BNUMBER:  B-270012.3
DATE:  April 24, 1996
TITLE:  Ogden Support Services, Inc.


A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Ogden Support Services, Inc.

File:     B-270012.3

Date:April 24, 1996

Ronald K. Henry, Esq., and Mark A. Riordan, Esq., Kaye, Scholer, 
Fierman, Hays & Handler, for the protester.
Dennis J. Riley, Esq., and Joseph G. Billings, Esq., for Riley & 
Artabane, an intervenor.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.


1.  Protest that agency intends to preserve the contract award in 
implementing the recommendations made in a prior General Accounting 
Office decision sustaining the protester's challenge to the award is 
dismissed as premature.

2.  Request for reconsideration of the remedy, recommended in a prior 
General Accounting Office decision sustaining the requester's protest 
is denied because it is based on the erroneous premise that the prior 
decision found that the requester's proposal represented a lower cost 
than the awardee's proposal, when, in fact, the prior decision found 
the awardee's proposal represented the lower evaluated cost. 


Ogden Support Services, Inc. protests the corrective action that may 
be undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Office of 
Information Technology, pursuant to our decision in Ogden Support 
Servs., Inc., B-270012.2, Mar. 19, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  177, which 
sustained Ogden's protest against the award of a contract to American 
Systems Corporation (ASC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
95-W001, for mail and courier support services.  Additionally, the 
protester requests clarification/reconsideration of the remedy 
recommended in the prior decision.

We dismiss the protest because it merely anticipates improper action 
that has not yet taken place and deny the request for reconsideration 
because it provides no basis for reconsidering our prior decision.

Our decision found with respect to the evaluation of ASC's proposal, 
which had been rated technically equal to Ogden's, that there was  
"insufficient information and analysis in the record to establish a 
reasonable basis for the past performance score ASC received vis-a-vis 
Ogden's past performance score."  We sustained the protest on the 
basis that it was unclear whether the agency, under a proper 
evaluation, would have considered the difference in the two firms' 
evaluated past performance to be a meaningful discriminator, such that 
Ogden's proposal would have been considered technically superior, or 
whether Ogden's and ASC's proposals would still have been considered 
technically equal.  While not the basis for sustaining the protest, we 
also noted that the source selection authority misapprehended several 
facts when he made the award decision; specifically, he erroneously 
believed that ASC proposed a more accelerated phase-in schedule and  
offered more man-hours for the basic contract work.  We concluded that 
if the two proposals are reasonably found technically equal, then 
ASC's lower evaluated cost would result in that firm's selection, but 
if Ogden's proposal is found technically superior to ASC's lower cost 
proposal, the agency would have to perform a cost/technical tradeoff 
to determine which proposal represents the best value to the 
government.  We recommended that the CIA reevaluate the offerors' 
technical proposals, determine and document whether they are 
technically equal, and, if the agency determined that award should 
more appropriately be made to Ogden, that ASC's contract be terminated 
and an award made to Ogden.

Ogden protests that the CIA intends to preserve the award to ASC by 
papering the file in a manner that will retain ASC's past performance 
score from the prior evaluation, and that it will not properly account 
for the other flaws in the procurement as found in our prior decision.  
Since Ogden is speculating as to whether the agency will take 
appropriate action in accordance with our decision, we find that this 
basis of protest is premature.  We do not consider premature protests.   
See General Elec. Canada, Inc., B-230584, June 1, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  
512.  Thus, we dismiss Ogden's protest.

Ogden requests reconsideration/clarification on the basis that our 
decision found that Ogden's proposal in fact offered the lowest cost, 
and that Ogden should therefore receive the award, even if the 
proposals are considered to be technically equal.  Ogden's request is 
based on an erroneous premise--our prior decision found that ASC's 
proposal, not Ogden's, represented the lower cost.  

As indicated above, our decision expressly concluded that ASC's 
proposal reflected the lower cost, notwithstanding that Ogden's 
proposal offered the lower cost.  The cost evaluation methodology used 
by the agency was to divide the number of hours offered by each 
offeror into that offeror's total proposed costs.  This cost 
evaluation methodology essentially normalized the labor hours in 
determining which offer represented the lowest cost.  ASC's proposal 
reflected the lowest cost because ASC's cost proposal reflected a 
lower hourly rate for its proposed personnel and both offerors were to 
supply the same 22 persons working the same hours for the bulk of the 
contract work.[1]  While we noted that the cost evaluation methodology 
had the effect of exaggerating ASC's cost advantage because the two 
offerors proposed different levels of efforts for the phase-in period 
(for which the agency did not properly account), ASC's proposal, by 
virtue of its lower hourly rates for the basic contract work, still 
represented the lowest cost, even counting ASC's greater number of 
hours for the phase-in period.[2]  Ogden has not shown that our 
conclusion in this regard was in error and therefore provides no basis 
for reconsideration.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. ASC's proposal reflected lower hourly rates as well as a greater 
number of labor hours for the basic contract work because its labor 
rates were based on a man-year with a greater number of hours than 
Ogden's man-year.  

2. Our prior decision indicated that if a probable cost analysis had 
been performed, Ogden's evaluated cost would reasonably have been 
found even higher because of its failure to justify its proposed 
indirect rates.