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: Paragon TEC, Inc. 

File: B-405384 

Date: October 25, 2011 

Bryan R. King, Esq., and Ralph C. Thomas, III, Esq., Barton, Baker, Thomas, & Tolle, 

LLP, for the protester. 

Victoria H. Kauffman, Esq., Jerald J. Kennemuth, Esq., and Callista M. 

Puchmeyer, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 an agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ technical and past 

performance proposals is denied where agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in 

accordance with the evaluation criteria. 

DECISION 

Paragon TEC, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Alphaport, 

Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNC11ZCH002R, 

issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for technical 

support services for NASA’s Safety Center (NSC). 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The NSC, established in 2006, supports the safety and mission assurance 

requirements of NASA’s projects and programs. The NSC is composed of four 

offices: Technical Excellence, Knowledge Management Systems, Mishap 

Investigation Support, and Audits and Assessments. In order to provide technical 

support to these offices, the RFP sought a contractor to provide a variety of services, 

including information dissemination and outreach; operational support of the NSC 

information technology systems including software development; knowledge 

management; mishap investigation support office safety engineering services support; 

and data analysis and trending. RFP § C.1.1, at C-1–C-2. 
The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a cost-plusfixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with an estimated maximum 

value of $45 million. Offerors were informed that proposals would be evaluated on a 

best value basis, considering the following evaluation factors (listed in descending 

order of importance): technical capability,1 relevant experience/past performance, 

and cost. The technical capability and experience/past performance evaluation 

factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. RFP 

§ M.1(c)(1), at M-1. Four subfactors were identified under the technical capability 

evaluation factor: overall understanding of the requirements, management plan, 

technical approach to sample work requirements, and phase-in plan. The first three 

subfactors were approximately equal in importance and significantly more important 

than the fourth subfactor. RFP § M.1(c)(4), at M-1. 

With respect to the overall understanding of the requirements subfactor, offerors 

were informed that the agency would evaluate the offeror’s overall understanding and 

approach to meeting the requirements of the RFP as demonstrated by the offeror’s 

completeness, overall balance, and consistency. RFP § M.1.A, at M-2. Furthermore, 

the RFP provided for the evaluation of the offeror’s approach for identifying optimum 

skill mix and matching skill mix to services and functions. Id.

With respect to the relevant experience/past performance evaluation factor, the RFP 

stated that the agency “will evaluate both the extent of the Offeror’s (proposed Prime 

Contractor and Major Subcontractors) experience and the quality of its 

performance.” RFP § M.1, at M-4. The RFP defined a major subcontractor to be a 

firm that would perform more than 20 percent of the total contract effort. RFP 

§ L.16(A), at L-26. Offerors were instructed to submit various experience and past 

performance information, for the prime contractor and any major subcontractors, 

including a list of all government contracts involving relevant work over the past 

three years. Id.

The agency received four proposals, including Paragon’s and Alphaport’s. Alphaport 

proposed a teaming arrangement that included Triune Group, which was proposed as 

a major subcontractor, and Valador, Inc., which was not a major subcontractor. See

Alphaport Past Performance Proposal at 2-3. In this regard, Alphaport provided 

detailed information concerning the contracts that it, Triune, and Valador had 

performed. Id. at 3-18. 

After evaluating proposals, the agency established a competitive range consisting of 

Paragon’s and Alphaport’s proposals and conducted discussions with these firms. 

 

1

 The RFP also refers to the technical capability factor as the “mission suitability” 

capability. See RFP § M.1(b)1. For consistency, we refer to this factor as the 

technical capability factor. 

Page 2 B-405384 
Paragon’s and Alphaport’s revised proposals were evaluated by the agency’s source 

evaluation committee (SEC) as follows: 

Paragon Alphaport 

Technical Capability2 VERY GOOD EXCELLENT 

Understanding the Requirements Very Good Excellent 

Management Plan Good Good 

Technical Approach to Sample Excellent Excellent 

Phase-in Plan Good Good 

Experience/Past Performance3HIGH VERY HIGH 

Probable Cost4$27,997,104 $28,011,958 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 23, Final Source Selection Briefing, at 5. The evaluators’ 

adjectival ratings were supported by narrative discussions that identified each 

vendors’ respective strengths under each factor. No weaknesses or deficiencies were 

identified in either offeror’s proposal under any of the factors or subfactors. 

Alphaport’s higher overall rating under the technical capability factor reflected the 

firm’s higher, excellent rating under the understanding the requirements subfactor. 

Alphaport’s proposal was evaluated as excellent under the understanding the 

requirements subfactor based upon the SEC’s finding that the awardee’s proposal had 

 

2

 An excellent rating reflected a proposal that was comprehensive and thorough, had 

exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths, and had no significant 

weaknesses or deficiencies. A very good rating reflected a proposal that 

demonstrated overall competence, had one or more significant strengths that 

outbalance any weaknesses, and had no deficiencies. A good rating reflected a 

proposal that demonstrated a reasonably sound approach, contained strengths or 

weaknesses (and any weaknesses not off-set by the strengths did not significantly 

detract from the offeror’s response), and had no deficiencies. RFP § M.1, at M-2. 

3

 A very high level of confidence rating reflected an offeror with relevant past 

performance of exceptional merit that was highly pertinent; exemplary performance 

in a timely, efficient and economical manner; and for whom any minor problems had 

no adverse effect on overall performance. A high level of confidence rating reflected 

an offeror with relevant past performance that was highly pertinent; very effective 

performance with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient and 

economical manner; and who had experienced only minor problems with little 

identifiable effect on overall performance. RFP § M.3, at M-5-M-6. 

4

 Paragon’s final proposed cost of $27,158,182 was increased in the agency’s probable 

cost analysis. AR, Tab 24, Source Selection Statement, at 8. Alphaport’s final 

proposed cost of $28,531,923 was decreased. Id. at 6. The agency’s probable cost 

analysis is not protested. 

Page 3 B-405384 
seven strengths (four of which the SEC found were significant).5

 Specifically, the 

SEC noted as significant strengths that Alphaport proposed (1) numerous operational 

innovations that could be used immediately; (2) a comprehensive information 

technology (IT) security program with personnel with an extensive, broad 

background across multiple federal agencies; (3) a comprehensive change control 

management process; and (4) outstanding teaming arrangements that provided 

formidable capability and expertise in all elements of the statement of work. Id.

at 10. The SEC also identified strengths for Alphaport’s proposed action tracking 

system, IT infrastructure library management framework, and mishap investigation 

support. Id. at 11. 

Alphaport’s proposal was evaluated as very high confidence under the 

experience/past performance factor based upon the SEC’s judgment that the offeror 

presented relevant experience and had received very good to excellent past 

performance ratings. Id. at 47. In this regard, the agency noted that Alphaport itself 

had relevant experience that was highly pertinent to the work being procured here, 

that its major subcontractor Triune had relevant experience with NSC’s IT system, 

and that Valador had relevant experience in performing risk, reliability and safety 

studies. Id.

In comparison, Paragon’s proposal was evaluated as very good under the 

understanding the requirements subfactor based upon the SEC’s assessment that 

Paragon’s proposal had five strengths (two of which were significant). Specifically, 

the agency noted as significant that Paragon (1) proposed an approach to incident 

reporting information systems (IRIS) that would strengthen data quality and allow 

the agency to enhance its data analysis and trending functions; and (2) demonstrated 

extensive expertise with respect to mishap investigation support office (MISO) 

support. Id. at 16. The agency also identified strengths for Paragon’s proposed 

information dissemination and outreach process, IT infrastructure and IT security, 

and risk management plan. Id. at 17. 

Paragon’s proposal was evaluated as high confidence under the experience/past 

performance factor based upon the SEC’s judgment that, although Paragon itself had 

“limited relevant past performance experience related to this acquisition,” its team 

member, Ares, had experience in the majority of areas in the statement of work. Id.

at 66. The agency found that, as a team, the offeror’s relevant experience and very 

good to excellent past performance ratings resulted in a high level of confidence that 

the offeror would be able to successfully perform the work. Id.

 

5

 The RFP defined a significant strength as some aspect of the proposal that greatly 

enhances the potential for successful performance. RFP § M.1, at M-2. A strength 

was defined as an aspect of the proposal that would have some positive impact on the 

successful performance of the contract. Id.

Page 4 B-405384 
The source selection authority (SSA) met with the SEC and reviewed the SEC’s 

evaluation of the offerors’ revised proposals. Declaration of SSA, Aug. 11, 2011. He 

concluded that Alphaport’s proposal, at a slightly higher probable cost, represented 

the best value to the agency, based upon its significant superiority. AR, Tab 24, 

Source Selection Statement, at 9. 

Specifically, the SSA found that Alphaport’s significant strengths under the 

understanding the requirements evaluation subfactor, including the “multiple realistic 

innovations that will improve operational efficiency” as well as other strengths, 

outweighed Paragon’s strengths under this factor.6

 Id. at 8. The SSA also found that, 

although both offerors had received a “good” rating under the management plan 

subfactor, Alphaport’s proposal was superior to Paragon’s, because Alphaport would 

“provide enhanced backup capability and additional flexibility in bringing in subject 

matter experts and proposed a revised skill mix that demonstrated a good 

understanding of NSC functions.” Id.

Also, the SSA found that Alphaport’s proposal was superior to Paragon’s under the 

experience/past performance factor, because Alphaport itself had highly relevant 

past performance, and Paragon’s own experience and past performance was of 

limited relevance. Id. In this regard, the SSA credited Paragon for the highly 

relevant experience of its proposed subcontractor, Ares, but concluded that 

Alphaport’s own directly relevant experience was a meaningful discriminator given 

that the prime contractor will be responsible for management of the overall work. 

Id. 

Award was made to Alphaport, and this protest followed. 

 

6

 The source selection statement incorrectly identifies Paragon’s evaluated significant 

strengths under the understanding the requirements subfactor (that is, Paragon’s 

strengths for IRIS data quality and MISO support) as being under the technical 

response to sample work requirements subfactor. In his declaration, the SSA states 

that he was aware from the SEC’s briefing and in his decision that these significant 

strengths were actually under the understanding the requirements subfactor. He 

explains that the misidentification of these strengths in the source selection 

statement was a drafting error made by a NASA staff employee who assisted the SSA 

in preparing the statement. Declaration of SSA, Aug. 11, 2011, at 1-2. 

Page 5 B-405384 
DISCUSSION 

Technical Evaluation 

Paragon argues that NASA evaluated the firms’ proposals under the understanding 

the requirements subfactor disparately.7

 Specifically, Paragon objects to the agency’s 

assignment of two significant strengths to Alphaport for its proposed innovations and 

its proposed teaming arrangement. Paragon also challenges the assignment of a 

strength to Alphaport for its action tracking system. Paragaon asserts that it offered 

the same benefits.8

 

Where a protester challenges an agency’s technical evaluation, this Office will review 

the evaluation record to determine whether the agency’s judgments were reasonable 

and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement 

statutes and regulations. Rome Research Corp., B-291162, Nov. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD 

¶ 209 at 4. A protester’s mere disagreement with an agency’s judgments does not 

render the evaluation unreasonable. Id. 

We find from our review of the record that the agency’s judgment regarding the 

strengths of Alphaport’s proposal was reasonable and did not reflect disparate 

treatment. With regard to Paragon’s argument concerning the relative merits of the 

two firms’ proposed innovations, the agency explains that it considered all of 

Paragon’s proposed innovations, but found that many of them were already being 

performed and thus did not merit additional credit. Legal Memorandum at 7-8. In 

contrast, the SEC found that Alphaport offered realistic and operational innovations 

that could be used immediately after the start of the contract. AR, Tab 23, Final 

 

7

 Paragon also complains that NASA applied an undisclosed evaluation criterion in 

evaluating proposals under the technical capability factor. Specifically, the protester 

argues that the agency improperly provided more credit for Alphaport’s evaluated 

significant strengths because they were considered to be in core areas, see Legal 

Memorandum at 6, whereas Paragon’s significant strengths were “related to 

comparatively less important work areas,” and thus not valued as highly. We find no 

merit to Paragon’s concern that an agency, in valuing the relative comparative merit 

of assessed strengths, would consider whether the strengths related to more or less 

important work areas. 

8

 Paragon also challenges the agency’s evaluation of Alphaport’s proposed flexible 

personnel system as a strength under the management plan subfactor. Paragon 

contends that it proposed the same capability, but received no credit. The record 

shows, however, that Alphaport explained its core flex personnel system and detailed 

the method in which it would use to staff task orders. Paragon, on the other hand, 

did not detail how it would reach back to its partners and teammates to staff new 

work. See Legal Memorandum at 9; Compare Alphaport’s Technical Capability 

Proposal, at 44-45 with Paragon’s Technical Capability Proposal, at B.1.6-B.1.8. 

Page 6 B-405384 
Source Selection Briefing, at 10. In its comments, Paragon argues that the agency’s 

evaluation reflected a pattern of disparity, but failed to challenge the agency’s 

explanation of its assignment of strengths for the firms’ proposed innovations or 

otherwise explain why the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. We conclude that 

the protester merely disagrees with the agency’s judgment, which does not 

demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. 

With regard to Paragon’s objection that both firms should have received similar 

strengths for their proposed teaming arrangements, NASA explains that Alphaport 

was assigned a significant strength because major subcontractor, Triune, was the 

developer of the “Knowledge Now” management collaboration system, which NSC 

currently uses. See Legal Memorandum at 8. Paragon argues, however, that its own 

major subcontractor, ARES, has designed, built, and supported the infrastructure that 

supports all the application hosting and operations of NSC’s various products 

(including Knowledge Now, which is operated by ARES). See Protester’s 

Comments at 10. 

The record supports the reasonableness of the agency’s judgment concerning the 

relative merits of the firms’ teaming arrangements. NASA recognized that Paragon’s 

subcontractor, ARES, designed, built and supported NSC’s infrastructure for 

application hosting. In this regard, the agency credited Paragon with a strength under 

the understanding the requirements subfactor for its IT infrastructure and IT security, 

which the record shows was based upon Paragon’s teaming arrangement. See AR, 

Tab 23, Final Source Selection Briefing, at 17, 76. Although the SEC recognized the 

knowledge and expertise of Paragon’s team in these areas, the SEC expressed 

concern that Paragon had failed to discuss its involvement in applications that “Team 

Paragon” built and was managing. Id. at 76. Although Paragon disagrees with the 

agency’s judgment with respect to the relative merits of the firms’ proposed teaming 

arrangements, the protester fails to show that that the agency’s judgment was 

unreasonable. 

Paragon also challenges the agency’s assessment of a strength under the 

understanding the requirements subfactor for Alphaport’s proposal of an action 

tracking system, where Paragon also proposed an action tracking system, for which 

the protester was not assigned a strength. NASA explains that Alphaport proposed 

the existing Valador Virtual Action Tracking System, which, in the agency’s judgment, 

would provide “a comprehensive workflow capability to track all actions related to 

NSC business.” AR, Tab 23, Final Source Selection Briefing, at 56. In contrast, NASA 

found that, although Paragon also proposed an integrated action tracking system, 

Paragon failed to provide any detail about its system and had not presented evidence 

that its system presently existed. In response, Paragon disagrees that it failed to 

detail its proposed system, but does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that its 

Page 7 B-405384 
system does not currently exist. Given this, we find reasonable the agency’s 

evaluation of the firms’ respective offers of an action tracking system. 9

Past Performance Evaluation 

Paragon challenges the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ past performance. 

Specifically, Paragon complains that NASA improperly credited Alphaport for the 

experience of its subcontractor, Valador, where the RFP did not provide for the 

evaluation of the experience and past performance of firms that, like Valador, were 

not major subcontractors. 

The agency acknowledges that the SEC considered Valador’s experience and past 

performance in its evaluation of Alphaport’s proposal, and essentially concedes that 

the evaluators should not have done so. See Legal Memorandum at 3. NASA argues, 

however, that Paragon was not prejudiced. Specifically, NASA notes that Alphaport 

itself demonstrated comprehensive experience in a majority of the statement of work 

areas and had highly pertinent past performance. See AR, Tab 23, Final Source 

Selection Briefing, at 47. NASA also found that Alphaport and its major 

subcontractor, Triune, together have “experience in all areas of the statement of 

work but one.” Legal Memorandum at 3. The one area that Valador provides, 

“system failure case studies,” involved the production of only one type of report. Id.

We find that, although the SEC’s considered Valador’s experience and past 

performance in evaluating Alphaport’s proposal, this consideration did not affect the 

SSA’s judgment that Alphaport’s experience and past performance was superior to 

Paragon’s. Specifically, the SSA’s contemporaneous selection decision shows that 

the SSA concluded that Alphaport’s own experience and past performance was 

superior to Paragon’s, because Alphaport itself had highly relevant past performance 

and experience, whereas Paragon’s own experience and past performance was of 

limited relevance. In making this determination, the SSA specifically credited 

Paragon for the highly relevant experience of its major subcontractor, ARES. 

Nevertheless, the SSA, concluded that “the directly relevant experience of Alphaport 

and [Paragon’s] lack of the same is a meaningful discriminator between the offerors 

because they are the proposed prime contractors and will be responsible for the 

 

9

 The protester also complains that the SSA found Alphaport’s proposal superior to 

Paragon’s under the management plan evaluation factor, where the SEC had found 

the offerors’ management plans to be sufficiently similar such that each received the 

same evaluation rating. Protester’s Comments at 8. Contrary to the protester’s 

argument, it is well-settled that an agency’s source selection official is not bound by 

the ratings, conclusions, or recommendations of a subordinate evaluation team. 

Ass’ns for the Educ. of the Deaf, Inc., B-220868, Mar. 5, 1986, 86-1 CPD ¶ 220 at 5. 

Page 8 B-405384 
Page 9 B-405384 

management of the overall contract work.” 10 AR, Tab 24, Source Selection Statement, 

at 8. There is simply no consideration of Valador’s experience and past performance 

in the SSA’s selection decision. 

Also, although the protester complains that it was “denied the opportunity to submit 

the past performance of a non-major subcontractor,” it does not state that it would 

have, in fact, provided additional information for a non-major subcontractor, if given 

the opportunity. See Protester’s Comments at 4-5. Moreover, the agency’s 

determination that Paragon’s lower level of confidence under the experience/past 

performance factor was based upon Paragon’s own experience and past 

performance.11

 

Under the circumstances, the record does not show any reasonable possibility that 

Paragon was prejudiced by the SEC’s consideration of Valador’s experience and past 

performance. Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest; 

where the protester fails to demonstrate that, but for the agency’s actions, it would 

have had a substantial chance of receiving the award, there is no basis for finding 

prejudice, and our Office will not sustain the protest. Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., 

B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 208 at 7. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel 

 

10 Paragon challenges the SSA’s determination that Alphaport’s own more relevant 

experience and past performance was a discriminator between the two firms. 

Paragon contends that the SSA’s consideration of experience and past performance 

was limited to comparing each offerors’ team experience and past performance (that 

is, considering the prime’s and any major subcontractor’s experience and past 

performance together), and thus the RFP did not permit the SSA to consider the 

primes’ own experience to be a discriminator. We disagree that an RFP provision 

providing for the evaluation of both the prime’s and major subcontractors’ experience 

and past performance limits an SSA’s judgment in the manner Paragon contends. In 

any event, the record shows that the SSA did not disregard the experience and 

evaluation of major subcontractors, but specifically credited Paragon for the 

experience and past performance of its major subcontractor. AR, Tab 24, Source 

Selection Statement, at 7-8. 

11 Paragon does not challenge the agency’s determination that the firm has limited 

relevant experience.