA 23,692, at 118,643, 1991 BPD 20, at 13-14. The protester has failed to make such a showing. Even where the protester can demonstrate flaws in a technical evaluation, the protester must also show that had the flaws not occurred, the evaluation would have produced a different result. For example, if upward adjustment of the protester's technical scores affected by an evaluation flaw would not result in a different award decision, the protest will obviously be denied. Corporate Jets, Inc., 91-2 BCA at 120,119, 1991 BPD 111, at 19-20; International Business Machines Corp., GSBCA 8948-P, 87-2 BCA 19,941, at 100,922, 1987 BPD 107, at 11; Arthur Andersen & Co., GSBCA 8870-P, 87-2 BCA 19,922, at 100,815, 1987 BPD 94, at 18. Here, the respondent's evaluators all agree that the intervenor submitted the better proposal and proposed superior personnel. Every evaluator scored the intervenor higher than the protester for all of the four technical evaluation factors. When we turn to the ninety separate scores assigned (i.e., three evaluators scoring fifteen subcriteria for each of the two proposals), the protester received a higher score than the intervenor in only three instances. After all ninety separately assigned scores are tallied, the intervenor's score was 7.39 points, or 8.7% higher than the protester's. Thus, this is not a case where one evaluator's scores so differed from the others as to raise doubts about that evalu- ator's judgment or discretion. All the evaluators consistently found the intervenor superior in all areas. Even the removal, upward adjustment, or reversal of a particular evaluator's score or scores would make no difference in the award decision. The upshot is that the intervenor would still achieve a higher technical score even after challenged scores are removed, reversed, or viewed in the light most favorable to the protester. For example, the protester argues that its scores should be adjusted upward for thirteen of the fifteen evaluation subfactors, claiming in many cases that it should have received maximum points for these subfactors. Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the evaluators and accept the scores the protester claims it should have received for all of these subfactors save one (e.g., C(1) or A(2)), the protester's total technical score would still be less than that of the intervenor. The protester also criticizes Mr. U's scoring, particularly his scoring of subfactors A(1) and A(2), key personnel resumes. If Mr. U's resume scores for the protester and the intervenor are reversed (i.e., the intervenor personnel receives the protester's personnel scores and vice-versa), the intervenor still scores higher for both subfactor A(1) and A(2), and continues to maintain an approximately five-and-a-half point lead in the overall score. Finally, if all of Mr. U's evaluation scores are removed, the intervenor's overall lead in technical points actually increases. This results from the fact that the protester challenged only those of Mr. U's scores which were detrimental to the protester's cause, while those favorable were ignored, because, on balance, Mr. U's scores were more favorable to the protester than those of the other two evaluators. The technical team evaluated the proposals against the solicitation's evaluation criteria, and the team applied its technical judgment to determine a score for each subfactor based on a ten-point scoring guideline. The team did not use additional matrices or guidelines to score proposals, because the respondent believed a detailed scoring matrix could impose a rigid restraint on the evaluations (e.g., requiring assignment of two points for two years experience, three points for three years, etc.) which could prevent a qualitative assessment of key personnel and other aspects of the proposals. In consonance with the basic underpinning of its protest that the evaluation process allowed the evaluators to use their own judgment and discretion in scoring the proposals, the protester has attempted to portray the evaluation process as somehow further flawed by the evaluators' discretion in the use of the ten-point guidelines when coupled with the inherently highly "subjective" nature of the evaluation. We are unaware of any statute or regulation that this evaluation process violates. Nor has the protester cited any case which would require more objective evaluation scoring guidelines. The protester did not protest, prior to the closing date of the solicitation, that the evaluation criteria was so unduly open-ended as to prevent fair application of the pertinent evaluation factors. See, e.g., Health Systems Technology Corp., 91-2 BCA at 118,641 n.3, 1991 BPD 20, at 10 n.3. Nor did the protester raise any other questions with respect to these solicitation terms. The protester's failure to timely protest any perceived ambiguity or unfairness in the evaluation criteria of the solicitation precludes the protester from challenging any reasonable application of the evaluation criteria by the evaluators. Consequently, the protester must be content with any reasonable, nonrestrictive interpretation, and cannot now complain about any reasonable interpretation used in the evaluation. Sysorex Information Systems, Inc., GSBCA 11151-P, 91-2 BCA 23,979, at 120,011, 1991 BPD 103, at 15; Cf. Rocky Mountain Trading Co. - Systems Division, GSBCA 9737-P, 89-1 BCA 21,456, at 108,121, 1988 BPD 307, at 4. In any event, we long have accepted the use of evaluation scoring techniques that allow for as much, if not more, subjectivity than the standards used by the respondent in this instance. See, e.g., TRW Inc., GSBCA 11309-P, 92-1 BCA 24,389, at 121,784, 1991 BPD 205, at 4; Honeywell Federal Systems, Inc., GSBCA 9807-P, 89-1 BCA 21,444, at 108,036, 1989 BPD 23, at 10. In those cases, the procuring agency used Air Force Regulations (AFR) 70-15 and 70-30, and the evaluators used four color ratings (Blue for "exceptional"; Green for "acceptable"; Yellow for "marginal"; and Red for "unacceptable") to evaluate how well a proposal met the solicitation criteria. In both TRW and Honeywell, the evaluators also distinguished the lower-end color ratings and the higher-end color ratings by using pluses and minuses. TRW, 92-1 BCA at 121,785, 1991 BPD 205, at 4; Honeywell, 89-1 BCA at 108,036-37, 1989 BPD 23, at 10-11. We have not rejected use of such evaluation scoring techniques as irrational or violative of any