United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Trident World Systems, Inc. 

File: B-400901 

Date: February 23, 2009 

Richard D. Adams, Trident World Systems, Inc., for the protester. 

MAJ Walter R. Duke and Polly H. Chatham, Esq., Department of the Army, for the 

agency. 

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that solicitation requirement for Aerial Remotely Piloted Vehicle Target 

System including scoring hardware and services is unduly restrictive is denied where 

record established that the requirements were reasonably designed to ensure that 

the agency’s actual needs would be met, and the protester failed to establish either 

that it is incapable of meeting specifications or is otherwise competitively harmed by 

them. 

DECISION 

Trident World Systems, Inc. (TWS) of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the terms of 

request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-08-R-0311, issued by the Department of the 

Army for Aerial Remotely Piloted Vehicle Target System (RPVT) to include scoring 

hardware and services. TWS contends the specifications are restrictive and requests 

that the requirement for the scoring hardware and services be broken out for a 

separate award. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP was issued as a small business set-aside on August 6, 2008 and 

contemplated the award of a contract with fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost 

reimbursable line items for a base period with four 1-year options. The RPVT 

requirement includes support services, related support equipment, mission payload 

system devices and training to be provided by the contractor in support of 

demonstrations, simulation and live fire training and testing at designated locations, 

installations, and ranges worldwide. RFP at 5. The RFP also contained a 
requirement for scoring hardware and services for the RPVT the purpose of which is 

to provide accurate bullet counting and miss distance data for bullets/missile 

engagements on targets. RFP at 17. The RFP specifically listed three qualified 

scoring systems vendors but also stated that other scoring sources may exist and 

would be considered. RFP App. E. 

The initial closing date for receipt of proposals was September 19, 2008. The agency 

amended the RFP several times to respond to questions and concerns raised by the 

protester and other vendors and subsequently extended the closing date on several 

occasions. The final amended closing date was December 2, 2008. According to the 

agency, several timely proposals were received, including a proposal from the 

protester. 

The protester initially filed an agency-level protest with the contracting activity on 

October 14, 2008. In that protest, TWS expressed concerns about the requirement 

for the scoring systems and requested that this requirement be removed from the 

RFP. TWS also maintained that the information provided by the agency concerning 

the government furnished equipment (GFE) list was inadequate and asked for an 

extension of 30 days to submit proposals. However, prior to receiving a response 

from the contracting activity, TWS filed a protest with agency headquarters on 

November 24, 2008, In that protest, TWS raised the same issues as in its initial 

protest and additionally argued that certain revisions to the statement of work 

(SOW) should be removed from the RFP, that there should be a phase-in period, and 

that an operational ready date milestone should be established relative to the phasein period. Prior to receiving a response from the agency, TWS filed this protest with 

our Office on November 28, 2008 and raised the same issues. 

In preparing a solicitation, a contracting agency must specify its needs and solicit 

offers in a manner designed to obtain full and open competition and may include 

restrictive provisions or conditions only to the extent that they are necessary to 

satisfy the agency’s needs. 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1) (2000). A contracting agency has 

the discretion to determine its needs and the best method to accommodate them. 

Because any specification or solicitation requirement is restrictive in the sense that 

something is required of offerors, we only consider protests of restrictions that have 

an effect on competition, such as where a restriction precludes a firm from 

competing or works to its disadvantage in a competition. A.T. Kearney, Inc., 

B-225708, May 7, 1987, 87-1 CPD ¶ 490 at 3. 

As a preliminary matter, we note that TWS’ contentions regarding agency bias, are 

woven into all its challenges. In essence, the protester asserts that contracting 

officials are deliberately altering specifications and requirements to benefit the 

incumbent contractor, and to discourage prospective offerors. In our view, 

government officials are presumed to act in good faith and a protester’s claim that 

contracting officials were motivated by bias or bad faith must be supported by 

convincing proof; our Office will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to 

procurement officials on the basis of inference or supposition. Shinwa Elecs., 

Page 2 B-400901 
B-290603 et al., Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 154 at 5 n.6. Here, TWS has not provided 

convincing proof to support these allegations. 

In its protest and subsequent submissions, TWS primarily challenges the agency’s 

decision to include the scoring system requirement with the purchase of the RPVT. 

TWS does not argue that this requirement makes it impossible for TWS to compete 

but rather contends that complying is difficult and costly. While TWS ultimately 

concedes that there is no advantage to the government in separating the scoring 

services from the RPVT, it contends that the government should conduct the testing 

to determine the qualifications of competing scoring systems. In this regard, TWS 

argues that procuring the scoring system along with the RPVT--and placing the 

responsibility for selecting the scoring system on the offerors--puts the acquisition of 

at least one of these two systems at risk. TWS maintains that the scoring systems 

should be procured separately because procuring them simultaneously places too 

much responsibility on the small business contractor for verifying the accuracy and 

reliability of the scoring system. 

Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, the procuring 

agency has the burden of showing that the specification is reasonably necessary to 

meet its needs; we will review the agency’s explanation to determine if its is 

reasonable, that is, whether it can withstand logical scrutiny. Chadwick-Helmuth 

Co., Inc., B-279621.2, Aug. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 44 at 3. 

As an initial matter, we think TWS has failed to show that the decision to include the 

scoring system requirement in this procurement does not represent the agency’s 

needs. In any event, the agency here acknowledges that in the past it procured the 

scoring system under a separate contract, but explains that since the requirement for 

scoring services has been vastly reduced, the previous method of issuing two 

contracts to support the training mission was excessively expensive and 

cumbersome to the government. Agency Report (AR), Tab E, Technical Response at 

2. The agency also explains that incorporating the scoring system requirement into 

the larger RPVT contract will permit a more efficient use of government resources, 

enable the target services provider to select the most appropriate scoring system, 

and provide the government a single point of contract for targetry missions. Id. The 

agency notes that while three qualified scoring system vendors were identified in the 

RFP, any other scoring systems proposed would be considered by the government if 

they meet the RFP requirements. Given these facts, and the arguments raised, we 

conclude the agency has reasonably supported its determination to procure all its 

target mission requirements under one solicitation.1

 

 

1

 We note for the record that the protester has not alleged that the agency has 

improperly violated the bundling restrictions in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 631(j)(3) (2000). As a result, we do not address these restrictions in this analysis. 

Page 3 B-400901 
Page 4 B-400901 

To the extent the protester argues that only the incumbent knows which “qualified” 

scoring systems will meet the RFP specifications, there is no requirement that an 

agency equalize or discount an advantage gained through incumbency, provided that 

it did not result from preferential treatment or other unfair action by the 

government. Navarro Research and Eng’g, Inc., B-299981, B-299981.3, Sept. 28, 2007, 

2007 CPD ¶ 195 at 4. Neither preferential treatment nor other unfair action is 

evident here, especially since the agency identified three potential sources for the 

scoring system. 

TWS has also challenged several other specifications. We have reviewed them and 

find that the agency has reasonably supported its determination of its minimum 

needs. For example, TWS objects to the deletion of the sector location requirement 

from the scoring hardware specification. The agency reports that the removal of this 

requirement enables more scoring vendors to provide solutions to the requirement 

and may increase the number of scoring system options that would meet the 

requirement. TWS also objects to the agency’s position that it expects the awardee 

to be “mission capable” on the date of contract award, which according to TWS 

contradicts other portions of the RFP which indicate that there would be a phase-in 

period. 

The record shows that the agency in response to questions, has repeatedly advised 

offerors that for planning purposes the operational ready date should be considered 

the date of contract award and that there will be a phase-in period only in the event 

the contract is awarded while an incumbent is still performing target missions under 

a previous contract. While the protester objects to this requirement and desires a 

phase-in period, the agency has specifically stated that training missions are required 

to be performed by the incoming contractor on the first day of a new contract. We 

have no basis to conclude that this requirement is unreasonable or does not meet the 

agency’s need for continuity in its target training mission. 

Finally, we note that the agency, in several instances, amended the RFP to clarify or 

change certain specifications. The agency also extended the original closing date on 

several occasions from September 19 to the final date of December 2. From this 

record, we believe the protester had ample opportunity to submit a responsive 

proposal. While the protester expresses disagreement with the agency’s 

determination of its needs, the protester has not established that the agency’s 

requirements were unreasonably stated. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel