text:
Public Theater will open the New Year with Metamorphoses
January 13, 2009
Pittsburgh Public Theater begins the new year with the splashiest event of the season: Metamorphoses, directed by Ted Pappas, runs Jan. 15 – Feb. 15 in the O'Reilly Theater.
Based on the timeless myths of the Roman poet Ovid, Metamorphoses was written and originally staged by Mary Zimmerman. It caused a sensation in both its Off-Broadway and Broadway productions, receiving three Best Play awards in 2002.
The play's theme is transformation, and as created by Ms. Zimmerman, it allows each new director, design team, and to transform the production according to their unique vision.
Built into the stage is a pool of water, the perfect representation of the fluidity of change. Enhanced by a stunning variety of lighting, sound and costume designs, 10 actors will use the pool to evoke contemporary interpretations of Heaven, Earth, and the Underworld.
Zeus will start things off, making order out of chaos. We'll meet the greedy Midas and the vain Narcissus. Many couples come together or part, transformed by their relationships, including Orpheus & Eurydice and Eros & Psyche.
The gods also turn things around: a naughty Aphrodite; a drunken Bacchus; Vertumnus, the god of springtime; and Poseidon, who stirs up quite a storm, among many others. Flowing through the production are many lessons, including the consequences of excess and lust, the virtues of honesty, and the power of love.
Under the direction of Ted Pappas, the design team for Pittsburgh Public Theater's production of Metamorphoses is: James Noone (scenic), Susan Tsu (costumes), Kirk Bookman (lighting), and Zach Moore (sound). Appearing in a variety of roles are both Pittsburgh-based and international actors: J.T. Arbogast, Craig Baldwin, Ka-Ling Cheung, Tami Dixon, Darren Eliker, Daina Michelle Griffith, Lara Hillier, Daniel Krell, Sipiwe Moyo, and Bhavesh Patel. Ruth E. Kramer is the production stage manager and Ashley J Martin is the assistant stage manager.
For tickets call 412-316-1600 or visit http://www.ppt.org
The Mondays With the Public free lecture series will continue on Monday, Jan., 26 at 7 p.m. in the Helen Wayne Rauh Rehearsal Room, third floor of the O'Reilly Theater.
The lecture topic will be: "Ovid: Changing the Universe, One Heart at a Time." Mark Possanza, an associate professor in the Classics Department at the University of Pittsburgh, will talk about why Ovid's Metamorphoses has been an inspiration for the past 2,000 years.
Talk is free but reservations are recommended. Call 412-316-1600.


text:
Got a tweet from my Sup't today saying she was talking to one of my former iKids and Yarnspinners. You see, 12 years ago I taught in a school where I started two programs–one for kids to help each other (and teachers) use technology in more efficient and useful ways, and the other was for kids to become storytellers–or "yarnspinners" by weaving tales in a yearly show called "Tellabration." This kid, who is now a high school senior, was both an iKid and a Yarnspinner. She told Pam (@pammoran) today that her experience as a Yarnspinner led her to drama, and now she's pursuing a human rights major. Her education was transformative.
July 17, 2011 a former student friended me on Facebook and I pointed her to a personal blog I had done about her class and our experiences together. In her response, Deisy said, "It brought back a lot of memories and reminded me how before we started working with you and getting all that extra help, we were struggling. To be honest, I never thought I would get as far as I am right now and am still trying really hard to pursue my dreams now that I'm about to start college. I'm very thankful for everything you and everyone else have done for me and for believing in all of us." Another student also responded and added, "never in a million years would I have thought you would end up being my fifth grade teacher and changing my life. You helped us understand that there was a better life when we got older, we just had to reach for the stars. You never let us give up on anything and that's probably the reason why so many of us are determined to make a better life for ourselves." Their education was transformative.
I had two kids in my room today during recess working on their wikis–using "Getting Tricky with Wikis" to add scrolling text bars. One of them asked if it was possible to add a hyperlink to text within that scrolling text bar and I sat down to try to remember the html I had used back in the early 90's to create my first web pages. As I taught that skill, I thought how different these two kids were this year from last–and I asked them if they ever thought last year that they would be staying in from recess to be geeky on their wikis. They both said no, that that would have been unthinkable–but they love it now–and then they asked if during lunch we could work on their LibraryThing accounts. Their work, sharing their knowledge online, and responding to their peers and watching their clustrmaps grow has been transformative.
I had a young man write me an end of the year note to say "I just wanted you to know that, and that you are the best teacher I ever had.
So I wrote back:
I'm curious—best because I taught you, or best because I let you learn?
and he responded:
Best, because you let me learn what I want to learn. I really enjoyed that, and wish that schools would do that, too.
These kids–various years, many ages, interested in many different things–have been allowed to find their passions and run with them. They have been given permission–and opportunities–to develop new passions and be mentored as they learn. (A seventh grader just wrote me–over wikimail, of course– in October, offering to help my fifth graders with their wikis, since his is visited often!) Their feedback comes from knowledgeable others–and their peers who are learning right along with them. Not only is their education relevant, but it is human–they learn to support each other and build their own audiences by sharing them with others. Their education is powerful as they find their voice through helping others–whether it be on a computer, or sharing hero stories in a remembrance of September 11, 2001, or giving peer feedback to writing, or sharing books through book conversations. They listen not only with their ears to what is being said, but with their hearts–and they make connections that last beyond this one year, this one class. That's transformative

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Francesca Ciceri
bug triaging, QA
Debian Developer and Free Software enthusiast, graduated in Social Sciences, translator for Tails, Global Voices and Organization for Transformative Works.
Since May 2014, and for three months, I'm an OPW intern for Mozilla: working in Bug Wrangling and general QA and community outreach.
In my free time I make plans for the zombie apocalypse, I do some geocaching and mapping, read lots of books and fan fictions, listen to Jazz (especially Hard Bop), Ska, Rock and Rockabilly music, sew clothes and blow raspberries in a piece of brass (the road of trumpet playing is paved with raspberries). With guitar I'm definitely better :).
Tagsqa, bug triage, mozilla italia
Competenzeaegisub, basic html and css, bug triage, communication skills, crafty, cvs, debian, diy, feminism, fonts, geocaching, git, gnu-linux, knitting, mediawiki, osm, publicity, qa, shell scripting, subtitling, svn, technical documentation, translator, user documentation, video editing, vim, wml
LingueInglese, Spagnolo, Italiano
Siti web
Account esterni
- Bugzilla (BMO): firstname.lastname@example.com
- Mozilla Wiki: Madamezou
Approvato da
Aleksej Serdjukov
Triages bugs. Hosted a Bug Triage Workshop.
Liz Henry
Francesca is doing amazing, consistent, hard work with bug verification and being a community lead for Firefox QA! https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?login=madamezou%40zouish.org
Daniele Scasciafratte
He's doing a great job of Bug Wrangler, helps in Italian community, support the users in the Marketplace Day and helps with the submission of the bug tickets.


text:
March 28, 2013
You may find that discussions at home have taken a sudden, spiritual orientation. Give everyone room to express their personal beliefs without trying to preach your point of view. Your open-mindedness helps you with deep learning this week. Soul Affirmation: The winner is me. I smile for the cameras.
Feeling bold, are we? Well, go with the flow of your feelings! No other sign can call on inner courage as easily as you. Whether at home, at work, or out on the town, let your personal statements be stylish and bold! Soul Affirmation: This week is the week the Lord has made. I rejoice in it.
Tempers may flare around you this week but it's nothing personal, so keep your mind on your own work and let others act up. You'll be doing yourself a big favor if you get some exercise this week! Soul Affirmation: I change the way I look at business this week.
Restless feelings may arise over health matters, or perhaps education or the lack of it. Do what you need to do to feel comfortable with yourself. If it involves seeing a dentist or taking a class, what's stopping you? Self-improvement can be a very enjoyable game! Soul Affirmation: Hope is future's way of shining on me this week.
Set a limit on what you can do for others this week. You'll enjoy your feelings more if you are straightforward about refusing a less than appetizing assignment. Trust your feelings and say "No, I won't." Clear boundaries help you define yourself. Soul Affirmation: I get joy from giving good things.
Let happiness flow inside and outside of you this week. Refuse to be drawn into any pseudo-crisis and you'll stay happy. Stay quietly on task and you'll have accomplished much by the end of this busy week. Soul Affirmation: I flavor my life with good wishes towards everyone this week.
A dream in which you already are what you hope to be will offer much insight into your current situation. Take some practical steps to keep the focus on this wonderful vision. You know you can be what you see! Soul Affirmation: I am a giver of good words this week.
Do you realize that you are the only one who can tell you what to think and how to feel? Let go of any behaviors that are keeping you from achieving the things you want to achieve. Be creative and positive this week. Soul Affirmation: I focus on long-range financial security this week.
You can be very efficient this week if you set your will to the task. New ideas will occur to you as you are working steadily, so keep pencil and paper nearby to jot down your latest brilliance! Soul Affirmation: I give love and love gives to me.
Avoid getting involved in any office politics or family feuds this week. The week's energy is excitable, but not necessarily exciting. Do your own thing and be proud of what you do. Let others do their own thing, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Soul Affirmation: Money opens doors for friendship to enter.
A message this week may necessitate travel on your part, and you may feel obligated to do something you don't want to. Let the energy flow past you and do what you think is best. Who you are is who you are—be glad about it! Soul Affirmation: I fill my mind with visions of love this week.
You wake up feeling peaceful and wise. Discussions with a close friend may reveal the source of your inner freedom in a very tangible way. So talk about it. You've got everything good to gain. Soul Affirmation: I let my mind go slack and tighten up my body.


text:
jjohn writes "Wizards of the Coasts, holders of the TSR catalog, have released rulebooks and modules for most editions of Dungeons and Dragons through a partnership with DriveThruRPG.com. The web site, dndclassics.com, may be a little overloaded right now. Most module PDFs are $4.99 USD." The article points out that these are all fresh scans of the old books. It's also worth noting that the decision to make these PDFs available reverses WotC's 2009 decision to stop all PDF sales because of piracy fears. The only reference to this in the article is a quote from the D&D publishing and licensing director: "We don't want them to go to torrent sites. Why not give them a legal route?"
Read more of this story at Slashdot.


text:
The Super Bowl halftime show never wants for spectacle, and next February's event has just ensured that all eyes will remain on the field when both teams head to the locker room.
In an official statement, the NFL has announced that Madonna will be headlining this year's halftime show flanked by members of the surreal acrobatic troupe Cirque du Soleil.
The NFL proudly calls the halftime show "the most-watched musical event of the year." Last year, 162 million U.S. viewers tuned in.
Sports Connection
Connecting you to your favorite North Texas sports teams as well as sports news around the globe.
Madonna follows in the footsteps of musical luminaries such as Bruce Springsteen, U2, Prince, the Rolling Stones, and Paul McCartney. Despite being the top-selling female recording artist of all time, this will be the 53-year-old's first Super Bowl appearance.
The multi-talented pop icon is set to unveil her feature film directorial debut, the historical drama "W.E.," in theaters this week.
Super Bowl XLVI will be held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Ind. on Feb. 5, 2012.
Selected Reading: CNN, BBC News, New York Daily News


text:
Men's Clothing
New inspiration and iconic details lie at the centre of the SS20 Trussardi Men's Ready-to-Wear Collection. Tailored suits pair with the relaxed feel of jersey, while fine leathers and suede embellish biker jackets and modern shorts. This is a wardrobe that combines elegance and comfort, in a warm colour palette with pops of powdery blue.
The key themes for the new SS20 Trussardi Jeans Men's Ready-to-Wear Collection are the urban feel and navy inspiration. Highly iconic pieces have been give a functional twist, creating a modern and versatile wardrobe. The field jackets with contrasting levriero prints and camouflage details are paired with neoprene inserts, while formal suits pair with casual sweatshirts.
Close 370 jeans in grey Snow denim£165.00 £85.00Sale -48%
Icon 380 jeans in black denim£89.00 £45.00Sale -49%
Extra-slim 370 jeans in black denim£89.00 £45.00Sale -49%


text:
The language of color is created and maintained by Pantone (www.pantone.com), the company that dictates all colors in the commercial and manufacturing industry. Each year, Pantone produces an infinite number of colors, which are bought and sold to those in fashion, home furnishing, interior decorating and even car manufacturing.
Believe it or not, white, which is scientifically the absence of color, comes in hundreds of different shades. White looks great paired with any color, so show your natural beauty by wearing crisp, clean, pressed whites on top and bottom, pairing them with natural jewelry made from natural materials such as wood and colored semi-precious stones.
If vintage is more your style, try some brightly colored Bakelite bangles or an extra large pendant necklace to give your outfit a retro vibe. Rock a statement-making bag or shoes with an all-white ensemble. This pairing will compose a surprise "pop" that will draw the eye to the accessory first, then the clothes. Consider wearing head-to-toe white to create a blank canvas for emphasizing accessories, jewelry, makeup or hair styles.
For the opposite effect, electrify your whites by pairing them with neutrals, giving off that "white hot" vibe. A neutral-colored scarf or lightweight cardigan is perfect for the office or on the subway, when the air is usually cranked a little too high. If it's too hot to wear a scarf, it will always look fabulous tied around the handle of a bag.
EPONYMY in Park Slope (466 Bergen Street), hosts the remarkable all-white ensembles that mark the race to the end of the summer season. Labels here include Threads for Thought, Genetic Denim, Gestuz and Marni. It's a perfect fashion pit stop for creative and whimsical treasures both new and vintage.
ASHAVEZA, also in Park Slope (69 5th Avenue), will stop you in your tracks as you're walking by with its gorgeous white dresses, designed in India and Bosnia. The impoverished women in the training programs responsible for creating the Ashaveza line are learning to rise above poverty and create a life of purpose and emotional freedom. Each garment embodies the maker's strength and talent with a fashion-forward awareness of trends and fabrics from all over the world. And it's all available to you, right here in Brooklyn.
When wearing whites and neutrals:
* make sure undergarments don't show through - neutral or flesh-colored items are best.
* use gentle care when washing your whites – excessive washing can cause fabrics to look dingy and older than they really are.
* have your items laundered and pressed instead of dry cleaned. This will extend the life of your whites and keep them looking fresh for several summers to come.
* keep in mind that whites can you look larger, so be wary and choose cuts that are flattering to your figure.
For more bargain inspiration, style tips and shopping suggestions for the end of summer, please visit www.thedressrecycler.com.
"Your Bargain Fashion Superhero!"


text:
Experience Centers
Welcome to the PBA Experience.
Do you ever wonder what it's like to bowl on the same lane conditions the world's top bowlers compete on every week? Now's your chance to bowl like the pros and put yourself in their shoes.
The most exciting experience in sports has been unleashed.
While facing the exact lane conditions used on the Lumber Liquidator's PBA Tour, you will test and improve your game like nothing else can. This truly is the pro experience for those who are passionate about the sport.


text:
CLS Worldwide Support Services, LLC
B-405298.2,B-405298.3,B-405298.4: Sep 11, 2012
Additional Materials:
- Full Report:
(202) 512-4800
CLS Worldwide Support Services, LLC (CWS2), of Fort Worth, Texas, protests the award of a contract to ManTech Telecommunications and Information Systems Corporation (ManTech), of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Warren under request for proposals No. W56HZV-11-R-0181 for mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) family of vehicles contractor logistics sustainment and support services (CLSS).
We deny the protest.
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of: CLS Worldwide Support Services, LLC
File: B-405298.2; B-405298.3; B-405298.4
Date: September 11, 2012
Lee P. Curtis, Esq., William J. Bainbridge, Esq., Allen Cannon, III, Esq., Donald J. Carney, Esq., and Seth H. Locke, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester.
Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Peter J. Eyre, Esq., Derek R. Mullins, Esq., Stephan D. Rice, Esq., Tiffany Wynn, Esq., and Puja Satiani, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the intervenor.
Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Tara W. Yaldou, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
1. Protest challenging the agencys evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonably based, consistent with the solicitation criteria, and treated the offerors equally.
2. Protest challenging the source selection authoritys (SSA) conclusion that the advantages in the awardee's non-cost/price proposal merited selection of its higher cost/price proposal is denied where the SSAs judgments were reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation scheme, and adequately documented.
CLS Worldwide Support Services, LLC[1] (CWS2), of Fort Worth, Texas, protests the award of a contract to ManTech Telecommunications and Information Systems Corporation (ManTech), of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Warren under request for proposals No. W56HZV-11-R-0181 for mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) family of vehicles contractor logistics sustainment and support services (CLSS).
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued on June 7, 2011, contemplated the award of a contract with fixed-price, cost-plus fixed-fee, and level-of-effort requirements. The MRAP CLSS program supports vehicle maintenance for over 15,000 MRAP vehicles and is critical to protecting warfighters against numerous risks. The areas of performance for the contract will include the contiguous United States (CONUS), and outside CONUS (OCONUS) to include Afghanistan, Kuwait, Hawaii, Germany and Japan. Contracting Officers Statement at 1. The solicitations scope of work activities included: (1) deployment to and operations in the same or similar work locations for 300+ employees, (2) field level maintenance, (3) sustainment level maintenance, (4) battle damage assessment and repair, and (5) repair parts supply and management. Id. The RFP stated that award would be made to the best value offeror based upon the agencys evaluation of four factors, presented in descending order of importance: (1) phase-in, (2) cost/price, (3) past performance, and (4) small business participation. RFP at 170. The RFP also advised that the relative risks, strengths, and/or weaknesses of each proposal would be considered in selecting the offer that represents the best overall value. Id. at 169.
The RFP divided the performance of the MRAP CLSS effort into four distinct time periods: (1) a phase-in period, (2) an elective early operational readiness (EOR) period, (3) an operational readiness base option period, and (4) an operational readiness option period. RFP at 156. The RFP described the phase-in period as beginning at contract award and ending 180 days after award. Id. The purpose of the phase-in period was to complete the staffing process and have the entire staff in place to begin performing the mission. Id. The RFP described the EOR period as an elective period that could be proposed by offerors, wherein performance of the non-phase-in scope of work activities would commence prior to the end of the 180-day phase-in period. Id. A proposed EOR period would end on the same date as phase-in period, 180 days after contract award. Id. The operational readiness base option period and operational readiness option period would begin at the end of the 180-day phase-in period and extend the contract for up to a total of 5 years.
As relevant here, the Armys phase-in evaluation would assess the risk of whether an offerors proposed phase-in plan could timely and credibly meet the 180-day phase-in requirements of the performance work statement. RFP at 170. Offerors were advised that proposing an EOR period within their phase-in plan may reduce the risk of timely meeting the phase-in requirements.[2] Id. The agencys evaluation of an offerors phase-in plan would also consider eight program constraints and assumptions identified in the RFP, which included security clearances and common access cards (CAC), and MRAP University certifications/waivers.[3] RFP at 156-157. The RFP notified vendors that offerors proposing to obtain MRAP University waivers for individual employees may be subject to a higher risk rating under the phase-in plan. RFP at 170.
The Armys past performance evaluation would assess the risk of an offeror not meeting contract technical, schedule, and cost estimating requirements based on recent and relevant contract performance, as it relates to an offerors proposed solution to meet the solicitations requirements. RFP at 171. Offerors were to provide information on six recent and relevant contracts. RFP at 164. Recent contracts were those occurring within approximately 3 years of the issuance of the RFP. RFP at 165. Relevant past performance would include the scope of work activities that have a magnitude and complexity similar to the MRAP CLSS requirements. Id.
The agency received six proposals by the September 23, 2011, closing date, including proposals from CWS2 and ManTech. Discussions were opened with all offerors on October 12 and closed on April 20, 2012. All six offerors provided final proposal revisions by April 24.
The agencys source selection evaluation boards (SSEB) evaluation of the offerors resulted in the following ratings for CWS2 and ManTech:[4]
Past Performance
Small Business Participation
Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Report, at 1.
CWS2s final proposal described an approach to complete all phase-in activities within 137 days of contract award, beginning its EOR period on day 138. The SSEB assigned three strengths for CWS2s proposed phase-in plan: (1) incumbent hiring capture approach, (2) non-incumbent hiring and recruitment, and (3) use of [DELETED]. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 13. The SSEBs overall evaluation of CWS2s phase-in concluded:
CWS2 proposes an overall Phase-In strategy that is thorough in content and effective in approach. The proposal has a significant amount of detail in most areas especially involving managements role in the Phase-In effort, with slightly less information substantiating the actual implementation. Areas with less detail in the actual execution of Phase-In activities include incumbent CAC/LOA [common access card/letter of authorization] processing and CONUS sites transition.
* * * * *
Overall, CWS2 has a thorough approach to meeting their proposed 137 day Phase-In schedule and the Government finds that there is low risk in CWS2 [ ] not meeting the 180 day Phase-In requirement of C.1.3.1 [performance work statement, phase-in plan]. Based on the three strengths and no weaknesses, the Government has assigned CSW2 a rating of Good.
Id. at 13-14.
ManTechs final proposal provided a phase-in plan for the completion of all transition activities within 60 days of contract award, beginning its EOR period on day 61. The SSEB assigned seven strengths for ManTechs proposal: (1) incumbent hiring plan to complete over 91 percent immediate staffing transfer, (2) non-incumbent hiring gap analysis, (3) non-incumbent recruitment activities, (4) CAC/LOA staggered strategy, (5) MRAP University attendance for CONUS positions, (6) approach to execute phase-in within 60 days, and (7) use of existing facilities in both the CONUS warehouse and Kuwait Sustainment Center. AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Phase-In, at 12. The SSEBs overall evaluation of ManTechs phase-in concluded:
ManTechs Phase-In proposal is a comprehensive, well-thought out strategy for the completion of all Phase-In activities in an efficient, effective manner without disruption to the ongoing mission. Their exceptional level of detail and substantiation is evident throughout the proposal.
* * * * *
Overall, the ManTech Phase-In proposal is evidence of exceptional preparation and detailed planning. ManTech has an exceptional approach to accomplishing the Phase-In of this contract in a short, efficient manner at very low risk to meeting the C.1.3.1 requirement of transitioning to the new contract in 180 days. Based on the [s]even [s]trengths, no [w]eaknesses and additional attributes described above, the Government has assigned ManTech a rating of Outstanding.
Id. at 13-14.
With regard to past performance, the SSEB noted that CWS2 proposed the following percentages of work to be performed by it partners or subcontractors: CWS2 (85%), [DELETED] (7%), [DELETED] (2.8%), [DELETED] (1.4%), [DELETED] (2.5%), and [DELETED] (0.58%). AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Past Performance, at 4. The SSEBs overall evaluation of CWS2s past performance, which included only contract references for joint venture partners AECOM and VSE, and subcontractor [DELETED], concluded:
CWS2 has proposed to perform all of the Scope of Work activities, and [DELETED] will be performing in all SOWs, excluding RPS&M [repair parts supply & management]. CWS2 has substantiated their proposal by demonstrating relevant, successful performance for all five Scope of Work activities on more than one contract. CWS2 received primarily good ratings, with some excellent ratings from the questionnaire respondents in technical and primarily good ratings in schedule and cost. CWS2 has demonstrated a positive performance record in technical, schedule and cost and the Government has a high expectation that CWS2 will successfully perform this MRAP CLSS effort. Due to the combined past performance of the Joint Venture Partners, CWS2s past performance proposal is rated Substantial Confidence.
Id. at 30.
The SSEB noted that ManTech proposed the following percentages of work for its partners or subcontractors: ManTech (91%), [DELETED] (8%), and [DELETED] (1%). AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Past Performance, at 4. The SSEBs overall evaluation of ManTechs past performance, which included contracts of both ManTech and [DELETED], concluded:
ManTech has proposed that they are going to perform all applicable SOW [statement of work] activities to the MRAP CLSS effort and they have substantiated their proposal by demonstrating relevant, successful performance in all five (5) SOW activities on two (2) contracts. ManTech received primarily excellent ratings from the questionnaire respondents in the areas of technical, schedule and cost. ManTech has demonstrated a positive performance record in the aforementioned areas, and the Government has a high expectation that ManTech will successfully perform this MRAP CLSS effort. ManTechs past performance proposal is rated Substantial Confidence.
Id. at 35.
On May 3, the SSEB presented its evaluation to the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA). AR, Tab 16, SSAC Report, at 1; AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 1. The SSAC conducted a comparative analysis of the proposals and, on May 24, submitted a report to the SSA with a majority and dissenting opinion. The SSAC majority opinion recommended CSW2 for award, and the SSAC dissenting opinion recommended ManTech for award. AR, Tab 16, SSAC Report, at 16, 29. Both the majority and dissenting opinions acknowledged that ManTechs overall proposal for the non-cost/price factors was better than CWS2s overall proposal, and both options stated that their respective recommendations for award were very difficult and close decisions. The majority opinion concluded that the benefits of ManTechs proposal were not worth payment of a price premium. Id. at 2, 12. The dissenting opinion, on the other hand, concluded that ManTechs proposal advantages, under the phase-in and past performance factors, were worth the 3.5 percent price premium attributable to the ManTech proposal. Id. at 28-29.
The SSA reviewed the SSEBs final evaluation and the SSACs majority and dissenting opinions, and conducted a comparative assessment of the proposals. AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 2. The SSA concurred with the SSEBs rating for ManTechs proposal under the phase-in factor as outstanding, and CWS2s rating for that factor as good. In comparing the offerors phase-in proposals, the SSA noted that ManTech offered a more advantageous CAC plan, a more advantageous phase-in transition plan, and a more advantageous EOR date. The SSA found that these discriminators collectively resulted in less risk in ManTech timely and credibly meeting the phase-in requirements within the 180 days when compared to CWS2. Id. at 3. The SSA also concluded that although ManTech and CWS2 each received substantial confidence ratings under the past performance factor, ManTech had a slight advantage because ManTech received a higher number of excellent ratings by customers in response to past performance questionnaires and received excellent ratings for performance on highly relevant contracts that were identical to the current effort. The SSAs tradeoff analysis concluded:
The SSEB and SSAC found that there is low risk in CWS2 not completing the phase-in within 180 days. While I agree with that assessment, I cannot overlook the fact that the SSEB and SSAC found that there is very low risk in MTT [ManTech] not completing Phase-In within 180 days. . . . In dissecting the two proposals, I have determined that the advantages of s Phase-In proposal--its CAC plan, phase-in transition plan, and beginning full EOR earlier--do result in less risk than CWS2s proposal. . . . I find that it is well worth paying a price premium of $97,075,113 (3.5%) for these advantages offered by MTT in the non-Cost/Price factors.
Id. at 4-5. Based upon the SSAs independent analysis and tradeoff decision, the SSA selected ManTech for award.
The award was made to ManTech on May 31, 2012. After receiving a debriefing, CWS2 filed this protest with our Office on June 12.
CWS2 protests the Armys evaluation and source selection decision, asserting that the agency unreasonably evaluated CWS2s phase-in plan, failed to consider negative past performance of ManTech, and improperly found that ManTechs higher cost proposal represented the best value.
In considering protests challenging an agencys evaluation of proposals, we will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the agencys evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Gonzales-Stoller Remediation Services, LLC, B-406183.2, et al., Mar. 2, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 134 at 5. An evaluation is not unreasonable simply because an SSA disagrees with the evaluation ratings and results of lower level evaluators; an SSA may disagree with (or expand on) the findings of the lower level evaluators, provided that the SSAs judgments are reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation scheme, and adequately documented. Sig Sauer, Inc., B-402339.3, July 23, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 184 at 6. A protesters mere disagreement with a procuring agencys judgment is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Id.
Here, we conclude that the Armys evaluation of the offerors proposals and source selection decision was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. Although our decision does not specifically address all of CWS2s arguments, we have fully considered each of them. As illustrated by the following examples, we find that none of these arguments provide a basis to sustain the protest.[5]
Phase-In Factor Evaluation
CWS2 challenges the agencys evaluation of its phase-in plan, asserting that the agency unreasonably evaluated the risk of its plan. CWS2 argues that the agencys evaluation failed to follow the solicitation criteria because the agency evaluated CWS2s plan against its proposed 137-day schedule, instead of the solicitations 180-day schedule requirement. The protester also argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal in concluding that ManTech's proposal provided a lower risk of meeting the schedule requirements.
As discussed above, the RFP stated that the phase-in evaluation would assess whether an offerors proposed phase-in plan could timely and credibly meet the 180-day phase-in requirements of the performance work statement. RFP at 170. Offerors were permitted to propose an EOR period within their phase-in plan that may reduce the risk of timely meeting the phase-in requirements. Id. Offerors were also permitted to propose obtaining waivers of MRAP University attendance for individual employees, but were also advised that such waivers may subject an offeror to a higher risk rating under the Phase-In plan. Id.
The SSEBs evaluation of CWS2s phase-in proposal concluded that CWS2 presented a thorough approach to meeting their proposed 137-day phase-in schedule, which resulted in a low risk of CWS2 not meeting the 180-day phase-in requirement. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 14. In assessing a low risk to CWS2s proposal, the SSEB found that CWS2s phase-in plan had a significant amount of detail in most areas, especially involving managements role in the phase-in effort, but with slightly less information substantiating the actual implementation. Id. The SSEBs evaluation also identified areas with less detail in the actual execution of phase-in activities, which included CWS2s incumbent CAC/LOA processing and CONUS site transition. Id.
The SSACs evaluation of CWS2s phase-in concurred with the SSEBs findings, and concluded that CWS2 offered a thorough plan for timely and credibly meeting the 180-day phase-in requirement. AR, Tab 16, SSAC Report, at 6. The SSAC identified [m]inimal risks that would affect the 180-day schedule, and found little doubt that CWS2 can perform the phase-in requirements within 180-days.[6] Id. at 13. The SSAs tradeoff decision concurred with the SSEBs evaluation--as well as the SSACs determination--that there was low risk in CWS2 not completing phase-in within 180 days. AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 4.
CWS2 contends that the Army departed from the evaluation criterion of measuring phase-in risk against the 180-day schedule, and instead assessed risk to CWS2s phase-in plan based upon its proposal to complete phase-in and begin EOR in 137-days. CWS2 also alleges the agencys low risk assessment--as opposed to a more favorable very low risk assessment--for CWS2s phase-in plan was improper because the agency found no risk to CWS2s phase-in plan with regard to the solicitations 180-day schedule requirement, and instead relied solely on risks regarding the 137-day schedule.
Based upon our review of the record, we find that the agency followed the solicitation criteria in evaluating CWS2s phase-in risk. Although agencies are required to identify in a solicitation all major evaluation factors, they are not required to identify all areas of each factor that might be taken into account in an evaluation, provided that the unidentified areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated factors. Information Ventures, Inc., B-401448.5, B-401448.6, May 13, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 180 at 7.
First, we find that the agency reasonably considered risks related to CWS2s proposed 137-day schedule. As the Army notes, the RFP expressly permitted the agency to reduce phase-in risk if an offeror proposed an EOR date. RFP at 170. The evaluation documents show that while the agency considered CWS2s proposed schedule to complete all phase-in activities on day 137, this analysis was only part of the agencys overall phase-in risk evaluation. See AR, Tab 12, 16, 17, Agency Evaluation Documents CWS2. In this regard, the agencys evaluation of CWS2s phase-in plan was based upon whether the offerors' proposed phase-in plans posed any risks to the solicitations 180-day phase-in schedule, including both the EOR dates as well as other evaluated risks. Thus, the agencys consideration of the offerors abilities to meet their proposed EOR dates was reasonably related to the evaluation of the risk of meeting the overall 180-day schedule. Accordingly, we find that the agencys evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation with regard to CWS2s phase-in risk.
Next, in a related argument, CWS2 argues that the agencys assignment of a low risk rating to its phase-in plan was unreasonable because it relied on a contradictory assessment of the risks of its plan. CWS2 asserts that the SSEB did not find any risk in CWS2s proposal meeting the 180-day requirement, and instead was confident in CWS2s ability to execute its phase-in schedule within 180 days. CWS2 alleges that the only area of risk identified by the SSEB concerned CWS2s planned phase-in transition activities in the CONUS, where the agency found some low risk to meeting their proposed 137-day schedule. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 14. CWS notes that even though the agency found some low risk to its 137-day schedule, the SSEB concluded that this risk was not expected to affect 180-day Phase-In completion. Id. Thus, CWS2 argues that the SSEBs low risk assessment was internally inconsistent with the SSEBs underlying evaluation, which found no risks to the protester's ability to meet the 180-day schedule. We disagree.
Contrary to the protester's arguments, the record shows that the Army found several concerns regarding CWS2's ability to meet the 180-day schedule. For example, while CWS2 received a strength for its non-incumbent hiring recruitment, the agency expressed concerned with regard to CWS2s approach to request [DELETED] MRAP University waivers because the waiver applications would not be granted until after contract award. Id. at 5-6. As discussed above, the RFP advised offerors that the agency could assign higher risk to offers that proposed MRAP University waivers. While the agency noted that CWS2 would likely have time to either hire replacement employees or send employees through MRAP University within the 180-day phase-in period, the agency believed that this approach posed risk to the schedule. Id. at 6.
Another area of concern raised by the agency was CWS2s CAC/LOA plan.[7] Here, the agencys evaluation of CWS2s plan found that [t]he basic CAC/LOA strategy is in accordance with [the] RFP requirements and supports their hiring plan and Phase-In schedule. Id. at 7. The agency determined that it had confidence that CWS2 will be able to obtain CAC/LOA in order to assume mission responsibility within 180-days. Id. However, the SSEB concluded that CWS2s overall CAC/LOA lacked detail, and thus merited an acceptable rating, as opposed to a higher rating. Id.
As a final illustration, the SSEB also had concerns with CWS2s transition plan. As pointed out by CWS2, the SSEB evaluated some low risk that CWS2s planned phase-in transition activities would impact CWS2s proposed phase-in schedule. Id. at 14. CWS2s proposal identified that its [DELETED] CONUS based phase-in teams would complete phase-in at [DELETED] CONUS locations within 7 days. Id. at 10. The SSEB described CWS2s CONUS phase-in schedules as very aggressive, and noted that the schedule could cause potential delays to their proposed CONUS transition schedule due to the level of effort required at each site and the geographic dispersion of the [DELETED] sites. Id. at 10-11.
As these examples demonstrate, CWS2's characterization of the agencys evaluation is not correct--the SSEB did, in fact, identify risks that CWS2s phase-in plan would not meet the solicitations 180-day requirement. While CWS2 makes much of the fact that the agency concluded that its phase-in presented a thorough approach that gave the Government confidence that the requirements would be met within 180 days, a finding of confidence does not equate to no risk. Notably, the agency did not find that CWS2s phase-in plan presented an outstanding approach, which gave the Government high confidence in CWS2s approach, as it did for ManTech.
Each of the agencys evaluation documents (SSEB evaluation, SSAC recommendation report, and SSA decision) expresses agreement with the conclusion that CWS2s phase-in plan presented low risk of meeting the 180-days; not one of these documents supports CWS2s claim that its proposal contained no risks. Moreover, it was proper for the agency to consider the risk that CWS2 would not be able to meet its proposed 137-day schedule in evaluating CWS2s overall risk of timely and credibly meeting the 180-day requirement. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the agencys evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the underlying evaluation of the SSEB. CWS2s attempts to rebut the agencys conclusions amount to no more than mere disagreement with the agencys judgments, and do not provide any basis to sustain the protest. Accordingly, we find that the agencys overall evaluation of CWS2s phase-in plan was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.
Comparison of CWS2's and ManTech's Phase-in Proposals
CWS2 contends that the SSAs comparative assessment of CWS2s and ManTechs phase-in plans was unreasonable because the SSAs appraisal of the plans failed to follow the solicitation criteria, was not supported by the facts, and is inconsistent with the SSEBs underlying evaluation.
As discussed above, the SSEBs evaluation of CWS2 found that CWS2s plan presented a thorough approach with a low risk of CWS2 not meeting the 180-day phase-in requirement. Based on three strengths and no weaknesses, the SSEB assigned CWS2s plan a rating of good. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 14. The SSEBs evaluation determined that ManTechs phase-in plan presented an exceptional approach to accomplishing the phase-in of this contract at a very low risk. AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Phase-In, at 14. Based on seven strengths and no weaknesses, the SSEB assigned ManTechs phase-in plan a rating of outstanding.
The SSAs analysis of the proposals agreed with the SSEBs ratings, and concurred with the SSAC majoritys and dissents findings that ManTechs phase-in plan offered advantages over CWS2s plan. Both the SSAs decision and the SSACs opinions found three discriminators that collectively resulted in ManTechs phase-in plan having less risk than CWS2s plan for timely and credibly meeting the phase-in requirements: (1) CAC/LOA approach, (2) transition plan, and (3) EOR date.[8] AR, Tab 16, SSAC Report, at 9; AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 2-3. CWS2 challenges each of the three discriminators, and we address each one in turn.
First, the SSA concluded that ManTechs CAC/LOA approach was more advantageous than CWS2s plan. In making this assessment, the SSA considered the findings of the SSEB and SSAC. The SSEB found that CWS2s acceptable CAC/LOA strategy was in accordance with RFP requirements and supported CWS2s hiring plan and schedule. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 7. For ManTech, the SSEB found that the awardees CAC/LOA plan provided an exceptional approach--for which it was assigned a strength--that indicated a complete understanding of the requirements and considered the various responsibilities and constraints on the CAC/LOA process. AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Phase-In, at 6. Based upon the SSEBs evaluation and the recommendation of the SSAC--which found a slight advantage to ManTechs CAC/LOA plan--the SSA determined that ManTechs CAC/LOA plan was more advantageous than CWS2s plan because ManTech demonstrated a superior understanding of the process by not only explaining its procedures but also setting forth a comprehensive plan and schedule. AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 3. Due to the level of detail in ManTechs plan, the SSA found ManTechs plan more advantageous than CWS2s plan. Id.
With regard to its CAC/LOA plan, the protester asserts that the SSA ignored portions of CWS2s proposal, unjustifiably disregarded the SSEBs findings, and improperly evaluated the plan based on incumbent-specific information available only to ManTech. CWS2 contends that the SSA misread its proposal in concluding that CWS2 provided merely a basic strategy because CWS2s plan comprehensively addressed the CAC constraint. AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 3. CWS2 asserts that the SSAs characterization of CWS2s CAC/LOA plan is at odds with SSEBs determination that the plan presented an acceptable approach, which indicated a complete understanding of the requirements. CWS2 additionally complains that the SSAs finding is flawed because offerors could not have been expected to develop their proposals to the level of detail of the incumbent absent sufficient information from the agency.
Based upon our review of the record, we find that CWS2s contentions provide no more than mere disagreement with the SSAs reasonable conclusions, and that the SSA reasonably found ManTechs CAC/LOA plan to be more advantageous than CWS2s plan, in accordance with the solicitation criteria and consistent with the SSEBs evaluation findings. As noted above, the SSA explained the differences between the two proposals level of detail and recognized that the SSEB found CWS2s CAC/LOA plan to be an acceptable approach that contained less detail in the actual execution of its plan. The protester nevertheless contends that although the SSAs evaluation expressly stated that it relied on findings by the SSEB, the SSAs finding that CWS2s CAC/LOA plan was basic is at odds with a more favorable finding by the SSEB. The record shows, however, that the SSEB in fact assessed CWS2s plan as acceptable finding that [a]reas with less detail in the actual execution of Phase-In activities include incumbent CAC/LOA processing and CONUS sites transition. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 7, 13. We find that the SSA--based upon the SSEBs evaluation, the SSACs opinions, and the SSAs own review of the proposals--reasonably determined that ManTechs CAC/LOA approach provided a more detailed plan.
Additionally, we find no evidence that the agency, in concluding that ManTechs plan was more detailed, based its analysis upon information that was only available to ManTech, as the incumbent. CWS2 asserts that it could not have provided as detailed as a plan as ManTech because ManTech had knowledge of the specific Special Operations Command (SOCOM) sites, which were classified and unavailable to CWS2. CWS2 points to one chart in ManTechs phase-in proposal--which presents details of ManTechs staggered approach to grouping employees into batches to receive their CACs and LOAs--to support its assertion that ManTechs knowledge and use of the SOCOM site information made it possible for ManTech to provide a more detailed plan. AR, Tab 11, ManTech Phase-In Proposal, at E2-2. We do not agree that information contained within ManTechs chart clearly arose out of ManTechs knowledge of SOCOM sites. As ManTechs proposal provides, the charts distribution of personnel into batches was based on the order of personnel provided in the agencys staffing matrix, which listed SOCOM site positions as well as CONUS and OCONUS site positions. ManTechs proposal clarified that during contract performance, the distribution of personnel into batches would not occur in staffing matrix order, but rather would be in alphabetical order. Id. at E2-1. Thus, CWS2 has not shown that the agencys evaluation distinguished CWS2s and ManTechs CAC/LOA plans based on information only available to ManTech.
The second and third phase-in plan discriminators in ManTechs favor were based on the SSAs assessment of an advantage relating to ManTechs approach for completion of its transition plan, and an advantage relating to ManTechs scheduled EOR date. With regard to ManTechs transition plan, the SSEB stated that it was highy confident that ManTech could meet its proposed schedule to complete phase-in within 60 days. AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Phase-In, at 9. The SSEB noted that ManTechs transition was primarily administrative in nature, ManTech currently has employees in place, and ManTechs infrastructure requires minimal adjustment. Id. ManTech was also assigned a strength for demonstrating an exceptional understanding of the Phase-In requirements an[d] minimiz[ing] the risk of completing Phase-in within 180-days. Id. at 12. Overall, the SSEB found very low risk to ManTechs transition plan. Id. at 14. In comparison, the SSEBs underlying evaluation of CWS2 found low risk of CWS2 not completing its transition plan within its proposed 137-days because it found CWS2s CONUS transition plan to be very aggressive. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 14. Overall, the SSEB found CWS2 had a thorough transition approach that gave the agency confidence that CWS2 would be able to execute its plan within 180-days. Id. With regard to the offerors proposed EOR dates, the SSEB was highly confident in ManTechs ability to execute its phase-in schedule by day 60, beginning EOR on day 61. AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Phase-In, at 9. The SSEB was confident in CWS2s ability to execute its phase-in schedule by day 137, beginning EOR on day 138. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Evaluation CWS2, Phase-In, at 14.
Based upon the SSEBs evaluation and the recommendation of the SSAC--which found a slight advantage to ManTechs transition plan--the SSA concluded that ManTechs transition plan and proposed EOR date were more advantageous than CWS2s proposed EOR date. AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 3.
CWS2 contends that the SSA deviated from the solicitation criteria by improperly assessing advantages to ManTechs transition plan and earlier EOR date. As discussed above, CWS2 contends that the RFP only permitted the agency to evaluate perceived risk to an offers ability to meet the 180-day schedule, and did not permit the agency to consider whether there was a risk that an offeror would not meet a shorter schedule. Furthermore, CWS2 claims that nothing in the RFP put offerors on notice that the agency would give evaluation credit for proposing an earlier EOR date.
As we have previously stated, however, CWS2s assumption that the agency found no risk to its plan meeting the 180-day schedule is inaccurate. Instead, the SSEB assigned CWS2 a rating of good, with low risk, based on various concerns that affected the protesters ability to meet the 180-day requirements. Further, as also discussed above, the RFP expressly permitted the agency to consider reducing overall phase-in risk if an offeror proposed an EOR date. In this regard, we think the agency reasonably concluded that an offeror who proposed an earlier EOR would be in a better position to meet the 180-day requirements than an offeror who proposed a longer EOR period. Accordingly, each of CWS2s challenges to agencys comparative assessment of the offerors phase-in plans are denied.
Past Performance Evaluation
Next, CWS2 claims that the SSAs evaluation of the offerors past performance, which found that ManTech had a slight advantage over CWS2, was unreasonable. CWS2 argues that the agency improperly overlooked or discounted negative performance information regarding one of two contract references for [DELETED], a proposed subcontractor of ManTech. CWS2 asserts that ManTechs past performance would not have been a discriminating factor in the agencys tradeoff decision had this information been reasonably considered.
Our Office will examine an agencys evaluation of an offerors past performance only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations since determining the relative merit or relative relevance of an offerors past performance is primarily a matter within the agencys discretion. TPMC-EnergySolutions Environmental Services, LLC, B-406183, Mar. 2, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 135 at 11. The significance of, and the weight to be assigned to, a subcontractors past performance is a matter of the contracting agencys discretion. Strategic Res., Inc., B-287398, B-287398.2, June 18, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 131 at 5-6.
In completing its past performance evaluation of ManTech, the agency evaluated six past performance references provided by ManTech: four contracts performed by ManTech and two contracts performed by [DELETED]. The contract that CWS2 alleges the SSA disregarded was a contract of [DELETED] for special operations forces support activity (SOFSA)-CLSS.
The SSEBs evaluation of this contract determined that [DELETED] contract performance was relevant to three of the five statement of work activities listed in the RFP. AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Past Performance, at 6. In these areas, the SSEB concluded that [DELETED] successfully performed the contract requirements and received a mix of good and adequate performance ratings. Id. at 23. The SSEB reviewed [DELETED] contract schedule performance by analyzing a CPAR (contract performance assessment report) that rated [DELETED] schedule as satisfactory, and a past performance questionnaire response that rated [DELETED] schedule as marginal. Id. at 24-25. The SSEB considered these ratings--as well as the fact that the schedule delays occurred in a 4-month transition period and that [DELETED] ultimately met its schedule after taking corrective action--and concluded that [DELETED] displayed the ability to adhere to the schedule performance requirements of the SOFSA contract. Id. at 25. With regard to cost estimation, the SSEB analyzed a CPAR that rated [DELETED] cost estimation marginal, and a past performance questionnaire response that rated [DELETED] cost estimation poor. Id. at 25-26. Here, the SSEB determined that [DELETED] failed to display the ability to adhere to cost performance requirements of its SOFSA effort. Id. at 26. Nonetheless, the SSEB concluded that it had a high expectation that MTT [ManTech] will be able to successfully meet the cost requirements of this MRAP CLSS effort due to ManTechs and [DELETED] past cost performance references receiving mostly excellent ratings, noting that significant consideration was given to ManTechs past cost performance, as it was proposed to perform 91 percent of the labor hours. Id. at 34.
Overall, the SSEB assigned ManTech a substantial confidence rating for past performance considering its three strengths: (1) two contracts that have successfully performed relevant work in all five statement of work activities, (2) six contracts meeting the schedule requirements of each contract, and (3) five of six cost reimbursement and time and materials contracts meeting the cost requirements of each contract. Id. at 35.
The SSAs comparative assessment of the offerors past performance took into account the SSEBs evaluation, noting that both CWS2 and ManTech received substantial confidence ratings. The SSA distinguished the two offerors substantial confidence ratings based upon the higher number of excellent ratings received by ManTech and the excellent ratings ManTech received for performance as the incumbent on the current MRAP-CLSS contract and the MRAP-CSS [Combat Service Support] contract, which were both identical to the current effort. AR, Tab 17, SSA Decision, at 4. As relevant to the protesters arguments, the SSA explained that he did not attribute much significance to [DELETED] marginal rating for meeting performance schedule and poor rating for costs because, as a subcontractor, [DELETED] would only be performing 8 percent of the work under the contract. Id. The SSA concluded that he had more confidence in ManTechs ability to successfully achieve the contract requirements based on its excellent past performance history, which resulted in ManTech having a slight advantage in past performance. Id.
On this record, we find that the SSAs evaluation of ManTechs past performance, and its finding that ManTechs past performance was slightly more advantageous than CWS2s, was reasonable and adequately documented. With regard to CWS2s challenge to the [DELETED] SOFSA contract, the record shows that the SSA considered this contract and reasonably did not attribute much significance to it because [DELETED] would be performing only 8 percent of the work as ManTechs subcontractor. Id. While CWS2 makes much of the fact that [DELETED] was proposed to accomplish work under four of the five statement of work areas, it is notable that the [DELETED] contract at issue rated [DELETED] under these statement of work areas as good/acceptable. It was only in the areas of schedule and cost that [DELETED] received the negative ratings, not under its statement of work activities. Moreover, a separate contract submitted by [DELETED] provided an excellent rating for [DELETED] schedule and cost. AR, Tab 13, SSEB Evaluation ManTech, Past Performance, at 28. The record shows that the SSEB considered all of this information and concluded that it had a high expectation that ManTech will be able to successfully meet the schedule and cost requirements of this MRAP CLSS effort.
In sum, the SSAs review relied upon the SSEBs evaluation and overall determinations, and placed significance upon ManTechs excellent performance of the current contract. On balance, we find that the agency, in its evaluation, fully considered the available information concerning ManTechs past performance and reasonably assessed it as more advantageous than the past performance of CWS2. See Strategic Res., Inc., supra (finding that an SSA reasonably assigned little weight to a subcontractors past performance, where the SSA concluded that the performance of an offeror on its predecessor contract was a much stronger predictor of performance than performance by a proposed subcontractor who was proposed to complete only 20 percent of the work.)
Source Selection Decision
CWS2 contends that the SSA lacked a reasonable basis for determining that the non-cost/price advantages of ManTechs proposal outweighed the price advantage of CWS2. Specifically, CWS2 asserts that the SSAs bases for discriminating between CWS2s and ManTechs phase-in plans were unsupported and arbitrary.
In reviewing an agencys source selection decision, we examine the supporting record to determine if it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitations evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. See Honeywell Tech. Solutions, Inc., B-406036, Jan. 3, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 43 at 5. Where, as here, a solicitation provides for a tradeoff between the non-cost/price factors and cost/price, the agency retains discretion to make award to a firm with a higher non-cost/price rating, despite the higher price, so long as the tradeoff decision is properly justified and otherwise consistent with the stated evaluation and source selection scheme. TtEC-Tesoro, JV, B-405313, B-405313.3, Oct. 7, 2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 2 at 10. It is not our function to second guess the agencys judgment as to the value of the advantages associated with a higher-rated proposal. That is, in considering the rationality of an agencys tradeoff determination, we look at whether the reasons given for preferring one proposal over another are consistent with the stated evaluation scheme, and not whether we agree with the source selection authority as to the relative value of the advantages. Carothers Constr., Inc., B-405241.4, July 26, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 225. As discussed above, the SSAs comparison of the strengths and weaknesses CWS2s and MMTs proposals was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation criteria, and treated the offerors equally. Thus, in our view, the agency has adequately justified its selection of ManTechs higher-rated, higher-priced proposal in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.
CWS2 finally contends that the agencys best value decision, which resulted in the payment of a 3.5 percent premium, was unreasonable. As indicated above, the SSA clearly articulated the basis for his determination that ManTechs proposal outweighed its higher total evaluated price. In so doing, the SSA took into account ManTechs phase-in proposal, noting distinguishing features with ManTechs CAC/LOA plan, transition plan, and EOR date, as well as, ManTechs slightly higher-rated past performance, and identified the specific advantages of ManTechs proposal that reasonably supported the price premium. While the SSAC majority arrived at a different result than the SSA, we find the agencys award decision was well-documented, reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation criteria. See Sig Sauer, Inc., supra.
The protest is denied.
Lynn H. Gibson
General Counsel
[1] CWS2 is a joint venture comprised of AECOM Government Services, Inc. and VSE Corporation, with AECOM as the managing partner.
[2] The solicitation did not provide for the evaluation of the two operational readiness option periods.
[3] MRAP University provides a 6-week course on advanced level operator and field maintenance training for all MRAP vehicle systems. RFP, Performance Work Statement, at 18. The solicitation required all contractor employees in certain labor categories to have either a certification of training from MRAP University or receive a waiver from the requirement. RFP at 158.
[4] The possible phase-in and small business participation factor ratings were: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. The possible past performance factor ratings were: substantial, satisfactory, limited, no, and unknown confidence. AR, Tab 22, SSA Briefing, at 31, 152, 233.
[5] For example, we find no basis to sustain the protest with regard to CWS2s allegation that the SSAC was improperly influenced by the agencys peer review committees comments on its draft recommendation, which CWS2 contends led to the SSA receiving a watered-down SSAC recommendation. Based upon our review of the record, it is clear that the peer review committees analysis of the SSACs draft report was for consistency purposes, its opinions were advisory in nature, and the SSAC members approved the final recommendations to the SSA.
[6] While there were majority and dissenting opinions to the SSACs recommendation, both opinions agreed that CWS2s phase-in plan presented a low risk of CWS2 not completing phase-in within 180-days. Id. at 27.
[7] CWS2 also challenges the SSAs tradeoff decision with regard to its CAC/LOA plan. This issue is addressed below.
[8] As discussed above, while the SSAC majority agreed that there were three specific discriminators that resulted in ManTech having less risk than CWS2, the SSAC majority recommended selecting CWS2 for award because it did not believe the advantages were worth the price premium. AR, Tab 16, SSAC Report, at 12.
Sep 17, 2020
Sep 16, 2020
Sumaria Systems, Inc.
We deny the protest.
We deny the protest.
Sep 15, 2020
CenturyLink QGS
We deny the protest.
Patronus Systems, Inc.
We sustain the protest.
Sep 11, 2020
Looking for more? Browse all our products here


text:
Not wanting to look like a Beatles' band member, i decided to get a haircut. Not far, just walking distance.
The guy cutting my hair wore a mask. U know, the ones they wear in a haze or a SARS attack. Before me, there was 1 more customer. So i waited and read some newspapers, namely Kosmo!. I rarely read tabloids, cause its not what i'd consider real news. Its all just sensational. On the front cover: The Norman Hakim-Abby Abadi showdown. Some new artiste couple on the verge of breaking up. See? No news.
Then it was my turn. The masked man first lifted his mask and spit into the rubbish bin.*urghh* I pretended i didnt see.
'Belakang, tepi slope, atas potong pendek sikit je'
And he started work on my hopeless, unorganised hair. You know, sometimes it feels so good, you just wanna doze off. I think i dozed off a few times. It must have felt like forever for the guy after me(there was only one hair-cutter in the shop).
Then i woke up and looked at the mirror.
There's a barber and a butcher.
I went to the wrong shop.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
There's a Barber and a Butcher
Not wanting to look like a Beatles' band member, i decided to get a haircut. Not far, just walking distance.
Posted by The Author at 6:47 PM


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
The fire chief in Charleston, S.C., moved earlier this week to block the federal investigation of the deaths of nine firefighters, denying access to his employees for interviews. After pressure from federal investigators, on Thursday the chief backed down.
The standoff presented a new test for the Centers for Disease Control, which investigates many firefighter fatalities. As MSNBC.com disclosed in a special report in February, the CDC has scaled back its investigations and normally doesn't investigate at all if the fire department or firefighters union objects. ( Read the special report here. )
On Monday, Charleston Fire Chief Rusty Thomas told the CDC that his department would not allow federal investigators to interview firefighters about the Sofa Super Store fire on June 18. Nine firefighters died of smoke inhalation and burns inside the store, which was packed with flammable furniture.
On Tuesday, the CDC objected, with the head of CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health writing to the chief to ask him to reconsider.
On Thursday morning, the city relented. Mayor Joe Riley called a CDC official to say that interviews would be allowed. The city and federal officials agreed that the federal interviews will be conducted at the same time as interviews by the state Department of Labor. (CDC released copies of two letters to the chief. Read the letters here in PDF format.)
"This is a developing situation," CDC spokesman Fred Blosser told MSNBC.com on Thursday afternoon. "This morning we were notified that the chief has said that he will grant access to the firefighters. Earlier this week, he had indicated that he was denying access to the firefighters for interviews."
Mayor Riley told MSNBC.com that it was all a misunderstanding. He said Chief Thomas was merely trying to minimize the number of interviews of his weary and grieving firefighters, not to block any investigation. The firefighters have already been interviewed by other investigators from the city, the state, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the mayor said, and needed to get back to work.
"The fire chief, out of understandable concern for his men, was trying to reduce the amount of time that they are taking away from their jobs," Riley said. "And with the trauma that should be quite understandable that they are going through, he wanted to be sure that their very important public safety duties can continue.... Certainly the intent was never to deny the opportunity, but right now, two weeks and two days after the fire, the chief was being a very prudent leader. Maybe there was some miscommunication."
Later Thursday, Chief Thomas told NBC station WCBD in Charleston that he had wanted a postponement of the federal interviews, to spare his firefighters another round of interviews so soon. "I just want to give them a break, give them a couple of weeks," Thomas said. "I mean, we've only been at this thing for two weeks, and the first week we spent burying nine people. We did not deny them that they could never come in. I just wanted to give my guys a break, that had the fire. Some of the guys are really having a difficult time, understandably so, with this."
Unlike the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates airplane and other transportation accidents, the CDC has said that it does not have the authority to compel interviews or to gain access to accident scenes. The Congress in 1988 gave the CDC the role of investigating firefighter deaths — numbering roughly 100 per year. The firefighters union contends that the CDC does have that authority but has chosen not to use it.
Fire experts have said that the Charleston fire raises several issues about firefighter safety, meriting a federal investigation:
- The incident commander, an assistant fire chief, has said he went inside the building several times. National firefighting guidelines call for a commander to stay outside, with a vantage point for sizing up the entire scene.
- Firefighters apparently didn't look into the space above the dropped ceiling of the store to determine whether the fire had spread.
- The department's planning report on this building had not noted that it had a steel truss roof, known to collapse quickly during fires, as happened in this case.
- The building was not equipped with sprinklers, which might have quickly extinguished the fire. Since then, the mayor has called on the local water utility to eliminate impact fees, which are assessed on buildings that install sprinklers. A spokesman for the Sofa Super Store has said that city officials approached the store 12 years ago, giving the option of installing a fire door or sprinklers; the owner chose the fire door, according to the Post and Courier newspaper in Charleston.
- The deaths renewed a debate in the fire service about how aggressive fire departments should be, especially when no lives are at stake — whether firefighters should go inside in uncertain conditions, when only property is at risk, or retreat to drown the fire from the outside.
Chief Thomas added to the controversy when he told the Post and Courier newspaper that he wasn't concerned about national standards. "I don't care how it is anyplace else," he said, adding, "Our firefighting techniques are not going to change in the city of Charleston Fire Department."
The firefighters union was watching closely this week's back-and-forth.
"It disturbs me, if a city is not going to cooperate with an investigation," said Larry Osborne, a district vice president for the International Association of Fire Fighters and a retired district chief in Jacksonville, Fla.
"It's going to be tempting for other cities to say, 'No, we're going to investigate ourselves.' Which takes us back to where we were before."
© 2013 msnbc.com Reprints


text:
The Birdcage was a wonder, and the epitome of pre-monocoque race car design, a gossamer web of 200 pencil-thin chro-moly steel tubes
welded fillet brazed into a delicate space frame which weighed all of 90 pounds.
The car came in various configurations and, while not the most reliable thing, the four-cylinder Tipo 61 variant scored back-to-back wins at the 1000 km Nürburgring in 1960 and 1961 in the hands of Stirling Moss, Dan Gurney, Lloyd Casner and Masten Gregory.
This photo of a late-model mid-engined Tipo 63, powered by a helicopter-loud V12, shows the wild series of tubes which gave the car its lightness and rigidity.


text:
Hey everyone! Like I promised several months ago, I am indeed hosting another Glee MEP. Unlike the first one, I want to do a mixed version of it this time. I feel like it would be easier to coordinate and have a more "end goal".
The Plan
The plan is simple. Glee is a very well acclaimed (and loved) American television program that a lot of users (myself included) really loved watching. They had great cover songs and a very interesting plot behind the story. I'd love to do a tribute MEP to them and their music.
The Mix
I'd like to take one song from each album (to cover the entire seasons without going nuts on MEP length), and I've listed out my personal favorites, although feel free to offer substitutions. If you want a full list to go by what songs I own and are willing to mix together, the amazon links to the MP3s are available if your mind is rusty on the Glee collection. Plus, you can listen to a small snippet of them.
Don't Stop Believin' (Volume 1)
Bust a Move (Volume 1)
My Life Would Suck Without You (Volume 2)
Jump (Volume 2)
Safety Dance (Volume 3)
Bad Romance (Volume 3)
Teenage Dream (Volume 4)
Just The Way You Are (Volume 4)
Firework (Volume 5)
Rolling in the Deep (Volume 6)
Born This Way (Volume 6)
ABC (Volume 7)
Man in the Mirror (Volume 7)
Mix Requests:
Thriller - ShinAMV
Edge of Glory - SelfishPromise
The Atmosphere
Each of their songs are all just a little different. From high energy pop songs to very mellow dramatic songs to even lovehurt painful songs. Each track should shine behind what the song stands for. As such, it will be a MEP with VERY mixed pace.
Proposed Specs:
1.0 Pixel
Final Encodes: Lagarith / UT
Proposed Length:
I'm thinking of between 30 seconds to a minute for each "track". So a maximum of 8 minutes and a possible minimum of 4 minutes.
720p is quickly becoming the new standard, and I'd love to do a nice high-quality MEP. As such, this would naturally kick out older anime and require mostly "newer" stuff, or stuff that has had blu-ray re-releases (such as CCS or Chobits). If you have an issue with this, please let me know.
This is still very much just an interest gauge and a "mix" suggestion thread. The actual MEP probably would not start until the second week of July, assuming I see some interest.
I look forward to hearing from you all. :3


text: My name is Sheila and I've been paper scrapbooking for many years. I am just getting started with digital. I actually purchased SBM over a year ago but it took me a while to get started. Now that I'm getting into digital I am LOVING it! I do find that I keep messing with my pages and it is taking me a while to finish projects because i go back and change embellishments and/or paper colors. If I had already glued down a paper page I would call it done and move on. Oh well, I'm really enjoying creating pages on the computer and look forward to getting ideas from all you experienced digi scrappers out there!


text:
First, try looking for your Amiga Music MOD at one of these MOD resource websites:
Exotica has most if not all of what you need:
If you haven't found what you are looking for from above, try making a search on Google, always works. If nothing turns up, request it in Modules Requests Forum
Since they hold the mods mostly in their original, exotic formats, you will need Deliplayer to hear these tunes on your PC.
www.deliplayer.com (Recommended)
Alternative Players for Windows:
For Mac OS X, use the Protracker 2.3D port; is the best there is :P
also there's CocoModX, which will play SOME tunes
And for the miggy, you have Eagleplayer and Delitracker
Player for linux: the Protracker 2.3d port
And there's also UADE [Unix amiga Delitracker Emulator]
To convert tracker music modules to mp3/ogg/wav format you will need to use a program like winamp.
If you decide to use winamp's Disk Writer Plugin to save the MOD as WAV then please make sure you have the Oldsk00l player plugin installed.
Download: Oldsk00l player for Winamp
Alternative methods include:


text:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Aaron Alexis, the man who went on the deadly shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, was under the "delusional belief that he was being controlled or influenced by electro-magnetic waves," the FBI's Valerie Parlave said Wednesday.
Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office, said Alexis acted alone and there was no evidence he was targeting particular people.
The investigation indicates that Alexis was prepared to die during the incident and accepted that as a consequence of his actions, Parlave said.
Alexis, who was 34, went on the rampage September 23. In addition to the 12 deaths, Alexis wounded several people before he was killed.


text:
We watched most of the Super Bowl yesterday which would represent a first for my middle and suddenly sporty son. He has had zero interest in football prior to yesterday – and to be honest – he watched it because of the commercials and the Lady Gaga half-time show.
Here are his thoughts of the game;
- Why don't they show the commercials here in Canada? What a scam!
- If the NFL is worried about concussions, why do they allow players to hit someone head first. If they were really concerned, they would toss all players who hit with their heads, or hit someone in the head.
- NFL does not stand for "No Farting League" as I told his sister. I suggested "No Farting Ladies" but my wise 7-year-old countered with "No Farting Lads"!
- When asked who would win, he said "New Zealand".
- When asked which state Boston is in, he said "New York".
- After realizing that Ottawa was in Ontario, he wondered out loud if Canada consisted of Ontario and Quebec – to which I said; "And that is why Western Canada hates Toronto, my son!" Plus we've all been to the East Coast of Canada.
- Why is Tom Brady's wife cheering into her cell phone – taking selfies instead of celebrating with the rest of the people in the press box?
- Lady Gaga was incredible! On the roof, jumping from the roof, singing, not singing, all in those high-heels. She totally rocked and was a true highlight of the night.
- He felt because the game was played in a neutral location (Texas) the sounds from the stands sounded canned and phony. He said they might as well have played the game in an empty stadium and played a cheering sound track along with the game.
- Why does the NFL need their championship trophy to be "Super"? Why is the Stanley Cup not named the Super Cup and why does the winning team receive the Vince Lombardi trophy when they win??? Where is the bowl???
- Why isn't there a team in Toronto?
- Since no team had even overcome a 10-point deficit and there had been no overtime games in the league's 51-year history, and with New England (or New Zealand, New York) losing 28-3 at half-time – my kids assumed it was over for the Pats. Upon learning of the Falcon loss, my son's response was the always classic, "Whoa!".
- Upon hearing that Tom Brady was being regarded as the best quarterback in the history of the NFL, my son quipped; "I think he is, because he's the only quarterback I know, and he won the game."
- Where are the damn commercials???
So I think this was a success, and even though he doesn't know all the rules, or where the teams play, him, his sister and their older brother enjoyed the half-time show more than anything.
"Can you take me to a concert?" was the post-game cry from the kids…
… and sign me up for lacrosse.
Only in Canada, eh?


text:
Profil na Mozillian
Tripad Mishra
Externí účty
- Twitter: _Tripad
Saurabh Anand
Tripad has contributed to various areas, from helping with some of the frontend code for the Fx10 website (http://firefox10.org), to having a crucial contribution in helping organize Maker Party Pune 2014 and a few more makerparties in Pune and Nagpur, to helping with the Firefox OS Bus promotions in Nagpur. I would like to give a Celebration Vouch to Tripad.
Priyanka Nag
Tripad is an awesome Mozillian from Pune. He has taken active leadership roles in many events in Pune. One of the events for which I would like to give Tripad an Impact vouch is the Maker Party Pune 2014. The event wouldn't have been successful without Tripad's contribution is getting partners, sponsorhips, arranging food etc.


text:
This kit for normal/oily skin contains a complete product regimen to help control excess oil in the T-zone while hydrating for balanced skin.Learn More
This kit for normal/oily skin contains a complete product regimen to help control excess oil in the T-zone while hydrating for balanced skin.Learn More
Lather Special Cleansing Gel in wet hands and apply to dampened face and throat, avoiding the eye area. Rinse thoroughly with warm water. One to two times a week: Apply Skin Prep Scrub to face and throat with circular motions, avoiding eye area. Rinse thoroughly with warm water. Spritz Multi-Active Toner over face and neck, with eyes closed. Apply Active Moist to face and neck with light, upward strokes. Finish by gently dabbing Total Eye Care with SPF15 around the eye area, using your ring finger.
Use your Normal/Oily Skin Kit morning and night, or as prescribed by your professional skin therapist.
See individual product pages.
Dermalogica is dedicated to maintaining the accuracy of the ingredient lists on this website. However, because ingredients are subject to change, we cannot guarantee that these lists are complete, up-to-date and/or error-free. For an accurate listing of ingredients in each product, please refer to your product packaging.
Start with Dermalogica's skin health essentials, designed to deliver your best skin daily.
Redefine your skin's health with real products, real innovation, and real results! Dermalogica products for skin health are still amongst the most loved and most awarded products amongst skin care professionals and beauty editors worldwide.
All Dermalogica products are made in the USA and are free of artificial fragrances, artificial colors, drying S.D. alcohol, and ingredients like Mineral Oil – all of which are known to exacerbate common skin concerns. With cutting-edge formulas and powerful ingredients, you can be assured you're giving your skin what it needs to be healthy, and stay healthy, for a lifetime. Maximize your product results! Use Dermalogica products as prescribed by your Face Mapping® skin analysis, available only from a Dermalogica Professional Skin Therapist.


text:
The first installment of this year's property taxes are due Nov. 1 and will be considered delinquent if not paid by 5 p.m. Dec. 10. The second installment is due on Feb. 1 and is delinquent if not paid by 5 p.m. April 10. Delinquent owners will face a 10 percent penalty.
Payments can be made by mail or in person at the County Tax Collector's Office, 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Property owners can also pay by credit card by calling 510-272-6800 or online at www.acgov.org. Another payment option is through eCheck, also available at www.acgov.org. Those who want to use a credit card or eCheck but avoid online payments, can visit the county's KIOSK system, located in the lobby of the tax collector's office.
Property owners who do not receive their tax bill by Nov. 16, should contact the tax collector's office in writing, calling 510-272-6800 or visiting www.acgov.org.
Tax bills received for property no longer owned should be forwarded to the new owner or returned to the tax collector's office.


text:
PAINESVILLE, Ohio—The Lake Erie College volleyball continued the last leg of their 2012 season with a straight sets loss against Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference foe Tiffin University in Painesville on Saturday (Nov. 3).
Tiffin (9-19, 2-14 GLIAC) won the sets 29-27, 25-18, 25-22.
The teams exchanged points early in the first set until the Storm gained a 9-6 advantage. The Storm held the advantage throughout most of the first set but Tiffin kept it close, coming within one at 19-18. After a Storm timeout, the Dragons tied it up at 19, and gained the lead at 20-19. The Storm responded by tying the contest at 21. The Dragons once again gained the advantage after the tie, going ahead 22-21. After Lake Erie tied it up on the following point, Tiffin once again took a one point lead, only for the Storm to tie it right back up. Tied at 24, the Dragons gained a set point, but were unable to capitalize as the Storm tied it at 25. The Dragons gained a second set point at 26-25, but were unable to convert once again. The Dragons would fail to convert on a third set point chance, but were finally able to close out the set on their fourth attempt, winning the opening set 29-27. Junior Molly Richardson (Fort Wayne, Ind./Bishop Dwenger) led the Storm with six kills in the set.
The two teams were even throughout the second set, with neither gaining a distinct advantage until Tiffin gained a 20-16 advantage, and eventually a 25-18 set win. Jamie Hoppe (Green Springs, Ohio/Clyde) led the Storm with three kills and six digs in the second set.
The third set started in a similar fashion to the second with the teams evenly matched, but the Storm found the advantage this time, gaining an 11-8 edge. The Dragons tied it up at 11 and eventually took the lead at 17-16. Following their timeout, the Storm charged back to take a 21-19 lead but the Dragons tied it at 21 following a timeout of their own, and sealed the victory with a 25-22 third set win.
Richardson led the Storm on offense with 14 kills while Hoppe led the defense with 11 digs and added eight kills for the offense. Kathryn Ferry (Lima, Ohio/Lima Central Catholic) added nine digs and Sara Aultz (Wooster, Ohio/Orrville) tallied seven kills and two blocks.
The Storm return to action next Friday (Nov. 9), playing host to the University of Findlay in a GLIAC matchup at 7 pm.


text:
Intermittent explosive disorder — a controversial mental illness marked by outbursts of uncontrollable rage — is so common among adolescents it affects one in 12 teens, a large new study finds.
Harvard Medical School researchers, in a study based on in-person interviews with more than 10,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17, found that about eight per cent met the criteria for intermittent explosive disorder, or IED.
The findings suggest the disorder is affecting hundreds of thousands of youths — close to six million in the U.S. alone, according to a statement released with the study.
But observers worry it could trigger a "manufactured epidemic" of mental illness among teens and lead to extreme but predictable teenage behaviour being labelled as symptoms of a mental illness requiring treatment — including mood-altering drugs.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — psychiatry's official catalogue of mental illness, now undergoing its first major revision in nearly two decades — IED's central feature is impulsive aggression grossly out of proportion to the situation. People lose control, break or smash things and attack or threaten to hurt someone.
The study, published this week in the journal of Archives of General Psychiatry, is being described as the first to estimate the prevalence of IED in American adolescents. The researchers believe their findings could be extrapolated to Canada.
"If we can detect IED early and intervene with effective treatment right away, we can prevent a substantial amount of future violence perpetration and associated psychopathology," senior author Ronald Kessler, professor of health care policy at Harvard, said in a statement.
But Christopher Lane, author of Shyness: How Normal Behaviour Became a Sickness, said IED has been a source of controversy since it was formally approved as a mental disorder in 1980.
"Uncontrollable anger and domestic violence are, of course, serious concerns requiring attention," said Lane.
But equally concerning, he said, is the risk of "medicalizing" adolescence itself.
Disorders in the DSM are defined by a list of diagnostic criteria. A person can qualify for a certain diagnosis based on how many criteria they meet for that illness.
But there isn't agreement on just how many "episodes" or outbursts of aggression are necessary for a diagnosis of IED. As well, some have proposed broadening the criteria to include outbursts that don't involve threatened or actual violence, but do involve verbal aggression — insults or arguments "out of proportion to provocation."
The new study is based on a national mental health survey conducted in the U.S. between February 2001 and January 2004.
Nearly two-thirds — 63 per cent — of the adolescents surveyed reported at least one anger attack in their lifetime involving either destroying property or threatening or engaging in violence.
About one-third of those who reported attacks (29 per cent) had only one or two attacks in their lifetime; another one-third only had attacks that were either in line with the "provoking circumstances" or not out of control.
The remainder was made up of those with IED, the authors write.
Teens had to report three or more anger attacks in their lifetime to meet the criteria for IED.
When the Harvard team narrowed it to three attacks in a single year, with at least one attack involving violence or destroying property, 5.5 per cent met a diagnosis of IED.
Youth who had other problems associated with aggression, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder and bipolar disorder, were excluded. "We wanted to be sure we were really capturing something that wasn't already accounted for by another diagnosis," said co-author Katie McLaughlin, an assistant professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Boston Children's Hospital.
While some of the IED-diagnosed youths had been treated for emotional problems in the year before their interview, only 6.5 per cent received treatment specifically for anger.
"IED is one of the least-studied of the mental disorders, despite the fact that it's quite common," McLaughlin said.
But Lane, author of the Psychology Today blog "Side Effects", said the results show otherwise — "that a significant number of teenagers have relatively few problems with impulse control and anger management."
Even for the teens who met criteria for IED, "it's still a big, unsettled question whether their periodic anger and threatened or actual violence should be considered a lifelong mental disorder," Lane said, "rather than a psychological crisis involving major life-stressors such as job loss, poverty, home foreclosure, debt issues and drug and alcohol addiction."
Dr. Allen Frances, former chair of the psychiatry department at Duke University's School of Medicine, chaired the task force that wrote the current edition of the DSM. He called IED an "unstudied" and "inherently unreliable category that probably shouldn't be in the DSM at all.
"It most certainly should not be reified into a manufactured teenage epidemic of mental disorder that is allegedly affecting millions of kids," he said.
"The suggestion that we institute prevention programs is a wildly premature over-promise until much more solid research demonstrates that there is real need and proven effectiveness."