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: 4D Security Solutions, Inc. 

File: B-400351.2; B-400351.3 

Date: December 8, 2008 

Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Howard A. Wolf-Rodda, Esq., Brown Rudnick LLP, 

for the protester. 

Charmaine A. Howson, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. 

Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency reasonably evaluated and rejected the protester’s quotation as technically 

unacceptable where the protester submitted an ambiguous quotation that failed to 

comply with a material specification requirement in the solicitation. 

DECISION 

4D Security Solutions, Inc., of South Plainfield, New Jersey, protests the selection of 

Next Wave Systems, LLC, of Bloomington, Indiana, under request for quotations 

(RFQ) No. DE-RQ52-08NA28542, issued by the Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, as a total small business set-aside for a mesh 

wireless broadband system and technical support for the Nevada Test Site, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 4D challenges the agency’s evaluation and rejection of its 

quotation as technically unacceptable. 

We deny the protest. 

The agency issued the combined synopsis/solicitation on March 28, 2008, and 

conducted this procurement under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

Subpart 12.6, Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for 

Commercial Items. A mesh wireless broadband system is a network created by a 

grid of wireless access points--known as “nodes”--that contain radios which provide 

wireless access to users and transport, on a wireless basis, video and data traffic to 

and from nearby nodes. Video surveillance is streamed through the mesh network to 

a designated control room for monitoring. Mobile users can continuously access 

broadband services as they move throughout the coverage area enabling visual 

security mobility. Agency Report at 1. 
As relevant here, the RFQ specifications (design and performance requirements) 

provided that “[t]he system shall require no more than three hops between a field 

device or vehicle and a terminal node at any time and shall maintain a minimum 

sustained bandwidth of 4 Mbps [megabits per second] with the exception of the 

vehicle modems, which shall sustain a minimum of 1 Mbps.” RFQ ¶ 3.2(b); see also

RFQ ¶ 3.1 (“[t]he system shall have no more than three (3) hops between any two 

components (Backhaul modem, Access Points (AP) or Wireless Router (WR) with a 

minimum bandwidth of 4 Mbps sustained bandwidth at any time”). 

The RFQ provided that the award would be made to the responsible vendor whose 

quotation, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be most advantageous 

to the government, price and other factors considered. The RFQ stated that 

quotations would be evaluated based on the following factors, listed in descending 

order of importance (with the technical evaluation subfactors being of equal 

importance): (1) socioeconomic status; (2) technical (specification requirements, 

ease of maintenance, equipment integration and growth, and past performance); and, 

(3) price. With respect to the specification requirements technical evaluation 

subfactor, the RFQ stated that the vendor “must show how [its] system will meet the 

requirements of the specification.” RFQ at 2. Under the terms of the RFQ, the 

agency intended to evaluate quotations and select a vendor without conducting 

discussions; accordingly, vendors were advised that their initial quotations should 

contain their best terms from a price and technical standpoint. 

Ten vendors, including 4D and Next Wave, submitted quotations on May 16. As 

relevant here, 4D quoted a Motorola-based mesh technology. 4D Quotation, 

Executive Summary, at 3. In one part of its quotation, 4D stated: 

The current design has [deleted] nodes of which [deleted] are IAPs 

(Intelligent Access Points) and [deleted] are MWRs (Mobile Wireless 

Routers). The IAPs are broadband gateways to the wired network 

which provide up to [deleted] Mb/s via the backhaul link to the 

network (i.e., to a location where there is a wired connection to the 

network) as well as connectivity to the MWRs with [deleted] data rates 

up to [deleted] Mb/s and sustained data rates of [deleted] Mb/s. Both 

the MWRs and the IAPs provide local wireless mesh access for users in 

vehicles. Each vehicle in turn is outfitted with a Vehicular Mobile 

Modem (VMM), which provides standard Ethernet connectivity to any 

Ethernet enabled device such as laptops, IP cameras and IP sensors. 

4D Quotation ¶ 3.1.1, Mesh Network Technology, at 5 (emphasis added). 

In another part of its quotation, 4D stated that its “proposed system fully complies 

with the specifications in the solicitation.” 4D Quotation ¶ 3.2, Compliance, at 8. 4D 

then provided a chart listing the RFQ specifications and a description of its 

Page 2 B-400351.2; B-400351.3 
compliance approach. Again, in relevant part, with respect to RFQ specification 

¶ 3.2(b), which required “a minimum sustained bandwidth of 4 Mbps with the 

exception of the vehicle modems, which shall sustain a minimum of 1 Mbps,” 4D 

stated that its quoted system “compl[ied]” with the specification and that its “system 

shall be designed to support field devices with fewer than 3 hops. Every node will 

connect to the central location with 1 or 2 hops, and will have [deleted] Mbps 

throughput.” 4D Quotation, Design and Performance Requirements (Specification 

section 3.2), at 13. 

The technical security engineer for the Office of the Assistant Manager for 

Safeguards and Security at the Nevada Site Office served as the agency’s sole 

technical evaluator. Based on this individual’s evaluation of quotations, the agency 

determined that 4D’s quotation, which was based on the use of Motorola equipment, 

represented the best value to the government due in part to the ease of integration of 

4D’s quoted system into the existing system. The agency concluded that the price 

premium associated with 4D’s quotation was justified because 4D wrote the code for 

the existing system and its quotation would save the government time and money in 

terms of integrating the new system. 

Following its debriefing, Next Wave filed a protest with our Office in which it 

challenged the selection of 4D on the basis that the Motorola equipment quoted by 

4D would not satisfy the RFQ specification requiring a minimum sustained 

bandwidth of 4 Mbps (with the exception of the vehicle modems). To support its 

position, Next Wave stated that it learned at training provided by Motorola that “a 

minimum of 4 Mbps of sustained bandwidth throughout the network is not possible 

with the [particular Motorola] equipment [quoted by 4D].” Next Wave e-mail to 

Agency, July 9, 2008. Next Wave also submitted information (in a chart format) 

received at the Motorola training to substantiate its position that a sustained 

bandwidth of 4 Mbps was not possible with the particular Motorola equipment 

quoted by 4D. Next Wave e-mail to Agency, July 11, 2008.1

In reviewing Next Wave’s protest, including the information Next Wave stated it 

received at training provided by Motorola, the agency determined it would take 

corrective action by reevaluating initial quotations in accordance with the terms of 

the RFQ. On July 21, our Office dismissed Next Wave’s protest based on the 

corrective action to be taken by the agency. 

By letter dated July 31, 4D submitted a “clarification in response to [Next Wave’s] 

protest.” 4D Letter to Agency, July 31, 2008. In this letter, 4D stated that it sought 

 

1

 Next Wave quoted Firetide-based mesh technology, stating in its quotation that 

“[deleted].” Next Wave Quotation at 3. Next Wave further stated in its quotation that 

the Firetide equipment “[deleted].” Id. at 4. Next Wave “[took] no exception to any 

requirements of the specification.” Id. at 17. 

Page 3 B-400351.2; B-400351.3 
“to correct an inaccurate interpretation of [its] compliance [with] the [RFQ’s] 

bandwidth requirements.” Id. After setting forth the RFQ specifications, as quoted 

above, 4D stated that the “Motorola mesh network in [its] proposed system provides 

[deleted] Mbps between backhaul modems, access points and wireless routers. 

Vehicle modems are clearly excluded from the [deleted] Mbps requirement. Our 

system provides [deleted] Mbps to vehicle modems as required.” Id. The agency did 

not consider this “clarification” from 4D because, in implementing the corrective 

action, the agency did not hold discussions with vendors or otherwise allow vendors 

to submit revised quotations. 

The same technical evaluator reevaluated the vendors’ initial quotations using the 

evaluation scheme set forth in the RFQ. The evaluator determined that 4D’s 

quotation satisfactorily addressed all components of the technical evaluation, with 

the exception of the 4 Mbps minimum sustained bandwidth specification. The 

evaluator noted the inconsistent statements in 4D’s quotation, as set forth above, 

regarding whether 4D’s quoted system would comply with the RFQ specification in 

terms of maintaining 4 Mbps of minimum sustained bandwidth. As a result of these 

inconsistent statements, the evaluator concluded that 4D’s quotation “fail[ed] the 

technical evaluation.” Technical Evaluation, Aug. 18, 2008, at 2. In contrast, the 

evaluator determined that Next Wave’s quotation satisfactorily addressed all 

components of the technical evaluation, concluding that its quotation “meets and/or 

exceeds all procurement requirements.” Id. at 3. On September 16, the agency 

selected Next Wave, determining that its quotation represented the best value to the 

government. Following its debriefing, 4D filed this protest. 

4D challenges the evaluation and rejection of its quotation as technically 

unacceptable for failing to comply with the RFQ specification requiring a minimum 

sustained bandwidth for the system of 4 Mbps. 4D complains that had the agency 

considered its quotation in its entirety, the agency would have concluded that its 

quoted system satisfied the referenced RFQ specification. Comments at 15. 

In reviewing protests of an agency’s evaluation, our Office does not reevaluate 

vendors’ quotations; rather, we review the record to ensure that the agency’s 

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 

Commercial Window Shield, B-400154, July 2, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 134 at 2. Clearly 

stated solicitation technical requirements are considered material to the needs of the 

government, and a quotation that fails to conform to such material terms is 

technically unacceptable and may not form the basis for award. See, e.g., Stewart 

Distributors, B-298975, Jan. 17, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 27 at 3-4. A vendor is responsible 

for affirmatively demonstrating the merits of its quotation and risks the rejection of 

its quotation if it fails to do so. Id. Here, we find that the agency reasonably 

evaluated and rejected 4D’s quotation as technically unacceptable. 

As stated above, the RFQ required a vendor to “show how [its] system [would] meet 

the requirements of the specification.” 4D failed to unambiguously demonstrate that 

Page 4 B-400351.2; B-400351.3 
its quoted system would satisfy the RFQ’s minimum sustained bandwidth 

specification of 4 Mbps. Again, in one part of its quotation, 4D stated that there 

would be “sustained data rates of [deleted] Mb/s,” while in other parts of its 

quotation, 4D offered to comply with the referenced specification. In light of these 

inconsistent statements in its quotation, we believe that the agency could, and did, 

reasonably conclude that it was not clear from the face of 4D’s quotation that its 

quoted system would satisfy the RFQ’s minimum sustained bandwidth specification 

and, as a result, 4D’s quotation was reasonably evaluated and rejected as technically 

unacceptable. Id. at 5. Moreover, 4D’s statements of compliance with the RFQ 

specification were not sufficient, and did not otherwise cure, the inconsistent 

statements in its quotation. Id. at 4 n.5. On this record, we have no basis to question 

the agency’s actions. 

4D further objects to the agency’s decision, in implementing the corrective action, to 

ignore its July 31 “clarification” letter, quoted above, which, according to 4D, 

established its compliance with the RFQ’s minimum sustained bandwidth 

specification. Comments at 13. This argument is without merit. If the agency had 

considered the information in 4D’s “clarification” letter--in which 4D appears for the 

first time to clearly agree to satisfy the referenced specification--this would have 

constituted discussions, allowing 4D to materially alter or explain its quotation by 

having the agency consider information not contained within the four corners of its 

initial quotation. See Colson Servs. Corp., B-310971 et al., Mar. 21, 2008, 2008 CPD 

¶ 85 at 13 (the “acid test” for deciding whether discussions have been held is 

whether it can be said that an offeror or vendor was provided the opportunity to 

modify or revise its proposal or quotation). The agency was under no obligation to 

hold discussions, however. In this regard, the RFQ, while reserving to the 

government the right to hold discussions if the contracting officer later decided it 

was necessary to do so, clearly indicated that the agency intended to make its 

selection decision without holding discussions.2

 See Chicago Dryer Co., B-293940, 

June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 137 at 3-4. 

Finally, 4D makes a number of other allegations that we have considered and find to 

be without merit. For example, 4D complains that after Next Wave learned that 4D 

had initially been selected, Next Wave sent a series of e-mails to the agency in which 

Next Wave asserted that the Motorola equipment quoted by 4D did not comply with 

the RFQ’s minimum sustained bandwidth specification. The agency responded by 

indicating that it would consider the information provided by Next Wave. 4D asserts 

that these e-mail communications constituted discussions. Comments at 15. 

 

2

 As noted above, the record shows that, consistent with its expressed intention, the 

agency did not hold discussions with any of the vendors during the course of the 

procurement. 

Page 5 B-400351.2; B-400351.3 
Page 6 B-400351.2; B-400351.3 

We disagree. In making the decision to take corrective action in response to Next 

Wave’s protest, there was nothing improper in the agency considering the 

information provided by Next Wave after it learned that 4D had been selected, 

including the information in Next Wave’s protest to our Office questioning whether 

the Motorola equipment quoted by 4D would satisfy the RFQ’s minimum sustained 

bandwidth specification. In any event, the record shows that it was the lack of 

clarity with respect to the technical requirements in 4D’s quotation which caused the 

agency to reject it. In sum, the record shows that the agency did not conduct 

discussions with Next Wave as Next Wave, like 4D and the other vendors, was never 

given an opportunity to modify or otherwise revise its initial quotation to materially 

enhance the potential for this quotation to be selected for award. Colson Servs. 

Corp., supra. 

The protest is denied.3

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

 

3

 To the extent 4D relies on a letter provided by Motorola dated September 20, 2008, 

in which Motorola states that the system quoted by 4D in this procurement “meets all 

required specifications” of the RFQ, Motorola Letter to 4D, Sept. 20, 2008, we think 

that the agency reasonably did not give weight to Motorola’s self-serving assessment 

in evaluating the technical merits of 4D’s initial quotation.