Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

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: Vital Link, Inc. 

File: B-405123 

Date: August 26, 2011 

Stan Hinton, Esq., Stan Hinton Law Office, for the protester. 

Richard J. Leidl, Esq., Richard J. Leidl, PC, for Atec, Inc., an intervenor. 

Col. Mark S. Teskey, Amanda M. Willis, Esq., Maj. Christy J. Barry, and Kurt H. 

Eberle, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 

Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Scott H. Riback, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency’s evaluation of awadee’s past performance as relevant was reasonable and 

consistent with the terms of the solicitation, which afforded the agency the discretion 

to consider past performance examples involving similar--but not identical--efforts in 

determining relevance. 

DECISION 

Vital Link, Inc., of Sealy, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Atec, Inc., of 

Stafford, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8100-11-R-0007, issued 

by the Department of the Air Force for the relocation, and repair/refurbishment of two 

A/F32T-9 (T-9) noise suppressors and the fabrication and installation of thrust 

frames and testing systems within each T-9. The protester contends that the 

evaluation of Atec’s past performance was unreasonable. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP, issued March 2, 2011 under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 

12, Commercial Items, contemplated the award of a 15-month fixed-price contract 

for: (1) relocation of two T-9 noise suppressors (one from Canon Air Force Base, 

New Mexico; one from Aviano Air Base, Italy) to Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma; 

(2) repair/refurbishment of the T-9s; and (3) fabrication and installation of a thrust 

frame system within each T-9. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Memorandum of Law, 

at 2; AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer (CO) Statement, at 2. The T-9 noise suppressor 

is a large structure (11,232 square feet and 28 feet 7 inches high) used by the Air 
Force for aircraft engine testing. The standard T-9 configuration includes a control 

room, augmentor tube and exhaust stack. Unlike the standard T-9 configuration, 

this solicitation also required depot thrust frames, monorail and hoist systems, and 

ancillary engine testing systems for the relatively new F135 engine. AR, Tab 1, 

Memorandum of Law, at 3; AR, Tab 2, CO Statement, at 2. 

The solicitation included five contract line items (CLINs) for the basic work and three 

CLINs for options to perform varying additional work on one or both T-9s. RFP at 3-

13. The RFP advised that the Air Force would select one option, but offerors were 

required to price all three options in their proposals. RFP at 38. Award was to be 

made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to 

the government, considering past performance and price. Id. at 42. Past 

performance was deemed to be approximately equal to price in the evaluation and 

was to be assigned an adjectival rating of either substantial confidence, satisfactory 

confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.1 Id. at 43. 

The RFP required offerors to submit past performance information on no more than 

three contracts within the last 5 years that the offeror considered most relevant in 

demonstrating its ability to perform the required work. RFP at 39. Offerors were 

also required to submit information on no more than three recent contracts for any 

teaming partners or subcontractors. Id. The solicitation specified that “references 

for the same or similar type contracts are desired.” Id. The RFP contained 

definitions of the degree of relevance for the past performance references ranging 

from very relevant to not relevant. RFP at 40. For example, “very relevant” 

performance was defined as efforts involving essentially the same magnitude of 

effort and complexity as required under the solicitation, and “relevant” performance 

was defined as efforts involving much of the magnitude of effort and complexity as 

required under the solicitation. Id. at 40. Additionally, in the provision of the 

solicitation outlining the basis for the agency’s source selection decision, the RFP 

provided: 

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving 

disassembly, remanufacture/repair, shipping, and reassembly of T-9 

Noise Suppressors or similar jet engine test cells that are similar or 

greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in 

this solicitation, and fabrication and installation of non-standard thrust 

frames, monorail, hoists, and support structures for T-9 noise 

Suppressors that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and 

complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. 

 

1

 As relevant here, “substantial confidence” was defined as a high expectation that 

the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. RFP at 43. 

Page 2 B-405123 
RFP at 43. 

The solicitation advised offerors that the agency initially would evaluate by adding 

the total price for the option CLINs to the total price for the basic requirement CLINs. 

The agency would then determine which performance option to further evaluate for 

award. RFP at 42. Proposals were to be ranked according to price, including the 

selected price option. Id. If the lowest-priced proposal was assigned a “substantial 

confidence” performance rating (and the offeror was found to be responsible), that 

offer would constitute the best value and the evaluation process would stop at that 

point. Id. at 44. If, on the other hand, the lowest-priced offer was not assigned a 

substantial confidence past performance rating, the next-low-priced offer would be 

evaluated and the evaluation process would continue, in order of price, until a 

proposal was determined to have a substantial confidence performance assessment 

or until all proposals were evaluated. In the event that none of the proposals was 

rated substantial confidence for past performance, the source selection authority 

(SSA) would then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Id. 

The agency received three proposals, including Vital Link’s and Atec’s, by the 

deadline for proposal submission. AR, Tab 2, CO Statement, at 4. The CO 

completed the initial price evaluations, decided to further evaluate performance 

option III with the basic requirement for award purposes, and ranked the offers 

according to price. Id. Atec submitted the low price of $8,672,220; the third offeror, 

Offeror A, submitted the second-low price, and Vital Link submitted the highest price 

of $11,468,240. Id. Since Atec was the low-priced offeror, its past performance was 

reviewed by a two-member past performance evaluation team (PPET), which 

awarded Atec a “substantial confidence” performance rating. AR, Tab 1, 

Memorandum of Law, at 8-9. The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the 

price and past performance evaluations and determined that Atec’s proposal 

represented the best value. Id. at 9. Award was made without discussions on 

May 16. After a debriefing, Vital Link protested the award to our Office. 

Vital Link challenges the Air Force’s evaluation of Atec’s past performance. Vital 

Link principally argues that the agency’s determination that Atec’s prior contracts 

were relevant did not comport with the terms of the solicitation. According to the 

protester, the RFP--and more particularly the language quoted above--established 

two definitions of relevant contracts. First, the solicitation required relevant past 

performance for relocation (disassembly, remanufacturing/repair, shipping and 

reassembly) of T-9 noise suppressors or similar jet engine test cells. Second, the 

solicitation required relevant past performance for the fabrication and installation of 

thrust frames, monorails, and hoists, specifically for T-9 noise suppressors. 

According to Vital Link, Atec’s past performance proposal did not include any 

relevant contracts under either of these two definitions of relevant past performance. 

We find no merit to this aspect of Vital Link’s protest. Where a solicitation calls for 

the evaluation of past performance, we will examine the record to ensure that the 

Page 3 B-405123 
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and 

procurement statutes and regulations. Divakar Techs., Inc., B-402026, Dec. 2, 

2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 247 at 5. Additionally, where, as here, a protester and agency 

disagree over the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the matter by 

reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that reasonably gives effect to all 

its provisions. Solec Corp., B-299266, Mar. 5, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 42 at 2. We will 

not read a provision restrictively where it is not clear from the solicitation that such a 

restrictive interpretation was intended by the agency. XTec, Inc., B-299744.2, 

B-299744.3, Aug. 6, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 148 at 11.

Here, while the RFP did include the language referenced by the protester in support 

of its position, it also included other provisions that make it clear the agency 

intended to assess the degree of relevancy of an offeror’s past performance. As 

noted, the RFP included provisions defining the degree of relevance of an offeror’s 

past performance ranging from “very relevant” to “not relevant.” If, as asserted by 

the protester, the agency intended to confine its consideration of an offeror’s past 

performance exclusively to those contracts that included the specific attributes 

identified in the language relied on by the protester, these definitions of relevancy 

would be superfluous. Further, the RFP specified that the agency would consider 

not only contracts that were the same as the requirements of the RFP, but also 

those that included work that was similar to the requirements of the RFP. Finally, 

even the language relied on by the protester is not exclusive; rather, it identifies 

relevant past performance as “including” the performance attributes listed in the 

provision, but does not exclude consideration of other performance attributes as 

relevant. In light of these considerations, we conclude that the protester’s reading of 

the RFP is not reasonable. 

The record also shows that the agency’s evaluators gave careful consideration to 

the contracts included by Atec in its proposal for both it and its subcontractor, and 

specifically compared the relevance of the performance attributes in those contracts 

to the requirements of the RFP. 

Atec submitted three references for evaluation: (1) a commercial contract for 

[redacted] to provide engineering, manufacturing, and installation services for a 

[redacted] with a value of approximately [redacted]; (2) a contract for a large-scale 

turboshaft engine test facility integration at the Naval Air Depot at Cherry Point, 

North Carolina, with a value of approximately $4.6 million; and (3) a contract with 

[redacted] for the design, fabrication and commissioning of a [redacted] with a value 

of approximately [redacted]. AR, Tab 7, Atec Past Performance Proposal Part I, at 

1-55. Similarly, Atec also submitted two references for its subcontractor, Swanda 

Brothers: (1) a contract with the Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North 

Carolina for the repair of the T-10 Test Cell, with a value of approximately $3.9 

million; and (2) a contract with the Naval Air Station for T-10 jet engine test cells at 

Meridian, Mississippi and Kingsville, Texas, with a value of approximately $3.8 

million. AR, Tab 7, Atec Past Performance Proposal Part II, at 1-13. 

Page 4 B-405123 
The PPET awarded Atec a “substantial confidence” past performance rating 

because its references involved the design, transport and assembly of engine test 

cells of equal or greater scope, magnitude and complexity as compared to the T-9 

relocation effort required under the solicitation and involved the fabrication and 

installation of custom thrust frames and ancillary test systems for engine test cells. 

AR, Tab 8, PPET Rating Team Worksheet, at 1-2. 

In documenting their relevance determination, the evaluators stated that Atec and 

Swanda have a long history of test cell and testing-related experience, recent 

teaming experience, and the ability and experience to simultaneously manage and 

execute testing at more than one facility. AR, Tab 8, PPET Rating Team Worksheet, 

at 1-2. The evaluators also noted that Swanda Brothers is a manufacturer of test 

cell materials and that Atec had delivered numerous test cell thrust frames that were 

specific to the customer’s test facilities, provided engine adapter frames equal to or 

greater than the requirement here and generally demonstrated an understanding 

and experience with designing, manufacturing, and installing the type of thrust frame 

system required under the solicitation. Id. at 2. The agency also recognized that 

Atec designed and successfully installed the fuel delivery, starter air, and oil 

preservation systems for test cells that support the testing of F135 engines. Id. 

The evaluators clarified their determination that Atec’s and Swanda’s past 

performance was similar to, or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the 

effort required under the RFP in an addendum to the PPET Rating Team Worksheet. 

AR, Tab 21, Addendum to Rating Team Worksheet. Concerning Atec’s abilities to 

transport and assemble test cells with similar or greater complexity, the evaluators 

noted that Atec relocated and re-used the aero-acoustics components from a test 

cell, noting that this work involved a larger, more complex test cell platform than the 

T-9. Id. at 1. They noted that Atec had designed the test cell prior to executing its 

construction, a capability they described as “far-and-above the effort associated with 

the T-9 relocations. . . .” Id. They also noted that they viewed Swanda’s past 

performance as involving efforts of greater complexity because Swanda had 

fabricated and installed two Navy T-10 test cells, which exceed their Air Force 

equivalents in design excellence, build specifications, and aero-acoustical 

performance. Id. 

In sum, the record shows that the agency’s evaluators gave careful consideration to 

the specific performance attributes reflected in the past performance examples 

included by Atec in its proposal, and made reasonable judgments concerning the 

comparative relevance of those performance attributes to the work required under 

the RFP. Vital Link has not demonstrated that these judgments were unreasonable, 

but simply disagrees with the agency’s conclusions by relying on an unreasonably 

narrow definition of relevance. Such disagreement, without more, is inadequate to 

show that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. SDV Telecomms., B-279919, 

Page 5 B-405123 
Page 6 B-405123 

July 29, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 34 at 2. We therefore deny this aspect of Vital Link’s 

protest. 

Finally, Vital Link asserts that the agency did not reasonably evaluate Atec’s price. 

The protester argues that Atec’s price is far below both the agency’s estimate and 

Vital Link’s price, and that the disparity between Atec’s and Vital Link’s prices 

“should have raised red flags for the agency because the agency was well aware 

that Vital Link has unparallel knowledge and experience concerning the construction, 

repair and relocation of T-9 units.” Protest at 18. 

We find no merit to this aspect of Vital Link’s protest. The RFP contemplated the 

award of a fixed-price contract. Although an agency is required to determine that 

offered prices are fair and reasonable before awarding a fixed-price contract, 

FAR § 15.402(a), the purpose of a price reasonableness evaluation in a fixed-price 

environment is to determine whether prices are too high, as opposed to too low. 

Sterling Servs., Inc., B-291625, B-291626, Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 26 at 3. In 

contrast, arguments that an agency did not perform an appropriate analysis to 

determine whether prices are too low concern price realism. SDV Solutions, Inc., 

B-402309 Feb. 1, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 48 at 4. However, a price realism evaluation is 

not required or appropriate where, as here, the solicitation does not include a 

requirement for a price realism analysis. Id. Thus, to the extent that the protester 

asserts that the agency failed to consider whether the awardee’s price was too low, 

this fails to state a basis of protest.2

 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel 

 

2

 Vital Link asserts that the PPET was improperly influenced by Atec’s low price, 

contending that PPET members awarded Atec the highest past performance rating 

merely to ensure the Government obtained the benefit of that price. As discussed, 

however, we find the agency’s substantive evaluation conclusions reasonable and 

supported by the record. We therefore have no basis to conclude that the 

evaluators were somehow improperly influenced by Atec’s low price.