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: SEI Group, Inc. 

File: B-400829 

Date: February 13, 2009 

Charles T. Frew, Esq., for the protester. 

Steven W. Feldman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. 

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency’s evaluation of a firm’s past performance provided in its qualifications 

statement submitted in response to a synopsis for architect/engineer services is 

unobjectionable, where the evaluation was reasonable and conducted in accordance 

with the evaluation factors set forth in the synopsis. 

DECISION 

SEI Group, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the evaluation and subsequent 

nonselection of its qualification statement for negotiation of an architect/engineering 

(A/E) services contract, pursuant to solicitation No. W912DY08R0002, issued by the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama, to support the Range 

and Training Land program. SEI argues that the agency’s evaluation of its past 

performance information was unreasonable and not in accordance with the terms of 

the solicitation. 

We deny the protest. 

This A/E procurement was conducted pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. 

§§ 1101-1104 (Supp. V 2005) and its implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. In accordance with those regulations, on 

November 27, 2007, the agency synopsized its requirements on the Federal Business 

Opportunities website, announcing its intent to negotiate and award 

“[a]pproximately three indefinite delivery contracts.” AR, Tab 1, Synopsis, at 1. The 

synopsis invited interested firms to submit a completed standard form 330 (A/E 

qualifications statement) detailing their qualifications to provide the A/E services. 

Firms were advised that their qualifications would be evaluated under the following 

four “primary” factors, listed in descending order of importance: specialized 
experience and technical competence, professional qualifications, past performance, 

and capacity.1

 Id. at 2. The synopsis was amended several times. 

The agency received A/E qualifications statements from five firms, including SEI, by 

the response date of January 7, 2008. The qualification statements were evaluated, 

with SEI’s statement being ranked fourth of the five received. The agency notified 

SEI of its nonselection on April 18, and provided SEI with a debriefing on May 7. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. The record reflects that in response to the 

debriefing, SEI contacted the agency on May 12, and noted its concerns with the 

agency’s evaluation of SEI’s qualifications statement under the past performance 

factor. AR, Tab 5, SEI E-mail to Agency (May 12, 2008). 

Meanwhile, on May 5, another firm protested its nonselection to our Office, and on 

May 16, the agency notified our Office that it would be taking corrective action by 

revising the synopsis, and requesting and evaluating revised qualification statements 

from all firms. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. Accordingly, our Office 

dismissed the protest as academic. 

The agency received and evaluated the firms’ revised qualifications statements, with 

SEI’s qualifications statement being ranked fifth out of the five statements received. 

SEI filed an agency-level bid protest, arguing that the agency’s evaluation of its 

qualifications statement under the specialized experience and technical competence, 

professional qualifications, and past performance factors, was unreasonable.2

 The 

agency denied SEI’s agency-level protest, and this protest followed. 

In its protest to our Office, SEI (an incumbent contractor) argues that the 

procedures followed by the agency in gathering past performance information 

 

1

 The synopsis set forth evaluation subfactors for the specialized experience and 

technical competence and professional qualifications factors. It also included the 

following two evaluation factors that would only be considered “as a tie-breaker 

among technically equal firms”--small business, service disabled veteran-owned 

small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a), and HubZone business 

participation; and volume of Department of Defense awards. AR, Tab 1, Synopsis, 

at 2. 

2

 The firm that submitted the fourth-ranked qualifications statement protested to our 

Office. In response to this protest, the agency ultimately took the corrective action 

of issuing an RFP for negotiations to that fourth-ranked firm (as well as to the first-, 

second-, and third-ranked firms). 

Page 2 B-400829 
concerning SEI were inadequate, and that as a result, the agency’s rating of SEI’s 

qualifications statement as “satisfactory plus” was unreasonable.3

The evaluation of an offeror’s past performance is within the discretion of the 

contracting agency, and we will not substitute our judgment for reasonably based 

past performance ratings. In reviewing a particular evaluation conclusion, we 

examine the record to determine whether the judgment was reasonable, adequately 

documented, and in accord with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation. 

Helicopter Transport Servs. LLC, B-400295, B-400295.2, Sept. 29, 2008, 2008 CPD 

¶ 180 at 6. 

The synopsis provided that in evaluating qualification statements under the past 

performance factor, the agency would consider the “[p]ast performance of the prime 

firm and any significant subcontractors on [Department of Defense] contracts for 

projects relevant in size, scope and similarity to the services being procured under 

this synopsis with respect to quality of work, and compliance with performance 

schedules, as determined from ACASS [Architect-Engineer Contract Administration 

Support System] and other sources.” AR, Tab 2, Amended Synopsis (Dec. 27, 2008), 

at 3. 

In performing its initial evaluation of SEI’s qualifications statement under the past 

performance factor, the agency queried the past performance information retrieval 

system (PPIRS), and found no relevant projects for SEI or its proposed 

subcontractors.4

 Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6. The agency thus initially 

assigned a “neutral” rating to SEI’s qualifications statement under the past 

performance factor. AR, Tab 4, SEI Debriefing Letter (May 7, 2008), at 1. As 

indicated previously, SEI responded to the initial nonselection of its qualifications 

statement and subsequent debriefing by questioning its receipt of a “neutral” rating 

under the past performance factor, given SEI’s status as the incumbent contractor, 

with SEI noting that it “has performed or [is] performing 10 tasks” under the 

contract. AR, Tab 5, SEI E-mail to Agency (May 12, 2008). 

 

3

 SEI did not pursue at our Office its protest grounds that the agency’s evaluation of 

its qualifications statement under the specialized experience and technical 

competence and professional qualifications factors was unreasonable. 

4

 The agency explains that the “PPIRS is web-enabled, government-wide application 

that provides timely and pertinent contractor past performance information to the 

Federal acquisition community,” and “functions as the central warehouse for 

performance assessment reports” received from a number of “federal performance 

information collection systems,” including the ACASS. Contracting Officer’s 

Statement at 5. 

Page 3 B-400829 
As indicated above, the agency amended the synopsis on May 23. In this synopsis 

amendment, the following statement pertaining to the evaluation of qualification 

statements under the past performance factor was added to the prior synopsis 

section (quoted above): 

The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with 

Engineer Pamphlet 715-1-7, Appendix R. If any adverse past 

performance information is obtained, vendors will be given an 

opportunity to comment via the interview process. 

AR, Tab 7, Synopsis Amendment (May 23, 2008), at 4. Appendix R of Engineer 

Pamphlet 715-1-17 provides in relevant part: 

PPIRS will be queried for all prime firms. Performance evaluations for 

any significant subcontractors may also be considered. Any credible, 

documented information on past performance can be considered, but a 

board is not required to seek other information on the past 

performance of a firm if none is available from PPIRS. . . . Evaluation 

boards must also consider any information that a firm submits on its 

past performance on recent similar contracts, including design-build 

contracts . . . It is the responsibility of the firm to explain how the past 

performance information is relevant to the proposed contract. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6, Engineer Pamphlet 715-1-17, app. R, ¶¶ 3-4. 

SEI submitted a revised qualifications statement, as well as a list of “Completed 

Projects Due for Past Performance Evaluation” for consideration by the agency. AR, 

Tab 10, SEI E-mail to Agency (May 29, 2008); Tab 17, SEI E-mail attach. (May 29, 

2008). However, SEI’s list of past performance projects failed to include any points 

of contact regarding these projects. The record reflects that because the projects 

listed by SEI were in large part the same projects which SEI had described in its 

qualifications statement for evaluation under the specialized experience and 

technical competence factor--for which SEI had included points of contact--the 

agency was able to send questionnaires to these points of contact. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 6; AR, Tab 3, SEI Qualifications Statement, at 33-42; Tab 15, 

A/E Selection Board Report, at 95; Tab 17, SEI E-mail attach. (May 29, 2008). 

The agency received completed past performance questionnaires, which addressed 

“quality of work, performance schedules, compliance with the proposed design cost 

and a history of designing projects to pre-defined cost limitations,” for five of the 

projects identified by SEI, all of which were found to be relevant to the past 

performance evaluation to be performed here. AR, Tab 15, A/E Selection Board 

Report, at 95. The evaluators found that SEI’s overall past performance was 

evaluated on one of the projects as “very good,” two of the projects as “satisfactory 

plus,” and two of the projects as “satisfactory.” Given this information, the agency 

Page 4 B-400829 
evaluated SEI’s qualification statement as “satisfactory plus” under the past 

performance factor. Id. 

SEI specifically argues that the agency’s evaluation of SEI’s past performance was 

inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, in that the agency considered the five 

completed past performance questionnaires it received rather than information 

obtained from the PPIRS and ACASS regarding SEI’s past performance, which SEI 

asserts was required by the terms of the solicitation. Protester’s Supp. Comments 

at 1-2. 

We find this argument to be without merit. As mentioned previously, the agency 

queried the relevant PPIRS and ACASS, and found no entries regarding SEI’s past 

performance, and as such, there was nothing for the agency to consider in this 

regard. Therefore, the agency, knowing that SEI had performed relevant contracts, 

given SEI’s status as the incumbent contractor and the information submitted by SEI 

in both its initial and revised qualifications statements, obtained information from 

the points of contact identified by SEI in another section of its qualifications 

statement because of SEI’s failure to provide points of contact in its revised past 

performance submission. We fail to see anything unreasonable or improper in the 

agency’s actions here. Nor do we find that the agency’s actions are inconsistent with 

the terms of the solicitation, which provided that past performance information 

could be obtained from sources other than the ACASS and PPIRS. 5

 AR, Tab 2, 

Amended Synopsis (Dec. 26, 2008), at 3; Tab 7, Amended Synopsis (May 28, 2008), 

at 4.6

The protester argues that the agency’s past performance evaluation evidenced 

unequal treatment, in that the agency considered information obtained from the 

ACASS and PPIRS for the other vendors, but not for SEI, and that the agency’s 

 

5

 SEI argues at length that during the performance of the incumbent contract, the 

agency improperly failed to prepare the requisite reports regarding SEI’s 

performance for inclusion in the ACASS and PPIRS. This argument involves a matter 

regarding the administration of SEI’s incumbent contract, and as a consequence, is 

not subject to review by our Office. Del-Jen Int’l Corp., B-297960, May 5, 2006, 

2006 CPD ¶ 81 at 7; see Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(a) (2008). Moreover, 

as explained below, and contrary to the protester’s assertions, we see no evidence 

that the protester was prejudiced by the agency’s alleged failure to properly enter 

information regarding SEI’s past performance into the ACASS and PPIRS, given our 

view that during this acquisition, the manner by which the agency obtained 

information regarding SEI’s past performance, and the conclusions drawn from that 

information, were reasonable. 

6

 Appendix R of Engineer Pamphlet 715-1-7 (quoted in part above) incorporated into 

the solicitation by the May 28, 2008 synopsis amendment, also recognizes that the 

agency can consider past performance information not included in the PPIRS. 

Page 5 B-400829 
failures here resulted in SEI’s qualifications statement being downgraded because, 

according to the protester, past performance information obtained from the ACASS 

or PPIRS was given “more weight” by the agency than past performance information 

obtained through completed past performance questionnaires. Protester’s Supp. 

Comments at 2, 10. 

As explained previously, past performance information for SEI was not available 

from either the ACASS or PPIRS, and in our view, the agency, rather than treating 

firms disparately, reasonably obtained information regarding SEI’s past performance 

through the use of the questionnaires discussed above. However, there is nothing in 

the record to suggest that the agency accorded more weight to information obtained 

from the ACASS or PPIRS in the comparative ranking of firms to those, such as SEI, 

for which such information was not available. Simply put, the record reflects that 

SEI’s past performance rating of “satisfactory plus” was the result of the agency’s 

reasonable evaluation of the information received by the agency regarding SEI’s past 

performance, and SEI’s arguments here reflect nothing more than its 

misunderstanding of the record. 

The protester next raises numerous arguments with regard to the adequacy of the 

past performance questionnaire used by the agency, and the completed 

questionnaires received by the agency. For example, the protester argues that the 

questionnaire used by the agency and sent to the relevant points of contact was 

inadequate because it included six “open-ended” questions, and was thus different 

than the ACASS evaluation form, that according to the protester, “evaluates 

32 design and engineering attributes.” Protester’s Comments at 6; Protester’s Supp. 

Comments at 6. 

Based upon our review of the questionnaires, we find nothing objectionable 

regarding their composition. As explained by the agency, “while the ACASS form 

has a number of different data points than the questionnaire, all factors mentioned 

on the ACASS form are reasonably related to both the synopsis criteria and to the 

factors in the questionnaire.” Contracting Officer’s Supp. Statement at 8. For 

example, the questionnaires asked respondents to rate and provide a brief narrative 

explanation regarding “the overall technical quality of A/E services provided,” “the 

firm’s ability to meet the design schedule and to comply with the contract’s 

administrative requirements,” and “the firm’s cooperativeness, responsiveness, and 

commitment to customer satisfaction.” AR, Tab 20, Completed Past Performance 

Questionnaires for SEI. Although the protester clearly disagrees, we find that the 

questionnaires were reasonably constructed and adequate for their intended 

purpose, even though they differed from the ACASS evaluation form. 

The protester complains that one of the questionnaires was sent to the wrong point 

of contact, asserting here that the individual who completed the questionnaire was 

not the individual provided as the point of contact in SEI’s revised qualifications 

statement, and in SEI’s view, “would not have the same level of familiarity with the 

Page 6 B-400829 
project” as the individual designated as the point of contact in SEI’s revised 

qualifications statement. Protester’s Comments at 7. However, both individuals 

were identified by SEI--the individual contacted by the agency was in SEI’s initial 

qualifications statement, and the individual that SEI asserts should have been 

contacted was in SEI’s revised qualifications statement. Contracting Officer’s Supp. 

Statement at 9. Moreover, there is no requirement that an agency contact the 

specific individual designated by the vendor as the point of contact when seeking 

past performance information. Rather, the relevant inquiry as to who may furnish a 

past performance reference is whether the individual has a sufficient basis of 

knowledge to render an informed opinion regarding the vendor’s prior work efforts. 

Paragon Sys., Inc., B-299548.2, Sept. 10, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 178 at 8. SEI’s complaint 

here is that the individual contacted is not as familiar with SEI’s work as the 

individual SEI would prefer to have been contacted, not that the individual contacted 

was unfamiliar with SEI’s work. Additionally, we again note that the list of projects 

that SEI submitted with its revised qualifications statement failed to identify any 

points of contact in the past performance section, and the agency, on its own 

initiative, identified points of contact for these projects by referring to the section of 

SEI’s initial qualifications statement that addressed the specialized experience and 

technical competence factor. Although SEI would have preferred that the 

questionnaire be sent to the point of contact for this project SEI had listed in its 

revised, rather than initial, qualifications statement, we cannot find that the agency 

acted unreasonably given the circumstances here. 

SEI also complains that two of the questionnaires were inadequately completed 

given that they provided, for the most part, ratings of “satisfactory” without narrative 

explanation. However, SEI does not assert or provide any evidence that the overall 

ratings of its performance as “satisfactory” for these two projects was unreasonable, 

and as such, SEI has not explained and we fail to see how SEI was prejudiced by the 

allegedly inadequate questionnaires considered by the agency here. 

In addition, SEI complains that on one project, SEI received a contemporaneous 

rating of “exceptional” for its past performance as indicated on a survey form 

prepared by a government representative, which was provided by SEI with its 

revised qualifications statement, whereas that same individual also completed a 

questionnaire for this procurement regarding SEI’s performance on that same 

project and assessed it as “satisfactory plus.”7

 Protester’s Comments at 6-7; 

Protester’s Supp. Comments at 7; see AR, Tab 15, A/E Selection Board Report, at 114; 

Tab 18, Performance Survey Form (Fort Carson Project); Tab 20, Completed Past 

Performance Questionnaire for SEI (Fort Carson Project). The agency recognized 

this difference and explained that during the evaluation it gave “deciding weight to 

 

7

 The protester made a similar argument regarding the past performance evaluation 

for another contract, but in its supplemental comments stated that the agency 

reasonably reconciled the differences. Protester’s Supp. Comments at 7. 

Page 7 B-400829 
the questionnaire rather than to the survey form [because] the questionnaire more 

closely tracked the synopsis criteria.” Contracting Officer’s Supp. Statement at 5. In 

this regard, the agency has provided a detailed analysis of the survey form and past 

performance questionnaire, pointing out that the survey form contained items not 

relevant to this A/E procurement, which were “more suited to a construction 

procurement as opposed to one for A/E services.” Id. Although the protester 

disagrees with the agency’s actions here and suggests that because they were not 

reported in the contemporaneous evaluation documentation they should be 

discounted, we find the agency’s explanation to be reasonable and consistent with 

the evaluation record. 

SEI argues that past performance information regarding contracts performed by two 

of its proposed subcontractors that SEI had included in the section of its revised 

qualifications statement addressing the specialized experience and technical 

competence factor was unreasonably found by the agency not to be “relevant in size, 

scope and similarity to the services being procured” here. Protester’s Comments 

at 9; Protester’s Supp. Comments at 4. In response, the agency has provided a 

detailed explanation as to why, in its view, the projects were not considered relevant 

because, rather than being for design, one of the projects involved the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement and the other involved planning and siting. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 7; Supp. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 11. 

While the protester asserts that the agency’s determination to only consider design 

projects to be relevant past performance was too narrow because the services to be 

provided here could include the type of services that were provided under the 

referenced projects, we find that the agency reasonably determined that these 

projects were not relevant to the agency’s evaluation of SEI’s qualifications 

statement under the past performance factor, given the basic scope of services 

included in this A/E procurement. 

Finally, SEI argues that it should have been provided with an opportunity to respond 

to any adverse past performance information during discussions. Protester’s 

Comments at 5, 8; see FAR § 15.306(a)(2). The requirement that an agency raise 

during discussions adverse past performance information to which the offeror has 

not yet had an opportunity to respond is set forth in FAR Part 15, which is 

inapplicable to A/E procurements under FAR subpart 36.6. FAR § 36.601-3(b); 

HydroGeoLogic, Inc., B-311263; B-311263.2, May 27, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 218 at 7. In 

any event, even though the revised synopsis indicated that firms would be given the 

opportunity to address adverse past performance information, the past performance 

questionnaires least favorable to SEI rated its performance as “satisfactory” and 

generally provided throughout the questionnaires that all aspects of SEI’s 

performance were “satisfactory.” Thus, there is simply no merit to the protester’s 

contention that the agency was required to raise the matter of SEI’s past 

Page 8 B-400829 
Page 9 B-400829 

performance in discussions. See Symplicity Corp., B-297060, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD 

¶ 203 at 8; ITT Fed. Servs. Int’l Corp., B-283307; B-283307.2, Nov. 3, 1999, 99-2 CPD 

¶ 76 at 15. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel