Insel f 7. correction of mutually recognized errors in the end item specifications, where such correction will provide greater compatibility with the existing detail design. The PPE clause said that any other changes to the technical data would be processed in accordance with the Changes clause of the contract, which was inDrop corporated by reference in the RFP. for ude afr The record does not support the protester's allegation that the PPE clause supersedes the Changes clause in the solicitation. Rather, it is clear from reading the solicitation as a whole that the PPE clause is intended to be read in conjunction with the Changes clause. The contractor will be paid for changes to specifications, designs, or drawings through its contract price for changes properly encompassed by the PPE clause or through an equitable adjustment under ned the Changes clause for changes outside the PPE clause. To the extent that the contractor does not agree with the contracting officer that a particular change is covered under the PPE clause, the contractor may file a claim for an equitaable adjustment or other relief in accord with the procedure set out in the Disputes clause, FAR § 52.233–1. See Engineered Air Sys., Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 172 alla (1990), 90-1 CPD ¶ 75, where we rejected a protester's argument that the standCard PPE clause-with the same requirements that are present here constituted a deviation from the standard Changes clause. The protester also argues that the PPE clause is improper because it relieves the TDP contractor of its contractual obligations to pay for all corrections to the TDP and places the TDP contractor in the sole position of being able to prepare a rational and reasonable offer. The Army explains that it decided to include the PPE clause in the solicitation because historical practice has shown that when converting from a sole source to a competitive procurement of an item, there are minor "bugs" that need to be corrected. While the agency states that it is not aware of any specific defects in the technical data, it ultimately determined that it was in its best interests to include the PPE clause in the solicitation in order to limit the risk to the agency that there may be defects in the data. The agency also states that it has achieved excellent results using the standard PPE clause on prior first-time buys for similar items. As a preliminary matter, the protester challenges the agency's assertion that it is not aware of any defects in the technical data and argues that the "agency is feigning" uncertainty regarding the nature of any defects in the data. According to the protester, the agency opted to include the PPE clause in the solicitation "in an attempt to obfuscate" either the TDP contractor's failure or the agency's failure to disclose superior knowledge regarding the accuracy of the data. Prejudicial motives will not be attributed to contracting officials on the basis of unsupported allegations, inference, and suppositions. Systems & Processes Eng'g Corp., B-232100, Nov. 15, 1988, 88-2 CPD ¶| 478. Here, there is no evidence in the record that supports the protester's speculation that the agency is being less עד than candid regarding its knowledge about the technical data. Rather, the protester merely infers bad faith based on the fact that the TDP contractor has provided the part on a sole source basis to the government in the past. The protester also cites Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) § 227.403-74, which requires the TDP contractor to certify that the data to be delivered under a particular contract is complete and accurate to the best of the contractor's knowledge and belief. The protester, however, completely ignores the agency's reasonable assertion that minor defects in technical data are typically found when an agency converts from a sole source to a competitive procurement of an item. The protester also ignores the fact that while a contractor may certify to the best of its belief that there are no defects in its data, certification alone does not guarantee that there are none. In sum, the protester's contention is based on unsupported inference and supposition, which is insufficient to prove its claim. See Monarch Enters., Inc., B-233303 et al., Mar. 2, 1989, 89-1 CPD 222. As for the protester's claim that only the TDP contractor can intelligently prepare an offer under the RFP, the fact that a solicitation contains a PPE clause that shifts to the contractor the risks in government specifications and drawings does not by itself render the solicitation defective where the agency reports that it is not aware of any specific defects in the technical data. Engineered Air Sys., Inc., supra. There is no legal requirement that a solicitation be so detailed as to eliminate all performance uncertainties; such perfection, while desirable, is manifestly impractical in some procurements, and the mere presence of a risk factor does not render a solicitation improper. AAA Eng'g & Drafting, Inc., B-236034, Oct. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD | 404. Since an agency may properly impose substantial risk upon the contractor and minimal risk upon itself, offerors reasonably are expected to use their professional expertise and business judgment in anticipating risks and computing their offers. J&J Maintenance, B-244366, Oct. 15, 1991, 91-2 CPD | 333. The record here does not support the protester's claim that only the TDP contractor can intelligently prepare an offer under the solicitation. Contractors are often called upon to estimate production costs of complex equipment procured on the basis of a performance specification alone and they do so without undue difficulties. We see no reason to believe that it would be more difficult to estimate costs on the basis of drawings which are, according to the agency, essentially sound. All offerors were furnished the same TDP for review and preparation of offers; we do not view the difficulties incident to estimating the costs to review and identify errors and to propose corrections to overcome defects to be any greater than estimating costs under performance specifications alone. Nor do we believe that such difficulties may be viewed as affecting the common basis for competition among offerors. See 48 Comp. Gen. 750 (1969). Similarly, we are not persuaded by the protester's suggestion that the solicitation is defective because, according to the protester, the inclusion of the PPE clause unduly favors the offeror who prepared the technical data. There is no requirement that solicitations be structured so as to eliminate or reduce the Rate competitive advantages of incumbent or past contractors unless such advan tages result from a preference or unfair action by the agency. Varo, Inc., epa B-193789, July 18, 1980, 80-2 CPD ¶ 44. As discussed above, there is no indicaemation in the record that the agency included the PPE clause to unfairly favor the the TDP contractor. Rather, the record establishes that the agency reasonably inthe cluded the clause to put offerors on notice that the technical data may contain pl defects, that they should review the data to determine whether defects are present, and that their offers should include the cost of correcting the defects. The protest is denied. ompet lea September 1993 B-252039, September 1, 1993 Compensation Handicapped personnel attendants The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education, may pay for personal assistants for handicapped grant and compliance reviewers who are not federal employees since the cost of the personal assistants is an allowable cost of acquiring the personal services of the handicapped grant and compliance reviewer. Matter of: Personal Assistants for Handicapped Grant Application The Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education, asks whether the Department may pay for personal assistants for handicapped grant application reviewers and on-site compliance reviewers who are not federal employees. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that OSERS may pay for such assistants. Background Several statutory programs administered by OSERS require the use of grant application reviewers or on-site compliance reviewers who are not federal employees.1 For example, section 18 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as added by Pub. L. No. 99-506, § 109, 100 Stat. 1807, 1813 (1986), requires that: Applications for grants or contracts in excess of $60,000 in the aggregate authorized to be funded under this Act [29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.] . . . shall be reviewed by panels of experts which shall include a majority of non-federal members. Non-federal members may be provided travel, per diem, and consultant fees not to exceed the rate provided for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code. 29 U.S.C. § 717 (1988). Similarly, section 621(f)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by Pub. L. No. 99-506, § 703(d)(1), 100 Stat. 1807, 1832, requires the Department to perform on-site compliance reviews of "Projects With Industry" grantees, and mandates that at least one member of the review team be a nonfederal employee with relevant experience or expertise. 29 U.S.C. 1 Even where there is no such requirement, grant application reviewers, who are also referred to as field readers or peer reviewers, may include persons who are not federal employees. 34 C.F.R. § 75.217(b)(2) (1992). Page 305 |