United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

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: Convergys Corporation 

File: B-400744 

Date: January 21, 2009 

Andrew J. Mohr, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and C. Kelly Kroll, Esq., Cohen Mohr 

LLP, for the protester. 

Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and Thomas C. Papson, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, 

for the intervenor. 

Jay A. Lauer, Esq., Jonathan E. English, Esq., and Linda Fallowfield, Esq., 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. 

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST 

Protest that contracting agency unreasonably evaluated quotation as technically 

unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable 

and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 

DECISION 

Convergys Corporation, of Cincinnati, Ohio, protests the rejection of its quotation 

and the issuance of a task order to Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., of Rockville, 

Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. R-OPC-23349, issued by the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development for call center services to respond 

to inquiries received by the Client Management Center (CMC) of the Federal Housing 

Administration’s (FHA) Single Family Housing Program. The protester contends that 

the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ, issued on August 25, 2008, called for the issuance of a task order for 

specified call center support services; the RFQ was issued to call center contractors 

that had previously been awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts 

under the USA Contact multiple award contract, managed by the General Services 
Administration, providing for task order competitions for contact center work.1

 The 

RFQ, which required a “turnkey multi-channel contact solution,” including facility, 

staff, equipment, and services, contemplated the issuance of a task order for a base 

year and four option periods based on the quotation deemed to represent “the 

greatest-value solution” under technical (including management plan, technical 

approach, facilities and technology infrastructure, past performance, and security 

plan) and price factors; the technical factor was to be significantly more important 

than price. RFQ attach. A at 0-1, attach. C, ¶ C.1-C.3. The RFQ advised that vendors 

“will be given the opportunity to clarify minor irregularities or apparent clerical 

mistakes” in the submissions and that the agency could make the selection based on 

initial quotations. Id. ¶ C.1 

A vendor’s transition period had to be completed within 60 days from the assumed 

award date of September 24; in this regard, the RFQ specifically instructed that, 

although a shorter transition time could be proposed, “no timeframe beyond 60 days 

shall be considered.” RFQ attach. A at 1. The vendors were to describe how they 

would “fulfill the requirements . . . [and] not merely offer to . . . perform work in 

accordance with the stated requirements.” RFQ attach. B, ¶ B.2.1.3.a. Each 

quotation was to contain a phase-in plan demonstrating compliance with the 60-day 

transition period requirement, including detailed “plans and approaches for 

implementing the tasks and a detailed timeline identifying due dates for key 

deliverables and milestones that must be met during the phase-in process.” Id.

¶ B.2.1.3.d. The RFQ’s technical approach evaluation terms again emphasized that 

phase-in plans would be evaluated for compliance with the RFQ requirement for the 

vendor’s transition to be completed within 60 days; the vendors were advised that 

such evaluation would be conducted on a pass/fail basis, and that any firm providing 

a phase-in plan longer than 60 days would not be given further consideration in the 

evaluation for award. RFQ attach. C, ¶ C.2.1.2. 

In its quotation, Convergys stated that it is “fully prepared to meet” the 60-day 

transition requirement, that it “will transition operations of the FHA CMC program 

within 60 days with support from a specialized transition project manager,” and that 

it “understands that a complete transition of all FHA CMC activities must occur 

 

1

 Our Office’s consideration of the protest is authorized by section 843 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 

110-181, 122 Stat. 3, 236-39 (2008), which modified protest limitations previously 

imposed by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 regarding permissible 

protests; NDAA specifically provides that, in addition to previously permitted task 

order protests, a protest is authorized with regard to “an order valued in excess of 

$10,000,000.” 122 Stat. 237. We view the NDAA’s authorization as extending to 

protests asserting, as argued here, that an agency’s selection decision failed to 

reasonably reflect the ground rules established for the task order competition. 

Triple Canopy, Inc., B-310566.4, Oct. 30, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 207 at 5-7. 

Page 2 B-400744 
[within] 60 days of the award date, and we are confident that our solution meets that 

need.” Convergys Quotation at 2, 12 and 15. To show how it would meet the 60-day 

transition deadline, Convergys included, as appendix A to its quotation, a “Project 

Phase-In Plan,” composed of three separate timelines describing the tasks or 

activities, as well as the milestones (and associated dates for them), involved in its 

planned transition. The firm’s first phase-in plan timeline, labeled “Implementation 

Critical Milestones,” stated an estimated project start date of September 24 and 

estimated project finish date of December 3 (which represents a 70-day period). 

This timeline identified intended milestones in the firm’s phase-in plan listed under 

subject headings, including headings for project initiation, planning, implementation, 

and transition; the last two milestone entries under the heading “Transition” are 

“Ramp Completion” (to occur on Monday, November 24, which, as discussed further 

below, is 61 days from the assumed award date of September 24), and “Project 

Management Transition to Operations” (to occur on Wednesday, December 3, the 70th

day from the award date). 

The firm’s next phase-in plan timeline, labeled “Implementation Timeline,” included 

the same estimated project start and end dates (September 24 to December 3); under 

the “Transition” task heading, 10 tasks were listed, including “Ramp Completion” (on 

November 24) and “Project Management Transition to Operations” (on December 3). 

On the firm’s third phase-in plan timeline, labeled “High-Level Implementation 

Timeline,” Convergys once more indicated that the estimated performance period for 

the project phase-in plan was September 24 to December 3 (again, representing a 

span of 70 days). This third timeline, we note, started with an incorrect calculation 

by the firm of the duration of time represented by the timeline’s stated 

implementation schedule; while the timeline included a statement of tasks from 

September 24 to December 3, it erroneously stated that those dates reflect a 50-day 

duration (i.e., rather than the 70-day period that actually exists between those dates). 

The timeline otherwise generally confirmed the information that is in its other two 

transition timelines; for instance, in the list of tasks identified under the “Transition” 

heading of this project phase-in plan timeline, the firm again provided that its “Ramp 

Completion” will occur on November 24 and its “Project Management Transition to 

Operations” will occur on December 3. No explanatory narratives were provided in 

the firm’s quotation to describe the specific tasks or dates presented in the 

protester’s quotation’s three timelines, including the firm’s planned conclusion of its 

transition period. 

The agency evaluators found the protester’s intended phase-in plan unclear because 

it presented conflicting information; on the one hand, the firm’s general narrative 

indicated an intent to comply with the 60-day transition requirement, yet, on the 

other hand, the phase-in plan Convergys intended, described in at least three 

separate timelines in the Convergys quotation, included activities identified by the 

firm as transition-related tasks that extended to the 70th day after the award. The 

protester’s quotation was rejected as technically unacceptable for failing to meet the 

RFQ’s minimum requirement for the vendor’s phase-in plan to be completed within 

Page 3 B-400744 
60 days of award; two other quotations also were rejected for failing to meet the 

requirement. The three remaining quotations were evaluated under the RFQ’s 

evaluation factors; two were considered unsatisfactory and the third, Lockheed 

Martin’s quotation, was rated very good. The agency concluded that Lockheed 

Martin’s quotation was reasonably priced, at a price below the government’s 

estimate for the work, and a task order was issued to that firm.2

 This protest 

followed. 

Convergys argues that the agency unreasonably interpreted its quotation with 

respect to the 60-day transition requirement and, thus, improperly rejected it as 

technically unacceptable. The protester contends that its “ramp completion” date of 

November 24 should have been considered the end date of its transition period. In 

this regard, Convergys contends that the tasks set out in its phase-in plan that were 

to take place after the date of ramp completion, concluding with its “Project 

Management Transition to Operations” on December 3, should have been considered 

post-transition period activities. 

 

A vendor has the burden of submitting an adequately written response to the 

solicitation. PEMCO World Air Servs., B-284240.3 et al., Mar. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 71 

at 15. A proposal or quotation that fails to conform to material terms of the 

solicitation should be considered unacceptable. See Rel-Tek Sys. & Design, Inc., 

B-280463.3, Nov. 25, 1998, 99-1 CPD ¶ 2 at 3. Our review of the record here shows 

that the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation was reasonable. 

As stated above, vendors were to provide a detailed demonstration that their 

intended phase-in plans would be completed within 60 days of award; firms were 

specifically instructed that mere statements of a firm’s intent to comply with this 

requirement would be insufficient. Our review of the record confirms the 

reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation based on its 

interpretation that each one of the three detailed implementation timelines provided 

by Convergys shows a transition period lasting 70 days from award. Each timeline 

stated that the project start and finish dates for the phase-in plan extended from 

September 24 to December 3, a period of 70 days, and each timeline listed tasks as 

transition activities (under each timeline’s subject heading for transition-related 

work) that extended until December 3, including project management transition to 

 

2

 Convergys suggests that a new competition should be conducted, with an 

opportunity for new technical quotations, to allow for a more comprehensive review 

of the reasonableness of Lockheed’s price than the agency’s comparison of the 

quotation to the agency’s estimate for the cost of the work. This contention is 

without merit; the protester has not shown that a different kind of price evaluation 

than was conducted was required by the RFQ here. 

Page 4 B-400744 
operations.3

 While, as noted above, the quotation included general statements of the 

firm’s intent to comply, the quotation’s specific references clearly indicated that the 

protester’s intended phase-in plan would not comply with the RFQ’s material 60-day 

transition period requirement. Accordingly, given the conflicting information in the 

Convergys quotation, we see no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of the 

quotation,4

 or the resulting rejection of the quotation as technically unacceptable 

under the terms of the RFQ. See Nu-Way, Inc., B-296435.5, B-296435.10, Sept. 28, 

2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 195 at 4; Carson Wagonlit Travel, B-287016, Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD 

¶ 49 at 6. 

The protester also contends that under the terms of the RFQ here, it should have 

been allowed to clarify the quotation’s perceived failure to meet the 60-day transition 

requirement, since, according to Convergys, it was merely a minor irregularity or 

clerical mistake in its quotation. Given that any revisions to the quotation in this 

area would be for the purpose of making the quotation technically acceptable, we do 

not agree that the quotation’s failure unequivocally to meet the 60-day transition 

 

3

 We do not find persuasive the protester’s suggestion that project management 

transition should not be considered relevant to its transition phase-in plan or that the 

agency’s consideration of it indicates the use of an unstated evaluation factor under 

the RFQ; clearly, project management transition to operations was a relevant 

consideration for the agency in its evaluation of the vendors’ phase-in plans and was 

identified by the protester as part of its phase-in plan. See TESCO, B-271756, 

June 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 284 at 2. 

4

 We also find no support in the record for the protester’s suggestion that its use of 

bold print for the phrase “Ramp Completion” in one of its timelines or the use of a 

blank space between that entry and its subsequent task entries in the other two 

timelines indicated the latter tasks were to take place after the firm’s transition was 

completed upon ramp completion. There was no explanation in the quotation to 

suggest the latter entries were not part of the transition-related tasks of its phase-in 

plan; rather, as stated above, the tasks in question were repeatedly presented under 

headings entitled “Transition” as transition-related activities scheduled to occur 

subsequent to the task “Ramp Completion,” (a term which itself was not described or 

explained). In any event, we note that, while the agency did not identify this as a 

concern in the protester’s quotation, the protester’s position that its ramp 

completion date of Monday, November 24 shows compliance with the RFQ’s 60-day 

requirement is questionable, at best. As the intervenor points out, Monday, 

November 24 is actually 61 days after the assumed September 24 award date. To the 

extent the protester suggests that Sunday, November 23, the 60th day, should not 

count in the calculation of the timely completion of the transition period, the 

protester cites no RFQ provision permitting such calculation; rather, the RFQ’s terms 

lend support to the inclusion of Sunday, November 23, as the RFQ specifically 

required vendors to commit to performance of work on Sundays, as needed. 

Page 5 B-400744 
Page 6 B-400744 

requirement is a minor irregularity or clerical error for which the RFQ provided 

clarifications would be conducted. See, e.g., eMind, B-289902, May 8, 2002, 2002 CPD 

¶ 82 at 5.5

 

Convergys also argues that the agency conducted unequal evaluations and 

clarifications with Lockheed Martin. Specifically, Convergys suggests that unequal 

evaluations occurred in that Lockheed Martin’s quotation indicated that it planned to 

perform two transition tasks beyond the 60-day transition period; however, it is clear 

from the RFQ that the referenced tasks are required to be completed within a 90-day 

period (not a 60-day period as the protester alleges), and Lockheed Martin’s 

quotation complied with this requirement. Convergys further argues that since the 

agency engaged in clarifications with Lockheed Martin, it should have done the same 

with Convergys. The record shows that the agency allowed Lockheed Martin to 

clarify a minor pricing aspect of its quotation; under the terms of the RFQ here, this 

clearly fell within the provision regarding clarifications. In contrast, as discussed 

above, any opportunity to address the issues in the Convergys quotation regarding 

compliance with the 60-day transition plan requirement would not have constituted 

clarifications under the RFQ. Accordingly, there clearly is no support in the record 

for the protester’s contention that it and Lockheed Martin were treated differently in 

this regard under the terms of the RFQ. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

 

5

 We note that our decision here is based on the terms of the current solicitation and 

the facts of this case. We recognize that the ground rules established for various 

task order competitions may properly differ from, for example, the ground rules for 

communications established for other types of procurements, including, for 

example, procurements conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Part 15. Triple Canopy, Inc., supra, at 7.