THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON NOVEMBER 16, 1994 _______________________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: October 20, 1994 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 12930-P, 12936-P MATERIALS, COMMUNICATION & COMPUTERS, INC., and NCI INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Protesters/Intervenors, v. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, Respondent, and DECISION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Intervenor. Kenneth S. Kramer, James M. Weitzel, Jr., and Louis D. Victorino of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Materials, Communication & Computers, Inc. John R. Tolle and William T. Welch of Barton, Mountain & Tolle, McLean, VA; and J. Patrick McMahon of Vienna, VA, counsel for Protester/Intervenor NCI Information Systems, Inc. Jo H. DuBose and Walter Thomas, Office of General Counsel, Defense Logistics Agency, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Respondent. Robert M. Cambridge, Arlington, VA, counsel for Intervenor Decision Systems Technologies, Inc. Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and VERGILIO. BORWICK, Board Judge. The procurement at issue is for Logistics System Engineering and Technical Support (LOGSETS), conducted by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to support its activities and the activities of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the Defense Commissary Agency, and the Defense Information Technology Services Organization. The solicitation contemplated award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for one year and four option years. On August 9, 1994, Materials, Communication & Computers, Inc. (MATCOM2) protested DLA's award of the LOGSETS contract to Decision Systems Technologies, Incorporated (DSTI). The complaint alleged improper evaluation and award. On August 15, NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI) protested the same award on much the same grounds. We consolidated both protests. DSTI filed a notice of intervention; we allowed DSTI's intervention for limited purposes only.1 As refined in amended complaints, MATCOM2 and NCI alleged that DLA violated statute and regulation, principally Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.606, in failing to amend the solicitation to reflect new estimated labor hours, and in failing to request additional technical and price best and final offers (BAFOs) based on the new requirements. MATCOM2 and NCI requested the opportunity to submit BAFOs responding to the revised requirements, MATCOM2 being satisfied with a new cost BAFO and NCI holding out for submission of both cost and technical BAFOs. DLA recognizes it violated the FAR in not amending the solicitation to reflect the revised requirements, but maintains that it need only request new cost BAFOs. We conclude that DLA violated the FAR, and also violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). We find that the scope of relief DLA is willing to provide is insufficient. We conclude that the significant revisions in the estimated labor hours require DLA: (1) to amend the solicitation to reflect the new requirements and (2) to request both technical and cost BAFOs. We grant the protests. NCI further alleged that MATCOM2's and DSTI's proposals were technically unacceptable because resumes of particular personnel did not meet experience requirements of the solicitation. We conclude that NCI is wrong; the record does not demonstrate that the specified personnel failed to meet the experience requirements. NCI alleged that DLA did not make a realistic cost appraisal of DSTI's proposal because, in conducting its cost analysis, DLA did not consider excessive the number of working hours per month that DSTI proposed for individual staffers. Again, NCI is wrong; DSTI did not propose an excessive number of ____________________ 1 DSTI filed a late notice of intervention on the original complaints filed by MATCOM2 and NCI. DSTI was timely only as to new grounds pled in amended complaints filed by those parties. See Materials, Communication & Computers, Inc. v. Defense ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- Logistics Agency, GSBCA 12930-P, et al., 1994 BPD 190 (Sept. ________________ 14, 1994). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- hours per month for individuals. The hours proposed were for a pool of people. NCI also alleged that DLA failed to properly evaluate its proposal. NCI has not shown that the technical evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny all other grounds of NCI's protest. Findings of Fact The Original Delegation of Procurement Authority 1. The original agency procurement request (APR) sent to the General Services Administration (GSA) for a delegation of procurement authority (DPA) contemplated total life cycle costs of $24,703,688.24 for the federal information processing (FIP) resources and a small amount of non-FIP resources. Protest File, Exhibit 7 at 6th unnumbered page. On March 20, 1992, GSA granted the DPA. Id., Exhibit 8. On July 21, 1992, DLA sought an amendment to the DPA to set aside the procurement for competition under the Small Business Administration's "8(a)" program. DLA increased the total estimated cost of the procurement to $24,709,485.80. Id., Exhibit 9. On August 20, 1992, GSA granted the amended DPA. Id. The Solicitation 2. The solicitation provided in pertinent part: B.4 General a. Prices proposed will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in paragraph M.3, Method of Award Evaluation Factors. b. The annual hours specified in Schedule B-1 are the Government's estimate to meet their [sic] requirements. The quantities are for evaluation purposes only. The Government will only be obligated to the contractor for specific items and quantities upon issuance of a task order under the contract. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 3, B.4b.2 The proposal preparation instructions for the staffing plan portion of the proposal provided in pertinent part: Describe, in detail, the methodologies and automated tools to which the offeror commits to use to determine the initial estimates of the various mixes of skill levels and hours of each skill level necessary to ____________________ 2 The chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) interpreted the phrase "evaluation purposes only" to mean "cost evaluation purposes only." Transcript at 244-45. satisfy user requirements in a timely manner and in conformance with professional standards. Id. at 236, L.21d.4.(a). 3. The solicitation stated the estimated number of labor hours by labor category for both inplant and outplant work. The totals by labor category are set forth in the table at Finding 17, the column entitled "Old." Protest File, Exhibit 1, Schedules B-1 and B-2, at 5-6. The solicitation contemplated an IDIQ contract with firm, fixed-price and time and materials task orders. Id., Exhibit 1g at 3, B.2. Solicitation Requirements for Sample Tasks and Evaluation Criteria 4. The solicitation required offerors to provide specific management plans, project plans, technical approach and staffing for meeting the requirements of each sample task included in the solicitation's Section J, Attachment F, and examples of corporate experience in projects that were substantially the same as the requirements of each task. Protest File, Exhibit 1c at 237, L.22. Sample tasks were examples of the type of work DLA might ask the offeror to perform if the offeror won the contract award. Transcript at 223. Offerors were required to enter the number of hours for each skill level category they were proposing for each sample task, and the hourly rates on Schedules B-3 through B-7. The rates were to be consistent with the offeror's cost proposal, shown on Schedules B-1 and B-2. The number of hours proposed to perform the sample tasks were to be based on the sample tasks' scope of work as specified in Attachment F. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 4, B.5b. The solicitation provided: The Government workload expectations are provided for information purposes only and are in no way binding on the Government. Contractors are responsible for their own assessment of the tasks and shall base their proposals on the application of the tools and methodologies included in their technical proposals. Id. 5. The technical evaluation criteria of the solicitation contained three "factors," considered of equal importance: (1) "Corporate Capability"; (2) "Task Orders [one] through [five]"; and (3) "Task Experience." The factor "Corporate Capability" included the following subfactors: contract management, managing task orders, managing personnel, staffing plan, contract technical approach, corporate experience, and personnel experience. The factor "Task Orders [one] through [five]" included these subfactors: task one through five management plan, task plan, task support productivity tools, task software metrics, experience with technical approach and tools, task management requirements, task methodologies and tools, task organization, and task management policies and procedures. The factor "Task Experience" included the subfactors scope of experience, and personnel. Protest File, Exhibit 1b at 245, M3.b. 6. The solicitation provided further descriptions, stated in the form of questions, of the subfactors within each factor. In the subfactor "Contract Management" the solicitation asked whether the offeror's "proposed management plan and approach demonstrate[d] a complete understanding of the requirements and address[ed] all phases of the contract." Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 247, M.5.1.1.1. Similarly, each offeror was asked whether the "personnel management policies demonstrate[d] sufficient depth and flexibility to support the requirements of this contract." Id., Exhibit 1c at 248, M.5.1.3.1. 7. For the subfactors within the task factor, each offeror was asked "whether the task technical approach conformed to the overall contract technical approach, while completely satisfying the unique requirements of the task." Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 250, M.5.2.1.1. Each offeror was asked whether in-depth and adequate coverage had been given to the creation of a project plan to perform the task. Id. M.5.2.1.2. Each offeror was asked whether it proposed appropriate automated and non-automated tools for support of the task and whether the offeror's proposed task management plan and approach demonstrated adequate experience with the proposed technical approach, project plan, and software tools. Id. M.5.2.1.3., M.5.2.1.5. Each offeror was asked whether its proposed task management plan and approach demonstrated a complete understanding of the requirements and was consistent with the contract management plan and whether the proposed methodologies and tools were consistent with those proposed in the contract management plan. Id. M.5.2.2.1, M.5.2.2.2. There were ten subfactors to be used for evaluating the technical proposal for task orders. Id. M.5.2. 8. During negotiations, one offeror noted that the description of the sample tasks lacked essential data and/or specifications upon which a technical solution could be based. This vendor asked whether DLA was seeking a methodology for a legitimate generic approach, or a particular solution based upon real functional and technical knowledge of the task environment. DLA responded that "the [offeror] should consider the information in Section M.5." Protest File, Exhibit 1c, Question and Answer 222 at 57-58. 9. Cost proposals were evaluated on two factors: (1) estimated contract cost using the Government's estimated hours and skill position mix, multiplied by the offeror's proposed burdened hourly 3rates3; and (2) proposed costs for the tasks one through five based on the "impact of the offeror's proposed number of hours and skill mix as dictated by proposed staffing and estimating methodology and as illustrated in [its] task proposals on the estimated total contract cost." 10. Contract award would be made to that responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, would be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Protest File, Exhibit 1g at 246, M.3f. While cost was an important evaluation consideration, the Government reserved the right to award to other than the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal if another proposal's technical merit justified the additional cost. Id., M.3c. NCI's Proposal Based on the Labor Hours 11. NCI relied upon the estimated labor hours in defining the responsibilities of its personnel in performing the work. Transcript at 27. NCI structured its proposal so that Protest File, Exhibit 15c at iii-1, 1.0. Id. at iii-2, 1.1. 12. Protest File, Exhibit 15c at iii-2, 1.1, and at iii-12, 1.2.4.1; Transcript at 29-31. Protest File, Exhibit 15c at iii-2, 1.1. 13. Protest File, Exhibit 15c at iii- 44, Table 3-2. ____________________ 3 Fifty percent of the hours were applied to firm, fixed rates, with the remaining fifty percent applied to time and materials rates. Protest File, Exhibit 1g at 246, M.3[c]. Id. 14. Transcript at 28-29. Id. at 37-38. Id. at 130. The Second Amended DPA and Change in the Estimated Number of Labor Hours 15. On April 26, 1994, DLA submitted the rationale for an amended APR to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. DLA estimated the total contract life cycle cost to be $48,223,002. DLA recommended a revised agency procurement request to increase the dollar value of the procurement to that amount from the previous estimate of $24,709,485.80. Protest File, Exhibit 9. DLA gave four reasons for the increase: First, the original APR used 1991 year inflation estimates in wage rates; the amended estimate uses 1993 inflation rates. Second, the mix of labor skills needed to be changed "based on knowledge of realistic working conditions." The "realistic knowledge" meant a decrease in the estimated hours of senior computer programmers and an increase in the estimated hours of junior personnel, as "the work is accomplished by junior personnel which means a lower hourly rate." Third, labor categories were added to meet the requirements of the DLA Systems Automation Center, specifically in the telecommunications area at Columbus, Ohio. Fourth, the largest increase in hours was due to the revised missions and joint functions of the Joint Logistics Service Center (JLSC) and DLA. Id. At the time of the original APR, DLA was to give up maintenance of JLSC's automated information systems; however, the reorganization and downsizing of JLSC required DLA to support JLSC's automated information systems for a longer period of time. Id. On June 9, 1994, DLA forwarded the amended APR for $46,904,110 to GSA. Id. 16. On July 7, 1994, GSA granted a modified DPA "for the acquisition of necessary resources to satisfy this requirement." Protest File, Exhibit 9. 17. The change in the number of labor hours is set forth in the following table. Position Old New Diff Perc eren ent ce Program Manager 5,0 840 20.1 4,16 00 9% 0 Project Manager 15,0 10, (5,0 -33. 00 000 00) 33% Senior Computer 10,7 7,0 (3,7 -34. Systems Analyst 40 00 40) 82% Computer Systems 7,16 6,0 (1,1 -16. Analyst 0 00 60) 20% Junior Computer 7,16 5,0 (2,1 -30. Systems Analyst 0 00 60) 17% Senior Computer 46,5 26, (20, -44. Programmer 40 000 540) 13% Computer 14,3 14, (320 -2.2 Programmer 20 000 ) 3% Junior Computer 14,0 14, 0 0.00 Programmer 00 000 % DBM Specialist 6,00 4,0 (2,0 -33. 