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: Vizada Inc. 

File: B-405251; B-405251.2; B-405251.3 

Date: October 5, 2011 

Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., and Adelicia R. Cliffe, Esq., 

Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. 

Michael R. Charness, Esq., Jamie F. Tabb, Esq., and Christine N. Roushdy, Esq., 

Vinson & Elkins LLP, for Stratos Government Services, Inc., an intervenor. 

Isaac Johnson, Jr., Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. 

Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Agency reasonably found significantly lower-priced proposal of awardee to be 

realistic. 

2. Protest that agency improperly failed to find the awardee’s proposal technically 

unacceptable for not complying with various material specification requirements is 

denied, where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the 

proposal was acceptable. 

3. Protest that awardee’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation is denied 

where there is no convincing evidence of a misrepresentation. 

4. Agency was not required to advise an offeror during discussions of proposal 

weaknesses that were reasonably not considered significant, even when the 

weaknesses were noted as a discriminating factor in making the award. 

DECISION 

Vizada Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Stratos 

Government Services, Inc., of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. HSCG79-10-R-T10001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United 

States Coast Guard, for a Ku-band maritime data communications system to support 

the Coast Guard’s large cutter fleet. Vizada contends that the agency unreasonably 

evaluated the proposals and failed to conduct meaningful discussions. 
We deny the protest. 

The Coast Guard issued the RFP on October 22, 2010, as a commercial item 

acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12. The RFP sought 

fixed-priced proposals for the award of a 5-year indefinite-delivery/indefinitequantity type contract for Ku-band airtime/bandwidth, installation support service, 

teleport access, and network operation center (NOC) operations with telephone 

support and training services for an iDirect-based (or equivalent), Ku-band, maritime 

data communications system to support the Coast Guard’s large cutter fleet.1 

The RFP identified three technical evaluation factors, in descending order of 

importance: technical approach, management approach, and relevant past 

performance. These three factors combined were more important than price. The 

technical approach factor had three subfactors: satellite coverage area, network 

operation center and support services capabilities, and teleport capabilities. The 

management capability factor contained two subfactors: management plan and key 

personnel. RFP at 25. The RFP instructed offerors to prepare their technical 

proposals addressing the technical approach and management approach factors in 

the same format, and following the same order as the requirements were presented 

in the statement of work (SOW) (attached to the RFP). To facilitate the evaluation 

process, offerors were directed to “number the paragraphs in their technical 

proposal to match the corresponding SOW paragraph number.” RFP at 22. Relevant 

past performance was to be evaluated on the basis of the contractor’s demonstrated 

performance on relevant contracts of similar size and scope.2 RFP at 27. 

Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. According to the RFP, 

price realism would be evaluated by comparing total prices to the independent 

government cost estimate (IGCE). The RFP also requested copies of relevant 

commercial price lists and/or catalogs, which would be used to compare and 

evaluate any proposed price discounts for realism. The RFP stated: “[p]roposals 

that are unrealistic in terms of overall price or reflective of an inherent lack of 

management and/or technical competence or comprehension of the requirements 

will be further excluded from evaluation.” RFP at 27. 

On January 18, 2011, the agency received seven proposals in response to the RFP. 

After the initial evaluation, written discussion questions/comments were sent to the 

 

1

Satellites transmit information within radio frequency bands. The Ku-band is a 

portion of the electromagnetic spectrum range of frequencies that is primarily used 

for satellite communications. 

2

 To be considered relevant for evaluation purposes, the RFP explained that a 

contract must have been performed in the past 3 years within a maritime 

environment. RFP at 23. 

Page 2 B-405251 et al. 
offerors on March 25, with final proposal revisions due April 6. Final proposals were 

evaluated by the technical evaluation team (TET), which provided a consensus 

evaluation to the contracting officer. The contracting officer reviewed and accepted 

the TET’s final evaluation consensus. Vizada’s3 and Stratos’ proposals were rated as 

follows:4

Vendor Technical Management Past 

Performance Price 

Rating Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Stratos Risk Low Low Low $3,523,945.30

Rating Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Vizada A Risk Low Medium Low $5,203,609.00

Rating Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Vizada B Risk Low Medium Low [REDACTED]

Agency Report, Tab 4, Award Memorandum, at 7. Stratos’ proposal offered the 

lowest price, and Vizada A the second lowest, of the proposals received. The price 

evaluation team reviewed the final pricing of the offerors and determined that the 

proposed prices were fair and reasonable due to adequate price competition. 

Id. at 4-5. Based on his review of the technical and price evaluations, the contracting 

officer determined that Stratos provided the best-value proposal. On June 17, 

Stratos was awarded the contract. 

DISCUSSION 

On June 27, Vizada filed its initial protest with our Office; two supplemental protests 

followed. While our decision only discusses the most relevant of the protest grounds 

raised in the three protests, all protest issues were fully considered and determined 

to be without merit.5

 

3

 Vizada submitted two proposals for evaluation. 

4

 Technical proposals could receive a rating of superior, satisfactory, marginal and 

unsatisfactory. Relevant past performance could receive a rating of satisfactory, 

unsatisfactory, or neutral. Risk was rated low, medium, or high. 

5

 For example, while Vizada’s initial protest argued that the agency unreasonably 

evaluated its proposal, the agency addressed these arguments in detail in its report 

and the protester did not substantively comment on the agency’s response. Thus, we 

think that Vizada essentially abandoned these bases of protest. Citrus College; KEI 

Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 104 at 8 n.4. 

Vizada also claims that the agency’s award decision was improper because the 

contracting officer made an award in violation of the agency’s acquisition plan 

(continued...) 

Page 3 B-405251 et al. 
Price Evaluation 

Vizada asserts that the agency failed to conduct a proper price realism analysis and 

that Stratos’ price was unrealistically low. 

Where, as here, a fixed-price contract is to be awarded, a solicitation may provide for 

the use of a price realism analysis to measure an offeror’s understanding of the 

requirements or to assess the risk inherent in a proposal. Puglia Eng’g of California, 

Inc., B-297413 et al., Jan. 20, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 33 at 6. As our Office has repeatedly 

held, the depth of an agency’s price realism analysis is a matter within the agency’s 

discretion. Navistar Def., LLC; BAE Sys., Tactical Vehicle Sys. LP, B-401865 et al., 

Dec. 14, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 258 at 17. In reviewing protests challenging price realism 

evaluations, our focus is whether the agency’s review was reasonable and consistent 

with the terms of the solicitation. Grove Resource Solutions, Inc., B-296228, 

B-296228.2, July 1, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 133 at 5. As a general matter, it is 

unobjectionable for an offeror to submit a below-cost proposal for a fixed-price 

contract, since fixed-price contracts generally are not subject to adjustment during 

performance, and the contractor, not the agency, bears the financial risk of cost 

overruns. Crown Title Corp., B-298426, Sept. 21, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 145 at 6. 

The RFP stated that offerors’ fixed-priced proposals would be evaluated for price 

realism to determine if there were proposals that were unrealistic in terms of overall 

price or reflective of an inherent lack of management and/or technical competence 

or comprehension of the requirements. RFP at 27. In accordance with the RFP, the 

agency’s price realism analysis started with a comparison of all offerors’ prices to the 

IGCE. The analysis revealed that all of the offered prices were significantly less than 

the IGCE of $9,838,303. Upon further review of the proposals, the agency 

determined that the difference in price between the IGCE and the offered prices was 

due to the IGCE’s inclusion of costs for providing dedicated staff for the NOC to 

monitor network systems 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; the cost for dedicated 

monitoring was not proposed by the offerors. This resulted in an over-estimation by 

the IGCE of the costs by approximately $4.12 million. When the over-estimation was 

accounted for, Stratos’ low-priced proposal was within 23 percent of the IGCE. 

Agency Report, Tab 4, Award Memorandum, at 4-5. 

 

(...continued) 

(which was not set out in the RFP, and was never provided to the offerors). This is 

not a valid basis of protest. Alleged deviations from an agency’s acquisition plan do 

not themselves provide a basis for questioning the validity of the evaluation; such 

plans are internal agency instructions and as such do not give outside parties any 

rights. Hubbell Elec. Heater Co., B-289098, Dec. 27, 2001, 2002 CPD ¶ 15 at 5 n.4. 

Page 4 B-405251 et al. 
Because Stratos’ price was significantly lower than the prices in the other proposals, 

an additional review of Stratos’ price proposal was undertaken to ascertain if it was 

unrealistically low. Based on the agency’s review, it appeared that the price 

difference resulted from Stratos providing [REDACTED] price for the contract line 

item (CLIN) for the NOC. To be certain Stratos intended [REDACTED] price, and to 

insure Stratos understood the requirement, the agency requested that Stratos 

confirm that it intended to propose [REDACTED] for this line item. Stratos 

confirmed its price of [REDACTED] for the CLIN and indicated its intent to perform 

at the offered price. Based on Stratos’ response, the agency concluded that the price 

was realistic, and reflected an exercise of business judgment, rather than a lack of 

competence, or a lack of understanding the RFP requirements.6 

Based upon our review of the record, we find that the agency’s analysis of Stratos’ 

price was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Contrary to 

Vizada’s claims, the RFP did not require an in-depth CLIN-by-CLIN analysis to the 

IGCE or a CLIN-by-CLIN comparison among the offered prices. To the extent that 

Vizada believes that Stratos cannot perform the contract at its proposed price, 

Vizada’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment provides no basis to sustain the 

protest. See Team BOS/Naples--Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen, B-298865.3, Dec. 28, 2007, 

2008 CPD ¶ 11 at 14. 

Vizada also argues that the RFP required the agency to evaluate the realism of 

Stratos’ price discounts by comparing them to its commercial price lists. The RFP 

stated in this regard: 

To corroborate the accuracy of the stated discounts for services the 

Offeror should submit copies of relevant commercial price lists and/or 

catalogs for those services. The offered discounted prices will be 

compared and evaluated for realism against these catalog list prices. 

RFP at 27. Despite this language, none of the offerors submitted commercial price 

lists with their proposals. For example, Vizada did not submit a commercial price 

list or any discounts with either of its proposals explaining: 

It is Vizada’s understanding that such price lists and/or catalogs are not 

required in this proposal. Vizada is offering a customized solution to 

the [Coast Guard] . . . Vizada has not previously sold this identical 

solution to another customer, and therefore it is not possible to offer 

the government a “stated discount” for its [Large Cutter Connectivity]

services. 

 

6

 The agency noted, with regard to the NOC CLIN, that Stratos already had a Coast 

Guard contract in place that requires similar setup and staffing. 

Page 5 B-405251 et al. 
Agency Report, Tab 5A, Vizada Proposal for Alternate A, § IV, at 5; Tab 5B, Vizada 

Proposal for Alternate B, § IV, at 5. As indicated by Vizada’s responses during the 

course of this procurement, it did not at that time seem to think that offerors were 

required to provide discounts or price lists/catalogs with their proposals. Given that 

Stratos’ proposal--like the proposals submitted by Vizada--offered no specific 

discounts and did not provide price lists/catalogs, the agency was not required to 

compare non-existent discounted prices with non-existent price lists/catalogs. We 

find nothing unreasonable about the agency’s evaluation because the RFP did not 

call for the agency to evaluate the realism of offerors’ discounted prices if 

discounted prices and copies of price lists/catalogs were not provided. 

Evaluation of Stratos’ Proposal 

Vizada challenges the agency’s evaluation of Stratos asserting that the agency should 

have disqualified Stratos as technically unacceptable for its failure to meet the 

mandatory technical requirements of the solicitation. 

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion, and 

our Office will not disturb an agency’s judgments regarding the relative merits of 

competing proposals absent a showing those judgments are unreasonable or 

inconsistent with the RFP’s evaluation criteria. METAG Insaat Ticaret A.S., 

B-401844, Dec. 4, 2009, 2010 CPD ¶ 86 at 4; Manassas Travel, Inc., B-294867.3, May 3, 

2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 113 at 2-3. In this regard, a protester’s mere disagreement with the 

agency’s judgments does not render an evaluation unreasonable. METAG Insaat 

Ticaret A.S., supra. 

Stratos’ Compliance with Total Bandwidth Requirement

Vizada first claims that Stratos failed to offer hardware sufficient to meet the 

agency’s total bandwidth requirement. As relevant here, the SOW states: 

Each Ku-band teleport shall support a physical chassis which will 

allow 40 concurrent remote users and have the capability of providing 

up to 36 [megabits per second] Mbps of total bandwidth. 

SOW § 5.3.6. Stratos’ proposal stated with regard to SOW § 5.3.6: 

The Ku-band hubs at [REDACTED] will utilize existing [REDACTED] 

chassis to provide the requested service. To provide service once it 

has grown to its maximum bandwidth of 18 Mbps supporting more 

than 50 simultaneous (concurrent) vessels, Stratos will use up to 

[REDACTED] slots total, [REDACTED] in each teleport. The 

remaining slots will be available for [Coast Guard] use to surge 

capacity, add occasional services for specific missions, or add 

functionality and capabilities to the network. Each [REDACTED] hub 

Page 6 B-405251 et al. 
line card is capable to support up to 156 Mbps in the outbound and 

multiple 6.5 Mbps inbound carriers. 

Agency Report, Tab 6AA, Stratos Proposal, § 1, at 13. 

Here, the agency determined that Stratos’ proposal to “provide all the necessary 

equipment at the teleport [REDACTED]” demonstrated Stratos’ compliance with the 

36 Mbps requirement.7

 Supp. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2; see Agency 

Report, Tab 6AA, Stratos Proposal, § 1, at 13. This is so because, as indicated in 

section 5.3.6 of Stratos’ proposal (quoted above), its [REDACTED]-slot chassis can 

hold multiple line cards, and each of Stratos’ proposed hub line cards are capable of 

supporting up to 156 Mbps. See Agency Supp. Report, Aug. 18, 2011, Declaration of 

TET Chairperson, at 2. 

Vizada’s assertion that Stratos cannot comply with the 36 Mbps requirement is based 

upon the assumption that Stratos’ proposal language “maximum of 18 Mbps” in its 

section 5.3.6 response was meant to limit its total bandwidth capacity to 18 Mbps. 

The agency, however, did not read and evaluate Stratos’ SOW section 5.3.6 in the 

same manner as Vizada, particularly given that Stratos’ proposal otherwise 

demonstrated compliance with the 36 Mbps requirement. Instead, the agency 

understood this phrase to address the requirements in section 5.1 of the SOW that 

required the contractor to provide a total of 6 Mbps of Ku-band bandwidth in year 

one; a total of 12 Mbps of Ku-band bandwidth in year two; and for years three 

through five a total of 18 Mbps of Ku-band bandwidth. SOW §§ 5.1.2-5.1.4. The 

agency viewed the phrase, “service once it has grown to its maximum bandwidth of 

18 Mbps,” as referring only to the maximum service requested in years 3-5. Agency 

Supp. Report, Aug. 18, 2011, Declaration of TET Chairperson, at 2. We find the 

agency’s interpretation of Stratos’ response to be reasonable. 

Based upon our review of the record, we find that the agency reasonably determined 

that Stratos’ proposal met the SOW’s 36 Mbps requirement.8

 

7

 The protester and agency disagree on the underlying requirement at issue here. The 

disagreement revolves around whether this section required the teleport or the 

chassis to “have the capability of providing up to 36 Mbps of total bandwidth.” The 

protester asserts that the provision implicates teleport capability, while the agency 

asserts that the provision implicates chassis capability. We have reviewed the 

arguments of the parties and have determined that Stratos’ proposal met the 

requirement for 36 Mbps of total bandwidth, whether or not the requirement was 

fulfilled by the teleport or the chassis. 

8

 We note that that Stratos now advises that its [REDACTED] hub supports a total 

bandwidth of [REDACTED] Mbps and its [REDACTED] hub a total bandwidth of 

[REDACTED] Mbps. Stratos’ Supp. Comments, Aug. 22, 2011, Declaration of Stratos’ 

Expert, at 4. 

Page 7 B-405251 et al. 
Stratos’ Compliance with Requirement to Provide Optional Bandwidth

Vizada next claims that Stratos did not offer the required optional, additional 

bandwidth required by SOW section 5.1.5. That section states: 

The Contractor shall be prepared to provide additional Ku-band hub 

bandwidth for each satellite/hub used to cover the TRADITIONAL 

Coverage Area, in increments of 1.5Mbps aggregate (1 Mbps outbound 

to the cutter and 512 Kbps of bandwidth inbound from the cutter). The 

contractor shall provide this bandwidth within 30 days of the 

government placing an order. 

SOW § 5.1.5. Stratos responded to SOW section 5.1.5 as follows: 

Stratos has the capability to provide additional bandwidth in the 

Ku-band network, on a per-satellite basis, for all satellites within the 

TRADITIONAL Coverage Area. As instructed by [the Coast Guard], 

Stratos will increment the bandwidth on the required satellite(s) by 

1.5 Mbps aggregate throughput (1 Mbps downlink and 512 Kbps 

uplink), subject to space segment availability. 

Agency Report, Tab 6AA, Stratos Proposal, § 1, at 8. 

Vizada claims that Stratos’ use of the “subject to space segment availability” 

language provides only a conditional pledge of compliance based upon future 

availability, which does not meet the requirement of the SOW. Vizada argues that the 

agency should have found the proposal unacceptable because it attempts to shift to 

the agency the risk that Stratos might be unable to provide this optional, additional 

bandwidth. 

In response, the agency contends that Vizada is mischaracterizing Stratos’ response 

to the section requirements. Instead of interpreting Stratos’ offer as providing a 

conditional pledge, the agency understood Stratos’ statement as an explanation of 

the realities of the satellite industry relating to space segment availability. Agency 

Supp. Report, Aug. 18, 2011, Declaration of Technical Evaluation Team Chairperson, 

at 3-4. In fact, the agency states that it is widely accepted within the industry that 

satellite coverage is always subject to space segment availability. Agency Supp. 

Report, Sept. 2, 2011, at 2. 

We find that the agency reasonably interpreted and understood Stratos’ explanation 

“subject to space segment availability” as a realistic statement about the limits of 

satellite space segment availability. Because the agency did not set a maximum 

order amount and, at some point, all offerors’ satellites would reach their maximum 

capacity of available space segments, it would be impossible for any offeror to 

guarantee, based upon only the satellites proposed, that it could meet the agency’s 

Page 8 B-405251 et al. 
unlimited demand for bandwidth.9

 Thus, we find that the agency reasonably 

concluded that Stratos’ proposal did not take exception to the solicitation’s optional 

additional bandwidth requirement. 

Alleged Stratos Misrepresentation of Satellite Status

Vizada also claims that Stratos misrepresented the status and condition of one of the 

[REDACTED] satellites it proposed, and that the agency failed to reasonably find and 

evaluate this misrepresentation. An offeror’s misrepresentation that materially 

influences an agency’s consideration of its proposal generally provides a basis for 

proposal rejection or termination of a contract award based upon the proposal. 

Mantech Advanced Sys. Int’l, Inc., B-255719.2, May 11, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 326 at 5. For 

a protester to prevail on a claim of material misrepresentation, the record must show 

that the information at issue is false. Commercial Design Group, Inc., B-400923.4, 

Aug. 6, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 157 at 6. Here, we find no evidence that Stratos made a 

material misrepresentation. 

The SOW requirement relevant to this issue is section 5.6.3, which states: 

The Contractor shall obtain Coast Guard approval of any planned 

(non-emergency) satellite coverage changes six months prior to 

implementation. The contractor shall inform the Coast Guard . . . and 

Coast Guard NOC of any unplanned satellite outages as soon as 

possible, and no later than one hour, after learning of them. 

SOW § 5.6.3. Stratos’ proposal responded to this section as follows: 

Stratos is not anticipating any satellite coverage changes within the 

period of this solicitation; however, we will provide notice at least 

6 months in advance for any planned satellite changes that may be 

needed. The end of life for all satellites identified in this proposal is 

beyond the term of this solicitation. The satellites selected have 

excellent health report[s] (available upon request), and no technical 

issue is predicted by the satellite operators in any of the satellites 

during the term of this task order. 

Agency Report, Tab 6AA, Stratos Proposal, § 1, at 18. 

 

9

 While Vizada asserts that Stratos could have reserved space segment availability on 

its satellites to meet the SOW requirements for additional coverage, the agency 

points out that Vizada has provided no indication that it reserved space on its 

satellites in sufficient amounts to provide for an unlimited amount of space segment 

availability for the agency. Agency Supp. Report, Aug. 18, 2011, at 3. 

Page 9 B-405251 et al. 
Vizada alleges Stratos’ misrepresented the status and condition of one of its 

[REDACTED] proposed satellites [REDACTED]. Vizada claims that the 

[REDACTED] satellite has reached its end-of-life status and will not be available to 

fulfill the requirements of the contract because it is scheduled to be replaced in the 

third quarter of 2011. Vizada contends that the replacement of [REDACTED] must 

have been known to Stratos prior to contract award since the replacement was 

planned, according to Vizada, long before Stratos entered its vendor agreements with 

the satellite operator, and any satellite operator would have told a potential client 

that it could not get 5 years worth of use out of a satellite reaching its end of service. 

For these reasons, Vizada contends that Stratos’ representations that it did not 

anticipate any satellite changes within the period of this solicitation, that the 

[REDACTED] satellite has an excellent health report, and that the satellite operators 

of [REDACTED] are predicting no technical issues, were knowingly false. 

Stratos answers that Vizada’s challenge is based upon incorrect facts and 

assumptions. First, Stratos directs us to the satellite operator’s website, which 

identifies an end-of-life for [REDACTED] of 2018, not 2011. Second, Stratos has 

submitted a declaration from its director of engineering, advising that he confirmed 

with the satellite operator, prior to Stratos’ proposal submission, that the 

[REDACTED] satellite was in good health and was performing at the highest 

availability. Stratos’ Supp. Comments, Aug. 22, 2011, Declaration of Stratos’ Director 

of Engineering, at 2. The director also affirmed that the first time he, or anyone on 

his team, learned of a plan to replace [REDACTED] with another satellite was at a 

post-award kick-off meeting with the satellite provider on June 22. Id. Third, Stratos 

presented for the record a communication from the satellite operator to Stratos that 

declared that the operator had reviewed its records, and “[t]o the best of our 

knowledge, [we] first informed [Stratos] about the transition of . . . [REDACTED] 

during our first [Coast Guard] Cutter Connectivity implementation meeting on June 

22, 2011.” Stratos’ Supp. Comments, Sept. 6, 2011, Exh. F, Email from Satellite 

Operator to Stratos (Aug. 31, 2011). Finally, Stratos has provided the Federal 

Communications Commission first public notice of the satellite operator’s 

application to replace the [REDACTED] satellite on June [REDACTED], 2011. 

In sum, the record here provides no convincing evidence, beyond Vizada’s 

speculation and innuendo, that Stratos knew or should have known that the 

[REDACTED] satellite would be replaced in the near term. The fact that 

[REDACTED] will in fact be replaced early in the contract does not show that the 

agency or Stratos knew or should have known of the replacement prior to contract 

award. 

Discussions 

Finally, Vizada argues that the discussions were misleading. In this regard, Vizada 

complains that the agency failed to notify it of its two assigned weaknesses under 

the management approach evaluation factor, and one weakness under the relevant 

past performance factor. 

Page 10 B-405251 et al. 
Page 11 B-405251 et al. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies conducting discussions 

to inform offerors of deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past 

performance information to which the offeror has not had the opportunity to 

respond. FAR § 15.306(d)(3). Although discussions must address deficiencies and 

significant weaknesses identified in proposals, the precise content of discussions is 

largely a matter of the contracting officer’s judgment. Honeywell Tech. Solutions, 

Inc., B-400771, B-400771.2, Jan. 27, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 49 at 10. Agencies are not 

required to “spoon-feed” an offeror during discussions; agencies need only lead 

offerors into the areas of their proposals that require amplification or revision. 

Clark/Caddell Joint Venture, B-402055, Jan. 7, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 21 at 7. An agency is 

not required to afford offerors all-encompassing discussions, or to discuss every 

aspect of a proposal that receives less than the maximum score, and is not required 

to advise an offeror of a minor weakness that is not considered significant, even 

where the weakness subsequently becomes a determinative factor in choosing 

between two closely ranked proposals. MarLaw-Arco MFPD Mgmt., B-291875, Apr. 

23, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 85 at 4. 

Here, we think the record shows that the agency did not conduct misleading 

discussions. For example, the record shows that none of the proposal weaknesses 

referenced in the protest were significant weaknesses. While the protester makes 

much of the agency’s terminology in its technical evaluation consensus report to the 

contracting officer, which listed all strengths and weaknesses as “significant 

discriminators,” we do not believe that the weaknesses assigned to Vizada under the 

management approach or relevant past performance evaluation factors were matters 

that the FAR required to be brought to Vizada’s attention. See id. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel