United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: XtremeConcepts Systems 

File: B-406804

Date: August 31, 2012

Carmel Alasagas for the protester.

Andre Long, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Frank Maguire, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest is denied where protester’s proposal was evaluated as inferior to awardee’s 

under every evaluation factor and subfactor and protester fails to show that the 

evaluation or agency actions were unreasonable or improper.

DECISION

XtremeConcepts Systems (Xtreme), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the Department 

of the Navy’s issuance of a task order to GBL Systems Corporation (GBL), of

Camarillo, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-11-R-3411, for 

engineering support for the development of test capabilities associated with 

net-centric testing of joint mission areas. Xtreme asserts that the agency did not 

comply with small business set-aside requirements and that its proposal was 

unreasonably evaluated.1

We deny the protest.

 1 Since the protester was not represented by counsel who could be admitted to a 

protective order, we did not issue a protective order in this matter. Accordingly, the 

agency was not able to produce protected information to the protester, and the 

discussion in this decision is necessarily general in nature in several respects. In 

cases such as this, however, we review the entire record, including any information 

not furnished to the protester, and base our decision on this full review. Bid Protest 

Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.4 (2012). 
Page 2 B-406804 

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on September 19, 2011, was limited to contractors who are 

contract holders under the Navy SeaPort-e contract. The acquisition was a 

100 percent small business set-aside. AR, exh. A, RFP, amend. 2 at 79. The RFP 

provided for the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee level-of-effort type task order to the 

offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, offered the best value to the 

government considering three evaluation factors: (1) technical, including subfactors 

for workforce, understanding of the work, and management plan; (2) past 

performance; and (3) cost/price. The technical factor was more important than the

past performance factor, and the technical and past performance factors when 

combined were significantly more important than cost/price. RFP, amend. 2

at 95-96. 

The Navy received timely proposals from Xtreme and GBL. Both proposals were

included in the competitive range. AR, exh. F, Competitive Range Determination, 

Jan. 16, 2012. After conducting several rounds of discussions with the offerors and 

receiving final proposal revisions (FPR), the agency requested revised FPRs. 

The revised FPRs were evaluated as follows: 

GBL Xtreme

Overall Technical Outstanding/Low Risk Acceptable/Moderate Risk

 Workforce Outstanding/Low Risk Acceptable/Low Risk

 Understanding Good/Low Risk Marginal/Moderate Risk

 Management Outstanding/Low Risk Acceptable/Moderate Risk

Past Performance Substantial Confidence/

Very Relevant Past 

Performance

Satisfactory Confidence/

Somewhat Relevant Past 

Performance

Proposed Cost/Price $35,483,061 $38,059,870

Evaluated 

Cost/Price $35,493,687 $38,059,870

AR, exh. E, Source Selection Evaluation Board Report, May 1, 2012; Chart No 1; 

Summary of Offerors’ Ratings and Risk Assessments; AR, exh. M, Source Selection 

Decision Document (SSDD), at 2-3.

The source selection authority determined that GBL’s proposal represented the best 

value based on GBL’s superiority under both the technical and past performance 

factors and GBL’s lower evaluated cost/price. Upon learning of the resulting award, 

and after receiving a debriefing on May 17, Xtreme filed this protest with our Office. 
Page 3 B-406804 

DISCUSSION

Xtreme raises a number of issues regarding the agency’s conduct of the acquisition 

and evaluation of Xtreme’s technical and cost/price proposals. In reviewing a 

protest challenging an agency's evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, 

nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is 

a matter within the agency’s discretion since the agency is responsible for defining 

its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Smiths Detection, Inc.; 

Am. Sci. and Eng'g, Inc., B-402168.4 et al., Feb. 9, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 39 at 6-7. 

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. A protester’s 

mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation judgments does not render those 

judgments unreasonable. Smiths Detection, Inc.; Am. Sci. and Eng'g, Inc., supra.

We have reviewed all of Xtreme’s arguments and conclude that they do not provide 

a basis to sustain the protest.2 We address several of the protest grounds below.

Corrected Weaknesses/Deficiencies

As an initial matter, we note that in several instances Xtreme challenges 

weaknesses or deficiencies identified by the agency during discussions, but which 

were subsequently addressed to the agency’s satisfaction in Xtreme’s revised 

proposal or by submission of additional information, and thus were not a factor in 

the agency’s source selection decision. SSEB Report at 5-9, 11-14. Accordingly, 

Xtreme did not suffer competitive prejudice with regard to these issues, and we 

therefore will not consider whether the agency’s initial concerns were warranted.

Nippo Corp., B-402363.2, May 5, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 112 at 4; see Alanna Orr, 

B-310966.2, May 14, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 95 at 3 (prejudice is an essential element 

of every viable protest and, where it is not demonstrated or otherwise evident, GAO

will not sustain a protest allegation, even where the record shows that the agency's 

actions arguably were improper).

 2 In its comments on the agency report, Xtreme raised supplemental protest 

grounds based on information in the SSEB Report. Comments at 6-8. These 

additional protest grounds, however, are untimely and cannot be considered, since 

the SSEB Report was first provided to Xtreme in the agency’s June 4 request for 

summary dismissal, but Xtreme’s comments on the report were not submitted until 

July 11, more than 10 days after June 4. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2); see AdvanceMed 

Corp.; TrustSolutions, LLC, B-404910.4 et al., Jan. 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 25.
Page 4 B-406804 

Limitations on Subcontracting

Xtreme asserts that GBL’s proposal fails to comply with solicitation restrictions on 

subcontracting. As noted, the solicitation was set aside for small business 

concerns. As such, the RFP included a limitation on subcontracting clause which 

required, in relevant part, that offerors provide “a breakout to demonstrate how the 

prime contractor will perform at least 50% of the cost of contract incurred for 

personnel with its own employees for each period of performance in accordance 

with FAR clause 52.219-14.” RFP at 87. 

Xtreme asserts that GBL’s proposed subcontractors are not small businesses, citing 

a “Company Listing” for GBL from the SeaPort-e web portal and another web-based 

source, which appears to indicate “sub-companies” or partners of GBL on 

SeaPort-e contracts that are not small businesses. Protest exh. B. As noted by the 

agency, however, GBL’s proposal indicated that for this procurement it would use 

only one subcontractor, which was to perform less than 1 percent of the total cost of 

performance of the task order. Agency Request for Summary Dismissal (ARSD) 

at 2; ARSD, exhs. C, D.3

Key Personnel

Xtreme asserts that the qualifications, expertise and capabilities of its “impeccable” 

management and technical team “were entirely ignored by the source selection 

board and not mentioned in the Post Award Debriefing in comparison to GBL

Systems.” Protest at 5; Comments at 8-10. However, it is the agency’s 

contemporaneous documentation, and not the debriefing, that is relevant to whether 

Xtreme was properly evaluated. See Nippo Corp., supra, at 5. Here, the evaluation 

record provides ample evidence that, in fact, the agency did evaluate Xtreme’s 

proposed personnel. See, e.g., AR, exh. G, at 5; SSEB Report at 12. In this 

regard, the agency explains that although “the resumes proposed by Xtreme 

showed great experience, it did not demonstrate experience relevant to the work for 

this requirement.” AR at 21. According to the agency, the resumes showed that 

Xtreme met the minimum requirements, but they did not show any strength for the 

workforce subfactor that warranted a higher rating than the assigned acceptable

rating. Id. at 21-22. Xtreme has not shown the agency’s actual evaluation in this 

regard to be unreasonable.

 3 To the extent that Xtreme questions whether GBL will comply with the RFP’s 

limitation on subcontracting clause, this is a matter of contract administration not for 

review by our Office. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(a); see OMV Medical, Inc., B-281490, 

Feb. 16, 1999, 99-1 CPD ¶ 38 at 9-10 n.7.
Page 5 B-406804 

Cost/Price

Xtreme asserts that it was improperly “duped” into raising its price to its competitive 

detriment. Protest at 5. First, the protester cites the agency’s competitive range 

letter, dated January 19, 2012, which advised as follows:

The Government expects to select one offeror on the basis of its 

proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors 

considered. . . . Offerors are advised that the proposal meeting the 

solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for 

an award if award to a higher priced offeror is determined to be more 

beneficial to the Government.

Protest att. J. Xtreme asserts that this document misled it into believing that “cost is 

not an issue.” Protest at 5. We find nothing misleading in this language, which 

merely paraphrases key sections of the RFP describing the agency’s approach to 

making a “best value” determination. RFP at 94. Nothing in this language indicates 

that cost/price would be given no weight in the source selection.

Xtreme next argues that it was coerced into increasing its proposed cost/price, such 

that it became noncompetitive, during discussions with the agency regarding its 

labor rates. We will not find coercion in discussions, however, where the agency in 

good faith provides accurate information to an offeror, even where the offeror uses 

that information to its ultimate competitive detriment. EMR, Inc., B-406625, July 17, 

2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 209. Here, the record indicates that the agency expressed 

concerns regarding the realism of Xtreme’s low labor rates in both written and oral 

discussions. AR at 9-10; SSEB Report at 12, 18-19. Xtreme ultimately raised its 

labor rates in lieu of providing further information supporting the realism of the rates, 

leading the SSEB to upgrade Xtreme’s rating under the workforce subfactor from 

marginal with moderate risk to acceptable with low risk. SSEB Report at 11-12. 

Xtreme has made no showing that the agency furnished inaccurate or misleading 

information during discussions, or otherwise acted in bad faith. This protest ground 

therefore is without merit. 

In sum, we find no merit to Xtreme’s challenges to the evaluation and source 

selection. In this regard, not only has Xtreme failed to show that the challenged 

evaluation judgments were unreasonable, but in any case, the record indicates that 

Xtreme’s proposal was evaluated as inferior to GBL’s under every evaluation factor 

and subfactor. Thus, even were we to agree with Xtreme regarding one of its 
Page 6 B-406804 

challenges to the evaluation, there simply is no reason to believe that this would 

have called into question the award to GBL. 4

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 4 The protester requests that GAO conduct a thorough review of what it asserts is 

the systemic tendencies of government procurement agencies in favoring small 

business with large companies as subcontractors or benefactors to win small 

business set-aside procurements. GAO, however, does not conduct investigations 

as part of our bid protest function. RMI, B-405409, Oct. 20, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 224 

at 3 n.2.