Comptroller General

of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

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: Aegis Defence Services Limited 

File: B-400093.4; B-400093.5

Date: October 16, 2008 

John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., 

Matthew Lloyd Haws, Esq., and Richard C. Johnson, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter 

PLC, for the protester. 

David S. Black, Esq., Megan M. Mocho, Esq., and Jessica M. Madon, Esq., Holland & 

Knight LLP, for Global Strategies Group (Integrated Security), Inc., an intervenor. 

Roderick McCracken, Esq., Robert J. McKenney, Esq., and Derek B. Santos, Esq., 

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 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 

1. Protest that agency misevaluated awardee and protester under experience and 

past performance factors by downgrading protester based on its limited experience 

in Afghanistan, and by giving awardee credit for experience of its subcontractors,

including contracts performed in Afghanistan, is denied where agency judgments 

were reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation. 

2. Protest that agency improperly disregarded risk posed by awardee’s low price is 

denied where record demonstrated that agency had compared individual fixed price 

line items to government estimate and to prices offered by competitors, identified 

those where there were significant differences, and documented the agency’s basis 

for concluding that the awardee’s prices were reasonable. 

DECISION 

Aegis Defence Services Limited protests the award of a contract to Global Strategies

Group (Integrated Security), Inc. (GSG-IS) by the Department of the Army, Corps of

Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W917PM-08-R-0030 for 

reconstruction security support services (RSSS) in Afghanistan. Aegis raises several 

objections to the evaluation, and alleges that GSG-IS is ineligible for award under the 

security clearance requirements of the RFP. 

We deny the protest. 
BACKGROUND 

The Corps of Engineers issued the RFP on February 17, 2008, seeking proposals to 

provide “comprehensive security, operations and intelligence service to secure and 

account for AED [Afghanistan Engineer District] personnel and provide construction

quality assurance activities,” including intelligence gathering and analysis, convoy 

transportation and security, site security, community liaison activities, local 

atmospherics, supply and maintenance of armored vehicles, establishment of a 

visual map-based satellite tracking system, establishment of a nationwide voice and 

text communication network, possible vetting of third-party employees, and “other 

items as required.”1

 RFP at 1, 13. The RFP also provided that the contractor would 

establish a national operations center to coordinate activities of the contractor’s

security liaison teams (SLT)2

 countrywide. RFP at 16. The RFP contemplated award 

of a single indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base year and 

two option years.3

 RFP at 2. The evaluation was to be based on three equallyweighted factors: concept of support,

4

 experience, and past performance. The 

award would be made based on a tradeoff in which the non-price factors together 

were significantly more important than price. RFP amend. 1 at 86; RFP amend. 3 

at 10. 

Offerors were instructed to provide individual line item prices for SLTs and specific 

labor categories, in addition to a price for staffing and operating the national 

operations center. Offerors were also instructed to provide prices for individual 

shooters (who could be assigned to accompany SLTs), fixed-site security

supervisors, fixed-site security guards, armored vehicles, and both fixed- and rotarywing aircraft. Separate sub-lines requested each item or service be priced on a daily, 

weekly, and monthly basis. The RFP provided that the Corps would also evaluate 

the reasonableness of the prices offered. RFP at 93. 

 1

 The RFP stated that “the Government will negotiate non-prepriced items on a task

order by task order basis.” RFP at 12. The RFP also provided for the costs of

Defense Base Act insurance, and contractor manpower reporting to be unpriced and 

negotiated for each task order. RFP amend. 4 at 6, 9. 

2

 Each SLT was a six-person team consisting of “one ex-patri[ate] team leader, one 

engineer, one medic, and three bi-lingual local nationals.” RFP at 4. 

3

 However, the RFP also stated that the “[o]ption periods can be exercised early to 

contract [for] large orders resulting in an overall contract period of less than three 

years.” RFP at 12. 

4

 The concept of support factor was further divided into five subfactors: technical 

approach, key personnel, daily operations, management methodology, and 

communications plan.

Page 2 B-400093.4; B-400093.5 
For purposes of the price evaluation, offerors were also required to calculate pricing 

for “Task Order 1,” which was intended to obtain services for the first year of 

performance. Task Order 1 provided for staffing the national operations center, and 

the services of eight SLTs, 32 shooters, 32 armored vehicles, 450 hours rotary aircraft

service, satellite tracking for 35 vehicles, Defense Base Act insurance, annual 

contractor manpower reporting, and contractor travel within Afghanistan. RFP 

at 10-11. 

Offerors were also required to provide information for up to ten contracts for 

evaluation under the experience and past performance factors. RFP amend. 1 

at 33-34. The RFP provided for the Army to consider “relevancy” of those contracts 

thus: 

Relevancy is determined by geographic location (proximity to AED’s 

[Afghanistan Engineer District] AO [Area of Operations]), managing 

multiple security-type tasks at once (NOC/intelligence, vehicles, mobile 

security, community liaising, QA [quality assurance] services, aircraft, 

static security, etc.), dollar value ($15 million or more per year), work 

with the Government (showing understanding of federal contracting 

procedures). . . . 

RFP at 92-93 (§§ M.6.2 (experience), M.6.3 (past performance)). 

The RFP also indicated that a facilities security clearance was required. Specifically, 

the initial RFP referred offerors to an attached copy of DD Form 254, the standard 

form contract security classification specification. RFP at 36, 65, 95-96 (DD Form 

254). In response to questions from offerors, the Corps provided inconsistent

answers about the facility clearance requirement, but finally stated that “The 

contractor and any appropriate subcontractor(s) must hold a SECRET facility 

clearance . . . for the performance of this contract. Please note that [answers

provided in earlier amendments] answered this question incorrectly.” RFP 

Amendment 3 at 14 (emphasis in original). 

The Corps received 11 proposals. After evaluating the proposals, nine offerors’ 

proposals, including those of GSG-IS and Aegis, were included in the competitive 

range. The Corps conducted discussions, after which seven offerors submitted 

revised proposals. After a further round of discussions, the Corps requested and 

received final proposal revisions (FPR) from the seven remaining offerors. 

In its proposal, GSG-IS proposed several subcontractors, including two companies

with which it has corporate affiliations: [DELETED]

5

, and [DELETED]. The 

 5

 The corporate designation “FZE” indicates an entity organized as a “free zone 

establishment” under the corporate law of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. 

Page 3 B-400093.4; B-400093.5 
proposal explained that GSG-IS and [DELETED] possessed valid facility security 

clearances. GSG-IS Proposal, Apr. 11, 2008, vol. I at 3 (GSG-IS); GSG-IS Proposal, 

Mar. 18, 2008, vol. II at 2 ([DELETED]). However, as a Dubai-based entity, there is 

no dispute on this record that [DELETED] is unable to obtain a facility security 

clearance. 

GSG-IS acknowledged in its proposal that it had been incorporated less than 1 year, 

and therefore, could not provide any past performance or experience references for 

itself; instead, it explained that it would rely on the experience and past performance 

of its affiliates and subcontractors. Therefore, it provided five experience and past

performance references for [DELETED], two for [DELETED], two for its 

engineering consultant, and one for its aviation services subcontractor. Agency 

Report at 7; GSG-IS Proposal, Mar. 18, 2008, vol. II at 7. None of the references was

for GSG-IS itself, however. The references provided by GSG-IS showed experience 

in the performance of security services in Afghanistan, and included narratives and 

supporting documentation. 

The evaluators noted the relevance of the references submitted by GSG-IS, including 

the fact that the references related to recent contracts performed in Afghanistan for 

similar services. They also noted that GSG-IS had submitted 21 letters of

appreciation or certificates of commendation for its subcontractors, attesting to the 

quality of their performance. SSEB Report, June 8, 2008, at 14. As a result, the Corps

rated the GSG-IS proposal “excellent” under the past performance and experience 

evaluation factors. Id. at 13-14. 

For its part, Aegis provided seven references for evaluation under the past 

performance and experience factors: five contracts that Aegis itself had performed, 

and two performed by its air support subcontractor. Of the five Aegis references, 

four stated that they had been performed in Iraq (including two contracts for RSSS 

for the Corps in Iraq), and one in “Iraq/Middle East.” The two contract references for 

its air support subcontractor showed that one had been performed in Pakistan, and 

one in Afghanistan. Aegis Proposal, Mar. 18, 2008, vol. II at 1-2; vol. III at i. 

In response to two discussion questions about its limited experience in Afghanistan, 

Aegis asserted that it had provided various services in Afghanistan since 2002, and 

claimed that its senior consultant had extensive personal experience in Afghanistan 

as a former foreign service officer. Aegis explained, however, that it had “focused on 

large[-]scale, relevant contracts” in selecting its experience and past performance 

references. Aegis Discussions Response, Apr. 24, 2008, at 10-11. While it described 

work that it had performed in Afghanistan, Aegis did not provide contract

information or references for that work. 

In the final evaluation under the experience factor, the evaluators identified three 

weaknesses associated with Aegis’s reliance on experience outside of Afghanistan: 

Page 4 B-400093.4; B-400093.5 
• Similar contracts are for services provide[d] in Iraq, not Afghanistan. 

(MW) 

• Afghanistan experience limited to air carrier support contractor. 

(MW) 

• Offeror did not provide contract details in Afghanistan as requested 

in the Discussion Questions. (New Weakness)

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, June 8, 2008, at 5. As a result, the 

evaluators assigned Aegis a rating of “good” under the experience factor. 

In evaluating prices, the Corps compared the prices initially proposed by GSG-IS to 

the government estimate, and raised concerns about several items in discussions. 

Government Price Analysis Memo, Mar. 22, 2008, at 51; GSG-IS Discussion Letter, 

Apr. 8, 2008, at 4; GSG-IS Reopened Discussion Letter, Apr. 17, 2008, at 3. The source 

selection decision reflects a review of the pricing in the final proposal revision from

each offeror, including GSG-IS, and explains--for each of the contract lines where 

GSG-IS proposed prices that departed significantly from the government estimate or 

competing proposals--why the agency concluded that GSG-IS’s prices were 

nevertheless reasonable. Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), May 24, 

2008, at 4-5. 

Specifically, the SSDD explains the range of prices that had been offered for each 

line item where GSG-IS’s prices were significantly different, compares GSG-IS to the 

average price for that item among the highest-rated offerors and, where appropriate, 

considered whether GSG-IS had experience in providing similar services. For 

example, GSG-IS offered the lowest price--a price significantly lower (approximately 

half) than the average of the three other highly-rated offerors--to run the national 

operations center. The Corps noted the difference, but also gave “consideration . . . 

to the spread of the proposed prices and Global’s experience in providing similar 

type services” to support its conclusion that GSG-IS’s price was reasonable. 

The evaluation reflected the following evaluation ratings and prices:

GSG-IS Aegis

Technical Excellent Excellent

 - Technical Approach Excellent Excellent 

 - Key Personnel Excellent Excellent

 - Daily Operations Excellent Good 

 - Management Methodology Excellent Excellent

 - Communications Plan Excellent Excellent

Past Experience Excellent Good 

Past Performance Excellent Excellent

Task Order 1 Price $16,952,194 $31,843,581 

SSDD, May 24, 2008, at 2. 

Page 5 B-400093.4; B-400093.5 
On the basis of the evaluation, the Corps awarded the contract to GSG-IS on May 26, 

2008. Aegis protested that award to our Office. Upon reviewing the allegations of

Aegis’s protest, the Corps agreed to take corrective action including a reevaluation 

of the proposals. As a result, our Office dismissed that protest. Aegis Defence Servs.

Ltd., B-400093.2, B-400093.3, June 6, 2008. 

In the course of taking corrective action in response to that initial protest, the Corps

conducted a reevaluation of FPRs, which resulted in some changes to the SSEB 

narrative. The overall ratings of both offerors remained the same, however. SSEB 

Report, June 8, 2008, at 1-5, 12-14. After considering the results of the reevaluation, 

the Corps again selected GSG-IS, and confirmed the award of the contract. This 

protest followed. 

DISCUSSION 

Aegis raises a number of issues in its protest, and while we will not address every 

issue, we will address the main themes6

--i.e., that Aegis was unreasonably rated 

“good” under the experience factor because its experience was largely in Iraq, while 

GSG-IS was unreasonably rated “excellent” based on the experience and past

performance of its affiliates in Afghanistan; that GSG-IS offered unreasonable 

pricing; and that one of the GSG-IS affiliates, [DELETED], cannot obtain a facility 

security clearance, and therefore will not be able to perform as GSG-IS offered in its

proposal. As a result, Aegis argues that the selection of GSG-IS as the offeror 

providing the best value was unreasonable. As explained below, we think the record 

supports the Corps’s judgments. 

First, Aegis complains that it was downgraded by the Corps under the experience 

factor simply because its references were for contracts in Iraq, rather than 

Afghanistan. Aegis argues that the experience that it identified in Iraq is very similar 

to the services required under this contract, and that the Corps has made an 

unreasonable distinction between experience in Iraq and experience in Afghanistan. 

The Corps responds that its evaluators concluded that the differences in the security

situation between Iraq and Afghanistan are sufficiently different that it was 

reasonable to distinguish between them in evaluating experience and past 

performance.7

 The Corps explains that Iraq is outside the Afghanistan Engineer 

District, the two countries have different geography, and the people have different

cultural practices, and different causes of unrest. Therefore, the Corps explained 

that even though Aegis had high-rated past performance in performing similar 

 6

 We have, however, considered each of Aegis’s arguments and find none has merit. 

7

 The Corps also notes that this contract requires the contractor to provide support

by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, unlike Aegis’s RSSS contracts in Iraq. 

Page 6 B-400093.4; B-400093.5 
services in Iraq, given the different conditions in Afghanistan, the Corps had a 

reasonable basis to give Aegis a rating of “good,” rather than a rating of “excellent,” 

under the experience factor because the experience in Iraq was less relevant. 

As relevant here, the RFP reasonably informed offerors that the Corps would 

consider the geographic location of experience in determining its relevance, and it 

follows that contracts performed in Afghanistan would be more relevant than 

contracts performed elsewhere. In our view, the Corps could treat contracts 

performed in areas outside the Afghanistan Engineer District (including Iraq) as 

slightly less relevant based on the Corps’s understanding of the differences in the 

operational environment in Afghanistan. Given offerors with similar experience, we 

also think the Corps could reasonably value more highly experience in Afghanistan 

than experience in Iraq. In short, we see nothing unreasonable about the Corps’s

decision to rate Aegis as “good” under the experience factor. 

Next, with respect to the evaluation of the awardee’s experience and past 

performance, Aegis complains that the Corps misevaluated GSG-IS by allowing it to 

substitute the experience and past performance of GSG-IS’s subcontractors, because 

GSG-IS itself is a recently-formed entity and therefore had neither past performance 

nor experience. Aegis also argues that GSG-IS should not have received credit for 

the experience and past performance of [DELETED] in analyzing intelligence and 

running a national operations center.8

 Aegis argues that since [DELETED] cannot

obtain a facility security clearance, it cannot have any role in performing intelligence 

or national operations center functions, and thus its experience and past

performance in those areas should have been excluded as irrelevant. 

The Corps argues that where, as here, an offeror’s performance relies significantly 

on a team member or subcontractor, an agency may consider that firm’s experience 

and past performance. Since GSG-IS’s team members, including [DELETED], will 

perform significant shares of the contract, the Corps argues that it was proper to

consider the experience and past performance references of those firms. The Corps

disputes the foundation of Aegis’s argument--that an offeror’s experience and past

performance are only relevant if the offeror itself is performing the corresponding 

services under the pending contract. 

Our Office affords agencies discretion in the evaluation of past performance. Family 

Entm’t Servs., Inc., B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 128 at 5. The record here 

reflects that the Corps considered the experience and past performance cited by 

 8

 Aegis notes that GSG-IS provided a matrix in its proposal, which shows that

[DELETED] was the contractor on five of the ten experience and past performance 

references, and that none of the remaining references (for the other team members) 

showed any experience running a national operations center, and showed limited 

experience in intelligence. 

Page 7 B-400093.4; B-400093.5 
GSG-IS to show that it was familiar with providing similar services in Afghanistan, 

and that it had shown an excellent record of performance. Although Aegis argues 

that the experience of [DELETED] cannot be considered relevant since that firm 

lacks a security clearance, we believe the Corps had discretion to rely on that 

experience and past performance in evaluating GSG-IS, since [DELETED] is 

providing material services under the contract. In particular, GSG-IS described 

[DELETED]’s role as providing “security, logistics, and operations support.” GSG-IS

Proposal, Mar. 18, 2008, vol. I at 1. In our view the agency reasonably rated GSG-IS

excellent under the experience and past performance factors. 

Aegis makes two more related arguments. First, Aegis argues that the Corps 

disregarded a “grave risk” posed by low prices offered by GSG-IS, which Aegis 

argues were based on using [DELETED] to provide services that it is precluded 

from offering because, as an entity organized in Dubai, [DELETED] cannot obtain a 

facilities security clearance.9

 Second, in a supplemental protest filed with its

comments, Aegis argues that the GSG-IS proposal should have been rejected as

unacceptable because staff requiring security clearances were to be furnished by 

[DELETED]. Protester’s Comments at 13-14. 

The Corps confirms that under the terms of this RFP, staff requiring security

clearances can only be employed by a firm that holds a facility security clearance. 

Nevertheless, both the Corps and GSG-IS contend that Aegis’s argument is based on 

a misreading of the GSG-IS proposal. The Corps argues that issues regarding the 

management of employees holding security clearances are matters of contract 

administration. GSG-IS quotes its proposal, stating that GSG-IS itself will “provide 

cleared personnel and overall program management,” which it explains was

correctly understood by the Corps to be all personnel requiring security clearances.

10

 

GSG-IS Supplemental Comments at 5 (quoting GSG-IS Proposal, Mar. 18, 2008, vol. I,

at 2). The Corps states that it will ensure that GSG-IS does not allow personnel 

requiring a security clearance to be employed by [DELETED]. 

 9

 In its initial protest, Aegis had asserted that GSG-IS had achieved its lower prices by 

improperly using locals for positions that the RFP specified had to be filled by 

expatriates. Protest at 19. In its comments, Aegis abandons that theory, and 

presents only a brief argument on the point which focuses simply on the low price 

offered by GSG-IS generally, and suggests that it was instead related to the lack of a 

facilities clearance. Aegis Comments at 14. 

10 In response to a request by our Office for additional briefing on this issue, GSG-IS

submitted a declaration from its corporate president, explaining--with citations to

corresponding pages in its proposal--how its proposed staffing approach was

designed to respond to the personal and facility security clearance requirements of

the RFP. Declaration of GSG-IS President, Oct. 2, 2008, at 4-8. 

Page 8 B-400093.4; B-400093.5 
In our view, given the explanations provided by GSG-IS and the Corps, any 

remaining questions raised by Aegis regarding which firm may employ personnel to

handle classified information under the terms of the RFP are matters of contract

administration, which we will not review. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(a) (2008); see also Catapult 

Tech., Ltd., B-294936, B-294936.2, Jan. 13, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 14 at 7 n.7 (issue of 

whether awardee ultimately obtains security clearances is a matter of contract 

administration, which our Office does not review). 

Finally, although Aegis also challenges the prices offered by GSG-IS as being 

unreasonable, the record shows that the Corps considered each line item where 

GSG-IS proposed a price that differed significantly from the government estimate 

and competing prices. In each case, the Corps documented its reasoning for 

concluding that GSG-IS had proposed reasonable pricing. Aegis has provided no

basis for our Office to question the Corps’s judgments. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 9 B-400093.4; B-400093.5