United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: System Engineering International, Inc. 

File: B-402754 

Date: July 20, 2010 

Martin Grolnic for the protester. 

Jeffrey M. Herrema, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. 

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

In a best value procurement for maintenance services, protest is sustained where the 

record shows that the agency performed a tradeoff between two higher-rated, 

higher-priced quotations, but did not consider, in its tradeoff decision, the lower 

prices submitted by other lower-rated vendors, whose quotations were nonetheless 

found to be technically acceptable. 

DECISION 

System Engineering International, Inc. (SEI), of Frederick, Maryland, protests the 

issuance of a purchase order to M.C. Dean, Inc., of Dulles, Virginia, under request for 

quotations (RFQ) No. PROAGAS-7UPMA7, issued by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for preventive maintenance services for uninterrupted power systems 

and power distribution units associated with EPA’s information technology 

infrastructure. SEI challenges the evaluation of its quotation and the selection of a 

higher-priced quotation for the order.1

We sustain the protest. 

 

1

 The protester is not represented by counsel who could seek admission to a 

protective order. Accordingly, our discussion of some aspects of the procurement is 

general in nature in order to avoid disclosure of non-public information. Our 

conclusions, however, are based on our review of the entire record, including 

non-public information. 
BACKGROUND 

On January 29, 2010, the EPA posted a combined synopsis/solicitation on the 

FedBizOpps.gov website. The RFQ requested quotations to provide maintenance 

and emergency services to maintain the uninterrupted power systems and power 

distribution units at EPA facilities in the Washington, D.C. area. The subject services 

consist of semi-annual preventive maintenance services, battery replacement 

services, and emergency and non-emergency repairs. RFQ at 24-27. Among other 

requirements, the selected vendor was to provide a 30-minute maximum call back 

time, and an on-site emergency response within 4 hours of a call, 7 days a week, 

24 hours a day. Id. at 24. 

The RFP contemplated the placement of fixed-price and time-and-materials orders, 

with a period of performance from the date of award through January 31, 2011. Id.

at 25. The RFQ stated that quotations would be evaluated on a best value basis 

considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: 

technical approach, personnel/experience, and past performance. The RFQ stated 

that the three evaluation factors combined were more important than price. Id. at 

29. 

For the technical approach evaluation factor, vendors were to demonstrate the 

extent and depth of their technical knowledge of, understanding of, and approach to 

the requirements in the RFQ’s statement of work. For the personnel/experience 

evaluation factor, vendors were to provide key personnel resumes to include the 

following information: professional qualifications, education, and relevant 

experience managing specified tasks similar to those required here. Vendors were 

also required to provide a list of all subcontractors and demonstrate their and their 

subcontractors’ relevant management and technical project experience. For the past 

performance evaluation factor, vendors were required to demonstrate successful 

performance on contracts completed during the past 3 years and those currently in 

process for work similar in scope and complexity to the requirements of the RFQ. 

Id. 

On February 23, 10 quotations were received in response to the RFQ. However, 

since many of the vendors failed to submit separate technical and price submissions 

as required by the RFQ, all 10 vendors were requested to submit revised quotations. 

Eight vendors submitted revised quotations and two vendors requested that the EPA 

evaluate their original submission. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1-2. 

All 10 quotations, including SEI’s and M.C. Dean’s, were evaluated by a single 

evaluator. The evaluator assigned adjectival ratings to quotations for each of the 

evaluation factors, which formed the basis of an overall rating. Possible adjectival 

ratings were: exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory, and 

totally deficient. As relevant here, marginal was defined as: 

Page 2 B-402754 
Information related to the factor is incomplete, unclear, or indicates an 

inadequate approach to, or understanding of the factor. The technical 

evaluation team believes there is [a] question as to whether the offeror 

would be able to perform satisfactorily. 

Agency Report (AR), Tab N, Technical Evaluation Assessment Form, at 1. 

Unsatisfactory was defined as: 

The factor is addressed, but contains deficiencies and/or weaknesses 

that can be corrected only by major or significant changes to relevant 

portions of the quotation, or the factor is addressed so minimally or 

vaguely that there are widespread information gaps. In addition, 

because of the deficiencies, weaknesses, and/or information gaps, 

serious concerns exist on the part of the technical evaluation team 

about the offeror’s ability to perform the required work. 

Id. Totally deficient was defined as, “The factor is not addressed, or is totally 

deficient and without merit.” Id.

SEI’s quotation was rated marginal overall, based on marginal ratings for the 

technical approach and personnel/experience evaluation factors and a very good 

rating for the past performance factor. The marginal ratings were attributable to 

SEI’s failure to adequately address several RFQ requirements, such as the 30-minute 

call-back time, replacing air filters, or providing timelines for battery replacement. 

The evaluator also found that SEI did not sufficiently address how it planned to staff 

one of the tasks or provide supervisory oversight in most task areas, and that the 

personnel resumes lacked information and were “riddled with typos, spelling errors, 

and inconsistencies.” AR, Tab N, Technical Evaluation Assessment Form, at 2-3. 

Of the remaining quotations, the evaluator found three quotations to be 

unsatisfactory or totally deficient and did not further consider those quotations for 

award. Four other quotations were rated satisfactory, and two were rated very good. 

With regard to price, SEI’s marginal quotation was the lowest in price, two 

satisfactory quotations were the next lowest in price, the very good quotations were 

the fourth and fifth lowest in price, and two other satisfactory quotations were the 

highest in price. Id.

In performing a price/technical tradeoff, the agency did not include SEI’s quotation, 

or several other low-priced quotations with ratings above unacceptable, in the 

tradeoff decision. Instead, the agency made a tradeoff decision between only the 

two quotations that were rated very good. Without any comparative analysis 

documented in the contemporaneous evaluation record, the evaluation team 

concluded that M.C. Dean represented the best value to the government and 

recommended that a purchase order be issued to M.C. Dean in the amount of 

$77,412.00. AR, Tab G, Price Evaluation Report, at 1. The contracting officer, who 

Page 3 B-402754 
was the source selection authority, agreed and a purchase order was issued to M.C. 

Dean on April 7. After SEI received a debriefing, it filed this protest with our Office. 

DISCUSSION 

SEI argues that the marginal rating assigned to its quotation was too low, and that 

the agency failed to give any consideration to its lower price.2

Our Office reviews challenges to an agency’s technical evaluation to determine 

whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the solicitation’s evaluation 

criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Integrate, Inc., 

B-296526, Aug. 4, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 154 at 3. It is a vendor’s burden to submit an 

adequately written quotation and it runs the risk that its quotation will be evaluated 

unfavorably where it fails to do so. Id.

On the record before us, we find no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of SEI’s 

quotation as marginal. In this regard, the record shows that SEI’s quotation failed to 

adequately discuss RFQ requirements, such as the 30-minute emergency response 

time, annual replacement of air filters, and certain staffing issues. AR, Tab N, 

Technical Evaluation Assessment Form, at 2-3; Contracting Officer’s Statement 

at 4-5. Although SEI contends that the marginal rating was unreasonable because 

the firm did not take exception to any of the requirements in the RFQ, as noted 

above, it is the vendor’s burden to submit an adequately written quotation, and 

where it fails to do so, its disagreement with the agency’s judgment does not render 

the judgment unreasonable. Integrate, Inc., supra, at 3-4. 

Notwithstanding the reasonableness of the marginal rating assigned to SEI’s 

quotation, we sustain the protest because the record does not demonstrate that the 

agency performed an adequate price/technical tradeoff or considered SEI’s low price 

in the evaluation. 

In a best value procurement, such as the one here, it is the function of the source 

selection authority to perform a tradeoff between price and non-price factors to 

determine whether one quotation’s superiority under the non-price factors is worth a 

higher price. e-LYNXX Corp., B-292761, Dec. 3, 2002, 2003 CPD ¶ 219 at 7. Even 

where, as here, price is stated to be of less importance than the non-price factors, 

 

2

 The protester also argues that the RFQ failed to provide the weight to be given the 

evaluation factors. This allegation is untimely raised because it concerns a 

solicitation impropriety that should have been protested prior to the receipt of 

quotations. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2010). Moreover, as 

stated above, the RFQ specifically provided that the evaluation factors were listed in 

descending order of importance and that the non-price evaluation factors when 

considered together were more important than price. RFQ at 29. 

Page 4 B-402754 
an agency must meaningfully consider cost or price to the government in making its 

selection decision. Id. Specifically, before an agency can select a higher-priced 

quotation that has been rated technically superior to a lower-priced but acceptable 

quotation, the award decision must be adequately documented and supported by a 

rational explanation of why the higher-rated quotation is, in fact, superior, and 

explain why its technical superiority warrants paying a price premium. ACCESS 

Sys., Inc., B-400623.3, Mar. 4, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 56 at 7. 

Here, the contemporaneous record lacks documentation of an adequate tradeoff 

analysis and consideration of lower-priced, but acceptable, quotations. In this 

regard, the agency performed a price/technical tradeoff between only the two 

quotations with the highest ratings under the non-price factors. Specifically, 

the agency did not consider any of the satisfactory-rated quotations or SEI’s 

marginal-rated quotation in its tradeoff analysis, even though at least three of those 

quotations (including SEI’s) were lower in price than the awardee’s quotation. 

Although SEI’s quotation received a marginal rating, there is no evidence the agency 

considered the protester’s quotation to be technically unsatisfactory, or too deficient 

to be considered for award. As such, it should have been included in the tradeoff 

analysis. See ACCSSS Sys., Inc., supra. Based on this record, we find that the agency 

failed to conduct an adequate price/technical tradeoff and that this failure prejudiced 

SEI, given that its quotation was the lowest in price and might have been viewed as 

the best value quotation on that basis even with a marginal rating.3

 

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that the agency perform and document a new price/technical 

tradeoff analysis. If M.C. Dean’s quotation is not found to reflect the best value to 

the government, the agency should terminate the purchase order for the convenience 

of the government and issue a purchase order to the vendor whose quotation is 

determined to be the best value to the government. We also recommend that SEI be 

reimbursed its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Bid Protest 

 

3

 Although the contracting officer, in response to the protest, explained why SEI’s 

marginal-rated quotation would not have been selected for award, notwithstanding 

its low price, Contracting Officer’s Statement at 7, the contracting officer’s analysis 

is not reflected anywhere in the contemporaneous record. Accordingly, we give little 

weight to this post-hoc analysis. Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2, 

B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 91 at 15. 

Page 5 B-402754 
Page 6 B-402754 

Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1) (2010). The protester’s certified claims for such 

costs, detailing the time expected and costs incurred, must be submitted directly to 

the agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1). 

The protest is sustained. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel