United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: SOURCECORP BPS Inc.

File: B-406792

Date: August 24, 2012

Albert B. Krachman, Esq., Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., and Brian S. Gocial, Esq., Blank 

Rome LLP, for the protester.

Beth Sturgess, Esq., Mark Allen, Esq., Eric Crane, Esq., and Barbara Walthers, 

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

Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Challenge to the elimination of the protester’s quotation from the competition is 

denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the quotation was technically 

unacceptable.

DECISION

SOURCECORP BPS Inc., of Dallas, Texas, protests the elimination of its quotation

from the competitive range by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under request for quotations (RFQ) 

No. HSSCCG-12-Q-00106 for digitization services. The protester argues that the 

agency unreasonably found its quotation technically unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ was issued on January 26, 2012, and was limited to offerors who have 

contracts under General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 

No. 36, special item No. 51-506. The contractor will be required to provide support 

for the digitization of immigration files, records, and supporting materials. The 

services include the transportation, disassembly, preparation, indexing, scanning 

and electronic storing of physical files, as well as the reassembly of the physical 

files for shipment and final disposition.

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-406792 

The RFQ anticipated award of a task order with a term of 1 year with two 1-year 

options. Vendors were required to propose a per-image price, which included all 

other costs such as facility costs, transportation, labor, and profit. The RFQ advised 

vendors that quotations would be evaluated on the basis of the following factors, 

listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical capability, (2) socioeconomic 

status,

1 (3) past performance, and (4) price. RFQ amend. 2 at 84-86. The 

technical capability factor had three subfactors, listed in descending order of 

importance: (1) operational approach, (2) management approach, and (3) 

corporate experience. Id. at 84. 

DHS received quotations from seven vendors, including SOURCECORP, by the 

closing date of February 17. The agency evaluated the initial quotations, and did 

not conduct discussions. The evaluation ratings for the vendors’ quotations were as 

follows:2

SOURCECORP

VENDOR

2

VENDOR 

3

VENDOR 

4

VENDOR 

5

VENDOR 

6

TECHNICAL 

CAPABILITY U [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

Operational 

Approach U [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

Management 

Approach U [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

Corporate 

Experience A [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

SOCIOECONOMIC 

STATUS E [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

PAST 

PERFORMANCE O [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

EVALUATED 

PRICE $21.6M [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

AR, Tab 8, Competitive Range Decision, at 2. 

 1 The RFQ advised that a “preference” would be given to a vendor that is a small 

business, performs the contract in a Historically Underutilized Business Zone 

(HUBZone), or subcontracts 20 percent of the order to a HUBZone small business. 

RFQ at 85.

2 The agency used the following ratings: for the technical capability factor--

outstanding (O), good (G), acceptable (A), and unacceptable (U); for the 

socioeconomic status factor--excellent (E) and fair (F); for past performance--low 

risk/outstanding (O), medium risk/acceptable (A), high risk/unacceptable (U), and 

neutral (N). AR, Tab 4, Evaluation Plan, at 7-9.
Page 3 B-406792 

With regard to SOURCECORP’s quotation, the contracting officer (CO) found as 

follows: 

The proposal contains a deficiency and several weaknesses; fails to 

reflect the scope of work necessary to perform the required tasks; and 

fails to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the 

Government’s requirements. The Offeror received an “unacceptable[”] 

rating in the Operational Approach and Management Approach 

leading [to] the overall rating of “Unacceptable.”

Id. at 4. 

Based on his analysis of the evaluation results, the CO concluded that “exchanges 

[deleted] are necessary with [Vendor 4] and [Vendor 3], and exchanges with 

[Vendor 2] are necessary [deleted].” Id. With regard to the other vendors, the CO 

concluded that the “[Vendor 6], [Vendor 5], and Sourcecorp BPS quotes would 

required a major revision to be competitive even considering their price.” Id. 

On May 16, DHS advised SOURCECORP that its quotation had been eliminated 

from the competition. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

SOURCECORP argues that DHS unreasonably eliminated its quotation from award 

consideration. Specifically, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably 

rated its quotation as unacceptable under the management approach and 

operational approach subfactors of the technical capability evaluation factor. The 

protester also contends that the agency should have provided the protester with an 

opportunity to clarify errors in its quotation. For the reasons discussed below, we 

find no basis to sustain the protest.

The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal or quotation is a matter within the agency’s 

discretion. Ball Aerospace & Techs. Corp., B-402148, Jan. 25, 2010, 2010 CPD 

¶ 37 at 9. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment in its 

determination of the relative merit of competing proposals does not establish that 

the evaluation was unreasonable. VT Griffin Servs., Inc., B-299869.2, Nov. 10, 

2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 219 at 4. In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation 

of proposals, our Office will not reevaluate proposals but instead will examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent 

with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and 

regulations. See Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, 

Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. 
Page 4 B-406792 

Management Approach Subfactor

SOURCECORP challenges DHS’s assignment of an unacceptable rating under the 

management approach subfactor of the technical capability factor, which was based 

on an evaluated deficiency relating to its contingency plan. The RFQ advised 

vendors that their quotations were required to demonstrate a contingency plan, as 

follows:

Offerors must demonstrate and discuss the capability to provide a 

management approach sufficient to manage and perform key aspects 

of work as set forth in the [performance work statement] PWS. This 

subfactor will be evaluated to the extent which the offeror:

* * * * *

--Demonstrates a management approach which includes contingency 

plans for continuity of operations plans in the event of a natural or 

manmade disaster that may disrupt service capabilities.

RFQ amend. 2 at 84-85.

DHS concluded that the SOURCECORP’s quotation did not adequately address the 

requirement to demonstrate a contingency plan: 

On page 88, Emergency Plan, there appears to be a description of 

how to write an emergency plan rather than a description of the 

operational processes and contingency procedures that will be 

implemented.

AR, Tab 6, Final Technical Evaluation (Apr. 26, 2012), at 41.

SOURCECORP argues that DHS’s evaluation was unreasonable because it relied 

on an unstated evaluation criterion. In this regard, the protester argues that the 

agency improperly interpreted the RFQ as requiring vendors’ quotations to provide 

a detailed contingency plan. The protester argues that its description of its standard 

approach to develop a contingency plan adequately addressed the solicitation 

requirements. In support of its argument, the protester also notes that the PWS

contained a requirement for a contingency plan as a contract deliverable, which the 

protester contends, demonstrates that vendors were not required to provide detailed 

contingency plans in their quotations. This PWS requirement states:

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SECURITY IN THE SYSTEMS 

DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE (SDLC)

* * * * *
Page 5 B-406792 

The contractor shall assist the appropriate USCIS [information system 

security officer] with development and completion of all SDLC 

activities and deliverables contained in the SDLC. . . . These activities

include development of the following documents:

* * * * *

Contingency Plan (CP): This plan describes the steps to be taken to 

ensure that an automated system or facility can be recovered from 

service disruptions in the event of emergencies and/or disasters. The 

Contractor shall support annual contingency plan testing and shall 

provide a Contingency Plan Test Results Report.

RFQ amend. 2 at 58-59 (emphasis in original).

We think DHS’s evaluation under this subfactor was reasonable. The management 

approach subfactor stated that vendors were required to address their management 

approach in the context of the PWS. RFQ amend. 2 at 84. The subfactor further 

stated that vendors were required to demonstrate an approach including 

contingency plans for continuity of operations. Id. at 85. Based on our review, the 

agency reasonably found that the protester’s contingency plan was generic in 

nature, and did not discuss a specific approach with regard to the PWS 

requirements. Instead, the protester’s quotation states that its approach to 

contingency plan is to “study the various risk mitigation options” and to evaluate 

those options’ costs and benefits. AR, Tab 5, SOURCECORP Quotation, at 88. 

The quotation also discussed various options that are “typically” utilized, and 

various goals that are part of a continuity program that would be developed. Id.

at 89-95.

The protester contends, however, that the agency’s interpretation of the 

management approach subfactor is inconsistent with the requirements of the PWS. 

We disagree. As the agency notes, the PWS requirements referenced by the 

protester relate to the IT security requirements, and did not address a contingency 

plan that related to the entirety of the PWS requirements. RFQ amend. 2 at 58-59. 

In contrast, the contingency plan requirements discussed in the management 

approach subfactor related to the whole of the PWS, which addresses more issues 

than IT security, such as mail handling, physical workspace management, and 

storage, shipment, and handling of paper documents. Id. at 7. Thus, we agree with 

the agency that there is no conflict between the evaluation criteria in the 

management approach subfactor and the performance requirements of the PWS. 

Based on our review, DHS reasonably assigned SOURCECORP’s quotation a 

deficiency for its failure to adequately address the contingency plan requirement 
Page 6 B-406792 

and could reasonably determine that SOURCECORP’s quotation warranted an 

unacceptable rating for the management approach subfactor.

Operational Approach Subfactor

SOURCECORP also challenges DHS’s assignment of an unacceptable rating under 

the operational approach subfactor of the technical capability factor, which was

based on numerous evaluated weaknesses. The agency identified nine 

weaknesses, one of which was comprised of 12 examples of “gaps in the 

discussion of processes” or “incomplete data and discontinuity in describing 

proposed processes.” AR, Tab 6, Final Technical Evaluation, at 38-39. The 

protester raises numerous challenges to the evaluation of its quotation under this 

subfactor. We have reviewed all of the protester’s arguments and conclude that 

there is no basis to sustain the protest. We address a number of representative 

arguments below.

First, DHS assessed a weakness based on a “fundamental misunderstanding 

between what is proposed and what is required.” Id. at 37. The first aspect of the 

weakness related to the agency’s concern that the protester had proposed “a 

solution spanning two facilities.” Id. The agency found that there was a “risk with 

separating the totality of the operation and [that] there is not enough information 

provided to ensure it can be accomplished.” Id. at 38. The agency’s concern was 

based on the following discussion from SOURCECORP’s quotation regarding 

performance of the contract requirements after the initial implementation of the 

vendors’ technical solution: 

Following the successful implementation of the [records digitization 

services] at the [records data center], the SOURCECORP Team will 

refocus its project management approach to address the contract’s 

ongoing operations. . . .

The SOURCECORP Team anticipates that once the system 

architecture has been fully deployed, and implemented, this technical 

component of the contract will migrate operations to [deleted] where 

image staging and storage operations will be monitored and 

maintained. With the heart of operations in [deleted] under the 

management of [deleted] will refocus his participation in our effort to a 

maintenance and process-improvement role and relocate project 

management headquarters to the metropolitan [deleted], area with 

[deleted] and [deleted] to facilitate ongoing interface with the 

Government at the Headquarters level. 

AR, Tab 5, SOURCECORP Quotation, at 52. 
Page 7 B-406792 

SOURCECORP argues that its quotation involved performance at only one facility, 

rather than two. The protester notes that its quotation states in numerous locations 

that performance would take place in [deleted]. For example, the protester cites 

numerous references in its quotation to “a facility” or “the facility” in Kentucky. See

Protest at 10, citing AR, Tab 5, SOURCECORP Quotation, at 1, 3, 4, 7-8, 10, 13, 

23, 29, 42, 49, 52, 60. The protester argues that the reference in its quotation to the 

[deleted] facility was taken out of context by the agency, and that the protester 

intended only that “executive level oversight and monitoring will be maintained at 

corporate headquarters in [deleted].” Protest at 10-11. The protester argues that 

the multiple references to a single facility, elsewhere in its quotation, should have 

led the agency to understand that SOURCECORP was proposing to perform the 

contract requirements at a single location. 

We think that DHS reasonably relied on the plain language of SOURCECORP’s 

quotation, which clearly stated that the vendor proposed to “migrate operations to 

[deleted] where [deleted].” AR, Tab 5, SOURCECORP Quotation, at 52. Although 

the protester argues that this reference was taken out of context, the protester’s

quotation does not explain why the reference to the [deleted] facility could be 

understood as anything other than work to be performed at a location other than the 

[deleted] facility. For this reason, we think the agency reasonably assessed a 

weakness based on the risks arising from SOURCECORP’s apparent plan to have 

two separate facilities without providing sufficient information to ensure this 

separation of operations can be accomplished.

A related part of DHS’s assessment of a weakness based on the protester’s 

“fundamental misunderstanding” of the solicitation requirements concerned the 

agency’s conclusion that the protester intended to connect the agency’s National 

File Tracking System (NFTS), which is the agency’s system for tracking the 

movement immigration files between USCIS and other agency offices, to 

SOURCECORP’s tracking system, which is called the Production Control System 

(PCS). The agency identified a weakness arising from a section of the protester’s 

quotation regarding the use of NFTS data, which stated: 

[Deleted]. Simultaneously electronic data will be passed from NFTS

to PCS to begin the internal tracking of all files and their individual 

documents. 

AR, Tab 5, SOURCECORP Quotation, at 20. The agency assessed the following 

weakness:

[T]he Offeror is talking about a connection from their PCS solution to 

NFTS. The Government never anticipated a connection and the 

Offeror [has] not provided an architectural diagram that describes their 

technical solution and connectivity.
Page 8 B-406792 

AR, Tab 6, Final Technical Evaluation, at 38. While the protester argues that the 

PCS was intended to be a complementary tracking system, and was not intended to 

be directly connected to NFTS, see Protest at 11, we think DHS reasonably 

concluded that the protester’s proposed approach involved a connection of some 

sort between the NFTS and PCS systems, as indicated by the SOURCECORP 

description of “electronic data” being “passed from NFTS to PCS.” Thus, the 

agency had a reasonable basis for assigning a weakness here.

Next, DHS assigned a weakness to SOURCECORP’s quotation based on the 

protester’s lack of understanding of the requirements for shipping of records. The 

protester’s quotation stated: “The files will be updated in NFTS as leaving the 

[record data center] to its requesters [file control officer] location and mailed using 

the shipping method identified by the onsite USCIS quality assurance personnel.” 

AR, Tab 5, SOURCECORP Quotation, at 15. The agency assessed the following 

weakness to this aspect of the protester’s quotation: 

On page 15, the Offeror indicates that files will be mailed, “. . . using 

the shipping method identified by the onsite USCIS quality assurance 

personnel.” Identification of the shipping method is not a responsibility 

of the USCIS quality assurance personnel, rather it is covered in . . . 

the Records Operations Handbook [ROH].

AR, Tab 6, Final Technical Evaluation, at 39.

The protester argues that although it did not reference the ROH, and instead stated 

that it would follow guidance of the quality assurance personnel, the intent of this 

statement was to reflect the fact that the ROH does not address every possible 

shipping scenario, such as the shipment of larger groups of files. Protest at 17. 

The protester argues that it was aware of the directions in the ROH, and that its 

quotation should have been understood to indicate that the protester would check 

with government personnel for directions in instances not covered by the ROH.

We think DHS reasonably assessed a weakness here. While the protester 

contends that it was aware of the shipping guidance set forth in the ROH, there is 

no support for this claim in its quotation, nor is there any support for the protester’s 

argument that its proposed approach of consulting quality assurance personnel for 

instructions regarding shipping was only intended to address shipping scenarios not 

covered by the ROH. Furthermore, the protester’s argument does not address the 

agency’s concern that SOURCECORP proposed to consult personnel who are not 

responsible for shipping requirements. 

Finally, DHS assigned a weakness to SOURCECORP’s quotation based on 

12 examples of gaps or incomplete data in the protester’s quotation. AR, Tab 6, 

Final Technical Evaluation, at 38-39. Some of these examples included a reference 

to a 97.5 percent error rate, rather than a 2.5 percent error rate; a reference to 
Page 9 B-406792 

“USCIS Mortgage files”; and various typos and formatting errors. Id. 

SOURCECORP argues that the errors were clearly typos or mistakes, which could 

have been easily corrected, and that these minor discrepancies should not have 

resulted in a weakness. However, based on our review, we think that the agency 

reasonably concluded that the 12 examples, collectively, which resulted in gaps and 

incomplete data in the SOURCECORP’S quotation, constituted a weakness. 

On this record, we conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s 

quotation under the operational approach subfactor.

Other Issues

SOURCECORP argues that DHS agency failed to consider price when eliminating 

its quotation from award consideration. The record here shows, however, that the 

CO clearly considered the vendors’ proposed prices. The CO noted that all offerors 

were [deleted] the government estimate, but that the “[t]otal evaluated price . . . was 

the least important factor.” Furthermore, the CO specifically concluded that 

“[Vendors 5, 6] and Sourcecorp BPS quotes would require a major revision to be 

competitive even considering their price.” AR, Tab 8, Competitive Range Decision, 

at 4.

Finally, SOURCECORP argues that, although DHS did not conduct discussions 

with vendors prior to eliminating its quotation from the competitive range, the 

agency should have provided it an opportunity to clarify the errors in its quotation. 

As discussed above, however, there were more problems in SOURCECORP’s 

quotation than clerical errors. The agency reasonably identified a deficiency and 

numerous weaknesses in the protester’s quotation, which rendered it unacceptable 

and which would have required material revisions to address. Under these 

circumstances, the agency had no obligation to conduct discussions or other 

exchanges with SOURCECORP.3 See The Dixon Group, Inc., B-406201, 

B-406201.2, Mar. 9, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 150 at 6.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 3 SOURCECORP raises other collateral issues. We have reviewed all of the 

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