procurement law. For most negotiated procurements, the proposal evaluation process is, by necessity, subjective. There is nothing improper about an evaluator using his or her technical judgment to determine a proposal's score. On the contrary, that is exactly what they are expected to do. The Specific Challenges We now turn to the specific contested evaluations. The protester has challenged twenty-nine of the forty-five individual evaluator subfactor scores used in evaluating its proposal. Many of the twenty-nine challenges can be dispensed with summarily. Factor D: Management Approach - Mr. H's Scores The "Management Approach" factor, valued at 15 points, included three subfactors. For all three, the protester questions Mr. H's scoring because he did not make comments on his worksheet. An evaluator's failure to enter written comments for a particular subfactor is not unusual and does not violate any procurement statute or regulation. In the instant case one wonders why as many comments were made as there were. In any event, Mr. H's scores for these subfactors are not out of line with the other evaluators' scores. For example, for subfactor D(1)(a), Project Management Plan (Upper Management), valued at 4 points, Mr. H's score for the protester was .4 points lower than the other two evaluators (Mr. H at 3.6; Mr. M and Mr. U at 4). For subfactor D(1)(b), Project Management Plan (Cost Monitoring), valued at 3 points, Mr. H's score was the same as Mr. M's (both 2.7) and .3 points higher than Mr. U's unchallenged score of 2.4. To the extent Mr. H's score for D(1)(b) is left in the calculation, it only helps the protester's overall score. Finally, for subfactor D(2), Personnel Management Plan, valued at 8 points, Mr. H's score is 7.2, or .8 points lower than Mr. M's perfect score of 8 points. Since the protester has not challenged the reasonableness or rationality of other evaluation scores for these subfactors that are all within .8 points of Mr. H's scores (and in some cases even lower than Mr. H's scores, i.e., Mr. U on D(1)(b)), there is no basis to find that Mr. H's evaluation scores are unreasonable or constitute an abuse of discretion. The protester has claimed that it should have received a perfect score for all of the three subfactors under Factor D from Mr. H. There is simply no support for this claim. Even if all three of Mr. H's scores were adjusted to give the protester maximum credit, the protester's overall score would increase by less than half a point (.49). The protester challenges Mr. H's 8-point score for the intervenor's Personnel Management Plan under D(2). The basis for the protester's challenge is its disagreement with Mr. H's judgment. Mr. H considered the intervenor's Personnel Management Plan to be "very well written and [it] included an open door policy which I thought was very good." Mr. H's Deposition at 63. Mr. H believed such policy would lead "to a far better quality product." Id. at 64. The intervenor set forth its personnel management plan in detail, addressing topics such as employee training, career development, and motivational incentives that protester's proposal failed to address in more than a cursory fashion. Protest File, Exhibits 16 at C-21 to -33; 17 at C-31 to -39. Subfactor D(2): Personnel Management Plan The protester also challenges Mr. U's score for subfactor D(2), Personnel Management Plan, because he indicated in his worksheet comments that he considered both the plan and the personnel team produced by the plan in evaluating the proposal. His worksheet notes that "[T]he entire team put together by SA is not exceptionally strong. Their approach was good but the result was not." Mr. U assigned the protester 7.2 of a possible 8 points for D(2). We find nothing unreasonable about an evaluator, in evaluating a personnel plan, considering both the plan and the result it will produce. This common sense reality is recognized in the solicitation. The evaluation criteria in Section M clearly apprises offerors that for all subfactors under Factor D, Management Approach, the respondent would evaluate the offeror's approach as well as the "effectiveness of the offeror's proposed organization to accomplish assigned tasks." It was reasonable for Mr. U to consider the staff that would result from the plan. It would be unreasonable not to do so. Consequently, we reject the protester's contention that it is unreasonable for an evaluator to consider the resulting personnel team in evaluating the protester's personnel plan. We have consistently upheld the consideration of evaluation factors that are logically related to the stated evaluation criteria. Metaphor Computer Systems, Inc., GSBCA 10337-P, 90-1 BCA 22,542, at 113,120, 1989 BPD 393, at 15-16; Phoenix Associates, Inc., GSBCA 9190-P, 88-1 BCA 20,455, at 103,450-51, 1988 BPD 1, at 17. Here, there is a clear and logical relationship between the consideration of the personnel plan and the personnel it produces. Mr. U assigned the protester a 7.2 out of 8 for subfactor D(2). The protester claims Mr. U should have assigned the protester a perfect score for subfactor D(2). There is simply no support for a claim that the protester would have received a perfect score had Mr. U not considered the personnel produced by the personnel plan. However, even if Mr. U's score for the protester was adjusted upward to give the protester maximum credit for this subfactor, the protester's overall score would increase by only .27 points. For evaluation factor D, Management Approach, worth a maximum score of 15 points, the protester received an overall score of 13.94 points. The intervenor's overall score was 14.63 points, or .69 points higher than the protester's. We conclude that the protester's challenges to the Management Approach scores are without merit. Subfactor B(3): Interaction with NRC For this subfactor, valued at 6 points, the technical team was evaluating the offerors' approach and understanding of the requirements for effective interaction with NRC staff. Both intervenor and the protester addressed interaction with NRC in their proposals. Out of the possible 6 points, both offerors received relatively high scores (the protester 5.27, the inter- venor 5.1). Notably, the protester's overall average score exceeded the intervenor's for this subfactor. However, the protester takes issue with all three evaluators' scores for B(3). The protester's sole basis for challenging Mr. U's and Mr. H's scores for B(3) is its disagreement with the evaluators' judgment. Both Mr. H and Mr. U assigned the intervenor and the protester the same score for B(3) - 5.4 of 6 possible points. The protester's position is simply that it believes, in its judgment, that the protester's proposal addressed NRC interaction better and therefore should have a higher score. The protester's mere disagreement with Mr. H's and Mr. U's assessment of the two proposals on this subfactor is simply not enough to clearly demonstrate the scores were irrational, unreasonable, or clearly erroneous. The protester also takes issue with Mr. M's scoring of subfactor B(3), valued at 6 points. Mr. M assigned the protester 5 points and the intervenor 4.5 points for this subfactor. Curiously, the protester takes issue with this scoring even though Mr. M rated the protester's proposal higher than the intervenor's. The protester's challenge to Mr. M's scoring is based solely on his worksheet notation which states "with number of PC projects anticipated in contract, no mention of sub-task manager interaction to control." Although the protester does not argue with the validity of the comment, it contends that "the intervenor did not get to this micro-detail either." The protester seemingly overlooks the fact that Mr. M rated the intervenor lower for this subfactor. Thus, to the extent the protester is trying to show that Mr. M criticized the protester for something for which he should also have criticized the intervenor, the contention is without foundation. The protester has failed to meet its burden of showing an erroneous, unreasonable, or irrational evaluation. At this point it is worth noting that given our conclusions reached thus far regarding the evaluation scores discussed above (the challenged Factor D scores and subfactor B(3) scores), there is really no need to consider any of the protester's remaining challenges to the evaluation scores. The protest should be denied because, without the points discussed above, the protester's total score would be less than the intervenor's even if it were to prevail on all the other challenged scores. Specifically, if we accepted ALL of the scores the protester claims it should have received for ALL other evaluation factors and subfactors, the protester's technical score would increase to 93.85 but would not exceed the intervenor's technical score of 93.93. Without a showing that a re-evaluation would result in the protester having the highest technically rated proposal, there is no possibility that the award decision would change. However, in deference to the detail with which this case has been litigated and in the interest of thoroughness, we continue with our discussion of the protester's allegations. Subfactor B(6): Changing Requirements Under subfactor B(6), valued at 7 points, respondent evaluated the offerors' technical approach and ability to react to changing NRC requirements. Mr. M's score of 5.6 points for the protester is the only score at issue. The protester claims Mr. M ignored the evaluation requirements because he noted on his evaluation worksheet that the protester "could have provided specific corporate experience on change oriented projects." It is proper for an evaluator to consider whether and how an offeror previously has implemented its proposed approach. Obviously, information regarding the actual implementation of an approach is logically related to the approach itself, as well as to the offeror's demonstrated understanding of the approach. The protester is apparently concerned about Mr. M's notation "corporate experience" inasmuch as "corporate experience" was to be evaluated elsewhere in the proposal. During the hearing, Mr. M. explained that he was referring to examples of implementation of the approach, not the offeror's listing of "corporate experience" contracts and applications which he evaluated under section C of the evaluation criteria. We mention this minor challenge to illustrate how much of this protest consists of little more than a series of quibbles. Virtually the same contention was made in American Computer Educators, Inc., GSBCA 10539-P, 90-2 BCA 22,919, 1990 BPD 110. There we rejected essentially the same argument as "specious," stating: Indeed, the comments were in accord with or logically related to the criteria in the RFP. . . . Protester's argument in this regard is nothing more than a quibble over the evaluators' manner of expressing themselves on the scoring sheets. Id. at 115,076, 1990 BPD 110, at 10 (citations omitted). Quibble as it might over Mr. M's terminology, the protester understood that the section of its proposal addressing reaction to changing requirements at NRC should demonstrate that its proposed approach to changing requirements was "proven" and had been previously implemented. In its proposal, the protester emphasized that it had based its proposed approach on "proven systems integration and applications development experience." The protester also claimed that its approach provides "proven management activities for planned diversions and adaptability . . ." and that it will provide NRC with "proven methods for management of technical activities and management of the change process." Thus, the protester's proposal recognized the need for proven methods but did not provide more specific detail on where or how its approach had been "proven." Mr. M's comment that the protester "could have provided specific corporate experience on change oriented projects" goes to the vagueness of the protester's discussion of such experience. It is not a deviation from the stated evaluation criteria, but simply an observation that the protester's discussion of its "successful performance" and "proven" approaches could have been more specific. Thus, the protester has not met its burden of proving Mr. M's evaluation of B(6), which resulted in a score of 5.6 for the protester, was clearly erroneous, irrational, or at variance with the solicitation. However, even if we were to accept the score the protester claims it should have received from Mr. M for B(6) (6.3 points), the protester's total score would increase by just .24 points. Subfactor (C)(1): Experience with Developing Systems For subfactor C.1, valued at 15 points, respondent evaluated the offerors' demonstrated experience in developing ADP systems or applications. All three evaluators assigned the protester 13.5 of 15 points. The protester challenges all three evaluators' scores. The protester first claims Mr. H "ignored the evaluation standards" by focusing on the size, scope, and complexity of the applications submitted in the proposals. According to the protester, the solicitation makes clear that size, scope, and complexity are not relevant to this subfactor. The protester is wrong in its contention. First, nowhere did respondent even intimate in the solicitation that it would not consider the size, scope or complexity of the applications the offeror previously had developed. Apparently, the protester bases its strained interpretation upon the fact that section L of the solicitation specifically instructs offerors to describe their contract experience for evaluation subfactors C(3) and C(4) by listing contracts similar in size, complexity, or scope to the NRC contract being procured. However, the protester argues that section L did not instruct offerors specifically to refer to size, complexity, or scope in describing their applications experience for subfactors C(1) and C(2). We disagree with the protester's contention that the omission of a parallel instruction in the "applications" section that appeared in the "experience" section barred an offeror from listing comparable projects to describe its applications' experience. Nor do we find it unreasonable for respondent to consider whatever comparable experience an offeror listed to aid in scoring the "applications" subfactor, since we do not find this information to be so wholly irrelevant that only an unreasonable technical team would consider it. Second, the size, scope and complexity of applications that an offeror has developed in the past which are similar to those described in the Statement of Work are good indicators of an offeror's ability to develop those applications in the future. Comparing the offerors' past experience in developing applica- tions against the NRC's future needs is exactly what Mr. H did, albeit by referring to the size, scope, and complexity of each offeror's past projects as the crucial factor: "[M]ost of the protester projects are narrow in scope - smaller & without the complexity of NRC's." Mr. H assigned the protester 13.5 points for subfactor C(1). Since the protester has not met its burden of proving Mr. H's evaluation was clearly erroneous, irrational, or deviated from the solicitation, the score must stand. Even if the protester was given a perfect score by Mr. H for C(1), the protester's overall score would increase by only a half point (.5). The protester also takes issue with Mr. M's evaluation of protester's corporate experience, subfactor C(1), by arguing that Mr. M "read the wrong pages" of the protester's proposal in evaluating this subfactor. The record nowhere shows that Mr. M failed to read or evaluate any portion of the protester's proposal relevant to subfactor C(1). The protester's claim is apparently based solely on its painstaking review of the page numbers listed on Mr. M's worksheet notes for C(1), since Mr. M generally listed the page numbers on his worksheet next to his comments so that he could know where to look in the proposal when re-examining his comments. However, his list did not include the particular page numbers relevant to subfactor C(1). Protester is not the first to allege that a technical evaluator did not read a portion of its proposal. In Phoenix Associates, 88-1 BCA at 103,451, 1988 BPD 1, at 18-19, a similar allegation was made: Protester claims that the SEP must not have read the proposal. However, the contract negotiator instructed the SEP to read each proposal twice, and the record does not establish that the SEP disobeyed her instructions. To the contrary, it is clear that each member did read it. Here, the NRC instructed the technical team to read each proposal twice; the record does not establish that anyone disobeyed those instructions; and Mr. M testified that he read all portions of the protester's proposal relevant to C(1). Thus, we find his omission from his personal list of pages concerning subfactor C(1) irrelevant, especially in the face of his testimony on this point. Mr. M's evaluation of subfactor C(1) was neither clearly erroneous, irrational, nor unreasonable, and he, like Mr. H, assigned the protester 13.5 points for it. Even if the protester was given a perfect score by Mr. M for C(1), the protester's overall score would increase by only a half point (.5). The protester also challenges Mr. U's score for subfactor C(1). Mr. U noted on his evaluation worksheet that the subcontractor listed provided only two of the five applications for the protester. The protester elevates this comment into an assumption that Mr. U regarded the subcontractor applications as less important. The record does not establish either the meaning or the import of Mr. U's comment on his evaluation of the protester for C(1). Moreover, we have a very hard time finding Mr. U's score of 13.5, which is the same as both Mr. M's and Mr. H's, to be irrational. All the evaluators gave protester the same score, but protester finds entirely different reasons to challenge each of them. Yet, if at least one of the scores is rational, the other scores must also be rational. The end result of a score of 13.5 points is either reasonable or it's not. We find that the score is reasonable, and, therefore, none of the three evaluators was irrational, unreasonable, or clearly erroneous in assigning protester that score. Subfactor C(4): Experience with Similar Task-Order Contracts Under subfactor C(4), "experience with similar task-order contracts," the technical team evaluated the offerors' experience with task-order-type contracts of comparable size and diversity to the one being procured. Interestingly, protester declines to challenge Mr. U's score of 3.6 points for this subfactor. However, the protester somewhat mysteriously quarrels that Mr. M was unreasonable in giving protester a higher score of 3.96, .36 points more than Mr. U gave it. For both the noted strengths and weaknesses regarding subfactor C(4), Mr. M referred on his worksheet to both the protester's discussion of contract experience and its discussion of applications; the protester argues that Mr. M needed to confine his review to contract experience alone, without considering applications. Indeed, the protester itself might have been similarly confused, because it included material from the same contracts to highlight both its "contracts" and "applications" experience in its proposal. Even assuming that Mr. M's review was unreasonably broad, it yielded the protester a score of .36 points more than Mr. U gave. In fact, of the five examples listed as strengths on Mr. M's worksheet, four are applications that the protester cited. Had he confined his review to only the protester's contract examples, Mr. M's high point score for the protester (3.96 out of a possible 4 points) may have dropped considerably. Mr. H assigned 3.2 points to the protester for C(4). On his worksheet, Mr. H noted that the protester had not managed a task order contract of the same size or complexity. The protester has not shown Mr. H's evaluation result to be irrational or an abuse of discretion. Even if the protester had received a perfect score from Mr. H for this subfactor, the net effect would be an increase in the protester's overall points by just .13 points. Subfactor B(5): Adequacy of Quality Assurance Plan For subfactor B(5), valued at 5 points, the protester challenges only Mr. H's score of 4 points. Both Mr. U and Mr. M assigned 4.5 points. Under subfactor B(5), the technical team was to evaluate the adequacy of the offerors' Quality Assurance (QA) plan, as well as their plans to schedule, manage, and measure work. To address this subfactor, the protester highlighted the background of two individuals. One proposed employee had significant experience in inspecting the quality of welds in nuclear power plants. Second, the protester stated in its proposal that it would base its QA approach on NUREG/CR-4640, the "Handbook of Software Quality Assurance Techniques Applicable to the Nuclear Industry." Mr. H noted on his evaluation worksheet first that the protester's top QA person was weak for automatic data processing QA, and second, that the NUREG standard that protester cited was quite useful for assuring development of good software at a nuclear power plant itself, but was not relevant to assuring development of the sort of software necessary under the subject contract. The protester failed to prove that Mr. H's scoring was irrational or in conflict with the evaluation criteria. Clearly, the technical team, in grading protester's QA plan itself, could consider whether the proposed QA individuals could execute that QA plan effectively. Moreover, discussing these personnel in the QA section of its proposal invites evaluators to consider such individuals and their QA backgrounds when evaluating that section of the proposal. Similarly, the protester failed to establish that Mr. H was irrational, or even wrong, in commenting that applying the NUREG standard to this contract was inappropriate. The protester perhaps rightly contends that the NUREG standard is a higher QA standard overall than that offered by the intervenor, but Mr. H said only that the NUREG standard differs from one appropriate for this NRC contract. Again, we find it reasonable for the technical team to consider, in evaluating the protester's QA plan as a whole, whether the QA standards it will apply are appropri- ate. Since the protester has not shown that Mr. H's evaluation of subfactor B(5) was clearly erroneous, irrational, or at variance with the solicitation, Mr. H's score for this subfactor must stand. Even if the protester were afforded the maximum number of points by Mr. H for this subfactor, the net effect on its overall score would be an increase of only .33 points. Subfactor B(4): Proposed Response to ADP Systems Failures Under subfactor B(4), valued at 4 points, the technical team was to evaluate the offerors' proposed approaches to responding immediately to ADP systems failures. The intervenor received an average of 3.47 points for B(4), and the protester 3.27 points. The protester only questions the evaluators' judgments to challenge that 3.27 score. Mr. U assigned the protester a score of 3.6, noting as a weakness that "separate management/maintenance teams should be set up to avoid a maintenance problem disrupting a development effort." Significantly, Mr. U assigned the intervenor the same score of 3.6 points. The protester does not question Mr. U's comment itself, but rather asks the Board to find that Mr. U was unreasonable or clearly erroneous in failing to find the protester's proposal better than the intervenor's. We find no evidence showing that Mr. U was unreasonable in giving both offerors the same score. Even elevating Mr. U's score to a perfect 4 points would yield the protester an increase in its overall score of only .13 points. Mr. M assigned the protester 3 points for B(4) and noted that the protester response was "geared to mainframe" environment with "little or no regard for stand-alone PC application problems." At the hearing, Mr. M explained that he was not convinced that the protester fully understood the environment as it relates to PCs, in part because the protester referred in its proposal to both "test environments" and "production environments," terms used to describe mainframe rather than PC systems. Indeed, the protester failed to mention PCs in the system failure section of its proposal. The protester has not shown that Mr. M's evaluation was clearly erroneous or unreasonable. Mr. M assigned the protester three points for B(4). Even elevating Mr. M's score to give the protester a perfect 4 points would raise protester's overall score by only .33 points. Mr. H commented on his evaluation sheet for B(4) in regard to the protester's proposed two-hour response time that "[Two] hrs is a bit long. Don't mention feedback during off-hours." In contrast, the intervenor offered an immediate and timely response, detailed its approach, and cited how it had successfully and quickly responded to such problems in the past. Mr. H's comment regarding the two-hour response time reflected his belief that protester should be able to respond to problems during working hours in less than two hours. The protester has not shown that Mr. H's evaluation was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion. Mr. H assigned the protester a 3.2 out of a possible 4 points for B(4), but even had Mr. H given the protester a perfect 4 points, protester's overall score would rise by only .26 points. Generally, the protester contends that the technical team should have downgraded the intervenor's proposal for subfactor B(4), because the intervenor included a lengthy description of its and its subcontractors' experience with responding to system failures. However, it was not irrational for the team to deem that discussion of its methods and experience a strength. On the contrary, the discussion supplies the respondent with important information regarding how the intervenor is organized for response, how experienced and successful it has been in doing so in the past, and how well it understands the requirements to respond to system failures. Indeed, both offerors referred to their experience with responding to system failures on their then-current contracts with NRC. For example, the protester noted that often during its performance of the then-current contract, the NRC was unable to access the mainframe SINET system, and protester then discussed how it would respond to applications problems. There is no basis for the protester's contention that the B(4) evaluation results are irrational or unreasonable. The protester's overall B(4) score of 3.27 is reasonable. Subfactor B(1): Demonstrated Understanding of the Scope The protester challenges all three evaluators' scores for subfactor B(1), "Demonstrated Understanding of the Scope of Work." Out of a possible 3 points, the evaluator's scores for the protester ranged from 2.1 to 2.5, averaging out at an overall score of 2.33. All three evaluators noted on their worksheets that the protester did not demonstrate as well as it should a knowledge of non-IDMS or nonmainframe work. For example, Mr. M indicated on his worksheet that the protester did not focus enough on the "PC side of house". Although its proposal describes some of the systems on PCs and other nonmainframe platforms at NRC, the protester described only the perimeter of the PC-based systems at NRC. The protester disagrees with this assessment, but has not shown that this conclusion was unreasonable, clearly erroneous, or constituted an abuse of discretion. Even if all three evaluators had assigned the protester a perfect score for B(1), the net difference in the protester's score would be an increase of .67 points. Subfactor B(2): Proposed Approach to Design, Develop, and Maintain Software In regard to B(2), valued at 10 points, the evaluators had concerns about the protester's understanding of the requirements for designing, developing, maintaining, and implementing NRC's ADP systems. Mr. H noted on his evaluation worksheet for protester as a weakness that "Difference in approach for different sized systems not detailed enough." Mr. M noted that the protester "could have supplied more specific references to number, size, & complexity of cited systems." Mr. U likewise stated in his initial comments that the protester's development approach "was centered on large applications. No mention of small application, PC application or variations to the life cycle approach to include such." Despite these concerns, the evaluators found the protester's approach for the B(2) subfactor to be adequate, with Mr. H and Mr. U both scoring this subfactor at 8 points and Mr. M 9 points out of the 10 possible points. The protester's average score for B(2) was 8.33. The protester has not shown that the evaluators were clearly erroneous or unreasonable, or abused their discretion in giving those 8.33 points. The protester's proposal concentrated its discussion on a baseline methodology that the protester proposed as being "appropriate to most complex, multi-user systems, regardless of platform." The most complex, multi-user system currently operating at NRC is its SINET application, written in IDMS and currently running on large IBM mainframes. The protester's recently expired contract with NRC involved support of the SINET application. The protester also described its approach for "small improvement and maintenance tasks," explaining that: Most projects will fall between these two extremes. In these cases, the SA development team will work closely with the NRC Project Officer and Task Manager to implement the specific project lifecycle activities which are needed to maintain control and ensure quality without incurring unnecessary cost. Most of NRC's projects do fall between the two extremes the protester addressed in its proposal. However, protester confined its explanation as to how it would address "most projects" primarily by committing itself to "work closely" with NRC for purposes of tailoring any of the methodology steps to particular projects. That description did not describe fully the method- ology and steps that most projects would entail. In its BAFO response, the protester addressed "Development of Small Systems" in approximately two-and-a-half pages to be added to its B(2) development discussion. Mr. U evaluated the supplemental information provided by the protester but continued to have concerns that "[t]he substance I was looking for" in the identifying steps was lacking. Mr. U also found the flow of the discussion to be somewhat confusing because of cross-references back to the initial proposal discussion which in at least one case did not appear to relate to the BAFO discussion. Mr. U nevertheless raised his initial score for the protester of 7 points to 8 points for B(2). At the hearing, the protester attempted to demonstrate that Mr. U downgraded the protester's B(2) response because of its "stand-alone" format, as opposed to its substance. Other protester witnesses argued that the protester's so-called stand-alone format was required by the respondent's directions during the oral discussions. The record does not support the protester's claim that the respondent "directed" it to provide stand-alone responses as opposed to integrated proposal pages. The parties agree that the respondent did tell the protester to answer the questions that had been raised before oral discussions. However, even if we credited the protester's testimony that the respondent directed it to answer the questions in a stand-alone format, the record is equally clear that the respondent did not preclude the protester from submitting changed proposal pages that would weave the new material from its answers into the body of its proposal. The protester's BAFO contained changed pages that attempted to integrate the material in its answers into the proposal. For example, changed page B-14 added a paragraph to the protester's discussion of Technological Assessment. Changed page B-18 contained a cross reference to a new proposal section that the BAFO added. The BAFO included over 35 pages that had been changed in whole or in part, not counting the revised resumes that the protester also submitted. Thus, we conclude that the respondent never instructed the protester not to provide changed proposal pages in its BAFO. The protester was under no directive that precluded it from presenting a coherent, integrated approach to software development in a small systems environment. Moreover, after reviewing the discussion that the protester did present, we conclude that Mr. U's concerns were reasonable. The three changed pages in its BAFO addressing this issue do not present a clear picture of how the protester will adapt its detailed methodology for large systems development to the numerous smaller system development projects at NRC. It is understandable that Mr. U found that the protester's discussion did not flow well. The protester simply failed to provide the clear, lucid discussion that could succinctly present the protester's small systems methodology to an evaluator. The protester's problems were not based on its choice of format, but rather on the lack of substance, and the protester's failure to relate, in any format, its baseline, large systems development methodology to the separate problem of developing small systems. Finally, even if the protester received all the points it claims it should have from all three evaluators for subfactor B(2), its overall point score would rise by only 1 point. Evaluation of Key Personnel The protester disputes the respondent's scoring of resumes for a number of reasons. However, the protester grounds its allegations on the assumption that a technical team can evaluate resumes according to precise, quantifiable standards that can withstand dissection later. The technical team did not evaluate the resumes solely on the basis of counting experience years or the number of "tool sets" with which the particular person had experience. Instead, the evaluators conducted a qualitative analysis of how well the information in the resumes fit the solicitation's requirements. Offerors could aid the team's qualitative analysis by providing information in the resumes in a thorough and detailed enough manner to allow the team to assess clearly the proposed employee's previous work experience. The intervenor's resumes generally presented more detailed descriptions of the individual's previous experience than did the protester's. In many cases the evaluators found the protester's resumes difficult to "extract out exactly what the guy was working on." The protester disputes Mr. U's and Mr. H's scoring of many of its resumes. Aside from challenging Mr. M's consideration of structured analysis experience, the protester generally does not dispute Mr. M's resume scoring. However, when all three evalu- ators' scores are reviewed for the thirty-two resumes of the protester and intervenor, there are very few instances in which Mr. H's and Mr. U's scores diverge more than slightly from Mr. M's. Again, we must note that to the extent Mr. M's resume scores are supportable and rational, Mr. H's and Mr. U's similar or same scores cannot be unreasonable. In fact, by simply throwing out all of Mr. U's scores for the protester and the intervenor, or all of Mr. H's scores, or both Mr. U's and Mr. H's scores, results in lower overall protester scores for Factor A. Without Mr. U's scores, the protester's overall Key Personnel score decreases. The protester's wearisome nit-picking of the resumes can avail it nothing because no alteration of resume scores can overcome the difference in the technical scores between the two parties. If we reversed the personnel scores of the protester and the intervenor so that the protester received the intervenor's score, the protester's total score would rise by 2.77 points--far less than the 7.39 points that separate the two proposals. If the protester's resumes were scored as perfect (i.e., a total of 25 points), the protester's overall score would rise by less than 5 points. The conclusion is inescapable that the technical team reasonably concluded that the intervenor submitted the superior proposal. The protester's remaining attacks on the scoring of criteria A(1) and A(2) fall into three broad areas: (1) the intervenor's offer of three data base administrators; (2) the consideration of education in the evaluation of resumes; and (3) Mr. M's consideration of structured methodology experience. Data Base Administrators The protester contends that preventing it from proposing more than one DataBase Administrator (DBA) is an unreasonable reading of the solicitation. The solicitation gave offerors a choice of designating certain DBAs as senior or junior. Offerors were specifically told that NRC was "looking for you to identify which you feel should be senior or junior." The intervenor proposed three senior DBAs as key personnel, as did two other offerors who later dropped out of the competition. The protester proposed one key senior DBA in its initial proposal. The protester's BAFO stated that it had proposed only one key DBA because it believed the solicitation "suggests" one senior and two nonsenior DBAs. The protester further stated that it did not believe the respondent would need two "senior" DBAs. In its BAFO, the protester designated two additional DBAs as junior DBAs. The protester further reminded the respondent that, "We have included resumes for several DBAs both in the key and non-key pool." The protester's BAFO identified Mr. R as a backup, junior DBA, and Mr. C.S. as an additional DBA. The protester proposed both of these individuals as key personnel. Thus, the protester made its own choice to propose only one senior DBA, even though the other offerors equally reasonably interpreted the solicitation to permit them to propose more than one. Most importantly, the intervenor received no extra points by proposing an extra senior DBA. Both the protester and the intervenor proposed sixteen total key personnel, and NRC evaluated each of the sixteen key resumes submitted by both offerors. The same number of possible points was available for each key personnel resume, regardless of the designated position. For both the protester and the intervenor, the scores for all sixteen resumes were averaged in order to arrive at a final score for key personnel. Education The protester contends that respondent barred itself from considering education when, by issuing Amendment One, it removed it as a separately scored subcriterion. The contention lacks merit, particularly since the sample resume format included in Amendment One clearly requested the educational background of key personnel. Moreover, both the protester and intervenor listed education and training in the key personnel resumes they submitted, and our comparison of their resumes revealed no particular difference in their references to education. Nor did the record reveal that consideration of education played any significant role in the technical team's overall evaluation, nor that protester's own inclusion of educational background in its resumes prejudiced it. Experience with Structured Methodologies The protester takes issue with Mr. M's consideration of structured methodology experience in evaluating proposed senior systems analysts. The solicitation requires the contract work to conform to a structured methodology that was attached to the solicitation. In evaluating the offerors' proposed senior systems analysts under evaluation subfactor A(1), Technical or Management Experience, Mr. M considered, among other factors, experience with structured methodologies. Mr. M noted structured methodology experience as a strength for three of the protester's proposed personnel--R.K., O.D., and J.F. Mr. M also noted what appeared to be a lack of structured methodology experience for two of the protester's proposed personnel--R.E. (7 points) and C.S. (6.5 points). With reference to C.S., Mr. M also noted that C.S. "appears to be responsible for production systems, not design or analysis." Mr. M referenced structured methodology experience for one of the intervenor's sixteen proposed personnel. For S.S., Mr. M's evaluation notes state: "solid analysis/design background w/ structured methodology exper. 10 years exper. w/ solid IDMS, 5 yrs w/ NRC systems." Mr. M assigned S.S. a score of 9.5, a quite commendable score. Moreover, the protester mentioned structured methodology experience in most of the key personnel resumes it submitted, which makes it unreasonable for the protester to contend that it expected the team to ignore structured methodology experience. The Protester was not Prejudiced by the Alleged Evaluation Flaws We have refused to find prejudice where the protester has been unable to show that the procurement flaws, if corrected, would affect the selection decision. Corporate Jets, Inc., 91-2 BCA at 120,119, 1991 BPD 111, at 19-20. The protester has not established that any of the alleged violations involved arbitrary or irrational action on the part of the respondent's evaluators. Neither has the protester demonstrated that the violations, as alleged, were in fact prejudicial or significant. We have recognized that while "[a]ny good lawyer can pick lint off any Government procurement," we "will not set aside an award, even if violations of law are found, unless those violations have some significance." Andersen Consulting, GSBCA 10833-P, 91-1 BCA 23,474, at 117,759, 1990 BPD 396, at 22; see also Johnson Controls, Inc., GSBCA 10115-P, 89-3 BCA 22,172, at 111,565, 1989 BPD 245, at 11 (where procurement defects found were minor and "had no effect on the outcome of the evaluation under the current solicitation, there is no reason even to re-evaluate the proposals."). We believe that the evidence clearly establishes that no significant errors occurred in the evaluations that could have affected the selection of the intervenor as the successful awardee. The Protester's Cost Proposal is Higher than the Awardee's Originally, the respondent evaluated the protester's proposal as having an estimated total cost approximately $610,000 less than the intervenor's. The offerors' cost proposals were based on estimated total costs for all five contract years. Since the contract will be administered on a cost plus fixed fee basis, the offerors are not bound by any of the estimates stated in their proposals. However, the respondent's evaluation of estimated costs included an unrealistic factor in the comparison. In evaluating the protester's cost proposal, the respondent used the protester's estimated percent annual escalation of its direct labor costs. In contrast, the intervenor's proposal was evaluated using a percent rate, a significant evaluation advantage for the protester. The respondent should have used the same escalation factor for both proposals, since, under a cost plus fixed fee contract, the offeror's actual direct costs, as determined by the market, are the costs the agency will pay. We do not think that if the protester received the award, this nation would enjoy a lower inflation rate than would be the case were the intervenor to get the award. To evaluate an offeror's estimated costs based on its self-serving assumption of what the market will do against another offeror's less advantageous assumption is both an unfair and unrealistic comparison. If the protester's estimated costs had been calculated using the same direct labor escalation as the intervenor's, the protester's costs would have increased nearly $ to $ . Thus, in an equitable and realistic cost comparison, the protester's estimated life cycle costs would have been $ higher than the intervenor's. Once the cost evaluation is corrected, the competition in this case was, in reality, not as close as it appeared at the time the award decision was made. In fact, the relative positions of the cost proposals are reversed with the protester's estimated life cycle costs higher than the intervenor's. Thus, what we actually have before us is one proposal with a technical score that is 8.7 percent higher and a cost proposal that is lower than the next closest offeror. The protester's basic problem is that under no reasonable scenario can the protester show the decision to award to the intervenor would change. The protester has failed to carry the burden of persuasion in its challenges to the technical evaluations. The protester has failed to show any inaccuracy in the scoring of its proposal that could have resulted in an award to other than the firm receiving the award. Any possible errors in the scoring of the protester's proposal clearly could not have resulted in any prejudice to the protester. Decision For the reasons set forth herein, the protest is DENIED. _________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge We concur: _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge