B-172061, DEC 21, 1971

B-172061, DEC 21, 1971

BID PROTEST - BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS - PREAWARD SURVEY - PRICE EVALUATION - DELAYED AWARD DENIAL OF PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER OFFEROR UNDER AN RFQ ISSUED BY THE WARNER ROBINS AIR MATERIEL AREA, ROBINS AFB, GA., FOR "INSPECT AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY" SERVICES FOR 21 TO 100 C-130 AIRCRAFT, WITH A TENTATIVE "FIVE-YEAR POLICY." PROTESTANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE LOW BIDDER, AERO CORPORATION, DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IS WITHOUT MERIT. THE PREAWARD SURVEY TEAM REPORTED FAVORABLY UPON AERO'S CAPABILITY AND SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED EACH OF THE QUESTIONED AREAS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE FAILURE OF THE RFQ TO INCLUDE ESTIMATED MANHOUR QUANTITIES FOR ITEMS 300-399 DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD. SEE ALSO B-164738, NOVEMBER 12, 1968. FURTHER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE PRICE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED INCORRECTLY, AND THE FACT THAT PROTESTANT'S PROPOSAL WAS EVALUATED 88 PERCENT HIGHER THAN AERO'S DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, PROVIDE AN INDICATION OF ERROR. THE CONTENTION THAT THE TARDY AWARD RESULTED IN IMPROPER "ENLARGEMENT OF SOLE SOURCE NEGOTIATIONS" IS ALSO WITHOUT MERIT. THE COMP. GEN. CAN PERCEIVE NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE NEGOTIATION OF A REVISED INPUT SCHEDULE AS WAS DONE HERE, NOR WAS THIS ACTION PREJUDICIAL IN ANY WAY TO THE UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS.

TO LTV ELECTROSYSTEMS, INCORPORATED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 12, 1971, FORWARDING A LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PROTEST FILED ON MARCH 3, 1971, AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER OFFEROR UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. F09603-71-Q-0138 ISSUED BY THE WARNER ROBINS AIR MATERIEL AREA (WRAMA), ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA.

THE SUBJECT SOLICITATION WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 5, 1970, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES TO "INSPECT AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY (IRAN)" AND RELATED MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION FOR 21 TO 100 AIRCRAFT. ADDITIONALLY, THE RFQ INCLUDED A "FIVE-YEAR POLICY" WHICH INFORMED OFFERORS THAT THE GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO CONTINUE THE IRAN ON THE C-130 AIRCRAFT WITH THE SAME CONTRACTOR PROVIDED THAT (1) THE CONTRACTOR HAD RENDERED SATISFACTORY SERVICE DURING THE PRECEDING PERIOD, (2) A VALID REQUIREMENT EXISTED FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE SERVICES, (3) THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR HAD THE CAPABILITY TO PERFORM SUCH FOLLOW-ON CONTRACTS, AND (4) BOTH PARTIES WOULD AGREE WITH REGARD TO PRICE FOR EACH FOLLOW-ON YEAR. THE RFQ CAUTIONED OFFERORS THAT THIS "FIVE-YEAR POLICY" WAS MERELY A TENTATIVE PLAN AND THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT THEREBY OBLIGATE ITSELF TO IMPLEMENT THE "FIVE-YEAR POLICY" OR ANY PART OF IT AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION OR THEREAFTER UNLESS THE RFQ OR A SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT WAS APPROPRIATELY AMENDED.

THE ORIGINAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF OFFERS WAS NOVEMBER 4, 1970. MODIFICATION NO. 0001 TO THE RFQ EXTENDED THAT DATE UNTIL NOVEMBER 9, 1970. PROPOSALS RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE WERE EVALUATED BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY. ON DECEMBER 2, 1970, THE RFQ WAS MODIFIED TO REQUEST FIRM PRICES FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND ANNUAL OPTIONS - I.E., THE OFFEROR WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT FIRM PRICES FOR EACH OF TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE OPTION RIGHTS FOR BETWEEN 75 AND 112 AIRCRAFT FOR EACH OF THE OPTION YEARS; FOR THE TWO YEARS FOLLOWING THE SECOND OPTION THE PARTIES WOULD REVERT TO THE "FIVE-YEAR POLICY" AS SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL RFQ.

OF THE FIVE OFFERS SUBMITTED, THE ONE FROM LEAR SIEGLER, INCORPORATED (LSI), WAS EVALUATED LOWEST, FOLLOWED IN ORDER BY THOSE FROM AERO CORPORATION, AND LING-TEMCO - VOUGHT ELECTROSYSTEMS, INCORPORATED (LTVE).

PRE-AWARD SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED ON THE THREE LOW OFFERORS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE LOW OFFEROR WAS DETERMINED TO BE NONRESPONSIBLE. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THEREFORE AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO AERO CORPORATION.

YOU FIRST CONTEND THAT AERO DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN CLAUSE C-29 OF THE RFQ WHEN THE OTHER WORK BEING PERFORMED AT AERO'S FACILITIES IS CONSIDERED, AND THAT, IN AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO AERO, WRAMA WAIVED THESE REQUIREMENTS. YOU SUPPORT THIS ALLEGATION BY QUESTIONING AERO'S CAPABILITY WITH RESPECT TO ITS WASH RACK, COVERED HANGAR FOR PAINTING, ADEQUATE HANGAR AND RAMP SPACE, MINIMUM EQUIPMENT, STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY, SAFETY STANDARDS, AND STORAGE SPACE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US TO INDICATE THAT AERO IS DEFICIENT IN ANY OF THESE AREAS. THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY TEAM REPORTED FAVORABLY UPON AERO'S CAPABILITY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT AND IT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED EACH OF THE AREAS YOU QUESTION.

IN ADDITION, WE ARE ADVISED THAT YOUR PROTEST RESULTED IN A REEVALUATION OF THE FACTORS LEADING TO THE AWARD TO AERO. IN THIS RESPECT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT STATES:

"NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AERO CORPORATION HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED A RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR BY THE UNDERSIGNED PCO AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT, THE LTVE PROTEST DEMANDED AND RECEIVED A COMPLETE RE EVALUATION OF ALL FACTORS GERMAINE TO THE PROTESTANT'S ISSUES, INCLUDING REASSESSMENT OF THE AFFIRMATIVE FACTORS SUPPORTING THE PAS BY THE PAS MONITOR AND BOARD CHAIRMAN. AS A RESULT, THE UNDERSIGNED PCO DETERMINED THAT THE AWARD TO AERO CORPORATION WAS PROPER AND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CURRENT PROCUREMENT POLICIES ESTABLISHED BY THE AIR FORCE AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

"DOUBLE STANDARDS WERE NOT APPLIED TO THE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFQ AS IMPLIED BY PROTESTANT. THE AERO PAS REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF CLEARLY SUPPORTS THIS FACT. IN ADDITION, TO PRECLUDE SUCH CHARGES AS ARE NOW BEING MADE BY LTVE, A MANAGEMENT SURVEY TEAM VISITED EACH OF THE THREE FIRMS (LTVE, LSI AND AERO CORPORATION) PRIOR TO THE DEPARTURE OF THE PAS INVESTIGATIVE TEAMS FROM EACH RESPECTIVE FACILITY. IT MUST BE STRESSED THAT THIS TEAM WAS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE PAS INVESTIGATIVE TEAM. THEIR SOLE OBJECTIVE WAS TO INSURE COMMONALITY BETWEEN THE THREE INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE EXECUTION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, AND PROPRIETY TO ALL FIRMS. IN THE OPINION OF THE MANAGEMENT SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS, THIS OBJECTIVE WAS ACHIEVED.

"IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID DETERMINATIONS, INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF EACH OF THE SPECIFIC MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS ALLEGED BY LTVE TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY EVALUATED ARE SET FORTH BELOW. IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSIONS APPLICABLE TO EACH OF THE ISSUES SET FORTH, CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO CURRENT WORK IN PROGRESS AS WELL AS ALL FUTURE COMMITMENTS MADE BY AERO CORPORATION FOR THE USE OF THE AERO FACILITIES AT LAKE CITY, FLORIDA.

(1) WASH AND STRIP RACK: EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY AERO CORPORATION SUPPORTS THE AVAILABILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 102,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THIS OPERATION. THIS AMOUNT IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY RFQ REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER WORK IN PROGRESS. WITH REFERENCE TO DISPOSAL OF WASTE AND OTHER CHEMICALS UTILIZED IN THE CLEANING AND STRIPPING OPERATION, AERO CORPORATION SUBMITTED PLANS FOR USE OF A WASTE FACILITY WITH RESERVOIR AND POLLUTION CONTROL ARRESTOR. THESE PLANS WERE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND ARE ADEQUATE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFQ BASED ON SUPPORTABLE COMMITMENTS MADE BY AERO.

(2) COVERED HANGAR FOR PAINTING: AERO CORPORATION POSSESSES ONE OF THE MOST UP-TO-DATE HUMIDITY AND TEMPERATURE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL PAINT FACILITIES WITHIN THE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE INDUSTRY. THE 320' BY 200' HANGAR MEETS ALL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE NATIONAL FIRE CODE MANUAL. THE AERO CORPORATION PAINTING CAPABILITY SATISFIES OR EXCEEDS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFQ.

(3) HANGAR SPACE FOR NINE AIRCRAFT PLUS THREE AIRCRAFT IN SICK BAY: AERO CORPORATION'S PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES SCALE TYPE DRAWINGS DEPICTING ALL AIRCRAFT AND OTHER WORK ANTICIPATED TO BE IN THE FACILITY, SATISFIES OR EXCEEDS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFQ. HANGAR SPACE WILL PERMIT THREE MORE AIRCRAFT TO BE UNDER COVER THAN REQUIRED BY THE RFQ.

(4) RAMP SPACE: AERO CORPORATION'S DETAILED RAMP PLAN SATISFIES OR EXCEEDS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFQ. RAMP SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1,500,000 SQUARE FEET AND ADEQUATE TO PARK APPROXIMATELY 100 AIRCRAFT WILL BE AVAILABLE.

(5) MINIMUM EQUIPMENT: ATTACHMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE APPENDIX 'A' OF THE RFQ WAS USED TO VERIFY AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT. AERO CORPORATION PROVIDED A LIST OF ALL TOOLING AND TEST EQUIPMENT CITING SPECIFIC AVAILABILITY STATUS. ALL REQUESTED EQUIPMENT WAS FOUND TO BE EITHER AVAILABLE AT AERO (NONE GOVERNMENT OWNED; ALL AERO OWNED OR CONTROLLED), OR OBTAINABLE THROUGH COMMITMENTS ON FILE WHICH INSURED TIMELY RECEIPT FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES.

(6) MAJOR STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY: AERO CORPORATION DEMONSTRATED WITH ADEQUATE PLANS THE CAPABILITY TO COMPLY WITH RFQ REQUIREMENTS AND WORK IN PROGRESS. THIS INCLUDED THE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF MAJOR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS SUCH AS MILLED PANELS, RAINBOW FITTINGS, SLOPING LONGERONS, AND COMPLETE OUTER WINGS.

(7) SAFETY STANDARDS: AERO CORPORATION DEMONSTRATED FULL COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE RFQ. AERO OWNS THREE FIRE TRUCKS WITH TOTAL UNEXPENDED LIQUID AGGREGATE OF 4350 GALLONS. THESE TRUCKS ARE MANNED BY AERO CORPORATION PERSONNEL WHO HAVE BEEN FULLY TRAINED AND WHO ARE REQUIRED TO BE CURRENT IN FIRE FIGHTING TECHNIQUES. EVIDENCE OF A DEMONSTRATION OF FIRE FIGHTING CAPABILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFLCR 55-5 WAS PROVIDED. ALL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFQ, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX 'C' AND AFLCR 55-5 WERE ADEQUATE.

(8) STORAGE SPACE: AERO CORPORATION PRESENTED PLANS SHOWING THE AVAILABILITY OF 95,302 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE OF WHICH 63,861 SQUARE FEET IS UNDER COVER. THIS FAR EXCEEDS THE RFQ MINIMUM OF 22,000 SQUARE FEET."

WE FIND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT AERO WAS A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER IS CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.

YOU NEXT CONTEND THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S EVALUATION OF YOUR PRICE PROPOSAL FOR CERTAIN "OVER AND ABOVE" REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING DIRECT LABOR COSTS WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT INFORMED OF THE GOVERNMENT'S "ESTIMATED HOURS PER AIRCRAFT" USED IN THE EVALUATION. THE RFQ CONTAINED A LIST OF SPECIFIC "OVER AND ABOVE" ITEMS WHICH WERE TO BE PROVIDED AS NEEDED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY AIRCRAFT ON WHICH THE CONTRACTOR WAS PERFORMING WORK. ITEMS 10 THROUGH 299 CALLED FOR A UNIT PRICE QUOTATION; ITEMS 300 THROUGH 399 CALLED FOR AN HOURLY RATE QUOTATION. THE RFQ INCLUDED AN "OCCURRENCE FACTOR" FOR ITEMS 10-299, AND ON PAGE 17 OF THE RFQ IT WAS STATED THAT EVALUATION FOR THOSE ITEMS WOULD BE BASED ON THE "ESTIMATED OCCURRENCE FACTOR PER AIRCRAFT MULTIPLIED BY THE SPECIFIC UNIT PRICE QUOTED FOR THE SPECIFIC ITEM MULTIPLIED BY THE QUANTITY OF AIRCRAFT KNOWN TO BE REQUIRED AT TIME OF EVALUATION." THE RFQ ALSO PROVIDED THAT ITEMS 300-399 WOULD BE EVALUATED ON THE BASES OF THE "HOURLY RATE QUOTED *** MULTIPLIED BY THE ESTIMATED MANHOURS PER AIRCRAFT TIMES THE NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT KNOWN TO BE REQUIRED AT TIME OF EVALUATION." HOWEVER, THE OFFERORS WERE NOT PROVIDED WITH THE ESTIMATED MANHOURS PER AIRCRAFT, AND IT IS YOUR CLAIM THAT THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THIS IN THE RFQ WAS CONTRARY TO FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS AND WAS PREJUDICIAL TO YOU.

THE AIR FORCE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT STATES THAT:

"'OCCURRENCE' FACTORS ARE NORMALLY FURNISHED FOR 'FIXED PRICE' OVER AND ABOVE ITEMS *** . THE CONDITION OF AN INDIVIDUAL AIRCRAFT DETERMINES THE NEED FOR THE SPECIFIC ITEM OF WORK; THEREFORE, THE RESULTANT OCCURRENCE FACTOR FOR THE WORK CANNOT BE PREDETERMINED WITHIN A REASONABLE DEGREE OF ACCURACY SO AS TO PERMIT SUCH WORK TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BASIC MAINTENANCE ITEM *** . THE GOVERNMENT, THROUGH ALL MEANS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING HISTORICAL DATA ACCUMULATED ON PREVIOUS PROGRAMS, PREDETERMINES THE OCCURRENCE FACTORS AND FURNISHES SUCH DATA TO ALL OFFERORS; HOWEVER, THE DEPTH AND SCOPE OF WORK APPLICABLE TO EACH ITEM CAN BE PREDICTED WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF ACCURACY AND CAN THEREFORE BE PRICED ON A FIRM FIXED PRICE BASIS. ***

"'OCCURRENCE' FACTORS ARE NOT APPLIED TO 'HOURLY RATE' OVER AND ABOVE ITEMS *** . ITEMS IN THIS CATEGORY CANNOT BE PRICED ON A FIXED PRICE BASIS INITIALLY SINCE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR EACH ITEM CANNOT BE PREDETERMINED WITH ANY REASONABLE DEGREE OF ACCURACY. THE GOVERNMENT, THROUGH ALL MEANS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING HISTORICAL DATA ACCUMULATED ON PREVIOUS CONTRACTS, PREDETERMINES THE NUMBER OF MANHOURS LIKELY TO BE REQUIRED. THE MANHOURS ARE DETERMINED PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF PROPOSALS AND ARE RETAINED BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TO USE IN THE RESULTANT EVALUATION PROCESS. *** THE FURNISHING OF THE MANHOURS TO BE USED IN THE EVALUATION IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO AN OFFEROR FOR PREPARATION OF AN HOURLY RATE. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE OFFEROR'S EXPERIENCE WOULD RESULT IN A DETERMINATION OF A REASONABLE HOURLY RATE FOR A SPECIFIED QUANTITY OF AIRCRAFT *** ."

THE RFQ INFORMED THE OFFERORS THAT THEIR QUOTED HOURLY RATES WOULD BE MULTIPLIED BY A GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS NOT REVEALED TO THE OFFERORS IN ADVANCE. AS THE RECORD SHOWS, AERO'S TOTAL PRICE FOR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 299 WAS SUFFICIENTLY LOWER THAN YOURS SO THAT THE AWARD SELECTION WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE MAN HOUR ESTIMATES APPLIED ON ITEMS 300 THROUGH 399. ALSO, THE EXPERIENCE OF EACH OF THE OFFERORS WITH THIS TYPE OF PROCUREMENT SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED SOME REASONABLE IDEA OF HOW MANY LABOR HOURS MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE FAILURE OF THE RFQ TO INCLUDE ESTIMATED MAN HOUR QUANTITIES PROVIDES ANY BASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD. SEE ALSO B 164738, NOVEMBER 12, 1968.

YOU FURTHER CONTEND THAT THE EVALUATION OF PRICE PROPOSALS FOR ITEMS 10- 299 (SCHEDULE II) MUST HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUS BECAUSE OF THE PRICE DISPARITY BETWEEN YOUR PROPOSAL AND AERO'S. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US TO SUGGEST THAT THE PRICE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED INCORRECTLY, AND THE FACT THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WAS EVALUATED 88 PERCENT HIGHER THAN AERO'S DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, PROVIDE AN INDICATION OF ERROR.

WE FIND YOUR LAST CONTENTION THAT A TARDY AWARD RESULTED IN IMPROPER "ENLARGEMENT OF SOLE SOURCE NEGOTIATIONS" TO BE WITHOUT MERIT ALSO. YOU STATE THAT THE RFQ CONTAINED A FIRM INPUT SCHEDULE AND THAT NO INPUT COULD BE MADE AFTER AUGUST 31, 1971, AND YOU CLAIM THAT DELAY IN AWARDING A CONTRACT FROM DECEMBER 1970 TO MARCH 1971, RESULTED IN THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE A NEW SCHEDULE. YOU SUGGEST THAT ALL OFFERORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BID ON THE BASIS OF A NEW SCHEDULE BECAUSE OF COST ADVANTAGES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INHERENT IN A REVISED MONTHLY INPUT SCHEDULE. SECTION H OF THE RFQ INCLUDED A STATEMENT THAT "PRIOR TO AWARD OF RESULTANT CONTRACT THE APPARENT SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR WILL BE INVITED TO NEGOTIATE *** TO ESTABLISH FIRM INPUT DATES) FOR EACH AIRCRAFT CONTEMPLATED TO BE AWARDED AND THE RESULTANT CONTRACT SHALL REFLECT THESE SPECIFIC NEGOTIATED DATES:" THERE FOLLOWED AN INPUT SCHEDULE STARTING WITH JANUARY 1971. HOWEVER, THE RFQ ALSO STATED THAT THE INPUT SCHEDULE WAS BASED ON AWARD OF CONTRACT BY DECEMBER 18, 1970. AS THE AWARD WAS NOT MADE BY THAT DATE, OBVIOUSLY A REVISED INPUT SCHEDULE BECAME NECESSARY. WE ARE ADVISED BY THE AIR FORCE THAT THE REVISED SCHEDULE CALLED FOR ALL INPUTS TO BE MADE PRIOR TO AUGUST 31, 1971, THAT THE SCHEDULE WAS REALISTIC, AND THAT NO INCREASE IN COST WAS INVOLVED. WE CAN PERCEIVE NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE NEGOTIATION OF A REVISED INPUT SCHEDULE AS WAS DONE HERE, NOR DO WE SEE HOW THIS ACTION WAS PREJUDICIAL IN ANY WAY TO THE UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.