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 version has been approved 

for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: Luke & Associates, Inc. 

File: B-405348 

Date: October 13, 2011 

Edward J. Kinberg, Esq., and R. Brent Blackburn, Esq., Kinberg & Associates, LLC, for 

the protester. 

Marvin K. Gibbs, Esq., Jared D. Minsk, Esq., and Beatrice Foster, Esq., Department of 

the Air Force, for the agency. 

Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where record 

shows that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation 

methodology. 

DECISION 

Luke & Associates, Inc., of Merritt Island, Florida, protests the exclusion of its 

proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-

10-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for various advisory and 

assistance support services. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The Air Force has a requirement for various advisory and assistance support services 

for its Air Combat Command bases, headquarters, and other activities, which the 

agency has been receiving under Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services 

(CAAS) contracts. The RFP was issued for the fourth generation of CAAS contracts, 

which were stated to have a $4.7 billion ceiling. Offerors were informed that the 

agency intended to award 18 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity 

contracts, under which the contract holders would compete for the issuance of task 

orders to provide management and professional services; studies, analysis, and 

evaluations; and engineering and technical services. RFP § L, at 51. The RFP also 
provided that, of the 18 contracts to be awarded, 12 contracts were set aside for small 

businesses, while 6 awards were not restricted. RFP § M-1, at 69. The protest here 

concerns only the full and open competition for the six unrestricted awards. 

The RFP provided that awards would be made on a low price, technical acceptability 

basis, considering the following factors: technical, past performance, and price. RFP 

§§ M-1.1, M-3.1.2, at 69, 72. The RFP identified a four-step process to evaluate 

proposals. 

Under the first step, the Air Force would rank the proposals “by the initially proposed 

total overall evaluated price, from lowest to highest, including all option years.” RFP 

§ M-3.1.1.1, at 70. The RFP provided that the total overall evaluated price would 

consist of the offerors’ loaded hourly labor rates and other rates as proposed in a 

spreadsheet (“Table B-1”) that was to be returned with the proposals. RFP § M-3.4.1, 

at 75. Offerors were informed that, with respect to the unrestricted awards, the 

agency would select a minimum of the 10 lowest-priced proposals for further 

evaluation. RFP § M-3.1.1.1.2, at 70. 

Under the second step, the agency would evaluate the technical acceptability of the 

proposals selected under the first step.1

 Offerors were informed that if any of these 

proposals were found to be technically unacceptable, the unacceptable proposal(s) 

would be replaced by the next lowest-priced proposal, until there were at least 

10 technically acceptable proposals (or proposals that were reasonably susceptible of 

being made acceptable), or until all proposals in the full and open competition had 

been evaluated. RFP § M-3.1.1.2, at 70-71. 

Under the third step, the agency would evaluate the past performance of offerors 

whose proposals had been selected in step two. The RFP provided that any proposal 

with less than satisfactory past performance would be replaced with the next lowestpriced, acceptable (or reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable) proposal. 

RFP § M-3.1.1.3, at 71. 

Under the fourth step, the agency would conduct “a complete Cost/Price analysis” of 

the proposals remaining after step 3. RFP § M-3.1.1.4, at 71. Offerors were informed 

that any proposal that was evaluated “as unrealistically low (or unreasonably high) 

priced or has unrealistic costs” would be replaced with the next lowest-priced 

proposal that was evaluated as acceptable (or reasonably susceptible to being made 

acceptable) with satisfactory or higher past performance rating. RFP § M-3.1.1.4.2, 

at 72. 

 

1

 The RFP provided that technical proposals would be evaluated as either acceptable, 

reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, or unacceptable. RFP § M-3.2.1, 

at 72. 

Page 2 B-405348 
The Air Force received 25 offers, including Luke’s, in the unrestricted competition. 

Under the first step of the RFP’s evaluation methodology, the agency assessed prices 

by ensuring that the pricing spreadsheet, Table B-1, did not contain inaccuracies or 

errors. The pricing spreadsheet automatically calculated total cost, loaded rates, and 

overall total for each labor rate based on historical multipliers for each labor 

category. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 10. The agency also confirmed that the 

offerors had not inadvertently modified the formulas embedded in the spreadsheets. 

Id. at 11. 

Luke submitted the highest-priced proposal of the 25 offers received. When the 

agency selected the 11 lowest-priced proposals for evaluation under step two, Luke’s 

proposal was not selected. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 8-9; Agency Report 

(AR), Tab 33, Initial Price Evaluation. The Air Force found under step two that five of 

the lowest-priced proposals were technically acceptable, and six of the proposals 

were reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable. The Air Force included these 

11 lowest-priced proposals in the competitive range. AR, Tab 34, Competitive Range 

Memorandum, at 2-3. 

Luke was informed that its proposal was not included in the competitive range, and 

following a debriefing, filed this protest. 

DISCUSSION 

Luke complains that the agency failed to evaluate the realism of offerors’ proposed 

prices under step one of the RFP’s evaluation methodology. Comments at 1. 

Specifically, Luke contends that the RFP required that the agency’s ranking of offers 

under step one be based upon an “initial assessment of [the] offerors’ total overall 

evaluated prices.”2

 See RFP § M-3.1.1, at 70. Luke argues that this “initial 

assessment” was required to include a price realism evaluation. Luke also complains 

that six of the proposals included in the competitive range were not technically 

acceptable. Id. at 2. 

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, our Office examines the 

record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was, in fact, in accord with the 

stated evaluation factors. Computer Prods., Inc., B-284702, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD 

¶ 95 at 4-5; Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., B-292077.3 et al., Jan. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD 

¶ 163 at 6. 

 

2

 In introducing the four-step methodology that would be used to evaluate proposals, 

the RFP stated that the agency would “rank offers based on an initial assessment of 

offerors’ total overall evaluated prices, followed by a full evaluation of Technical 

Acceptability, then Past Performance, and finally Cost/Price . . . .” RFP § M-3.1.1, 

at 70. 

Page 3 B-405348 
Page 4 B-405348 

Here, the record establishes that the Air Force evaluated proposals in accordance 

with the RFP’s announced methodology for evaluating proposals. With respect to 

Luke’s complaint that the Air Force did not assess the realism of offerors’ proposed 

prices in step one of its evaluation methodology, the RFP simply did not provide for 

such an assessment in this step. Rather, as noted above, offerors were informed that 

the agency would assess price realism under step four. See RFP M-3.1.1.4, at 71. 

Although Luke argues that RFP indicated that the “initial assessment” of the offerors’ 

prices would include a price realism analysis, this interpretation of the solicitation is 

plainly inconsistent with the announced evaluation methodology. 

 

We also find without merit Luke’s complaint that the Air Force improperly included 

six proposals in the competitive range that were evaluated as being reasonably 

susceptible of being made acceptable. The RFP specifically provided that proposals 

that were evaluated as being reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable may be 

included in the evaluation of proposals under step two, three and four. See RFP 

§§ M-3.1.1.2.2; M-3.1.1.3; M-3.1.1.4. Luke has not identified anything in the RFP that 

restricts the agency’s ability to include in the competitive range proposals that were 

evaluated as reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel