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: OPTIMUS Corporation 

File: B-400777 

Date: January 26, 2009 

John E. Jensen, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Pillsbury 

Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. 

Melissa McWilliams, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. 

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Protest asserting that General Services Administration (GSA) contracting officials 

improperly rescored quotations after technical evaluation was performed by 

requiring activity (Indian Health Service) evaluators is denied where record shows 

that GSA officials were adjusting numeric scores to more accurately reflect 

evaluation criteria and source selection plan evaluation standards, and made 

adjustments only after reviewing quotations and initial evaluation results. 

2. Protest that agency misevaluated quotations is denied where record shows that 

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation and standards 

generally applicable to negotiated procurements. 

3. Agency’s request for vendor price reductions in Federal Supply Schedule 

acquisition conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 8.4 did not 

constitute discussions, and therefore did not trigger agency obligation to engage in 

meaningful discussions, as would be required in a negotiated acquisition conducted 

pursuant to FAR part 15; FAR part 8.4 expressly requires agencies to seek price 

reductions in specified circumstances. 

DECISION 

OPTIMUS Corporation, of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a Federal 

Supply Schedule (FSS) task order to CNI Information Technology, LLC, of Norman 

Oklahoma, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FY758001T6, issued by the 

General Services Administration (GSA) to obtain information technology (IT) 

enterprise infrastructure support services, including systems administration, web 

services and help desk services, on behalf of the Indian Health Service (IHS). 
OPTIMUS asserts that the agency misevaluated quotations and improperly failed to 

engage in meaningful discussions. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ, issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 8.4 to 

acquire services under the FSS, contemplated the issuance of a time-and-materials 

task order to perform various IT support services for the IHS at its headquarters and 

various field office locations for a base year, with four 1-year options. Eligible firms 

were advised that the agency intended to issue the order to the vendor submitting 

the quotation deemed to offer the “best value” to the government, considering price 

and several non-price evaluation factors. RFQ at 28. The non-price factors 

(weighted equally) were past experience/past performance, technical/management 

approach, and staffing plan.1

 Id. Price and small business size status also were 

listed as evaluation considerations, but were described as non-rated factors. Id. at 

28-29. The RFQ provided that the non-price factors, combined, were significantly

more important than price and small business size status and that, as quotations 

were determined to be more equal in technical merit, total price and small business

size status would become more important. Id. at 28. 

 

For evaluation and source selection purposes, GSA and IHS established a technical 

evaluation team of five technical evaluators from IHS, along with a GSA program 

manager and a GSA contracting officer who also functioned as the source selection 

authority (SSA). The agencies used a numeric scoring system and assigned 

quotations scores between 0 and 3, with a score of 3 being assigned where the 

quotation was determined to exceed the evaluation standards stated in the RFQ; a 

score of 2 being assigned where the quotation was determined to meet the RFQ 

standards; a score of 1 being assigned where the quotation was determined to fall 

somewhat short of the RFQ standards; and a score of 0 where the quotation was 

determined to be unacceptable. Agency Report (AR), exh. 13. 

Seven quotations were received; these were forwarded to the IHS technical 

evaluation team. Shortly thereafter, GSA’s program manager sent an e-mail to all of 

the competitors requesting that they consider any additional discounts and submit 

them by March 10. AR, exh. 7. Some vendors submitted additional price reductions, 

while others relied on the prices they originally had submitted. The IHS evaluators 

reviewed the quotations and prepared evaluation materials memorializing their 

evaluation conclusions. GSA’s program manager reviewed these materials, as well 

as the quotations themselves, and prepared a consensus evaluation package. AR, 

exh. 15. While the program manager was doing so, the IHS technical evaluators 

forwarded him a second package of evaluation materials. AR, exh. 16. After 

1

 Each of these factors also included several subfactors that were not listed in the 

RFQ but were used in evaluating the quotations. 

Page 2 B-400777 
discussing these new scores within the agency, the program manager determined 

that the consensus evaluation should be based on the original evaluation materials. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement, Nov. 20, 2008, at 3. The program manager revised 

the scoring for each quotation; in each instance, these revised scores were higher to 

varying degrees than the scores assigned by the IHS evaluators.2 

After preparing the consensus evaluation document, the program manager 

forwarded it to the contracting officer/SSA. After reviewing the package, the 

contracting officer decided that the scores were flawed because the scoring scheme 

did not contemplate assigning factor scores that were not whole numbers.3

 He 

therefore revised the scores; these revised scores were used to make the source 

selection decision. AR, exh. 18. The record shows that, ultimately, the awardee’s 

quotation was assigned a cumulative score of 9 points, while the protester’s 

quotation was assigned a score of 5 points. AR, exh. 18 at 7. The record further 

shows that, although OPTIMUS’s quoted price was approximately 33 percent lower 

than the awardee’s ($24,412,724 versus $36,585,300), the protester’s quotation was 

not included in the SSA’s price/technical tradeoff because its technical approach had 

been rated as falling somewhat short of the standard required in the RFQ, and the 

agency had three other quotations that met or exceeded the RFQ standards at prices 

that the agency viewed as reasonable based on a price analysis. Id. at 18. The 

agency ultimately concluded that CNI’s quotation represented the best value, and 

thus issued a purchase order to CNI. 

POINT SCORES 

The protester asserts that it was improper for GSA to rescore the quotations after 

receiving the evaluation materials prepared by IHS’s technical evaluators. According 

to the protester, this rescoring resulted in the technical superiority of CSN’s 

quotation being exaggerated, and also ultimately led to the SSA’s not considering 

OPTIMUS’s quotation in the price/technical tradeoff decision, notwithstanding 

OPTIMUS’s substantial price advantage over CNI. 

 

2

 For example, the cumulative arithmetic mean score assigned the protester’s 

quotation by the IHS evaluators was 5.3 points, while the cumulative score assigned 

by the program manager was 5.75. Agency Supplemental Submission, Dec. 17, 2008, 

attach. The cumulative arithmetic mean assigned the awardee’s quotation by the IHS 

evaluators was 6.93 points, while the score assigned by the program manager was 

8.75 points. Id.

3

 Both the IHS evaluators and the GSA program manager assigned whole numeric 

scores to each quotation under each of the subfactors. When calculating factor and 

cumulative scores, the subfactor scores were averaged, thereby producing factor and 

cumulative scores that were not whole numbers. 

Page 3 B-400777 
We will not reevaluate quotations in reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s 

technical evaluation; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the 

agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of 

the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Engineered Elec. 

Co. d/b/a/ DRS Fermont, B-295126.5, B-295126.6, Dec. 7, 2008, 2007 CPD ¶ 4 at 3-4. 

GSA’s scoring changes here are unobjectionable. The record shows that both the 

GSA program manager and SSA did not change the scores in a vacuum; rather, the 

changes were made with reference to the contents of the quotations and the 

evaluation materials prepared by the IHS evaluators (and, in the case of the SSA, the 

evaluation materials prepared by the program manager). In this regard, the program 

manager states as follows: 

I can testify that I created a consensus evaluation document utilizing 

the comments from the first set of IHS’ evaluations. As is common 

practice of the Project Manager, I reviewed all [quotations] to verify 

the comments from the first set of evaluations. I evaluated each 

[quotation’s] Past Experience/Past Performance, 

Technical/Management Approach and Staffing Plan. Each of these 

factors included multiple criteria that received scores in the evaluation. 

The IHS evaluators, however, did not correlate their scores to the 

Evaluation Plan Criteria accurately thus resulting in inaccurate scores. 

In the consensus document, I applied the comments from the first set 

of evaluations, correlated such comments to the Evaluation Plan 

Criteria, and applied the correct score. (All [of the IHS evaluators’] 

evaluation comments were preserved on the consensus evaluation 

document.) I added comments on the consensus document when the 

score I applied differed from the technical panel average score for that 

factor. 

Agency Submission, Dec. 8, 2008, Program Manager Affidavit, at 2. Similarly, the 

SSA states his rationale for changing the scores a second time: 

I can testify that the resulting scores from the initial evaluations and 

consensus document resulted in fractional scores. . . . The scoring 

criteria in the solicitation was based on . . . whole number scores. . . . 

To determine whether a score of 2.5 equaled a ‘2’ or a ‘3’, I re-read all 

7 [quotations]. As the Source Selection Authority, based on my reading 

of (1) the [quotations], (2) the solicitation criteria, and (3) the 

comments of the evaluation panel and the GSA [program manager], I 

determined the most appropriate whole number score. 

Agency Submission, Dec. 8, 2008, SSA Affidavit, at 2. 

In the final analysis, ratings, be they numerical, color, or adjectival, are merely 

guides for intelligent decision making in the procurement process. Citywide 

Page 4 B-400777 
Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 

2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 11. The germane consideration is whether the record shows that the 

agency fully considered the actual qualitative differences in the technical quotations 

or quotations. See, e.g., Bernard Cap Co., Inc., B-297168, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD 

¶ 204 at 6. 

Both GSA officials, after a detailed review of the evaluation materials and the 

quotations themselves, assigned point scores that they determined more accurately 

portrayed the relative merits of the quotations, and were consistent with the terms of 

the solicitation’s evaluation scheme. These actions were in no way inconsistent with 

the RFQ, and the protester has not shown that the revised scores inaccurately 

reflected the relative merits of the quotations. We thus have no basis to object to the 

rescoring. 

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

Optimus challenges the agency’s evaluation conclusions relating to its quotation 

under the technical/management approach factor. The agency assigned its quotation 

a rating of falls somewhat short of the standard (a numeric score of 1) under the 

technical/management factor based on several evaluated deficiencies. OPTIMUS 

essentially maintains that none of the deficiencies, in fact, exist. 

We have examined the record and conclude that the identified deficiencies in the 

OPTIMUS technical/management approach are reasonable and support the agency’s 

finding that the protester’s quotation fell somewhat short of the standards called for 

in the RFQ. We discuss two of the identified deficiencies for illustrative purposes. 

Describe Methodology 

The RFQ required firms to clearly describe the methodology and analytical 

techniques to be used in fulfilling all of the solicitation’s technical requirements, to 

identify the logical sequence of tasks that would be performed, and to describe the 

specific techniques and steps that would be applied during the accomplishment of all 

RFQ tasks. RFQ at 29. The record shows that, throughout all iterations of the 

agency’s evaluation (that is, during the IHS evaluators’ review, the program 

manager’s consensus review, and the SSA’s source selection decision) a persistent 

criticism was that OPTIMUS either did not adequately explain how it would 

accomplish the RFQ requirements, or otherwise specifically failed to address one or 

another requirement. The IHS evaluation materials provide numerous such 

examples. AR, exh. 14, at 8 (“does not address all requirements of the SOW”); id.

at 24 (“would have liked more [assurance] of understanding of the challenges”); id.

at 32, 40 (“no telecom included”). The program manager’s consensus evaluation 

materials identifies these same findings, AR, exh. 15, at 8, as does the agency’s 

source selection decision. AR, exh. 18, at 15. 

Page 5 B-400777 
Our review of the OPTIMUS quotation confirms these observations; in effect, the 

quotation relies on an outline of industry best practices and broad statements of 

generic methodologies that would be brought to bear to meet the solicitation’s 

requirements, but does not address the specifics of the statement of work. As an 

example, in describing the logical sequencing of events, as required by the RFQ, the 

OPTIMUS proposal provides, without significant elaboration: 

[deleted] 

AR, exh. 12A, at 14. During the protest, OPTIMUS did not demonstrate that these 

criticisms were incorrect, but instead simply expressed disagreement with the 

agency’s evaluation conclusions; such disagreement, without more, does not 

demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. Commercial Window 

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

Service Desk Operation 

Another criticism identified by the SSA in his source selection decision was that 

OPTIMUS did not propose a tier 1, 2 and 3 service desk operation in its quotation, as 

required by the RFQ. AR, exh. 18, at 15. OPTIMUS disagrees with this conclusion, 

and identifies several pages from its quotation that allegedly show its quotation met 

the requirement. Our review of the referenced pages, however, shows that the SSA’s 

observation was reasonable. One of OPTIMUS’s referenced pages 

(AR, exh. 12A, at 5) is in the past performance section of its quotation and does not 

purport to address how OPTIMUS will meet the current requirement. The second 

reference (AR, exh. 12A, at 11) describes another past performance reference, in 

part, and sets forth the introductory portion of its technical /management approach; 

there is no mention of the requirement for tier 1, 2, and 3 service desk operations in 

this portion of its quotation. Finally, OPTIMUS references quotation pages 

(AR, exh. 12A, at 14-15) that discuss the service desk operation, but these pages only 

describe a generic sequence of tasks, with no mention of the tier 1, 2 and 3 service 

desk operation required by the RFQ. 

We conclude that the deficiencies identified by the agency in OPTIMUS’s 

technical/management approach were reasonable, and properly formed the basis for 

downgrading the firm’s quotation. 

PAST EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE 

The protester generally maintains that the agency misevaluated its past performance, 

and, more specifically, also asserts that the agency improperly failed to correlate the 

relevance of the competing firms’ past performance with the quality of the firm’s past 

performance. OPTIMUS points, in this regard, to the agency’s giving CNI credit for 

superior performance on one of its prior contracts, notwithstanding that the 

Page 6 B-400777 
reference for that contract did not return a past performance questionnaire; at the 

same time, OPTIMUS was not given credit for one of its prior contracts on which it 

had been evaluated as having provided superior performance because the agency 

determined that that contract was not relevant. 

This argument is without merit. The agency essentially conducted a two-part 

evaluation in this area. First, it evaluated the relevance of the firm’s experience by 

considering whether it had submitted at least two prior contracts that were similar to 

the requirement being solicited, as required by the RFQ. OPTIMUS provided four 

prior contracts. AR, exh. 12A, at 4-8. The agency determined that two were not 

relevant because they were for relatively small dollar values and did not involve web 

services. The agency found that the other two were relevant because they were for 

relatively large dollar values ($18 million and $22.5 million), and involved some work 

related to all three of the broad categories of work contemplated under the RFQ--

systems administration, web services, and help desk services; OPTIMUS received a 

rating of 2 based on its having tendered at least two similar, but relevant, prior 

contracts. AR, exh. 18, at 15. CNI submitted two contracts to demonstrate 

experience--its incumbent contract for the requirement under the RFQ (valued at 

$57 million), and a second contract performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

($42 million). The agency assigned CNI a rating of 3 for relevance on the basis that 

the first contract was identical, and the second similar, to the instant requirement. 

Id. at 10. 

The second aspect of the past experience/past performance evaluation was based on 

the evaluation of past performance questionnaires sent to all references provided by 

each firm. The record shows that one of OPTIMUS’s references--the United States 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Information Officer, National 

Telecommunications Services and Operations (USDA)-- returned the questionnaire, 

and that this questionnaire rated OPTIMUS’s performance as exceeding contract 

requirements. AR, exh. 12E. However, the questionnaire was for performance of 

one of the contracts that the agency had determined was not relevant. Accordingly, 

the agency assigned OPTIMUS a past performance rating of 2, meets the standard, 

and an overall past experience/past performance rating of 2. AR, exh. 18, at 15. The 

agency also received only one questionnaire for CNI, for its incumbent contract for 

this requirement. AR., exh. 9E. The questionnaire rated CNI’s performance as 

having exceeded the contract requirements. Id. Based on this rating, and because 

the contract was deemed by the agency to be identical to the current requirement 

(and therefore relevant), the agency assigned CNI a past performance rating of 3, 

exceeds the standard, and an overall past experience/past performance rating of 3. 

AR, exh. 18, at 10. 

The evaluation in this area was reasonable. With respect to the protester, while its 

performance questionnaire reference rated it highly, the agency essentially 

discounted this rating because the contract was valued at only $7.9 million and did 

not include performance of web-related services. There was nothing unreasonable 

Page 7 B-400777 
in the agency’s assigning OPTIMUS an overall rating of 2 for its other similar, but 

relevant contracts. CNI was differently situated. While the agency did not receive a 

questionnaire for CNI’s Corps of Engineers contract, CNI had at least two prior 

contracts that were similar to the instant requirement (one of which was identical), 

and its performance had been evaluated on the identical contract as exceeding the 

contract requirements. This provided the agency with a reasonable basis for 

assigning CNI an overall rating of 3 under the standards set forth in the RFQ.4

 

In the final analysis, therefore, the agency did, in fact, correlate quality of 

performance with relevance. In the case of OPTIMUS, the agency declined to raise 

the firm’s rating based on its high quality performance of the USDA contract for 

which it had received a response questionnaire, precisely because the contract had 

been deemed not relevant. In the case of CNI, on the other hand, the agency 

retained its 3 rating for the firm’s past experience/past performance, precisely 

because it had been given a high quality performance rating in a questionnaire for a 

contract that had been deemed the most relevant contract possible, the incumbent 

contract for this requirement. 

DISCUSSIONS 

The protester maintains that the agency failed to provide it with meaningful 

discussions. According to the protester, the agency’s request for price reductions 

 

4

 The protester maintains that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion 

when it evaluated the awardee’s past experience/past performance because the 

source selection plan provided for assigning a rating of 3, exceeds the standard, 

where a firm provided the requisite number of past performance examples, one of 

which was for the identical requirement, and its performance on the identical 

requirement was rated a 3 on the past performance questionnaire. The protester also 

points out that, for a non-incumbent contractor, the only way to receive an overall 

rating of 3 was to submit more than the requisite number of examples, and receive 

scores of 3 on its questionnaires. According to OPTIMUS, the RFQ does not provide 

for such considerations in connection with the agency’s evaluation of past 

experience/past performance. We find OPTIMUS’s focus on the assigned points 

misplaced, since, as noted above, point scores are merely guides to intelligent 

decision making. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., supra. In any 

case, the RFQ expressly provided that the agency would assess the relevance of the 

firms’ past experience/past performance. The agency chose to do this by according 

greater weight to performance of the identical requirement, as compared to 

performance of contracts that were merely similar, but not identical to, the current 

requirement. This was a reasonable implementation of the RFQ’s relevancy 

evaluation standard, and while not expressly mentioned in the RFQ, is nonetheless 

logically encompassed by the evaluation standard included in the solicitation. PMC 

Solutions, Inc. B-310732, Jan. 22, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 20 at 3. 

Page 8 B-400777 
Page 9 B-400777 

after the submission of initial quotations constituted the opening of discussions, 

which obligated the agency to bring to OPTIMUS’s attention the weaknesses the 

agency identified in the technical portion of its quotation. 

This assertion is without merit. As noted, this requirement is being met through the 

FSS, and was conducted pursuant to FAR part 8.4. There is no requirement in FAR 

part 8.4 that an agency soliciting vendor responses prior to issuing a task order 

under an FSS contract conduct discussions with vendors regarding the contents of 

those responses, even where the solicitation does not specifically advise firms of the 

agency’s intent to issue a task order without discussions. Avalon Integrated Servs., 

Corp., B-290185, July 1, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 118 at 4. 5 Under FAR § 8.405-2(c)(3)(ii), 

where, as here, an agency is placing an order under the FSS that exceeds the 

maximum order threshold, it is required to seek price reductions below the prices 

included in the vendors’ FSS price lists. The agency’s request for price reductions 

was pursuant to this requirement, and therefore did not constitute the opening of 

discussions, such that the agency was obligated to engage in meaningful discussions. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

 

5

 OPTIMUS asserts that our Office will evaluate FAR part 8.4 acquisitions using the 

standards applicable to FAR part 15 negotiated procurements where the solicitation 

has all of the indicia of a negotiated procurement. It cites our decision CourtSmart 

Digital Sys., Inc., B-292995.2, B-292995.3, Feb. 13, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 79 at 7, in 

support of its position. The protester is correct that, in cases where an agency has 

issued an RFQ and intends to use vendor responses as the basis for a detailed 

technical evaluation, we will review the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it is 

consistent with the terms of the solicitation and standards generally applicable to 

negotiated procurements. In doing so, however, we are only applying the standards 

generally applicable to negotiated procurement by analogy; as specifically noted in 

the decision cited by the protester, the procedures governing FAR part 15 

acquisitions do not govern FSS program acquisitions. Id.; FAR § 8.404 (a).