United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Telecommunication Support Services, Inc. 

File: B-407305

Date: December 4, 2012

Dennis Fritz for the protester.

Anne C. Tinoco, Esq., and Tracy McGowan, Esq., Maryland Procurement Office, for 

the agency.

Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Agency reasonably determined that protester’s proposal was unacceptable where 

the protester failed to submit an adequately written technical proposal in 

accordance with the solicitation’s instructions.

DECISION

Telecommunication Support Services, Inc. (TSS), of Melbourne, Florida, protests 

the award of a contract to Tensley Consulting, Inc., of Annapolis, Maryland, by the 

Maryland Procurement Office (MPO) under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. H98230-12-R-0010 for software and hardware engineering support services 

and system support functions for the agency’s terrestrial radio frequency mission. 

TSS contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued on February 3, 2012, contemplated the award of a time and 

materials contract for support services for a base year plus four option years. 

Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. A

proposal’s technical acceptability would be based upon the evaluation of both

management and technical factors. The RFP, as amended, divided the 

management factor into four subfactors and the technical factor into ten subfactors. 

The RFP explained that to be acceptable, a proposal may not have an 

unacceptable rating under any management or technical subfactor.
Page 2 B-407305 

Offerors were given detailed information in the RFP’s proposal preparation 

instructions regarding proposal content and format. The RFP cautioned that 

non-conformance with the instructions provided in the RFP may result in an 

unacceptable rating. As relevant here, the RFP instructed offerors to address tower 

rigging, antenna rigging and construction under subfactor seven of the technical 

factor. The solicitation stated that the agency’s evaluation of this subfactor would 

consider whether:

(a) The Offeror’s proposal describes knowledge of and technical 

competency in all safety aspects of tower rigging.

(b) The Offeror’s proposal describes knowledge of and technical 

competency in all safety aspects of general construction practices.

(c) The Offeror’s proposal certifies that [] at least three (3) personnel 

are certified to climb to a height of 300 feet.

(d) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the ANSI 

[American National Standards Institute] and OSHA [Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration] standards.

RFP, Proposal Evaluation Criteria (Mar. 12, 2012), at 4.

On March 30, the agency received six proposals in response to the RFP, including

proposals from TSS and Tensley. TSS’s proposal was rated technically 

unacceptable for failing to adequately address the tower rigging, antenna rigging 

and construction subfactor in its technical proposal. On August 7, the agency 

notified TSS that an award had been made to Tensley as the low-priced technically 

acceptable offeror. 

On August 10, TSS filed an agency-level protest contending that the agency should 

have rated its technical proposal acceptable because TSS’s proposal fully 

addressed the technical subfactor criteria, and should have awarded TSS the 

contract as the lowest-priced offeror. The agency denied TSS’s agency-level 

protest on August 31. TSS filed its protest with our Office on September 10.

In its protest, TSS challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. TSS 

contends that its offer addressed the requirements of the RFP and should have 

been evaluated as acceptable. TSS argues that the agency failed to fully consider 

portions of TSS’s proposal in evaluating technical subfactor seven--tower rigging, 

antenna rigging and construction. Specifically, TSS asserts that the subfactor 

seven criteria were addressed within the management portion of its proposal and in 

other technical subfactor responses.
Page 3 B-407305 

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

contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the 

best method of accommodating them. The Kenjya Group, Inc.; Academy Solutions 

Group, LLC, B-406314, B-406314.2, Apr. 11, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 141 at 4. In 

reviewing an agency’s evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but 

instead will examine the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and 

consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and with procurement 

statutes and regulations. Id. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s 

conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable. James Constr., 

B-402429, Apr. 21, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 98 at 3.

Here, the RFP made clear that proposals must be submitted in accordance with the 

proposal preparation instructions and notified offerors that non-conformance with 

the instructions may result in an unacceptable proposal evaluation. The RFP 

instructions included a table which displayed how offerors were to present their 

management and technical approaches. The response to the tower rigging, 

antenna rigging and construction subfactor was to be presented under the technical 

approach factor. The instructions also advised offerors that “each document and 

major section within each volume shall stand alone and shall contain all information 

necessary to evaluate that portion of the response, including complete coverage of 

and responses to relevant RFP instructions.” RFP, Proposal Preparation 

Instructions, at 4.

As required by the RFP, the agency’s evaluation team restricted its evaluation of 

TSS’s technical factor to the technical section of its proposal. The agency 

determined that TSS’s technical subfactor seven response failed to adequately 

describe its knowledge of and technical competency in all safety aspects of tower 

rigging; its knowledge of a technical competency in all safety aspects of general 

construction practices; certify that it has at least three personnel are certified to 

climb to a height of 300 feet; and demonstrate an understanding of the ANSI and 

OSHA standards. While TSS asserts that the agency should have considered 

information contained within its response to the management approach factor, the 

agency was not required to adapt its evaluation to comply with TSS’s submission, or

go in search of information that TSS omitted or failed adequately to present as 

instructed by the RFP. James Constr., supra, at 5; Hi-Tec Sys., Inc., B-402590, 

B-402590.2, June 7, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 156 at 3. Rather, it is an offeror’s 

responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal that establishes its capability 

and the merits of its proposed technical approach in accordance with the evaluation 

terms of the solicitation. Carolina Satellite Networks, LLC; Nexagen Networks, Inc., 

B-405558, et al., Nov. 22, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 257 at 4. TSS acted at its own peril 

when it chose not to submit the requested data within the appropriate portion of its 

proposal. Id.

Moreover, had the agency evaluated technical subfactor seven by considering 

information contained within the management approach portion of its proposal, the 
Page 4 B-407305 

agency would have provided a benefit to TSS that other offerors did not have. 

Under the solicitation’s instructions, vendors were required to be evaluated against 

specific management and technical factor criteria. The management factor section 

had a page limit of 25 pages and the technical factor section had a 20-page limit. 

To permit TSS to submit information satisfying a technical subfactor in its 

management factor section would allow TSS the unfair advantage of additional 

pages. Where a proposal contains an irregularity that could provide a benefit to that 

offeror if not extended to all offerors by the RFP, and which is prejudicial to other 

offerors, the proposal is unacceptable. See The Mangi Envtl. Group, Inc., 

B-294597, Nov. 29, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 238 at 2. Accordingly, the agency properly 

did not consider information in the management portion of TSS’s proposal to 

evaluate its technical approach.

Accordingly, we find the agency’s unacceptable rating for TSS was reasonable and 

consistent with the solicitation.1 

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel

 1 To the extent TSS argues that the agency failed to consider portions of TSS’s 

response to technical subfactor ten in conducting its evaluation of technical 

subfactor seven, the agency reviewed this information and determined TSS’s 

proposal remained unacceptable for failing to adequately address all subfactor 

seven requirements. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 10.