Initially, we note that the record establishes that the employee was not a member of the evaluation team for the predecessor RFP which was awarded in 1984. The team consisted of engineers under the direct supervision of another individual whom the former employee did supervise. The former employee admits he was told of the conclusions of the evaluation team, but not any evaluation details. The record also shows that the employee retired on July 3, 1987, while the current RFP was in preparation and the RFP was formally issued on September 3. The former employee states in an affidavit that he does not have any knowledge of DTB's proposal strategy, management plan, cost analysis or other company-sensitive and proprietary data on the predecessor contract. The former employee also states that he did not participate in any way with the preparation of the SOW for the current RFP.

Our interest, within the confines of a bid protest, is to determine whether any action of the former government employee may have resulted in prejudice for, or on behalf of, the awardee during the award selection process. Wall Colmonoy Corp., B-217361, Jan. 8, 1985, 85-1 CPD || 271. The mere employment of a former government employee who is familiar with the type of work required but not privy to the contents of the proposals or to other inside agency information does not confer an unfair competitive advantage. Regional Environmental Consultants, B-223555, Oct. 27, 1986, 66 Comp. Gen. 67, 86-2 CPD | 476. Further, an exclusion for conflict of interest must be based upon "hard facts" and not mere "suspicion or innuendo." CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1983); NKF Engineering, Inc., 65 Comp. Gen. 104 (1985), 85-2 CPD ¶ 638. In view of the fact that the employee retired before the RFP was issued and that the evaluators gave DTB a higher technical score than NTS received, we cannot say that any role the former government employee may have played as a Navy employee resulted in an improper advantage to NTS. We further note that despite the former employee's proposed participation in the contract as program manager and his presence at the preaward survey team site visit, the preaward survey team recommended no award, and award was made to NTS only after the SBA granted a COC. Moreover, the former employee states that he does not have any knowledge of DTB's confidential or proprietary data on the predecessor contract. With regard to the former employee's involvement in the evaluation of the RFP in 1984, the record does not show any direct involvement in the evaluation. The former employee was not the immediate supervisor of the evaluation team, but was advised of the evaluation results. We fail to see how this information, if remembered 3 years later, would affect this competition. Thus, we see no "hard" evidence in the record that any action by the former employee resulted in prejudice for, or on behalf of, NTS in the award selection process. In fact, the record suggests that NTS garnered no advantage during the award process from the employment of the former employee. Accordingly, we find no basis to conclude that the former employee improperly influenced the award selection.

DTB also asserts that NTS is ineligible for award because the employment of the former government employee violated post-employment restrictions on gov

ernment employees. The post-employment restrictions cited by DTB prohibit a former employee from representing anyone else before the government in connection with a “particular government matter involving a specific party" if the individual had participated personally and substantially or had supervisory responsibility for that same particular matter as a government employee. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 737.5(a) and 737.7(a), supra. These post-employment restrictions proscribe representation by a former government employee under certain conditions. For example, the regulations specifically define representation under 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) as "acting as agent or attorney, or other representative in an appearance, or communicating with intent to influence."

Even assuming that the former employee's proposed employment under the contract is in connection with the same "particular matter involving a specific party" in which he participated as a government employee, the agency argues, and the protester does not dispute, that the former government employee had not represented NTS at any time during the award selection process. The record shows that the former government employee's hiring as program manager was contingent on award to NTS. Although the former employee was hired as a consultant to NTS to help prepare NTS' proposal, the record contains no evidence that the former employee represented NTS during the award selection process. In fact, the protester argues in its comments after the bid protest conference that its conflict of interest argument is directed at the retiree's post-award employment as program manager.

DTB argues that the former employee's proposed employment as program manager under the contract poses a conflict of interest since he will be representing NTS during contract performance. The agency states that the solicitation does not require the program manager to represent the contractor before the government and refers to the SOW which requires the program manager to "productively engage in and lead various . . . evaluation programs." While the protester speculates that at some point during performance of the contract the former employee may be in the position of representing the company back to the agency, we will not disqualify a company from an award based on speculation as to the future conduct of an individual.

DTB in its conference comments also contends that a senior engineer allegedly proposed by NTS has indicated he does not plan to work on the project and that the agency will have to allow substitution of this individual through improper discussions solely with the awardee. The agency correctly points out, however, that even if this employee is not hired by NTS, a solicitation provision which will be included in the contract provides for contractor substitution of personnel provided the replacement offers the same qualifications established by the resumes of individuals originally proposed. Thus, the possible substitution of employees is a matter which can be resolved after the contract award without discussions during the selection process.

Finally, DTB further contends that the Navy and NTS engaged in improper discussions without providing a similar opportunity to DTB. The Navy denies the charge and there is no evidence in the record to indicate that NTS was afforded

an opportunity to revise its proposal or otherwise provide information essential for determining the acceptability of its proposal. In short, DTB has provided no evidence to support speculation that NTS and the agency engaged in discussions and therefore has failed to carry its burden of proof. Cubic Defense Systems, Division of Cubic Corp., B-203597, Dec. 24, 1981, 81-2 CPD ¶| 493.

The protest is denied.

B-232093, October 11, 1988

Procurement

Competitive Negotiation

Offers

■Competitive ranges

Exclusion

Administrative discretion

Procurement

Competitive Negotiation

Offers

Information submission

Contractor duties

It is an offeror's responsibility to furnish all of the information required by the request for proposals, and an agency therefore properly may exclude from the competitive range an offer with significant informational deficiencies.

Matter of: HITCO

HITCO protests its elimination from the competitive range in a procurement conducted by the Naval Sea Systems Command under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-88-R-6019(S). We deny the protest.

The Navy issued the RFP in March of 1988 to acquire "Sonar Dome Rubber Windows" (SDRWs), with related equipment and services. Essentially, SDRWs are large rubber coverings to protect the underwater sonar domes on surface ships with material providing an acceptable degree of acoustic transparency. The RFP required offerors to provide several rubber samples for the conduct of specified tests, and to furnish technical and cost proposals. The RFP stipulated that only those offerors whose samples passed the qualifying tests and whose technical proposals were acceptable would have their cost proposals evaluated. The RFP also required that technical proposals contain discussion in sufficient detail to demonstrate the offeror's total comprehension of the technical and management requirements including, specifically, the offeror's technical approach, assembly and test procedures, critical processes and procedures, production reliability, quality assurance program, program plan, key personnel, organization, facilities, and other aspects of SDRW manufacture, as well as requir

ing explicitly that an offeror explain and justify proposed changes to the SDRW specifications. Award was to be made to the lowest cost offeror submitting an acceptable technical proposal. One of the three offerors was eliminated when its samples failed the required tests. The Navy eliminated HITCO because the Navy found numerous technical deficiencies and omissions in HITCO's proposal, leaving only B.F. Goodrich (BFG), the Navy's long-term incumbent supplier of SDRWs, in the competitive range. The Navy awarded the contract to BFG on July 6, 1988, and in a debriefing on July 15 advised HITCO of the 47 deficiencies that the Navy found in HITCO's proposal. HITCO protested to our Office on July 26.

HITCO contends that the Navy's finding of technical unacceptability was unreasonable. In support of this position, HITCO initially argued that the Navy identified only four significant deficiencies in HITCO's proposal, attributable to HITCO's failure to describe intended product improvements fully, and argued that the Navy was either wrong or simply was noting places where the Navy might want additional information on the remaining 43 deficiencies allegedly found in HITCO's proposal. HITCO contended that all of these deficiencies were easily correctable and asserted that its exclusion from the competitive range therefore was improper. In its final comments on the protest, submitted after a conference held in our Office, HITCO provided a matrix, encompassing all of the statements in the Navy's technical evaluation report on HITCO's proposal, on the basis of which HITCO asserts that 59 percent of the comments in the technical evaluation report represent "subjective requests for more information" and adds the charge that the Navy evaluated HITCO's proposal on the basis of criteria either not contained in, or contrary to, the RFP.

