United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Freedom Systems, LLC 

File: B-405846; B-405846.2

Date: January 5, 2012

Reginald B. McFadden for the protester.

Darian A. Stanford, Esq., Slinde Nelson, for Command Management Services, Inc., 

the intervenor.

Capt. Michael E. Murray, Department of the Army, 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 challenging agency’s evaluation and rejection of proposal as technically 

unacceptable is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable 

and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

Freedom Systems, LLC, of Manassas, Virginia, protests the evaluation and rejection 

of its proposal as technically unacceptable, and the award of a contract to Command 

Management Services, Inc. (CMS), of Portland, Oregon, under request for proposal 

(RFP) No. W9124D-11-R-0029, issued by the Department of the Army for meals, 

lodging and transportation for Armed Forces applicants processing through the 

Baltimore Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), Baltimore, Maryland.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on May 18, 2011, anticipated the award of a fixed-price requirements 

contract for a base year and four 1-year option periods to the firm that submitted the 

proposal deemed most advantageous to the agency considering technical evaluation 

factors for mission capability and past performance (where mission capability was to 

be significantly more important than past performance), and price (where the 

technical factors combined were to be significantly more important than price). RFP 

at 15. Each offeror was required to submit an original proposal (including the firm’s 

technical proposal and price proposal) and four copies of its technical proposal. The 

RFP emphasized that the proposal submissions, including each copy, was to be 
Page 2 B-405846, B-405846.2 

complete. Offerors were expressly required to submit “as a minimum, the content 

specified” in the RFP and advised that a proposal without the required information 

“may be judged unacceptable and risk not being considered for award.” Id. at 9. The 

RFP required the submission of “supporting data” for an offeror’s statements of 

compliance with solicitation requirements, and each firm was required to show “how 

the offeror intends to perform/comply with all of the requirements of the solicitation 

making certain the ... evaluation factors (and elements) are discussed.” Id. at 11. 

In particular, each copy of the technical proposal submitted by an offeror was to 

include current inspection reports and other documentation (such as a state health 

inspection report for proposed food preparation/dining facilities, fire/safety, pool/spa 

and elevator inspection reports, the hotel operator’s permit/license, and proof of 

insurance for any proposed hotel shuttle van). Id. at 11. In this regard, offerors were 

specifically advised that the failure to submit this required documentation, or the 

reason for their omission, could render the proposal unacceptable. Id. at 12. 

Similarly, for the evaluation of the firms’ proposed meals, offerors were required to 

submit in their technical proposals “sample menus for each meal ... [that] depict the 

type of meals expected to be served ... generic menus may be determined 

unacceptable.” Id. 

Fifteen proposals were received by the scheduled June 23 closing date and were 

evaluated.1 The protester’s proposal, at $7,839,826.50, was the lowest-priced 

proposal received under the RFP, however, it was rejected due to its technically 

unacceptable rating under the mission capability factor. Although the evaluators 

found that the proposal met numerous RFP requirements, they cited several 

weaknesses and deficiencies. Two significant weaknesses concerned the proposal’s 

lack of clarity regarding the location for serving breakfast and the protester’s

proposed plan for addressing applicant overflow. Additionally, the agency identified 

several deficiencies based on the protester’s failure to provide a menu for breakfast, 

a menu for meals to be provided to late arrivals, required inspection reports, and the 

driving time from the hotel to the airport and the MEPS facility. The protester’s 

proposal was rated as excellent under the less important technical factor, past 

performance.

An award, at $11,165,914.70, was made to CMS on the basis of its highest-rated

proposal (the awardee’s proposal was rated excellent under both the mission 

capability and past performance factors, with several cited strengths and significant 

strengths, and no cited weakness or deficiency). The agency determined that the 

price premium associated with the award to CMS (compared to the next highestrated proposal, which was slightly lower-priced but substantially lower-rated than 

 1

Since the protester is not represented by counsel, a protective order was not issued 

in this matter. This decision includes a general discussion of the evaluation, 

although our review of the protest record included the full evaluation record.
Page 3 B-405846, B-405846.2 

the CMS proposal) was warranted in light of the substantial benefits associated with 

that firm’s technical proposal. This protest followed.

In its protest, Freedom Systems challenges the various weaknesses and deficiencies 

identified by the agency and the agency’s selection decision. As a general matter, 

when reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not our function 

to independently evaluate proposals and substitute our judgment for that of the 

contracting activity. Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082, B-276082.2, May 9, 1997, 97-1 

CPD ¶ 164 at 6. Rather, we will review an evaluation to ensure that it was 

reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and 

applicable procurement statutes and regulations; a protester’s mere disagreement 

with the evaluation does not show it lacked a reasonable basis. Id. 

Here, the RFP expressly required technical submissions from each offeror 

demonstrating the firm’s capability and the merits of its proposed approach to meet 

the agency’s requirements. Contrary to the protester’s suggestion that the RFP did 

not provide for rejection of a proposal where it failed to meet a stated element of the 

mission capability evaluation factor, the RFP clearly established that a firm’s failure 

to submit required documentation, such as sample menus and inspection reports, 

could result in rejection of the proposal as technically unacceptable. For example, 

without a breakfast menu (the record reflects that the protester provided a single 

menu that referenced only lunch and dinner and did not include any breakfast 

items), the agency was unable to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed meal, an 

important service to be provided under the contract. Thus, the agency’s conclusion 

that the protester’s failure to provide the required breakfast menu information was a 

material deficiency, which rendered its proposal unacceptable, was consistent with 

the terms of the RFP. 

Similarly, the record reflects that the agency evaluators assigned the protester a 

deficiency because the protester’s technical proposal did not include the inspection 

reports and other certifications required by the RFP. The protester challenges this 

finding arguing that its “original” proposal submission contained the missing 

documentation. Our review of the record, however, confirms the agency’s report 

that none of the firm’s technical proposal copies included the required 

documentation. As explained above, the RFP required offerors to provide four 

“complete” copies of their technical proposals for evaluation and to include the 

inspection reports and required documentation in “each copy” of their technical 

proposals. RFP at 10-11. The record further reflects that the agency used the 

incomplete technical proposal copies, which the protester provided, for its

evaluation. Given that the protester failed to follow the solicitation’s instructions

regarding the submission of complete copies of its technical proposal, and that the 

agency relied on the incomplete copies to perform its evaluation, we have no basis to 

conclude that the agency acted unreasonably in not noticing the protester’s error. 

We also know of no basis to shift responsibility to the agency for the protester’s 

mistake. Offerors bear the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal by 

including all information that was requested or necessary for its proposal to be 
Page 4 B-405846, B-405846.2 

evaluated. LS3 Inc., B-401948.11, July 21, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 168 at 3, n.1; Hi-Tec Sys., 

Inc., B-402590, B-402590.2, June 7, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 156 at 3.

 

In sum, since the RFP here required the offerors to include, as a minimum, specific 

technical information for evaluation, and, in fact, advised offerors that proposals

could be rejected as technically unacceptable for omitting the information, we 

consider reasonable the agency’s determination that the protester’s failure to submit 

the required information rendered its proposal technically unacceptable.

2

 Given the

reasonableness of the agency’s rejection of the proposal under the terms of the RFP,

we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency’s selection of the 

higher-priced, but technically superior, proposal from CMS. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 2

The protester also filed a supplemental protest arguing that CMS’s proposal should 

not have been rated excellent since its proposed hotel was not yet in operation at the 

time of the agency’s evaluation. We dismiss this allegation as it was not timely filed. 

The record shows that the protester knew, no later than September 20, the identity 

of the awardee, its proposed hotel, and that the firm’s proposal based on that hotel 

had been rated excellent. Although the protester states it did not research publicly 

available information about the awardee’s proposed hotel until weeks after that date, 

it has not explained why the same information would not have been available as 

early as September 20. The supplemental protest, filed on October 21, more than 10 

days from when the protester should have known the basis for its protest, therefore, 

is untimely. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2011). Moreover, in light of the reasonableness of 

the rejection of the protester’s proposal, as discussed above, the firm lacks standing 

to challenge the award here, since the agency reports it received several other 

acceptable proposals. 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.0(a)(1), 21.1(a).