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: Kuhana-Spectrum Joint Venture, LLC 

File: B-400803; B-400803.2 

Date: January 29, 2009 

Paul M. Vincent, Esq., and E. John Steren, Esq., Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver, for 

the protester. 

Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and David C. Bowman, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for 

CasePro, Inc.; Craig A. Holman, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., and Emma V. Broomfield, 

Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for OMV Medical, Inc.; Ronald S. Perlman, Esq., Holland 

& Knight LLP, for Saratoga Medical Center, Inc.; and Patricia H. Wittie, Esq., and 

Kathryn E. Swisher, Esq., Oldaker Belair & Wittie LLP, for Chesapeake Educational 

Services, LLC, intervenors. 

Julia P. Hatch, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. 

Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency misevaluated the protester’s proposal, and improperly conducted 

discussions with one awardee, is denied where the record demonstrates that the 

agency’s evaluation was reasonable, and that the agency properly limited its 

communications with one awardee to a permissible clarification. 

DECISION 

Kuhana-Spectrum Joint Venture, LLC, of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the award of 

eight contracts by the Department of the Navy, Naval Medical Logistics Command 

(NMLC), under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62645-07-R-0009, issued to provide 

healthcare personnel at military treatment facilities (MTF) in eight states. The eight 

awardees are TCMP Staffing Services, LLC, of Springfield, Virginia; OMV Medical, 

Inc., of Takoma Park, Maryland; Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., 

of San Antonio, Texas; Chesapeake Educational Services, LLC, of Springfield, 

Virginia; CasePro, Inc., of San Antonio, Texas; Catalyst Professional Services, Inc., of 

Colorado Springs, Colorado; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia; and 
Cherokee Medical Services, LLC, of Stilwell, Oklahoma. Kuhana-Spectrum argues 

that its proposal was misevaluated, and that the Navy conducted discussions with 

one of the awardees, Chesapeake, and allowed that firm to revise its proposal, but 

never provided a similar opportunity to Kuhana-Spectrum. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP here sought healthcare workers to provide services at MTFs in several 

states,1

 to supplement the work of military and civilian employees. The Navy 

explains that it needs to contract for these healthcare workers because it has an 

insufficient number of government-employee healthcare workers and because of the 

higher war-related demand for military healthcare services. Agency Report (AR), 

Tab 3, Acquisition Plan, at 7. 

The RFP was issued on August 30, 2007 as a small business set-aside, and it 

contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) 

contracts with an ordering period of 60 months from the time of award. RFP 

at 5-6, 87. After issuing the RFP, the Navy issued seven amendments. 

As amended, the RFP directed offerors to provide prices for 21 “lots” of services for 

an initial 8-month period, and stated that the Navy would order at least one lot from 

each awardee at the time of contract award. Each lot provided for a specified 

number of hours of one or more labor categories at a particular MTF. For example, 

Lot 2 addressed supplemental services required at the Corpus Christi, Texas Naval 

Hospital, and specified 4,152 hours of services by family practice physicians, 

2,768 hours by pediatricians, 1,384 hours by a family nurse practitioner, 5,536 hours 

by outpatient registered nurses, and 8,304 hours by licensed practical nurses. RFP 

amend. 5 at 12. 

The RFP, as amended, provided that the evaluation of proposals would consider past 

performance, management planning and market research (hereinafter “management 

plan”), and price. RFP at 327; RFP amend. 5 at 94. The Navy described the past 

performance factor as being significantly more important than the management plan 

factor. When combined, the past performance and management plan factors were 

significantly more important than the “combined price evaluation factors 

(Completeness, Reasonableness, and Realism).” RFP at 327; RFP amend. 5 at 94.2

 

 

1

 The RFP informed offerors that the Navy was employing its authority to contract 

for personal services pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1091. RFP at 11. 

2

 The RFP also stated that the government might consider paying a price premium in 

order to award three or more contracts in order to obtain additional competition for 

task orders after the initial performance period. RFP at 327. 

Page 2 B-400803; B-400803.2 
The RFP also advised that the past performance evaluation would assess the quality 

of each offeror’s relevant past performance. RFP at 324; RFP amend. 5 at 94. With 

respect to the management plan evaluation, the RFP advised that the agency would 

assess “the comprehensiveness, specificity, realism, and quality of the plans, 

capabilities, and research demonstrated within the offeror’s proposal.” RFP at 324. 

The RFP also required offerors to submit their standard representations and 

certifications electronically, using the Online Representations and Certifications 

Application (ORCA) at http://orca.bpn.gov. RFP at 315. 

The Navy received proposals from 24 offerors, including Kuhana-Spectrum and each 

of the awardees. The Navy began the evaluation by reviewing the past performance 

of each offeror. The Navy contacted the references listed in each proposal, reviewed 

relevant information in the past performance information retrieval system (PPIRS), 

and considered any past performance by the offeror for NMLC. The Navy also 

evaluated each offeror’s management plan and market research, and identified the 

strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The Navy assigned adjectival ratings to 

both the past performance and management plan factors, which it expressed in 

terms of the risk of unsuccessful performance. Price was evaluated by totaling the 

offeror’s price for all lots for the initial 8-months of services, and by a more detailed 

analysis of the hourly rate in each proposal. 

The protester, Kuhana-Spectrum, described itself in its proposal as an approved 

mentor-protégé joint venture under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

section 8(a) program, and claimed that it was therefore eligible to compete under 

this small business set-aside. See 13 C.F.R. § 124.520(d) (2008). The proposal 

explained that the protégé, Kuhana Associates, LLC, was a Native Hawaiian 

Organization-owned company (see 13 C.F.R. §§ 124.3, 124.102, 124.110), and an SBA 

section 8(a) program participant. The proposal also explained that Spectrum 

Healthcare Resources, Inc., a large business, would be the mentor, but that Kuhana 

would manage the joint venture. AR, Tab 5, Kuhana-Spectrum Proposal, vol. II, at 1. 

Notwithstanding this explanation, in several other instances the proposal referred to 

Spectrum as “Kuhana’s subcontractor.” Id. at 7-10. 

Kuhana-Spectrum’s proposal described past performance for both Kuhana and 

Spectrum, and provided one reference for Kuhana, and four references for 

Spectrum.3

 AR, Tab 5, Kuhana-Spectrum Proposal, vol. I, at 1-6. The proposal 

expounded upon Kuhana-Spectrum’s understanding of the challenges of recruiting 

and retaining the required healthcare professionals at the particular location of each 

 

3

 Spectrum provided four references, each of those was for multiple contracts or 

orders. None of the references was for the joint venture, however. 

Page 3 B-400803; B-400803.2 
MTF, and described Kuhana-Spectrum’s approach to obtaining qualified 

professionals in each locale. 

In the management plan section of its proposal, Kuhana-Spectrum identified one 

employee by name--the project manager--and described his qualifications. No other 

employees were named; the remainder of the proposal merely described 

management positions (regional managers and site managers), and a variety of 

support staff (credentialers, schedulers, and employee relations specialists). 

Nevertheless, the proposal stated that “[t]he organizational leadership team of 

[Kuhana-Spectrum] is in place now and ready to perform on the requirements of the 

contract.” AR, Tab 5, Kuhana-Spectrum Proposal, at 3-4. 

Consistent with its evaluation approach, the Navy contacted Kuhana-Spectrum’s past 

performance references and documented their responses in detail, considered 

information obtained from PPIRS, and described the substance of NMLC’s 

experience with both firms. AR, Tab 7, Past Performance Evaluation, at 49-54. The 

resulting past performance narrative prepared by the Navy for Kuhana-Spectrum 

listed six strengths and five weaknesses. The five weaknesses included reports that 

Spectrum had experienced “a few minor issues with credentialing and filling a 

position” in one instance; that “[s]everal . . . reports state [that Spectrum] had 

difficulty filling positions, especially in the area of providing back-up personnel for 

coverage positions;” and, that Spectrum had “been the recipient of several Contract 

Discrepancy Reports (CDRs) for failing to provide adequate back-up personnel, and 

as a result, liquidated damages were assessed” by NMLC. The evaluators concluded 

that this record justified a rating of “MR” (moderate risk) under the past 

performance factor. Id. at 14-15. 

Under the management plan factor, the Navy assessed three strengths in KuhanaSpectrum’s proposal and two weaknesses. One weakness was the firm’s “apparent 

misunderstanding of the mentor/protégé program” by referring to Spectrum as a 

“subcontractor,” and the other weakness was the proposal’s failure to identify all key 

personnel, raising a concern that Kuhana-Spectrum might lack qualified experienced 

personnel to fill all key positions. As a result of these weaknesses, the evaluators 

rated Kuhana-Spectrum as moderate risk under the management plan factor. Id. at 

14-15. 

The overall evaluation results, and the Navy’s rationale for its selection decision, 

were set forth in detail in the Business Clearance Memorandum, which also ranked 

all 24 offerors. As relevant to our decision, the top ten ranked offerors--i.e., the eight 

awardees, a ninth firm (which was not awarded a contract), and the protester--and 

their factor ratings and evaluated prices (for all lots for the initial 8 months), are set 

forth below: 

Page 4 B-400803; B-400803.2 
Rank Offeror 

Name 

Past Perf. 

Rating 

Management 

Plan Rating Total Price 

1 TCMP Staffing Low Risk Very Low Risk $13,810,491.36 

2 Chesapeake Low Risk Low Risk $12,123,831.48 

3 (3-way tie) CasePro Low Risk Moderate Risk $12,643,519.16 

3 OMV Medical Low Risk Moderate Risk $13,072,322.60 

3 Prof’l Perf. 

Dev. Group Low Risk Moderate Risk $12,370,359.52 

6 Saratoga Moderate Risk Very Low Risk $12,396,182.32 

7 (2-way tie) Catalyst Moderate Risk Low Risk $12,543,841.52 

7 Cherokee Moderate Risk Low Risk $12,214,454.08 

9 [Offeror A] Moderate Risk Low Risk $13,204,294.36 

10 KuhanaSpectrum Moderate Risk Moderate Risk $11,557,819.36 

AR, Tab 8, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 43-44. 

Given these results, the Navy selected the eight highest-ranked offerors for award, 

and provided an explanation of each of its selection decisions. Id. at 45-55. After a 

debriefing, Kuhana-Spectrum filed this protest. 

Additional Facts Regarding the Evaluation of Chesapeake 

During the course of this protest, counsel for Kuhana-Spectrum received a copy of 

the Navy’s Business Clearance Memorandum under our Office’s protective order. 

Based on a review by its counsel, the protester raised a supplemental protest about 

the evaluation of one of the eight awardees, Chesapeake. We briefly set forth here 

the relevant aspects of that firm’s evaluation. 

During the evaluation, the Navy noted that while the proposal submitted by 

Chesapeake was signed, it did not explicitly acknowledge the seven amendments to 

the RFP, and did not include a certification of the firm’s ORCA, requested in the RFP. 

RFP at 315-19. Chesapeake’s proposal also did not contain a completed copy of the 

provision at Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) § 252.247-7022, which requires each 

offeror to disclose whether it anticipates transporting supplies by sea in performance 

of any contract or subcontract resulting from the RFP. See generally Supplemental 

(Supp.) AR, exh. 2, Chesapeake Proposal. As a result, the Navy initially concluded 

that Chesapeake’s proposal was unacceptable because it failed to acknowledge 

amendments, and failed to include representations and certifications (including the 

DFARS provision). AR, Tab 8, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 41-42. 

Subsequently, the Navy convened an internal meeting to further consider whether 

Chesapeake was eligible for award. As a result, the Navy determined that 

Chesapeake’s proposal would be acceptable if the firm confirmed the accuracy of its 

ORCA entries. The Navy explained that “[a]lthough Chesapeake completed their 

ORCA record and certified it as accurate and the record includes the NAIC[S] code 

Page 5 B-400803; B-400803.2 
applicable to the solicitation, Chesapeake did not submit the ORCA certification or 

[the] provision [in FAR §] 52.204-8. Clarifications were required with Chesapeake to 

resolve these issues.” Id. 

On September 19, 2008, the Navy requested that Chesapeake clarify its proposal in 

this regard. Supplemental (Supp.) AR, Tab 3, E-mail from Contracting Officer (CO) 

to Chesapeake, Sept. 19, 2008, at 1. On September 23, Chesapeake submitted a 

signed copy of the certificate from the RFP affirming that its ORCA representations 

and certifications were “current, complete and accurate as of the date of my 

signature,” along with completed representations in FAR §§ 52.204-3, 52.204-8, and 

DFARS § 252.247-7022. Supp. AR, Tab 3, Fax from Chesapeake to CO, Sept. 23, 2008, 

at 2-5. The Navy then determined that Chesapeake’s proposal was acceptable, and 

was eligible for award. 

DISCUSSION 

In this protest, Kuhana-Spectrum principally argues that the Navy misevaluated the 

firm’s past performance by overemphasizing certain negative performance 

information, misevaluated the firm’s management plan by criticizing minor flaws, 

and improperly held discussions with one of the awardees without affording KuhanaSpectrum a similar opportunity to improve its proposal. 

As a preliminary matter, we note that several of the awardees argued that this 

protest should be dismissed on the basis that Kuhana-Spectrum is not eligible to 

compete for these contracts. These awardee-intervenors contended that KuhanaSpectrum Joint Venture cannot properly be viewed as a small business. Specifically, 

they argued that since one of the joint venture partners (Spectrum Healthcare) is a 

large business, the resulting joint venture is therefore other-than-small, and is 

ineligible for award. Kuhana-Spectrum disputes the factual and legal bases for these 

claims, and argues that these issues are for resolution by the SBA. Kuhana-Spectrum 

Response, Nov. 7, 2008, at 4-5. We agree with the protester on this point. We did not 

grant these dismissal requests because, as provided in our Bid Protest Regulations, 

the determination of whether a firm has validly claimed status as a small business is 

a matter for determination by the SBA, not our Office. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(1) (2008).4

 

Past Performance Evaluation 

With respect to the past performance evaluation, Kuhana-Spectrum argues that a 

rating of “moderate risk” is unreasonable in the context of Spectrum’s performance 

because that rating implies that successful and unsuccessful performance are both 

 

4

 For the record, however, our decision to develop and address the merits of this 

protest should not be read as expressing a view on whether Kuhana-Spectrum is 

eligible for award under the small business set-aside here. 

Page 6 B-400803; B-400803.2 
equally likely, which the firm disputes. Protest at 2. Kuhana-Spectrum also argues 

that the Navy selectively reviewed only an “unrepresentative sample” of less-relevant 

past performance reports. 

The Navy responds that it conducted an extensive review of the relevant past 

performance for each offeror, including both of Kuhana-Spectrum’s joint venturers. 

That review showed that Spectrum had encountered difficulty in fully staffing similar 

contracts on multiple occasions. AR, Tab 7, Past Performance Evaluation, at 54. The 

Navy argues that given the mixed record, it was reasonable for its evaluators to be 

concerned that Spectrum would face similar difficulties again, which created a 

moderate performance risk. AR at 27-28. 

Kuhana-Spectrum does not dispute that Spectrum has experienced the performance 

problems identified by the Navy, which were reflected in several of the PPIRS 

reports, and NMLC’s own experience. However, Kuhana-Spectrum argues that those 

problems were properly addressed in each case, and should be considered in the 

context of the number of specialized healthcare positions that Spectrum has been 

required to staff. Protester’s Comments at 7-9. 

Determining the relative merits of an offeror’s past performance information is 

primarily a matter within the contracting agency’s discretion; we will examine an 

agency’s evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 

solicitation’s evaluation criteria and procurement statutes and regulations. Hanley 

Indus., Inc., B-295318, Feb. 2, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 20 at 4; see also Family Entm’t Servs., 

Inc., B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 128 at 5. 

The record here reflects a conscientious effort by the Navy to contact references and 

compile relevant past performance information for Kuhana-Spectrum’s joint 

venturers. While the record does reflect significant positive past performance by 

Spectrum, the Navy evaluators also had a reasonable basis for their concerns about 

adverse past performance information concerning Spectrum. In our view, the Navy 

properly considered both the significant positive past performance information and 

the problems that had occurred on several contracts, including with NMLC itself. In 

light of the discretion afforded to agencies in the evaluation of past performance, we 

conclude that the record here supports the agency’s rating of moderate risk under 

the past performance factor. 

Management Plan Evaluation 

Under the management plan factor, Kuhana-Spectrum argues that the Navy unfairly 

downgraded the firm for occasionally referring to Spectrum as a subcontractor, and 

for identifying only one key person by name. According to Kuhana-Spectrum, the 

proposal made amply clear that the offeror was a joint venture, and that Kuhana 

would serve as the managing joint venture partner. Therefore Kuhana-Spectrum 

argues that the repeated use of the term “subcontractor” to describe Spectrum 

elsewhere in the proposal was “a clear misnomer.” Protest at 7. The protester also 

Page 7 B-400803; B-400803.2 
argues that the RFP did not require offerors to identify any particular key personnel 

by name. Kuhana-Spectrum explains that it did not consider its site managers and 

regional managers to be “key,” and the firm felt that it would be “impractical” to 

identify the employees it expected to staff those positions, since there could be 

turnover among those employees before the Navy awarded the contracts. Id. 

The Navy responds that its evaluators had concerns about the ability of KuhanaSpectrum to manage the complex multi-site performance because of both the 

ambiguity about the relationship between the joint venture members and the 

identification of only a single employee in Kuhana-Spectrum’s proposal. The Navy 

explained that these aspects of the proposal raised questions about KuhanaSpectrum’s ability to recruit competent medical personnel in numerous disciplines at 

multiple sites. AR at 30-31. As such, the Navy argues that a moderate risk rating for 

Kuhana-Spectrum under the management plan factor was reasonable. 

The evaluation of proposals is primarily a matter within the contracting agency’s 

discretion which we will not question unless we find the evaluation to be 

unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP’s evaluation factors. Centro Mgmt., Inc., 

B-249411.2, Dec. 2, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 387 at 5. The protester’s disagreement with the 

agency’s conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Tate-Griffin 

Joint Venture, B-241377.2, Jan. 7, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 29 at 8. 

In our view, Kuhana-Spectrum was not downgraded simply because its proposal 

used the term “subcontractor” erroneously, or because it failed to list any particular 

number of key personnel. Rather, the record here shows that the proposal’s 

description of Spectrum as a subcontractor, taken together with the proposal’s 

identification of only one key person by name, led the Navy to be concerned that the 

proposal did not set forth an adequate management plan to ensure successful 

performance of the contract requirements. AR at 39; Agency Rebuttal, at 6. In our 

view, the Navy’s assessment of moderate risk under the management plan factor was 

reasonable on the basis of the record here. 

Discussions 

As described earlier, in a supplemental protest, filed timely after Kuhana-Spectrum 

received additional documents with the agency report, the firm argues that the Navy 

conducted discussions with Chesapeake to allow it to correct omissions in its 

proposal. Kuhana-Spectrum argues that once the Navy communicated with 

Chesapeake (and allowed it to remedy a problem with its proposal), the Navy was 

required to hold discussions with Kuhana-Spectrum also, to allow it to improve its 

proposal. Supp. Protest at 2. 

The Navy responds, first, that it properly concluded that the omissions in 

Chesapeake’s proposal were either immaterial, or could be corrected via 

clarifications. Specifically, the Navy argues that Chesapeake constructively 

acknowledged each of the material amendments to the RFP, and that a failure to 

Page 8 B-400803; B-400803.2 
acknowledge the non-material amendments was properly waived. Specifically, in its 

supplemental agency report, the Navy explains that amendments 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 

were not material because they dealt with administrative details of the procurement 

process, such as extensions of the proposal due date, or they merely provided 

background information to the offerors. Supp. AR at 6-7. The Navy explains that, in 

its view, amendments 2 and 5 were material, however, and therefore had to be 

acknowledged. 

Specifically, the Navy explains that amendment 2 changed the healthcare specialties 

identified in several of the lots for the initial 8-month period. However, 

Chesapeake’s proposal included pricing for the revised lots set forth in 

amendment 2. As a result, the Navy concluded that Chesapeake constructively 

acknowledged amendment 2 by using the revised lots in its proposal. Supp. AR at 7. 

Similarly, the Navy explains that amendment 5 added two new MTF locations to the 

contract requirements. Chesapeake’s proposal included a discussion of the firm’s 

approach to staffing both of the new locations, and therefore the Navy concluded 

that the firm had constructively acknowledged that amendment as well. Id. Finally, 

with respect to Chesapeake’s failure to complete DFARS § 252.247-7022, the Navy 

concluded that the provision should not have been included in the RFP, and 

Chesapeake’s error in failing to respond to it was properly waived. Id. at 8. 

The Navy further argues that after concluding that Chesapeake had constructively 

acknowledged each of the material amendments to the RFP, and after concluding 

that the provision at DFARS § 252.247-7022 should not have been included in the 

RFP, the agency only needed to confirm that Chesapeake’s online representations 

and certifications were valid. It was this confirmation that the Navy concluded could 

be accomplished through clarifications. Since the Navy states that its 

communications with Chesapeake were merely a clarification, the agency argues 

that it was not required to open discussions with Kuhana-Spectrum. Supp. AR at 14.5

 

We agree with the Navy on both issues. First, we think that the Navy reasonably 

concluded that Chesapeake’s proposal constructively acknowledged both of the 

material amendments to the RFP. As a general rule, an offeror’s failure to 

acknowledge a material amendment renders the proposal unacceptable, and such 

 

5

 The Navy denies that it held substantive communications with Chesapeake, other 

than those described here. Supp. AR at 13-14. Nevertheless, in its comments on the 

supplemental agency report, Kuhana-Spectrum argues, without support, that the 

Navy had additional undisclosed communications, and infers that Chesapeake was 

given an unfair advantage by those actions. Protester’s Supp. Comments at 7-9. 

Nevertheless, the protester does not meaningfully dispute the Navy’s analysis of the 

amendments, and on the record here, the Navy’s position that Chesapeake only 

needed to have constructively acknowledged amendments 2 and 5 in order to be 

acceptable was reasonable. 

Page 9 B-400803; B-400803.2 
Page 10 B-400803; B-400803.2 

proposals may not form the basis for award. However, an amendment may be 

constructively acknowledged where the proposal includes the material items 

appearing only in the amendment. See, e.g., Language Servs. Assocs., Inc., B-297392, 

Jan. 17, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 20 at 6 (quotation constructively acknowledged 

amendment to RFQ). 

Second, we agree with the Navy that it was proper to allow Chesapeake to correct 

the missing affirmation of its ORCA entries through a clarification. Offerors may be 

given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals without holding 

discussions. FAR § 15.306(a). Specifically, an agency may allow an offeror to 

correct missing representations and certifications through clarifications, and does 

not hold discussions by doing so. Doty Bros. Equip. Co., B-274634, Dec. 19, 1996, 

96-2 CPD ¶ 234 at 2 n.1 (protest sustained where agency improperly rejected 

proposal based on failure to acknowledge immaterial amendment and failure to 

complete standard representations and certifications). Accordingly, the Navy did 

not hold discussions with Chesapeake, and was not required to hold discussions 

with Kuhana-Spectrum. 

In conclusion, our review of the record supports the reasonableness of the 

evaluation and the Navy’s subsequent selection decisions. 

The protest is denied.6

 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

 

6

 Kuhana-Spectrum also argues that the best value judgments of the CO were 

unreasonable because Kuhana-Spectrum’s evaluated price was lower than the 

awardees. In our view, the CO has provided a reasoned explanation for the award 

decision, including his decision not to award a contract to Kuhana-Spectrum, which 

was based on an evaluation that, as explained above, was also reasonable. Since the 

Navy’s best value judgments were reasonable, the protester’s disagreement provides 

no basis to sustain the protest.