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