United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: XTec, Inc.

File: B-404495.2

Date: November 4, 2011

Daniel S. Koch, Esq., and Kevin K. D’Anna, Esq., Paley, Rothman, Goldstein,

Rosenberg Eig & Cooper, Chartered, for the protester.

John E Jensen, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., Evan D. Wesser, Esq. and Nicole Y. 

Beeler, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Secure Mission Solutions 

LLC, the intervenor.

Reagan N. Clyne, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.

Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protest against evaluation of proposal is denied where the record reasonably 

supports the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal based on a diagram 

included in the proposal that reflected that the protester’s technical approach did not 

satisfy the solicitation’s requirements.

DECISION

XTec, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Secure Mission 

Solutions LLC, of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSSS01-

10-R-0046, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States 

Secret Service (USSS), for an access control and visitor management system. XTec

challenges USSS’s evaluation of its proposal.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The USSS issued the RFP for fixed-price proposals to modernize and integrate 

access control procedures and technologies for identification, physical access 

control, and logical access control at the White House and the Vice President’s 

residence. The system was to be installed on the Government’s site in the 

Washington, D.C. area. RFP amend. 1 at 4, 28.

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-404495.2 

The procurement was conducted using a two-phase process. In phase I, offerors 

were required to submit a preliminary response that the agency would utilize to 

pre-qualify offerors for participation in phase II. Award under phase II was to be 

made on a best-value basis, considering technical, lifecycle costs, past performance,

and price. The technical factor consisted of three subfactors: experience (as 

evaluated under Phase I), design/technical approach, and program management 

approach. With regard to the design/technical approach subfactor, the RFP stated 

that the offeror’s proposal shall effectively demonstrate a technical capability and 

appropriate solution path to perform and accomplish all requirements contained in 

the statement of work and specific system requirements documents. RFP amend 1 

at 52.

Nineteen proposals were received by the phase I closing on September 1, 2010. Six 

proposals, including those of XTec and Secure Mission Solutions, were selected to 

proceed to phase II.1

On December 17, the USSS amended the RFP and provided 

offerors with the statement of work and other sensitive and/or classified documents. 

The agency also provided offerors a site visit and an opportunity for questions and 

answers. On February 14, 2011, the USSS received four proposals in response to 

phase II. These proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation committee

(TEC). The results relevant here were as follows2

:

Offeror

Secure Mission

Solutions XTec

Technical Highly Satisfactory Marginal

Experience Highly Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory 

Design/Technical 

Approach Highly Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Program Management 

Approach Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory

Lifecycle Costs Low Risk High Risk

Past Performance Moderate Risk Moderate Risk

Price $4,813,432 $1,179,651

Agency Report (AR), Tab V, Source Selection Decision, at 4-5.

 1 XTec initially was not included among the phase I offerors selected to participate in 

phase II. After it protested to our Office, USSS determined that XTec was qualified 

to continue to phase II and the protest was withdrawn.

2

The possible ratings for the technical factor were outstanding, highly satisfactory, 

satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory. The possible risk assessment ratings for 

lifecycle costs factor were low, moderate, and high. The possible risk assessment

ratings for past performance were low, moderate, high, and unknown.
Page 3 B-404495.2 

Based on the evaluation results, the USSS made award, without discussions, to 

Secure Mission Solutions. In making the award to Secure Mission Solutions on 

July 13, the source selection authority (SSA) found with regard to XTec:

XTec’s price is significantly lower than the other . . . proposals . . . 

XTec’s lower pricing is a result of its proposed design/technical 

approach. Its design/technical approach proposes the leveraging of the 

[DHS] infrastructure and the [DELETED] thereby curtailing costs. The 

proposed design/technical approach does not satisfy the RFP 

requirements and stipulations.

AR, Tab V, Source Selection Decision at 6-7. After a debriefing, this protest 

followed.

DISCUSSION

Technical

XTec contends that the USSS erroneously and unreasonably evaluated its proposal 

under the design/technical approach and lifecycle cost factors. 

In considering a protest of an agency’s proposal evaluation, our review is confined to 

determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of 

the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. The Mangi Envtl. Group, 

Inc., B 299721.4, Jan. 24, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 37 at 4. Where, as here, a solicitation 

requires offerors to furnish information necessary to establish compliance with the 

specifications, an agency may reasonably find a proposal that fails to include such 

information technically unacceptable. Douglass Colony/Kenny Solar, JV, B-402649, 

June 17, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 142 at 3. A protester’s mere disagreement with the 

agency’s judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. 

HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 2. 

Based on a detailed diagram and accompanying narrative language in XTec’s 

proposal, the TEC concluded that XTec’s design/technical approach was 

unsatisfactory because it indicated that XTec would house major new segments of 

the system (to include the current DHS infrastructure) in geographic regions outside 

the Washington, D.C. area in violation of the RFP’s requirements. See AR, Tab N, 

Consensus Evaluation Report at 2-5; RFP amend. 1 at 4, 28. 

XTec does not dispute that the RFP required installation of the required system at 

USSS controlled premises, and that all performance was to be within the 

metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. Protester’s Comments at 2. However, XTec 

asserts that USSS “misapprehended XTec’s design approach,” which “clearly and 

unambiguously presented a solution that housed the servers and other components 

of the system at the USSS . . . sites, and not outside the metropolitan Washington, 
Page 4 B-404495.2 

D.C., area.” Protest at 6. XTec explains that the purpose of this portion of its 

proposal was to show that it would provide new systems identical to those it was 

operating at [DELETED] and [DELETED]. Protester’s Comments at 2-3. XTec 

explains that the diagram was intended to advise USSS that the system it would 

provide would be identical to the identity management system (IDMS) already in use 

at DHS with a line indicating the capability to access DHS’s infrastructure through 

OneNet if desired.3 Id. at 5.

We have reviewed XTec’s proposal, and in our opinion, USSS did not act 

unreasonably in concluding that XTec’s design/technical approach was based on 

using equipment located in areas outside Washington. In fact, the diagram in the 

proposal includes two boxes identifying specific equipment; labels applicable to the 

entirety of each box read “[DELETED]” and “[DELETED],” respectively. In addition, 

the identifying narrative explaining the diagram specifically states that the XTec 

design and technical approach “fully uses the substantial base already in place at 

USSS and DHS” and that its “solution blends DHS’ current identity management and 

access control infrastructure with additional components to fully implement the”

system being acquired here. AR, Tab M, XTec Proposal, at C-3. Further, as 

illustrated in the diagram, the box encompassing the protester’s system has a line 

connecting the system to DHS infrastructure located in [DELETED] and [DELETED], 

along with other various and sundry connections to other equipment through 

OneNet.4 No other supporting equipment is depicted, except access to the additional 

equipment and operations located at [DELETED] and [DELETED]. 

XTec argues, however, that a reasonable review of the rest of its proposal shows that 

USSS’s interpretation was unreasonable. For example, XTec points out that the 

proposal in two places specifically stated “[t]he XTec Team . . . is pleased to propose 

a solution that fully supports the [USSS] White House Access Control Project: 

system design, installation and migration at protective facilities in the Washington, 

D.C. area as specified in [the] solicitation.” See AR, Tab M, XTec Proposal at A-1, 

C-1. To the extent these statements suggest that XTec’s system will be located in 

Washington, D.C. (which is not clear), these blanket statements do not demonstrate 

that XTec’s design/technical approach met the requirements. See Douglass 

Colony/Kenny Solar, JV, supra, at 4. 

XTec also points out that the proposal also stated:

[DELETED]

 3

The protester argues that this could be a desirable feature, even though not 

required by the RFP.

4

The box on the diagram depicting XTec’s system only contains a picture of a desk 

top computer terminal.
Page 5 B-404495.2 

Id. at C-11. Finally, XTec points to another diagram in its proposal, which it argues 

shows separate servers, and argues that its proposal did not otherwise include any 

features that would accompany a technical approach based on remote hosting. See

AR, Tab M, XTec Proposal, at C-4. While we believe these portions of the proposal 

indicate that XTec’s system includes a dedicated on-site server, none of the other 

sections of the proposal referenced by XTec clearly shows that XTec’s entire system, 

including ancillary equipment, would be located, and operate in USSS facilities in the 

Washington, D.C. area.

5

In sum, we find that the record reasonably supports the agency’s evaluation of 

XTec’s proposal.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

general Counsel

 5

XTec also challenges the high risk rating it received under the lifecycle costs 

evaluation factor. XTec asserts that this rating was unreasonable because it was 

based upon USSS’s unreasonable interpretation of XTec’s technical approach. 

Because we found the USSS reasonably evaluated XTec’s technical approach, we 

need not consider XTec’s arguments concerning its evaluation under the lifecycle 

costs factor.