United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: J5 Systems, Inc.

File: B-406800

Date: August 31, 2012

Nancy O. Dix, Esq., Dawn E. Stern, Esq., and Brandi J. Gill, Esq., DLA Piper LLP 

(US), for the protester.

Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and Charles L. Capito, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for 

Scientific Research Corporation, an intervenor.

Sandra Castro Cain, Esq., Ryan J. Friedl, Esq., and Kyle Eppele, Esq., Department 

of the Navy, for the agency.

Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated offeror’s oral presentation is 

denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the 

protester did not adequately address all required topics in the context of the 

assigned sample task. 

DECISION

J5 Systems, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the decision not to award it a 

contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66001-11-R-0004, issued by the 

Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), 

Systems Center (SSC) Pacific, for systems engineering, analysis, and technical 

support services. J5 asserts that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was 

unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The Command and Intelligence Division within SSC Pacific provides systems 

engineering, development, integration, test, and life-cycle support for a wide range of 

Navy, joint, and national command, control, communications, computers, and 

intelligence (C4I) systems both ashore and afloat. Performance Work Statement 

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-406800

(PWS) § 2.0. These systems serve to consolidate C4I functions along with 

cryptologic, navigation, environmental, and logistic capabilities to provide an 

integrated C4I capability to the warfighter. In general terms, the PWS required the 

contractor to provide C4I systems engineering, analysis, and technical support 

services to SSC Pacific, including command and intelligence systems analysis, 

concept definition, interface requirements, system development and design for 

implementation, integration, interoperability, documentation, upgrades, and training. 

Id., § 1.0. 

The RFP, issued on March 28, 2011, contemplated the award without discussions of 

multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ)-type contracts with a 3-year 

base period with one 2-year option. The solicitation provided offerors with an 

estimated level of effort of 410,800 hours for 5 years with 39.5 full-time equivalents 

per year. Award was to be made to one or more offerors whose proposals 

represented the “best value” considering five evaluation factors: past performance, 

organizational experience, oral presentation, participation of small business, and 

cost. The RFP provided that the oral presentation, organizational experience, and 

small business participation evaluation factors were in descending order of 

importance; these non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more 

important than cost.1

 RFP at 74.

The RFP established a complex, multi-step process by which the Navy would 

evaluate proposals. In Step 1, the agency was to evaluate offerors’ past 

performance and organizational experience. Organizational experience (as well as 

the subsequent oral presentation) was to be rated as either excellent, very good, 

satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Past performance was to be rated as either 

acceptable, unacceptable, or neutral; offerors found to have unacceptable past 

performance were not to be considered further for award. RFP at 75. After the 

evaluation of past performance and organizational experience, the Navy was to 

issue an “advisory opinion letter” indicating whether the offeror was considered to be 

a “viable competitor” for further evaluation.2 Id. at 76. 

In Step 2, an offeror’s key personnel were to deliver an oral presentation. Each 

offeror was to be given at the time of the oral presentation a sample task to discuss. 

RFP at 72. By means of this sample task “test,” offerors were to demonstrate their 

understanding of the PWS objectives both overall and in technical detail. Id.

 1 The RFP did not establish the relative importance of the past performance 

evaluation factor.

at 72, 

2 An offeror could elect to participate further in the evaluation process despite an 

advisory opinion letter stating that it was considered not to be a viable competitor. 

Id. at 76.
Page 3 B-406800

76. The Navy was then to evaluate offerors’ oral presentations with respect to their 

understanding of, and approach to performing, the sample task. Id. at 76.

Steps 3 and 4 involved the evaluation of offerors’ proposals under the small 

business participation and cost factors, respectively. In Step 5, the Navy was to 

determine which proposal(s) represented the best value to the government. Id.

at 77-78.

Eight offerors, including J5, submitted proposals to the Navy by the April 28 closing 

date.3 A Navy technical evaluation board (TEB) evaluated offerors’ submissions 

under the noncost factors. In Step 1, J5’s proposal was found to have “acceptable” 

past performance and “satisfactory” organizational experience. The contracting 

officer nevertheless issued J5 an advisory opinion letter stating that it was unlikely to 

be a viable competitor. Agency Report (AR), AR, Tab 6, Navy Email to J5, 

Aug. 17, 2011. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion letter, J5 elected to proceed 

with the oral presentation and the balance of the Navy’s evaluation of its proposal. 

AR, Tab 7, J5 Letter to Navy, Aug. 19, 2011.

After oral presentations were held, the Navy completed its evaluation. The 

proposals were first evaluated individually by the TEB members. AR, Tab 83, 

Declaration of TEB Chair, July 16, 2012, at 1. Following their independent review, 

the TEB met to discuss each proposal and establish a consensus evaluation. Id. 

The evaluators’ adjectival ratings were supported by narratives detailing the various 

strengths and weaknesses identified in the offerors' proposals. Id., Tab 11, TEB 

Consensus Report at 41-48. The final consensus evaluation ratings and costs of the 

remaining offerors’ proposals were as follows:

Offeror Oral 

Presentation

Organizational 

Experience

Sm. Business 

Participation

Evaluated 

Cost

Accenture Excellent Very Good Exceptional $43,390,845

BAH Excellent Very Good Exceptional $35,596,517

SRC Excellent Very Good Exceptional $25,473,634

FGM Excellent Satisfactory Exceptional $29,492,903

SAIC Excellent Satisfactory Exceptional $40,189,743

J5 Marginal Satisfactory Exceptional $40,121,470

Offeror G Marginal Satisfactory Exceptional $40,489,156

Id., Tab 11, TEB Consensus Report, at 41-48, 79; Tab 12, Source Selection 

Decision, at 1-2, 9-11, 48-51.

 3 Other offerors included Accenture Federal Services LLC, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. 

(BAH), Scientific Research Corporation (SRC), FGM, Inc., and Science Applications 

International Corporation (SAIC).
Page 4 B-406800

The contracting officer as source selection authority subsequently determined that 

the top five proposals represented the “best value” to the government. On May 11, 

2012, the Navy awarded contracts to Accenture, BAH, SRC, FGM, and SAIC. After 

receiving a postaward debriefing that ended on May 24, 2012, J5 filed this protest 

with our Office.

DISCUSSION

J5 challenges the agency’s evaluation of its own proposal with respect to 

organizational experience and the oral presentation. The protester asserts that the 

weaknesses identified by the Navy in these areas were unreasonable in light of the 

information presented to the agency. As detailed below, we find no basis on which 

to sustain J5’s protest.

Evaluation of Organizational Experience

J5 asserts that the Navy’s evaluation of its proposal with regard to the organizational 

experience factor was unreasonable. Specifically, the protester maintains that all of 

the weaknesses identified by the agency evaluators were in fact adequately 

addressed in J5’s proposal by the references the offeror submitted. Had the Navy 

fully considered all the information in its proposal, J5 argues, its proposal would 

have received a “very good” rating for organizational experience. 

The RFP required offerors to submit reference information sheets for not more than 

five references demonstrating experience in the various key sections of the PWS. 

RFP at 66-67. In this regard, the solicitation provided that an offeror would be 

evaluated on the extent to which its proposal demonstrated relevant organizational 

experience performing across the PWS’s key sections. Id. at 76.

J5 submitted five references regarding its organizational experience. AR, Tab 4, J5 

Proposal, at III-A-1 to III-A-18. The TEB evaluated J5’s organizational experience as 

”satisfactory,” but identified six significant weaknesses based on aspects of the PWS 

for which J5’s proposal did not evidence experience.4

 Id., Tab 11, TEB Consensus 

Report, at 43-47. The Navy first informed J5 of these organizational experience 

weaknesses in the August 17, 2011 advisory opinion letter, and then again in the 

May 24, 2012 postaward debriefing. Id.

 4 For example, the TEB found that, “[t]he offeror did not provide evidence of 

providing a turnkey solution, or spiral development processes for C4I proof-ofconcept and prototype systems and networks. Id., Tab 11, TEB Consensus Report, 

at 47.

, Tab 6, Navy Email to J5, Aug. 17, 2011; 

Tab 14, J5 Debriefing, May 24, 2012, 4-9. However, in its initial protest J5 asserted 

only that, “[i]n light of J5’s excellent past performance ratings under the prior 
Page 5 B-406800

systems engineering contract, the agency’s conclusion that J5 lacked breadth and 

depth of relevant experience is unsupported and lacks a rational basis.” Protest, 

May 25, 2012, at 3. It was not until July 6 that J5 first raised the “separate [protest] 

ground” that its organizational experience proposal adequately discussed all of the 

areas identified by the TEB as weaknesses. J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 3.

We dismiss this latter issue as untimely. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a 

protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no 

later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the 

basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2012). Where a 

protester initially files a timely protest, and later supplements it with independent 

protest grounds, the later-raised allegations must independently satisfy the 

timeliness requirements, since our Regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted 

piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues. AINS, Inc., B-405902.3, 

May 31, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 180 at 6 n.12; FR Countermeasures, Inc., B-295375, 

Feb. 10, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 52 at 9. Because the protest ground is based on 

information provided to J5 on or before May 24, and was raised for the first time in 

its July 6 filing--after the 10-day period permitted by our Bid Protest Regulations--the 

protest ground is untimely.

J5 argues that its protest here is timely insofar as its initial challenge was to the 

Navy’s organizational experience evaluation as a whole. J5 Comments, July 20, 

2012, at 21. We disagree. While its initial protest challenged the agency’s 

organizational experience evaluation, J5 relied on its claimed excellent past 

performance ratings under the prior systems engineering contract. It was not until its 

response to the agency’s report that J5 first alleged--and offered the type of details 

required to state a valid basis for protest--that the organizational experience 

evaluation was unreasonable in light of the information in J5’s organizational 

experience proposal. This detailed submission purporting to support J5’s earlier 

broad allegation, however, was not filed until at least 6 weeks after the protester had 

received the information on which the protest relies. Where a protester raises a 

broad ground of protest in its initial submission but fails to provide details within its 

knowledge until later, so that a further response from the agency would be needed 

to adequately review the matter, these latter more specific arguments and issues 

cannot be considered unless they independently satisfy the timeliness requirements 

under our Bid Protest Regulations. Foundation Eng’g Scis., Inc., B-292834, 

B-292834.2, Dec. 12, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 229 at 6-7. Since J5 failed to provide these 

latter detailed contentions within 10 days of its receipt of the information upon which 

they are based, they are untimely and will not be considered further. Id.

Evaluation of Oral Presentation

J5 protests the Navy’s evaluation of its oral presentation, challenging each of the 

significant weaknesses and weaknesses attributed to its presentation. Further, the 

protester contends that the TEB’s consensus evaluation ratings were unreasonable 
Page 6 B-406800

because they were inconsistent with the evaluators’ preliminary ratings. Had the 

agency conducted a proper evaluation, J5 argues, it would have received an 

“excellent” or “very good” rating for the oral presentation and would have been 

among the offerors whose proposals were deemed the “best value” to the 

government.

Although we do not specifically address all of J5’s arguments regarding the Navy’s 

evaluation of the offeror’s oral presentation, we have fully considered all of them and 

find that they furnish no basis on which to sustain the protest.

In reviewing a protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals, including 

oral presentations, our Office will not reevaluate proposals nor substitute our 

judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is generally a matter 

within the agency’s discretion. Naiad Inflatables of Newport, B-405221, Sept. 19, 

2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 37 at 6; Science Applications Int’l Corp., B-290971 et al., Oct. 16, 

2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 184 at 4. Rather, we will review the record only to determine 

whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated 

evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations. 

Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 

2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. An offeror’s mere disagreement with an agency’s judgment is 

insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Birdwell Bros. Painting 

& Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 129 at 5. Further, since an 

agency’s evaluation is dependent on the information furnished in a proposal, it is the 

offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequate proposal for the agency to evaluate. 

See Structural Assocs., Inc., B-403085.2, Sept. 21, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 234 at 3. 

Agencies are not required to adapt their evaluation to comply with an offeror’s 

submission, or otherwise go in search of information that an offeror has omitted or 

failed adequately to present. Naiad Inflatables of Newport, supra; LS3 Inc., 

B-401948.11, July 21, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 168 at 3 n.1; Hi-Tec Sys., Inc., B-402590, 

B-402590.2, June 7, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 156 at 3.

As set forth above, the purpose of the oral presentation here was to assess the 

technical understanding of an offeror’s key personnel by means of a sample task 

“test.” RFP at 72. Following receipt of the sample task, offerors were given 

21⁄2 hours to caucus and prepare a presentation. AR, Tab 8, Oral Presentation 

Guidelines, at 1. They were then provided up to 90 minutes to deliver their oral 

presentation in response to the sample task. Id. The Navy made an audio recording 

of each offeror’s oral presentation,5

 5 As part of the protest here, J5 created a written transcript of the audio tape 

recording of its oral presentation, which the parties agree to be accurate. J5 

Comments, July 6, 2012, exh. C, J5 Oral Presentation Transcript (Tr.).

and took photographs of any paper charts that 
Page 7 B-406800

the offeror created to support its presentation.6 All TEB members attended J5’s oral 

presentation and had access to the audio recording and the photographs when 

performing their evaluation. AR, Tab 83, Declaration of TEB Chair, July 16, 2012, 

at 1-2; Tab 82, Declaration of R.B., July 16, 2012, at 1-2; Tab 84, Declaration of 

M.D., July 16, 2012, at 1-2.

The oral presentation sample task that offerors were given was as follows:

SSC Pacific Code 532 requires contractor support to design and 

implement Services Oriented Architecture (SOA)-based, net-centric 

maritime C4I prototype to be hosted in the Common Computer 

Environment (CCE).7 You are tasked to provide systems engineering 

support for this effort.

Develop an approach to designing and implementing this capability, 

addressing: key system engineering issues; concept of operations; 

knowledge management; communications and data links; networks; 

databases and decision aids; classification levels; information 

assurance; information display and distribution; and accommodation of 

growth and changes in network nodes, organizations, information/ 

data, classification and security requirements, as well as emerging 

technologies.

Discuss the following: staffing and logistics; how industry best 

practices will be used to ensure successful design, implementation, 

and support; and how the experience and qualifications of key 

personnel will contribute to the successful execution of this tasking.

Id., Tab 10, Oral Presentation – Sample Task.

J5’s senior systems/analyst engineer and six other individuals delivered the offeror’s 

oral presentation. The record indicates that J5 organized its oral presentation along 

the lines of the PWS sections and/or subject matter expertise of its presenters rather 

than the specific sample task areas that were required to be addressed. For 

 6 J5 presented a total of 46 charts during its oral presentation, and the Navy took 

one or more photographs of each chart. AR, June 25, 2012, at 11 n.17.

7 SSC Pacific Code 532 is the Navy Program Executive Office (PEO) for C4I. SOA 

is a set of principles and methodologies for designing and developing software in the 

form of interoperable services. “Net-centric” refers to the attributes of a robust, 

globally-interconnected network environment in which data is shared timely and 

seamlessly among users, applications, and platforms. Id., Tab 9, Declaration of TEB 

Chair, June 25, 2012, at 2.
Page 8 B-406800

example, one of J5’s presenters concentrated on interface engineering (PWS § 3.4), 

Tr. at 39-46, while another discussed training support requirements (PWS § 3.7), id.

at 58-62, even though these were not among the sample task areas required to be 

specifically covered.8 Similarly, to the extent that J5 addressed the various sample 

task areas (e.g., classification levels), it was done in piecemeal fashion at various 

points in the oral presentation as part of the discussion of the overall PWS 

requirements.9

The TEB identified one major strength, three minor strengths, one minor weakness, 

and eight major weaknesses in its evaluation of J5’s oral presentation. AR, Tab 11, 

TEB Consensus Report, May 24, 2012, at 42. Relevant to the protest here, the 

Navy evaluators found that J5’s oral presentation did not discuss eight of the 

specifically-required areas as set forth in the sample task: (1) knowledge 

management; (2) communications and data links; (3) networks; (4) database and 

decision aids; (5) information display and distribution; (6) classification levels; (7) a 

plan to accommodate for growth; and (8) the application of best practices in relation 

to the prototype to be developed under the scenario.10 Id. The TEB concluded that 

J5’s response did not indicate a clear understanding of the sample task and its 

technical detail, and that the offeror’s 

presentation focused on the deployment and installation of a 

completed prototype C4I system but displayed no evidence of how J5 

would utilize their collective knowledge to provide and support a SOAbased, net-centric maritime C4I prototype hosted on CCE equipment.

Id. The TEB therefore rated the J5’s presentation as overall “marginal.” Id.

Based upon our review of the record, we find the evaluated weaknesses attributed to 

J5’s oral presentation to be reasonable. As a preliminary matter, as set forth above, 

J5 elected to organize its oral presentation along the lines of the overall PWS 

requirements (e.g., interface engineering, training support) rather than the specific 

sample task topics that were required to be addressed (e.g.

 8 Likewise, J5’s charts specifically referenced the various PWS requirements rather 

than the sample task areas. See e.g., AR, Tab 25, Chart No. 397; Tab 40, Chart 

No. 412; Tab 47, Chart No. 419; Tab 51, Chart No. 423; Tab 54, Chart No. 426.

, networks, classification 

levels, information display and distribution). The record shows, and the protester 

9 For example, with regard to classification levels, J5 contends that it discussed the 

topic in ten separate instances during its oral presentation. J5 Comments, July 6, 

2012, at 22-24.

10 The TEB also found that J5’s failure to address the tactical concept of operations 

in relation to the prototype to be developed was a minor weakness. AR, Tab 11, 

TEB Consensus Report, May 24, 2012, at 42
Page 9 B-406800

does not dispute, that the offeror made no attempt to systematically address each of 

the required sample task areas in its oral presentation. As a result, to the extent J5 

discussed each of the required topics, it did so in an extremely disjointed manner. 

The protester acknowledges, for example, that its discussion of a plan to 

accommodate for growth and changes occurred in nine disjointed instances of the 

oral presentation (sometimes no longer than a sentence or phrase), while its 

discussion of classification levels was in ten separate parts of the presentation. 

J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 22-26.

It is an offeror’s responsibility to prepare a well-written proposal, with adequately 

detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and 

allows for a meaningful review by the procuring agency. American Title Servs., a 

Joint Venture, B-404455, Feb. 4, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 38 at 4; International Med. 

Corps, B-403688, Dec. 6, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 292 at 8. This requirement is as 

applicable to oral submissions as it is to written ones. See Business Mgmt. Assocs., 

B-403315, B-403315.2, Oct. 19, 2010, 2011 CPD ¶ 143 at 4. By failing to address 

each required sample task topic in a methodical fashion, J5 essentially imposed 

upon the Navy evaluators the burden of piecing together numerous dispersed 

portions of its presentation and perfecting J5’s submission, a responsibility which we 

find the agency was not required to assume. See Keystone Sealift Servs., Inc., 

B-401526.3, Apr. 13, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 95 at 4.

We also find reasonable the agency’s conclusion that J5’s oral presentation did not 

adequately address various required topics in relation to the prototype to be 

developed under the scenario. We discuss examples of J5’s failure in this regard 

below. 

Knowledge Management

The oral presentation sample task required each offeror to address knowledge 

management as part of developing an approach to designing and implementing a 

SOA-based, net-centric maritime C4I prototype to be hosted in the CCE. The term 

“knowledge management” is a broad concept, but involves generally a range of 

strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, 

distribute, and enable adoption of information (knowledge). See, e.g., AR, June 25, 

2012, at 16 n.21. 

In its evaluation the TEB focused on several areas related to knowledge 

management. AR, Tab 9, Declaration of TEB Chair, June 25, 2012, at 2. First, the 

Navy determined that J5’s oral presentation did not describe or apply knowledge 

management to designing and implementing a SOA-based, net-centric maritime C4I 

prototype to be hosted in the CCE, as required by the assigned sample task. 

Specifically, J5 did not address any of the data or tools used to track and share 

systems requirements, design consideration and decisions, interface specifications, 

and current system deficiencies. Second, the Navy determined that J5 did not 
Page 10 B-406800

address the data and methods for storing and sharing system information in the 

operational C4I system. Moreover, as J5 did not directly address or expressly 

mention knowledge management in the oral presentation, neither did the offeror 

describe its understanding of that term of art. See AR, June 25, 2012, at 16.

J5 has not shown the agency’s evaluation here to be unreasonable. In this regard, 

the protester argues that because it did discuss knowledge management topics at 

various points in its presentation, it therefore satisfactorily addressed knowledge 

management in relation to the prototype to be developed under the sample task. J5 

Comments, July 6, 2012, at 11-14. We disagree.

As an initial matter, many of the instances on which the protester relies do not 

actually discuss the topic of knowledge management. For example, J5 refers to a 

discussion of the experience and qualifications of its onsite, fleet support technician. 

J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 11, citing Tr. at 48-49; AR, Tab 49, Chart No. 421; 

Tab 50, Chart No. 422. J5’s oral presentation does not explain, nor is it otherwise 

evident, how such qualifications specifically relate to knowledge management. 

Similarly, while J5 discussed user feedback within the spiral development model and 

the need for measurable metrics, J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 12, neither was 

related by J5 to the topic of knowledge management. 

Moreover, we agree with the agency that, even where J5 addressed knowledge 

management generally, it did not do so in the context of the assigned sample task. 

For example, J5’s oral presentation discussed J5’s use of the global command and 

control system (GCCS) engineering nexus of information and user support 

(GENIUS) system.11 J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 11, citing Tr. at 30-32; AR, 

Tab 35, Chart No. 407. However, J5 did not discuss how GENIUS related to the 

topic of knowledge management, the kinds of information GENIUS would be used to 

manage, or if GENIUS would be implemented at the development stage or be an 

operational component of the prototype to be developed in the context of the sample 

task scenario. As a result, the TEB reasonably found that J5’s discussion of 

GENIUS did not address the considerations involved in the operational use of a 

SOA-based C4I system. 

In sum, we find no basis to question the agency’s judgment that J5 did not discuss 

knowledge management in the context of the provided sample task. 

 11 GENIUS is a software application that is used by the agency to relate system 

problem symptoms with related system documentation. AR, Tab 9, Declaration of 

TEB Chair, June 25, 2012, at 2. While the protester characterizes GENIUS as a 

knowledge management tool, J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 11, the Navy considers 

it to be a troubleshooting tool. AR, July 16, 2012, at 18. 
Page 11 B-406800

Classification Levels

The oral presentation sample task required each offeror to address classification 

levels as part of developing an approach to designing and implementing a SOAbased, net-centric maritime C4I prototype to be hosted in the CCE. Classification is 

the categorization of information into different levels (e.g., unclassified, confidential, 

secret, top secret) based on the sensitivity of the information and potential for 

national security harm should it be revealed. AR, Tab 9, Declaration of TEB Chair, 

at 4. In the context of the assigned sample task as related to classification levels, 

the TEB considered whether an offeror’s oral presentation described the proposed 

data security level(s) for the prototype as well as the provisions for use of the 

proposed system in a single or multi-level classification environment. Id. If an 

offeror planned for its prototype to work in a multi-level environment, the agency 

determined that a description of classification levels should also describe methods 

for storing and transferring data so as to retain the proper classification and prevent 

spillage of higher classified information into a lower classification domain. Id.

The TEB found that while J5’s oral presentation described generally the concepts of 

system security engineering, the Department of Defense (DoD) Information 

Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP), and multi-level 

security systems, it did not directly address classification levels. AR, June 25, 2012, 

at 40. According to the agency, the protester’s oral presentation merely mentioned 

the term classification levels (or classification labels) at various instances in its 

presentation, but never fully discussed how classification levels would affect the 

prototype design and implementation process. Id. at 43. The agency concluded that 

the protester’s oral presentation did not specifically relate classification levels to a 

SOA-based, net-centric maritime C4I prototype as required by the assigned sample 

task. Id.

J5 has not shown the evaluation in this area to be unreasonable. In this regard, the 

protester again cites to various parts of its oral presentation (including charts) where 

it allegedly addressed classification levels in the context of the scenario provided in 

relation to the prototype to be developed. J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 22-24. We 

have examined the protester’s citations and find the assertions unfounded.

For example, the protester cites to its discussion during the oral presentation of 

security engineering. J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 22-24. The record, however, 

indicates that security engineering involves the development of secure systems 

methods and tests, including the transition of information technology systems from 

layered protection to true multi-level security systems.12

 12 Security engineering may also involve new system security technologies, e.g., 

secure local area networks, smartcard technology, network encryption systems, 

 PWS § 3.6. While security 

(continued...)
Page 12 B-406800

engineering was a PWS requirement, it was not a requirement of the oral 

presentation sample task.13 Further, security engineering (which focuses on 

systems) is not the same as classification levels (which focuses on data). AR, 

July 16, 2012, at 43. J5’s presentation failed to discuss how security engineering 

related to classification levels, or discuss what classification levels now exist, or at 

what classification level(s) its designed prototype would operate as required by the 

sample task. AR, June 25, 2012, at 41.

The protester also cites its discussion of multi-level, system security requirements as 

related to software characteristics and databases. J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, 

at 22, citing Tr. at 21; AR, Tab 71, Chart No. 443. In this regard, the record shows 

that J5 provided a general overview of different databases, and mentioned multilevel security for operating systems. As noted by the agency, however, J5 did not 

address how software characteristics would be used to determine appropriate 

classification levels for the design and implementation of a SOA-based, net-centric 

maritime C4I prototype, as required by the sample task. AR, June 25, 2012, at 40.

The protester further cites its discussion of systems-engineering tradeoffs between 

security and responsiveness. J5 Comments, July 6, 2012, at 22, citing Tr. at 18; AR, 

Tab 64, Chart No. 436; Tab 65, Chart No. 437. In this regard, the protester argues 

that its discussion of system security requirements and encryption strengths was 

part of its presentation regarding classification levels. The protester, however, 

confuses or mischaracterizes the issue, since the record indicates that multi-level 

security is not equivalent to multiple classification levels. AR, July 16, 2012, at 43-

47. Also, as noted by the agency, J5’s presentation did not explain how this topic 

specifically related to classification levels; did not identify the kinds of information a 

prototype C4I system would use; and did not state how this information would be 

transferred between different classification levels. AR, June 25, 2012, at 41.

In sum, we find reasonable the Navy’s determination that the mere fact that J5 may 

have mentioned classification levels at various points in its presentation was simply 

not a substitute for systematically addressing the topic in the context of the assigned 

sample task, which the protester did not do. 

 

(...continued)

virtual private networks, public key infrastructure, biometric authentication, and 

secure databases. PWS § 3.6. 

13 Security engineering is more closely related to sample-task-topic information 

assurance, which the TEB identified as a major strength in J5’s oral presentation. 

See AR, June 25, 2012, at 41-43; Tab 11, TEB Consensus Report, at 41. 
Page 13 B-406800

Preliminary Evaluator Ratings Differed from Final Consensus Ratings 

Finally, J5 argues that the TEB’s consensus evaluation report is inconsistent with the 

individual evaluators notes and certain preliminary group notes. 14 J5 Comments, 

July 20, 2012, at 6-15; J5 Comments, July 30, 2012, at 1-5. This argument is 

without merit. It is not unusual for individual evaluator ratings to differ significantly 

from one another, or from the consensus ratings eventually assigned; indeed, the 

reconciling of such differences among evaluators’ viewpoints is the ultimate purpose 

of a consensus evaluation.15 Hi-Tec Sys., Inc., supra, at 5; Neeser Constr., Inc./

Allied Builders Sys., A Joint Venture, B-285903, Oct. 25, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 207

at 4. Our overriding concern is not whether an agency’s final ratings are consistent 

with preliminary ratings, but whether they reasonably reflect the relative merits of the 

proposals, consistent with the solicitation. See Naiad Inflatables of Newport, supra, 

at 11; Bering Straits Tech. Servs., LLC, B-401560.3, B-401560.4, Oct. 7, 2009, 

2009 CPD ¶ 201 at 3. Based on our review, we see nothing unreasonable in the 

existence of differences between the evaluators’ preliminary ratings and the final 

consensus evaluation rating of J5’s oral presentation. See Naiad Inflatables of 

Newport, supra. Also, as discussed above, we find the consensus evaluation of J5’s 

oral presentation to be reasonable since it reasonably reflects the merits of J5’s 

proposal.

As the evaluation of J5’s proposal was reasonable, the Navy’s decision not to 

consider the protester’s proposal to be among those representing the “best value” to 

the government was also reasonable.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 14 J5 also argues that the Navy failed to follow its source selection plan by not 

evaluating offerors’ oral presentations “immediately” after their conclusion. J5 

Comments, July 6, 2012, at 7-8. This complaint does not establish a valid basis to 

object to the agency’s evaluation. An agency’s source selection plan is an internal 

guide that does not give rights to parties; it is the RFP’s evaluation scheme, not 

internal agency documents such as source selection plans, to which an agency is 

required to adhere in evaluating proposals. Meadowgate Techs., LLC, B-405989, 

B-405989.3, Jan. 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 27 at 6 n.7.

15 Likewise, we are unaware of any requirement that every individual evaluator’s 

scoring sheet track the final evaluation report, or that the evaluation record 

document the various changes in evaluators’ viewpoints. See Smart Innovative 

Solutions, B-400323.3, Nov. 19, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 220 at 3.