United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: ASPEC Engineering

File: B-406423

Date: May 22, 2012

Stephen R. Bosin, Esq. for the protester.

Carrie Willett Fogle, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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

Protest of rejection of proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where record 

shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the 

solicitation.

DECISION

ASPEC Engineering, of Holtsville, New York, protests the award of a contract to 

Sociedade de Empreitada e Trabalhos Hidraulicos (SETH), of Portugal, under 

request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4486-12-R-0001, issued by the Department of 

the Air Force for operation and maintenance services at water and waste water 

treatment plants at Lajes Field, Azores. ASPEC, the incumbent contractor for the 

waste water treatment plant portion of the solicitation’s requirements,1 contends the 

agency unreasonably evaluated and rejected its proposal as technically 

unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, which was issued on November 22, 2011, sought proposals for the award 

of a fixed-price contract to operate and maintain both the water and waste water

 1 SETH is the incumbent for the water treatment plant requirements.

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to 

a GAO Protective Order. This version has been 

approved for public release.
Page 2 B-406423 

treatment plants.2 RFP at 3. Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, 

technically acceptable offeror with satisfactory past performance. Id. at 60. As it 

relates to the protest, for the purpose of evaluating technical acceptability, the RFP 

identified two technical evaluation factors: (1) Key Personnel Qualifications and 

Requirements (composed of subfactor 1a, Organization and subfactor 1b, 

Manpower/Experience); and (2) Workforce Management. Id.

Three firms submitted proposals. The agency evaluated ASPEC’s proposal and 

assigned it ratings of unacceptable under the organization subfactor of the key 

personnel factor as well as the workforce management evaluation factor. In this 

regard, the agency determined that the protester failed to meaningfully address the 

evaluation factors in various respects. Award was made to SETH as the 

lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror with satisfactory past performance.3 

ASPEC protested to our Office on February 17, 2012, challenging the agency’s 

evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable. 4

DISCUSSION

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the 

contracting agency, and in reviewing protests of an agency’s evaluation, our role is 

limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms 

of the solicitation. Barents Group, L.L.C.

 2 The plants had previously been managed under two separate contracts. 

, B-276082, B-276082.2, May 9, 1997, 

3 After SETH was determined to be in line for award under the RFP’s evaluation 

terms, the agency did not evaluate the third proposal received in light of its higher 

price.

4 ASPEC also argued “on information and belief” that SETH must not have 

proposed a licensed lead operator, as required by the solicitation, since SETH 

offered an ASPEC employee a lead operator position at the waste water treatment 

plant after award, and because SETH had allegedly performed much of its previous 

water treatment plant operations and maintenance contract without a licensed lead 

operator. We dismiss this challenge regarding SETH’s technical acceptability since 

it is based on unsupported factual assumptions regarding the content of SETH’s 

proposal. See Siebe Envtl. Controls, B-275999.2, Feb. 12, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 70 

at 2. Additionally, we dismiss as untimely the protester’s challenge of SETH’s past 

performance based on SETH’s alleged previous failure to use a licensed lead 

operator to operate its treatment plant. The protester did not specifically challenge 

the agency’s evaluation of SETH’s proposal under the RFP’s past performance 

evaluation factor until it filed comments on the agency report. Since the matter was 

not raised within 10 days of when the protester knew or should have known its basis 

for protest, it is untimely. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2011).
Page 3 B-406423 

97-1 CPD ¶ 164 at 6. A protester’s mere disagreement with the evaluation does not 

show it lacked a reasonable basis. Id. On the record here, we have no basis to 

question the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically 

unacceptable. 

Under the organization subfactor, offerors were required to describe their 

“organization as it will be used to ensure successful performance[,]” “[s]tate the 

level of management personnel and their responsibilities[,]” and “[p]rovide a 

description of the methods used to ensure personnel are knowledgeable and 

qualified in Reverse Osmosis/Nano-filtration (RO/NF) water treatment plants and

potable water system operations and maintenance.” RFP at 60. As noted above, 

ASPEC received a rating of unacceptable under this subfactor. 

The record shows that ASPEC provided an organization chart in its proposal 

identifying the individuals the firm proposed to use during performance, along with 

their job titles, and the resumes of the individuals’ past work responsibilities and 

experience. However, the record also reflects that ASPEC did not address how the 

individuals proposed would be used to perform the agency’s requirements under the 

contemplated contract. Thus, we find reasonable the agency’s determination that 

ASPEC’s proposal failed to adequately demonstrate how its proposed organization 

would be used to complete the work successfully.5

 

The agency also faulted ASPEC for failing to address the methods it would use “to 

ensure personnel are knowledgeable and qualified in Reverse Osmosis/Nanofiltration (RO/NF) water treatment plants and potable water system operations and 

maintenance.” Id.

 5 ASPEC generally responds to its unacceptable evaluation by suggesting that the 

agency should have known it had the necessary capability to perform the contract 

based on its incumbent performance of the waste water treatment plant contract. 

ASPEC's view that the agency was required to recognize ASPEC's incumbency as 

providing an adequate substitute for including required information in its proposal is 

unpersuasive; an offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written 

and affirmatively states its merits, or run the risk of having its proposal rejected as 

technically acceptable where the proposal omits or provides inadequate information 

addressing fundamental factors. Essex Electro Eng'rs, Inc., B-284149, B-284149.2, 

Feb. 28, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 72 at 6.

 The protester suggests that the agency’s evaluation in this 

regard was unreasonable since ASPEC identified a lead operator with the requisite 

water and waste water treatment plant operation certifications. We find this 

argument unpersuasive. This individual’s certifications alone do not meaningfully 

respond to the requirement for ASPEC to describe the methods the offeror will use 

to ensure its proposed personnel are knowledgeable and qualified in RO/NF water 

treatment plants and potable water system operations and maintenance. Thus, we 

have no basis to find the agency’s evaluation in this regard unreasonable.
Page 4 B-406423 

Additionally, we conclude that the agency’s evaluation of the ASPEC proposal as 

technically unacceptable under the workforce management factor was also 

reasonably based. In this regard, the agency concluded that ASPEC failed to 

provide a proposed shift schedule in its proposal, as required by the terms of the 

solicitation. Under the workforce management factor, offerors were to provide, 

among other things, a “Personnel Workload Management Estimate” and a 

“proposed shift schedule.” Id. They were also to “[d]escribe a plan to retain 

qualified personnel to perform service under the contract and to assure that a 

qualified employee of the firm with full authority to bind the contractor can be 

contacted during normal duty hours.” Id.

While the protester asserts that it provided a “shift schedule”, the document the 

protester cites in this regard is actually its personnel workload management 

estimate, which, as noted above, was separately required under the same 

evaluation factor. Further, the record supports the agency’s evaluation under this 

factor where it faulted ASPEC’s proposal for lacking any information about its 

proposed plan to retain qualified personnel or its plan to assure a qualified 

employee of the firm with full authority to bind the contractor can be contacted 

during normal duty hours of performance, as required. ASPEC does not 

meaningfully address the former, and, as to the latter, we find unpersuasive the 

protester’s contention that it adequately addressed the requirements based on its 

general acceptance of the performance work statement requirements. An offeror is 

responsible for demonstrating affirmatively the merits of its proposal and risks 

rejection if it fails to do so. See HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 

2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 5. Further, no matter how competent an offeror may be, the 

technical evaluation must be based on the information included in the firm’s 

proposal. See Watson Indus., Inc., B-238309, Apr. 5, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 371 at 3-4. 

In conclusion, since the record supports the agency’s determinations that ASPEC 

failed to address the evaluation criteria as specified in the solicitation, we find that 

the agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal as technically 

unacceptable under the organization subfactor and workforce management factor.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel