United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc.

File: B-405662.4; B-405662.5

Date: September 19, 2012

Wayne A. Keup, Esq., for the protester.

Steven L. Reed, Esq., and J. Daniel Puckett, Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP, for 

Anderson Construction Company of Fort Gaines, an intervenor.

Steven Sowell, Esq., and Megan O. Jorns, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers, for the agency.

Paul N. Wengert, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of 

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

DIGEST

1. Protester’s allegations of bias with regard to a former agency employee provide 

no basis to sustain the protest where the allegedly biased employee left the agency 

before the final evaluation and source selection decision took place. 

2. Protest that agency misevaluated proposals is denied where evaluation was 

reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria.

3. Protest that agency held unequal discussions by raising issues with the protester 

that should similarly have been raised with the awardee is denied where protester 

did not demonstrate that it had been prejudiced by the more thorough discussions. 

DECISION

Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. (RBS), of Frederick, Maryland, a small 

business, protests the award of a contract to Anderson Construction Company 

of Fort Gaines, of Fort Gaines, Georgia, by the Department of the Army, Corps 

of Engineers, Mobile Division, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. W91278-11-R-0040 for operations, maintenance, and repair services--

primarily in support of the recreational areas for boating, picnicking, and 

camping--at the Carters Lake Project Office in Oakman, Georgia. RBS argues 

that the Corps allowed the improper conduct of a government employee to taint 

the procurement in favor of Anderson, evaluated RBS’s and Anderson’s 

proposals unequally, held defective discussions, and made an unreasonable 

source selection decision. 

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.
Page 2 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

The Corps issued the RFP on May 5, 2011, seeking proposals to perform 

operations, maintenance, and repair services for a base year and four option years 

under a single cost-plus-award-fee contract. RFP at H-10; L-7. The RFP was set 

aside for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small businesses. 

The RFP set forth a statement of work, which described the types of buildings and 

recreational facilities, and identified the services required. The statement of work 

described a wide variety of duties, arranged into a general category, and 17 other 

specific categories, all of which are referred to as technical provisions (or TP’s). 

Under the 18 TPs, the SOW listed more than 150 subtasks, some of which were 

further subdivided. RFP at C-9 to C-36. For example, under TP2 (Buildings, 

Structures, Facilities Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Sewage and Water Systems), 

subtask 2.1 required the contractor to maintain and repair the “project management 

office, visitor center, powerhouse, powerhouse elevator, operations and 

maintenance buildings, gatehouses, restrooms, shower washhouses, well houses, 

storage buildings, shelters, and boathouse.” RFP at C-9. 

Under TP3 (Cleaning, Custodial Services, and Refuse Removal), the required tasks 

ranged from maintenance of grills and fire rings (subtask 3.3), litter removal 

(subtask 3.5), and camp site cleaning (TP 3.13), to cleaning of the hydro-power 

facility (subtask 3.15). Under the hydro-power facility cleaning subtask, the SOW 

noted that “[c]leaning of plate glass doors and windows in this area may require 

special equipment,” and further specified a non-exclusive list of duties, among which 

was the following: “Clean door glass, glass walls, and windows. Some windows are 

approximately 27’ above the floor.” Id.

The RFP directed offerors to submit separate technical and cost proposals, and to 

address in detail how the offeror would accomplish the Corps’s requirements, which 

the Corps refers to as “who, when, where, and how the work will be performed.” AR, 

at 6; RFP at M-2. The RFP stated that the Corps would select the proposal that 

provided the best value to the government, and described a technical/past 

performance evaluation based on 11 evaluation factors, having differing levels of 

significance, as follows: 

at C-14 to C-15. 

a. Technical Methodology -- Very Important 

b. Schedule and Control of Work -- Very Important 

c. Maintenance and Control of Government Property -- Very Important 

d. Experience -- Very Important

e. Past Performance -- Important

f. Quality Control -- Important

g. Subcontracting -- Less Important

h. Personnel -- Less Important

i. Personnel Policies -- Less Important
Page 3 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

j. Procurement Methods -- Less Important

k. Safety/Health and Accident Prevention -- Less Important

The RFP provided that each of the 11 factors would be rated adjectivally as 

excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. 

Id. 

Id.

The RFP also provided that each offeror’s cost proposal would be evaluated for 

reasonableness and cost realism. 

 

Id. at M-4. When combined, the technical/past 

performance evaluation was significantly more important than cost/price in selecting 

which offeror’s proposal provided the best value. Id.

According to the protester, at a time described as “several weeks” after the RFP was 

issued, employees of the incumbent contractor engaged in a conversation with a 

particular Corps employee.

at M-5. 

1

 Protester’s Comments, July 19, 2012, attach. 1, 

Declaration of [DELETED], at 1. According to reports of the conversation later made 

by those incumbent employees to the incumbent’s executives, the Corps supervisor 

allegedly stated that the incumbent employees should provide resumes to Anderson 

if they wished to keep their jobs. Id.

Thereafter, the Corps received six proposals, established a competitive range on the 

basis of the initial evaluation, held discussions, and ultimately requested revised 

proposals. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1. The technical proposals at issue 

here were extensive--RBS’s initial proposal had nearly 500 pages, not including 

copies of company procedures and forms that were included with it, which 

themselves amounted to hundreds of additional pages. Anderson’s proposal was of 

a similar size. 

 

As relevant to the protest issues, RBS’s proposal responded to the procurement 

methods factor with an explanation of the firm’s approach to procurement. The 

proposal stated that RBS would coordinate with government officials, place “ultimate 

authority” for procurement with the firm’s president, and have its superintendent 

provide financial and administrative responsibility, including functional oversight. 

The proposal also stated that RBS’s procurement practices would utilize 

competition, and comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. RBS Initial 

Proposal at 427. The proposal then continued with a more detailed explanation of 

RBS’s procurement processes arranged in 14 topics. Id.

 1 The employee is identified as both the Corps’s project supervisor, and the lead 

technical advisor for the procurement, until his departure, which the Corps states 

occurred before the contract award. 

at 428-450. RBS’s 

proposal also described its approach to performing services at the hydro-power 
Page 4 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

facility, stating that RBS would clean glass surfaces, although the proposal did not 

specifically mention cleaning windows. RBS Initial Proposal at 80-83.

The Corps evaluated the initial proposals and held discussions in two rounds. The 

discussions did not raise concerns with RBS about cleaning windows or about the 

firm’s procurement methods approach. See generally, AR, Tabs 10 & 11, 

Discussions Letters to RBS. The Corps then received and reviewed proposal 

revisions, which the Corps evaluated. The contracting officer selected Anderson for 

award on February 6, 2012.2

 Following a debriefing, RBS filed a protest, which it 

later supplemented. In response to those protests, the Corps announced that it 

would take corrective action. Our Office therefore dismissed RBS’s protests as 

academic. Re-Engineered Bus. Solutions, Inc.

The Corps thereafter convened a new evaluation panel and conducted an additional 

round of discussions. During this final round of discussions, the Corps notified 

Anderson of one significant weakness and one deficiency in its technical proposal, 

and commented on three issues regarding its cost proposal. AR, Tab 5b, Final 

Discussions with Anderson, at 1-2. The Corps notified RBS of 31 significant 

weaknesses or deficiencies in its technical proposal, and an additional two 

deficiencies and five additional comments on RBS’s cost proposal. AR, Tab 5a, 

Final Discussions with RBS, at 1-6. During the technical discussions with RBS, the 

Corps advised the firm of one deficiency and one significant weakness under the 

procurement methods factor, and a deficiency for failing to address all requirements 

at the hydro-power facility, “such as cleaning high bay windows.” 

, B-405662.2, B-405662.3, 

Mar. 14, 2012. 

Id.

Both Anderson and RBS submitted final proposal revisions. In response to the 

discussions, RBS indicated that it would be submitting a revised page--and an 

additional new page--to address the weakness and deficiency under the 

procurement methods factor, but now concedes that it accidentally omitted the two 

pages from its revised proposal. Protest at 6. RBS did revise its approach for 

services at the hydro-power facility to include the following statement: “Clean the 

high 27 foot bay windows.” RBS Final Proposal Revision at 83R. 

at 2, 5. 

The evaluation of final proposal revisions produced the following adjectival ratings 

for RBS and Anderson:

 2 As mentioned previously, the Corps states that its project supervisor/lead technical 

advisor no longer held those positions when the initial source selection decision was 

made. 
Page 5 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

Factor Anderson RBS

Technical Methodology Excellent Satisfactory

Schedule and Control of Work Good Satisfactory

Maintenance and Control of Government Property Excellent Good

Experience Good Good

Past Performance Excellent Excellent

Quality Control Good Good

Subcontracting Good Satisfactory

Personnel Satisfactory Satisfactory

Personnel Policies Excellent Satisfactory

Procurement Methods Excellent Marginal

Safety/Health and Accident Prevention Excellent Good

OVERALL Excellent Satisfactory

Evaluated Price (millions) $9.416 $9.153

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3; AR, Tab 7, Final Source Selection Evaluation 

Board Report, at 1. 

The final technical evaluation included narrative explanations of each evaluated 

strength, significant weakness, or deficiency, and of the evaluators’ rationale for the 

adjectival rating under each of the 11 factors. For example, in rating RBS 

satisfactory under the schedule and control of work factor, the evaluators explained 

that RBS had provided an adequate response, but that its single strength was that 

RBS proposed to use regular meetings to address the status of open work orders. 

Id. at 15-16. In contrast, the evaluators assigned a higher rating of good to 

Anderson’s proposal under the same factor, explaining that Anderson’s proposal 

showed three strengths that could provide significant benefit to the government: 

using [DELETED] during peak season, having [DELETED] maintenance crews, and 

discussing an approach to [DELETED] efficiently. Id.

In total, the evaluators identified 19 strengths, two significant weaknesses, and one 

deficiency in the evaluation of RBS’s final proposal revision. One significant 

weakness for RBS was assigned under the technical methodology factor, which the 

evaluators explained was because although RBS had added information on its 

approach to performing services in the hydro-power building, the firm had only 

mentioned cleaning windows in general, but failed to demonstrate an appropriate 

approach to cleaning the 27’ high bay windows. 

at 9. 

Id.

Since, as noted above, RBS failed to submit the two pages revising its approach 

under the procurement methods factor, the evaluators continued to assess both a 

significant weakness and a deficiency to RBS’s final proposal revision under that 

factor. As before, the weakness related to the firm’s failure to identify the lines of 

authority within RBS for authorizing and making purchases, and the deficiency was 

assigned because the proposal did not discuss the firm’s approach to conducting 

at 14-15. 
Page 6 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

procurements, and lacked a detailed discussion of how field personnel would obtain 

supplies and materials. Id.

The Corps evaluated Anderson’s cost at $9.416 million, while RBS’s evaluated cost 

was $9.090 million.

at 17. 

3

 AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision Document, at 9. The 

contracting officer then made a new source selection decision, which determined 

that the superiority of Anderson’s proposal justified the additional cost of 

approximately $325,000. In explaining this conclusion, the contracting officer 

contrasted her assessment of RBS’s approach as lacking a sufficiently thorough 

discussion of the firm’s approach--particularly in the areas where the deficiency and 

significant weaknesses remained--to Anderson’s thorough and sound approaches to 

all requirements following discussions. AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision 

Document, at 7-8. The contracting officer therefore concluded that Anderson’s 

proposal was comparatively better than RBS’s proposal, and merited award even 

though Anderson’s cost was higher, so she again selected Anderson for award on 

June 8, 2012. Id.

DISCUSSION

at 10. After a debriefing, RBS filed this protest. 

The protester’s challenges to the award fall into three main areas: that a Corps 

employee was biased in favor of Anderson; that the Corps misevaluated RBS’s 

proposal and treated the offerors unequally in the evaluation; and that the Corps 

held defective discussions. We will address RBS’s arguments under each area in 

turn, and as explained below, we conclude that none of them has merit. 

Corps Project Supervisor Conversation with Incumbent Employees

As noted above, RBS argues that the Corps’s project supervisor, who also 

functioned as the lead technical advisor in the initial evaluation, was biased against 

RBS, and had allegedly stated to employees of the incumbent contractor that the 

incumbent’s employees should consider submitting resumes for employment by 

Anderson. Protest at 4; Protester’s Comments at 3 & attachs. 1 & 2 (declarations of 

former incumbent contractor’s managers). 

The Corps disputes RBS’s characterization of the employee’s actions and, more 

significantly, explains that the individual at issue was already in the process of 

moving to a position in a different agency, had left by the time of the initial contract 

award, and had no involvement whatsoever in the reevaluation or the award 

decision at issue in this protest. AR, at 4 n.1; Supplemental AR, at 2-3. Accordingly, 

 3 The record reflects that as a result of a cost realism analysis, the Corps lowered 

RBS’s most probable cost by approximately [DELETED] to remove the price of 

certain [DELETED] that were deemed outside the scope of the contract. AR, Tab 8, 

Source Selection Decision Document, at 9. 
Page 7 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

the Corps maintains that the individual’s earlier alleged actions are not relevant to 

the validity of the award at issue in this protest. Although RBS does not 

meaningfully dispute the Corps’s representations about when the employee left the 

agency, it alleges that the taint of favoritism towards Anderson has not been 

removed. 

A protester’s claim that contracting officials were motivated by bias or bad faith must 

be supported by convincing proof; we will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to 

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

B-290603 et al.

Here, the protester’s basis for alleged bias consists primarily of oral reports by 

incumbent employees to supervisors, now retold to our Office only by those 

supervisors. Further, RBS has failed to provide any support for the assertion that 

such alleged bias had any effect on the final discussions, proposal revisions, 

evaluation, and ultimately, the source selection decision at issue here. In addition, 

all of these events occurred after the allegedly biased employee had left the agency. 

In short, RBS has failed to show that the alleged bias affected the outcome of the 

competition here. We will not sustain a protest on this basis. 

, Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 154 at 5 n.6. 

Evaluation of Technical Proposals 

RBS next challenges the two significant weaknesses and one deficiency that were 

assessed in the final evaluation under the technical methodology and procurement 

methods factors, and further challenges nearly all of the adjectival ratings assigned 

to its proposal. 

First, with respect to the assignment of a deficiency and a significant weakness to 

RBS’s proposal under the procurement methods factor, RBS argues that the 

evaluation was unreasonable, even though (as noted above) the firm concedes that 

it mistakenly omitted the two revised pages of its proposal that were intended to 

respond to the agency’s discussions questions on precisely those two points. That 

is, RBS argues that its proposal should never have been assigned a significant 

weakness or deficiency, and so the firm’s failure to respond to discussions on the 

issue was unimportant. 

The Corps responds that its evaluation identified reasonable concerns with RBS’s 

initial proposal--that it lacked detail on how the firm would handle purchasing of 

required supplies and equipment, and appeared to place all contractor purchasing 

authority with a single person. Thus, when RBS prepared revised proposal pages 

addressing those concerns, but failed to actually submit those pages, the Corps 

contends that its decision to retain the previous evaluation of a significant weakness 

and a deficiency--and to retain a marginal rating for the procurement methods 

factor--was reasonable. 
Page 8 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to 

reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether 

the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP criteria. Abt 

Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. It is an offeror's 

obligation to submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate. 

United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al.

We agree with the Corps. Notwithstanding RBS’s arguments, the record supports 

the Corps’s decision to downgrade RBS’s approach under the procurement methods 

factor. The evaluators provided a reasoned explanation to support their conclusion 

that RBS’s proposal needed to address more thoroughly how the firm’s workers 

would obtain needed equipment and supplies, and appeared to place all 

procurement authority in the hands of one person. The Corps’s concerns were 

brought to RBS’s attention during discussions. Since RBS’s mistake--failing to 

submit its replacement pages--meant that it did not respond to either of those 

concerns, the Corps reasonably evaluated RBS as marginal under the procurement 

methods factor. Since the evaluators felt that the unchanged approach would be 

impractical and problematic, the marginal rating reasonably reflected the nature of 

the unresolved deficiency and significant weakness in RBS’s final proposal. 

, Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 75 at 19. 

Second, with respect to the remaining significant weakness, RBS argues that the 

RFP did not require it to explain an approach to cleaning the 27-foot high windows in 

the hydro-power building. RBS argues that this was a minor omission, and that the 

firm’s promise to clean the windows should have been sufficient. 

The Corps responds that the RFP requested a detailed approach to performing all 

requirements, and with respect to the 27-foot high windows, the RFP further 

specifically identified the height of those windows, in recognition of the fact that 

cleaning the windows could require specialized equipment or procedures. The 

Corps maintains that it was reasonable for the evaluators to consider whether each 

offeror had shown a clear approach to safely and appropriately cleaning those 

windows. The Corps also contends that it was reasonable to assess a significant 

weakness, given that RBS’s final proposal revision merely stated that the windows 

would be cleaned, but did not show that the firm had considered the equipment, or 

special procedures, that workers would need to accomplish that aspect of the work. 

As noted above, our review of challenges to an agency’s technical evaluation is 

limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable. Further, statements 

in a proposal that are essentially blanket offers of compliance with the stated 

requirements are not an adequate substitute for detailed information necessary to 

establish how an offeror proposes to meet the agency's needs. Professional 

Performance Dev. Group, Inc.

In our view, the Corps’s evaluation here was reasonable. The RFP required offerors 

to provide a detailed approach, and specifically called attention to the existence of 

, B-311273, B-311273.2, June 2, 2008, 2008 CPD 

¶ 101 at 4. 
Page 9 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

windows that were significantly higher than usual, and thus required a specialized 

approach. Additionally, in the final round of discussions, the Corps specifically 

called RBS’s attention to its failure to address that requirement. Based on the RFP 

and the discussions, we conclude that the Corps appropriately considered whether 

RBS had shown an understanding of this aspect of the requirement. Since RBS’s 

final proposal revision merely committed to cleaning the high bay windows without 

elaborating on RBS’s intended approach, the Corps’s evaluation of a significant 

weakness on this basis was reasonable.4

RBS also raises challenges to nearly every evaluation factor, arguing that the 

evaluated strengths of its proposal should have raised its adjectival ratings higher 

than those that the evaluators assigned. Protest at 7-9; Protester’s Comments 

at 7-8. The Corps responds that the source selection evaluation board report 

provides a reasoned basis for each evaluation, and that RBS’s arguments do not go 

beyond disagreeing with the conclusions reached by the evaluators. 

 

Based on our review of the record here, we agree with the Corps. In our view, 

RBS’s arguments that particular strengths identified with its proposal under each 

factor should have resulted in a higher adjectival rating reflect mere disagreement 

with the reasoned judgments of the Corps’s evaluators. In this regard, the 

contemporaneous evaluation record shows that the evaluators were not arbitrary, 

but instead reasonably explained their judgments and conclusions. Our Office will 

not reevaluate proposals, and a protester’s mere disagreement with those 

conclusions does not demonstrate that those conclusions are unreasonable. 

UNICCO Gov't Servs., Inc.

Discussions

, B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 134 at 7. Since we 

conclude that the evaluation was thorough, reasoned, and consistent with the RFP, 

we deny RBS’s challenges. 

RBS raises two challenges to the Corps’s conduct of discussions. First, RBS argues 

that the Corps improperly held multiple rounds of discussions without posing any 

issues of significance to RBS, in an effort to ensure award to Anderson. Protest 

at 9-10. Second, in a supplemental protest filed after receipt of the agency’s report 

containing protected documents, including copies of the agency’s discussion 

 4 RBS asserts that Anderson’s proposal, which proposed to [DELETED] to clean the 

windows (including proposing a [DELETED]), was not meaningfully superior to 

RBS’s proposal--which simply stated that RBS would clean the windows. 

Accordingly, RBS argues that it was unfair to evaluate its proposal less favorably 

than Anderson’s. Protester’s Supplemental Comments at 7. RBS’s argument here 

is without merit; it was well within the Corps’s discretion to view the two proposals 

here as reflecting different levels of understanding and, therefore, to assess them 

differently. 
Page 10 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

questions and Anderson’s final proposal, RBS asserts that the Corps raised certain 

issues with RBS, but did not raise those same issues with Anderson. 

The Corps responds that discussions were held equally for both offerors, and that 

the discussions conducted with each offeror were based on the agency’s reasonable 

evaluation of their respective proposals. 

The record supports the Corps’s claim that it held equal discussions with both RBS 

and Anderson, and did not hold additional rounds to allegedly coach Anderson. See 

generally

Finally, RBS complains that several of the issues that were raised with RBS during 

discussions were equally applicable to Anderson, but were not treated as significant 

in the final evaluation for either offeror. Supplemental Protest at 2-3. However, RBS 

does not show how it was prejudiced by the allegedly unequal treatment that RBS 

received. In particular, RBS has not alleged that the discussions caused it to revise 

its proposal in a way that harmed it in the evaluation, or caused the firm’s costs to 

increase. 

, AR, Tabs 5a, 5b, 10, 11, Discussions with RBS and Anderson. Since the 

protester has failed to show factual support for its claim that Anderson was provided 

more extensive discussions than RBS, we deny this ground of protest. 

Competitive prejudice must be established before our Office will sustain a protest; 

where the record does not demonstrate that the protester would have had a 

reasonable chance of receiving the award but for the agency’s actions, we will not 

sustain a protest, even if deficiencies in the procurement process are found. 

McDonald-Bradley

Here, RBS has not demonstrated any harm resulting from the allegedly more 

expansive discussions that it received. Rather, the allegedly unequal discussions 

merely prompted the protester to provide a more thorough explanation of its 

approach to certain requirements (for example, a better explanation with regard to 

recycling light bulbs and electrical components, or a detailed method for pest 

control). Although the evaluators ultimately may not have considered this additional 

detail (or the alleged lack of similar detail in Anderson’s proposal) to be significant, 

RBS has not shown that being prompted to provide such detail diminished the 

, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 54 at 3. 
Page 11 B-405662.4; B-405662.5

likelihood that the firm would receive the award. Accordingly, RBS has not shown 

prejudice, and we deny RBS’s challenges regarding the agency’s discussions. 

The protest is denied.5

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel

 5 RBS also claimed that a copy of its proposal submitted to the Corps was, 

thereafter, “discovered to be missing.” Protest at 4. The contracting officer reports 

that all copies of RBS’s proposal have been maintained securely. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 4. Since RBS has provided no factual support for its 

complaint regarding the Corps’s handling of its proposal, this allegation provides no 

basis for sustaining the protest.