United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Katmai Information Technologies, LLC

File: B-406885

Date: September 20, 2012

William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester.

Capt. Edward Ahn, Department of the Army, for the agency.

Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protest that terms of solicitation for role-players to interact with military forces do not 

adequately communicate the agency’s requirements is denied where the solicitation 

provides sufficient information on which offerors can compete intelligently and on a 

relatively equal basis. 

DECISION

Katmai Information Technologies, LLC (Katmai) of Anchorage, Alaska protests the 

terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-12-R-0023 issued by the 

Department of the Army to provide support for mobilization training centers at Fort 

Dix, New Jersey and Camp Shelby, Mississippi. The protester asserts that the 

solicitation is flawed because it does not provide essential information for purposes 

of competing for the agency’s requirements.

We deny the protest.

On May 15, 2012, the Army issued the RFP as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside 

contemplating the award of up to two requirements-type, labor-hour contracts with a 

period of performance of 42 months, including optional ordering periods, to provide 

qualified role-players1

 1 The solicitation identifies three major types of role players: cultural role players, 

detainee role players, and foreign language speakers. RFP amend. 1, at 13-14.

to assist with pre-deployment training of National Guard and 

Reserve units at Fort Dix and Camp Shelby. Prior to their deployment for combat

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.
Page 2 B-406885 

operations, soldiers receive theater specific orientation and training on relevant 

cultural awareness, negotiation skills and the use of interpreters. The selected 

contractor is required to provide personnel in specified labor categories to assist the 

agency in performing the various training events that require realistic soldier 

interaction with role-player representatives of indigenous populations to replicate 

mission scenarios in varying conditions.2

 RFP amend. 1, Performance Work 

Statement (PWS) at 13.

The solicitation states that an offeror can submit a proposal for either one or both 

mobilization training centers and award will be made to the offeror who submits the 

lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. RFP amend. 1, at 31. Proposals 

were to be evaluated for technical acceptability under two factors, mission capability 

and past performance. The mission capability factor was divided into two 

subfactors: (1) management approach and (2) staffing, recruiting and retention 

plan. Id. Generally, under the mission capability factor, offerors were to describe 

their approach to performing training scenarios identified in the RFP’s technical 

exhibits (TE) for each mobilization training center. See TE B-1, Fort Dix Scenario 

Templates and TE B-2, Fort Shelby Scenario Templates. 

The technical exhibits provide detailed estimates of the anticipated labor hours to be 

utilized for role-player support by labor category. For example, the scenario data for 

Fort Dix includes a detailed description of the types of scenarios, the estimated 

labor hours for each scenario, the various labor categories such as lead role-player, 

male cultural role-players, female cultural role-players, male foreign language 

speakers, female foreign language speakers and total number of personnel required 

for each scenario for the base and optional ordering periods. RFP amend. 1, 

TE B-1, Fort Dix Scenario Templates. 

As it relates to the protest, the RFP identifies two key personnel positions: an onsite project manager and an alternate who will be responsible for “the overall 

management and coordination of the contract upon receipt of a task order.” Id. at 4. 

In addition, the RFP provides that the offeror should designate a lead role-player 

who will assume the role of team leader at each mobilization training center. The 

lead/team leader must be on-site for all training scenarios and role-players must 

follow the instructions from that individual as well as on-site military personnel. Id.

at 13-14; see also

 2 The solicitation identifies such conditions as “working with local leaders, providing 

medical support to local children, assessing the attitudes of the population in certain 

areas, deescalating a situation by communicating properly with local religious 

leaders, or a need for redirecting both combatants and non-combatants during 

offensive operations.” RFP amend. 1, PWS at 2-3.

TE B-1, Fort Dix Scenario Templates and TE B-2, Fort Shelby 

Scenario Templates. Moreover, under the management approach subfactor, the 

RFP requires each offeror to “describe its approach to providing on-site leadership 
Page 3 B-406885 

personnel (i.e., project management/team leaders) to support multiple training 

scenarios simultaneously.” Id. at 29.

As for price, the RFP states that offerors should submit separate price proposals 

using the price schedules included in the solicitation. The offerors were asked to 

provide unit and extended prices for the total number of estimated labor hours for all 

labor categories per ordering period. RFP amend. 3, TE A-1, Price Schedule for 

Fort Dix and TE A-2, Price Schedule for Fort Shelby. 

The Army answered several questions posed by prospective offerors about the 

solicitation requirements, including the following:

Question 68: Reference Attachments TE-B-1, 

TE-B-2, and TE-B-3; Please provide any scenario 

data available regarding actual exercises conducted 

in terms of (a.) hours per scenario, (b.) number and 

types of role players per scenario, and 

(c.) simultaneous conduct of scenarios. 

Response 68: Information to answer (a.) and (b.) are 

provided in the Scenario Templates for each location. 

Please refer to Technical Exhibit B-1 and B-2. 

Response to (c.) Simultaneous scenarios may occur 

occasionally dependent on unit training.

RFP amend.1, Attachment 2, Questions and Answers (Q&A) #68.

Katmai filed a timely protest with our Office alleging that the solicitation lacks 

essential information to permit the firm to compete for the agency’s requirements.3

 

In its challenge to the terms of the solicitation, the protester focuses on the agency’s 

alleged failure to provide more specific information regarding the potential 

requirement for simultaneous training scenarios. In this regard, the protester 

asserts that “[w]ithout better insight in the frequency of overlapping exercises, it is 

virtually impossible to price the contract or to meet the Key Personnel technical 

requirements for project managers and alternative project managers.” Protest at 2. 

Katmai further alleges that the incumbent contractors for each mobilization training 

center would possess historical knowledge of the frequency of simultaneous training 

scenarios, thus providing them with an unfair competitive advantage. Id. at 5. As a 

general rule, agencies must provide sufficient detail in a solicitation to enable 

offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. Crown Contract 

Servs.

 3 The Army received proposals from 14 offerors; Katmai did not submit a proposal. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 8.

, B-288573, Oct. 31, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 179 at 2. When an agency solicits 
Page 4 B-406885 

offers for a requirements contract on the basis of estimated quantities, the agency 

must base its estimates on the best information available. Inventory Accounting 

Serv., Inc., B-271483, July 23, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 35 at 2-3. 

Here, the detailed estimates provided by the agency in the solicitation, which are 

unchallenged by the protester, coupled with the agency’s response to numerous 

questions from prospective offerors, provides sufficient information to allow offerors 

to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. Specifically, the solicitation 

includes detailed estimates of the total number of labor hours for all contemplated 

labor categories for each ordering period, detailed descriptions of the training 

scenarios with estimated hours per scenario, total number and type of role-player 

per scenario, uniforms and equipment requirements for each scenario, and 

estimated number of scenarios per ordering period. These estimates provide a 

detailed picture of the overall scale and magnitude of the agency’s requirements to 

be performed under the contract. 

Moreover, the record confirms, as the agency argues, that the solicitation describes 

the roles and responsibilities for the project manager position. Specifically, the RFP 

establishes that the project manager will be “a full time, on-site project manager 

who shall be responsible for the overall management and coordination of the 

contract upon receipt of a task order” and the project manager or alternate “shall be 

available between the hours of 7:30 - 4:30.” RFP amend. 1, PWS at 4. In essence, 

offerors must provide one project manager for each site, Fort Dix and Camp 

Shelby.4 Thus, notwithstanding the protester’s assertion to the contrary, there is no 

ambiguity with respect to staffing of the project manager position since staffing for 

this position is independent of the number of scenarios ordered, or whether the 

scenarios are ordered simultaneously. 

We do, however, recognize that the solicitation creates some risk where offerors 

have to anticipate “occasionally” performing scenarios simultaneously. This 

introduces an undefined variable that likely will affect offerors’ staffing for positions 

 4 In response to another question posed by a potential offeror, the agency states:

Question 59: Reference C.13.12.1. Given a 

leader/manager must be on-site for all scenarios, how 

many different locations/sites per scenario?

Response 59. A Team Leader is required per training 

scenario (please refer to technical exhibit B-1 and 

B-2, one Program Manager is required per location 

(i.e., Camp Shelby or Fort Dix).

RFP amend. 1, Attachment 2, Q&A #59.
Page 5 B-406885 

other than that of the project manager, and the offerors’ pricing strategies.5 

However, the mere presence of risk in a solicitation does not make the solicitation 

inappropriate or improper. It is within the discretion of an agency to offer for 

competition a proposed contract that imposes maximum risks on the contractor and 

minimum burdens on the agency, and an offeror should account for this in 

formulating its proposal. JRS Mgmt., B-402650.2, June 25, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 147 

at 5; TN-KY Contractors, B-291997.2, May 5, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 91 at 3. There is 

no requirement that a competition be based on specifications drafted in such detail 

as to completely eliminate all risk or remove every uncertainty from the mind of 

every prospective offeror. Abba Int’l, Inc. et al., B-311225.4, Feb. 2, 2009, 2009 

CPD ¶ 28 at 7; AirTrak Travel et al., B-292101 et al., June 30, 2003, 2003 CPD 

¶ 117 at 4. Risk is inherent in most types of contracts, and firms must use their 

professional expertise and business judgment in anticipating a variety of influences 

affecting performance costs. JRS Mgmt., supra; AirTrak Travel et al., supra. Based 

on the record before us, where the solicitation provides extensive and detailed 

estimates regarding the overall scale and magnitude of the agency’s requirements, 

we conclude that the risk associated with the possible “occasional” requirement for 

overlapping scenarios, does not expose an offeror, such as Katmai, to an 

unacceptable or undue risk, or undermine the ability of offerors to compete 

intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.

Katmai also asserts that the incumbent contractors for Fort Dix and Fort Shelby 

have an unfair price advantage by virtue of their prior contract performance which 

the protester maintains provided them with knowledge of the extent to which the 

agency has historically ordered simultaneous training scenarios. We do not agree. 

Even assuming, as Katmai argues, that the challenged requirements favor the 

incumbents, an agency is not required to compensate for every competitive 

advantage gleaned by a potential offeror’s prior performance of a particular 

requirement. For example, an incumbent contractor’s acquired technical expertise 

and functional knowledge of the costs related to a requirement’s complexity are not 

generally considered to constitute unfair advantages the procurement agency must 

 5 In response to a query by our Office, the contracting officer represented that the 

agency does not maintain historical data regarding the extent to which prior 

contractors have been required to perform multiple training scenarios on a given 

day. Memorandum for Record (Sept. 14, 2012). While the protester speculates 

that this representation is not accurate, we have no basis to question the agency’s 

representation where the contracting officer explained that invoicing under the 

incumbent contract was done on a monthly basis based on total number of hours 

per labor category and the agency did not issue individual task orders for each 

training event. Moreover, the protester has not alleged, and there is nothing in the 

record to suggest, that the agency can reasonably anticipate the demands of future 

unit training schedules, which will necessarily dictate the performance of 

simultaneous scenarios at either Fort Dix or Camp Shelby, on a given day. 
Page 6 B-406885 

eliminate. Navarro Research and Eng’g, Inc., B-299981, B-299981.3, Sept. 28, 

2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 195 at 4; Snell Enters., Inc., B-290113, B-290113.2, June 10, 

2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 115 at 7. In any event, since the record reflects that the agency 

does not maintain the historical information in question, the agency could not level 

the playing field in the manner sought by the protester. See infra. note 5. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel