THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER; IT IS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON JULY 14, 1994 _____________________ GRANTED: July 8, 1994 _____________________ GSBCA 12813-P B3H CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent, and SYSTEM RESOURCES CORPORATION, and LOGISTICS TECHNIQUES, INC., and CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and MARTIN MARIETTA TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Intervenors. Robert E. Chapman, CEO, B3H Corporation, Shalimar, FL, appearing for Protester; and Ira E. Hoffman, Rockville, MD, counsel for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, and Susan McNeill, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Alexander J. Brittin of McKenna & Cuneo, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor System Resources Corporation. Charles W. Mahan of Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry, Dayton, OH, counsel for Intervenor Logistics Techniques, Inc. Scott M. Heimberg and Sheila C. Stark of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Century Technologies, Inc. Andrew L. Tomlinson, Senior Counsel, Martin Marietta Technical Services, Inc., Cherry Hill, NJ; and Thomas J. Madden and James Worral of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Martin Marietta Technical Services, Inc. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE (presiding), and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge, with whom DANIELS, Board Judge, concurs. On April 18, 1994, B3H Corporation filed this protest concerning awards made by the respondent, the Department of the Air Force. The protest focuses upon awards made to two other small businesses, Logistics Techniques, Inc. (LOGTEC) (an intervenor of right), and Aries Systems International, Inc. The protester moves for reconsideration of a Board decision which found one aspect of the underlying protest to be untimely-- alleging that the procurement was tainted by an appearance of impropriety. The Board denies the motion. The protester maintains that the agency's selection determinations are inconsistent with the selection criteria of the solicitation. The protester concludes that its proposal represents the best value to the Government, in comparison to the proposals submitted by the awardees. The Board concludes that the record fails to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the added value of the proposal of either awardee is worth the higher price. Therefore, the Board grants this aspect of the protest. Motion for reconsideration In its underlying protest, filed on April 18, 1994, the protester asserts that the procurement was flawed because of an appearance of impropriety: On information and belief, award was made to LOGTEC even though the Air Force knew, or should have known that there had been frequent and regular golf matches between Jerry George (the Air Force Program Manager) and M. H. Mynhier (President and CEO of LOGTEC) during the evaluation period. Even if there were no impropriety, this gives the impression of impropriety and casts doubt on the validity of paying 20% more for LOGTEC than for B3H. Protest at 7. The agency moved to dismiss this basis of protest as having been untimely filed. In response, the protester did not specifically address this aspect of the motion. A majority of the panel determined: "There is no basis to conclude that the protester is pursuing a timely issue of protest. To that extent, we concur with the presiding judge that this basis of protest is untimely, and should be dismissed as such." B3H Corp. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 12813-P, 1994 BPD 99 (May 18, 1994). The protester mistakenly attributes a conclusion of the presiding judge to the majority in the decision (namely that the protester knew all of the facts long ago). By motion filed on May 19, the protester seeks reconsideration of the Board's decision of May 18. In support of its motion, the protester states that on May 9, it received an agency special investigations report during the course of discovery. The protester maintains that the report reveals information which it learned of first hand with the report and which supports its allegation. The information relates to alleged contacts and activities involving LOGTEC and the agency during the procurement process. None of the information is necessarily outside the protester's allegation in its initial protest. The protester does not state in its motion that any or all of this information was outside its knowledge before May 9. To the contrary, the protester points out that this information provides "first hand" knowledge, suggesting that it knew, without specific support, of the very allegations before receiving the report. Moreover, rather than constituting grounds of protest with a different factual basis than alleged in the protest, the information merely embellishes the protester's allegations. In its motion for reconsideration, as in its earlier submissions, the protester fails to address when it learned the information supporting its underlying bases of protest touching upon procurement integrity. The protester fails to survive the threshold issue of timeliness. Rule 7(b)(vii). The protester has not established a basis for reconsideration. Consequently, the Board denies the motion. Source Selection The protester contends that the agency failed to award the small business contracts in accordance with the solicitation's source selection criteria. The protester maintains that, under the terms of the solicitation, its proposal represents the best value to the Government, as it satisfies or exceeds all requirements at a price substantially lower than those of the awardees. The Board concludes that the record fails to support the source selection determinations by the agency. The agency does receive some benefits under each awardee's proposal not available under the protester's; the solicitation does not dictate that awards must go to the low-cost, technically acceptable offerors. However, the record does not demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the added value of either proposal is worth the higher price, consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Accordingly, the Board grants this aspect of the protest. Findings of Fact The solicitation 1. The solicitation expresses the objectives to be achieved under the resulting contracts: Provide highly skilled C-CS [Communications/Computer Systems] support to logistics systems development, ensure existing systems and newly modernized systems provide effective management information to implement the operational logistics mission, improve existing systems to meet functional user needs, and assist in the Logistics Modernization program, and provide technical support for AFMC [Air Force Material Command]. Protest File, Exhibit 11a, Section J, Appendix A at 51 ( C.1.3). The solicitation describes the typical tasks to be performed as falling within the following areas: systems development, systems testing, systems installation/maintenance/modification/operation, communication-computer hardware/software studies and operational problem resolutions, training, facility management, configuration and data management, documentation, classified programs, office automation, decision support systems, technical development, and data administration. Id. at 53-57 ( C.4). The solicitation permits the agency to place individual delivery orders under the resulting indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts either on a fixed-price basis or on a labor hour (with reimbursable other direct costs) basis. Id., Exhibit 11a at 12- 13 (H-901). The solicitation specifies fifteen labor categories, for which offerors are to supply rates (for contractor and subcontractor personnel). Id. at 2 ( B, Item 1), 48 (Table B- 1). 2. The basic contract period is through September 30, 1994, with two twelve-month options. Protest File, Exhibit 11g at 2-3 ( B-900, F-43). The solicitation anticipates a maximum of five awards, to be made in the following order: one initially reserved for a small, disadvantaged business (SDB); two (or three, if no SDB award is made) initially reserved for small businesses; and two (or more, if any of the three prior awards are not made) for any size offeror. Id., Exhibit 11a at 43 ( M- 900(a)). Evaluation and selection criteria 3. The solicitation dictates three areas of evaluation (and selection), in descending order of importance: technical, management, and cost. The technical area consists of four items (T.1 software, T.2 hardware, T.3 telecommunications, and T.4 configuration and data management); each of the first three items has three sub-items, the fourth has two. The management area consists of two items (M.1 scenario and M.2 organization), with two and three sub-items, respectively. Protest File, Exhibits 11a at 43-44 ( M-991), 11c. The solicitation explains, "All items within an area are of equal importance. All factors within each item are of equal importance. These criteria will be used to accomplish an integrated assessment of each offeror's proposal." Id. The solicitation states that, for each of the technical and management areas, the agency will provide three ratings: color/adjectival, proposal risk, and performance risk. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror's proposal meets the evaluation standards and solicitation requirements. Proposal risk assesses the risk associated with the offerors' proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation. Performance risk assesses the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offerors' demonstrated present and past performance. In assessing this risk, the Government will use performance data to evaluate the areas listed above. Offerors are to note that in conducting performance risk assessment the Government will use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. Id., Exhibit 11a at 44 ( M-991(b)). 4. The solicitation indicates how the agency will evaluate cost: For evaluation purposes only, the total contract cost will be based on the Government's estimate of hours required for each labor category, the prime contractor's estimate of the percentage of work to be performed by the prime and subcontractor for each labor category, and the proposed cost for a sample Statement of Work. The sample Statement of Work price will be subject to a cost realism evaluation. Offerors will provide cost data for the prime and for all subcontractors. The cost team will evaluate costs to determine that they are complete, realistic, and reasonable. Protest File, Exhibit 11a at 44 ( M-991(a)(3)). In a solicitation amendment, the agency specifically noted: "The Government has the right to adjust offerors' proposals for realism." Id., Exhibit 11e at 4. 5. The solicitation describes the impact of the evaluations in the selection determination: Within each area, each of the offerors' demonstrated color/adjectival, proposal risk and performance risk shall be given equal consideration in making an integrated source selection decision. Price proposals submitted will be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. The result of this evaluation will become part of the integrated assessment of general considerations and technical factors to form the basis for contract award. Protest File, Exhibits 11a at 43 ( M-991(c)). 6. Further, the solicitation provides: Technical capabilities of individual offerors are expected to vary with each one emphasizing its strengths in the proposal. Although each offeror must be capable of satisfying all requirements of the solicitation, individual strengths and specialties in items T.1, T.2, T.3 and T.4 will be evaluated without preference. The awards will be based on those combinations of capabilities, including management, which the SSA (source selection authority) considers to best satisfy the Government's varied requirements. Protest File, Exhibit 11a at 46 ( M-991(e)). Evaluations and discriminators 7. The agency used colors (from highest to lowest: blue, green, yellow, and red) for the color/adjectival ratings, and described the risks as low, moderate, or high. The evaluations (color/adjectival, performance risk, and proposal risk) of the best and final offers of three alleged small businesses Aries, LOGTEC, and the protester are as follows: TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT EVALUATED COST color perf prop color perf prop Aries blue low low green low low $[ ] LOGTEC blue low low blue low low $[ ] Protester blue low low green low low $[ ] Protest File, Exhibit 32 at SSEB Final-3. The color ratings of items in the technical (software, hardware, telecommunications, and configuration and data management (CM/DM)) and management (scenario and organization) areas are as follows: TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT soft hard tele CM/DM scen organ Aries blue blue blue blue green green LOGTEC blue blue blue blue blue blue Protester green blue blue green green green Id. at 8, 10-11. The evaluators identified significant strengths of the proposals, and noted an absence of significant weaknesses. Id. at B-2 to B-7, B-11 to B-13. 8. To determine the evaluated cost for each proposal, the agency utilized various figures obtained either from an offeror's proposal or from the agency as historical data, but not disclosed in the solicitation. The evaluated cost consists of two components; one utilizes the offeror-proposed labor rates, the other uses the offeror's response to the sample statement of work in the solicitation. First, the agency derived what it calls the total contract cost (TCC). Based upon information from the predecessor contract to this procurement, the agency estimated that 420,000 labor hours would be utilized under this procurement, and further distributed those hours among the fifteen labor categories. Under the analysis, two labor categories were projected as performing a majority of the labor hours: the ADP systems engineer and the systems analyst would perform 30% and 32% of the labor hours, respectively. Two other labor categories, the functional logistics analyst and the software technical specialist, were projected as performing 8% and 7% of the labor hours, respectively. Each of the remaining labor categories was projected as performing 1%, 2%, 3% or 4% of the labor hours. The agency multiplied the hours per labor category by the composite rate for each labor category proposed by each offeror in its cost proposal--the composite rate reflects the proportionate average of the labor rates of the offeror and its subcontractors. The sum of these labor category totals (discounted by 10% for net present value) represents the TCC. Protest File, Exhibit 32 at 12-13. 9. The second component of the evaluated cost compared the offeror's proposed cost for accomplishing the sample statement of work to the agency's estimate of the proposed price to accomplish the same task. The agency's estimate assumed that all offerors would accomplish the sample task in the same total number of hours. To arrive at a price, the agency distributed the work among the labor categories in the proportion found in each offeror's response to the sample task, multiplied the cost proposal composite rate per labor category by the proportionate number of hours, and summed these products. The ratio of the offeror price to agency estimate represents a "consistency factor"--such that the consistency factor is greater than one if the offeror's projected cost exceeds the agency estimate, and less than one if the offeror's projected cost is less than the agency estimate. The larger an offeror's consistency factor, the less advantageous the proposal is in comparison to those of other offerors. Protest File, Exhibit 32 at 12-13. 10. To arrive at the evaluated cost, for each offeror, the agency then plugged the TCC and the consistency factor (CF) into the equation: EVALUATED COST = .8(TCC) + .2(CF)(TCC). The formula weights the TCC (the costs derived from the labor hour distribution under the predecessor contract) as 80% of the evaluated costs, and weights as 20% of the evaluated costs those costs derived utilizing a mixture of the TCC and the actual sample task found in the solicitation. Protest File, Exhibit 32 at 12-13. 11. Although the solicitation alerts offerors to some general aspects of the cost evaluation, Finding 4, nothing in the solicitation suggests the actual analysis which occurred. For example, in calculating the TCC, the agency assumed a fixed number of labor hours and distribution between labor categories. The solicitation does not suggest the primary importance of the two labor categories, or the secondary importance of two other labor categories. Given the actual and potential variations in the offers, in terms of approach and abilities, it is unclear from the record that the fixed number and distribution of hours reasonably projects potential costs. A more qualified offeror may perform in fewer hours than one less qualified. An offeror may staff labor categories differently than the agency assumes, or may determine that a different mixture of labor categories to perform various tasks is beneficial. These distributions of staffing would affect projected prices. The agency's analysis diminishes the impact of differences between proposals in terms of quality and efficiency. The agency estimate to perform the sample task--a critical element in the consistency factor--also is premised upon each offeror performing the sample task within the same number of hours. Here too, the assumption flattens the differences among proposals. Although the cost area was evaluated without regard to the technical and management portions of the proposals, it is not evident that the methodology employed reflects "cost realism." 12. The evaluated cost weights the TCC alone as 80% of the formula, and for the remaining 20% adjusts the TCC by the consistency factor. As noted in the finding above, there exist limitations on the validity of the elements of the evaluated costs. It is unclear from the record if the percentage distribution is reasonable or results in a more realistic cost estimate than would another distribution. 13. Apart from the above referenced evaluations, the agency tasked a price/technical trade-off (P/TTO) working group to examine proposals and perform an impact analysis. That is, the working group identified discriminators--the significant comparative differences between the offerors' evaluated elements which would significantly affect the value of what the agency would receive. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Price/Technical Tradeoff Analysis Impact Analysis Report (Jan. 21, 1994) (Impact Report) at 1 ( 1.1). The working group looked into the effectiveness of represented experiences and the potential impact on the agency. Seven significant discriminators were identified, six non-quantified and one quantified. Id. at 1 ( 1.2), 8-9 ( 2.5), 10 ( 3.1); Transcript at 99-101, 351-52. 14. One non-quantified discriminator focuses upon the experience with Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC) software conveyed in the proposal. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 14-16. The working group concluded that a lack of significant experience in the AFLC software environment represents disadvantages to the agency. In particular, a limited understanding of the requirements of a specific task order could result in utilizing additional labor hours, completing a task order in a longer period, and completing a task order with a lower level of quality. The working group concluded that the protester's proposal reflected a lack of significant experience, whereas the proposals of Aries and LOGTEC reflected significant experience. As a result, the protester's proposal represents a negative economic value when compared to the other two proposals. Id. at 16, 37. This conclusion is consistent with the evaluations of the three proposals in the technical area, software item[foot #] 1--protester obtained a green, the other two offerors a blue; the evaluators noted particular attributes, and where proposals met or exceeded requirements. Finding 7; Protest File, Exhibit 32 at B-2 to B-3, B-5 to B-6, B- 11 to B-12. 15. The second non-quantified discriminator is hardware installation, operation, and maintenance experience. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 16-18. The working group concluded that a lack of significant experience in this environment represents disadvantages to the agency, because a limited understanding of requirements could result in utilizing additional labor hours, and completing a task order in a longer period of time. The working group concluded that the protester's proposal reflected significant experience, whereas the proposals of Aries and LOGTEC reflected a lack of significant experience. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Software, the first item in the technical area of evaluation, has as its three sub-items: development; test/ independent verification and validation; and installation, operation and maintenance. Protest File, Exhibit 11a at 43 ( M-991(a)); Findings 3, 7. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- As a result, the protester's proposal represents a positive economic value when compared to the other two proposals. Id. at 17-18, 37. This conclusion is consistent with the evaluations of the three proposals in the technical area, hardware item[foot #] 2--although all obtained a rating of blue, the evaluators noted particular attributes, and when proposals met or exceeded requirements. Finding 7; Protest File, Exhibit 32 at B-2 to B-3, B-5 to B-6, B-11 to B-12. 16. The third non-quantified discriminator is hardware sizing experience. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 18-19. The working group concluded that a limited understanding of requirements could result in utilizing additional labor hours, and in completing a task order in a longer period of time. The working group concluded that the protester's proposal reflected a lack of significant experience compared to the proposals of Aries and LOGTEC. As a result, the protester's proposal represents a negative economic value when compared to the other two proposals. Id. at 19, 37. This conclusion is consistent with the evaluations of the three proposals in the technical area, hardware item (see footnote 2)--although all obtained a rating of blue, the evaluators noted particular attributes, and where proposals met or exceeded requirements. Finding 7; Protest File, Exhibit 32 at B-2 to B-3, B-5 to B-6, B-11 to B-12. 17. The fourth non-quantified discriminator is CM/DM (configuration and data management) experience. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 19-21. The working group concluded that significant experience in the CM/DM activities and/or demonstrated knowledge of the CM/DM process represents advantages compared to lesser experience; namely, fewer labor hours would be utilized, and a task order could be completed under a more aggressive schedule. The working group concluded that the protester's proposal reflected a lack of significant experience compared to the proposals of Aries and LOGTEC. As a result, the protester's proposal represents a negative economic value when compared to the other two proposals. Id. at 20-21, 37. This conclusion is consistent with the evaluations of the three proposals in the technical area, CM/DM item.[foot #] 3 The protester received a green; Aries and LOGTEC merited a blue; the evaluators noted particular attributes, and where proposals ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Hardware, the second item in the technical area of evaluation, has three sub-items: sizing and definition; test/independent verification and validation; and installation, operation and maintenance. Protest File, Exhibit 11a at 44 ( M-991(a)). [foot #] 3 Configuration and data management, the fourth item in the technical area of evaluation, has two sub-items: CM of systems development (including internal code control), and DM of systems development. Protest File, Exhibit 11a at 44 ( M-991(a)); Findings 3, 7. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- met or exceeded requirements. Finding 7; Protest File, Exhibit 32 at B-2 to B-3, B-5 to B-6, B-11 to B-12. 18. The fifth non-quantified discriminator is an offeror's then-existing office locations at ALCs (Air Logistics Centers). Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 21-23. The working group concluded that it was advantageous to the agency for an offeror to have existing office locations at each of the ALCs, because such offices (compared to a lack thereof) would increase an understanding of requirements and result in fewer labor hours to complete task orders, and could result in a more aggressive schedule to complete task orders. Moreover, such offices would enable an offeror to staff task orders from the ALCs with local people which may result in fewer travel costs. Id. at 23, 38. The working group determined that Aries and LOGTEC had such offices, and that the protester did not.[foot #] 4 As a result, it concluded that the protester's proposal represents a negative economic value when compared to the other two proposals. Id. This conclusion was reached without considering that the protester proposed to establish an office at each ALC upon award. Id., Exhibit 15 at III-1-21. The agency has not demonstrated that any benefit (significant or otherwise) would result from an office location preexisting the selection process. 19. The sixth non-quantified discriminator is the subcontractor control plan. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 23-25. The working group concluded that better management of subcontractors results in reduced risks to the Government. In particular, the advantages to the agency resulting from better control are reflected in an offeror's increased ability to match the requirement needs of the agency with the best set of skills from its team, thus providing better quality work. Also, there is a decreased risk of cost overruns and schedule delays associated with poor management. From the proposals (the documented effectiveness of the subcontractor control plan), the working group concluded that LOGTEC, but not Aries or the protester, was excellent at managing its subcontractors. As a result, this discriminator represented a positive discriminator for LOGTEC when compared to Aries and the protester; in comparison to each other, neither Aries nor the protester benefitted under this discriminator. Id. at 23-25, 38. These conclusions are consistent with the evaluations of the ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 4 Organization is one of two items in the management area of evaluation, with three sub-items: structure, strength and teaming (if applicable); administration, technical and facilities support; and relevant experience. Protest File, Exhibit 11a at 44 ( M-991)). The general evaluations in the management area (which encompass facilities support) note the location of such offices as a specific strength of LOGTEC, not of Aries or of the protester. Id., Exhibit 32 at B-3 to B-4, B-6 to ___ B-7, B-12. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- three proposals in the management area, organization item.[foot #] 5 Finding 7; Protest File, Exhibit 32 at B-3 to B- 4, B-6 to B-7, B-12. 20. The working group attached no specific cost to any of the six non-quantified discriminators, although as noted above, it considered that the differences as presented in the proposals could affect the cost savings to the Government, and could impact upon the goals and objectives to be attained under the procurement. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report, at 37-38; Findings 14-19. 21. The working group established a single quantified discriminator, characterized as a proposed personnel price risk. The working group identified the concern to be addressed: The work distribution percentages provided by the Offerors within their cost proposals vary significantly from the personnel distribution proposed in their Technical and Management Volumes. Offerors who utilized lower proposed subcontractor rates for each labor category but proposed higher technical personnel with higher proposed rates can lead to higher costs to the Government. In order to get the skill levels proposed in the Technical and Management Volumes, the Government may have to pay higher rates associated with those higher technical skills. These potential cost risks are not accounted for in the cost proposals. The Offerors submitted highly qualified, highly experienced personnel in their Management and Technical Volumes to maximize their technical scores, however, costed lower priced rates in their Cost Volume. In addition, these lower priced personnel were not the personnel evaluated in the management and Technical Volumes evaluations done by the SSEB. Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 10-11. The working group considered that a "price risk analysis determines the potential additional costs to the buyer associated with a ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 5 The solicitation provides guidance regarding the preparation of the organization aspect of the management proposal: "Submit an organizational chart and accompanying narrative which clearly describes the organizational lines of authority and responsibility, corporate commitment to carrying out the contracted effort, and a discussion of how that particular structure will provide maximum responsiveness to the requirements of this RFP"; and, "The discussion shall also describe subcontract management and administrative controls that will be utilized." Protest File, Exhibit 11a, Attachment L-1 at 84-85 ( 5). Footnote 4 details the sub-items constituting organization within the management area. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- discriminating feature/approach of a vendor. The price risk captures the uncertainty of an Offeror's ability to deliver a feature or the risks of additional costs." Id. at 10. The agency has not suggested that it attempted to resolve the apparent discrepancies between the technical and management and the cost volumes, although two rounds of best and final offers were utilized. 22. Underlying assumptions were made in quantifying this one discriminator. For example, the composite rates in each proposal for the top seven labor categories only were utilized; work was distributed as proposed in the technical and management, as opposed to the cost, volumes; and the analysis applied to the base and option years of the contracts. For the offerors, the agency determined a management price risk (mgt PR) and a technical price risk (tech PR). Given that the solicitation indicates that technical is more important than management, the agency weighted the management price risk as 40% and the technical price risk as 60%, and determined a composite price risk (composite PR). The results were as follows: ITEM Aries LOGTEC Protester mgt PR $[ ] $[ ] $[ ] tech PR [ ] [ ] [ ] composite PR $[ ] $[ ] $[ ] Protest File, Exhibit 32, Impact Report at 13-14. Award determinations 23. The source selection authority (SSA) relied upon briefings and reports prepared and presented by the various evaluators and reviewers, including the working group. Transcript at 215. Written determinations of the source selection authority express his considerations and rationale in selecting first LOGTEC, and then Aries, as the small business contractors. LOGTEC received blue ratings in each of the technical and management items. Six particular strengths are highlighted in the technical area, and four in the management area. As to the specifics of his price/technical trade-off, the determination in support of selecting LOGTEC focuses upon the seven discriminators. A value adjusted cost is calculated for each offeror, which equals the evaluated cost (Finding 7) plus the composite price risk (the quantified discriminator; Finding 22). The value adjusted costs are: LOGTEC $[ ] Aries $[ ] Protester $[ ] The determination also states: LOGTEC is the only offeror Blue in both the Technical and Management Areas. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), and in accordance with Section M, I placed more emphasis on the Management Area rather than Cost. I assess that the relative superiority of the proposal as indicated in the Blue rating in the Management Area will result in improved quality and cost control that represents value to the Government which mitigates the following difference in cost: [The value adjusted cost of Aries is $[ ], and of the protester is $[ ], less than that of LOGTEC] I feel that the technical and management superiority of LOGTEC's proposal provides greater value to the Government than Aries . . . or [protester]. Based on my assessment of all proposals in the small business category and in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria, it is my decision that LOGTEC's proposal offers the best overall value to the Government. Protest File, Exhibit 34 at 6-7. 24. In the written determination supporting his selection of Aries, the SSA notes that Aries received a blue rating in each of the technical items, with nine particular strengths highlighted. In the management area, Aries received a green rating in each of the management items, with three particular strengths highlighted. The determination describes the price/technical trade-off analysis, focusing upon the seven discriminators (quantified and non-quantified, as discussed above), and noting that the protester's proposal was not rated as high as Aries in the software and CM/DM items of the technical area. The analysis states that Aries "had fewer technical changes from original submittal to final. The technical superiority of [Aries] represents the Best Value to the Government considering the following difference in cost: [see Finding 23]." Protest File, Exhibit 34 at 8-11. 25. The record developed in this protest adds further insight into the analysis of the SSA, who properly recognized that the colors do not fully reflect the attributes of any proposal; differences exist at the item and sub-item levels which impact upon the quality of what the agency will receive. Transcript at 239-40. The SSA noted the existence of two elements distinguishing the quality of offers: efficiency (affected by a company and individuals in an environment with its set of processes and management controls) and the overall quality of the product produced (affected by the qualifications and experience of personnel). Id. at 249. 26. Recognizing the price premium for LOGTEC and Aries, the SSA testified that he expected that the agency would get a higher quality product, a substantially higher quality product. We would expect that we would be in a better position to control and understand the cost that would be expended in the conduct of the individual task. That is that the costs that are identified in the initial response to the statement of work, would in fact be much closer to the cost that would be expected to be incurred through the conduct of that cost. And that we would, in fact, have received better value as a result of that. Transcript at 274-75. And further, the proper selection "was clearly evident to me as I did the comparison of the superior technical and management proposal and a higher cost against a less qualified, less capable operator and the lower cost." Id. at 279. 27. In addition, the SSA testified: We find that we have great difficulty in controlling the costs of our software development activities largely because the software development processes and our contractors are often not very mature or the qualifications of the personnel or their knowledge of the applications environment is not as good as in other cases. It is not unusual to get 30 to 40 to 50 percent or even 100 percent cost overruns on software development and software maintenance projects. We have become convinced over the years that the qualifications of the company and the strength of their software development process is a clear indicator and of significant value to the Air Force in reducing the potential for cost overruns and containing the costs such that we can, with some surety as we enter a software development project, be assured that we will get a quality product, get one that's on time and get one that's within the cost that's estimated up front. Therefore, when I looked at, in particular, the differences between [the protester] and Logtec and I saw that key areas that will influence the quality of software that we produced and the better ability to manage, and those were the T1 in software, T4 in configuration data management and then their overall management strengths, it was my judgement that the 20 percent premium or 15 percent, as one looked at the value adjusted price, was in fact easily justified and, therefore, I felt comfortable in making the decision and selection of Logtec. I went through a similar analysis with respect to Aries. Transcript at 355-57. 28. The record does not associate any specific monetary value with the advantages of the three proposals to the agency in any greater detail and in a more convincing fashion than the broad generalities and simple conclusions of the SSA. For example, no particular analysis attempts to quantify the non- quantified discriminators individually, or as a whole, while also recognizing that one of the discriminators favors the protester's proposal. Discussion The agency did not award to the protester one of the contracts "reserved" for small businesses. The protester maintains that the best value analyses underlying the selection determinations are inconsistent with section M, because it satisfied or exceeded all solicitation requirements at a substantially lower price than the awardees. The protester does not challenge any of the other three awards. The protester does not take exception to the notion that "a proposal which is one point better than another but costs millions of dollars more may be selected if the agency can demonstrate within a reasonable certainty that the added value of the proposal is worth the higher price." Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. v. Bentsen, 4 F.3d 955, 960 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, the protester tacitly relies upon the limitations to the wide discretion of a source selection official that are expressed in statute, 10 U.S.C. 2305((b)(4)(B) (Supp. V 1993) (award is to be made to the "responsible source whose proposal is most advantageous to the United States, considering only cost or price and the other factors included in the solicitation") and recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: "Despite the wide discretion afforded to procuring agencies in selecting an [offeror], all submitted proposals must be evaluated consistent with statute, regulation and the standards set forth in the RFP or the board will be required to suspend, revoke or revise the procurement authority." Grumman Data Systems Corp. v. Widnall, 15 F.3d 1044, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). In performing a price/technical trade-off, an agency may not disregard price or discount it to such a degree that price is effectively rendered meaningless. Lockheed Missiles, 4 F.3d at 960. Moreover, as the Federal Circuit has noted in passing, the price/technical trade-off analysis may be deficient "because it failed to indicate whether the government would receive benefits commensurate with the price premium it proposed to pay." Lockheed Missiles, 4 F.3d at 959- 60. In short, the protester maintains that the record fails to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the added value of either of the awardees' proposals is worth the higher price. The solicitation specifies that, in the selection analysis, the technical and management areas are of greater importance to the agency than cost. Although the agency must consider price in the selection process, awards need not be made to the lowest- priced offerors. Indeed, the best value to the Government may result from efficiencies and higher quality products attainable from a seemingly higher-priced contractor. Here, the SSA, utilizing the analysis of the working group, properly focused upon discriminators between the proposals--that is, differences which affect the benefits received by the agency and the value thereof. The one quantified discriminator looks behind the technical, management, and cost volumes of proposals, and attempts to reflect accurately agency costs over the life of the contracts. Findings 21-22. The composite price risks uncovered demonstrate that compared to the evaluated costs of Aries and LOGTEC, the evaluated cost of the protester may less accurately reflect the true costs to the agency for obtained performance with specific levels of technical and management expertise. However, when the results of this quantified discriminator are applied to the evaluated costs of each offeror, although the projected costs are brought closer together, considerable differences remain: LOGTEC $[ ] Aries $[ ] Protester $[ ] Finding 23. To the extent that this discriminator attempts to equate proposals for comparison purposes, it fails to show with any reasonable certainty that the added values of the proposals of the awardees are worth the higher price. Appropriately, the quantified discriminator was not viewed in isolation. The SSA also considered the non-quantified discriminators in making the selection determinations. The SSA has set forth the conclusions that he believes the technical and management superiority of each awardee provides value off-setting the price differentials. Findings 23-24. However, the conclusions of the SSA do not explain how or why, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, the added value of those proposals is worth the extra cost. Thus, those conclusions do not enable the Board to ascertain that the selection decisions were reasonable or consistent with the selection criteria. The non-quantified discriminators were presented to the SSA as non-quantified differences, although the working group and SSA recognized that the differences in the proposals could affect the costs to the agency and the quality of the performance. Findings 14-19. We find that all of these discriminators, except the fifth, are rationally premised. The fifth non-quantified discriminator, which accords special value to the existence of offices pre-existing the contract, does not appear to be reasonable, given that the protester stated that it would establish an office at the particular locations before working on task orders. Finding 18. The working group did not attach a dollar value to any of these discriminators. However, the effect of the SSA's conclusions is that he implicitly attached a dollar value to the whole of the discriminators, with that dollar value exceeding the cost differentials. The testimony of the SSA in support of those conclusions is not adequate to establish with reasonable certainty that the choice was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. One discriminator (the second, Finding 15) clearly favored the protester. As against the protester, LOGTEC was favored in the other four non-quantified discriminators which the Board has found to be rationally premised, and Aries was favored in three. The record does not indicate that the SSA considered the benefits which could accrue to the agency from the protester's positive discriminator, and the extent to which it may off-set, in whole or part, any of the other offerors' positive discriminators. Finding 27. Nor does the record indicate the magnitude of the one discriminator which the Board has rejected, or the impact of that discriminator on the award decisions. On the face of the solicitation, various items are of equal weight and importance; the record does not demonstrate a basis for concluding that greater benefits to the agency flow in one area as opposed to another. However, the testimony of the SSA attributes a particular significance to the very two discriminators within the software and CM/DM items which favored the awardees over the protester. Finding 27. Although it may not be unusual to get overruns of 30 to 100% in these areas, there is no basis to conclude that the protester represented such a risk which had not been accounted for in the quantified discriminator and evaluated costs. The agency itself considered that the protester's performance and proposal risks were low. Finding 7. Moreover, the SSA placed far greater weight on the significance of small aspects of the two items than the solicitation indicated, for which no sufficient rationale has been demonstrated. Finally, the SSA relied upon the evaluated costs determined by the evaluators. Finding 23. The record reveals several apparent shortcomings in the assumptions underlying the calculations of the evaluated costs. Findings 8-12. The analysis of the SSA does little to mitigate the limitations of the calculations, although the addition of the composite risk amount, Finding 23, reflects an attempt to develop a more accurate or true final amount for comparison purposes. In performing its de novo review, the Board is not limited to the considerations and rationale put forward by the SSA and agency in making the selection determination. Rather, the Board would affirm these selection determinations should the record reveal any basis which supports the selections consistent with the terms of the solicitation, statute and regulation. Grumman, 15 F.3d at 1046-47 (Under a de novo standard of review, "the reviewing board is not limited to the findings made by the agency or contained in the initial decision. Under de novo review, a board may consider the analysis developed by the agency, or produce and consider its own analysis.") (citations omitted). Such an analysis does not benefit the agency here. As the following discussion indicates, the record does not demonstrate within a reasonable certainty, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, that the added value of either proposal is worth the higher price or that the Government would receive benefits commensurate with the price premiums it proposes to pay. This procurement was conducted as a best value procurement with technical, management, and cost constituting the three areas of evaluation, in descending order of importance for the selection determinations. The solicitation does not suggest that the awards would be made to the offerors with the technical and management superiority, if proposed at reasonable costs. Rather, the solicitation indicates that all three areas would be considered in the integrated assessment underlying the selection. Findings 3, 5, 6. The solicitation further specifies that "awards will be based on those combinations of capabilities, including management, which the SSA considers to best satisfy the Government's varied requirements." Finding 6. The three offerors here have different strengths. The solicitation permits the agency to place task orders with the various contractors. The record does not suggest which combination of awardees (either simply within the small business category, or considering all five awards) would represent the best value to the Government. For example, the agency has not considered (and the record does not resolve) whether the protester's particular strengths in hardware installation, operation, and maintenance experience may bring particular benefits to the Government in combination with the other contractors. Further, the solicitation places within the agency's control the placement of task orders, which may be on a fixed-price or labor hour (cost-reimbursable) basis. Finding 1. This mechanism for obtaining performance permits the agency to control and distribute certain risks--such that the agency would not have to bear the cost of "overruns" (that is, over the agency's projected estimates) to perform particular tasks. The selection determinations and record contain no analysis of the impact or effect of this on the best value analysis. The solicitation specifies that each item within a given area is of equal importance. Finding 3. Thus, within the technical area, software, hardware, telecommunications, and CM/DM are of equal importance, and within the management area, scenario and organization are of equal importance. Further, for each area three ratings will be performed: a color/adjectival rating (assessing the merits of the proposal), the proposal risk, and the performance risk; each of these three ratings shall be given equal consideration. Findings 3, 5. As to proposal risk (which assesses the risk associated with the offerors' proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation) and performance risk (which assesses the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort), all three offerors received the identical ratings--low risk. The evaluators, working group, and SSA treated the proposals as similar on this two-thirds of the analysis. Differences do exist in the technical and management merits of the proposals as reflected in the color/adjectival ratings. Differences are reflected not only by different colors, but also by various particular strengths of individual proposals highlighted in the evaluations (that is, differences exist between proposals with the same color rating). The discriminators further crystallize what the agency deems to be the significant differences. The non-quantified discriminators reveal differences in but a few of the overall sub-items. Findings 14-19. The Board cannot conclude, based upon the existing record, that given the largely similar extent of the proposals, the differences reasonably represent sufficient value to off-set the significant cost differentials. Neither the selection analyses presented by the agency nor the record as a whole demonstrates with reasonable certainty that the added value of the proposals of Aries and LOGTEC are worth the higher prices consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Although mathematical precision or absolute dollar quantifications are neither expected nor required, more than a mere conclusion is required to justify a best value analysis. Consistent with the selection criteria, the rationale underlying the conclusion must support the selection determination with reasonable certainty. Particularly when the agency retains much discretion in obtaining performance by the issuance of individual task orders to any of various contractors, as the dollar differences are greater (such as the approximate 20% between LOGTEC and the protester here) or the technical/management differences smaller (such as between Aries and the protester here), the considerations and rationale must be more detailed in order to justify a best value determination. Some comments regarding the dissent Some statements found in the dissenting opinion merit particular comment which may help to focus the differences between the majority and dissent. In the final paragraph of the dissent, the dissenting judge states that he would deny the protest "because it comes down to a value judgment which the agency is much better qualified to make than this Board." This language very much sets the tone for the approach of the dissenting/presiding judge in the protest. The dissenting judge fails to appreciate the reviewing function of the Board and well established precedent. The dissenting judge once again, see e.g., Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 12702-P, 1994 BPD 89 (Apr. 6, 1994) (Devine, dissenting), approaches his role and function in a protest proceeding at the Board in a manner which is contrary to the dictates of statute, 40 U.S.C. 759(f) (1988), and the guidance of our appellate authority, see e.g., Lockheed Missiles, 4 F.3d at 959-60. An agency does not attain unfettered discretion in the source selection process by stating in the solicitation that it intends to make an award in the best interests of the Government. In conducting a de novo review, upon the request of an interested party, the Board "shall review any decision by a contracting officer alleged to violate a statute or regulation." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(1). A selection determination not supported by a reasonable basis discernible in the record cannot be said to be most advantageous to the Government, 10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(B) (Supp. V 1993), 41 CFR 201- 39.102(a) (1992), 48 CFR 15.611(d) (1993). An agency action involving discretion is not shielded from a challenge by an interested party. The dissent appears to confuse "de novo review" with "non-review." There must exist, in support of the selection determination, more than a mere conclusion that the selection is in the Government's best interest. The source selection authority here recognized the differences between the proposals. The testimony referenced by the dissenting judge, Transcript at 253-75 and 320- 63, restates what is readily apparent from the evaluations and from the working group's additional analysis. What is lacking in the record as a whole is a reasoned basis leading to the conclusion that the benefits of the awardees' proposals are in fact worth the apparent extra costs. To restate a conclusion multiple times does not make the conclusion any more credible. The dissent criticizes the majority for assuming the function of an "Omniscient Source Selection Authority." The majority does not make any selection determination. What the majority concludes is that the record fails to support the selection determinations made. The SSA must make selection determinations consistent with statute, regulation and the terms of the solicitation. Our appellate authority, Lockheed Missiles, 4 F.3d at 959-60, has stated that the tradeoff analysis must show that the technical benefits are worth the added price. The dissent's view that we are bound to accept the SSA's conclusion without examining it is simply wrong. Contrary to the assertions found in the dissent, no shift in the burden of proof has occurred. The protester alleged that the selection determinations were contrary to the terms of the solicitation and lacked a reasonable basis. The protester demonstrated that the source selection determination and analysis consisted of conclusions which lack credible support. The developed record, considered as a whole, fails to establish a reasonable basis for concluding that each of the two awards are in the best interests of the Government. Accordingly, the selection determinations are improper. The dissent boldly asserts that the majority has failed to read most of the written record. The majority has read all relevant material (e.g., the briefs, motions, relevant portions of the protest file, the transcript, and the draft opinion of the presiding judge--fully discarded in this case). Further, the dissent fails to point to any factual finding which is inaccurate. With the exception of the already considered portions of the transcript, the dissenting judge has not suggested any material in the record which may elucidate support for his conclusion. Unfortunately for the protest process, the parties, and the panel members, the dissenting judge assumes that mere conclusions of the presiding judge are sufficient to support a Board decision which may be reviewed on appeal. (This approach is analogous to endowing an SSA with unreviewable discretion to make a selection determination supported solely by a conclusion that the best interests of the Government are fostered by the selection.) As a result, the panel judges are forced to ferret out all relevant facts in the waning days of the protest process- -and the protest process must be lengthened to permit this to occur. Decision The Board concludes the agency has made the selection determinations contrary to the terms of the solicitation. The record does not support the conclusion that the awards are worth the higher prices. Accordingly, the Board GRANTS the protest. Having found an agency violation, the Board must consider the appropriate relief to be fashioned. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B) (1988). The agency's procurement authority regarding the challenged awards has not been suspended during the course of this protest, the protest having been filed more than ten days after contract awards. The Board concludes that economic and efficient relief dictates that the Board not require the agency to terminate immediately its contracts with Aries and LOGTEC. Rather, the Board revises the procurement authority of the agency as follows. The agency is required to proceed in accordance with statute and regulation in making source selections. Such selections are to occur as expeditiously as is reasonable. The agency is prohibited from exercising the options of the presently awarded contracts with Aries and LOGTEC, unless either or both awards are affirmed in the new source selections. We fashion this relief knowing that the agency (in fact, all parties) had the opportunity to develop the record in support of the source selection determinations. No rational basis consistent with the selection criteria has been established to support the awards. However, the facts do not permit the Board to determine which, if either, of Aries and LOGTEC does not merit an award. The record fails to contain sufficient qualitative information addressing the true value of the three proposals, either alone or in combination. Rather than perform a selection determination with insufficient information, we entrust the agency with making its own determinations with appropriate justifications. _________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge I concur: _____________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge DEVINE, Board Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent because the majority is not merely wrong; it is wrong for the worst of all possible reasons. Its opinion substitutes the Board's judgment for the agency's judgment in a protest where every stricture of the procurement statutes and regulations was met, the procurement itself was intelligently designed using recent experience, and the final decision was in the discretionary area where the agency has the final word. The difference in estimated costs between protester and the awardees was 15% in one case and 5% in the other. Under such circumstances this Board should never intrude. In this decision the Board has become the Omniscient Source Selection Authority that it was never meant to be. Boards of contract appeals are equipped to find the facts in a given dispute, and to apply the law to the facts. They do not have the background, training or interest to judge whether or not the better skills of Corporation A are worth the additional dollars its services will cost in supporting the entire logistics system of the United States Air Force. This is particularly true with respect to the procurement before us. It is a continuation of an earlier, highly successful procurement, which simply used up its monetary limits. For this majority, which knows nothing more of this procurement and its purposes than what is contained in the written record, most of which it has not read, to substitute its value judgment for that of the people who have lived and worked with this procurement is presumptuous at best and foolhardy at worst. There is also the matter that the majority seems to think that the Air Force, when challenged, is required to prove that its procurement is perfect. In every legal system of which I am aware, quasi or otherwise, he who alleges an impropriety must produce evidence sufficient to prove it. This majority, for whatever reason, has reversed that fundamental rule. In this procurement the protester said that it didn't think the two better qualified offerors were worth the additional money, but it offered no evidence at all to prove it, thus committing the same sin that the majority says the Government committed, and which the majority used as a reason to grant the protest. Protester not only did not present any evidence to prove its allegation that the increased cost was not worth the higher qualifications, it elicited page after page of testimony from the source selection authority showing that the money differential was more than justified because the better qualifications of the awardees would shorten learning curves, shorten start up times, and improve task performance efficiency, all of which would save the Air Force money in the long run. The majority even quotes some of this, but ignores its import. There is also the peculiar nature in this procurement of what the majority refers to as cost (or price). These are labor contracts. The numbers given do not represent the cost (or price) of anything. They are derived from composite labor rates, which are themselves composites of rates covering a mix of various skill levels of a given trade (or profession), plus composites of the rates of a mix of the various trades (and professions). They are multiplied by the number of hours which the Air Force's experience tells it may well be expended under the proposed contracts during the course of a year. They represent expenditures on a mix of tasks that may or may not occur in the mix anticipated and any one or more of which may never have to be performed at all. The term cost (or price) as used in this procurement has no relation to, say, the case where the term is used in the procurement of a fleet of trucks where one manufacturer's truck is substantially equivalent to another's but there is a significant price differential. In such a case if the more expensive truck is bought, every penny of the higher cost will be paid. In the procurement before us, depending upon the number and type of tasks assigned under the contracts, and the skill mixes and skill levels required, it may be that Aries or LOGTEC, or both, will be able to perform cheaper than protester. This is so because the numbers referred to as cost (or price) are simply an informed estimate based on the Air Force's prior experience and the labor rates and skill mixes furnished by the offerors, as to what the cost levels of the various offerors might be in actual practice. The estimates are higher for Aries and Logtec than for protester, but that is all they are: estimates. The SSA understood that fact and made a judgment that the higher qualifications were worth the higher estimates. We should not substitute our judgment for his. To its credit, the majority itself appears to be none too comfortable with its decision. It has trouble giving reasons for the outcome it arrives at and, for the same reason, it has trouble directing a cure. At one point the majority says the following: "The testimony of the SSA in support of those conclusions [the SSA's conclusions on the discriminators] is not adequate to establish with reasonable certainty that the choice [of the higher offers] was consistent with the terms of the solicitation." The majority's statement that the SSA's choices were not consistent with the solicitation is just plain wrong. This procurement tracked the solicitation exactly. The majority continues: "One discriminator [hardware installation] clearly favored the protester." The majority means that protester had more experience in this category than Aries and LOGTEC. It goes on: "As against the protester, LOGTEC was favored in the other four non-quantified discriminators, and Aries was favored in three. The record does not indicate that the SSA considered the benefits which could accrue to the agency from the protester's positive discriminator [hardware installation], and the extent to which it may off set, in whole or in part, any of the other offeror's positive discriminators." This is hard to understand. All of the discriminators were rated. LOGTEC came out ahead in four, Aries in three, and protester in one. By my count LOGTEC is three ahead and Aries two. The SSA came to the same conclusion. To say, as the majority does, that the SSA did not consider any of this is simply nonsense. I don't know what record the majority was reading, but the testimony I heard was that he did consider exactly what the majority says he didn't consider. The transcript agrees. Protester directed the following question to Mr. Gilligan, the SSA: "Would you spell out in specific detail the basis for your decision to select other awardees as opposed to B3H, going through each discriminator . . . the one quantifiable and the six nonquantifiables?" The response took up some forty-three pages as Mr. Gilligan testified concerning all seven discriminators exactly how he considered them, how he evaluated their import, and why he did what he did. Transcript at 320-63. He had earlier given twenty-two pages of testimony on the same subject. Transcript at 253-75. In general, his testimony was that prior experience in the areas of the various non-quantifiable discriminators resulted in shorter start up times, quicker execution, a better quality product, shorter learning curves, and less staffing time, all of which would produce economic benefits to the Air Force. With respect to the issue of what justifies the higher estimated costs of the awardees, the SSA testified: What we're getting is a contractor that has demonstrated through their proposals, on the experience and methodology that's been offered, a superior software development process and level of experience, a superior configuration and data management process and level of experience, a superior management control process, increased use of automated tools and other risk mitigation techniques that will, in fact, in my opinion, give us a better quality product and there's one that would be at a fair and reasonable cost. Transcript at 276. The transcription is imperfect but the meaning is clear. By contrast the majority calls these mere "conclusions" which "do not enable the Board to ascertain that the selection decisions were reasonable or consistent with the selection criteria." As I have already observed, it is the protester's responsibility to show what is wrong with the procurement and not the Air Force's job to prove that it is perfect. In spite of all of the foregoing the majority has found that the agency "has made the selection determinations contrary to the terms of the solicitation. The record does not support the conclusion that the awards are worth the higher prices." In my judgment the record not only supports the conclusion that the higher rated awardees are worth their money, but it is entirely devoid of any evidence that they aren't, which is probably the reason why the majority directs us to none. Having made up its mind to grant the protest the majority does nothing to correct the evils uncovered. It merely forbids the Air Force from exercising its options, and in language as meaningless as that which it used in defining the sin, directs the Air Force to "proceed in accordance with statute and regulation in making source selections." Then it chucks the whole mess back into the lap of a sadder but no wiser Air Force, which is, of course, where it all began. I would, of course, deny this protest. First because it comes down to a value judgment which the agency is much better qualified to make than this Board. Second because protester produced no evidence at all of any impropriety in this procurement, as it was bound to do under its burden of proof, if it hoped to win. Third because there is no evidence in this record, from any source, to justify a grant. _________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge