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: Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC 

File: B-404655.4; B-404655.5; B-404655.6 

Date: October 11, 2011 

Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., David S. Black, Esq., Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Megan 

Mocho Jeschke, Esq., and Oliya S. Zamaray, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the 

protester. 

James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., and Brian M. Stanford, Esq., 

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Science Applications International 

Corporation, and Mark R. Gleeman, Esq., Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, for DECO, 

Inc., intervenors. 

Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. 

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., Scott H. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the 

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

DIGEST 

1. Protest that awardee had “unequal access to information” type of organizational 

conflict of interest is denied where allegations were based upon suspicion and not 

“hard facts,” agency’s investigation was meaningful, and agency reasonably 

concluded that awardee did not have access to nonpublic information that would 

provide firm a competitive advantage in procurement. 

2. Protest is sustained where solicitation required proposal of loaded labor rates to 

be used as ceiling rates in future task order competitions and awardee failed to 

propose rates for 20 labor categories; omission in awardee’s proposal constitutes 

material omission rendering proposal unacceptable. 

3. Protest is sustained where agency’s failure to provide common cutoff date for 

revised proposals may have prejudiced protester (one of original competitive range 

offerors). 

4. Protest is sustained where agency treated offerors unequally by assigning 

strength to awardee’s proposal for management feature while failing to credit 

protester’s proposal with a strength for a comparable feature, and failed properly to 

apply evaluation criteria by giving another awardee’s proposal credit for key 

personnel under wrong evaluation factor. 
DECISION 

Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC, of Dulles, Virginia, protests the 

Department of State’s (DOS) award of contracts to Science Applications 

International Corporation (SAIC), of McLean, Virginia, and DECO, Inc., of Champlin, 

Minnesota, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA09R0356, for global 

antiterrorism training assistance (GATA) for foreign law enforcement agencies and 

foreign nationals. 

We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP contemplated the award on a “best value” basis of two indefinite-delivery, 

indefinite-quantity contracts, with a base year and 4 option years, to provide all 

management, supervision, labor, facilities, and materials necessary to deliver foreign 

law enforcement training for foreign agencies and nationals. Offerors were required 

to submit a technical proposal and a price proposal based on completion of a 

contract line item number (CLIN) rate table (RFP § B.5, attach. 8; hereinafter, 

contract rate table) with offerors’ loaded hourly labor rates for approximately 225 

labor categories. Work is to be accomplished through cost-reimbursement, time and 

materials (T&M), or fixed-price task orders. 

Proposals were to be evaluated under six factors: program management/quality 

control solution (PM/QC factor); ability to recruit, train, and retain high quality 

personnel/resumes of key personnel (personnel factor); facilities plan; past 

performance; subcontracting/teaming and socio-economic participation; and 

cost/price. Non-cost factors were evaluated on an adjectival basis. Cost/price was 

evaluated on the basis of whether the proposal was fair, reasonable, realistic for the 

work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and 

consistent with the overall technical requirements. RFP § M.11.6. Offerors were 

warned that the agency could reject any proposal evaluated as unrealistic in terms of 

price such that the proposal reflected an inherent lack of competence or failure to 

comprehend the RFP requirements. Id. § M.4. The PM/QC, personnel, and facilities 

factors were significantly more important than the past performance and 

subcontracting/teaming and socio-economic participation factors. The non-cost 

factors combined were significantly more important than cost/price. 

Ten offerors, including Raytheon, SAIC, and DECO, submitted proposals by the 

closing date. Based on an initial review by the technical evaluation panel (TEP), 

Raytheon, SAIC, and five other offerors were included in the competitive range; 

DECO and two other offerors were excluded. The agency conducted discussions 

with the competitive range offerors in December 2010 and obtained final proposal 

revisions (FPR) by January 4, 2011. In February, these offerors were instructed to 

propose a total price for “evaluation purposes only” using their previously proposed 

Page 2 B-404655.4 et al. 
contract rate table rates in an evaluation pricing template which included estimated 

hours by CLIN and encompassed many, but not all, of the contract labor categories. 

RFP, amend. at 1. The agency then evaluated the submitted FPRs and evaluation 

pricing templates. 

In the meantime, DECO and one other eliminated offeror protested exclusion of their 

proposals from the competitive range. Based on the agency’s subsequent decision 

to take corrective action and include their proposals in the competitive range, we 

dismissed the protests as academic (B-404655, B-404655.2, Mar. 7, 2011; 

B-404655.3, Mar. 18, 2011). In March and April, the agency conducted discussions 

with DECO and the other offeror, and then evaluated their subsequently submitted 

FPRs and evaluation pricing templates. 

Based on its combined reviews of the revised competitive range offers’ proposals, 

the TEP reached the following consensus ratings for the protester and awardees: 

Offeror PM/QC Personnel Facilities 

Past 

Performance 

Subcontract 

Management 

Price 

(millions) 

SAIC [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] $14.7 

DECO [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] $13.4 

Raytheon [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] 

In making the award determination, the source selection authority (SSA) reviewed 

the TEP’s report, price evaluation report, and the contracting officer’s award 

recommendation. Based upon specifically identified technical strengths in SAIC’s 

and DECO’s proposals, their superior technical ratings, and their [deleted] prices, 

the SSA concluded that SAIC’s and DECO’s proposals represented the best value. 

After a debriefing, Raytheon filed this protest. 

DISCUSSION 

Raytheon asserts the existence of an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) 

concerning SAIC. In addition, Raytheon challenges the technical and price 

evaluations, and the best value determination. The agency defends its evaluation 

and selection decision, and, in addition, argues that Raytheon is not an interested 

party to pursue this protest. As set forth below, we disagree with the agency’s 

argument that Raytheon is not an interested party to pursue the protest. We also 

disagree with Raytheon’s assertion that SAIC had an improper and unmitigated OCI. 

That said, we agree with several of Raytheon’s substantive challenges to the 

agency’s evaluation here, and for this reason we sustain the protest. While we have 

considered all of Raytheon’s arguments, we discuss only the most significant of 

those issues below. 

Page 3 B-404655.4 et al. 
Interested Party Status 

As a threshold matter, the agency asserts that Raytheon is not interested or 

otherwise not prejudiced because other offerors with higher technical ratings and 

[deleted] prices would be in line for award ahead of the protester. We disagree. 

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protester must be an interested party, that is, 

an actual or prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by 

the award or failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.0(a)(1), 21.1(a) (2011); 

Cattlemen’s Meat Co., B-296616, Aug. 30, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 167 at 2 n.1. A 

protester is an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of proposals 

where there is a reasonable possibility that the protester’s proposal would be in line 

for award if its protest were sustained. Ridoc Enter., Inc., B-292962.4, July 6, 2004, 

2004 CPD ¶ 169 at 9. 

Raytheon’s protest argues--and ultimately we agree--that there were errors in the 

evaluation of its proposal, as well as in the conduct of discussions. Since resolution 

of these issues raises the possibility that the assessment of Raytheon’s proposal 

could change, we think Raytheon is an interested party. 

Alleged OCI 

Raytheon asserts that SAIC has an improper and unmitigated OCI based on SAIC’s 

unequal access to nonpublic information allegedly obtained from its contacts with 

two employees of Kaseman, LLC--Messrs. B and H. According to the protester, 

Kaseman provided systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) as a 

subcontractor to Alutiiq International Solutions LLC under its SETA contract with 

DOS’s antiterrorism assistance (ATA) program. Declaration (Decl.) 1 of Mr. M, 

¶¶ 5-6. Mr. H was Kaseman’s vice president for DOS training programs from early 

2009 to the present, while Mr. B served as Kaseman’s program manager on the 

SETA contract from September 2007 until June 2008. Id.; Decl. 2 of Mr. M, ¶ 8. 

Raytheon asserts that, from their work on the ATA contract, Messrs. B and H 

obtained information on the administration and management of the GATA program 

(the subject of this procurement) in nine areas including, for example, information 

regarding ATA forecasts of upcoming course demands; ATA budgets; and identities 

of current instructors. Decl. 1 of Mr. M, ¶¶ 5-6. Raytheon bases its assertions on 

information from other (unidentified) contractors that hold GATA blanket purchase 

agreements (BPA) and from the president of one of the protester’s proposed GATA 

subcontractors. Id.,¶ 5; Decl. 2 of Mr. M, ¶¶ 4-6. 

An unequal access to information OCI exists where a firm has access to nonpublic 

information as part of its performance of a government contract and where that 

information may provide the firm a competitive advantage in a later competition. 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §§ 9.505(b), 9.505-4; Maden Techs., 

B-298543.2, Oct. 30, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 167 at 8. 

Page 4 B-404655.4 et al. 
In reviewing bid protests challenging agency OCI determinations, the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit has mandated application of the arbitrary and 

capricious standard established pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. See

Axiom Res. Mgmt, Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009). To 

demonstrate that an agency’s OCI determination is arbitrary or capricious, a 

protester must identify “hard facts” that indicate the existence or potential existence 

of a conflict; mere inference or suspicion of an actual or potential conflict is not 

enough. Turner Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 2010–5146, slip. op. at 17–

18 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2011); PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010). In Axiom, the Court of Appeals noted that the FAR recognizes that the 

identification of OCIs, and the evaluation of mitigation proposals are fact-specific 

inquiries that require the exercise of considerable discretion. Axiom Res. Mgmt., 

Inc., 564 F.3d at 1382. We will review the reasonableness of a contracting officer’s 

OCI investigation and determination; where an agency has given meaningful 

consideration to whether an OCI exists, we will not substitute our judgment for the 

agency’s, absent clear evidence that the agency’s conclusion is unreasonable. See

CACI, Inc.-Fed., B-403064.2, Jan. 28, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 31 at 9. 

In response to Raytheon’s OCI allegations, the contracting officer conducted a 

detailed investigation including a review of the work performed by Kaseman and 

Alutiiq; how and when the GATA RFP was developed; the information to which 

Messrs. B and H may have had access; and whether that information could have 

provided an unfair competitive advantage. Contracting Officer’s (CO) Decl. 2, 

¶¶ 4-6, 9. The contracting officer concluded that the nature of Kaseman’s services 

did not provide it, or Messrs. B and H, with access to competitively useful 

information relative to GATA. Based on his investigation, the contracting officer 

determined that there was no OCI present and that, accordingly, there was no 

reason to exclude SAIC from the competition. Id., ¶ 2. 

While Raytheon disputes the contracting officer’s determination that there was no 

basis to conclude that Mr. B or Mr. H possessed any nonpublic, competitively useful 

information obtained while working for Kaseman, the protester has furnished no 

evidence to the contrary. For example, the contracting officer considered that Mr. B 

worked at Kaseman from 2005 until 2008, supporting the ATA program by preparing 

and submitting responses to solicitations for ATA training courses and transitioning 

staff to work on Alutiiq’s contract. Id., ¶¶ 19, 21. However, the contracting officer 

specifically found that none of Kaseman’s employees on the GATA program had 

access to nonpublic information (unavailable to other ATA program support 

contractors) or to the proprietary information of other contractors. Id., ¶ 14. Further, 

when Mr. B left Kaseman in 2008, it was long before the current GATA solicitation 

was drafted (in 2010) or issued (in 2011). Id., ¶ 23. The same analysis applied 

equally to Raytheon’s allegations regarding Mr. H’s alleged access to competitively 

useful information. In this regard, the contracting office found that when Mr. H 

worked for Kaseman (up to July 2010), he did not work directly in connection with 

Page 5 B-404655.4 et al. 
the ATA program; did not have access to competitively useful information relating to 

the GATA procurement, that was not available to other competitors; and did not 

have access to source selection information or nonpublic, competitively useful 

information.1

 Id., ¶ 32. 

In addition to the broad analysis described above, the contracting officer considered 

the nine specific areas that Raytheon asserts represented nonpublic information to 

which Messrs. B and H allegedly had access. The contracting officer concluded 

either that neither individual had access to that information or, to the extent they may 

have had such access, he determined that the information would be out-of-date and 

largely within the public domain, and thus, would not be competitively useful. Id., 

¶¶ 24-26, 32. For example, Raytheon asserts that Messrs. B and H had access to 

ATA program forecasts for upcoming course demands. However, the contracting 

officer found that the ATA program is “dynamic and in constant motion” and that the 

program does not make any formal forecasts. Id., ¶ 26. Thus, he concluded that 

neither Mr. B nor Mr. H would have had access to any forecasts. Further, since the 

RFP provided offerors with information for projecting the course load, and any prior 

information would have changed multiple times since either Mr. B or Mr. H worked 

for Kaseman, neither individual would have had access to competitively useful 

information. Id. 

In sum, while Raytheon asserts that SAIC had access to nonpublic, competitively 

useful information, on this record, its assertions represent the firm’s suspicions and 

are not based on the requisite “hard facts.” We therefore find no basis upon which 

to question the contracting officer’s determination that SAIC lacked an OCI. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is denied. 

 

1

 Moreover, the contracting officer found that, even if Mr. H. had access to 

nonpublic, competitively useful information, it was unreasonable to conclude that he 

provided it to SAIC. CO Decl. 2, ¶ 31. According to Raytheon, its subcontractor’s 

president (who declined to provide a declaration) saw Mr. H and obtained his 

business card at a January 2009 SAIC “capture” meeting regarding the GATA 

procurement. Decl. 2 of Mr. M, ¶¶ 5-6. SAIC denies any knowledge of this meeting 

or obtaining any GATA-related information from Mr. H, and notes that Mr. H is not, 

and has never been, employed by SAIC. SAIC Letter, Aug. 1, 2011. Since, apart 

from claiming that SAIC’s statements are “misinformation,” Raytheon has provided 

nothing to rebut SAIC’s statements, we find the contracting officer reasonably 

concluded that Mr. H did not provide any nonpublic, competitively useful information 

to SAIC. 

Page 6 B-404655.4 et al. 
Common Cutoff 

Raytheon asserts that the agency engaged in unequal treatment of the offerors by 

failing to provide a common cutoff date for FPRs. The record shows that, after 

conducting discussions with the offerors in the original competitive range, the 

agency requested FPRs and the completion of an evaluation pricing template to 

evaluate the offerors’ prices. After taking corrective action in response to DECO’s 

and the other offeror’s protests against their competitive range exclusion, the agency 

then conducted discussions with these two offerors, and obtained FPRs and 

evaluation pricing templates from them, but did not provide the original competitive 

range offerors an opportunity to again revise their proposals. 

We find that the agency improperly failed to provide for a common cutoff date for the 

submission of FPRs. It is axiomatic that, at the conclusion of discussions, each 

offeror remaining in the competitive range must be given an opportunity to submit an 

FPR and the contracting officer is required to establish a common cutoff date for 

receipt of FPRs. FAR § 15.307(b). The underlying purpose of this requirement is to 

ensure that all offerors are being treated fairly and on an equal basis. Telos Field 

Eng’g, B-253492.2, Nov. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 275 at 5. Moreover, the agency is 

required to provide for a common deadline for submission of proposals, even when 

the conduct of discussions is due to corrective action in response to a bid protest. 

Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., B-286201.6, Aug. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 162 at 4-

5 (protest sustained where agency conducted discussions with only one offeror and 

did not provide other competitive range offerors opportunity to submit FPRs). The 

agency failed to meet the common cutoff requirement here. 

The agency concedes that it did not establish a final common cutoff date for receipt 

of FPRs. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR) at 14. However, it asserts that it 

essentially met the requirement by providing comparable amounts of time for the 

offerors to respond--18 days for proposal revisions for the original competitive range 

offerors and 14 days for DECO, plus 7 days each for completion of their evaluation 

pricing templates. Id. at 13-14. 

Notwithstanding the agency’s assertion, the record demonstrates that the agency 

treated the offerors unequally to the disadvantage of Raytheon. While the original 

competitive range offerors superficially appear to have received somewhat more 

time to submit proposal revisions, in point of fact, DECO had additional time to 

prepare any proposal revisions because it learned of its proposal deficiencies at the 

time of its debriefing, some 3 weeks prior to the commencement of its 14-day 

response time. Further, DECO’s FPR was not submitted until April, more than 3 

months after the other offerors submitted their FPRs and approximately 2 months 

after submission of their evaluation pricing templates. This delay would have 

allowed DECO to take into account any changes in the labor market regarding 

availability of, and potentially lower rates for, personnel. 

Page 7 B-404655.4 et al. 
Raytheon also argues that it was prejudiced by the unequal treatment of the offerors. 

Specifically, the protester contends that if it had received more time to respond and 

had DECO’s later deadline, it could have revised its proposal including its pricing 

(which was then some 10 to 11 months old); could have offered more competitive 

[deleted] given the continuing slow economy; and could have improved its technical 

proposal through [deleted]. Decl. 3 of Mr. M, ¶¶ 4-5. We conclude that the 

additional time provided to DECO to submit its proposal conferred a competitive 

advantage upon it, and thus prejudiced Raytheon. Accordingly, we sustain the 

protest on this basis. 2 

SAIC’s Price Proposal 

The record shows that, in its proposal, SAIC failed to provide labor rates for 20 

CLINs (nos. [deleted]) for the base and option years, representing a total of 100 

individual labor rates. SAIC Proposal, contract rate table. Raytheon asserts that 

SAIC’s price proposal was unacceptable because the offeror omitted these 

20 contract line items. The agency explains that while its price analysis did not 

detect SAIC’s error and omission of the 20 labor categories, it does not consider 

SAIC’s proposal materially non-compliant. SAR at 11. The agency notes that the 

award determination was not impacted by the omission, because it was based on 

the evaluation pricing template which did not contain all the labor rates set forth in 

the contract rate table.3

 Id. 

 

2

 In addition, DECO’s debriefing provided it with its initial adjectival ratings, while 

Raytheon did not receive this information in its discussions. Raytheon Comments to 

SAR at 15. Raytheon asserts that this information provided DECO an advantage in 

its proposal revisions, allowing it to improve by one adjectival level in each of the first 

three factors. Id. While it is not clear how advantageous this information was, all 

offerors are entitled to the same type of information in discussions. See

SYMVIONICS, Inc., B-293824.2, Oct. 8, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 204 at 5 (protest 

sustained where agency reopens competition, but fails to ensure that all offerors 

have information that other offeror obtained through prior debriefing). 

3

 The agency also asserts that Raytheon’s protest on this ground is untimely 

because it concerns an alleged impropriety in the RFP. SAR at 11. The agency’s 

assertion is without merit. Raytheon is not asserting that SAIC’s failure to address 

20 labor categories is due to their absence from the template used in the pricing 

evaluation. Instead its protest concerns the fundamental issue of whether SAIC’s 

proposal met the RFP requirement to submit pricing for each labor category in the 

RFP. Since Raytheon raised this issue within 10 days of discovering SAIC’s 

omission in the agency’s report, it is timely. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. 

§ 21.2(a)(2). 

Page 8 B-404655.4 et al. 
The agency’s assertion ignores the fundamental distinction between the evaluation 

pricing template and the offerors’ proposed contract rate tables. The evaluation 

pricing template, which included estimated hours for selected labor categories, was--

by its terms--solely to be used as a tool for evaluating prices. RFP, amend. at 1. 

Offerors also were required to complete the contract rate table with fully-loaded labor 

rates which would be used as ceiling labor rates for all T&M and fixed-price task 

orders under any resulting contract. RFP §§ B.4, B.5; see also RFP § L.9.1.b 

(offerors instructed to “insert hourly labor rates for the Government labor categories 

across all functional categories . . . using the [RFP] labor category titles”). 

Here, SAIC’s proposal omitted 20 of the required labor rates (and their 

corresponding option year rates). Since offerors were required to provide rates for 

all labor categories, and since those rates would form the basis for the issuance of 

future task orders, the missing rates represented a failure to meet a material 

solicitation requirement. Manthos Eng’g, LLC, B-401751, Oct. 16, 2009, 2009 CPD 

¶ 216 at 2. In a negotiated procurement, a proposal that fails to conform to the 

material terms and conditions of the solicitation is unacceptable and may not form 

the basis for award. Id.; see Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A; Cofathec S.p.A; 

SEB.CO S.a.s.; CO.PEL.S.a.s., B-298865, B-298865.2, Jan. 3, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 7 

at 6. Since SAIC did not provide all required prices, its proposal did not conform to 

the material terms of the RFP, and therefore could not be accepted for award.4 

Thus, we sustain the protest on this basis. 

Other Price Issues 

Raytheon raises a number of other price evaluation issues. For example, the 

evaluation pricing template called for offerors to submit pricing for some 157 labor 

categories. Firms were instructed to multiply their proposed hourly rates by the 

estimated quantities of instructors, course days, preparation days, and travel days. 

RFP, Evaluation Pricing Template. For the offerors’ proposed key personnel 

(program and operations managers) the RFP erroneously listed estimates of 1,920 

course days at 8 hours per day while all other labor categories were listed with 

estimates ranging from 3 to 35 days at 8 to 10 hours per day. Id. Raytheon asserts 

that both SAIC and DECO improperly completed the evaluation pricing template by 

calculating key personnel labor categories in terms of 1,920 total hours instead of 

1,920 days specified in the RFP (representing 15,360 total hours). 

 

4

 SAIC asserts that its evaluation pricing template included the missing 20 CLIN 

rates. SAIC SAR Comments at 3. However, these evaluation rates were not 

included as part of the contract rate table on which future task orders would be 

based. In any case, SAIC’s evaluation pricing template only accounts for 10 of the 

missing 20 rates. Thus, its proposal remains unacceptable due to a lack of material 

information. 

Page 9 B-404655.4 et al. 
The agency asserts that the identification of 1,920 days--as opposed to 1,920 hours-

-for key personnel was an “obvious” error and represented a patent ambiguity. 

Agency Report (AR) at 6. However, the record shows that not all offerors 

recognized the agency’s intended interpretation, and as a consequence, the agency 

failed to treat all offerors equally. 

In particular, the record shows that all offerors except Raytheon and one other 

offeror recognized the apparent error in the RFP and proposed their pricing in terms 

of hours instead of days. Because the prices for all offerors were not calculated on a 

uniform basis, the agency recalculated both Raytheon’s and the other offeror’s 

pricing in terms of hours which resulted in a significant reduction in their respective 

prices ($[deleted] million for Raytheon and $[deleted] million for the other offeror). 

AR at 7, 10. However, despite this recalculation the contracting officer did not 

apprise the SSA of Raytheon’s lower calculated price and his award 

recommendation reported Raytheon’s price unchanged. Award Recommendation at 

10. Since the SSA was unaware of the protester’s corrected price--and instead 

believed it was the [deleted] proposed--his tradeoffs and award determinations 

lacked a reasonable basis. See Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. et al., 

B-295526 et al., Mar. 16, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 45 at 15. We therefore sustain this 

aspect of Raytheon’s protest. 

Raytheon asserts that SAIC’s and DECO’s evaluation pricing templates improperly 

included several labor rates that deviated from the rates included in their contract 

rate tables. We agree that this was improper. In this regard, the RFP amendment 

requested offerors to use their prior proposed rates. Allowing offerors to propose 

different rates for purposes of the price evaluation than for contract performance 

could result in an award determination that does not reflect the actual, likely cost to 

the government of performing under the contract. 5

 See Northrop Grumman Info. 

Tech., Inc. et al., supra at 16. We therefore sustain this aspect of Raytheon’s 

protest. 

 

5

 Raytheon also argues that the agency failed to evaluate realism of the awardees’ 

labor rates. The contracting officer states that he did not believe there was a risk 

that either SAIC or DECO proposed unrealistically low rates and thus, he found no 

need to conduct a further performance risk assessment. AR at 24. However, the 

record does not document this finding or any specific review of price realism. Since 

the RFP clearly provided for evaluating whether prices were realistic for the work to 

be performed and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements (RFP §§ M.4, 

M.11.6), the agency should ensure that its future price evaluation specifically 

addresses the realism of the proposed prices. 

Page 10 B-404655.4 et al. 
Technical Evaluation 

Raytheon asserts that the agency misevaluated the proposals under the PM/QC, 

personnel, and facilities factors. Specifically, Raytheon identifies various aspects of 

the technical evaluation where it alleges the agency either did not treat the offerors 

equally or did not follow the evaluation criteria. 

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, our Office examines 

the record to determine whether the agency’s judgments are reasonable and 

consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors and applicable statutes and 

regulations, as well as whether the agency has treated offerors equally in its 

evaluation. See, e.g., Brican Inc., B-402602, June 17, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 141 at 4. 

We have reviewed Raytheon’s assertions and conclude that the agency’s technical 

evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. 

The record shows that, under the PM/QC factor, the consensus evaluation for SAIC 

and Raytheon reads almost identically regarding SAIC’s and Raytheon’s 

demonstrated detailed knowledge of project management disciplines; detailed, well 

reasoned plans to manage the effort; and inclusion of proven management tools and 

methodologies. See TEP Consensus Reports (SAIC at 26, Raytheon at 23). 

However, while the agency evaluated Raytheon’s proposal as [deleted], it evaluated 

SAIC’s proposal as [deleted] based primarily on a strength assigned to its proposal 

for a [deleted] the RFP’s requirements as to [deleted]. Id. 

Notwithstanding the agency’s evaluation conclusion, the record shows that 

Raytheon proposed features comparable to those in SAIC’s proposal, including 

[deleted] which, according to Raytheon’s proposal, provides for [deleted]. Raytheon 

Proposal, e.g., at I-2-16, I-2-20, I-2-28--31. While Raytheon’s [deleted] appears to 

offer comparable features to SAIC’s [deleted], the TEP did not mention this aspect of 

Raytheon’s proposal or assign it a strength. Further, despite the protester’s 

identification of the specific comparable aspects of its proposal, the agency has not 

explained why Raytheon’s proposed [deleted] was inferior to SAIC’s. Since the only 

apparent difference in the offerors’ ratings is based on this single strength, and since 

the agency has not explained why the two apparently comparable proposals are not, 

in fact, comparable, we conclude that the agency failed to treat the offerors equally 

in its evaluation. 

We also find that the agency misevaluated DECO’s proposal under the PM/QC 

factor by increasing its rating from acceptable to excellent based solely on the 

qualifications of DECO’s new proposed program manager. However, under the 

PM/QC factor, the agency’s evaluation was to include offerors’ proposed 

management approach and methodologies, whereas key personnel (including the 

program manager) resumes were to be evaluated under the personnel factor. RFP 

§§ M.11.1, M.11.2. 

Page 11 B-404655.4 et al. 
Page 12 B-404655.4 et al. 

The agency provides no explanation for why it was reasonable to assign DECO 

credit for its substituted program manager under the PM/QC factor instead of under 

the personnel factor. Since the qualifications of the program manager represented a 

matter for evaluation under the personnel factor, it was unreasonable for the agency 

to assign credit to DECO’s proposal and raise its overall rating under the PM/QC 

factor. Further, since the PM/QC factor was the most important, it appears that 

Raytheon may have been prejudiced by the unreasonable increase in DECO’s rating 

under that factor. See Appalachian Council, Inc., B-256179, May 20, 1994, 94-1 

CPD ¶ 319 at 9.6

 

Accordingly, we also sustain the protest based on the flaws in the technical 

evaluation. 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that the agency reopen the competition and amend the RFP as 

necessary to ensure that proposals are prepared on a common basis. We further 

recommend that the agency conduct another round of discussions, obtain and 

evaluate revised proposals and make a new source selection decision. If the 

agency concludes that the award of contracts to offerors other than SAIC and DECO 

is appropriate, it should terminate their existing contracts. Finally, we recommend 

that the protester be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1). The protester should submit its 

certified claim, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the 

contracting agency within 60 days of receiving this decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1). 

The protest is sustained. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel 

 

6

 Additionally, it is not clear that the new program manager’s resume provided 

sufficient information to support the TEP’s finding that he exceeded the RFP’s 

experience requirements. The RFP required a minimum of 10 years experience 

managing major programs or projects and supervisory experience responsible for 

“up to 100 subordinate staff.” RFP § C.4.1.1. It is not clear from the candidate’s 

resume that his 10 years of experience involved the requisite major programs.