United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

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. Decision

Matter of: Phair Security Solutions, Inc.

File: B-406566

Date: May 31, 2012

Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., 

PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester.

Michael J. Gardner, Esq., George G. Booker, Jr., Esq., and Shomari B. Wade, Esq., 

Troutman Sanders LLP, for Linxx Global Solutions, Inc., the intervenor.

Victoria H. Kauffman, Esq., and Jerald J. Kennemuth, Esq., National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

1. Agency’s determination that the awardee’s proposal represented the best value 

to the government is unobjectionable where the agency’s determination and 

selection were consistent with the terms of the solicitation and reasonably based.

2. Agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s price proposal, submitted in response to a 

solicitation that provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for protective 

services, is unobjectionable where the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the 

terms of the solicitation and reasonably based.

DECISION

Phair Security Solutions, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Linxx Global 

Solutions, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNC11ZCH007R, issued by 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for protective services 

at the John H. Glenn Research Center in Cleveland and Plum Brook Station in 

Sandusky, Ohio. Phair argues that the agency’s evaluation of Linxx’s price 

proposal was unreasonable, and that the agency’s source selection was 

inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.

We deny the protest.
Page 2 B-406566 

BACKGROUND

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period of 1 year 

with four 1-year option periods, with the possibility that certain additional 

requirements will be provided on a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity 

basis. RFP at 29-30, 36.1 The solicitation stated that a contract would be awarded 

to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the 

government based upon the evaluation factors of mission suitability, relevant 

experience and past performance, and price.2 RFP at 90. The RFP explained with 

regard to the relative weight of the evaluation factors that “Mission Suitability is 

approximately equal to Price, which is approximately equal to Past Performance.” 

RFP at 94. The solicitation added here that “Mission Suitability and Price, when 

combined, are significantly more important than Past Performance.” Id.

The agency received six proposals in response to the solicitation, including those of 

Linxx and Phair.3

 Contracting Officer’s Statement at 8-9. The proposals were 

evaluated, and three proposals, including those submitted by Linxx and Phair, were 

included in the competitive range. Id. at 12. Two rounds of discussions were 

conducted, and final proposal revisions were requested and received. Id. at 13. 

The proposals of Linxx and Phair were evaluated as follows:4

 1 Our citation to page numbers refers to the BATES numbers in the agency report.

2 As explained below, the mission suitability factor was comprised of four evaluation 

subfactors.

3 Linxx teamed with Knight Protective Service, Inc., the incumbent contractor, and 

Phair teamed with Secure State, LLC, which was a subcontractor to Knight on the 

incumbent contract. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 9.

4 Proposals received a numerical score only under the mission suitability factor, and 

numerical scores and adjectival ratings under each of the subfactors comprising the 

mission suitability factor. RFP at 90. 
Page 3 B-406566 

Linxx Phair

Mission Suitability (1,000 points) 643 points 850 points

-Management Plan (300 pts) Good/180 pts Excellent/285 pts

-Master Training Plan (275 pts) Good/165 pts Good/192.5 pts

-Understanding of Requirements (225 pts) Good/157.5 pts Very Good/202.5 pts

-Phase-In Plan and Key Personnel (200 pts) Good/140 pts Very Good/170 pts

Relevant Experience and Past Performance5 Very High Moderate

Price $29,574,802 $32,403,679

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 13-14. 

The source selection authority (SSA) first considered the proposals as evaluated 

under the mission suitability factor and its subfactors. The SSA noted here that 

Phair’s proposal was the “highest rated” under the mission suitability factor, and that 

“it was clear from the responses that Phair had a distinct advantage over the other 

offerors.” AR, Tab 26, Source Selection Statement, at 2467-68. The SSA further 

noted that he considered Phair’s proposal as evaluated under the mission suitability 

factor and its subfactors to be “comprehensive, fully addressing the requirements of 

the RFP, and a strong indicator of successful contract performance.” Id. at 2467. 

With regard to Linxx’s proposal, the SSA found that the proposal “displayed a good 

understanding of the work effort, provided some operational efficiencies, and a 

capable workforce.” Id. The SSA concluded here that while he considered “Linxx to 

be capable of successfully performing the work effort,” Linxx’s proposal, as 

evaluated under the mission suitability factor, “was not as comprehensive as 

Phair’s.” Id. at 2468.

In considering the proposals under the relevant experience and past performance 

factor, the SSA noted that “[t]he Linxx team had a significant strength for contract 

relevancy” due to both Linxx’s experience and past performance, and that of its 

significant subcontractor, who was currently providing the protective services at the 

Glenn Research Center and who had provided such services for the past 9 years. 

Id. The SSA noted that “[t]he difference between [Linxx’s] and Phair’s ratings 

reflects the fact that the [Linxx] team had significantly more relevant experience 

than did Phair.” Id. 

The SSA, while noting that the three evaluation factors (mission suitability, relevant 

experience and past performance, and price) were “approximately equal in weight,” 

found that the advantages of Phair’s proposal under the mission suitability factor 

 5 Proposals could be assigned ratings under the relevant experience and past 

performance factor of very high level of confidence, moderate level of confidence, 

low level of confidence, very low level of confidence, or neutral. AR, Tab 26, 

Source Selection Statement, at 2463. 
Page 4 B-406566 

and Linxx’s proposal under the relevant experience and past performance factor 

“somewhat offset each other.” Id. at 2469. The SSA continued with the selection 

decision by concluding that the $2.9 million price advantage associated with Linxx’s 

proposal provided “a meaningful advantage to [Linxx] over Phair,” and ultimately

concluded that Linxx’s proposal represented the best value in accordance with the 

terms of the solicitation. Id.

DISCUSSION

Phair argues that the agency failed to follow the solicitation’s evaluation scheme in 

selecting Linxx’s proposal for award. In this regard, the protester concedes that in 

selecting Linxx’s proposal for award, the agency properly considered the evaluation 

factors of mission suitability, relevant experience and past performance, and price, 

to be equal in weight. The protester nevertheless contends because the solicitation

also noted that the mission suitability and price factors, when combined, were 

significantly more important than the relevant experience and past performance 

factor, the agency, in performing its source selection, was required to combine the 

evaluation results under the mission suitability and price factors into an 

“amalgamated factor.” Protest at 8; Protester’s Comments at 2. The protester 

continues by arguing that the agency was required to consider this “significantly 

more important” amalgamated factor with the relevant experience and past 

performance factor. Protester’s Comments at 2. The protester asserts that had the 

agency gone through this analysis, which according to the protester was required by 

the terms of the solicitation, the agency would have selected Phair’s proposal for 

award, given that, by the protester’s calculations, its proposal received a numerical 

score under the mission suitability factor that was 24-percent higher than Linxx’s, 

whereas Linxx’s proposed price was only 9-percent lower than Phair’s proposed 

price. Protester’s Comments at 3. 

The protester’s argument here is without merit. As an initial matter, there is no 

statement or provision in the RFP that mandates the creation of an “amalgamated 

factor” comprised of the mission suitability and price factors, nor any direction that 

the agency’s source selection would be conducted in this manner. Given this, and 

the fact that the RFP clearly provided in explaining the relative importance of the 

three evaluation factors (mission suitability, relevant experience and past 

performance, and price) that they were “approximately equal” to each other, and 

were considered as “approximately equal” by the SSA in selecting Linxx’s proposal 

for award, we have no basis to object to the agency’s source selection. AR, Tab 26, 

Source Selection Statement, at 2462-2469. That is, although we agree with the 

protester that as a general matter, in order to be reasonable, an interpretation of 

solicitation language must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole 

and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions, we cannot find the 

protester’s rather tortured interpretation here reasonable. See Brown & Root, Inc. 

and Perini Corp., a joint venture, B-270505.2; B-270505.3, Sept. 12, 1996, 

96-2 CPD ¶ 143 at 8. 
Page 5 B-406566 

In any event, we fail to see why the process argued for by the protester would have 

any effect on the SSA’s decision. In this regard, we note that the protester’s 

argument as to prejudice is premised on a mechanistic comparison of the 

percentage differences in numerical scores and prices to dictate the source 

selection. Our Office has consistently held that a source selection cannot be based 

upon a mechanical comparison of the competing proposals’ scores or ratings 

per se, but rather, must rely on a qualitative assessment of the differences in the 

competing proposals under both the price and non-price evaluation factors in a 

manner that is consistent with the terms of the solicitation, as was done here. See

The MIL Corp., B-294836, Dec. 30, 2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 29 at 8; Opti-Lite Optical, 

B-281693, Mar. 22, 1999, 99-1 CPD ¶ 61 at 5. 

The protester argues that because Linxx’s proposed price of $29.6 million was 

lower than both Phair’s proposed price of $32.4 million and the independent 

government estimate (IGE) of $35 million, the agency should have “conducted a 

price/cost realism analysis to determine whether there was a risk of default by 

Linxx.” Protest at 14; see AR, Tab 18, IGE, at 2152. The protester contends that 

had the agency conducted such an analysis, it would have found that “Linxx’s 

proposal did not adequately represent the cost of performance of training,” and 

therefore, “either Linxx was ‘buying-in’ or it did not fully understand NASA’s training 

requirements.” Protester’s Comments at 6. 

In general, there is no requirement that a price realism analysis be performed when 

award of a fixed-price contract is contemplated. Phoebe Putney Mem’l Hosp., 

B-311385, June 19, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 128 at 2. However, a solicitation for a 

fixed-price contract may provide for a price realism analysis for the purpose of 

assessing offerors’ understanding of the requirements or the risk inherent in 

offerors’ proposals. PHP Healthcare Corp., B-251933, May 13, 1993, 93-1 CPD 

¶ 381 at 5. The nature and extent of a price realism analysis ultimately are matters 

within the exercise of the agency’s discretion, and our review of such an evaluation 

is limited to determining whether it was reasonable and consistent with the 

solicitation’s evaluation criteria. Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc., et al., 

B-295526 et al., Mar. 16, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 45 at 19. 

The solicitation stated that price proposals would be evaluated to ensure that the 

prices proposed were fair and reasonable, and to determine whether they were 

unbalanced. RFP at 93. The RFP added that “[r]elatively low prices will also be 

evaluated to determine whether there is a risk of default in the event of award to 

that Offeror,” and informed offerors that a determination “that there is an 

unreasonably high risk of default . . . may serve as a basis for non-selection.” Id. 

The solicitation also provided here that the agency would evaluate the offeror’s 

“proposed profit . . . for reasonableness and for the extent that it will serve as a 

motivator of efficient and effective contract performance.” Id.
Page 6 B-406566 

The record shows that the agency analyzed the price proposals submitted by the 

three competitive range offerors, including Linxx. AR at 19; Tab 19, Price 

Evaluation, at 2153-82. In performing its analysis, the agency considered, among 

other things, the total prices proposed by the offerors as compared to each other 

and the IGE, and the prices proposed for each of the contract periods (that is, 

phase-in, base, first option, etc.), as compared to each other and the IGE. AR, 

Tab 19, Price Evaluation, at 2153-82. The record demonstrates that the agency 

also compared certain elements of cost set forth in the proposals, such as direct 

labor, other direct costs, general and administrative costs, and profit.6

 Id.

In performing its price evaluation, the agency found, among other things, that the 

price proposals of Linxx and Phair “disclosed no indication of ‘unbalanced pricing.’” 

Id. at 2173. The price evaluation includes a specific evaluation of the profits

proposed by Linxx and Phair, with the agency determining that while Linxx and 

Phair had “assumed a significantly higher level of contract risk with only an average 

to minor profit motivation,” the “offeror[s’] profit amounts were closely grouped,” 

indicating that they were market driven, and posed “an acceptable assumable level 

of risk for this effort.” Id. at 2174, 2176. The agency adds here that, although not 

specifically stated in the price evaluation report, there was no indication that Linxx’s 

proposed price, which was the second-lowest of the competitive range offerors 

(Phair’s was the third-lowest), was unrealistically low. AR at 21; see AR, Tab 19, 

Price Evaluation, at 2155-66, 2172-74, 2178-82. 

As indicated, the record reflects that the agency analysis of the offerors’ proposed 

prices was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFP. That is, the 

agency found that the price proposals of both Linxx and Phair were reasonable, not 

unbalanced, included sufficient profit, and were not unrealistically low. We note 

here that although there is no specific finding that training costs as set forth in any 

of the offerors’ proposals were realistic, none was required by the terms of the RFP. 

Rather, as explained above, the solicitation provided for, and the agency performed,

a more general price evaluation than that apparently argued for by the protester. As 

 6 The price analyst’s report discloses that most of the difference in the total prices 

proposed by Linxx and Phair is due to Linxx’s lower general and administrative 

costs.
Page 7 B-406566 

such, we see no basis on which to find the agency’s evaluation of Linxx’s proposal 

under the price factor unreasonable.7

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 7 While the protester raised other protest grounds in its initial protest, the agency in 

its report addressed these protest grounds and Phair did not respond; thus, Phair 

abandoned these protest grounds. See Symplicity Corp., B-297060, Nov. 8, 2005, 

2005 CPD ¶ 203 at 5 n.6.