Summary

ALLEGATION THAT AGENCY FAILED TO FOLLOW STATED EVALUATION CRITERIA IS DENIED WHERE RECORD SHOWS THAT EVALUATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF CRITERIA AND SOLICITATION WORK STATEMENT AND PROTESTER KNEW PRIOR TO SUBMITTING ITS BEST AND FINAL OFFER OF AGENCY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CRITERIA. 2. AGENCY'S CONSIDERATION OF IN-PLACE EQUIPMENT AND OF AVAILABILITY OF ONE OFFEROR'S EXISTING COMPUTERIZED INFORMATION SYSTEM IN EVALUATING PROPOSALS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH EVALUATION CRITERIA SINCE THERE IS REASONABLE AND LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE MATTERS AND ESTABLISHED EVALUATION CRITERIA DEALING WITH AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES. 3. RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT EVALUATORS' CONCLUSIONS WERE UNREASONABLE. 4.