In view of the importance of achieving full and open competition in government procurements, we closely scrutinize any evaluation that leaves only one offeror in the competitive range. Coopers & Lybrand, B-224213, Jan. 30, 1987, 66 Comp. Gen. 216, 87-1 CPD 100. In doing so, however, we recognize that contracting officials have a reasonable degree of discretion in the evaluation of proposals to determine their acceptability, and we therefore will not disturb an agency's determination that a proposal is not in the competitive range absent clear and convincing evidence that the determination lacked a reasonable basis. CSP Associates, Inc., B-228229, Jan. 29, 1988, 67 Comp. Gen. 213, 88-1 CPD | 87. Moreover, although the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides that the competitive range must include all proposals that have a "reasonable chance of being selected for award," and that any doubt as to whether a proposal is in the competitive range should be resolved by inclusion, FAR § 15.609(a) (FAC 84-16), a contracting agency is not required to permit an offeror to revise an unacceptable initial proposal where the deficiencies are so material that major revisions would be required to make the proposal acceptable. DBA Systems, Inc., B-228509, Jan. 26, 1988, 88-1 CPD ¶ 78.

As a threshold matter, we point out that what HITCO characterizes as the Navy's merely noting places where it might want additional information were, from the government's perspective, recitations of informational deficiencies in

HITCO's proposal. This aspect of HITCO's protest ignores the fundamental precept that it was HITCO's responsibility to furnish all of the information required by the RFP, see DA VSAM International, Inc., B-228429.5, Mar. 11, 1988, 88-1 CPD || 252, and we consider HITCO's own characterization of these deficiencies, without challenge except in one instance, to amount to the concession of numerous inadequacies and omissions in its proposal.

Agencies may exclude proposals with significant informational deficiencies from further consideration. Imagineering Systems Corp., B-228434.2, Feb. 4, 1988, 88-1 CPD 109. This is true whether the deficiencies are attributable to either omitted or merely inadequate discussion of fundamental factors. John W. Gracey, B-228540, Feb. 26, 1988, 88-1 CPD ¶ 199; American Optical Corp., B-228535, Feb. 9, 1988, 88-1 CPD ¶ 127. Here, for instance, the Navy noted that HITCO's proposal did not discuss the properties of the wire cord HITCO was proposing to use to strengthen the rubber or how the wire would be tensioned during assembly of the rubber plies. Similarly, the Navy found that HITCO failed to describe adequately the properties of the rubber to be used or its manufacture; did not describe fully how surface contact and patterns would be employed to control stress at the joint between the two halves of the SDRW; failed to explain or justify the use of an added layer of anti-fouling rubber over the splice between the SDRW halves; and failed to provide adequate discussion of HITCO's proposed program plan and the division of responsibilities between HITCO and its subcontractor.

On the basis of these and other deficiencies the Navy found in HITCO's proposal, the Navy's technical review panel unanimously concluded that HITCO's proposed technical approach, assembly, inspection and test procedures, and organization were unacceptable. HITCO's suggestion that the majority of the deficiencies underlying these findings were merely notations as to places where the Navy might like additional information is not persuasive that these deficiencies were not serious. In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Navy was unreasonable in deciding that the cumulative effect was to render HITCO's proposal unacceptable, and we find no basis upon which to object to the Navy's elimination of HITCO from the competitive range.

There are several aspects to HITCO's contention that the Navy evaluated its proposal using criteria other than those in the RFP. In the first of these, HITCO contends that the Navy observed certain anomalies in the samples HITCO provided for testing that were beyond the bounds of the tests specified in the RFP, and that the Navy considered these problems as deficiencies in evaluating HITCO's proposal. HITCO contends that the matters the Navy noted could have been explained and that, in any case, the use of the samples for anything beyond the performance of the specified tests violated the terms of the RFP. The RFP, however, specifically advised offerors that the technical proposals and the samples submitted for testing would be the sole bases for evaluating the technical merits of what was offered and the ability of the offeror to perform in accordance with the requirements. In our view, this language was sufficiently broad to accommodate the Navy's assessment of the samples for purposes other