Comptroller General

of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

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: International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 

File: B-310424.2; B-310424.3; B-310424.4 

Date: September 23, 2008 

John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., and 

Matthew L. Haws, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter, PLC; and Robert Sonenthal, Esq., 

and Nina G. Nathani, Esq., Sonenthal and Overall, PC, for the protester. 

John E. Jensen, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., Pillsbury 

Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for The QED Group, LLC, an intervenor. 

Warren D. Leishman, Esq., Adam J. Bushey, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Ransom, Esq., 

Agency for International Development, for the agency. 

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s technical proposal is denied 

where record demonstrates that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with 

stated evaluation criteria. 

2. Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with protester is denied 

where record shows that discussions either were adequate to lead protester into 

areas of its proposal with which agency was concerned, or that allegations concern 

minor weaknesses that agency was not required to discuss. 

3. Raising limited cost-related questions with awardee during second round of

discussions, while requesting protester’s revised proposal without further questions, 

did not constitute improper disparate discussions; agency conducted detailed initial 

discussions with both offerors and found revised proposals acceptable, and only 

remaining questions concerned matters unique to awardee’s cost proposal. 

DECISION 

International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) protests the award of a 

contract to The QED Group under request for proposals (RFP) No. M-OAA-DCHADOFDA-06-1568, issued by the Agency for International Development (AID) for 

contractors to implement anticorruption programs pursuant to AID’s Encouraging 

Global Anticorruption and Good Governance Efforts (ENGAGE) program. IBTCI
asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal and failed to 

provide it with meaningful discussions. 

We deny the protest. 

The solicitation provided for the award of up to five contracts, including one set 

aside for small business concerns, the award in issue here. The solicitation provided 

that award under the set-aside would be made on a “best value” basis considering the 

following evaluation factors: technical understanding (with subfactors for technical 

soundness of analysis/proposed programmatic strategies, inclusion of innovative 

approaches, understanding of different strategic approaches, and understanding of

issues through discussion of specific relevant experiences); institutional capability 

(ability to evaluate country conditions, ability to implement and manage multiple 

complex international governmental integrity and anticorruption projects, ability to 

maintain relationships with host country counterparts, and ability to monitor 

implementation and impact of multiple complex projects); personnel (background, 

skills, and experience of proposed management personnel, the senior technical 

advisor and the contract manager, and background skills and experience of 

candidates proposed in each functional labor category); past performance; small 

disadvantaged business (SDB) participation program; and price. RFP § M. 

Three small business offerors submitted proposals and, following discussions and 

the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions, QED’s proposal was

ranked first technically with a score of 62.69 and a price of $5,771,170, and IBTCI’s 

was ranked second with a score of 57.14 and a price of $5,646,280. The agency 

performed a best value analysis and selected QED for award. IBCTI protests that 

decision.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION 

IBTCI raises numerous challenges to the evaluation of its technical proposal under 

each factor. In reviewing a protest against an agency’s proposal evaluation, our role 

is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 

terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Phillips Med. Sys. 

N. Am. Co., B-293945.2, June 17, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 129 at 2. We have reviewed the 

record and find that IBTCI’s arguments are without merit. We discuss several of

those arguments below. 

Inclusion of Innovative Approaches Subfactor 

Under the inclusion of innovative approaches subfactor (under the technical 

understanding factor), proposals were evaluated, among other things, based on 

approaches responsive to complex anticorruption strategies and programming 

challenges with regard to political corruption. RFP § M at 12. The agency assigned 

IBTCI’s proposal a weakness based on the technical evaluation committee’s (TEC) 

Page 2 B-310424.2 et al. 
finding that “[t]he revised proposal responds . . . with a complete and nuanced

discussion of political corruption and program approaches to address it . . . , [but]

there is still very little specificity about what programs in the three categories would 

look like.” Final Proposal Evaluation at 3. 

IBTCI asserts that, since the TEC found that its discussion of “political corruption 

and the program approaches to address it” was “complete and nuanced,” it was

inconsistent and unreasonable for AID to assign the proposal a weakness for its

discussion of the approaches to addressing political corruption. Protester 

Comments at 19. 

This argument is without merit. While the agency found that IBTCI’s proposal 

provided a complete discussion of political corruption and program approaches

addressing that corruption, it downgraded the proposal for failing to discuss the 

details of actual programs that would be implemented. For example, the proposal 

lists as one type of program addressing political corruption, “those aimed at creating 

an informed, demanding, and democratically oriented electorate.” Revised Proposal 

at 4. IBTCI’s proposal goes on to state that this type of program addresses the 

demand end of the corruption equation, and describes the benefits of these programs

and provides general information about them; for example, it states that “[m]ost 

interventions of this kind are carried out in collaboration with civil society 

organizations. . . .” Id. What is missing from this program description is a more 

specific explanation of the practical details of the actual programs that will be 

implemented. This is precisely the weakness identified by the agency. Accordingly, 

we find nothing unreasonable in the agency’s evaluation in this area.1

 

Ability To Evaluate Country Conditions 

Under the ability to evaluate country conditions subfactor (under the institutional 

capability factor), proposals were evaluated based on, among other things, the 

offeror’s demonstrated ability to draw on subcontractors and other institutions for 

expertise and to develop innovative program approaches to address emerging issues 

in anticorruption and government integrity. RFP § M at 12. The agency downgraded 

IBTCI’s proposal on the basis that, while it provided information regarding the 

 1

 Under the strategic approach subfactor (under the technical approach factor), AID 

found that IBTCI’s proposal failed to discuss the impact of weak institutions in 

rebuilding states. Final Evaluation at 3. In its report, the agency acknowledges that 

this comment was inaccurate based on an oversight brought about by the poor 

organization of the protester’s proposal, but maintains that this correction would 

have no real effect on the overall evaluation of IBTCI’s proposal. AR at 6. As this

was only one of several evaluated weaknesses in IBTCI’s proposal under this 

subfactor, based on the record, there is no reason to believe that it impacted the 

overall evaluation. 

Page 3 B-310424.2 et al. 
experience of its consortium members, their experience was in complementary 

program areas, not in comprehensive anticorruption assessments. Final Proposal 

Evaluation at 4. 

IBTCI argues that, since the RFP did not specifically require offerors to provide 

examples of comprehensive anticorruption assessments, it was improper for the 

agency to downgrade its proposal for this reason. The protester also argues that, 

since the evaluation factor concerns institutional capability, experience performing 

any type of comprehensive assessment should have been given the same evaluation 

credit as anticorruption assessments. 

The evaluation in this area was reasonable. First, while the RFP did not expressly 

require examples of anticorruption assessment experience of “subcontractors and 

other institutions,” such experience clearly was relevant to addressing the factor as 

described in the RFP--demonstrated ability to draw on subcontractors and other 

institutions for expertise and to develop innovative program approaches to address 

emerging issues in anticorruption and government integrity. RFP § M at 12. The fact 

that an RFP does not explicitly provide for considering certain information does not

preclude the agency from considering it where, as here, the information is 

reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated criteria. See MCA Research 

Corp., B-278268.2, Apr. 10, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 129 at 8. More generally, there was 

nothing improper in the agency’s considering whether IBTCI’s proposal provided

evidence of experience performing anticorruption assessments--rather than 

assessments generally--given that the requirement specifically concerns 

anticorruption programs. See generally Human Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers, 

Inc., B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 21, 1995, 96-1 CPD ¶ 35 at 3 (where solicitation provides 

for evaluation of experience, agency properly may consider extent of offerors’ 

directly related experience). 

Background, Skills, and Experience Subfactor

Under the personnel factor, the subfactor concerning management personnel called 

for offerors to demonstrate the quality and appropriateness of the background, 

skills, and experience of, among others, the proposed senior technical advisor (STA), 

including professional experience. RFP § M at 13. The RFP advised that overall 

credentials and developing country experience would be considered. Id. The TEC 

found many strengths in the protester’s proposed STA, but also identified as a 

weakness his lack of long-term, on-the-ground experience in assignments in 

developing countries. Evaluation at 13. IBTCI maintains that this weakness was 

unwarranted because the RFP did not require that the STA have long-term, on-theground experience. The protester asserts that such experience is unnecessary in any 

case, since the STA position is based in Washington and has primary responsibility 

for Washington-based activities.

Page 4 B-310424.2 et al. 
AID explains that, notwithstanding the STA’s physical location, it is important for the 

STA to have long-term, on-the-ground experience because the agency believes it 

provides useful insights, strengthens capabilities, and broadens understanding 

regarding the complexities of working in different cultural and political contexts, as 

well as with the unique and varied challenges international development 

implementers may face on the ground dealing with sensitive issues of corruption, 

government transparency, and imposing oversight mechanisms. Supplemental 

Agency Report at 2. More specifically, the agency believes that such experience will 

aid the STA in designing and providing advice regarding implementation programs 

by exposing the STA to many management and relationship building challenges that 

are part of implementing long-term, on-the-ground programs in foreign countries. Id. 

at 3. 

In response, the protester argues that the nature of the experience, not the length of

the experience, should dictate its value. The protester also argues that, since the 

agency states that certain skills and experience “may” rather than “shall” arise from 

long-term assignments, the agency itself recognizes that there is no basis for 

distinguishing between long- and short-term experience. 

The evaluation was reasonable. First, while the RFP did not specifically distinguish 

long- from short-term experience, there was nothing improper in the agency’s 

considering all experience of the proposed STA. Again, agencies are required to 

identify the evaluation factors and significant subfactors, but they are not required to 

identify all areas of each that might be taken into account, provided that any 

unidentified areas are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated criteria. 

MCA Research Corp., supra. Further, the protester’s semantic argument based on 

the agency’s use of the term “may” is disingenuous. The question, in our view, is not

whether a proposed individual definitely would benefit from certain experience, but

whether the agency has established a reasonable nexus between the required 

experience and the tasks the individual will perform under the contract. As noted, 

the agency has fully explained the specific benefits it believes are to be gained from 

long-term experience in management and relationship-building challenges, and the 

protester has not established that there is no reasonable nexus between the 

experience and the contract. While it is implicit, we think, that, as IBTCI asserts, the 

nature of the experience is important, that fact does not establish that the length of

the experience is not a valid consideration. 

Past Performance 

AID evaluated IBTCI’s past performance on a project in the Ukraine as a weakness 

(among other weaknesses), Final Proposal Evaluation at 5, based on a performance 

evaluation submitted by the Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO), which provided 

average and below average ratings and negative commentary regarding IBTCI’s 

judgment. Final Evaluation at 5. The protester claims that relying on this evaluation

was improper because the CTO transmitted the information to the agency in an 

Page 5 B-310424.2 et al. 
e-mail, instead of sending the contractor performance report (CPR) that was

completed during IBTCI’s performance of the project.

2

 

This argument is without merit. The agency explains that the CTO prepared a draft 

CPR during IBTCI’s performance of the contract and sent it to IBTCI for comments. 

SAR at 9. The CTO took the protester’s comments, including its dispute of negative 

ratings, into consideration, adjusted the ratings, provided a response to the 

comments, and forwarded the material to the contracting officer. Id. For some 

unexplained reason, no final CPR was ever prepared. When AID subsequently asked 

the CTO to provide an evaluation of IBTCI’s past performance, the CTO completed 

the past performance questionnaire based on the draft she had sent to the 

contracting officer. Id. There is no requirement that past performance evaluations 

be based on official CPR’s, see Del Jen Int’l Corp., B-297960, May 5, 2006, 2006 CPD 

¶ 81; Global Solutions Network, Inc., B-298682.3, B-298682.4, June 23, 2008, 2008 

CPD ¶ 131, and we see nothing in the agency’s explanation, or elsewhere in the 

record, that calls into question the validity of the information in question. 

Accordingly, AID’s consideration of the past performance evaluation provided by the 

CTO was unobjectionable. 

SDB Participation Program Factor 

Under the SDB participation program factor, proposals were evaluated based on the 

extent to which SDB concerns were specifically identified, the extent of commitment 

to using SDB concerns, the complexity and variety of the work SDB concerns are to 

perform, past performance in complying with goals for SDB concerns, monetary 

targets for SDB participation, and the extent of SDB participation in terms of the 

value of the total acquisition. RFP § M at 14-15. IBTCI questions why its proposal 

did not receive full credit under this factor, since it offered a participation target rate

of [DELETED] percent of the total contract value--which was higher than the target 

 2

 IBTCI also argues that it was improper for the TEC to rely on the e-mail from the 

CTO because the individual had been the CTO for only a short time, and there is no

evidence in the record that she had personal knowledge of the events on which she 

based her evaluation or that she consulted with someone with personal knowledge 

of the events. The protester also asserts that the Ukraine project is too old to 

provide a meaningful measure of its past performance. Arguments such as this must 

be raised no later than 10 days after the protester was or should have been aware of

them. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2008). IBTCI was aware of the 

negative comments on its performance of the Ukraine project no later than July 28, 

when it filed its comments on the agency report, but did not raise these arguments 

until August 11, more than 10 days later. Accordingly, the arguments are untimely 

and will not be considered. 

Page 6 B-310424.2 et al. 
in its initial proposal and addressed a question under this factor raised by the agency 

during discussions--and was not assessed any weaknesses or deficiencies. 

The evaluation in this area was reasonable. First, as noted above, the evaluation 

under this factor encompassed a number of considerations, not just the SDB 

participation target rate; thus, the fact that IBTCI offered a particular participation 

target rate, by itself, does not call into question the rating under the factor. 

Moreover, there is no requirement that a proposal that meets requirements without

any weaknesses receive all available evaluation credit. See Roy F. Weston, Inc., 

B-274945 et al., Jan. 15, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 92 at 15. The agency explains that, under 

this open-ended factor, proposals offering a higher percentage target, a greater 

number of SDB subcontractors, or SDB subcontractors performing a greater variety

of complex work received more credit. Thus, again, the mere fact that the protester 

proposed a certain participation target rate in no way establishes that its proposal 

should have received some higher evaluation rating.3 

DISCUSSIONS

IBTCI asserts that the discussions provided by AID were inadequate in several 

respects. 

Discussions, when conducted, must be meaningful; that is, they may not mislead 

offerors and must identify deficiencies and significant proposal weaknesses that

could reasonably be addressed in a manner to materially enhance the offeror’s

potential for receiving award. Lockheed Martin Corp., B-293679 et al., May 27, 2004, 

2004 CPD ¶115 at 7. However, agencies satisfy this requirement where they lead 

offerors into the areas of their proposals that require amplification, Professional 

Perf. Dev. Group, Inc., B-279561.2 et al., July 6, 1998, 99-2 CPD ¶ 29 at 5; agencies are 

not required to afford offerors all encompassing discussions or to discuss every 

aspect of a proposal that receives less than the maximum score, and are not required

to advise an offeror of a minor weakness that is not considered significant, even 

where the weakness subsequently becomes a determinative factor in choosing 

between two closely ranked proposals. MarLaw-Arco MFPD Mgmt., B-291875, 

Apr. 23, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 85 at 4. Agencies also need not afford an offeror 

additional opportunities to cure a weakness that remains in its proposal after it was

brought to the offeror’s attention during previous discussions. Portfolio Disposition 

Mgmt. Group, LLC, B-293105.7, Nov. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 232 at 2. 

 3

 IBCTI challenges the point scores its proposal received under various subfactors. 

However, since the RFP did not provide an objective scale under which certain 

scores would be assigned for certain proposal elements, this amounts to no more 

than a disagreement with the agency’s judgment; this is not sufficient to show that 

the evaluation was unreasonable. I.S. Grupe, Inc., B-278839, Mar. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD 

¶ 86 at 2. 

Page 7 B-310424.2 et al. 
We have reviewed all of the protester’s arguments and find them to be without merit. 

We discuss several of those arguments below. 

Discussion Of Political Corruption 

During the initial evaluation, the TEC was concerned with the adequacy of IBTCI’s 

discussion of political corruption, and therefore informed IBTCI during discussions

that “[t]he proposal does not adequately address the problem of political corruption. 

Please provide additional discussion of responses to political corruption.” 

Discussion Questions at 1. In its revised proposal, IBTCI addressed the question by 

discussing three categories of political corruption; however, the agency found that

the proposal failed to include details about what anticorruption programs in the 

three categories would look like, and assessed a weakness on this basis. Final 

Proposal Evaluation at 3. IBTCI asserts that the agency was required to point out

this weakness during discussions. However, it is clear that, by advising the protester 

that its proposal “does not adequately address the problem of political corruption. 

Please address additional discussion of responses to political corruption,” the 

agency led IBTCI into the area of its concern--the discussion of political corruption. 

This is all the agency was required to do; it was not required to point out to IBTCI 

during a successive round of discussions that it was not completely satisfied with its

response. See Portfolio Disposition Mgmt. Group, LLC, supra.

Adverse Past Performance Information 

IBTCI argues that the discussions were not meaningful because the agency did not 

provide the protester with the opportunity to respond to adverse past performance 

information concerning the Ukraine project. In this regard, where, as here, an 

agency holds discussions, it is required to allow an offeror to respond to adverse 

past performance information that it did not previously have an opportunity to 

address. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.306(d). As discussed above, 

IBTCI was given the opportunity to respond to the adverse past performance 

information when the CTO prepared the draft CPR. AID was not obligated to 

provide IBTCI with another opportunity to respond to that past performance 

information. Del Jen Int’l Corp., supra.4

 

 4

 IBTCI argues that the agency improperly identified as a weakness that its proposed 

team seemed to be put together on speculation, with team members that have little 

or no past affiliation with the protester. The agency reports, however, and our 

review confirms, that this was not considered a major weakness or deficiency in the 

protester’s proposal. Accordingly, the agency was not required to raise this matter 

during discussions. See MarLaw-Arco MFPD Mgmt., supra. 

Page 8 B-310424.2 et al. 
On September 18, 2007, after receiving and evaluating initial proposals, AID sent

discussion letters containing technical and cost questions to each of the three 

offerors in the competitive range with responses due by October 18. On January 28, 

2008, after reviewing the revised proposals, AID sent additional letters to each 

offeror requesting final proposal revisions (FPRs) by February 1. The letter that was

sent to IBTCI stated that review of its revised technical proposal did not reveal any 

further concerns, but that IBTCI was free to revise its proposal in any way it chose. 

Discussion Letter, January 28, 2008. While the letter sent to QED also stated that 

there were no further technical concerns, it provided four questions concerning 

QED’s cost proposal. Discussion Letter, January 28, 2008. QED was also advised 

that it could modify its proposal in any way it chose. Id. 

IBTCI argues that the agency held disparate discussions with it and QED because it 

pointed out weaknesses or deficiencies to QED that were in its proposal during the 

second round of discussions, but did not similarly point out any weaknesses or 

deficiencies to IBTCI. 

We find that the discussions were not objectionable. Following the first round of

discussions, although the scores of both the awardee (62.69) and the protester 

(57.14) remained relatively low, the agency considered both proposals technically 

acceptable for award. Negotiation Memorandum at 10. This being the case, the 

agency was under no obligation to revisit the issues that had already been addressed 

when it reopened discussions. See Professional Perf. Dev. Group, B-279561.2 et al., 

supra. At 5 n.3 (when agency reopens discussions it is not required to advise offerors

of continuing concerns in areas that have already been subject of adequate 

discussions). 

In its January 28 letter to QED, the agency asked four questions related to two cost 

issues. The first three questions concerned a new negotiated indirect cost rate 

agreement (NICRA) that had not been finalized when QED submitted its revised 

proposal. Discussion Letter, January 28, 2008. Since these questions concerned 

changed circumstances unique to QED’s proposal--QED’s new NICRA--and were 

tailored to those unique concerns, raising these questions did not trigger any 

obligation on the agency’s part to ask IBTCI similar questions, or to reiterate 

questions raised with the protester during the initial discussions. 

FAR § 15.306(d)(1); see also The H.J. Osterfeld Co., B-257630, Oct. 24, 1994, 

94-2 CPD ¶ 150 at 5 (agency should tailor discussions based on specific deficiencies

or weaknesses in each offeror’s proposal). 

The fourth question raised with QED, which stated that “Your proposed U.S. fixed 

daily rates appear high at the Junior Level. Please address this issue,” reiterated a 

concern raised by the agency during initial discussions. Discussion Letters, 

September 18, 2007 and January 28, 2008. However, while an agency may not have 

continuing discussions with only one offeror regarding a certain concern where it 

Page 9 B-310424.2 et al. 
has the same concern with other proposals, The Boeing Co., B-311344 et al., June 18, 

2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 114, an agency properly may reiterate a cost concern with one 

offeror--where that concern applies only to that offeror, and the agency has no 

remaining concerns for the other offeror. Portfolio Disposition Mgmt. Group, LLC, 

supra, at 2. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 10 B-310424.2 et al.