United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Lamar Strong Associates, LLC

File: B-407170

Date: November 19, 2012

Gary L. Rigney, Esq., Gary L. Rigney Law Office; and Jon D. Levin, Esq., Lamar 

Justin Burney, Esq., J. Andrew Watson, III, Esq., and Jordan L. Lenger, Esq., 

Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, for the protester.

James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly & Roberts PLLC, for Systems 

Kinetics Integration, Inc., the intervenor.

Capt. Anthony V. Lenze, Department of the Army, 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

Protest is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s

proposal was unacceptable and ineligible for award because it did not demonstrate 

that an individual proposed for a key personnel position had the experience required 

under the solicitation. 

DECISION

Lamar Strong Associates, LLC (LSA), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the award of a 

contract to Systems Kinetics Integration, Inc. (SKI), of Alexandria, Virginia, under 

request for proposals (RFP) No. W91WAW-12-R-0039, issued by the Department of 

the Army, for services in support of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Programs. The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of its technical 

proposal was unreasonable. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on January 13, 2012, sought proposals to provide subject matter 

expertise in information and tactical data systems, force modernization, equipment 

fielding processes, and information warfare. The RFP anticipated award of a time 

and materials contract for a 1-year base period with two 1-year options. The RFP 

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-407170 

advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following 

factors: (1) technical, (2) past performance, and (3) price. RFP at 140. The 

technical factor had five subfactors, which were of equal importance: 

(1) understanding the requirement, (2) key personnel, (3) corporate capability, 

(4) transition plan, and (5) quality control plan. Id. For purposes of award, the RFP 

stated that the technical factor was “significantly more important” than past 

performance, and that the non-price factors, when combined, were “significantly 

more important” than price. Id.

For the technical evaluation factor, the RFP stated that offerors’ proposals would 

receive one of the following ratings: blue/outstanding, purple/good, green/

acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable. RFP at 143. As relevant here, a 

red/unacceptable rating meant: “Proposal does not meet requirements and 

contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.” Id. The RFP stated 

that offerors’ past performance would be assigned a rating of substantial 

confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown 

confidence. Id. at 143-44.

The Army received proposals from seven offerors, including LSA and SKI, by the 

closing date of February 23. The agency source selection evaluation board (SSEB) 

evaluated the offerors proposals, and assigned the following ratings to LSA’s and 

SKI’s proposals:

LSA SKI

TECHNICAL FACTOR UNACCEPTABLE GOOD

Understanding the 

Requirement Acceptable Good

Key Personnel Unacceptable Good

Corporate Capacity Acceptable Acceptable

Transition Plan Good Good

Quality Control Plan Good Good

PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBSTANTIAL 

CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY 

CONFIDENCE

PRICE $15,335,246 $16,065,018

Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 5.

The Army rated LSA’s proposal as unacceptable for the key personnel factor based 

on a deficiency assessed for its proposed program/contract manager. AR, Tab 12, 

SSEB Report, at 10. The agency concluded that the proposed individual did not 

meet the requirement to demonstrate a “minimum of 10 years experience in 

contract management.” Id., citing RFP at 37. 
Page 3 B-407170 

The contracting officer (CO), who was also the source selection authority, concurred 

with the SSEB’s overall evaluation ratings. AR, Tab 8, SSD, at 5. As discussed in 

detail below, however, the SSA found that LSA’s proposed program/contract 

manager demonstrated 7 years of experience, rather than 5, as found by the SSEB. 

Id. at 11. Because this level of experience did not meet the requirement for 

10 years of contract management experience, the SSA concurred with the SSEB’s 

finding that LSA’s proposal merited a deficiency, was unacceptable for the key 

personnel subfactor and technical evaluation factor. Id. at 10-11. 

On August 7, the Army selected SKI’s proposal for award. The agency provided 

LSA a debriefing on August 15, and this protest followed. 

DISCUSSION

LSA argues that the Army’s evaluation of its proposal was flawed under the 

understanding the requirement, key personnel, and corporate ability subfactors of 

the technical evaluation factor. The protester also argues that the agency’s 

selection decision was flawed. As discussed below, we conclude that the Army 

reasonably found that LSA’s proposal merited a deficiency under the key personnel 

evaluation subfactor and the overall technical factor because its proposed 

program/contract manager did not meet the minimum requirements for that position. 

Because we conclude that the agency reasonably found the protester’s proposal 

unacceptable, and because the RFP stated that a proposal that was found 

unacceptable was ineligible for award, we need not discuss the other evaluation 

issues raised by the protester.

The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion. 

National Gov’t Servs., Inc., B-401063.2 et al., Jan. 30, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 59 at 5. 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. While we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, we will 

question the agency’s conclusions where they are inconsistent with the solicitation 

criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations, undocumented, or not 

reasonably based. Public Commc’ns Servs., Inc., B-400058, B-400058.3, July 18, 

2008, 2009 CPD ¶ 154 at 17.

The solicitation proposal instructions stated with regard to the key personnel 

subfactor that offerors were required to “submit a proposal that reflects the 

experience and qualifications of all contractor key personnel, proposed manning, 

clearance and skill levels for all proposed personnel.” RFP at 134. Offerors were 

advised that they would be evaluated under the key personnel subfactor as follows: 

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal in meeting the 

required manning, clearances, and skill levels for key personnel. The 
Page 4 B-407170 

Government will review submitted resumes and determine if the 

proposed employees have the expertise and experience to perform 

the tasks described in the [performance work statement] PWS for the 

positions to which they are being nominated.

Id. at 141. For the program/contract manager position, the RFP’s PWS required the 

following level of experience:

Program/Contract manager. Key Personnel. Required –must have 

a Bachelor’s Degree. Program/contract manager position requires a 

minimum of 10 years experience in contract management and in 

managing force development related military duties, 8 of which must 

be direct Headquarters, Dept of Army Staff experience or equivalent. 

At least 8 years experience in the supervision of analysts. 

RFP at 37.

The Army found that LSA’s proposed program/contract manager “does not have a 

minimum 10 years experience in contract management as required by the PWS.” 

AR, Tab 12, SSEB Report, at 10. The SSEB report found that the description of 

LSA’s proposed program/contract manager’s work history demonstrated 

“approximately five years of contract management experience” based on the 

following positions: [deleted]. Id.; see AR, Tab 7, LSA Proposal, vol. 2, at A2-19.

The CO agreed with the SSEB’s finding that LSA’s proposed program/contract 

manager should be credited with 5 years of contract management experience, 

based on the descriptions of the two positions cited above. AR, Tab 8, SSD, at 11. 

The SSA also found, however, that a third position reflected an additional 2 years of 

contract management experience: [deleted]. Id.; AR, Tab 7, LSA Proposal, vol. 2,

at A-2-19. Although the SSA concluded that LSA’s proposed program/contract 

manager demonstrated 7 years experience, the SSA agreed with the SSEB that the 

individual still fell short of the 10-year requirement, and that the protester’s proposal 

merited an unacceptable rating for the key personnel subfactor and overall technical 

evaluation factor. AR, Tab 8, SSD, at 11. 

LSA raises two primary arguments with respect to this deficiency: (1) the Army 

unreasonably interpreted the RFP as requiring a proposed program/contract 

manager to demonstrate both contract management and force development 

experience, and (2) the Army reasonably failed to credit LSA’s proposed 

program/contract manager with additional contract management experience, which 

would have allowed him to meet the requirement. We find no merit to either 

argument.

First, LSA argues that the term “minimum of 10 years experience in contract 

management and in managing force development related military duties,” RFP 
Page 5 B-407170 

at 37, does not require the individual proposed for the position to have 10 years of 

experience in both force protection and contract management experience. Instead, 

the protester contends that the RFP term should be read disjunctively, and that the 

proposed individual could meet the RFP requirements by having a combination of 

contract management or management of force development. The protester 

contends that its proposed program/contract manager met the experience 

requirements because the agency recognized that he had 7 years of contract 

management experience, and because he demonstrated more than 25 years of 

force development experience. See Protest at 14.

We find the LSA’s interpretation to be inconsistent with the plain language of the 

solicitation. Where a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a particular 

solicitation provision, our Office will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as 

a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all its provisions; to be reasonable, an 

interpretation of a solicitation must be consistent with such a reading. Raytheon 

Co., B-404998 , July 25, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 232 at 17; The Boeing Co., B-311344 

et al., June 18, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 114 at 34.

Here, the RFP clearly stated that a candidate proposed for the program/contract 

manager position must have “a minimum of 10 years experience in contract 

management and in managing force development related military duties.” RFP 

at 37 (emphasis added). In effect, the protester would rewrite the solicitation to 

substitute the word “or” for “and.” Thus, this argument provides no basis to sustain 

the protest.

Next, LSA contends that its proposed program/contract manager should have been 

credited with additional experience, based on four other work references cited in its 

proposal. The protester argues that these references show that its proposal 

program/contract manager was “heavily involved with contracting activities.” 

Protester’s Comments at 13.

The first three experience references that the protester contends should have 

received credit were as follows: [deleted]. AR, Tab 7, LSA Proposal, vol. 2, at A2-

20-21.

With regard to the [deleted] position, LSA contends that its proposed program/

contract manager should have been credited with experience in contract 

management because the proposal stated that he “‘supervised . . . contractors.’” 

Protester’s Comments at 13. The Army states that the proposed manager was not 

credited with experience here because the description merely stated that his work 

involved contractor personnel, and did not clearly describe contract management 

experience. CO Statement at 7; see also SSEB Chair Decl. at 2. In this regard, the 

protester’s proposal stated that the proposed program/contract manager 

“[s]upervised and provided for the welfare of a work force” that included soldiers, 

civilians, and contractor personnel. AR, Tab 7, LSA Proposal, vol. 2, at A2-20. The 
Page 6 B-407170 

protester’s proposal did not explain, however, why providing for the welfare of these 

individuals these constituted contract management. On this record, we find that the 

agency’s evaluation was reasonable. See American Title Servs., a Joint Venture, 

B-404455, Feb. 4, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 38 at 4 (offerors are responsible for preparing 

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).

For all three positions, LSA argues that the descriptions demonstrated that the 

proposed program/contract manager supervised or managed budgets, and that 

these activities should have been understood by the agency to refer to contract 

management activities. LSA also argues that work described, such as 

“development and execution of experimentation test plans” and “planning and 

execution of operational tests” should have been understood by the agency to refer 

to contract management experience. AR, Tab 7, LSA Proposal, vol. 2, at A2-20-21. 

The Army responds that the descriptions of these positions in LSA’s proposal did 

not clearly reflect contract management experience. CO Statement at 7; see also, 

SSEB Chair Decl. at 2-3. 

Here again, LSA’s proposal does not explain why supervising or managing budgets 

clearly relates to contract management experience. While protester argues that 

work involving “battlefield digitization” should have been understood by the agency 

to involve contracts, the proposal does not describe the activities in terms of 

contract management requirements performed by the protester’s proposed 

program/contract manager. In this regard, the agency notes that the protester’s 

descriptions of the manager’s activities as involving contracts were

characterizations that it first raised in the protest, and that were not explained in its 

proposal. CO Statement at 7, citing Protest at 15. On this record, we find that the 

agency’s evaluation was reasonable. See American Title Servs. a Joint Venture, 

supra.

In addition to the three experience references cited above, the protester also 

contends that its proposed program/contract manager should have been credited 

with experience for the following position: [deleted]. AR, Tab 7, LSA Proposal, vol. 

2, at A2-19-20. The Army did not directly address this protest argument. The 

reference, however, provides only 1 year of experience. Thus, even crediting this

additional experience, the proposed program/contract manager would only 

demonstrate 8 years of experience, and thus still fall short of the requirement to 

demonstrate 10 years of experience.

In sum, the record does not show that the Army’s evaluation of the experience of 

LSA’s proposed program/contract manager was unreasonable. Because the 

agency reasonably found that the protester’s proposal merited a deficiency under 
Page 7 B-407170 

the key personnel factor, the protester was ineligible for award under the terms of 

the solicitation. See RFP at 143.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel