B-179065, APR 22, 1974

B-179065: Apr 22, 1974

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

EVALUATION OF OFFERORS' MANNING LEVELS AGAINST MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENT ESTIMATES IN RFP IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE SINCE SOLICITATION STATEMENT THAT MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS ESTIMATES INDICATED MERELY THAT IT WAS NOT REQUISITE FOR AWARD THAT EXACT GOVERNMENT-ESTIMATED MANNING LEVEL BE OFFERED. 2. WERE NOT IMPEDIMENTS TO AWARD SINCE CHANGE IN EVALUATION EMPHASIS. WHILE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO OFFERORS. WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON PREPARATION OF ANY OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL AND SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH AGREEMENTS DURING NEGOTIATION. 3. THE PROTEST CONCERNS THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED BY THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY.

B-179065, APR 22, 1974

1. EVALUATION OF OFFERORS' MANNING LEVELS AGAINST MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENT ESTIMATES IN RFP IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE SINCE SOLICITATION STATEMENT THAT MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS ESTIMATES INDICATED MERELY THAT IT WAS NOT REQUISITE FOR AWARD THAT EXACT GOVERNMENT-ESTIMATED MANNING LEVEL BE OFFERED. 2. FAILURE OF SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR TO SUBMIT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS FOR EVERY KEY PERSONNEL PROPOSED AND FACT THAT SOURCE SELECTION BOARD DID NOT EVALUATE OMISSIONS, ALTHOUGH FACTOR IN RFP AND IN CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION FURNISHED SOURCE SELECTION BOARD, WERE NOT IMPEDIMENTS TO AWARD SINCE CHANGE IN EVALUATION EMPHASIS, WHILE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO OFFERORS, WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON PREPARATION OF ANY OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL AND SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH AGREEMENTS DURING NEGOTIATION. 3. WHERE RFP FAILED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AS TO RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS, GAO RECOMMENDS THAT SUCH INFORMATION BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE NEGOTIATED SOLICITATIONS.

TO SERV-AIR, INC.:

SERV-AIR, INC., PROTESTED AGAINST THE AWARD TO ANOTHER OFFEROR OF A CONTRACT FOR SUPPORT SERVICES UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. DABE31-73 R- 0020, ISSUED AT FORT SILL, OKLAHOMA. THE PROTEST CONCERNS THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED BY THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY.

FIRST, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE AWARD WAS MADE ARBITRARILY BECAUSE PROPOSAL EVALUATION WAS CONDUCTED USING THE GOVERNMENT MANNING ESTIMATE AS AN ABSOLUTE AGAINST WHICH EACH PROPOSAL WAS MEASURED. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF SECTION D OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, WHICH STATED THAT THE MAN-HOUR AND MAN-YEAR DATA WERE ONLY "FOR (THE) PURPOSE OF PLANNING A WORKFORCE" AND THAT SINCE "NO TWO INDIVIDUALS OR TWO CONTRACTORS WILL DO A TASK IN THE SAME MANNER OR IN THE SAME TIME *** THESE ARE ONLY ESTIMATED DIRECT PRODUCTIVE MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS ***". THIS LANGUAGE, IT IS MAINTAINED, RULED OUT AN EVALUATION BASED UPON A RIGID AND AUTOMATIC ADHERENCE TO THIS DATA AS THE CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE LEVEL OF EFFORT PROPOSED BY THE VARIOUS OFFERORS. INDEED, THIS LANGUAGE ALLEGEDLY INDUCED SERV-AIR TO LOOK AT ITS OWN HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE AS THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR TO SEE IF IT COULD PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SERVICES MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN INDICATED BY THE DATA. SERV-AIR DECIDED IT COULD MAKE EFFICIENCIES, AND THESE WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE MANNING LEVEL IT PROPOSED. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS CONTENDED, USE OF THE GOVERNMENT MANNING ESTIMATE AS AN ABSOLUTE EVALUATION CRITERION CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF EVALUATION OUTLINED IN THE SOLICITATION, A CHANGE WHICH COULD BE PROPERLY MADE ONLY AFTER AMENDING THE SOLICITATION TO SO STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 3-805.1(E) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION.

ISSUE IS ALSO TAKEN IN THIS RESPECT WITH THE VALIDITY OF PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES AND THE ALLEGED DISREGARD SHOWN BY THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY REGARDING SERV-AIR'S ABILITY TO EFFECT MANPOWER EFFICIENCIES. FOR INSTANCE, THE SERV-AIR EXPERIENCE FACTOR TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DIRECT SUPPORT DURING FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1973 WAS 1.20 FOR THE AH-1 AND THE UH-1 AIRCRAFT. DESPITE SERV-AIR'S EXPERIENCE THAT FIVE PERCENT OF DIRECT LABOR IS UTILIZED FOR BACK-UP SUPPORT (BOTH THESE TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WERE MOVED FROM DIRECT SUPPORT TO BACK-UP SUPPORT FOR FY 1974), SERV-AIR UTILIZED 37 PERCENT OR .442 MANHOURS AS THE FACTOR TO PROVIDE THIS SUPPORT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE VALIDITY OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE, WHICH PROVIDES MORE MANHOURS FOR THE BACK-UP SUPPORT THAN WERE UTILIZED FOR THE DIRECT SUPPORT (AH-1: FY 73 .753 MANHOURS, FY 74 1.2 MANHOURS; UH-1: FY 73 1.286 MANHOURS, FY 74 1.2 MANHOURS), IS QUESTIONED. FURTHER, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF 3.5 MANHOURS FOR THE C-47 AIRCRAFT IS EXORBITANT. IT IS ALSO BELIEVED THAT THE INCREASE OF OVER 90 PERCENT FROM .990 MANHOURS (FY 73) TO 1.15 MANHOURS (FY 74) FOR THE OH-58 AIRCRAFT IS EXCESSIVE. EXCEPTION IS TAKEN FURTHER AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATES FOR THE AH -1 AND UH-1 AIRCRAFT IN THAT THE FACT THAT THESE AIRCRAFT MOST LIKELY WILL NOT RECEIVE DS SHOP SETS IN FY 74, A FACT BELIEVED TO BE CRUCIAL IN RECKONING THE ESTIMATES, WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OR AMENDMENTS THERETO.

FINALLY, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR FAILED TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING KEY PERSONNEL IN THAT THE PERSONNEL SUBMITTED BY THAT OFFEROR FOR EVALUATION BY THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE OFFEROR AT THAT TIME AND, FOR THAT MATTER, THE OFFEROR HAD NO INTENTION TO EMPLOY SUCH PERSONNEL. FURTHER, IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR FAILED TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED KEY PERSONNEL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS.

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE WAS USED AS AN ABSOLUTE STANDARD IN PROPOSAL EVALUATION, WE NOTE FIRST SEVERAL PORTIONS OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS HELD BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND SERV-AIR:

"MR. WALTON: *** BUT I AM QUITE CONVINCED THAT THE ARMY ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 40 PER CENT OR MORE LESS THAN THIS ARMY ESTIMATE OF A YEAR AGO.

CW4 LAMAR: WE WILL EVALUATE YOUR APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THIS AREA, THE WAY THAT YOU CAME UP WITH YOUR STAFFING, YOUR PHILOSOPHY THAT YOU UTILIZED, THE PRINTED WORDS THAT YOU HAVE PUT DOWN. YOU MUST REALIZE THE POSITION WE ARE IN. IT IS A COMPETITIVE YEAR. PEOPLE ARE MONEY. THE PROPOSAL THAT IS MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ONE WHO WILL COME OUT AS THE WINNER. OF COURSE, COST AND MANNING ARE PORTIONS OF THAT.

MR. WALTON: *** WE WILL TAKE COGNIZANCE OF YOUR REMARKS RELATING TO THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, ARE WE STAFFING TOO THIN? OUR FINAL PROPOSAL MUST BE BASED ON OUR OWN ESTIMATES, I WILL SAY THAT, AND I BELIEVE THEY WILL HAVE TO STAY THE SAME.

CW4 LAMAR: IF YOU STAY THE SAME, THAT IS THE WAY WE WILL EVALUATE YOU, ON WHATEVER YOUR FINAL PROPOSAL INDICATES. WE WILL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO WHAT YOU SAY HERE VERSUS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE IS. IF YOU HAVE 54 PROPOSED, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS A HYPOTHETICAL 120, AND SOMEONE ELSE COMES IN WITH 110, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY HE IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. MANNING AND COST HAVE TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART.

CW4 LAMAR: *** I AM SURE YOU REALIZE WHAT I AM PRESENTING TO YOU IN THE WAY OF GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE. I AM SURE YOU CAN SEE THE RESPONSIBILITIES WE HAVE IN EVALUATING, TRYING TO GET THE CONTRACTOR WHO PROPOSES THE BEST OVER-ALL PROPOSAL TO US. WE HAVE MADE PUBLIC IN THE RFP, OF COURSE, THE EVALUATION VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE AND THIS IS STRICTLY THE WAY IT WILL BE EVALUATED ***.

MR. WALTON: *** THE ARMY ESTIMATE MAY BE GREATER THAN WHAT WE HAVE BUT I THINK YOU YOURSELF AND EVERYONE ELSE WILL AND MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST FOOD FOR THOUGHT THE FACT THAT WE ARE SUCCESSFULLY DOING IT WITH THIS WORK FORCE. UNDER CPIF PROGRAM, IF ANYTHING IT WOULD BE TO MY ADVANTAGE NEXT YEAR TO INCREASE THE MANPOWER ***.

CW4 LAMAR: WE ARE LOOKING FOR ONE THAT WILL STAY THE SAME IF OUR REQUIREMENTS STAY THE SAME. WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS IN THIS AREA ***.

CW4 LAMAR: BASICALLY THE WORK REQUIRED OF YOU THEN IS THE SAME.

MR. WALTON: YES. READING SECTION F, THE REQUIREMENTS OF WORK, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF WORDAGE DIFFERENCE. BUT I BELIEVE THE WORK IS IDENTICAL.

CW4 LAMAR: OF COURSE THE STAFFING THAT YOU PROPOSE IS REALLY THE THING THAT TURNS ON THE BULB FOR THE BOARD *** WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS THAT THE LOWEST PRICE IS THE ONE THAT HAS ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO THE JOB ***.

CW4 LAMAR: REALIZING THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THEY FEEL WILL TAKE IN THE WAY OF ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THE WAY OF STAFFING, IT IS BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED WITH YOUR STAFFING. WE WANT TO GET INTO SOME DISCUSSION OF YOUR STAFFING NOW. THE DETAILS DISCUSSED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY MEAN WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT YOU ARE UNDERSTAFFING. WE HAVE NOT ELECTED TO PUT THE GOVERNMENT'S STAFFING IN THERE, WE HAVE ELECTED TO ALLOW YOU TO PROPOSE BASED ON THE FACTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS WILL OCCUR. YOU HAVE PROPOSED 54 PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE SO INDICATED IN YOUR PROPOSAL HERE THAT YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTORS THE GOVERNMENT IS TALKING ABOUT IN THE WAY OF MAN HOURS VERSUS FLIGHT HOURS, AND HAVE TAKEN SOME EXCEPTION AND INDICATE THAT YOU CAN DO IT IN LESS THAN THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE WOULD BE REFERENCE FLIGHT HOURS VERSUS MAINTENANCE HOURS.

MR. WALTON: *** AS OF THE LAST DAY OF LAST MONTH, THE REPORT WE SUBMITTED HAD 56 MEN ON BOARD. AS OF THE 2ND DAY OF THIS MONTH, WE WENT TO 57. THIS SITUATION WE ARE PRESENTLY IN, REDUCED MANNING IS INCREASED CORPORATE PROFIT. WITH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR NEXT YEAR, I HAVE REDUCED THE WORK FORCE BY THREE PEOPLE TO 54. THE PRODUCTION EFFORT, THE DIRECT LABOR WORK FORCE, IS IDENTICAL. THE REDUCTION I AM SHOWING FOR NEXT YEAR AS COMPARED TO OUR PRESENT STAFFING IS A THREE PERSONNEL REDUCTION IN INDIRECT LABOR

CW4 LAMAR: YOU ARE PROPOSING 54 PEOPLE TO DO THIS JOB WITH. WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU CAN'T DO THE JOB AND YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DIRECT LABOR?

CW4 LAMAR: WHAT HAPPENS IF WE MEET THE FLYING HOUR PROGRAM, THE FLEET DOESN'T CHANGE, AND YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP UP WITH 54 PEOPLE?

MR. WALTON: THEN I HAVE A PROBLEM.

CW4 LAMAR: IS THIS A FINANCIAL PROBLEM TO THE GOVERNMENT THEN? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO INCREASE THAT WORK FORCE? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THAT MISSION? THE FLEET STAYS THE SAME, THE REQUIREMENT STAYS THE SAME, WE HIT THE FLYING HOURS RIGHT ON THE BUTTON AND YOUR FORCE CANNOT CUT THE MUSTARD

MR. WALTON: SECTION F OF THE PROPOSAL ESTABLISHES THAT THE ARMY ESTIMATE IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE. I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT MINE IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE TOO, BUT IT IS BASED ON ACTUAL FACTS OF WHAT WE ARE NOW DOING THE JOB ***.

CW4 LAMAR: I SURMISE FROM WHAT YOU SAID THEN THAT IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE INCREASED MANNING, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO REQUIRE A CONTRACT MOD AND IT'S GOING TO COST THE GOVERNMENT THAT MUCH MORE."

ALSO IN THE NEGOTIATION IS THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:

"CW4 LAMAR: WHAT DID YOU START OFF WITH THIS YEAR?

MR. WALTON: I STARTED OFF WITH 62, AND NOW DOWN TO 57. WE ARE DOWN TO 57 BECAUSE WE ARE EXPERIENCING AN APPROXIMATE 15 PER CENT UNDERFLY.

CW4 LAMAR: I SO NOTED YOUR COMMENTS. YOU WERE PRETTY EMPHATIC LAST YEAR THAT 65 WAS WHAT YOU NEEDED.

MR. WALTON: I THINK YOU WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL LAST YEAR, TOO. I THINK YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL IN BEATING US DOWN. IF THE FLYING HAD CONTINUED AT THE PROGRAMMED RATE, THE C. R. HAD COME IN WHERE THE PROGRAMMED INPUT OF MONEY WAS, I WOULD BE STRUGGLING AT 65 PEOPLE ***."

FROM THE FOREGOING, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT SERV-AIR WAS ON NOTICE THAT FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES THE PROPOSED MANNING WOULD BE MEASURED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE AND THAT THE OFFEROR THAT CAME CLOSEST TO THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE WOULD SCORE HIGHEST ON THAT PHASE OF THE EVALUATION. IN RECOGNIZING THAT SOME OFFERORS MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES WITH LESS PERSONNEL, THE GOVERNMENT MERELY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT WAS NOT A REQUISITE FOR AWARD THAT THE EXACT GOVERNMENT ESTIMATED MANNING LEVEL BE OFFERED. IN THAT REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR PROPOSED A LESSER AMOUNT OF MANNING THAN THE ESTIMATE. HOWEVER, DURING THE NEGOTIATION DISCUSSION WITH SERV-AIR, IT WAS INDICATED THAT AN OFFEROR PROVIDING A MANNING LEVEL MORE CLOSELY APPROACHING THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE THAN SERV-AIR WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK WITHOUT A LATER NEED FOR AN INCREASE IN MANPOWER AND IN CONTRACT COST. MOREOVER, WE OBSERVE FROM THE FOREGOING NEGOTIATION DISCUSSION THAT SERV-AIR WAS PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE ITS ESTIMATE AFTER IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IT WOULD BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT SERV-AIR WAS UNAWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE BEFORE THE FINAL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS.

REGARDING SERV-AIR'S DISAGREEMENT WITH VARIOUS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATED MANHOUR REQUIREMENTS, WE FIND NOTHING IN THE PROTEST WHICH PROVIDES A BASIS FOR OUR OFFICE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ESTIMATES ARE NOT CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE NEEDS. STRENGTH IS ADDED TO OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE ESTIMATES BY THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCES WITH SERV-AIR'S ESTIMATES SET FORTH IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FURNISHED OUR OFFICE. THAT PORTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT WAS FURNISHED SERV-AIR AND IS THE CAUSE FOR THE PROTEST THAT IT WAS NOT KNOWN THAT DS SHOP SETS MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE AND THAT SUCH INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE OFFERORS. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE INCREASED MANHOURS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT TO SERV-AIR THAT SOMETHING HAD CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY AS REGARDED THE AIRCRAFT AFFECTED BY THE SHOP SETS INASMUCH AS SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE ESTIMATES FOR THESE AIRCRAFT (THE CHANGES WERE FROM .46 TO 1.20) WERE MADE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOLICITATION. BASED UPON THIS AND THE RECORD BEFORE US, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES WERE VALID, AND THAT SERV-AIR'S WORK FORCE WAS ESTIMATED UPON SERV-AIR MISCALCULATIONS OF THE ACTIVITY'S FUTURE NEEDS.

AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING KEY PERSONNEL, THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR SUBMITTED WITH ITS PROPOSAL RESUMES FOR FOUR KEY PERSONNEL AND ONE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STATED THAT PROPOSALS WOULD BE EVALUATED ON FACTORS THAT INCLUDED KEY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND MEMORANDUM OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS. THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION PROVIDED THE SOURCE SELECTION BOARD DIRECTED THAT THE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS CONSIDER THE FOREGOING FACTORS AND THAT PENALTY POINTS BE DEDUCTED FOR DEFICIENCIES IN THOSE CRITERIA. HOWEVER, THE BOARD DECIDED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT BY WHICH THE CONTRACTING OFFICE COULD REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO EMPLOY THE KEY PERSONNEL PROPOSED EVEN THOUGH EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS HAD BEEN OBTAINED, KEY PERSONNEL WOULD BE EVALUATED ONLY AS TO THEIR GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY. INASMUCH AS THE BOARD FOUND EACH OFFEROR'S PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL TO BE ACCEPTABLE, ALL OFFERORS WERE GIVEN THE SAME NUMBER OF EVALUATION POINTS FOR THIS PORTION OF THE EVALUATION. IT IS NOTED THAT NEITHER THE ORIGINAL METHOD OF SCORING NOR THE ONE FINALLY IMPLEMENTED WAS INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT ANY OFFEROR MAY HAVE RELIED TO HIS DETRIMENT ON THE ORIGINAL SCORING METHOD. ALTHOUGH WE DO BELIEVE THAT TECHNICALLY NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OFFERORS REGARDING THE DECREASED EMPHASIS PLACED ON EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS, INASMUCH AS THE ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE AGREEMENTS DURING NEGOTIATIONS AND INASMUCH AS WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FAILURE TO ADVISE OFFERORS OF THIS SLIGHT CHANGE IN EMPHASIS WOULD HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE PREPARATION OF ANY OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL, WE DO NOT FIND THE AWARD OBJECTIONABLE.

FURTHER, WE BELIEVE THAT RUDOLPH F. MATZER & ASSOCIATES, INC. V. WARNER, 348 F. SUPP. 991 (1972), IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMMEDIATE CASE. THAT DECISION THE COURT STATED INTER ALIA THAT "EVALUATION OF PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ON THE BASIS OF RESUMES OF PERSONS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYED BY AN OFFEROR AND WHO WILL NOT PERFORM THE WORK IS PATENTLY IRRATIONAL." THIS CONTEXT, THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR WAS ESSENTIALLY A "BROKER" SUBMITTING RESUMES RECEIVED OVER A SEVERAL-YEAR PERIOD FROM PERSONS LOOKING FOR WORK. IT WOULD NOT APPEAR THAT THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR HAD CONTACTED THE PERSONS WHOSE RESUMES IT SUBMITTED TO ASCERTAIN THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONTRACT WORK. INDEED, ONE OF THE PERSONNEL PROPOSED WAS DECEASED. IN THIS DISSIMILAR SITUATION, THE KEY PERSONNEL WHOSE NAMES WERE SUBMITTED BY THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR WITHOUT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS IN THE INSTANT PROTESTED PROCUREMENT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED ON THE CONTRACT HELD BY THAT OFFEROR AT FORT SILL PRIOR TO THE SERV-AIR CONTRACT. ALSO, THOUGH LEARNED ONLY AFTER AWARD, THESE PERSONS HAD AGREED VERBALLY TO WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT IF AWARDED TO THE ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR. FINALLY, IN THE CITED CASE 60 OF THE 100 POINTS ALLOTTED TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION WERE ASSIGNED TO AREAS WHICH WERE SCORED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SOLELY BY RELYING ON THE SUBMITTED RESUMES. THIS LED TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR WAS SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE OF THE RESUMES SUBMITTED. IN THE INSTANT PROTEST, THE KEY PERSONNEL PORTION OF THE EVALUATION WAS, IN ESSENCE, NOT SCORED. BY REVIEWING PROPOSED PERSONNEL FOR GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEDUCTING NO POINTS FROM ANY OFFER FOR THIS PORTION OF THE EVALUATION, THE SOURCE SELECTION BOARD ESSENTIALLY DELETED THIS PORTION FROM THE EVALUATION.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

HOWEVER, THE ACTIVITY SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED MORE DEFINITE INFORMATION IN THE RFP AS TO THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER AND THE PART EACH WOULD PLAY IN THE EVALUATION. 173137(1), (2), OCTOBER 8, 1971. WE TRUST THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN THIS REGARD AS TO FUTURE NEGOTIATED SOLICITATIONS.