Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: LOGMET 

File: B-400535 

Date: October 30, 2008 

Wayne C. Rankin for the protester. 

Maj. Jonathan P. Widmann, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 

Philip J. Davis, Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., and Jon W. Burd, Esq., Wiley Rein 

LLP, for M1 Support Services LP, an intervenor. 

Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 

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

DIGEST 

Where solicitation required offerors to document work experience and provide 

certifications for a number of skill sets in order for proposals to be determined 

technically acceptable, and protester failed to document that it had personnel with 

the required work experience and/or certifications for one of the skill sets, agency 

reasonably rejected protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable. 

DECISION 

LOGMET of Round Rock, Texas protests the rejection of its proposal and the award 

of a contract to M1 Support Services of Denton, Texas under request for proposals 

(RFP) No. FA3030-08-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the 

maintenance of training devices, aerospace ground equipment, and historical/static 

displays used by the 17th Training Wing and the Louis F. Garland Fire Training 

Academy located at Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, Texas. The protester 

contends that the agency unreasonably determined its proposal to be technically 

unacceptable. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 30-day 

transition, 1-year base, and three 1-year option periods, instructed offerors to submit 

technical proposals that showed work experience and included “certifications” for a 
number of “skill sets,” one of which was “Self Contained Breathing Apparatus

[SCBA] technician.”1 RFP at 45. The solicitation advised offerors that the agency 

would begin the evaluation process by evaluating the technical proposals on a 

pass/fail basis, and that to be determined technically acceptable, a proposal had to

document work experience and provide certifications for each skill set listed.2

 RFP 

at 49. The solicitation stated that the agency would then rank all technically 

acceptable proposals by price and evaluate offerors’ past performance, culminating 

in “an integrated assessment best value award determination.” RFP at 50. 

The agency received proposals from several offerors, including LOGMET. After 

reviewing LOGMET’s proposal, which identified (and furnished information 

regarding the experience of) only one prospective staff member, the agency sent the 

protester an evaluation notice that identified as a deficiency in LOGMET’s proposal 

its failure to submit “certifications/resumes for personnel filling specified skill sets.” 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 12. LOGMET responded by furnishing documentation 

pertaining to 14 prospective staff members and a reference table matching the 

proposed personnel with the required skill sets.

3

 The table identified two individuals

for the SCBA skill set. After considering the documentation submitted by the 

protester, the evaluators concluded that LOGMET had demonstrated adequate work 

experience and/or certifications for all skill sets except that of SCBA technician.

4

 

Because the documentation submitted by LOGMET did not show that either of its 

proposed SCBA technicians had the appropriate SCBA maintenance experience or 

certifications, the evaluators determined LOGMET’s proposal to be technically 

unacceptable and did not evaluate it further. The agency subsequently selected the 

 1

 Other “skill sets” were aircraft mechanic, aerospace ground equipment mechanic, 

maintenance pipe fitter, aircraft quality control inspector, maintenance carpenter, 

aircraft painter, welder, life support specialist, survival equipment specialist,

production control clerk, and fabric worker. RFP at 45. 

2

 The solicitation did not provide further guidance as to the certifications required for 

the SCBA technician position other than to indicate in the statement of work (SOW) 

that the contractor was required to ensure that employees performing maintenance 

on survival equipment were certified to perform maintenance “on all types of airpack 

portable breathing apparatus that the academy uses.” SOW at 3. 

3

 While in most cases, the documentation consisted of a resume, that was not the 

case in all instances, as discussed in greater detail infra. 

4

 The agency explained in its report on the protest that while some of the resumes 

made explicit reference to certifications, in others “the certification [could] be 

presumed because of the significant length of time the individual worked in a 

technical trade that typically requires certification or licensing.” Air Force 

Memorandum of Law at 13. 

Page 2 B-400535 
proposal of M1 Support Services, which was higher in price than the protester’s, for 

award. 

DISCUSSION 

LOGMET protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable, 

contending that the documentation that it submitted for the SCBA technician

position demonstrated that the proposed individuals had the appropriate

certification and/or experience from which the appropriate certification could be 

presumed. 

The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency, 

since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and deciding on the best

methods of accommodating them. We will question the agency’s technical 

evaluation only where the record shows that the evaluation does not have a 

reasonable basis or is inconsistent with the RFP. Pacifica Servs., Inc., B-280921, 

Dec. 7, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 137 at 3. Since an agency’s evaluation is dependent upon 

the information furnished in a proposal, it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit an 

adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate. Id. Here, based upon our 

review of the record, we find that the agency’s evaluation of LOGMET’s proposal as

unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with terms of the RFP. 

As noted above, LOGMET submitted documentation pertaining to two individuals for 

the SCBA technician position. The resume of one of the proposed individuals

(Technician A) listed as one of his qualifications that he was “SCBA (self contained 

breathing apparatus) Trained.” AR, Tab 13. Technician A’s resume also furnished a 

summary of his work experience (positions held, job duties, and supervisors’ names)

and the names of three references. Technician B’s resume consisted of a job 

description for an SCBA technician position at a local fire department, with his name

inserted at the top. In other words, rather than a typical resume summarizing the 

candidate’s qualifications, training, and experience, this “resume” furnished only a 

description of the essential functions to be performed and the skills/knowledge 

required for performance of a particular SCBA technician position. 

The Air Force explains that it could not determine from the proffered documentation 

that the proposed individuals had the requisite work experience or certifications to

perform the SCBA technician position. With regard to Technician A, the agency 

explained that the evaluators could not assume that “SCBA trained” meant that the 

individual had received training in the maintenance of SCBA equipment since “SCBA 

trained” could reasonably be interpreted as signifying simply that the individual had 

received training in the use of SCBA gear. The agency further noted that none of

Technician A’s work experience was in positions that required the performance of 

duties similar to those of an SCBA technician. With regard to Technician B, the 

agency explained that while the position description was a reasonably accurate 

summary of the skills and training required of an SCBA technician, there was no 

evidence that the proposed individual actually possessed those skills and training. In 

Page 3 B-400535 
this connection, the “resume” furnished no information regarding the employee’s 

experience and/or training that would qualify him for the position. 

In response to the agency’s argument that the evaluators could not reasonably 

assume that the phrase “SCBA trained” in Technician A’s resume indicated that he 

was trained in maintenance of SCBA equipment, the protester contends that the 

solicitation did not furnish any explanation as to the services to be provided--or the 

equipment to be maintained--by an SCBA technician. To the extent that the protester 

is arguing that the RFP did not make clear that the SCBA technician would be 

performing maintenance on SCBA equipment--and thus that experience in 

performing and/or certification to perform maintenance on SCBA equipment was

required--we think that, given that this was a solicitation for maintenance services, 

offerors reasonably should have understood that one of the functions to be 

performed by an SCBA technician was maintenance of SCBA equipment.

5

 

The protester also argues that if the evaluators had questions regarding the nature of 

Technician A’s SCBA training, they should have contacted one of the references

listed on his resume, who was identified as a “Firefighter/EMT--Paramedic.” We 

disagree. First, as noted above, it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit an 

adequately written proposal, and contracting agencies are not obligated to go in 

search of needed information that the offeror has omitted or failed to present. 

Delphinus Eng’g, Inc., B-296902, B-296902.2, Sept. 20, 2005, 2006 CPD ¶ 7 at 8. 

Second, there was nothing in Technician A’s resume to suggest that the 

firefighter/EMT whom he listed as a reference had any involvement in furnishing him

with SCBA training. In fact, there was no indication in the resume that the 

firefighter/EMT had been associated with the proposed technician in any 

professional capacity. 

With regard to Technician B, the protester argues that the documentation that it 

submitted demonstrates that the candidate secured employment with a local fire 

department as an SCBA technician, and thus he may be presumed to possess the 

qualifications, training, and experience necessary for such a position. We do not

think that it is apparent from the documentation furnished by the protester that 

Technician B in fact secured or performed the job described. Further, even 

assuming that he did fill the position described, there is no information confirming 

 5

 To the extent that the protester is arguing that the solicitation furnished insufficient

information regarding the services to be provided by an SCBA technician and/or the 

equipment to be serviced, this is an objection to the terms of the solicitation, which 

to be timely would have had to be raised prior to the closing date for receipt of 

proposals. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2008). 

Page 4 B-400535 
that he had the experience or qualifications for it, nor is there any information 

regarding the tenure of his employment at the job. 

In sum, we think that the agency had a reasonable basis for finding that the protester 

failed to demonstrate that it had a qualified individual to fill the position of SCBA 

technician, and, as a consequence, for determining the protester’s proposal 

technically unacceptable. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 5 B-400535