United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Deloitte & Touche LLP

File: B-406563; B-406563.2

Date: June 27, 2012

David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., Cohen 

Mohr LLP, for the protester.

Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group LLP, and Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., 

and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Grant 

Thornton LLC, the intervenor.

Timothy Lorenzi, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.

Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency evaluation of vendors’ past performance is unobjectionable where 

agency reasonably concluded that awardee’s highly relevant past performance was 

superior to protester’s based on awardee’s prior performance of more relevant 

contracts.

2. Agency evaluation of vendors’ key personnel is unobjectionable where 

agency reasonably determined that awardee’s proposed personnel met solicitation 

requirements.

DECISION

Deloitte & Touche LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a blanket 

purchase agreement (BPA) to Grant Thornton LLP (GT), of Alexandria, Virginia, 

under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HSHQEH-12-Q-00003, issued by the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Protective Service (FPS), for 

activity-based costing (ABC) modeling services and other financial services. 

Deloitte maintains that the agency’s evaluation of quotations was flawed with regard 

to past performance and key personnel.

We deny the protest.

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-406563, B-406563.2 

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the RFQ on February 13, 2012, pursuant to General Services 

Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures, as set forth at Federal 

Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4. The RFQ, provided to 10 vendors holding FSS 

contracts, sought quotations for ABC modeling services, as well as associated 

financial management, accounting, financial reporting and budgeting support 

services.1 Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. The RFQ anticipated the award of 

a BPA with labor hour, time and material, and fixed-price task orders to be issued 

during a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFQ at 11, 14. The 

RFQ advised vendors that award would be made on a best-value basis considering 

price and the following non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance: 

(1) past performance, (2) key personnel, (3) strategic approach and (4) socioeconomic considerations. RFQ at 23. For purposes of award, the RFP stated that 

the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, “are significantly more important 

than price.” Id.

With regard to past performance, the RFQ instructed vendors to “demonstrate 

relevant past performance,” under projects within the past five years that were of a 

“similar or directly related scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is 

described in the solicitation. . . .”2

 1 Specifically, FPS provided the RFQ to vendors on the Financial and Business 

Solutions Schedule 520-12, Complementary Financial Management Services. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2.

 Id. The RFQ also indicated that the agency 

would consider the quality of the vendor’s relevant past performance, specifically 

instructing vendors to submit up to three of their “most relevant” projects for the 

2 Regarding scope, the RFQ stated the agency would consider “the type of service 

provided (i.e. is the project/contract for ABC modeling, financial and budgetary 

support services?).” RFQ at 23. Regarding magnitude, the RFQ stated that the 

agency would consider “various measures such as, but not limited to, any or all of 

the following: number of hours per year, number of personnel to support the effort, 

and total effort value.” Id. With regard to complexity, the RFQ advised that the 

agency would consider:

various measures such as, but not limited to, the experience developing, 

implementing and sustaining an ABC model, the experience providing 

support to a DHS component requiring in-depth knowledge of DHS specific 

financial and budgetary policies and procedures, the extent the experience 

that was provided was in support of dynamic and/or high visibility projects 

and programs with frequently changing requirements affecting mission tempo 

and the level of associated support needed.

Id. at 24.
Page 3 B-406563, B-406563.2 

agency to evaluate.3 RFQ amend. 0001, at 2. For those projects, vendors were to 

provide references and ensure that past performance questionnaires for each 

project were submitted.4

 Id. The agency also reserved the right to review past 

performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the 

vendor. Id.

With regard to the key personnel factor, the RFQ identified certain key personnel 

positions,5 along with minimum education and experience requirements for each 

position, and required vendors to submit résumés for each of the proposed key 

personnel. RFQ at 24.

The RFQ instructed vendors to submit both price quotations and technical 

quotations by March 1.6

 RFQ at 2. GT and Deloitte both submitted quotations by 

the RFQ closing date. Deloitte’s price quotation was $34,907,180.00. GT’s price 

quotation was 2.6% more at $35,832,182.40.7

 Agency Report (AR), Tab D, 

Pre/Post Negotiation Memorandum, at 55. 

A technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the four technical evaluation factors 

using an adjectival rating system of highly acceptable, acceptable, unacceptable 

and neutral (for past performance only). AR, Tab E, TET Report, at 7-8. The final 

ratings were as follows:

 3 The RFQ also permitted vendors to submit past performance information on no 

more than five projects for any teaming partners or subcontractors. RFQ amend. 

0001, at 2. This additional information was to be provided “at the prime vendor’s 

discretion.” Id. at 7.

4 The questionnaires were provided as an attachment to the solicitation, identified 

various performance categories and provided for ratings of highly acceptable, 

acceptable, unacceptable and not applicable. RFQ, attach. 5, Past Performance 

Questionnaire, at 53-56.

5 The RFQ identified the following key personnel: project manager, ABC modeling 

subject matter expert, senior level budget analyst, senior level financial analyst and 

senior level accountant.

6 Technical quotes were limited to 40 pages; price quotes were limited to 8 pages 

total. RFQ amend. 0001, at 2-3. 

7 The agency analyzed both vendors’ prices and found them to be fair and 

reasonable. Agency Report (AR), Tab D, Pre/Post Negotiation Memorandum, 

at 64.
Page 4 B-406563, B-406563.2 

Contractor Past 

Performance Key Personnel Strategic Approach

SocioEconomic

Grant Thornton Highly 

Acceptable

Highly 

Acceptable Acceptable Highly Acceptable

Deloitte & 

Touche Acceptable Highly Acceptable Acceptable Highly Acceptable

AR, Tab E, TET Report, at 1.

With regard to past performance, Deloitte’s quotation was rated acceptable. In 

reaching this conclusion, the TET reviewed the projects Deloitte submitted, 

including four projects performed by Deloitte’s proposed subcontractors, and found 

that they ranged from “relevant to somewhat relevant” in terms of scope, magnitude 

and complexity. AR, Tab E, TET Report, at 24-30. Deloitte’s quality of 

performance, as indicated on the past performance questionnaires, was highly 

acceptable, and the quality of Deloitte’s subcontractors’ performance ranged from

highly acceptable to acceptable. Id. The TET report noted, however, that Deloitte’s 

performance of the type of work contemplated by the RFQ--that is, ABC modeling 

on a 100% fee funded program--represented “only a very small fraction of the total 

value” of one of the projects Deloitte submitted for review. Id. at 41. Nevertheless, 

the TET concluded that Deloitte had the “capability and capacity to perform the 

required support services at a satisfactory level” and that “the performance risk is no 

greater than the level expected from a competent vendor.” Id. at 30, 41. 

Consequently, an acceptable rating was assigned.

The TET rated GT highly acceptable under the past performance factor. The TET 

found that GT’s projects also ranged from “relevant to somewhat relevant,” but that, 

“overall GT possesses experience that is highly relevant to the subject requirement 

in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity.”8

 8 GT only submitted its own past performance information.

 Id. at 12-13. Specifically, the TET 

highlighted the work GT performed on two projects that were “directly relevant” to 

the work contemplated by the RFQ and noted that GT had the “most relevant past 

performance experience.” Id. at 13, 41. The TET also reviewed past performance 

questionnaires and contract performance assessment reports (CPARs) identified in 

the past performance information retrieval system (PPIRS) related to GT projects. 

Id. at 41. Finally, the TET recognized positive third party evaluations of GT’s 

financial cost modeling system, and that GT had been nominated for or received 

various awards related to the projects the firm submitted. Id. at 42. In assigning the 

highly acceptable rating under the past performance factor, the TET report 

concluded that GT’s “intrinsic working knowledge” of 100% fee funded programs 

allowed for a “minimum learning curve, increased levels of efficiency, a higher 
Page 5 B-406563, B-406563.2 

quality of work product, lower recognized risk and a higher potential for overall 

project success to be acknowledged. . . .” Id. at 46.

With regard to the key personnel factor, the TET assigned both vendors a highly 

acceptable rating. The TET recognized that both vendors provided personnel with 

experience and/or education “at levels that exceeded the requirements for an 

acceptable rating and those excesses were considered by the TET to provide direct 

benefit to the Government.” Id. at 42. However, the TET determined that GT’s 

quotation was “slightly better” than Deloitte’s under the key personnel factor 

because of a combination of “education, certifications and direct experience with the 

core requirement” of the RFQ. Id. at 42. Moreover, the TET recognized that GT’s 

proposed key personnel had “more years of pertinent experience across each 

position.” Id. at 43.

Overall, the TET concluded that GT’s quotation was “superior to Deloitte’s from a 

technical perspective.” Id. at 47. In this respect, the TET determined that GT had 

the “most relevant” past performance and proffered “slightly better” key personnel. 

The TET also noted that GT’s quotation was stronger under the other two 

evaluation factors.9

 Id. at 46. 

Thereafter, the agency conducted a trade-off analysis and determined that GT’s 

slightly higher-priced quotations offered the best value to the agency. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 4. In this regard, the agency concluded that the “substantially 

lower performance risk associated with the GT quotation far outweighs the 2.6% 

[price] premium,” and GT was awarded the BPA on March 20. AR, Tab D, Pre/Post 

Negotiation Memorandum, at 65; Contracting Officer’s Statement at 4. After 

receiving notice of the award, Deloitte protested to our Office.

DISCUSSION

As discussed below, Deloitte challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation 

under the past performance and key personnel factors. We have reviewed all of the 

protester’s allegations and find no basis to sustain the protest.

Past Performance

First, Deloitte argues that the agency “grossly misapplied the [past performance] 

factor weights.” Comments (May 7, 2012) at 17. In this regard, Deloitte asserts that 

 9 Under the strategic approach factor, the TET assigned both vendors an 

acceptable rating, but the TET found GT’s quotation to be “slightly better.” AR, 

Tab E, TET Report, at 43. For the socio-economic considerations factor, the TET 

assigned both vendors a highly acceptable rating, but the TET concluded that GT’s 

quotation was the “stronger of the two.” Id. at 46.
Page 6 B-406563, B-406563.2 

“[p]ast performance was divided into two factors, quality and relevance,” and that 

“[r]elevance, in turn, was divided into three subfactors, scope, magnitude and 

complexity.” Id. Deloitte’s characterization of the terms of the solicitation is 

erroneous. 

Agencies are required to evaluate offers in accordance with the solicitation’s stated 

requirements. The Boeing Co., B-311344 et al., June 18, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 114 

at 38. Where a dispute exists as to a solicitation’s actual requirements, we will first 

examine the plain language of the solicitation. See e.g., Carthage Area Hosp., Inc., 

B-402345, Mar. 16, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 90 at 5 n.7; W. Gohman Constr. Co., 

B-401877, Dec. 2, 2009, 2010 CPD ¶ 11 at 3-4.

The protester’s argument that the RFQ established additional “factors” and 

“subfactors” under the stated past performance evaluation is contrary to the record. 

The RFQ established only four non-price evaluation factors (past performance, key 

personnel, strategic approach, and socio-economic considerations); it did not

establish any other factors or subfactors. See RFQ at 23. With regard to past 

performance, vendors were advised that, to receive any past performance rating 

other than neutral they must “demonstrate relevant past performance.” Id. Further, 

the RFQ provided that in making relevance determinations the agency would 

“consider” the scope, magnitude and complexity of the vendor’s prior projects. Id. 

The RFQ did not, however, identify those items as subfactors, nor did the agency 

treat them as such in its evaluation. Consequently, the protester’s contentions that 

relevance and quality of performance were “factors” under the RFP’s stated past 

performance factor, and that scope, magnitude and complexity were “subfactors” 

under the relevance “factor,” are contrary to the plain language of the solicitation. 

As such, these contentions--and the arguments that flow from them--provide no 

basis to sustain the protest.10 See STG, Inc., B-405101.3 et al., Jan. 12, 2012, 

2012 CPD ¶ 48 at 9; Kuhana-Spectrum, B-401270, July 20, 2009, 2010 CPD ¶ 61 

at 2 n.2 (“[I]t is clear from the solicitation that relevance, quality, and quantity were 

not identified as subfactors, but were elements of past performance that the agency 

would take into account in evaluating overall past performance.”); Roy F. Weston, 

Inc., B-274945 et al., Jan. 15, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 92 at 9 (noting that nothing in 

solicitation supports protester’s claim that four “areas of consideration” are 

subfactors).

Likewise, the record shows that the agency’s decision to assign a highly acceptable 

rating to GT and an acceptable rating to Deloitte under the past performance factor 

 10 Deloitte makes a similar--and equally flawed--assertion that the agency was 

required to treat “ABC modeling” and “financial and budgetary services” as “equally 

weighted elements” of the scope “subfactor.” See Comments (May 7, 2012) at 17. 

As discussed above, Deloitte’s attempt to create “factors,” “subfactors” and 

“elements” where the solicitation did not provides no basis for protest.
Page 7 B-406563, B-406563.2 

was neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. As 

explained above, the RFQ required vendors to demonstrate relevant past 

performance by identifying three projects for evaluation. RFQ amend. 0001, at 2. 

The TET determined that two of GT’s projects “successfully provided direct ABC 

Modeling support to programs/organizations that have a 100% fee funded structure” 

similar to the requirements contemplated by this solicitation. AR, Tab E, TET 

Report, at 41. 

In contrast, the agency noted that only one of Deloitte’s past performance projects--

including the four submitted for its subcontractors--was directly relevant because it 

included support to an ABC model on a 100% fee funded structure. Id. at 40, 41. 

Moreover, the TET noted that even the directly relevant work reflected only a “very 

small fraction” of that project’s total value. Id. at 41. Similarly, while a second 

Deloitte project highlighted the firm’s work on ABC modeling, it was not performed 

on a 100% fee funded program similar to the tasks contemplated in the RFQ. 

Id. at 30, 41. 

As discussed above, the agency reviewed the projects submitted by Deloitte and 

GT and determined that GT’s quotation had the “most relevant past performance 

experience.” Id. at 41. The agency explains, and we agree, that GT’s “highly 

relevant” and “direct experience” was a discriminator the agency reasonably 

recognized to distinguish the two quotations. Id. at 13, 41; see Supplemental AR, 

Tab B, Legal Memorandum, at 42. As we have stated, an agency may reasonably 

give differing weight to an offeror’s prior contracts based upon their similarity or 

relevance to the required effort. See e.g., Kuhana-Spectrum, supra, at 7; TPL, Inc., 

B-297136.10, B-297136.11, June 29, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 104 at 12. Deloitte’s 

assertions regarding the relative impact of the agency’s various considerations in 

evaluating past performance provides no basis for sustaining the protest.

Deloitte next asserts that the agency treated vendors unequally in performing the 

past performance evaluation. In this regard, Deloitte complains that the evaluation 

was unequal because of how the agency assessed the vendors’ past performance 

questionnaires, PPIRS reports, and company awards. Comments (May 7, 2012) 

at 8-14. We have reviewed each of Deloitte’s allegations and find nothing 

objectionable about the agency’s evaluation. 

Among other things, Deloitte argues that the responses to the past performance 

questionnaires “clearly show the superiority of Deloitte’s past performance” because 

Deloitte received a highly acceptable rating in all 18 metrics on each of its three 

past performance questionnaires.11

 11 Deloitte also submitted four past performance questionnaires for its 

subcontractors, which indicated a mix of highly acceptable and acceptable rankings. 

AR, Tab S, Past Performance Questionnaires, at 16-30.

 Comments (May 7, 2012) at 25; see AR, 
Page 8 B-406563, B-406563.2 

Tab S, Past Performance Questionnaires, at 1-15. GT, on the other hand, received 

13 acceptable ratings across its questionnaires, yet it was rated highly acceptable 

for the factor. Id. at 31, 42.

As explained above, the past performance evaluation was not based solely on a 

vendor’s past performance questionnaire rating. Instead, the agency also took into 

account the relevance of a submitted project. While the TET noted that the quality 

of Deloitte’s performance was highly acceptable to acceptable (including its 

subcontractors’ projects) without performance problems, it also noted that GT’s 

quotation “reflected more relevant past performance experience.” AR, Tab E, TET 

Report, at 30, 46. Thus, notwithstanding Deloitte’s disagreement, we find no reason 

to object to the agency’s evaluation under the past performance factor.12

Finally, in its supplemental comments in response to the agency’s supplemental 

report, Deloitte for the first time asserts that the agency erred in aggregating certain 

past performance information. For example, Deloitte argues that the TET 

“conjunctively” aggregated GT’s past performance to reach a favorable result and 

“disjunctively” aggregated Deloitte’s past performance, including its subcontractor 

past performance information, to reach an unfavorable result. Supp. Comments 

(May 29, 2012) at 10, 12. 

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests must be filed no later than 10 days after 

the basis for the protest was, or should have been, known, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2), 

and where, as here, a protester files supplemental protest grounds, each new 

ground must independently satisfy our timeliness requirements. QualMed, Inc., 

B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD ¶ 94 at 12-13. If Deloitte believed the agency 

“irrationally” and “unequally” aggregated certain past performance information, it 

was required to so allege within 10 days after it became aware of the issue from the 

agency’s April 27 report. We see no reason why Deloitte would not have been able 

to raise this specific argument in its May 7 filing with our Office. Since the protester 

did not raise this argument until submission of its supplemental comments on 

May 29, this basis of protest is untimely and will not be addressed. 

 12 To the extent the protester argues that the evaluation was unequal because the 

TET report acknowledged GT’s award and nomination and not Deloitte’s, we find 

that this allegation does not provide a basis to sustain the protest. See Comments 

(May 7, 2012) at 10. In this respect, the agency explains that the TET recognized 

Deloitte’s awards, but could not determine whether they were tied to the type of 

contract or work being solicited. Supp. AR, Tab C, Declaration of Contract 

Specialist, at ¶ 9. The agency explains that the TET concluded that Deloitte’s 

awards were “neither a strength nor a weakness.” Id. On the other hand, GT’s 

award and nomination were tied to a submitted project, which allowed the TET to 

recognize the “high quality of performance on that project.” Id. at ¶ 8.
Page 9 B-406563, B-406563.2 

In sum, we find that the agency evaluated quotations under the past performance 

factor consistent with the terms of the RFQ. 

Key Personnel

Deloitte also objects to the agency’s evaluation under the RFQ’s key personnel 

factor. Deloitte contends that GT’s quotation failed to demonstrate that certain 

proposed key personnel--the project manager, ABC modeling expert and senior 

level accountant--met the RFQ’s mandatory experience requirements. Comments 

(May 7, 2012) at 25, 27, 29. We have reviewed each of Deloitte’s allegations and 

find no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation under the key personnel factor. 

First, Deloitte argues that GT’s quotation fails to show that the proposed project 

manager had the required 5 years of experience in a supervisory position. 

Comments (May 7, 2012) at 25. In this regard, the RFQ required that the proposed 

project manager possess “15 years of financial management and Activity Based 

Costing experience. Five (5) years of experience in a supervisory or team lead 

position.” RFQ, attach. 3, Labor Category Description, at 45. Here, GT’s quotation 

included a résumé for its proposed project manager that the agency concluded 

evinced the required 5 years of supervisory experience. Specifically, GT’s 

proposed project manager’s résumé indicated that the individual was a “manager” 

for more than 2 years, a “senior manager” for just over 3 years and a “director” for at 

least one year.13 AR, Tab N, GT Technical Quotation, at 26. As the agency 

explains, the TET determined that these positions qualified as supervisory positions, 

and the more than 6 years of experience in these positions met the RFQ’s 

requirement. Supp. AR, Tab B, Legal Memorandum, at 52. Although Deloitte 

disagrees with the agency’s “reliance on job titles,” its disagreement does not show 

that the agency’s determination is unreasonable. See Supp. Comments (May 29, 

2012) at 31. On this record, we find nothing objectionable about the agency’s 

conclusion that GT’s proposed project manager met the RFQ’s experience 

requirement. 

Similarly, Deloitte complains that GT’s proposed ABC modeling subject matter 

expert did not have “10 years of experience in the delivery [of] ABC models,” as 

stipulated in the RFQ. RFQ, attach. 3, Labor Category Description, at 46; 

Comments (May 7, 2012) at 27. Here, too, the agency concluded that the proposed 

individual met the RFQ’s requirements. In making its assessment, the agency 

relied on the contents of the individual’s résumé and a TET member’s “personal 

professional knowledge” of the proposed subject matter expert to conclude that all 

 13 The résumé also stated that the individual “possesses over 16 years of 

experience in financial management and accounting for government agencies and 

private industry.” AR, Tab N, GT Technical Quotation, at 24.
Page 10 B-406563, B-406563.2 

experience requirements were met.14 Supp. AR, Tab B, Legal Memorandum, at 53, 

citing Supp. AR, Tab D, Declaration of TET Member, at ¶ 7. The TET member 

submitted a declaration indicating that she knew the proposed subject matter expert 

since 2002 and worked with him in 2004 where she “learned his status as a Subject

Matter Expert in the field of ABC Modeling and delivery.” Supp. AR, Tab D, 

Declaration of TET Member, at ¶ 7. 

An agency may properly use information known by its own evaluators, as with any 

other references, to aid in the evaluation of proposals, including evaluating offeror 

experience. Arctic Slope World Servs., Inc., B-284481, B-284481.2, Apr. 27, 2000, 

2000 CPD ¶ 75 at 7 (not unreasonable for agency to use past experience with 

proposed deputy project manager to infer whether individual would be a team 

player). 

Here, as noted above, one of the TET members had knowledge of the proposed 

individual’s extensive experience and the TET report expressly noted that the 

proposed individual “reflects educational accomplishments and experiences that are 

far in excess of what was required . . . and provide[s] direct additional benefit to the 

Government.” AR, Tab E, TET Report, at 19. Notwithstanding the protester’s 

assertions to the contrary, the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded 

that the awardee’s proposed key personnel met the RFQ’s requirement for 

experience.15 

Finally, the protester disputes the agency’s conclusion that the résumés submitted 

by GT were “in aggregate considered to be better” than those submitted by Deloitte. 

See AR, Tab E, TET Report, at 43. Deloitte argues that this conclusion was 

unreasonable because it believes that it submitted more experienced candidates for 

 14 The related résumé in GT’s quotation stated that the individual possessed 40 

years of professional experience, was the founding partner of an organization that 

includes activity-based costing as an area of discipline, spent 13 years as an 

instructor of activity-based costing and has published more than 10 books about 

various accounting topics, including activity-based costing. AR, Tab N, GT 

Technical Quotation, at 24.

15 Deloitte also asserted that the agency should have concluded that GT’s proposed 

senior level accountant did not have 15 years of experience with federal financial 

systems, as required by the RFQ--notwithstanding the awardee’s submission of a 

résumé affirmatively representing that he did. Comments (May 7, 2012) at 29; see

RFQ, attach. 3, Labor Category Description, at 50. Although the protester 

acknowledges that the résumé for this individual “made the requisite claim of 

experience [and] [l]egally DHS was entitled to rely on that claim,” Supp. Comments 

(May 29, 2012) at 33, Deloitte speculates that this is a misrepresentation. 

Deloitte’s speculation provides no basis to sustain the protest.
Page 11 B-406563, B-406563.2 

three of the five key personnel positions. Comments (May 7, 2012) at 32. Deloitte’s 

assertion in this regard represents mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation 

and does not form a basis to sustain the protest. On the record here we find no 

basis to question the agency’s evaluation with regard to the key personnel factor.

In sum, the protester has not shown the agency’s evaluation under either the past 

performance or key personnel factors to be improper or otherwise unreasonable.

16

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 16 Deloitte’s initial letter of protest challenged different aspects of the agency’s past 

performance evaluation and objected to one of GT’s proposed key personnel, but in 

its comments responding to the agency’s detailed response to the allegations, 

Deloitte did not substantively rebut the agency’s position. At the end of its pleading, 

Deloitte merely stated that it “does not withdraw” its original protest bases. See

Comments (May 7, 2012) at 34 n.19. Merely referencing or restating a protest basis 

without substantively responding to an agency’s detailed rebuttal amounts to 

abandonment of the protest basis. Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et 

al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 104 at 8 n.4.