0 00 00) 33% System Programmer 7,16 4,3 (2,8 -39. 0 00 60) 94% Senior Logistics 3,00 2,0 (1,0 -33. Support Specialist 0 00 00) 33% Logistics Support 3,00 1,5 (1,5 -50. Specialist 0 00 00) 00% FIP Technical 3,58 1,5 (2,0 -58. Specialist 0 00 80) 10% Data 2,00 1,5 (500 -25. Communications 0 00 ) 00% Specialist FIP Hardware 2,00 1,5 (500 -25. Specialist 0 00 ) 00% Logistics Systems 3,00 2,5 (500 -16. Educator 0 00 ) 67% Communications 700 2,5 1,80 257. Engineer I 00 0 14% Communications 800 2,2 1,40 175. Engineer II 00 0 00% Systems Engineer I 800 2,8 2,00 250. 00 0 00% Systems Engineer 1,10 2,8 1,70 154. II 0 00 0 55% QA Engineer 1,00 2,0 1,00 100. 0 00 0 00% QA Engineer II 1,00 2,0 1,00 100. 0 00 0 00% Technical Writer 2,00 1,5 (500 -25. 0 00 ) 00% Technical Typist 1,46 1,0 (460 -31. 0 00 ) 51% Data Entry Clerk 1,47 1,0 (470 -31. 0 00 ) 97% Total 159, 123 (35, -22. 150 ,60 550) 34% 0 Respondent's Hearing Exhibit 1c. 18. The parties have stipulated as follows: Contrary to regulation,[4] DLA's revised requirements were never incorporated into the RFP. Had these revised requirements been incorporated into the RFP prior to the due date for submission of [BAFOs], one or more offerors might have submitted different price proposals from the price proposals actually submitted; and the award determination might have been different. Joint Stipulation of MATCOM2, NCI, DLA 2 (Hereinafter Board Exhibit 1.) 19. The parties have also stipulated: DLA has determined that it should amend the RFP to reflect its current estimated requirements with regard to labor hours; and DLA has determined that it should permit offerors within the competitive range to amend their price proposals through submission of revised [BAFOs] limited to price proposal revisions only. Board Exhibit 1, 3. The Consequences of Significant Revisions of Estimated Labor Hours on NCI's Technical Proposal 20. NCI's proposal manager testified that a significant decrease in the project manager's hours would shift certain of the project manager's overall supervisory responsibilities . Transcript at 29-31. Id. at 34-36. Id. at 31-33. The proposal manager testified that a significant decrease in the estimated hours for ____________________ 4 See 48 CFR 15.606(a) (1993). ___ Id. at 36-37. Id. at 37-39. This testimony was credible. 21. NCI's manager of the technical proposal testified that if the estimated hours of the quality assurance engineer increased, NCI would Transcript at 130. Id. at 131-32. Id. at 133. Id. at 136-37. This testimony was credible. Alleged Inadequate Discussions NCI's Proposal for Sample Tasks 22. The sample tasks in this procurement were taken from an earlier solicitation issued by the Defense Information Service Center. NCI Hearing Exhibits 6-7. NCI prepared what it considered Transcript at 103-04. Id. at 60-61, 70-71. Evaluation of Proposals 23. Nine vendors submitted proposals. Protest File, Exhibit 26 at 1st unnumbered page. After evaluation of initial proposals, DLA determined that all nine offerors were within the competitive range. Id. In December 1993, DLA conducted discussions with each offeror. Id., Exhibits 13a, 16, 19a. In April 1994, DLA conducted price negotiations with the offerors. Id., Exhibit 26. Offerors submitted BAFOs on May 12, 1994. Id., Exhibits 14, 17, 20. 24. The SSEB evaluated proposals using an adjectival rating system: a "+" meant that the offeror's proposal more than exceeded the requirements of the solicitation; a "-" meant that the proposal was minimally acceptable; a "blank" or an "X" meant that the proposal met the requirements beyond minimal acceptability; a rating of "O" meant the proposal failed to meet minimal requirements. Protest File, Exhibit 26 at 2nd unnumbered page. For performance of the sample tasks, the evaluators used a scoring matrix, with tasks one through five at the top and the subfactors on the side and scored each of the offeror's sample tasks against each subfactor. See id., Exhibit 23. Id., Exhibit 26. For sample task three, Transcript at 269. Id. at 270. 25. The Source Selection Advisory Committee (SSAC) adopted the technical evaluation of the SSEB. Protest File, Exhibit 26. The SSAC determined that the offeror with an acceptable technical capability and the overall low cost proposal based on the combined proposal bid and the task one through five bid would best benefit the Government. Id. SSAC thus recommended an award to DSTI. Id. The source selection official concurred. He concluded that DSTI's BAFO represented the best value to the Government. He believed that although Id., Exhibit 27. Technical Acceptability of MATCOM2's Proposal 26. The solicitation required data base management specialists to have "[e]xperience in performing maintenance of the TIS/SUPRA relational database and experience working with . . . MANTIS in a TIS/SUPRA environment is preferred." The solicitation also required experience in JCL. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 41, C.3.9. The solicitation required system programmers to have experience in UNIX. Id. at 43, C.3.10. 27. For resume content, the solicitation provided: 1. Resume Content. The offeror and the individual must certify in writing that the information on each resume submitted is true and complete, and that the individuals named, or individuals of similar quality, shall be available to be assigned to tasks under this contract. Resumes shall be limited to two (2) pages each. An individual may be proposed for more than one skill position and provide more than one service. The following information should be included: (a) Name (b) Skill position(s) (c) Qualifying education (d) Experience (e.g. specific experience related to the requirements of the position including specific experience on projects of similar size, scope, complexity, functionality, and other relevant experience with the software engineering tools and methodologies which are being proposed for use on this contract). (e) Chronological work experience that substantiates by involvement and duration the skill positions and services that they are being proposed for. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 234, L.21b.1. 28. In its original proposal, Id.; Transcript at 288. Each of the resumes was certified by the employee and the subcontractor. Protest File, Exhibit 18a at 1-34, 1-40. 29. Protest File, Exhibit 19a at 10th unnumbered page. Id. Id. Transcript at 285-87. Technical Acceptability of DSTI's Proposal 30. Protest File, Exhibit 13b, Figure 3-1-1 at Vol. 1-28. Transcript at 273-74. Discussion The Change in the Estimated Hours DLA has admitted a violation of FAR 15.606(a) in failing to amend the solicitation to reflect the change in estimated hours and in failing to give vendors the opportunity to submit new cost BAFOs in response to the change. Findings 18, 19. We grant the related grounds of the protests. DLA is willing to allow offerors in the competitive range to submit new cost BAFOs, but, worried about technical leveling, insists that the offerors' technical BAFOs must remain frozen. MATCOM2 is satisfied with the relief proposed by DLA; NCI, however, maintains that offerors must be allowed to submit new technical BAFOs as well as cost BAFOs. We agree with NCI that the violation dictates that relief must be broader than that proposed by DLA. In this case, given the importance of the change in estimated labor hours to technical proposals (see discussion below), the refusal of DLA to allow new technical proposals in response to the revised requirements is a violation of the CICA. CICA requires the agency, in conducting a procurement for services, to "obtain full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures." 10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1)(A) (1988). "Full and open competition" means that "all responsible sources are permitted to submit . . . competitive proposals on the procurement." 10 U.S.C. 2302(3), 41 U.S.C. 403(6) (1988). Here, the latest expression of the requirements will be by amendment to the solicitation. DLA refuses to allow NCI to submit a new technical competitive proposal to the agency in response to the changed requirements, notwithstanding the offeror's insistence that significant changes in labor hours would compel it to modify its technical approach. Thus, the agency is not obtaining "full and open competition" in the procurement consistent with implementing regulations, as discussed below. FAR 15.606(a) provides in pertinent part: When, either before or after receipt of proposals, the Government changes, relaxes, increases, or otherwise modifies its requirements, the contracting officer shall issue a written amendment to the solicitation. 48 CFR 15.606(a) (1993). FAR 15.606(b) provides in pertinent part: In deciding which firms to notify of a change, the contracting officer shall consider the stage in the acquisition cycle at which the change occurs and the magnitude of the change, as follows: . . . . (3) If the competitive range . . . has been established, only those offerors within the competitive range shall be sent the amendment. This Board has refused to allow the Department of the Army to freeze technical proposals, upon the resumption of a procurement, when it issued an amendment allowing a distributed processing rather than a host processing solution for a computer system. We concluded that the amendment was significant, and that the Department of the Army was required to afford all offerors an opportunity to compete against the changed requirements. U.S. West Information Systems, GSBCA 9103-P, 1987 BPD 195, at 19 (Sept. 25, 1987). The General Accounting Office has construed FAR 15.606(a) and (b) as requiring agencies to advise offerors of the agencies' changed requirements and further requiring agencies to furnish offerors an opportunity to submit revised proposals on the basis of the new requirements. Applied Mathematics, Inc., 67 Comp. Gen. 32, 36 (1987), 87-2 CPD 395, at 5. In allowing amended cost BAFOs, DLA recognizes the significance of the change in estimated labor hours. The change is no less significant to technical proposals. The overall total number of estimated hours declined by about twenty-two percent. Finding 17. The estimated requirements for project manager decreased by 33.33 percent; the estimated requirements for senior computer systems analyst decreased by 34.82 percent, the estimated requirements for senior computer programmer decreased by 44.13 percent, the estimated requirements for senior logistics support specialist and logistics support specialists decreased by 33.33 percent and 50 percent, respectively. Id. That is not all. The estimated requirements for two classes of communication engineers (I) and (II) increased by 257.14 percent and 175 percent, respectively; and the requirements for two classes of quality assurance engineers increased by 100 percent each. Id. DLA argues that there was no "dramatic" increase in the number of labor hours required and no change in the skill mix or labor categories. Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief at 34-35. MATCOM2 argues that its protest should be granted because "it has already been conclusively established that DLA improperly failed to amend the Solicitation to reflect its changed labor hour requirements and to permit offerors to submit cost proposals based thereon." MATCOM2 nevertheless argues that requiring revised technical proposals is unnecessary because "NCI's technical approach to completion of the sample tasks, as well as the remainder of its technical proposal, is wholly unrelated to the estimated labor skill mix hours in Schedules B-1 and B-2 of the RFP." MATCOM2's Post-Hearing Brief at 25. We reject the arguments of DLA and MATCOM2. Contrary to DLA's conclusion, we have found as fact that there could be a significant affect to NCI's technical proposal resulting from the change in the estimated number of labor hours required. Findings 11-14, 20, 21. Findings 11-13. Findings 14, 20, 21. In short, NCI's contract management plan is analogous to the foundation of a house: almost every aspect of performance rests on the foundation of the contract management plan.5 A significant change in estimated labor hours would result in a significant change in NCI's contract management plan. Findings 20, 21. Furthermore, NCI geared its contract management proposal to the estimated hours. The RFP told vendors that the annual hours in the B-Schedules were for "evaluation purposes," not, as the chairperson of the SSEB read the phrase, "cost evaluation purposes". Finding 2 and n.2. The proposal preparation instructions of the solicitation required offerors to describe the methodologies the offeror would use to satisfy user requirements in a timely manner. Finding 2. The evaluation criteria, specifically the descriptions of subfactors for contract management in paragraph M.5., asked whether each offeror's management plan demonstrated complete understanding of the requirements and whether the personnel management policies demonstrated depth and flexibility to support the requirements of the contract. Finding 6. The solicitation created an unmistakable link between the estimated hours in Schedule B, the requirements for contract management in the proposal preparation instruction, and the evaluation of the contract management plan. Accordingly, significant changes in the estimated labor hours would result in important changes in NCI's contract management plan. Findings 20, 21. This case is similar to Management Systems Designers Inc., B-244383.4, et al., 91-2 CPD 518 (Dec. 6, 1991). Management Systems involved an IDIQ contract for FIP services. The agency, in evaluating proposals, determined that its true requirement for task A (system support) was 24,000 hours, not the 14,000 hours estimated. Also, it appeared that the remainder of the tasks, B through G, would not be funded, causing an overall decrease of fifty percent in the total estimated hours. The GAO held that offerors must be given a chance to submit new BAFOs "since offerors might have revised their technical and cost proposals if they had been made aware of the substantial change . . . in requirements." Id. at 5. The case of System Planning Corp., B- 244697.4, 92-1 CPD 516 (June 15, 1992), relied upon by MATCOM2, is distinguishable. There, GAO found that the agency could limit corrective action for an erroneous technical evaluation to that portion of offerors' proposals dealing with financial stability because "[t]here is no indication that the responses to the financial stability evaluation subfactor affected any other aspects of the proposals." Id., at 4. Here, we have found just the opposite, i.e., the revised estimated hours affected NCI's contract management plan, which, in turn, influenced the technical aspects of the proposal, save perhaps for the proposed performance of the individual sample tasks. ____________________ 5 While we agree with MATCOM2 that the hours in the B-Schedules had little to do with the proposals for the sample tasks, it is the other aspects of the proposal that are at issue. Consequently, we find that in refusing to allow revised technical BAFOs from those in the competitive range, DLA has violated the CICA, 10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1)(A) (1988), and FAR 15.606. We GRANT the protests on these grounds.6 Alleged Inadequate Discussions and Erroneous Technical Evaluation NCI argues that DLA held inadequate discussions with it. NCI maintains that DLA should have advised NCI that We disagree with NCI on this point. The FAR requires the contracting officer to "advise the offeror of deficiencies in an [offeror's] proposal so that the offeror is given an opportunity to satisfy the Government's requirements." FAR 15.610(c)(2). During evaluation, the Government did not identify deficiencies in NCI's proposal for sample tasks; it evaluated the proposal Finding 24. In the absence of technical deficiencies, no discussions are required. Planning Research Corp., GSBCA 10472- P, 90-2 BCA 22,798, at 114,485, 1990 BPD 62, at 20-21. Price negotiations are required when the proposal prices are unrealistic in light of the proposal's approach. George Mason University, B-255348, 94-1 CPD 147, at 5-6 (Feb. 24, 1994). NCI has not demonstrated why negotiations in this area were mandated in light of its approach to performance of the sample tasks. This ground of protest is DENIED. NCI alleges that DLA's technical evaluation of its proposal for performing the sample tasks was erroneous. It is NCI's burden to establish that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. Planning Research Corp., 90-2 BCA at 114,486, 1990 BPD 62, at 21. NCI argues that its proposals for the sample tasks were "clearly superior" to those proposed by DSTI. NCI's Post-Hearing Brief at 82. NCI argues that: Id. at 29. Price, however, was not the criterion for judging how well the vendors met the requirements in proposing their performance scenarios for the sample tasks. .7 ____________________ 6 MATCOM2 argues that new technical BAFOs will result in technical leveling. NCI might well change its proposal, MATCOM2 has not explained why the potential for such leveling should here preclude offerors from competing for the true requirement. 7 We speak hypothetically, and do not suggest that NCI would or would not be inefficient. In this procurement, the evaluators scored each sample task scenario against each subfactor. Finding 24. To prove an unreasonable evaluation, it is not enough for NCI, as it does, to assert that NCI's proposal was "better" than the other proposals in some global sense. That is not how the technical evaluators conducted this evaluation. Indeed, regulation forbids the technical evaluators from making such comparisons. See DLAAR 15.608(a)(2) (comparative assessment of technical proposals is reserved for the source selection advisory council or the source selection authority). NCI would have to demonstrate that the technical evaluators' scoring of the sample tasks against the ten subfactors was unreasonable, i.e. usually by showing that the evaluation was not in accordance with the criteria in the solicitation, or that the evaluators treated offerors' proposals differently in applying the criteria.8 NCI's case in this regard fails for want of proof, and this ground of protest is DENIED. Eligibility of MATCOM2's Proposal This ground of protest is DENIED. Eligibility of DSTI's Proposal and Cost Realism Analysis of DSTI's Proposal NCI alleges that DSTI's BAFO failed to meet minimum mandatory requirements because Finding 30. NCI also ____________________ 8 NCI also complains that the evaluators lacked standards, presumably in the solicitation, by which to judge performance of the sample tasks. NCI's Post-Hearing Brief at 80. That complaint goes to the propriety of the solicitation, which is raised for the first time in the post-hearing brief, and is untimely. Improprieties in solicitations must be raised in negotiated procurement before closing time for receipt of proposals, or in the case of improprieties incorporated by amendment of the solicitation, by the next closing time for receipt of proposals. Rule 5(b)(3)(i). If the complaint goes to an alleged lack of standards in the evaluation plan, even if timely, it is unproven. protest is DENIED. Miscellaneous NCI alleges that DLA failed to perform a required cost- technical trade-off. NCI's Post-Hearing Brief at 86. In view of the relief we order, a new round of technical (as well as cost) BAFOs, we need not address this issue now. Also, NCI alleges that during the technical evaluation, DLA wrongfully penalized NCI for allegedly having more than fifty percent subcontract labor performing sample tasks. For that reason, NCI was given a medium risk for performing sample task three. Finding 24. NCI has not shown prejudice from the risk assessment of the sample task three as its technical score was not adversely affected by that assessment. Id. NCI also has an opportunity to submit an amended technical proposal. Decision The protests are GRANTED IN PART for the reasons stated above. We revise the DPA to require DLA to: (1) cancel the contract with DSTI, (2) request technical and cost BAFOs from all offerors in the competitive range based on the new requirements, and (3) evaluate the BAFOs received and make award in accordance with statute and regulation. The suspension of the delegation of procurement authority lapses by its terms. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: ____________________ ____________________ ROBERT W. PARKER JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge