United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: Orion Management, LLC 

File: B-400680.2 

Date: January 15, 2009 

Christopher A. Morin for the protester. 

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

Chugach/Evergreen, LLC, an 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 

Protest is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that agency’s evaluation of 

proposal as technically marginal with moderate risk and agency’s exclusion of 

proposal from revised competitive range on that basis were unreasonable. 

DECISION 

Orion Management, LLC (Orion) of Springfield, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its 

proposal from the revised competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 

W9113M-07-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army (Army), Space and Missile 

Defense Command, for installation and testing of an integrated commercial intrusion 

detection system-IV (ICIDS-IV).1

We deny the protest.2

 

1

 The protester was not represented by counsel and, therefore, did not have access to 

nonpublic information pursuant to the terms of a protective order. Accordingly, our 

discussion in this decision is necessarily general; our conclusions, however, are 

based on our review of the entire record, including nonpublic information. 

2

 A related protest, brought by a different offeror, was denied by our Office on 

January 8, 2009. See Cambridge Sys., Inc., B-400680; B-400680.3, Jan. 8, 2009, 

2009 CPD ¶ __. 
The solicitation seeks to acquire an ICIDS-IV detection system, to be used to monitor 

designated areas and facilities for all military installations located inside and outside 

the continental United States. The goal 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 was set aside for small businesses, and 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 more important than past 

performance, which was more important than price and, when combined, the nonprice factors were significantly more important than price. The solicitation advised 

offerors that to receive consideration for award, proposals had to be rated no less 

than acceptable under the technical factor and subfactors and the past performance 

factor. RFP at 144. 

The agency received several proposals, including Orion’s, by the extended closing 

date. Based on the initial evaluation by the source selection evaluation board 

(SSEB), the agency determined that only the proposal submitted by Cambridge 

Systems (excellent with low risk) would be included in the competitive range. 

Orion’s proposal, and those of the other offerors, which were rated either marginal 

or unacceptable, was excluded from the competitive range and from further 

consideration for contract award.3

 When pre-award notice of the prospective 

 

3

 The proposal ratings 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. 

Moderate Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, some doubt 

exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required 

effort. 

Agency Report (AR) exh. 7, SSEB Findings at 10-11 (Apr. 24, 2008). 

Page 2 B-400680.2 
awardee was sent to the offerors excluded from the competitive range, Offeror A,4

whose proposal was rated marginal with low risk, filed a timely challenge to the size 

status of Cambridge. The Small Business Administration ultimately determined that 

Cambridge was not a small business concern under the applicable size standard and 

the Army eliminated the firm’s proposal from further consideration. 

After the elimination of Cambridge from the competition, the agency decided to 

re-establish the competitive range, considering all offerors’ proposals previously 

eliminated from the initial competitive range. The contracting officer reviewed the 

evaluation results of the remaining offerors, including the associated strengths and 

weaknesses of their proposals. In this regard, the initial proposal submitted by 

Offeror A was rated marginal overall under the technical factor, with two significant 

strengths, nine significant weaknesses, and one deficiency. Offeror B’s proposal was 

rated marginal overall under the technical factor, with 1 significant strength, 

13 significant weaknesses, and 1 deficiency. Each proposal was rated low risk under 

the past performance factor. In contrast, under the technical factor, Orion’s initial 

proposal was rated marginal overall, with no significant strengths, 

24 significant weaknesses, and 10 deficiencies; under the past performance factor, its 

proposal was rated moderate risk. AR exh. 7, SSEB Findings at 13 (Apr. 24, 2008). 

On this basis, the contracting officer determined that the proposals of Offeror A and 

Offeror B were the most highly rated and only included those proposals in the 

revised competitive range. AR exh. 19, Revised Competitive Range Determination 

at 1-2. 

Orion protests the exclusion of its proposal from the revised competitive range, 

alleging that its initial proposal was rated the same as the proposals submitted by 

Offeror A and Offeror B. Protest at 2-3. It is well settled that an agency is not 

required to retain in the competitive range a proposal that is not among the most 

highly rated or that the agency otherwise reasonably concludes has no realistic 

prospect of award. Federal Acquisition Regulation § 15.306(c)(1); Safety-Kleen 

(Pecatonica), Inc., B-290838, Sept. 24, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 176 at 5-6; SDS Petroleum 

Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 59 at 5. 

Here, the Army has responded to the protest, providing detailed evaluation 

documentation that it maintains reasonably establishes why Orion’s proposal was 

excluded from the revised competitive range. None of the evaluation findings and 

conclusions was refuted by the protester. Rather, Orion merely reiterates the 

position stated in its protest, namely, that the agency should have included its 

proposal in the revised competitive range because its rating was “almost identical” to 

the other two offerors’ proposals. Protester’s Comments at 2-3. 

 

4

 As the procurement here is ongoing, we have designated the offerors selected for 

inclusion in the revised competitive range as Offeror A and Offeror B. 

Page 3 B-400680.2 
Page 4 B-400680.2 

We have reviewed the record with respect to the protester’s allegations and find no 

basis to question either the agency’s evaluation conclusions or the decision to 

exclude the protester’s proposal from the revised competitive range based on those 

evaluation findings. In short, the record shows that the agency’s evaluation of 

Orion’s proposal identified a significant number of deficiencies in the proposal (10) 

compared to 1 deficiency each in the proposals that were included in the revised 

competitive range. In addition, both proposals included in the competitive range 

were assessed as presenting low performance risk, while Orion’s proposal was 

assessed as presenting moderate risk. These two differences alone lead us to 

conclude that the agency reasonably distinguished between the protester’s proposal, 

and the proposals of the other two offerors included in the competitive range, in 

making its revised competitive range determination. 

Moreover, we note that Orion has not raised substantive challenges to any of the 

agency’s evaluation conclusions about Orion’s proposal. Where, as here, a protester 

advances arguments to which the agency responds in detail, and the protester offers 

no rebuttal, there generally is no basis for our Office to question the agency’s 

evaluation findings or subsequent conclusions based on those findings. See

Industrial Prop. Mgmt., B-291336.2, Oct. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 205 at 5. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel