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: Cambridge Systems, Inc. 

File: B-400680; B-400680.3 

Date: January 8, 2009 

Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Isaias Alba, IV Esq., and Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Piliero 

Mazza PLLC, for the protester. 

William A. Roberts III, Esq., and Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for 

Chugach/Evergreen Joint Venture, the intervenor. 

Maj. Carla T. Peters, Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency’s decision to establish a revised competitive range and conduct discussions 

with small business concerns whose proposals were deemed the most highly rated 

rather than withdraw the set-aside and reissue the solicitation on an unrestricted 

basis was reasonable under the circumstances; the exclusion of technically marginal 

proposals from the competitive range, while permissible, is not required. 

DECISION 

Cambridge Systems, Inc. of Chantilly, Virginia protests the decision by the 

Department of the Army, Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) to establish 

a revised competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9113M-07-R0004, issued as a small business set-aside for installation and testing of an integrated 

commercial intrusion detection system-IV (ICIDS-IV). Cambridge, the apparent 

awardee which was later determined ineligible for award under the applicable small 

business size standard, challenges the agency’s decision to establish a revised 

competitive range rather than cancel and reissue the solicitation on an unrestricted 

basis. 

We deny the protest. 

The ICIDS-IV is a detection system used to monitor designated areas and facilities 

for all military installations located inside and outside the continental United States. 

The objective of the ICIDS-IV program is to provide a standard configuration that 

will allow personnel to take the required action when unauthorized attempts to enter 
these designated areas and facilities are detected. The solicitation’s statement of 

work provided detailed descriptions of the contract requirements that included 

hardware, software, design effort, training, and technical support for the ICIDS-IV 

system. 

The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity 

task order contract for a base and five 1-year ordering periods to the offeror whose 

proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government. The 

solicitation provided for proposals to be evaluated under three evaluation factors: 

technical (with five subfactors), past performance, and price. The technical factor 

was stated to be more important than past performance, which was more important 

than price and, when combined, the non-price factors were significantly more 

important than price. The solicitation also provided that to receive consideration for 

award, proposals had to receive at least an acceptable rating under the technical 

factor, its subfactors and the past performance factor.1

 RFP at 144. 

Seven offerors, including Cambridge, submitted proposals by the extended closing 

date. The agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated proposals 

using adjectival ratings of excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory 

for the technical factor and subfactors. Under past performance, the proposals were 

assigned performance risk ratings of either low, moderate, high, or unknown. 

Agency Report (AR) exh. 24, SSEB Findings at 10-11 (Apr. 24, 2008). Cambridge’s 

technical proposal received an overall rating of excellent, with low risk and the 

proposals submitted by Chugach/Evergreen Joint Venture (Chugach) and Sim-G 

Technologies LLC (Sim-G) each received an overall rating of marginal, with low risk. 

Neither Chugach’s nor Sim-G’s proposal was rated unsatisfactory under the nonprice factors and subfactors.2

 AR exh. 24, SSEB Findings at 13 (Apr. 24, 2008). 

 

1

 The agency reports that for the technical factor and its subfactors, the adjectival 

rating that corresponds to an acceptable rating is satisfactory. For past 

performance, the adjectival rating that corresponds to an acceptable rating is 

medium risk. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 4. 

2

 The other four proposals not at issue here received overall technical ratings ranging 

from marginal with medium risk to unsatisfactory. 

Page 2 B-400680, B-400680.3 
The proposal ratings which are relevant to this protest were defined as follows: 

Marginal Overall quality cannot be determined because of 

errors, omissions or deficiencies which are 

capable of being corrected without a major rewrite 

or revision of the proposal. 

Unsatisfactory A proposal which contains major errors, omissions 

or deficiencies, or an unacceptably high degree of 

risk in meeting the Government’s requirements; 

and these conditions can not be corrected without 

a major rewrite or revision of the proposal. 

Low Risk Based on Offeror’s past performance record, 

essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will 

successfully perform the required effort. 

AR exh. 24, SSEB Findings at 10-11 (Apr. 24, 2008). 

After reviewing the SSEB evaluation findings, the contracting officer determined that 

only Cambridge’s proposal, the most highly rated, would be included in the 

competitive range. Id. exh. 25, Source Selection Decision Document. The agency 

sent letters to the other offerors informing them that their proposals were excluded 

from the competitive range and would not be considered further for award. AR 

exh. 9, Letter to Offerors. The agency conducted discussions with Cambridge, 

received and evaluated its revised proposal and determined that Cambridge’s 

proposal represented the best value to the government. Notice of intent to make 

award to Cambridge was sent to the six offerors whose proposals had been excluded 

from the competitive range. AR exh. 11, Pre-award Notice. 

Sim-G filed a timely protest regarding Cambridge’s size status with the contracting 

officer, who forwarded it to the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA 

dismissed the pre-award size protest because Sim-G was not an interested party 

since its proposal was excluded from the competitive range. AR exh. 13, SBA Letter. 

However, based on the concerns raised in the size protest, the SBA initiated its own 

formal size review and ultimately determined Cambridge to be other than small 

under the applicable size standard for this procurement and thus ineligible for 

award. AR exh. 15, SBA Letter to Cambridge (Aug. 25, 2008). As a result of the 

SBA’s determination, the agency notified Cambridge that the firm was no longer 

eligible for award. 

The agency then decided to establish a revised competitive range consisting of the 

remaining most highly rated proposals. After again reviewing the initial evaluation 

results of the other six offerors, including the associated strengths and weaknesses 

of the proposals, the contracting officer determined that the proposals submitted by 

Chugach and Sim-G, would be included in the revised competitive range. AR exh. 17, 

Page 3 B-400680, B-400680.3 
Revised Competitive Range Determination at 1-2. In this regard, the contracting 

officer stated: 

. . . based on the elimination of Cambridge from the 

competition, I determine that these offerors represent the most 

highly rated proposals. As such, I determine it to be in the 

Government’s best interest to reinstate them back into the 

competition, include them in the revised competitive range 

[discuss the technical and price related concerns relative to 

their initial proposals], and consider their final proposal 

revisions. 

Id. at 2. This protest followed.3

 

Cambridge alleges that the agency impermissibly reopened the competitive range to 

conduct discussions with Chugach and Sim-G, whose initial proposals were 

previously determined technically marginal overall. Protest at 3. It asserts that since 

the proposals of the remaining small business offerors received evaluation ratings 

that were not acceptable, i.e., satisfactory, the set-aside should be withdrawn and the 

procurement recompeted on an unrestricted basis. Protester’s Comments at 4-6. 

The decision to establish a competitive range and the determination whether a 

proposal should be included therein is principally a matter within the sound 

judgment of the procuring agency. Dismas Charities, Inc., B-284754, May 22, 2000, 

2000 CPD ¶ 84 at 3. The significance of the weaknesses and/or deficiencies in an 

offeror’s proposal, within the context of a given competition, is a matter for which 

the procuring agency is, itself, the most qualified entity to render judgment. Our 

Office will review that judgment only to ensure it was reasonable and in accord with 

the solicitation provisions; a protester’s mere disagreement with an agency’s 

judgment does not establish that the judgment was unreasonable. Albert Moving & 

Storage, B-290733, B-290733.2, Sept. 23, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 8 at 6; CMC & Maint., Inc., 

B-290152, June 24, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 107 at 2. 

We find Cambridge’s argument that the agency improperly established a revised 

competitive range comprised of allegedly technically unacceptable proposals 

without merit. Under the regulatory scheme applicable here, the contracting officer 

was required to establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly 

rated proposals based on the “ratings of each proposal against all evaluation 

 

3

 In a supplemental protest, the protester contends that the solicitation was 

improperly amended, constitutes technical transfusion and was tantamount to an 

improper technical leveling using the protester’s proprietary information. In 

response to the agency’s report on these issues, the protester expressly withdrew 

these allegations. Protester’s Comments at 1-2. 

Page 4 B-400680, B-400680.3 
criteria.” Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.306(c)(1). As mentioned 

previously, of the remaining small business offerors, the initial proposals submitted 

by Chugach and Sim-G were determined to be the most highly rated based on the 

overall technical rating of marginal. That is, the agency evaluators concluded that 

any errors or deficiencies in the proposals could be corrected through discussions 

without a major rewrite or major revision of proposals. 

Moreover, contrary to the protester’s view, the solicitation did not require the 

inclusion of only technically acceptable proposals in the competitive range. Rather, 

as noted above, section M of the solicitation simply mandated that to be considered 

for award, proposals had to receive at least an acceptable rating under the non-price 

evaluation factors. In any event, as the agency and Chugach both argue, based on 

the initial evaluation of proposals the two offerors included in the revised 

competitive range were determined capable of performing the required effort, and 

Cambridge has not shown otherwise. Since the record indicates that neither 

Chugach’s or Sim-G’s initial proposal were rated unsatisfactory under any non-price 

factor, we find the contracting officer reasonably concluded that the agency could 

receive offers from these two small businesses at fair market prices if discussions 

were conducted with both concerns. In short, we are not persuaded by, and nothing 

in the record supports, the protester’s contention that the agency was required to 

withdraw the set-aside and reissue the solicitation on an unrestricted basis. 

Finally, the protester maintains that the agency impermissibly reopened the 

competitive range despite a FAR provision prohibiting it to do so. The provision in 

question provides as follows: 

If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed 

from the competitive range, no further revisions to that 

offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered. 

FAR § 15.307(a). Under this provision, the contracting agency is prohibited from 

accepting further proposal revisions from an offeror where the offeror’s proposal is 

excluded from the competitive range. In our view, this provision does not address 

the situation where, as here, the agency decides to establish a new and/or revised 

competitive range; it would be unreasonable to interpret this provision to effectively 

deprive the agency of the discretion to establish a new and/or revised competitive 

range, to conduct discussions with competitive range offerors, or to evaluate revised 

proposals. In fact, FAR part 15 recognizes the authority to make successive 

competitive range determinations albeit generally with the intent of narrowing the 

competitive range. However, GAO consistently has upheld the agency’s authority to 

establish successive competitive ranges. Dynacs Eng’g Co., Inc., B-284234 et al., 

Mar. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 50 at 4; see also FAR § 15.306(c)(3). 

Here, we have already concluded that the contracting officer reasonably determined 

that of the remaining offerors, Chugach’s and Sim-G’s proposals were the most 

Page 5 B-400680, B-400680.3 
Page 6 B-400680, B-400680.3 

highly rated, and our review of the record shows that this determination was 

consistent with the terms of the solicitation and the applicable procurement 

regulations. As a result, the contracting officer’s decision to establish a revised 

competitive range and conduct discussions with these two offerors was reasonable. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel