United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: J.R. Conkey & Associates, Inc. dba Solar Power Integrators

File: B-406024.4

Date: August 22, 2012

David S. Demian, Esq., Christopher R. Sillari, Esq., and Rodrigo F. Moreira, Esq., 

Marks, Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP, for the protester.

Shaquana L. Cooper, Esq., Charlma Quarles, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., 

Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest is sustained where the record shows the evaluation of protester’s proposal 

was unreasonable and, in making the award decision, the agency conducted a 

tradeoff only between the three proposals with the highest point scores but did not

consider the lower prices offered by other apparently technically acceptable lowerrated offerors, including protester.

DECISION

J.R. Conkey & Associates, Inc., dba Solar Power Integrators (SPINT), of Roseville, 

California, protests the award of a contract to R.E.M. Construction Co., of 

Pasadena, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-101-11-RP-0021, 

issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction of a 3.3 

megawatt (MW) photovoltaic system at the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare 

System Medical Center in North Las Vegas, Nevada. SPINT argues that the VA 

improperly evaluated its proposal and made an inadequate price/technical tradeoff 

decision.

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on June 7, 2011, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract 

for the provision of all labor, materials, supplies, transportation, equipment, and 

supervision necessary to provide a photovoltaic system. The system will be 

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-406024.4 

comprised of one 1.5 MW solar farm on approximately 10 acres with ground 

mounted single or dual axis tracking solar panels. The system will also include four 

steel truss canopy structures with fixed solar panels to provide 1.8 MW of power 

and shaded parking spaces below. RFP, Part 1, at ¶ A.1. 

Award was to be made, without conducting discussions, on the basis of price and 

technical considerations deemed most advantageous to the government.1

 If 

technical proposals were essentially equal, award would be made on the basis of 

lowest price. Id. at ¶¶ A4.A, A4.B. The solicitation set forth three technical factors, 

in descending order of importance: construction management, past performance, 

and schedule. All of the technical factors, when combined, were significantly more 

important than price. Id. at ¶ A4.B. 

Under the construction management factor, proposals were to be evaluated on the 

basis of three equally important subfactors, corporate project experience, project 

personnel experience, and technical/management approach. Id. at ¶ A4.B. For 

each project, offerors were required to complete a general contractor reference form 

found in the solicitation. RFP at 12. Under the schedule factor, proposals were to 

be evaluated on the realism and reasonableness of their proposed schedules. RFP 

at ¶ A4.B. The past performance and price factors are not at issue here. 

The contracting officer (CO) received proposals from 24 firms by the August 12 

closing date, including those from SPINT and R.E.M. Award was made to R.E.M. 

on September 28. SPINT filed a timely protest in this Office after its debriefing. On 

November 15, VA advised our Office of its intention to take corrective action by 

reevaluating proposals. We dismissed the protests of SPINT and another 

unsuccessful offeror as academic.

The technical evaluation board (TEB) reconvened to reevaluate the proposals and 

forwarded the results to the CO. The TEB prepared two documents for each 

proposal. One document was a score sheet form. Under the agency’s 

methodology, a maximum of 100 points was available for each proposal--45 points 

for the construction management factor (15 points for each subfactor), 30 points for 

the past performance factor, and 25 points for the schedule factor. Agency Report 

(AR), Exhibit (Exh.) 10, TEB Consensus Score Sheets. The other document was a 

narrative report form that summarized the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses. 

AR, Exh. 11, TEB Evaluation Reports. 

The CO, acting as the source selection authority (SSA), reviewed the TEB’s score 

sheets and evaluation reports. He ranked the proposals from highest point-score to 

lowest. R.E.M.’s proposal, with a point score of [DELETED] and a price of 

 1 Although the solicitation uses the term “cost,” we assume that the VA meant to 

use the term “price” since the RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract.
Page 3 B-406024.4 

$23,347,412, was ranked third. The two proposals ranked higher than R.E.M.’s 

proposal were also higher-priced than R.E.M. SPINT’s proposal, with a point score 

of [DELETED] and a price of $[DELETED], was ranked below that of numerous 

other offerors. SPINT submitted the second-lowest price.2

The CO noted the RFP’s instruction that all technical factors, when combined, were 

significantly more important than price. Without conducting any analysis of the 

technical merits underlying any proposal’s point scores, and without considering 

that several other proposals, including SPINT’s, offered lower prices, the CO 

decided to consider only the proposals with the three highest point scores—the “top 

three most highly technical rated offers”--for award. AR, Exh. 14, CO’s Rationale 

for Award, at 7. He eliminated one proposal based on its price, which was much 

higher than the prices of the other two proposals. The CO deemed the proposals of 

R.E.M. and the other firm essentially equal based on the closeness of their point 

scores as well as his analysis of their respective strengths and weaknesses. Id. at 

7-9. 

The CO acknowledged that a tradeoff process was appropriate where it might be in 

the best interest of the government to consider award to other than the lowestpriced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror, but stated that he 

“did NOT use the trade-off analysis” because he determined that the top two 

remaining “most highly rated offerors” were essentially equal. Id. at 9. As a result, 

he reaffirmed his award to R.E.M. on the basis of its lower price. Id.

SPINT argues that the VA improperly evaluated its proposal because some of the 

flaws it identified either do not exist or are miniscule. SPINT also argues that the 

VA failed to conduct an adequate price/technical tradeoff analysis because that 

analysis only considered the three proposals with the highest point-scores, and 

failed to consider whether their alleged technical superiority was worth paying a 

higher price than that offered by SPINT.

DISCUSSION

The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion. 

VT Griffin Servs., Inc., B-299869.2, Nov. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 219 at 4; IPlus, Inc., 

B-298020, B-298020.2, June 5, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 90 at 7, 13. In reviewing a 

protest of an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office will examine the record to 

determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the 

stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. 

Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc.

 2 The lowest-priced offer was $1 million--drastically lower than any other offer 

received and likely in error. 

, B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 

CPD ¶ 169 at 3. While we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, 
Page 4 B-406024.4 

we will sustain a protest where the agency’s conclusions are inconsistent with the 

solicitation criteria, undocumented, or not reasonably based. DRS ICAS, LLC, 

B-401852.4, B-401852.5, Sept. 8, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 261 at 4-5. As discussed 

further below, we find that the evaluation was unreasonable in several respects and 

inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

Construction Management Factor – Corporate Project Experience Subfactor

SPINT argues that the VA unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the corporate 

project experience subfactor with respect to its project descriptions and its 

information on the projects’ architect and engineers. 

The RFP required each offeror to demonstrate its corporate experience with 

projects similar to the instant project in both size and scope. In describing each 

project, offerors were required to provide five types of information, including: (1) the 

project title, location, and a brief description that included the building use and 

contracting method (design build, design bid construct, and so on); (2) the project 

owner and a point of contact; and (3) the project design architect and engineers 

(A/E) and a point of contact. RFP, Part II, ¶ C3.A.1.a. Again, the RFP required 

offerors to submit a general contractor reference form for each project. The TEB 

established a maximum score of 15 points for this subfactor, three points each for 

the five types of information. AR, Exh. 10, TEB Consensus Score Sheets. 

SPINT described its corporate project experience in both its proposal narrative and 

in proposal exhibits. The narrative listed six primary projects performed by SPINT, 

as well as other experience for SPINT and its subcontractors. The descriptions of 

each project were a sentence or two, with minimal details, and referred to the 

proposal’s exhibits for more information. AR, Exh. 7, SPINT Proposal, Section A. 

The exhibits, the required general contractor reference forms, contained similarly 

brief descriptions of the projects. Id., Exhibits A-E.

The VA awarded SPINT’s proposal 10 of the 15 available points, downgrading it for 

two reasons. First, the VA found that the proposal “[d]id not provide project 

descriptions.” Second, the VA found that the proposal did not provide any 

information on the project design A/E or the point of contact on the referenced 

projects. AR, Exh. 10, TEB Consensus Score Sheet for SPINT, at 1; Exh. 11, TEB 

Evaluation Report for SPINT, at 1. 

SPINT argues that its proposal did include brief project descriptions. As the CO 

explains, however, the TEB determined that the descriptions were too brief or 

limited for it to fully evaluate the firm’s experience. The CO states that, due to the 

minimal information SPINT provided, the TEB was unable to assess whether the 

complexity of the project(s) described were similar in size and scope to the system 

being acquired here. CO Statement, at 6. SPINT does not challenge this 

explanation, and we have no basis to question this aspect of the evaluation.
Page 5 B-406024.4 

However, the CO also states that SPINT’s proposal did not include the contracting 

method for these projects. CO Statement, at 6. Our review of the record shows 

that, for all but one of its projects, SPINT did include this information on the general 

contractor reference forms found in its proposal exhibits.

VA does not dispute that this information was in the exhibits, but argues that the 

forms were not in the narrative portion of the proposal. VA argues that SPINT did 

not organize its proposal “consistent with the technical factor prescription.” Supp. 

AR, at 4. In what appears to be its rationale for not crediting SPINT for including 

this information, VA argues that agencies evaluating one section of a proposal are 

not required to go in search of additional information that an offer has omitted or 

failed to adequately present, citing Carolina Satellite Networks, LLC; Nexagen 

Networks, Inc., B-405558 et al., Nov. 22, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 257 at 5. 

While the agency is correct, it does not bear the responsibility of an inadequately 

written proposal, the agency does not have license to ignore information in a 

proposal that is readily apparent. In Carolina Satellite, we rejected the protester’s 

assertion that the agency should have looked to information addressing other 

sections of the protester’s proposal when the agency identified weaknesses in a 

discrete section of the protester’s proposal. Unlike Carolina Satellite, however, the 

record here reflects that the allegedly missing information was not set forth in an 

unrelated section of the protester’s proposal; rather, it was contained in a 

reasonably identified proposal exhibit, and the information should have been 

apparent to the evaluators. 

In this regard, the record reflects that the solicitation did not require offerors to 

organize their proposals in any particular manner, and SPINT addressed the 

requirements in both a narrative, divided into sections that generally correlated with 

the evaluation criteria, and in a number of exhibits. SPINT’s proposal began with a 

table of contents that clearly identified the organization of its proposal, including its 

exhibits. For example, Exhibit A was identified as “Corporate Project Experience: 

Solar Power Integrators.” AR, Exh. 7, at 3. The exhibits are the general contractor 

reference forms required by the solicitation. SPINT’s narrative also clearly 

referenced the exhibits and their contents. While the VA complains that the 

proposal dividers and exhibits were not labeled, our review of the proposal leads us 

to conclude that its contents should have been readily apparent. SPINT’s proposal 

did include the contracting method for nearly all of its projects, and the record 

reflects that this information should have been readily apparent to the evaluators. 

As a result, the agency’s blanket statement that the information was not provided 

evidences an unreasonable evaluation.3

 3 SPINT also argues that its proposal included a point of contact for each project. 

We agree that the proposal includes “project owner” points of contact. However, it 

(continued...)
Page 6 B-406024.4 

Construction Management Factor - Technical/Management Approach

SPINT argues that the VA unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the 

technical/management approach subfactor with respect to its quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan and its project organization chart narrative. 

The RFP required offerors to provide six types of information under the 

technical/management approach subfactor: (1) project delivery philosophy; 

(2) QA/QC plan; (3) project organizational chart and narrative; (4) capability to 

perform (bonding capacity and current workload); (5) narrative describing the plan 

for phasing the work and related information; and (6) information on materials 

staging, temporary trailer offices, and other activities. RFP, Part II, ¶ C3.A.1.c. 

Both the evaluation score sheet forms and the narrative evaluation forms list five 

items for evaluation under this subfactor, each worth a maximum of three points: 

project delivery/philosophy; QA/QC; organizational chart and narrative; bonding 

capacity; and current workload. These five items correspond with only the first four 

types of information listed in the RFP, and omit any reference to the last two types 

of information identified under the subfactor--the phasing plan and information on 

staging and other matters. As discussed below, it appears that the TEB failed to 

consider this information in conducting its evaluation under the most important 

evaluation factor, construction management, and that it may have considered it 

under the least important evaluation factor, schedule.

In response to the requirement for a QA/QC plan, SPINT’s proposal stated that it 

proposed to use various checklists that it included in the proposal. SPINT also 

briefly described the pre-installation testing that would be conducted of the 

proposed photovoltaic module and inverters. AR, Exh. 7, SPINT Proposal, Section 

C.2., Exhibits K, L.

The VA evaluated the proposal as having a weakness because its QA/QC plan was 

“very weak” and did not address responsibilities and procedures in place to meet 

the contract requirements. The TEB assigned the proposal one of the three points 

available for this plan. AR, Exh. 11, TEB Evaluation Report for SPINT, at 3; Exh. 

10, TEB Consensus Score Sheet for SPINT, at 1. The CO explains that the TEB 

was unable to determine, from the proposal’s brief descriptions, how SPINT would 

perform its day-to-day QA/QC functions, who would perform inspections, or the 

frequency and extent of inspections. CO’s Statement, at 8.

 

(...continued)

is not clear from the proposal that SPINT addressed the requirement to provide 

information concerning the A/E and related points of contact. On this record, we 

have no basis to find this aspect of the evaluation unreasonable.
Page 7 B-406024.4 

SPINT argues that it should have received all of the available points because it 

provided checklists, but does not address the CO’s statement that its checklists 

were insufficient to warrant those points. As a result, we have no basis to find the 

evaluation unreasonable.

However, the solicitation also required the submission of a project organizational 

chart and narrative that included the team members submitted under the project 

personnel experience subfactor. Offerors were to clearly describe the firm and 

individuals with primary responsibility for the work, as well as the roles and 

responsibilities of individuals proposed as consultants and subcontractors. RFP, 

Part II, ¶ C3.A.1.c.3). 

The VA evaluated SPINT’s proposal as having a weakness because its narrative 

did not address roles and responsibilities of key personnel, and awarded it one of 

three available points. AR, Exh. 11, TEB Evaluation Report for SPINT, at 3; Exh. 

10, TEB Consensus Score Sheet for SPINT, at 1. The TEB assigned SPINT’s 

organizational chart--located in a proposal exhibit--the maximum points available.

We agree with SPINT that the record shows it did address the roles and 

responsibilities of its key personnel in its proposal. Specifically, the section of its 

proposal devoted to its organizational chart and team narrative included a detailed 

discussion of its proposed project personnel and tasks for which they would be 

responsible, as well as a list of its major subcontractors and their responsibilities. 

AR, Exh. 7, SPINT Proposal, Section C.3. For example, one of SPINT’s key 

personnel was its executive lead. In discussing this individual’s qualifications, 

SPINT included a heading entitled, “Tasks on Project,” under which it stated that 

she would be responsible for such tasks as coordinating structural and electrical 

engineers, updating the schedule, arranging for timely submittals of plan sets, and 

equipment submittals. Id. A similar paragraph was included for each of SPINT’s 

key personnel. 

Thus, on the record here, we conclude that the TEB incorrectly concluded that 

SPINT did not address this information, and that its evaluation was unreasonable.

Schedule Factor

SPINT argues that VA improperly evaluated its proposal under the schedule factor 

with regard to its narrative information. 

Under the schedule factor, offerors were required to provide two types of 

information. First, they were required to submit a progress schedule in a timescaled bar graph format. RFP, Part II, ¶ C3.A.3.a. The score sheet and narrative 

evaluation forms refer to this area as “Progress schedule,” worth a maximum of 15 

points. AR, Exh. 10, TEB Consensus Score Sheets, Exh. 11, TEB Evaluation 
Page 8 B-406024.4 

Reports. SPINT received 14 points for its progress schedule, and does not 

challenge the evaluation in this area.

Second, the RFP required offerors to specify how much allowance had been made 

for bad weather in the schedule, the days of the week and hours of construction 

operations during each phase, and the percentage of contract completion that 

would be achieved at the end of each month. RFP, Part II, ¶ C3.A.3.b. The score 

sheet and evaluation forms refer to this area as “Narrative/Weather Days/% 

Complete,” worth a maximum of 10 points--seven for “Narrative” and three for 

“Hours of operation.” AR, Exh. 10, TEB Consensus Score Sheets, Exh. 11, TEB 

Evaluation Reports.

The VA evaluated SPINT’s proposal as having two weaknesses with respect to the 

second aspect of the schedule factor, one because it did not address hours of 

operation, and another because its narrative “did not address project delivery and 

construction operations during each phase.” AR, Exh. 11, TEB Evaluation Report 

for SPINT, at 5. The VA awarded SPINT’s proposal no points for “hours of 

operation,” and four of seven points for “narrative.” AR, Exh. 10, TEB Consensus 

Score Sheet for SPINT, at 2. 

SPINT agrees that it omitted the hours of operation, but contends that it addressed 

project delivery and construction operations during each phase. SPINT cites 

several sections of its proposal as setting forth a phasing narrative and a description 

of staging/lay-down areas that describes the construction operations and project 

delivery methods. See AR, Exh. 7, SPINT Proposal, Sections C.5, C.6, Exhibit G.

The VA counters that the solicitation required more than a discussion of the 

construction operations at each phase, and that SPINT’s narrative failed to clearly 

specify the allowance in its schedule for bad weather; the days of the week or hours 

of construction operation during each phase; or the percentage of contract 

completion that will be achieved at the end of each month. Supp. AR, at 5.

Our review shows that both SPINT and the VA are correct. We note first that 

SPINT addressed this matter in the section of its proposal responsive to the 

technical/management approach subfactor since the last two criteria under that 

subfactor required offerors to provide a phasing plan and related information. Thus, 

as noted above, it appears that the TEB may have evaluated information that 

should have been considered under the most important evaluation factor, 

construction management, under the least important evaluation factor, schedule. 

The VA is also correct, however. Under the schedule factor, the RFP required 

offerors to specify their allowance for bad weather, days of the week and hours of 

construction operations, and percentage of contract completion to be achieved each 

month, yet SPINT’s proposal does not address any of these requirements. Thus, it 

is apparent that the VA could have reasonably downgraded SPINT’s proposal in this 
Page 9 B-406024.4 

regard. The VA’s contemporaneously stated reason for downgrading the proposal, 

however, simply has nothing to do with the schedule factor, and suggests that the 

agency was confused regarding its evaluation under the technical/management 

approach subfactor, and the schedule factor.4 Given the deficiency of the 

evaluation record in this regard, we are unable to conclude that the agency’s 

evaluation was reasonable or consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, 

and therefore sustain this aspect of the protest as well. 

Trade-Off Analysis

As a final matter, SPINT argues that the CO, acting as the SSA, failed to conduct an 

adequate price/technical tradeoff analysis because that analysis only considered 

the three proposals with the highest point-scores, and failed to consider whether 

their alleged technical superiority was worth paying a higher price than that offered 

by SPINT. We agree.

In a “best value” procurement, it is the function of the source selection authority to 

perform a tradeoff between price and non-price factors, that is, to determine 

whether one proposal’s superiority under the non-price factor is worth a higher 

price. Even where, as here, price is stated to be of less importance than the nonprice factors, an agency must meaningfully consider cost or price to the government 

in making its source selection decision. e-LYNXX Corp., B-292761, Dec. 3, 2003, 

2003 CPD ¶ 219 at 7. Before an agency can select a higher-priced proposal that 

has been rated technically superior to a lower-priced but acceptable one, the award 

decision must be supported by a rational explanation of why the higher-rated 

proposal is, in fact, superior, and explaining why its technical superiority warrants 

paying a price premium.5 Coastal Env’ts, Inc., B-401889, Dec. 18, 2009, 2009 CPD 

¶ 261 at 4; ACCESS Sys., Inc., B-400623.3, Mar. 4, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 56 at 7.

Here, the record shows that the CO impermissibly limited his price/technical tradeoff 

analysis to a comparison of the three proposals with the highest point-scores, 

regardless of their price, without any qualitative assessment of the technical 

 4 The confusion in this regard appears to stem from the fact, as noted above, that 

the worksheets used by the evaluators to rate offerors under the various evaluation 

factors and subfactors failed to include the last two criteria of the 

technical/management approach subfactor. These criteria pertained to the 

evaluation of an offeror’s written narrative plan for phasing the work, as well as the 

evaluation of an offeror’s use of the site for materials, staging, temporary trailer 

offices, etc. RFP, Part II, ¶ C3.A.1.c. Given that this problem appears to be 

associated with the evaluators’ use of defective evaluation forms, it is likely that it 

may have impacted the agency’s evaluation of other firms’ proposals as well. 

5 There is no evidence that any proposals was considered to be unacceptable.
Page 10 B-406024.4 

differences between these proposals and any of the other technically acceptable, 

lower-priced proposals--such as SPINT’s--to determine whether they contained 

features that would justify the payment of a price premium. A proper tradeoff 

decision must provide a rational explanation of why a proposal’s evaluated technical 

superiority warrants paying a premium. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

§ 15.308 (The source selection “documentation shall include the rationale for any 

business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits 

associated with additional costs.”); Coastal Env’ts, Inc., supra, at 4-5. Here, the 

SSA did not identify what benefits in R.E.M.’s proposal warranted paying a premium 

to R.E.M. when compared to SPINT’s apparently acceptable lower-priced 

proposal.6

PREJUDICE

As discussed above, the record shows that the VA’s evaluation of SPINT’s proposal 

was unreasonable in several respects and that the CO’s tradeoff decision 

improperly failed to include a qualitative assessment of the technical differences 

between the three proposals with the highest point scores and any of the other 

technically acceptable, lower-priced proposals to determine whether they contained 

features that would justify the payment of a price premium.

The VA, however, argues that SPINT was not prejudiced by these errors because 

there are numerous offerors with higher point-scores and the solicitation stated that 

the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. 

Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable 

possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency’s actions; that is, unless the 

protester demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have had a 

substantial chance of receiving the award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 

1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 54 at 3. 

Here, it is unclear precisely how much impact the deficiencies identified above had 

on the evaluation as a whole in terms of point scores or, more importantly, in terms 

 6 The CO’s mechanical decision to compare only the three proposals that received 

the highest point scores is not a valid substitution for the qualitative assessment of 

the technical differences of the proposals or of the benefits associated with a 

proposal’s additional cost. See FAR § 15.308; Burchick Construction Co., 

B-400342, Oct. 6, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 203 at 6, n.9. Point scores are but guides to 

intelligent decision-making; the propriety of a price/technical tradeoff turns not on 

the difference in point scores and ratings per se, but on whether the agency’s 

judgment concerning the significance of the difference is reasonable and 

adequately justified in light of the evaluation scheme. See Shumaker Trucking and 

Excavating Contractors, Inc., supra at 8.
Page 11 B-406024.4 

of the underlying assessment of the technical quality of proposals. It is true that our 

review shows SPINT’s proposal was reasonably evaluated in some respects, but 

equally true that the evaluation was unreasonable in other respects. It is also true 

that SPINT’s proposal was the second lowest-priced received, and, more 

significantly, lower-priced than the top three proposals considered by the agency for 

award. We cannot say whether the CO would have determined that the technical 

features of R.E.M.’s proposal justified the payment of a price premium if he had 

conducted a proper tradeoff decision. In such circumstances, we resolve any 

doubts regarding prejudice in favor of a protester since a reasonable possibility of 

prejudice is a sufficient basis for sustaining a protest. See Kellogg, Brown & Root 

Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-309752.8, Dec. 20, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 84 at 5. Accordingly, 

we conclude that SPINT has established the requisite competitive prejudice to 

prevail in a bid protest.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the agency reevaluate proposals in a manner that is consistent 

with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and properly document its evaluation. 

Upon completion of the reevaluation, the agency should perform and document a 

new price/technical tradeoff analysis. If R.E.M.’s proposal is not found to reflect the 

best value to the government, the agency should terminate for the convenience of 

the government R.E.M.’s contract and award to the offeror whose proposal is 

determined to be the best value to the government. We also recommend that 

SPINT be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Bid Protest 

Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1) (2012). The protester’s certified claims for such 

costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, must be submitted directly to 

the agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel