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: Global Consulting International, Inc. 

File: B-404130 

Date: January 5, 2011 

Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, for the protester. 

William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for IT Transformations JV, and William B. 

Barton, Esq., Jon Tolle, Esq., and Bryan King, Esq., Barton, Baker, Thomas & Tolle, 

LLP, for Morgan Borszcz Consulting, LLC, intervenors. 

Liana D. Henry, General Services Administration, for the agency. 

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency reasonably downgraded proposal for failure to comply with solicitation 

requirements for staffing approach submissions where offeror submitted key 

personnel qualification matrices that did not address specific solicitation key 

personnel experience requirements, and where its submissions exceeded the 

solicitation’s page limitations. 

DECISION 

Global Consulting International, Inc. (GCI), of Salt Lake City, Utah, protests the 

General Services Administration’s award of contracts to Morgan Borszcz Consulting, 

LLC (MBC), of Alexandria, Virginia, and IT Transformations JV (ITT), of Anchorage, 

Alaska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. GSC-QFOB-10-Q0006, for strategic 

enterprise planning system (ERP) implementation support for the Department of the 

Air Force’s Logistics Transformation Office. GCI challenges the evaluation of 

proposals. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP, a section 8(a) competitive acquisition, contemplated the award--on a “best 

value” basis--of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts, for a base 

year with 4 option years, to furnish technical, functional, and managerial expertise to 

assist in the re-engineering of legacy Air Force logistics processes. Proposals, 

including both written and oral presentations, were to be evaluated under six factors 

(in descending order of importance): technical approach, staffing approach, 
management approach, corporate experience, past performance and price. 

Proposals were to be rated on an adjectival basis--excellent, good, acceptable, and 

not acceptable. The RFP provided that a rating of not acceptable under any single 

factor would result in the overall proposal being rated not acceptable and thus 

ineligible for award. 

Nine proposals--including those of GCI, MBC, and ITT--were received. GCI’s 

proposal was rated not acceptable under the staffing approach factor, because GCI 

failed to follow the RFP’s directions for use of properly-completed key personnel 

qualification matrices. Although GCI also furnished resumes, the agency did not 

attempt to match the information in the resumes with the RFP experience 

requirements. While GCI’s proposal was rated acceptable or higher under the 

remaining factors, it was rated overall as not acceptable based on the staffing 

approach rating. MBC’s proposal was rated overall excellent and ITT’s as overall 

good. After learning of the awards to MBC and ITT, and after receiving a debriefing, 

GCI filed an agency-level protest. When that protest was denied, GCI filed this 

protest with our Office. 

GCI challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the staffing approach 

factor. GCI asserts that since the RFP did not prohibit the use of resumes, the 

agency was required to evaluate them in determining whether GCI’s key personnel 

were acceptable under the staffing approach factor. 

In reviewing protests relating to an agency’s evaluation, we will not independently 

reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s 

evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes 

and regulations. Engineered Elec. Co. d/b/a/ DRS Fermont, B-295126.5, B-295126.6, 

Dec. 7, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 4 at 3-4. Mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation is 

not sufficient to call an evaluation into question. Ben-Mar Enters., Inc., B-295781, 

Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 68 at 7. The evaluation here was unobjectionable. 

Although the RFP did not prohibit the submission of resumes, it otherwise provided 

explicit directions on the submission of experience information for the evaluation of 

key personnel under the staffing approach factor. The RFP required offerors to 

submit a qualification matrix for each key person proposed, relating the 

qualifications of the person proposed to the specialized experience identified in RFP 

§ H.7.1 for the position. RFP § L.6.2.2. The RFP included an “example” matrix to be 

used for each key position, with columns for place of work, dates of experience, 

years of experience, official title, and description of qualifications/experience 

satisfying each experience requirement. The specific experience requirements 

included in the “example” matrix, however, were not the same as the qualifications 

identified in RFP § H.7.1 for each key personnel position. Each qualification matrix 

was limited to three pages per key person, with no provision for submission of 

additional information. The RFP provided that the evaluation of staffing approach 

was to consider the qualification matrix for key personnel, as well as information 

Page 2 B-404130 
presented under the management approach factor, as part of the oral technical 

presentation. RFP § M.3. 

While GCI submitted both qualification matrices and resumes for each of its five key 

personnel, its submissions did not show compliance with the RFP’s experience 

requirements. For example, the RFP included eight areas of required experience and 

four areas of desirable experience which were to be addressed in the qualification 

matrix for the program manager. The required experience for the program manager 

included such experience as: successful implementation of ERPs; extensive 

experience with planning and managing large-scale, complex projects; implementing 

a quality assurance program; demonstrated knowledge of logistics management 

practices similar to the RFP requirements; and evaluating proposed computer 

systems to determine technical feasibility, implementation costs, operation costs, 

and functional adequacy. RFP § H.7.1.1. Instead of directly addressing these 

experience requirements in the qualification matrix for its program manager, GCI 

addressed the eight different experience areas included in the “example” matrix. 

These included areas such as demonstrated experience reporting to high-level 

personnel; demonstrated experience with various software programs; and 

demonstrated knowledge of secure sockets. GCI Proposal A-1. GCI also submitted 

similarly nonresponsive information in the qualification matrices for each of its other 

key personnel. 

While GCI furnished a resume for each of its key personnel, it did not identify the 

information in the resume which showed compliance with the solicitation 

experience requirements for that position. Furthermore, the information GCI 

submitted for each of its key personnel, including both the qualification matrix and 

resume, exceeded the specified three-page limit. RFP § L.6.2.2. For example, for its 

proposed program manager, GCI submitted nine pages of information, including a 

two-page qualification matrix and a seven-page resume. We note in this regard that 

the agency was precluded from considering material in excess of the solicitation 

page limitation. See Thomson Reuters (Healthcare), Inc., B-402398, Mar. 15, 2010, 

2010 CPD ¶ __ at 2. GCI’s oral presentation likewise failed to demonstrate that its 

key personnel met all solicitation experience requirements. For example, the 

evaluators specifically determined that GCI’s oral presentation did not show its 

proposed project manager met the requirements for experience implementing a 

quality assurance program or demonstrated knowledge of logistics management 

practices. Evaluation Report at 46. 

An agency’s evaluation is dependent on the information furnished in a proposal; 

thus, it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal for the 

agency to evaluate. SC&A, Inc., B-270160.2, Apr. 10, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 197 at 5. 

Agencies are not required to adapt their evaluation to comply with an offeror’s 

submission, or otherwise go in search of information that an offeror has omitted or 

failed adequately to present. See 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 

Page 3 B-404130 
at 3. Here, GCI has not shown that its proposal adequately demonstrated within the 

allowed three pages per key personnel that any of its key personnel met the RFP’s 

experience requirements. We find therefore that the agency reasonably evaluated 

GCI’s proposal as noncompliant with the solicitation’s key personnel experience 

requirements and thus, not acceptable. 

GCI asserts that the agency treated the offerors unequally in the staffing approach 

evaluation. Specifically, GCI maintains that MBC, in its proposal, also failed to 

comply with the key personnel experience format requirements. GCI cites as 

support for its assertion its review of a copy of MBC’s proposal which the agency 

inadvertently provided to GCI on August 9, 2010, during the course of GCI’s agencylevel protest. 

This assertion is untimely. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest based on 

other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 

10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for 

protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2010). Where a protester initially 

files a timely protest, and later supplements it with independent protest grounds, the 

later-raised allegations must independently satisfy the timeliness requirements, since 

our Regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted piecemeal presentation or 

development of protest issues. FR Countermeasures, Inc., B-295375, Feb. 10, 2005, 

2005 CPD ¶ 52 at 9. In this regard, where a protester raises a general argument in its 

initial submission, but fails to provide details within its knowledge until later, so that 

a further response from the agency would be needed in order for us to adequately 

review the matter, these later, more specific arguments and issues will not be 

considered unless they independently satisfy the timeliness requirements under our 

Regulations. Planning and Dev. Collaborative Int’l, B-299041, Jan. 24, 2007, 2007 CPD 

¶ 28 at 11. 

Here, GCI generally asserted in its October 4 protest to our Office that the agency 

had treated the offerors unequally in the evaluation, but it did not specifically argue 

that MBC’s proposal (or ITT’s) failed to meet the RFP’s experience requirements. 

Rather, GCI merely asserted that the evaluation was unequal because the agency 

refused to consider GCI’s resumes in the evaluation. Protest at 10. GCI did not 

assert that MBC’s proposal failed to meet the solicitation requirements until 

November 11. Since GCI’s claim in this regard was filed more than 3 months after it 

knew, or should have known, the basis for this protest ground, it is untimely and will 

not be considered. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). 

Page 4 B-404130 
Page 5 B-404130 

Finally, GCI asserts that the agency improperly failed to consider its lower price in 

making the award determinations. This assertion is without merit. Since the agency 

reasonably evaluated GCI’s proposal as not acceptable, its proposal cannot be 

considered for award, notwithstanding its low price. Coastal Drilling, Inc., 

B-285085.3, July 20, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 130 at 6. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel