United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: CISGi 

File: B-407101

Date: November 6, 2012

Michele Dyson for the protester.

Benjamin Klein, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency.

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protester’s challenge of agency’s evaluation is denied where record shows that the

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation.

DECISION

CISGi, of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to World Technology 

Evaluation Center, Inc. (WTEC) of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals 

(RFP) No. DACS11P2187, issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for 

support services for the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). The 

protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal.

1

 1 CISGi also generally asserted, without any factual or legal support, that the 

agency had improperly favored WTEC in making the award decision. This 

allegation did not state a valid basis for protest. See 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(c)(4), 21.5(f) 

(2012). For the first time in its comments on the agency report responding to the 

protest, the protester asserted that the agency had favored WTEC because, at its 

debriefing, the protester was allegedly told by agency personnel that WTEC was 

considered to be the only reliable source. This particular argument is untimely and 

will not be considered since it was not filed within 10 days of the debriefing. See

4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). CISGi also, for the first time in its comments, argued that 

WTEC should have been excluded from the competition due to an impermissible 

conflict of interest. In this regard, CISGi cites the fact that WTEC has been the 

incumbent contractor (and more recently an interim sole-source contractor)

supporting the NNI for an extended period. This contention is also untimely, since it 

was first raised in the protester’s comments on the agency report, more than 

(continued...)
Page 2 B-407101 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The NNCO provides technical and administrative support to the Nanoscale Science, 

Engineering and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), which coordinates the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), an interagency program supporting the discovery, 

development and deployment of nanoscale science, engineering and technology. 

RFP at 9-10; Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Selection Statement at 1. The RFP, 

issued on November 9, 2011, anticipated the award of a time and materials contract 

for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, to provide comprehensive 

and integrated support services to the NNCO.

2

The solicitation provided that award was to be made to the offeror determined to 

have submitted the proposal offering the best value to the government considering

the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical, past 

performance, price, and extent of participation of small disadvantaged business 

concerns. RFP at 61, 65-66. The factors for technical and past performance,

combined, were to be significantly more important than price. Id. at 65.

Under the technical factor, the RFP provided for the evaluation of three subfactors: 

management plan, personnel qualifications, and understanding of the requirements. 

Id.

 

(...continued)

10 days after its debriefing when the protester knew, or should have known of its 

basis for protest. CISGi knew, or should have known, of WTEC’s incumbency as 

early as December 5, 2011, since the information was included in an RFP 

amendment, and, the protester was notified of the award on June 22. Moreover, we 

note that WTEC’s experience with NNI and NNCO is readily available from NNIrelated internet sources, including WTEC’s own website. A protester is obliged to 

diligently pursue information that may provide a basis of protest. See Professional 

Rehab. Consultants, Inc., B-275871, Feb. 28, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 94 at 2. 

at 61-62, 65-66. Regarding the management plan subfactor, offerors were to 

provide an overall plan for managing and staffing all phases of the required effort, 

and provided that the agency would evaluate the degree to which each offeror’s 

proposed plan established “well-defined lines of authority, responsibility, and 

2 According to the RFP’s statement of work, tasks include support of the NSET, 

nanotechnology working groups, NNI initiatives and industry/state/NNI/NNCO 

interactions, NNI workshops regarding emerging nanotechnology topics, 

communications and public outreach, information technology, document 

preparation/publication, financial management, and office management. RFP at 

10-21.
Page 3 B-407101 

communication.” Id. at 66. With respect to the personnel qualifications subfactor, 

the RFP required that the agency consider the experience of senior personnel in 

administering complex and dynamic projects, as well as the mix of education,

experience and training of the proposed staff. With respect to the understanding 

subfactor, the RFP provided that the agency would consider the thoroughness, 

soundness and detail of the proposal and the degree to which it demonstrated the 

offeror’s understanding of the RFP’s requirements, the NSF working environment, 

and the role of the coordination offices and NNCO in furthering NNI’s mission.

3

 Id.

at 61, 65. The RFP also advised offerors that, under the past performance factor, 

proposals would be evaluated based on the firm’s performance of recent relevant 

(assessed in terms of similar size and scope) contracts. Id. at 62, 66. Price was to 

be evaluated for reasonableness. Id.

In response to the solicitation, the agency received proposals from CISGi and the 

incumbent contractor, WTEC. The agency held two rounds of detailed discussions 

with both offerors, then received and evaluated final proposal submissions. In its 

evaluation of the protester’s proposal the agency noted several strengths and

weaknesses; whereas the agency assigned WTEC’s proposal only strengths. The 

agency rated CISGi’s proposal as “fair” overall under the technical evaluation factor 

and “neutral” under the past performance factor.4 The agency rated WTEC’s 

proposal as “very good” overall under the technical factor and “very good” under the 

past performance factor.5 Final Technical Evaluation Report at 5. CISGi’s price 

($9,623,995.56) was slightly lower than WTEC’s price ($9,722,301.73). Finding that 

the merits of the technically superior WTEC proposal warranted the payment of the

1-percent cost premium associated with an award to WTEC, the agency selected 

WTEC for award. This protest followed.

 3 The answer to a prospective offeror’s question about the importance of having 

knowledge of the NSET and the related working groups further instructed offerors 

that while the RFP contained task-based information about the type of 

administrative support, the NNI website provided information about NSET and the 

work of the entities to be supported; offerors were advised proposals would be 

assessed in light of that available information. RFP Amend. No. 1 at 2.

4 Since the protester’s proposal provided past performance information about 

contracts smaller in size and scope than the one that is to be awarded here, it was 

rated neutral for past performance. The protester is incorrect in contending that the 

RFP did not require past performance information of contracts similar in size and 

scope. Id. at 62, 66.

5 The agency’s evaluation plan provided adjectival ratings (ranging from poor to 

excellent) where, generally, a rating of fair indicated weaknesses outbalanced 

strengths, and very good indicated strengths outbalanced weaknesses. Id. at 3;

AR, Tab 7, Selection Statement at 2.
Page 4 B-407101 

DISCUSSION

CISGi contends that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was improper and that it 

should have been rated higher under the technical factor.6 In reviewing protests of 

alleged improper evaluations and source selection decisions, it is not our role to 

reevaluate proposals. Rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the 

agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria 

and applicable procurement laws and regulations. See Abt Assocs. Inc., 

B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. It is an offeror’s obligation to 

submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate, United Def. LP, 

B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 75 at 19, and a protester’s mere 

disagreement with the evaluation is not sufficient to render it unreasonable. 

Ben-Mar Enters., Inc., B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 68 at 7. We have 

closely reviewed each of the protester’s contentions and find that none of the 

challenges provides a basis to sustain its protest. We address the following 

illustrative examples. 

Regarding the management plan subfactor, CISGi generally challenges the 

reasonableness of the agency’s finding that its proposal failed to sufficiently explain 

how its management plan directly applied to the work of the NNCO and interaction 

with NNI agencies. CISGi primarily argues that this weakness is in direct conflict 

with a strength cited by the agency stemming from CISGi’s management plan’s 

organizational structure, work approach and software tools. 

Our review confirms that the above findings are not inconsistent. Specifically, the 

strength noted by CISGi was based on the overall comprehensive nature of its

generally applicable management plan. The weakness at issue, however, stems

from the agency determination that CISGi’s general plan was not sufficiently tailored 

to the solicitation’s requirements. In this regard, the agency found that CISGi’s plan 

“did not explain well the relationship of the management plan to the NNCO tasks, or 

the relationship of the plan to interaction with agencies” and that it “does not display 

an understanding of [the] process . . . oriented focus of the NNCO and NNI 

agencies.” AR, Tab 7, Selection Statement at 7. The record reflects that in 

assessing this weakness, the agency expressly recognized that CISGi’s plan was, 

as a general matter, “logically and strongly tailored to manage projects.” Id. We 

have no basis to find the agency’s findings to be in conflict, or otherwise 

unreasonable.

 6 In its comments on the agency report, CISGi abandoned several of the evaluation 

weaknesses cited in the firm’s debriefing, for which it had initially expressed 

disagreement. Since the contentions were abandoned, they will not be discussed 

further in this decision. See The Big Picture Co., Inc., B-220859.2, Mar. 4, 1986, 

86-1 CPD ¶ 218 at 5. 
Page 5 B-407101 

In a similar manner, CISGi argues that the agency’s concerns regarding its software 

system as potentially limiting direct communication and requiring additional layers of 

planning are in conflict with the agency’s finding that CISGi’s inclusion of a 

comprehensive software system was a strength. Again, the record reflects that the 

strength identified with respect to CISGi’s proposal stemmed from CISGi’s general 

approach, whereas the weakness at issue concerned the specific application of that 

approach. Thus, we do not perceive any conflict and have no basis to find the 

agency’s evaluation unreasonable.

Under the personnel qualification’s subfactor, CISGi challenges the agency’s finding 

that its project manager did not demonstrate experience managing tasks as large 

and as complex as those required by RFP. According to CISGi, this finding was 

inconsistent with the finding that its program manager warranted a strength since he

“has direct government, NNCO, and NSF experience, as well as nanotechnology, 

and industry experience.” AR, Tab 7, Selection Statement at 8. CISGi’s contention 

is without a basis since the cited strength does not concern the basis for the 

weakness at issue, namely the size of the tasks previously managed by CISGi’s 

program manager. To the extent CISGi argues that it was improper for the agency 

to consider whether its program had experience with similarly large contracts, the 

protester is mistaken. The personnel qualifications subfactor reasonably 

encompassed such an evaluation where it established that the agency would 

evaluate all personnel to ensure that they have “the appropriate mix and balance of 

education, experience, and training in order to provide the services required.” 

RFP at 65. Thus, we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency’s 

evaluation in this regard. 

In sum, CISGi’s protest does not provide a basis to question the reasonableness of 

the agency’s determination that WTEC’s technically superior proposal, at a 

proposed price 1-percent higher than the protester’s substantially lower-rated 

proposal, presented the best value for award.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel