United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: MPC Containment Systems, LLC 

File: B-405354; B-405354.4 

Date: October 6, 2011 

Garry S. Grossman, Esq., Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, PC, 

for the protester. 

David P. Ingold, Esq., Elliot S. Avidan, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the 

agency. 

Gary R. Allen, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Protest that proposal was misevaluated is denied where evaluation was 

reasonably supported by the record and the protester’s arguments reflect mere 

disagreement with agency’s technical judgments. 

2. GAO will not invoke the significant issue exception to its timeliness rules where 

GAO has previously considered the issue on the merits in prior decisions. 

3. Supplemental protest filed after receipt of agency report is untimely where the 

information on which the protest was based was known or should have been known 

by the protester at the time it received its debriefing. 

DECISION 

MPC Containment Systems, LLC, of Chicago, Illinois, protests its failure to receive 

award under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-11-R-5030, issued by the 

United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Systems Command, for commercial 

product integration to support and sustain certain fuel and water systems programs, 

known as Tactical Fuel Systems (TFS) and Water Supply Support Equipment 

(WSSE). MPC argues that its proposal was unreasonably evaluated. 

We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 
BACKGROUND 

On February 18, 2011, the agency issued the RFP as a commercial item, total small 

business set-aside that sought proposals for a commercial product support integrator 

(CSI) for the TFS and WSSE logistics support programs. The RFP contemplated a 

single award of a fixed-price requirements contract with a $99 million ceiling and a 

5-year performance period (1 base year and 4 option years). 

The RFP included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses 52.212-1 and 

52.212-2 to provide instructions to offerors and describe the evaluation factors. In 

pertinent part, FAR § 52.212-1 required prospective offerors to provide the following 

specific information relative to the technical factor: 

(2) Technical: The Offeror shall describe: 

(i) The size and composition of the team that will be assigned to 

manage this task. Describe individual qualifications and experience 

relevant to this task for each position. Indicate whether the individual 

will be assigned full or part time. 

(ii) All teaming arrangements to include prime and subcontractors’ 

roles. Describe the proposed work to be performed by you as the 

prime and by each individual subcontractor. 

RFP, FAR § 52.212-1(l)(2)(i). FAR § 52.212-2 provided that proposals would be 

evaluated based on past performance, technical and price factors, listed in 

descending order of importance. RFP, FAR § 52.212-2(a). Under the technical 

factor, evaluators would rate offerors’ “proposed personnel, teaming arrangements, 

processes and approaches to meeting quality standards, utility of its web-based order 

tracking system, delivery schedule, and management of its warranty program.” FAR 

§ 52.212-2(a)(2). 

On April 15, MPC and six other offerors submitted proposals. In addition to 

evaluating past performance, the agency evaluated the technical proposals, and 

identified strengths and weaknesses and assigned ratings to each proposal under the 

technical factor and its subfactors.1

 MPC’s proposal received marginal ratings for 

 

1

 In evaluating the technical proposals, the agency used adjectival ratings of 

exceptional, acceptable, marginal and unacceptable. These ratings corresponded to 

agency judgments regarding the degree to which a technical proposal met threshold 

requirements and the value of particular strengths and weaknesses. Agency Report 

(AR), Tab 10, Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM), at 10; Tab 12, Summary of 

Findings (SOF), at 2. 

Page 2 B-405354, B-405354.4 
two of the six subfactors of the technical factor--team composition and teaming 

arrangements--and an overall technical rating of marginal. AR, Tab 10, 

BCM, at 16; Tab 12, SOF, at 3. The underlying bases for the ratings were documented 

in the SOF. See AR, Tab 12, SOF, at 12-13. The awardee, JGB Enterprises, Inc., 

received an overall technical rating of acceptable. AR, Tab 13, Debriefing Slides, 

at 7. 

After reviewing the SOF, the contracting officer (who was also the source selection 

authority) determined that JGB offered both the highest-rated and lowest-priced 

offer, and selected that firm for award. After a debriefing, this protest followed. 

DISCUSSION 

MPC’s protest focused on the agency’s evaluation under the team composition and 

teaming arrangements subfactors of the technical factor. MPC contends that the 

marginal rating assigned to MPC’s proposal under these two subfactors was 

unreasonable. 

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within an agency’s discretion since 

an agency is responsible for defining its needs and for identifying the best methods 

for accommodating those needs. U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, Dec. 19, 2002, 

2002 CPD ¶ 218 at 2. Our Office will not reevaluate technical proposals; rather we 

review a challenge to an evaluation to determine whether the agency acted 

reasonably and in accordance with the RFP’s evaluation criteria and applicable 

procurement statutes and regulations. Id. A protester’s mere disagreement with the 

agency’s judgments does not render the evaluation unreasonable. SDS Int’l, Inc., 

B-291183.4, B-291183.5, Apr. 28, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 127 at 6. 

Team Composition Subfactor 

As indicated above, the RFP required proposals to provide specific information 

concerning the composition and size of the team that would be assigned to manage 

the contract, including a description of individual qualifications and experience 

relevant to this contract for each position, with an indication whether the individual 

would be assigned full or part time. RFP, FAR § 52.212-1(l)(2)(i). 

In its proposal, MPC generally described its responsibilities, noting that it would 

“assign an experienced Program Manager responsible for delivery against 

requirements of the program and to serve as a single point of contact for [the 

program].” AR, Tab 11, MPC Proposal, at 9. In a later portion of this same section, 

MPC specifically stated that its management team would be comprised of [deleted] 

identified individuals. Id. at 12-13. MPC, however, did not commit the individual it 

identified as the project manager; instead, MPC noted that he would “most likely be 

the liaison with” the agency. Id. at 13. MPC also described another member of its 

proposed management team as spending half of his time [deleted} Id. 

Page 3 B-405354, B-405354.4 
The SOF found that these descriptions did not reference a committed management 

team, and further did not meet the requirement in the FAR § 52.212-1(l)(2)(i) to 

specify whether identified individuals would be assigned full or part time to the 

contract. The SOF concluded that this caused there to be “[u]ncertainty in the 

construct and commitment of key personnel,” and rated MPC’s team composition as 

“marginal.” AR, Tab 12, SOF, at 12. 

MPC argues that because its proposal generally stated that its management team 

would “be dedicated to the [TFWS] program,” this should trump any particular 

statements made later, even though specific identified individual’s roles were only 

tentatively described. Protest at 5. 

However, it is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, which 

clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows a meaningful 

review by the agency. International Med. Corps., B-403688, Dec. 6, 2010, 2010 CPD 

¶ 292 at 8. The RFP here plainly stated that offerors were to describe the 

qualifications, roles and the amount of time each “individual” it proposed would 

spend on the program. RFP, FAR § 52.212-1(l)(2)(i). MPC, at best, provided 

equivocal language concerning its specific commitment of a “likely” program 

manager and another identified individual, only one-half of whose time was spent 

working on related management operations. See AR, Tab 11, MPC Proposal, at 13. 

We find that the agency had a reasonable basis find MPC’s team composition 

marginal. 

Teaming Arrangements Subfactor 

The RFP stated that the agency intended to award a single contract to a particular 

vendor to function as a commercial product support integrator. RFP, Statement of 

Work (SOW), at 1. The RFP further stated that its purpose in seeking a single 

contract was to decrease cost, delivery time, and management. Id. Offerors were 

informed that they were required to describe all teaming arrangements to include 

prime and subcontractors’ roles. RFP, FAR § 52.212-1(l)(2)(ii). They were also 

informed that part of their technical evaluation would include an assessment of their 

teaming arrangements to determine their overall capability to fulfill the SOW 

requirements. RFP, FAR § 52.212-2(a)(2). 

In its proposal, MPC makes the general statement that it will function as the program 

manager and that it will supplement its experience by teaming with subcontractors 

[deleted]. AR, Tab 11, MPC Proposal, at 9. Later, in its specific description of 

[deleted]’s responsibilities, MPC states that its subcontractor, [deleted], would 

[deleted]. Id. at 13-14. 

The agency rated the MPC technical proposal as marginal under the teaming 

arrangements evaluation subfactor, citing MPC’s reliance upon [deleted] to perform 

the above-referenced tasks as cause for the agency to question MPC’s ability to 

manage and lead the efforts. AR, Tab 12, SOF, at 12. 

Page 4 B-405354, B-405354.4 
MPC asserts that the agency’s determination that MPC was over-reliant on [deleted] 

is unreasonable. MPC also argues that the agency unreasonably assigned MPC a 

weakness upon the mistaken notion that MPC proposed to have [deleted] negotiate 

delivery dates directly with the agency. 

 

Based on our review of the record, we do not find the agency’s judgments to be 

unreasonable based on the contents of MPC’s proposal. Nor were these judgments 

inconsistent with the RFP’s evaluation criteria. The fact that MPC merely disagrees 

with the agency’s judgment does not render the agency’s judgment unreasonable.2 

SDS Int’l, Inc., supra. 

UNTIMELY ISSUES 

Price Evaluation Scheme 

MPC argues that the agency had used an unreasonable price evaluation scheme. The 

price evaluation scheme was set forth in the RFP and also specifically discussed in 

the Questions and Answers before the date proposals were due. AR, Tab 8, 

Questions and Answers, No. 77. Consequently, this protest issue was untimely raised 

under our Bid Protest Regulations, which require that a protest based upon alleged 

improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt 

of initial proposals be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2011). 

MPC also argues that we should invoke the significant issue exception to our 

timeliness rules, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(b), citing various cases where we found similar price 

evaluation schemes improper. In order to prevent our timeliness rules from 

becoming meaningless, the significant issue exception is rarely used. Midwest 

Pipeliners, Inc., B-250795, Jan. 12, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 40. The exception is limited to 

untimely protests that raise issues of widespread interest to the procurement 

community and that have not been considered on the merits in a prior decision. 

Schleicher Cmty. Corrs. Ctr., Inc., B-270499.3 et al., Apr. 18, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 192 

at 7. As indicated by the cases cited by the protester, our Office has previously 

addressed this issue in numerous decisions. Thus, we decline to invoke the 

significant issue exception here. 

Supplemental Protest Issues 

After the agency submitted its report responsive to MPC’s protest, on August 22, 

2011, MPC filed a supplemental protest arguing first that the agency’s unfavorable 

assessment of its use of subcontractors involved an unstated evaluation criterion. 

 

2

 In its various protest submissions, MPC has raised arguments in addition to, or 

variations of, the arguments discussed above. We have considered all of MPC’s 

various allegations and find no basis to sustain its protest. 

Page 5 B-405354, B-405354.4 
Page 6 B-405354, B-405354.4 

MPC claims that it learned for the first time from the agency report that its marginal 

rating under the technical factor was based, in part, on its proposed use of 

subcontractors--specifically the agency’s concern as to the extent and scope of 

MPC’s proposed use of subcontractors. MPC also argues that the agency treated 

JGB and MPC unequally in making this assessment, citing public information to 

show that JGB would also likely use subcontractors. 

Where a protester files supplemental protest grounds, each new ground must 

independently satisfy the timeliness requirement of our Regulations, which do not 

contemplate the piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues. 

Hydraulics Int’l, Inc., B-284684, B-284684.2, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 149 at 16 n.8. 

This includes the development of issues or more specific legal arguments missing 

from earlier allegations of impropriety. CapRock Gov’t Solutions, Inc.; ARTEL, Inc.; 

Segovia, Inc., B-402490 et al., May 11, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 124 at 24. Our Office will 

dismiss a protester’s piecemeal presentation of arguments that could have been 

raised earlier in the protest process. Alfa Consult S.A., B-298164.2, B-298288, Aug. 3, 

2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 127 at 3. 

On July 11, MPC received its written debriefing. This debriefing specifically 

categorized as a weaknesses the extent and scope of MPC’s proposed use of 

[deleted] as a subcontractor. AR, Tab 16, MPC Debriefing, at 7. Furthermore, the 

public information concerning JGB, which MPC cites in its supplemental protest, 

was available at that time. Therefore, MPC knew or should have known the grounds 

of its supplemental protest on its debriefing date, and the supplemental protest 

claims filed after receipt of the agency report are untimely filed. 4 C.F.R. § 

21.2(a)(2). 

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel