United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Globecomm Systems, Inc.

File: B-405303.2; B-405303.3

Date: October 31, 2011

Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, PLC, for the protester.

Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., and Michael J. Ettner, Esq., General Services 

Administration, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of 

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

DIGEST

Protester’s contention that its proposal was improperly excluded from the 

competitive range is denied where the protester has not shown that the agency’s 

evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

DECISION

Globecomm Systems, Inc., of Hauppauge, New York, protests the elimination of its 

proposal from the competitive range by the General Services Administration (GSA) 

under request for proposals (RFP) No. QTA-010-CTA-0003, issued by GSA for 

worldwide commercial satellite communications (COMSATCOM) end-to-end 

solutions.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

In July 2009, GSA and the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) entered 

into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to jointly determine an acquisition strategy 

for the acquisition of COMSATCOM services for the federal government. Agency 

Report (AR) Tab 4, Source Selection Plan, at 1. As a result, GSA issued the RFP 

on July 6, 2010, for end-to-end solutions for COMSATCOM services, which includes 

any combination of fixed satellite services or mobile satellite services components, 

and/or service enabling components such as terminals, teleport, and terrestrial 

interface tail circuits. RFP at C-1. The RFP anticipated multiple awards of 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts, for a 3-year base period and 

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.
Page 2 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

two 1-year option periods. The RFP provided for a best value source selection 

decision considering the following factors: technical/management approach, 

corporate experience, past performance and price. RFP at M-1 and M-2. The RFP 

stated that the technical/management and corporate experience evaluation factors 

were of equal importance and that each was more important than past performance. 

RFP at M-2. 

As is relevant here, the technical/management evaluation factor consisted of the 

following three sample task orders (STO): 

STO # 1 - Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)

STO # 2 - Government Education and Training Network (GETN)

STO # 3 – Blue Personnel Tracking (BPT)

RFP at M-1.

The RFP stated that the evaluation of proposals under the technical/management 

factor would consider an offeror’s response to each of the STOs to determine the 

extent to which the offeror’s approach to each STO demonstrated an understanding 

of the scope and complexity of the requirements, and offered to deliver a 

customized, end-to-end solution satisfying the STO requirements. RFP at M-2. 

Offerors were to use the information identified in each STO to determine the amount 

of bandwidth, frequency band, and any required service enabling devices. RFP at 

M-3. The RFP listed specific criteria for each STO that an offeror needed to 

address. Id. The RFP stated that the STOs would not be individually rated, but 

rather, using the documented strengths and weaknesses developed during the 

evaluation, an adjectival rating would be assigned for the overall

technical/management evaluation factor. Id.

For the corporate experience evaluation factor, the RFP stated that corporate 

experience would be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated experience in 

delivering six of the required COMSATCOM end-to-end solution types and nine of 

the required COMSATCOM end-to-end solution attributes. RFP at M-7. The RFP 

listed the following solution types: 

Type # 1: Interactive Services

Type # 2: Continuity of Operations (COOP)

Type # 3: Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS)

Type # 4: Emergency Responder Operations
Page 3 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

Type # 5: Direct Customer Operations

Type # 6: Steady State Operations

RFP at M-7. 

The RFP also listed the following nine solution attributes:

# 1: Information Assurance

# 2: Responsiveness

# 3: Portability

# 4: Flexibility/Optimization

# 5: Capacity

# 6: Coverage

# 7: Network Monitoring (Net Ops)

# 8: Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI)/Radio Frequency 

Interference (RFI) Identification, Characterization, and Geo-location 

# 9: Net Ready (Interoperability)

RFP at M-8. 

With regard to corporate experience, the RFP provided that “[t]he Offeror may only 

include its own corporate experience,” and required demonstration of corporate 

experience within the past three years for delivery of solution types with similar size, 

scope, and complexity to the current requirement. RFP at M-7, M-8. With respect to 

the solution attributes, an offeror was permitted to demonstrate experience of any 

size, scope and complexity. RFP at M-8.

Finally, the solicitation provided that, for a proposal to be eligible for award, it “must 

not receive a rating of Unacceptable for the Technical/Management factor or 

Corporate Experience factor.” 1 RFP, amend. 5, at M-1.

 1 In evaluating proposals under the technical/management and corporate experience 

factors, the agency assigned ratings of superior, acceptable, marginal, and 

unacceptable. RFP at M-3, M-10.
Page 4 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

On or before, the August 19, 2010 closing date, the agency received [Deleted] 

proposals, including a proposal from Globecomm. Eight of these proposals, 

including Globecomm’s, were rated unacceptable under both the 

technical/management and corporate experience evaluation factors and were 

thereafter excluded from the competitive range. AR, Tab 12, Competitive Range 

Briefing Charts, at 16. Globecomm’s proposal was assigned a number of 

weaknesses and significant weaknesses with regard to the STOs for GETN and 

BPT.2 For example, the evaluators concluded that Globecomm’s proposal did not 

demonstrate an understanding of the requirements because, among other things, it 

was based on a satellite that no longer covered the United States, it did not contain 

a detailed delivery schedule, and it did not provide that transition to the Air Force 

would occur within 30 days. Id. at 5-6. Based on the agency’s assessment of 

various weaknesses,3 Globecomm’s proposal was evaluated as unacceptable under 

the technical/management evaluation factor. 

Globecomm’s proposal was also rated unacceptable under the corporate experience 

factor because the evaluators determined that Globecomm did not demonstrate 

experience with any of the six required end-to-end solution types, and demonstrated 

experience with only one of the nine solution attributes. AR, Tab 11, Evaluation 

Summary, at 23. In this regard, the evaluators found that some of the protester’s 

experience examples were outside the 3-year timeframe and several experiences 

belonged to Globecomm affiliates or subsidiaries, even though the solicitation limited 

relevant experience to that of the offeror itself. Id.

DISCUSSION

Globecomm challenges the agency’s decision to exclude Globecomm’s proposal 

from the competitive range. More specifically, Globecomm asserts that its proposal 

fully met the evaluation criteria and should have received ratings that were higher 

than unacceptable under both the technical/management evaluation factor and the 

corporate experience evaluation factor. Protest at 6. 

Our Office will review an agency’s evaluation and exclusion of a proposal from the 

competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the solicitation criteria 

and applicable statutes and regulations. Int’l Med. Corps, B-403688, Dec. 6, 2010, 

 2 A “weakness” was defined as a proposal flaw that increased the risk of 

unsuccessful contract performance and a “significant weakness” was defined as a 

flaw that appreciably increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement, Aug. 25, 2011, at 4. 

3 Overall, in evaluating Globecomm’s proposal under the technical/management 

evaluation factor, the agency identified 23 weaknesses, including 3 that were 

considered to be significant weaknesses. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 4. 
Page 5 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

2010 CPD ¶ 292 at 7. Contracting agencies are not required to retain proposals in 

the competitive range that are not among the most highly rated or that the agency 

otherwise reasonably concludes have no realistic prospect of being selected for 

award. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.306(c)(1); D&J Enter., Inc., 

B-310442, Dec. 13, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 8 at 2. Further, the evaluation of proposals is 

a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, since the agency is 

responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. 

Encorp-Samcrete Joint Venture, B-284171, B-284171.2, Mar. 2, 2000, 2000 CPD

¶ 55 at 4. In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals, but 

instead will examine the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and 

consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and with procurement 

statutes and regulations. Id. Finally, it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit a wellwritten proposal, with adequately detailed information to demonstrate compliance 

with the solicitation requirements, and an offeror’s mere disagreement with the 

agency’s judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to 

establish that the agency acted unreasonably. American Title Servs., a Joint 

Venture, B-404455, Feb. 4, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 38 at 4; PEMCO World Air Servs.,

B-28240.3, et al., Mar. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 71 at 15. 

Here, we have reviewed the record and find Globecomm’s arguments to be without 

merit. As illustrated by the examples discussed below, we find that the agency 

reasonably evaluated the proposal as unacceptable under both the 

technical/management evaluation factor and the corporate experience factor and, 

accordingly, reasonably excluded the proposal from the competitive range. 

Evaluation of Technical/Management Factor 

First, with regard to satellite coverage under the GETN STO, the solicitation 

provided that an offeror’s proposed solution must “show[] coverage across required 

locations,”4 and that its solution must be “consistent with link budgets.” RFP at M-5. 

In assessing a significant weakness to Globecomm’s proposal for this STO, the 

agency’s evaluation report stated: 

The link budgets show the offeror is utilizing a satellite that does not 

cover the United States anymore; [Deleted]. The satellite was moved, 

per an Intelsat product manager, to support OCONUS [outside 

continental United States]. It is located at 51 degrees East. The 

offeror does not appear to have taken the steps to verify that a key 

system asset is available and in place for use. 

 4 The solicitation contained an attachment identifying various geographic locations 

within the continental United States (CONUS) that would be serviced under this 

STO. AR, Tab 6, at 249-83.
Page 6 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

AR, Tab 11, Evaluation Report, at 6. 

In challenging the agency’s assessment of a significant weakness for this aspect of 

its proposal, Globecomm does not dispute that its proposal did, indeed, refer to the

[Deleted] satellite, further acknowledging that “the [Deleted] satellite identified by 

Globecomm in its link budget no longer provides CONUS coverage.” Comments, 

Sept. 7, 2011, at 3-4. Nonetheless, Globecomm asserts that another satellite 

provides adequate coverage and maintains that this was just a “minor mistake.” Id.; 

Protest at 9. 

The agency responds that “Globecomm’s proposal failed to demonstrate its 

compliance with the coverage requirement, and nothing in [its] protest contradicts 

[the agency’s] conclusion,” elaborating that, in addition to its erroneous reference to 

a satellite that does not cover the United States, Globecomm’s proposal provided 

nothing more than a generic statement regarding its ability to provide “coverage 

across the required locations.” Legal Memo at 7. 

Here, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the agency reasonably 

assigned a significant weakness to Globecomm’s proposal for failing to adequately 

demonstrate compliance with the solicitation’s satellite coverage requirements. 

Globecomm’s assertions regarding the adequacy of the information provided and the 

significance of its acknowledged proposal errors constitute mere disagreement with 

the agency’s judgments and fail to establish that the agency’s judgments were 

unreasonable. 

By way of another example, the solicitation provided that an offeror’s proposed 

solution for the GETN STO must “demonstrate a clear understanding of what needs 

to be delivered, what may cause delays, and provide a detailed delivery schedule for 

transition of at least the Air Force . . . within the standard 30 day delivery schedule.” 

AR, Tab 6, at 319. The agency assigned a significant weakness to Globecomm’s 

proposal with regard to this requirement, stating: 

[Globecomm] does not provide a detailed delivery schedule and they 

do not state that the Air Force will be transitioned with 30 days. They 

do state . . . that 100% of the remotes will be re-pointed within 90 days 

(less than 4 months), but fail to discuss the entire network transition. 

This shows a significant weakness as it is not stated how long it will 

take the offeror to complete this project from task award to completion.

AR, Tab 11, Evaluation Report, at 6. 

In challenging the agency’s evaluation in this regard, the protester asserts that its 

proposal provided an adequate response by stating that Globecomm was 

“committed to meeting the Standard Service Delivery requirement of 30 days or 

less,” and that “[t]o the extent more scheduling information was desired . . . such a 
Page 7 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

perceived deficiency would not rise to the level of a significant weakness.” Protest at 

8; Comments, Sept. 7, 2011 at 3. 

The agency disagrees with Globecomm regarding the adequacy of the scheduling 

and delivery information, maintaining that Globecomm’s proposal spoke in 

generalities with respect to the delivery requirements and did not provide a firm 

commitment to a particular delivery schedule. AR, Tab 11, Evaluation Report, at 6; 

Legal Memo at 6. The agency further states that, although the protester claims that 

information responsive to the delivery issue was provided in a specific section of the 

proposal, that part of the proposal was not provided to the agency. Specifically, the 

evaluators noted that “[Globecomm’s] proposal states that [Globecomm’s] response 

to Service Delivery is in Section 3.1.2 & 3.1.3, but they do not provide a Section 

3.1.2 or 3.1.3.” AR, Tab 11, at 6. In pursuing this protest, Globecomm has not 

responded to this criticism. 

Based on our review of the record, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency’s 

determination that Globecomm’s proposal failed to demonstrate an adequate 

understanding of the importance of the RFP’s requirement regarding timely delivery 

where the proposal failed to provide a detailed delivery schedule and simply 

asserted that Globecomm was committed to timely delivery. Although the protester 

maintains that, even if the solicitation reasonably contemplated more detailed 

scheduling information, the proposal’s deficiency in this regard should not be 

considered a significant weakness, it fails to meaningfully dispute or otherwise show 

to be unreasonable the agency’s analysis of the specific weaknesses in its proposal 

regarding the delivery requirement; accordingly, Globecomm’s assertions constitute 

mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment. Finally, Globecomm does not 

explain why the missing information would not be relevant to the successful 

performance of the GETN STO. On the record here, we do not question the 

agency’s determination that Globecomm’s proposal failed to meaningfully comply 

with the solicitation’s scheduling and delivery requirements. 

In summary, the record establishes that Globecomm’s proposal was reasonably 

evaluated as containing numerous weaknesses with respect to the 

technical/management evaluation factor that would appear to require a major rewrite 

of the proposal.5

 5 The agency identified yet another significant weakness in Globecomm’s proposal 

with regard to the BPT STO. Specifically, the evaluators found that under the 

selected communications infrastructure, the protester failed to address speed to 

disseminate location data. The agency states that in order to disseminate location 

data (actual location of the user terminal vs. the position that other terminals think 

the user is located) in a mobile satellite system, one needs to know the time interval 

between position transmission and the time taken by the position report to transit 

 Accordingly, we find no basis to question the agency’s assessment 

of an unacceptable rating under the technical/management evaluation factor. 

(continued...)
Page 8 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

Evaluation of Corporate Experience Factor 

The protester’s proposal was also rated unacceptable under the corporate 

experience evaluation factor based on the evaluators’ determination that 

Globecomm failed to demonstrate experience with any of the 6 required solution 

types and demonstrated experience with only one of the 9 attribute types. The 

agency noted that Globecomm identified several experiences outside of the requisite 

3-year timeframe, as well as several experiences of its subsidiaries, despite the 

solicitation’s requirement that “the offeror may only include its own corporate 

experience.” RFP at M-7. Overall, the agency determined that Globecomm’s 

proposal failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the firm had the 

requisite corporate experience with respect to the 6 solution types and the 9 attribute 

types. While our decision here does not specifically discuss each of the agency’s 

assessments regarding the various experience requirements, we have considered 

the entire record and find no basis to question the agency’s evaluation under this 

factor. 

For example, with regard to solution type No. 1, interactive services, the solicitation 

required an offeror’s proposal to demonstrate the capability to provide complete, 

customized engineering solutions to support interactive services. RFP at C-4. The 

solicitation defined interactive services as involving the “ability to connect multiple 

locations in a real-time two-way interactive network, mostly involving audio and 

video.” Id. In response to this requirement, Globecomm provided information 

regarding its [Deleted] services. In determining that Globecomm did not 

demonstrate its capability to provide interactive services, the agency concluded that 

Globecomm failed to explain how [Deleted] is interactive, with the ability to connect 

multiple locations into a real-time two-way network. AR, Tab 11, Evaluation Report, 

at 24. 

In both its initial protest and its comments responding to the agency report, 

Globecomm generally asserts that its proposal provided adequate details regarding 

the SkyBorne service, yet fails to meaningfully dispute, or even address, the 

agency’s analysis with regard to interactive services. Protest, July 25, 2011, at 26-

27; Comments, Sept. 7, 2011, at 5.

 

(...continued)

through the system end-to-end. Id. The evaluators found that the protester failed to 

address both of these elements. Id. Finally, in addition to the specific aspects of 

Globecomm’s proposal that the agency identified as significant weaknesses, the 

agency identified 20 other “supporting weaknesses.” AR, Tab 11, at 7-13. 
Page 9 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

A protester bears the burden of proving that an evaluation was unreasonable, and 

mere disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. 

Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270354.2, Oct. 29, 1996, 97-1 CPD ¶ 135 at 3. Here, 

Globecomm’s failure to meaningfully dispute, or even address, the agency’s analysis 

with regard to interactive services fails to show that the agency’s assessment was 

unreasonable. 

Similarly, with respect to solution attribute No. 3, portability, the solicitation required 

an offeror’s proposal to demonstrate: the ability to move from one 

transponder/satellite to another, one managed service area to another; 

redeployment between beams or transponders on a single satellite; redeployment 

from one frequency band to another; and/or physical relocation of a satellite to a new 

orbital position. RFP at C-8. In response, Globecomm demonstrated this 

experience through three of its subsidiaries. The agency concluded that 

Globecomm did not meet this requirement, since in accordance with the RFP, only 

the experience of the offeror--not that of a parent or a subsidiary--was permitted. 

RFP at M-7. 

In both its initial protest and its comments responding to the agency report, 

Globecomm admits that it provided information regarding this requirement through 

affiliated subsidiaries, yet fails to explain, or even address, how this was in 

accordance with the solicitation requirements. Protest, July 25, 2011, at 41-43; 

Comments, Sept. 7, 2011, at 7. 

In sum, nothing in Globecomm’s protest nor its comments refute, and in most 

instances fail to even address why Globecomm believes the agency’s evaluation of 

its corporate experience was unreasonable. In pursuing this protest, Globecomm 

has copied portions of its proposal--yet provided virtually no supporting explanation 

as to why the various copied portions of its proposal render the agency’s criticisms 

invalid. Based on the record presented, we find no basis to question the agency’s 

evaluation of Globecomm’s proposal as unacceptable with regard to the corporate 

experience factor.

Other Issues

Globecomm also contends that the agency improperly used a predetermined cutoff 

score to establish the competitive range based on whether or not an offeror has one 

or more significant weaknesses for the technical/management evaluation factor. 

Supplemental Protest at 2 and 4. 

The record fails to support the protester’s argument in this regard. The record 

shows that all 8 of the offerors eliminated from the competitive range were rated 

unacceptable under both the technical/management factor and the corporate 

experience factor. The record does not indicate that there was a predetermined 
Page 10 B-405303.2; B-405303.3 

cutoff based on the number of weaknesses for the technical/management evaluation 

factor.

Similarly, the protester asserts that the agency failed to consider all of the evaluation 

factors in making the competitive range decision. Supplemental Protest, Sept. 2, 

2011, at 4-5. We disagree. Here, the record shows that the competitive range 

consisted of [Deleted] offerors. Globecomm and 7 other offerors were eliminated 

based on their ratings of unacceptable for both the technical/management and 

corporate experience evaluation factors. The record indicates that the agency 

conducted a detailed evaluation of all offerors under all evaluation factors, including 

price, to make the competitive range determination. AR, Tab 12, Debriefing Charts. 

On this record, Globecomm’s assertion that the agency failed to consider all of the 

evaluation factors is without merit. 

Finally, Globecomm argues that the agency failed to comply with the source 

selection plan when determining the competitive range. An agency’s source 

selection plan is an internal guide that does not give rights to parties; it is the RFP’s 

evaluation scheme, not internal agency documents such as source selection plans, 

to which an agency is required to adhere in evaluating proposals. Sig Sauer, Inc., 

B-402339.3, July 23, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 184 at 6 n.9.

In summary, based on the agency’s reasonable determination, as discussed above, 

that Globecomm’s proposal was rated unacceptable with regard to both the 

technical/management and corporate experience evaluation factors, the agency’s 

elimination of Globecomm’s proposal from the competitive range is not 

objectionable. 

 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel