United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Argus & Black, Inc.

File: B-405813

Date: January 3, 2012

A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq., for the protester.

J. Dale Gipson, Esq., and Michael P. Johnson, Esq., Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne 

P.C., for Yorktown Systems Group, Inc., the intervenor.

Robert B. Neill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that awardee’s quotation failed to provide a fixed price for a particular 

contract line item (CLIN) is denied where the CLIN provided for the reimbursement 

of a vendor’s travel costs up to a not-to-exceed amount, to which the awardee did 

not take exception.

2. Protest that an awardee’s quotation was technically unacceptable is denied 

where the agency reasonably found the awardee’s quotation to be acceptable, 

consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria.

DECISION

Argus & Black, Inc., of Cary, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to 

Yorktown Systems Group, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for quotations 

(RFQ) No. W9124E-11-T-0061, issued by the Department of the Army for instructor 

support services.1

We deny the protest.

 1 Although the protest here concerns the placement of an order under an RFQ, the 

RFQ and the parties refer to the award of a contract as does this decision for the 

sake of consistency.

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-405813 

BACKGROUND

The RFQ, issued under the commercial item and simplified acquisition procedures of 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13, provided for the award of a 

fixed-price contract to train personnel in security force assistance, Iraqi and Afghan

cultural awareness, and personnel recovery. RFQ at 27; RFQ amend. 1, at 3; 

Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2. The PWS requires the vendor to provide 

qualified instructors, including a mobile training team, in several subject areas. 

See PWS at 2-18. Training was to be provided in accordance with relevant field 

manuals, guidance documents, and other requirements specified in the PWS. 

See id. For example, personnel recovery training was required to be based on 

the Army’s Field Manual No. 3-50.1, “Army Personnel Recovery,” and taught in 

accordance with the U.S. Armed Forces Command’s (FORSCOM) pre-deployment 

training guidance, as well as additional program instructions to be provided by the 

agency. See id. at 18.

Offerors were informed that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically 

acceptable basis considering the following evaluation factors: price, technical, 

and past performance. RFQ at 9. With regard to the technical factor, the RFQ 

required vendors to provide a detailed training methodology and document their 

ability to train students in accordance with the PWS and military policies and 

procedures. See id. With regard to price, vendors were instructed to quote fixed 

prices for four contract line items (CLINS 0001, 0002, 0004, and 0005). CLIN 0003 

provided for the reimbursement of a vendor’s actual costs for travel up to a 

not-to-exceed amount of $200,000 in accordance with Joint Travel Regulations 

and the PWS. Id. at 3-5: PWS at 20. In response to questions from vendors, the 

agency advised them to use $200,000 as a “plug number” for the CLIN 0003 travel 

costs. RFQ amend. 1, Questions/Answers, at 2.

The agency received five quotations, including those of Yorktown and Argus. 

Yorktown’s and Argus’s quotations were both found to be technically acceptable, 

and their price quotations were evaluated by the CO and the contract specialist. 

See Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 2-3; Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, 

Evaluation Memorandum, at 1-3. Yorktown’s quotation was evaluated as the lowest 

priced at $1,754,980, and Argus’s quotation was evaluated as the second lowest at 

$1,760,075. Id. With respect to the price evaluation, the Army used the $200,000 

plug number in evaluating vendors’ travel costs under CLIN 0003. CO’s Supp. 

Statement at 1; Supp. AR at 5. As pertinent here, Yorktown stated in its price 

quotation that “[i]n performance of the contract, travel will be invoiced on a cost 

reimbursable basis; [in accordance with] the [Joint Travel Regulations], [DELETED]

by Yorktown Systems Group.” See Yorktown’s Quotation at 16.

Award was made to Yorktown as the vendor with the lowest-priced, technically 

acceptable quotation, and this protest followed.
Page 3 B-405813 

DISCUSSION

Argus complains that Yorktown’s quotation should have been rejected because the 

awardee did not offer a fixed price for CLIN 0003. Specifically, the protester argues 

that Yorktown’s quotation, which stated that the vendor’s travel costs would have a 

[DELETED], was contrary to the RFQ’s requirement for fixed prices. See Protester’s 

Comments and Supp. Protest at 3-4. The protester also contends that in evaluating 

Yorktown’s price quotation the Army should have added [DELETED] to the $200,000 

plug number for travel costs under CLIN 0003 to reflect Yorktown’s [DELETED]. Id. 

Argus states that adding [DELETED] to Yorktown’s evaluated price would result in 

the protester’s evaluated price being lower than Yorktown’s. See id. at 3; Protester’s 

Supp. Comments at 3.

A quotation that fails to conform to material terms and conditions of a solicitation

should be considered unacceptable and may not form the basis for the issuance of 

a task order. Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc., B-296836, Aug. 9, 2005, 2005 CPD 

¶ 143 at 2. The requirement to propose fixed prices is a material term or condition 

of a solicitation requiring such pricing. Solers, Inc., B-404032.3, B-404032.4, Apr. 6, 

2011, 2011 CPD ¶83 at 4; Marine Pollution Control Corp., B-270172, Feb. 13, 1996, 

96-1 CPD ¶ 73 at 2-3. Where a solicitation requests proposals on a fixed-price 

basis, a price offer that is conditional and not firm cannot be considered for award. 

Id.; SunEdison, LLC, B-298583, B-298583.2, Oct. 30, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 168 at 5.

Here, contrary to the protester’s premise, the RFQ did not request the quotation of a 

fixed price for CLIN 0003. Rather, as noted above, the RFQ provided that vendors 

would be reimbursed their costs up to a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000 under 

this CLIN 0003 in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations and the PWS.2 See

RFQ at 4; PWS at 20. Nothing in Yorktown’s quotation indicates that the awardee 

took exception to solicitation provision that the firm would be reimbursed its travel 

costs up the not-to-exceed amount. We find that the Army reasonably evaluated 

all vendors’ quotations using the $200,000 plug number that was provided for 

CLIN 0003. See AR, Tab 11, Quotation Abstract.

Argus also complains that Yorktown’s quotation did not satisfy certain PWS 

requirements.3 See

 2 Argus does not contend that Yorktown’s quotation would violate either the Joint 

Travel Regulations or the specific provision of the PWS providing for the 

reimbursement of travel costs.

Protester’s Comments and Supp. Protest at 4-5; Protester’s 

3 Argus initially protested that Yorktown did not have relevant past performance, that 

the agency failed to consider risks associated with Yorktown’s compensation for 

course instructions and with Yorktown’s proposed hours of instruction, and that 

Yorktown’s price was not reasonable. Protest at 1-2. The Army responded to these 

(continued...)
Page 4 B-405813 

Supp. Comments at 3-4. In this respect, the protester states that the evaluators 

expressed concern over Yorktown’s personnel recovery training and failure to 

mention the relevant guidance, whereas the evaluators noted Argus’s proposed 

FORSCOM personnel recovery training. See Protester’s Comments and Supp. 

Protest at 5.

Simplified acquisition procedures are designed to, among other things, reduce 

administrative costs, promote efficiency and economy in contracting, and avoid 

unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. FAR § 13.002; Sawtooth 

Enters., Inc., B-281218, Dec. 7, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 139 at 3. When using simplified 

acquisition procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a 

concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in 

accordance with the terms of the solicitation. In reviewing protests of an allegedly 

improper simplified acquisition evaluation, we examine the record to determine 

whether the agency met this standard and executed its discretion reasonably. 

Computers Universal, Inc., B-297552, Feb. 14, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 42 at 4-5; DOER 

Marine, B-295087, Dec. 21, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 252 at 3.

Here, we find that the agency reasonably found that Yorktown’s quotation was 

technically acceptable. Although the agency’s evaluators noted qualitative 

differences between the vendors’ technical quotations, both firms’ quotations were 

found to satisfy the RFQ requirements and to be technically acceptable. With 

respect to the protester’s contention that Yorktown would not satisfy the requirement 

to provide training in accordance with FORSCOM guidance, the Army states that, 

although Yorktown did not specifically refer to the FORSCOM guidance in its 

quotation, the awardee fully explained its instruction methodology and how it would 

ensure that its training would be consistent with all applicable policy guidance.4

 

Supp. AR at 9. Based upon this, the Army found Yorktown’s quotation to be 

acceptable.5

 

(...continued)

arguments in its report. Because the protester did not in its comments address the 

agency’s responses, we consider these issues to be abandoned. Washington-Harris 

Group, B-401794, B-401794.2, Nov. 16, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 230 at 5 n.3. 

 Although Argus disagrees with the agency’s judgment in this regard, 

4 Yorktown’s technical quotation stated that its instructors would provide instruction 

in personnel recovery operations as required, and listed five policies and procedures 

that Yorktown would use in refining or developing training materials in that regard. 

Yorktown’s Quotation at 14.

5 The Army notes that there was no requirement in the RFQ that vendors repeat the 

title of specific training policies. Supp. AR at 8.
Page 5 B-405813 

the protester’s disagreement does not establish that the agency acted unreasonably. 

See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, 

Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel