Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: Irving Burton Associates, Inc. 

File: B-401983.3 

Date: March 29, 2010 

Brian P. Waagner, Esq., and Michael A. Gatje, Esq., Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, 

for the protester. 

Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for Technology, 

Automation & Management, Inc., an intervenor. 

Captain Elisabeth Gilman, Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 

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

DIGEST 

1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal is sustained where 

record fails to demonstrate reasonable basis for evaluators’ conclusion that awardee 

had complied with solicitation requirements for a transition plan and for 

identification of project milestones. 

2. Protest challenging agency evaluation of protester’s proposal is sustained where 

record fails to demonstrate reasonable basis for evaluators’ findings pertaining to 

lack of detail in protester’s proposal. 

DECISION 

Irving Burton Associates, Inc. (IBA) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance 

of a task order to Technology, Automation & Management, Inc. (TeAM) of Falls 

Church, Virginia, under task order proposal request (TOPR) No. JLF-09-13284, issued 

by the Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, Department of the Army, for 

defense health information management system support services. Competition 

under the TOPR was restricted to prior awardees of a multiple-award indefinitedelivery/indefinite-quantity contract for TriCare evaluation, analysis, and 

management support services. IBA argues that the agency’s evaluation of the task 

order proposals was unreasonable. 

We sustain the protest. 
Page 2 B-401983.3 

BACKGROUND 

The TOPR contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for a 1-year base 

period, two 1-year option periods, and a 60-day outgoing transition period. The order 

was to be issued to the contractor whose proposal represented the best value to the 

government; non-price factors, when combined, were of greater importance than 

price. In descending order of importance, non-price factors consisted of experience, 

technical approach, management approach, quality control approach, and past 

performance. 

Three contractors submitted proposals by the August 26, 2009 closing date. The 

agency evaluated the proposals and assigned the following ratings to IBA’s and 

TeAM’s proposals: 

Factor IBA Rating TeAM Rating 

Experience [deleted] [deleted] 

Technical Approach [deleted] [deleted] 

Management Approach [deleted] [deleted] 

Quality Control Approach [deleted] [deleted] 

Past Performance [deleted] [deleted] 

Overall Consensus Rating 

for all factors except past 

performance Acceptable Good 

 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 8.1 IBA’s evaluated price was approximately $21 

 

(continued...) 

1

 Proposals were to be rated under the technical factors as exceptional, good, 

acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Ratings of good and acceptable were defined 

as follows: 

Good: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach, which is 

expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach 

includes substantial advantages, and few relatively minor 

disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in better 

than satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered 

to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and 

demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. 

Risk Level: Low. 

Acceptable: The proposal demonstrates an approach, which is capable 

of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has both 

advantages and disadvantages, however the disadvantages do not 

outweigh the advantages and the approach can be expected to result in 

satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to 
Page 3 B-401983.3 

 

million, while TeAM’s price was approximately $19.5 million. The contracting officer 

determined that TeAM’s proposal represented the best value to the government and 

issued a task order to it on September 23. 

IBA protested to our Office on September 25. On October 28, IBA filed a 

supplemental protest, arguing that the agency had improperly permitted TeAM to 

exceed solicitation limitations on proposal length.2

 On November 2, the agency 

notified our Office that it intended to take corrective action in response to the 

supplemental protest. Specifically, the contracting officer advised us that the agency 

would reevaluate TeAM’s proposal in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria, 

and, if the reevaluation resulted in the selection of a contractor other than TeAM, 

terminate the order issued to TeAM and issue a new order to the selected contractor. 

The evaluation team reevaluated TeAM’s proposal. The only change was a lowering 

of the rating under the management approach factor from [deleted]. The agency 

again determined that TeAM’s proposal represented the best value to the 

government. On December 15, the Army notified IBA of its determination. On 

December 17, IBA again protested to our Office. 

ANALYSIS 

The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of both proposals. With regard to 

TeAM’s proposal, IBA contends that the evaluators could not reasonably have 

assigned a rating of [deleted] under the management approach factor given that once 

the pages in excess of the solicitation limitations were excluded from the TeAM 

proposal, the proposal did not include a transition plan or required project 

milestones. With regard to its own proposal, IBA argues that it should have received 

(...continued) 

reflect moderate risk in that they are for the most part clear, precise, 

and supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of all the 

requirements. 

Risk Level: Moderate. 

TOPR at 12. 

2

 The TOPR notified contractors that “non-cost/price proposals are limited to thirty 

(30) single-sided pages (not including resumes and past performance).” TOPR at 2. 

It also provided that the contractor should include a quality control plan and a 

program management plan as attachments to its non-cost/price proposal, and that 

each of these attachments was limited to 10 single-side pages. Id. at 4, 5. The TOPR 

further advised contractors that “[f]or any sections of a proposal with a defined page 

limit, pages exceeding the specified limit will be removed and not forwarded for 

evaluation.” Id. at 1. 
Page 4 B-401983.3 

ratings of higher than [deleted] under the experience, technical approach, and 

management approach factors. 

In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals; instead, we 

will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable 

and in accord with the solicitation evaluation criteria and applicable procurement 

statutes and regulations. ESCO Marine, Inc., B-401438, Sept. 4, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 234 

at 9. Based on our review of the record here, we agree with the protester that the 

agency’s evaluation of both proposals was unreasonable. Accordingly, we sustain 

IBA’s protest. 

Evaluation of TeAM proposal 

The TOPR required offerors to provide a 60-day plan for incoming transition as part 

of their proposals. The TOPR furnished a great deal of detail regarding the required 

content of this plan, instructing that it was to address the following topics: 

• Coordination with Government representatives, 

• Review, evaluation and transition of current support services, 

• Transition of historic data to new contractor system, 

• Government-approved training and certification process, 

• Transfer of hardware warranties and software licenses, 

• Transfer of all System/Tool documentation to include, at a minimum: user 

manuals, system administration manuals, training materials, disaster recovery 

manual, requirements traceability matrix, configuration control documents 

and all other documents required to operate, maintain and administer systems 

and tools, 

• Transfer of compiled and uncompiled source code, to include all versions, 

maintenance updates and patches, 

• Orientation phase and program to introduce Government personnel, 

programs, and users to the Contractor’s team, tools, methodologies, and 

business processes, 

• Distribution of Contractor purchased Government owned assets, including 

facilities, equipment, furniture, phone lines, computer equipment, etc., 

• Transfer of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Government 

Furnished Information (GFI), and GFE inventory management assistance, 

• Applicable TMA briefing and personnel in-processing procedures, 

• Coordinate with the Government to issue and account for government keys, 

ID/access cards, and security codes. 

TOPR at 2-3. In addition, the TOPR instructed offerors to include a draft Program 

Management Plan (PMP) as an attachment to their proposals. The solicitation 

identified four items that “at a minimum” were to be addressed in the draft PMPs; of 

relevance to this protest, one of the required items was “[i]dentification of 
Page 5 B-401983.3 

milestones where Government information/activity is required and timeline 

dependencies for subsequent Contractor activities.” TOPR at 4. 

TeAM included a [deleted] incoming transition plan as an attachment to its non-price 

proposal; because the TOPR provided that the transition plan was to be submitted as 

part of the non-price proposal subject to the page limitations imposed thereon, the 

contracting officer states that she removed the attachment from the copy of TeAM’s 

proposal that she provided to the evaluators for reevaluation. Similarly, the 

contracting officer states that she removed the final 10 pages of TeAM’s [deleted] 

PMP because the solicitation placed a limitation of 10 pages on this attachment. In 

their reevaluation, the evaluators attributed [deleted] weaknesses and [deleted] 

weakness to the TeAM proposal under the management approach factor; [deleted]. 

The evaluators noted that [deleted]. Evaluation Panel Report, Dec. 10, 2009, at 20. 

Despite this finding, the evaluators assigned the proposal an overall rating of 

[deleted] under the management approach factor. 

IBA argues that the rating of [deleted] is unreasonable given that TeAM’s proposal 

did not include a transition plan and did not identify project milestones. In response 

to the first point, the agency maintained that while TeAM’s proposal lacked a full 

transition plan, it did address transition issues and thus merited an [deleted] rating. 

In particular, the agency pointed to language in the proposal addressing TeAM’s 

[deleted]; acknowledging the phases of the [deleted] to be supported under the task 

order; discussing TeAM’s approach to [deleted]; and referring to TeAM’s experience 

in [deleted]. The protester responded that these references could not reasonably be 

considered an adequate response to the solicitation requirement for a transition plan 

addressing the 10 items summarized above. 

We agree with the protester. As noted above, the TOPR required contractors to 

furnish a plan addressing a number of aspects of transition, including the offeror’s 

plans for ensuring that existing data, documentation, source code, and equipment 

would be successfully transferred to it. The language from TeAM’s proposal cited by 

the agency [deleted]. Because the pared-down version of the TeAM proposal that the 

evaluators considered during their reevaluation not only failed [deleted], but also 

failed to otherwise address the required elements [deleted], we do not think that the 

evaluators could reasonably have considered the proposal to satisfy the solicitation 

requirement for a transition plan. Absent a basis for finding that the proposal had 

demonstrated an approach to meeting the requirement, we do not think that it was 

reasonable for the evaluators to have assigned the TeAM proposal a rating of 

[deleted] under the management approach factor, because the TOPR provided for 

the assignment of a rating of [deleted]. 

 

The protester also complains that TeAM’s draft PMP failed to identify project 

milestones, as required by the TOPR, and thus failed to reflect an acceptable 

management approach. In response, the agency argues that while the table in which 

TeAM identified its project milestones was not considered in the reevaluation (due 
Page 6 B-401983.3 

to enforcement of the solicitation’s page limitations), the proposal otherwise 

adequately identified the milestones [deleted]. Based on our review of the record, 

we fail to see how the proposal passages cited by the agency adequately identified 

the project milestones [deleted]. For example, the agency points to TeAM’s 

statement in its PMP that [deleted], TeAM Proposal, Attach. 3 (PMP), at 4. In our 

view, this statement is not sufficient to incorporate the milestones into the proposal; 

where, as here, a solicitation requires offerors to furnish detailed information to 

demonstrate compliance with solicitation requirements, [deleted] is not sufficient to 

demonstrate that a proposal meets the requirements. VT Griffin Servs., Inc., 

B-299869.2, Nov. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 219 at 5. 

In sum, in addition to lacking a reasonable basis for concluding that the TeAM 

proposal complied with the TOPR requirement for a transition plan, we think that 

the evaluators lacked a reasonable basis for finding that TeAM complied with the 

solicitation requirement for a PMP setting forth project milestones. Accordingly, we 

agree with the protester that it was unreasonable for the evaluators to assign TeAM’s 

proposal a rating of [deleted] under the management approach factor. 

Evaluation of IBA proposal 

The protester argues that its proposal should have received a rating of better than 

[deleted] under the experience, technical approach, and management approach 

factors. 

Experience

The solicitation advised offerors that under the experience factor, the agency would 

consider the degree to which their proposals demonstrated experience in providing 

program management in support of Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology 

Application (AHLTA), Composite Health Care Systems (CHCS), and Essentris within 

the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA); experience in business and program 

operations (to include various phases of administrative support, development and 

deployment across program functions, execution, management of multiple programs, 

and oversight of software design and development); experience in meeting the 

appropriate Department of Defense Information Assurance requirements; and 

experience in clinical program support and deployment schedules across multiple 

functions. In addition, the solicitation provided for consideration of the degree to 

which the offeror’s proposal reflected appropriate staff skill sets for the tasks. TOPR 

at 8. 

The evaluators assigned IBA’s proposal a rating of [deleted] under the experience 

factor, finding that it contained both strengths and weaknesses. The following 

strengths were identified: [deleted]. Evaluation Report at 10-11. 
Page 7 B-401983.3 

In addition to the above strengths, the evaluators identified the following [deleted] 

weaknesses in the protester’s proposal: 

[deleted] 

Id. at 12. The evaluators also noted as weaknesses that while the protester 

had furnished a good description of [deleted], it had not demonstrated how 

[deleted], and that while it had explained how [deleted], it had done [deleted]. 

Id.

IBA argues that the criticisms of its proposal were not justified. The protester 

contends, citing specific examples from its proposal, that the proposal did furnish 

detail describing its [deleted]. IBA further argues that in finding that the proposal 

lacked detail regarding its [deleted], the evaluators had ignored information included 

in [deleted] and in the resumes of [deleted]; in support of this argument, the 

protester again points to specific passages from its proposal. IBA also argues that 

the attribution of a weakness to its proposal for its failure to describe [deleted] and 

to provide [deleted] regarding the positive impact of [deleted] was inconsistent with 

the terms of the solicitation, which did not advise offerors that [deleted] was a 

criterion on which their proposals would be evaluated. 

The agency failed to furnish persuasive responses to these arguments in its report. 

The agency maintained that while the protester had cited specific instances of 

[deleted], it had not furnished enough detail regarding [deleted]. The agency cited as 

an example of the protester’s generalized approach to describing [deleted] the 

following paragraph from the proposal: 

[deleted] 

IBA Proposal at 28-29. We fail to see how this excerpt supports the agency position 

that IBA’s proposal did not furnish detail regarding the protester’s [deleted]. The 

agency also failed to explain how the solicitation placed offerors on notice that the 

extent to which they [deleted] was to be a factor in evaluating their [deleted]. 

In response to the protester’s argument that the evaluators had overlooked the detail 

regarding [deleted], the agency maintained that the evaluators had considered the 

detail [deleted], but had concluded that [deleted]. We are not persuaded by the 

agency’s argument given that [deleted]. Further, in response to the protester’s 

argument that it had furnished detail regarding its [deleted], the agency argued that 

the evaluators had properly [deleted]. TOPR at 7. We do not think that the fact that 

the solicitation provided for past performance to be evaluated separately from 

experience (and the other non-cost/price evaluation factors) provided the evaluators 

with a reasonable basis [deleted], particularly given that IBA explicitly referred to 

[deleted]. 
Page 8 B-401983.3 

Further, in finding that IBA had not furnished specifics regarding its [deleted], the 

agency appears to have failed to take into consideration information provided in the 

section of its proposal describing its technical approach. For example, in describing 

its approach to [deleted], the protester stated that it had [deleted].”3 

In sum, we do not think that the record here demonstrates a reasonable basis for 

[deleted] weaknesses, including the [deleted], attributed to the protester’s proposal 

under the experience factor.4 Accordingly, we do not think that the record 

demonstrates a reasonable basis for the evaluators to have rated IBA’s proposal as 

[deleted] under the factor. 

Technical approach

As was the case with regard to the experience factor, the evaluators assigned the 

protester’s proposal a rating of [deleted] under the technical approach factor based 

on their finding that in addition to [deleted], the proposal contained [deleted]. The 

evaluators identified as strengths [deleted]. The evaluators also identified the 

following strength: 

[deleted] 

Evaluation Report at 13. The evaluators identified the following weaknesses in the 

proposal, [deleted]. Id.

IBA argued initially that the evaluators’ findings of strength and weakness were 

inconsistent; that is, the finding (of weakness) that it had not provided enough 

detailed information to show an understanding of [deleted] was contradicted by the 

finding [deleted]. The protester also disputed the evaluators’ characterization of its 

approach [deleted], citing specific examples of detail from its proposal. 

The agency responded to the protester’s argument regarding inconsistency in the 

evaluators’ findings by explaining that the proposal had demonstrated an 

understanding of [deleted], which was a strength, but that it had failed to provide 

enough detail to show an understanding of [deleted], which was a weakness. The 

agency further explained that the [deleted]. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 16. 

We think that the agency’s explanation of the weakness pertaining [deleted] is 

reasonable, but we fail to see a reasonable basis for the finding of [deleted], as 

 

3

 For several other required tasks, IBA stated that it would [deleted]. Id. at 21. We 

think that it may reasonably be inferred from the references [deleted]. 

4

 We see no basis to question the reasonableness of the evaluators’ finding that IBA 

had not [deleted]. 
Page 9 B-401983.3 

restated by the contracting officer--i.e., [deleted]. Indeed, the agency concedes in its 

report that the protester furnished a detailed approach for [deleted]. Agency Report 

at 34. Moreover, the agency has failed to demonstrate a basis for its conclusion that 

the protester’s approach was [deleted]. Because the record fails to demonstrate a 

reasonable basis for the [deleted] attributed to IBA’s proposal under the technical 

approach factor, we sustain IBA’s objection to the evaluation of its proposal under 

this factor.5

RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend that the agency conduct such discussions with the offerors as it 

determines necessary; that it request revised proposals, if necessary; and that it 

reevaluate the proposals and make a new source selection determination. If IBA’s 

proposal is selected as representing the best value to the government, we 

recommend that the agency cancel the order issued to TeAM and issue an order to 

IBA. We also recommend that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of 

filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 4 C.F.R. 

§ 21.8(d) (2009). The protester’s certified claim for costs, detailing the time spent 

and the cost incurred, must be submitted to the agency within 60 days after receiving 

this decision. 

The protest is sustained. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

5

 We also considered the protester’s objection to the agency’s evaluation of its 

proposal under the management approach factor, but find no basis to object to the 

agency’s rating of the proposal as [deleted] under the factor.