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: SOS International, Ltd. 

File: B-402558.3; B-402558.9 

Date: June 3, 2010 

Alison L. Doyle, Esq., Virginia M. Gomez, Esq., and Susan Corts Hill, Esq., McKenna 

Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. 

David S. Cohen Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and William J. Bainbridge, Esq., Cohen 

Mohr, LLP, for McNeil Technologies, an intervenor. 

Tina M. Pixler, Esq., and Leslie A. Nepper, Esq., Department of the Army, Army 

Materiel Command, for the agency. 

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency misevaluated awardee’s proposal is denied where record shows 

that agency evaluated proposals consistent with solicitation and applicable statutes 

and regulations. 

DECISION 

SOS International, Ltd., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to 

McNeil Technologies, of Springfield, Virginia, under Department of the Army, Army 

Material Command (AMC) request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-09-R-0079, for 

advisory, atmospheric and analysis support services for U.S. forces in Iraq. SOS 

asserts that the agency misevaluated McNeil’s proposal. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The solicitation sought proposals for an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity 

contract for a 6-month base period, with three 6-month option periods. Award was 

to be made on a “best value” basis; technical proposals initially were to be evaluated 

on a “go/no-go” basis and those rated “go” would then be evaluated for past 

performance and price, with past performance being deemed significantly more 

important than price. RFP at 53-55. Regarding the past performance evaluation, risk 

ratings were to be assigned based on past performance questionnaire (PPQ) 
responses received by the agency. The risk ratings were to be correlated to the PPQ 

responses and would be based on the following ranges: 3.7-4 points, very low risk; 

3.0-3.6, low risk; 2.0-2.9, moderate risk; and 0.0-1.9, high risk. Id. Past performance 

was to be rated in the areas of program management, resource management, quality 

management/performance, cost performance, and other relevant areas. Offerors 

were to submit PPQs for no more than three recent, relevant contracts. RFP at 48. 

The agency received several proposals, including those from SOS and McNeil (the 

only proposals relevant here). Both firms’ proposals were rated “go” under the 

technical evaluation factor, and both then received overall past performance ratings 

of very low risk. Agency Report (AR), exh. 66, at 15; exh. 67, at 8, 10. McNeil’s 

evaluated price (unit prices for each line item for all periods of performance) was 

$16,302.92 (low among “go” proposals), and SOS’s was $19,780.39.1

 AR, exh. 66, at 

16. The agency determined that McNeil’s proposal offered the best value and thus 

made award to that firm. AR, exh. 66. 

DISCUSSION 

SOS asserts that the agency misevaluated McNeil’s proposal in several respects, and 

concludes that it would have been in line for award had the evaluation been 

performed properly. In considering protests challenging an agency’s evaluation of 

proposals, we will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to 

determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and 

consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws 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. We have considered all of SOS’s arguments and find 

that they are without merit. We discuss SOS’s principal arguments below. 

 

1

 The RFP provided for the agency to calculate evaluated prices based on the simple 

addition of unit prices, without multiplying those prices by the RFP’s estimated 

quantities. We note that these evaluated prices bear no relationship to the extended 

prices submitted by the offerors, or the anticipated actual cost of the contract (for 

example, the extended price for McNeil was $87,431,648, and the extended price for 

SOS was $110,566,132). AR, exhs. 50, 53, price tables. Nonetheless, no firm timely 

challenged the agency’s price evaluation method, even though it appears to be 

inconsistent with the fundamental requirement for agencies to consider cost or price 

to the government in making the award of a contract. 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (a)(3)(A)(ii) 

(2006); General Dynamics Info. Tech., B-299873, Sept. 19, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 194 at 10-

11. 

Page 2 B-402558.3, B-402558.9 
Consideration of PPQ 

SOS asserts that the agency misevaluated McNeil’s proposal in the area of past 

performance. In this connection, the record shows that the agency received three 

PPQs in connection with McNeil’s proposal, but that the agency only considered two 

of the three. The third PPQ was for a contract performed by Global Linguist 

Solutions, LLC (GLS), a joint venture comprised of McNeil and [deleted]. AR, exh. 

59. The agency decided not to consider this PPQ because it determined from 

McNeil’s proposal that it did not intend to use GLS or any GLS subcontractors in 

performing the contract. AR, exh. 67, at 8.2

 SOS maintains that McNeil proposed the 

use of sufficient GLS assets to warrant the agency’s considering the third PPQ. 

This argument is without merit. First, we note that, while the RFP permitted the 

agency to consider past performance information relating to predecessor companies, 

key personnel, other corporate entities, or subcontractors where it determined that 

such information was relevant, it did not require the agency to do so. RFP at 55. In 

any case, where, as here, the resources of an affiliate--its workforce, management, 

facilities or other resources--will not be meaningfully used in connection with 

performance, an agency is not required to attribute the past performance of the 

affiliate to the offeror for evaluation purposes. Bering Straits Tech. Servs., 

B-401560.3, B-401560.4, Oct. 7, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 201 at 4. 

McNeil’s proposal described the McNeil “team” as being comprised of McNeil and 

several other subcontractors, not including GLS, and did not propose to 

meaningfully use GLS assets in performing the contract. AR, exh. 51, at ES-3. The 

protester cites as evidence of McNeil’s intent to use GLS assets its proposal of an 

employee exchange program that includes GLS employees. However, this program, 

created for use among all of McNeil’s contract vehicles, was described as follows: 

[deleted] 

AR, exh. 51, at 5 (emphasis supplied). We think it is clear from this description that, 

rather than provide for McNeil to use GLS assets, this exchange program is an 

 

2

 During the acquisition, the agency and McNeil exchanged e-mails regarding this 

PPQ. In response to a direct question from the agency, McNeil stated that it did not 

intend to use GLS or any of the GLS subcontractors in performing the current 

requirement. AR, exh. 64, at 1, 2; exh. 65. SOS alleges that this interchange 

constituted discussions between the agency and McNeil. We disagree. McNeil’s 

proposal did not offer use of GLS or any of the GLS subcontractors, and McNeil was 

not provided an opportunity to change its proposal by virtue of its response to the 

agency’s inquiry. Thus, this interchange constituted a clarification, not discussions. 

Career Training Concepts, Inc.--Advisory Opinion, B-311429, B-311429.2, June 27, 

2008, 2009 CPD ¶ 97 at 6. 

Page 3 B-402558.3, B-402558.9 
employee-focused program that merely provides opportunities for employees to 

work under different contracts being performed by McNeil and GLS. It does not 

evidence an intent by McNeil to systematically perform the requirement using GLS 

employees. 

McNeil’s proposal also refers to a set of standard operating procedure and policy 

directive documents that were developed by GLS, but states that McNeil will use 

only a subset of these documents in performing the requirement, and will tailor the 

procedures and policies to this requirement. AR, exh. 51 at 23. Given the limited 

proposed use of these documents--only as a starting point for developing similar 

materials for use by McNeil in performing this requirement--there is no basis for us 

to find that this constitutes meaningful use of GLS assets.3

 It follows that there is no 

basis for us to object to the agency’s decision not to consider the third PPQ in 

evaluating McNeil’s past performance.4

Past Performance Score Calculation 

SOS asserts that, in calculating past performance score averages, the agency 

unreasonably failed to account for those instances where no answer or a “not 

applicable” answer was given for a particular question on the PPQs. However, the 

record shows that the agency calculated the average scores for all offerors in the 

same manner, and SOS has not shown--and it is not evident from the record--how it 

was competitively prejudiced by the agency’s methodology. Absent such a showing, 

we have no basis to object to the agency’s calculations. 5 Armorworks Enter’s., LLC, 

B-400394.3, Mar. 31, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 79 at 3. 

 

(continued...) 

3

 McNeil’s proposal also includes resumes for two employees that the protester 

maintains are GLS employees. The record shows that one of these employees 

worked for a period of approximately 7 months on the GLS contract, and the other 

employee worked on that contract from 2005-2008, but subsequently was used by 

McNeil on another contract after that time. AR, exh. 51 at R-1-R-7. The use of these 

two individuals, one of whom is currently working for McNeil on a different contract 

than the GLS contract, does not, in our view, constitute a meaningful use of GLS 

assets for this contract, given that McNeil proposed a total of 741 full time 

equivalents for performance in the base year of the contract. AR, exh. 53 at 14. 

4

 We point out that the other joint venture member, [deleted], also competed for this 

requirement and had a PPQ submitted for the GLS contract. Consistent with its 

evaluation of McNeil’s proposal, the agency also did not consider the GLS PPQ in its 

evaluation of [deleted] past performance, finding no indication that [deleted] 

intended to use GLS or its assets to perform. AR, exh. 67, at 5-6. 

5

 SOS also asserts that the evaluation record includes several clerical errors. For 

example, SOS points out that the agency used different scores in computing the 

average score for SOS than were reported in the PPQ—in one instance, the agency 

Page 4 B-402558.3, B-402558.9 
Consideration of Additional Past Performance Information 

SOS asserts that the agency improperly failed to consider negative information 

concerning a McNeil contract with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The 

information at issue, AR, exhs. 61, 62 and 63, was discovered by the agency through a 

search of the past performance information retrieval system, which it conducted in 

preparing its response to another protest filed by another of the firm’s competing for 

the requirement (Calnet, Inc.) alleging that the agency had failed to consider cure 

notices issued to McNeil under three prior contracts. During the acquisition, the 

agency did not discover information relating to these three contracts. During the 

new search performed in connection with the other protest, it discovered past 

performance reviews relating to one of the three contracts, but no information 

relating to the alleged cure notices. SOS claims that these past performance reviews 

should have been considered in the evaluation. 

This argument is without merit. The RFP did not require the agency to consider 

information beyond that included in the PPQs; it advised only that the agency could 

use information obtained from other sources. RFP at 55. Thus, the agency’s failure 

to discover or consider the information during the evaluation does not constitute an 

evaluation impropriety and, since this information did not come to light until well 

after award, there is no basis for considering it now. 

Evaluation Record 

Noting that the source selection decision document contains only conclusory 

statements regarding the technical proposals, SOS asserts that the record lacks 

adequate information to support the agency’s evaluation conclusions. 

This argument is without merit. As noted, the RFP contemplated a technical 

evaluation that was on a “go/no go” basis. Thus, the relative merits of the proposals 

were irrelevant, and once the agency determined that a proposal met the standard 

necessary to be deemed “go,” it is not clear what further documentation was 

necessary from the standpoint of the source selection official. We note that, on the 

other hand, where a proposal was assigned a “no go” rating, the evaluators did 

 

(...continued) 

used a score of 3 in its calculation where a score of 4 had been assigned; in a second 

instance, the agency used a score of 4 where a score of 3 had been assigned. 

However, SOS has not demonstrated that these minor clerical errors had any 

material effect on McNeil’s or its own overall past performance scores, or on the 

overall evaluation results. 

Page 5 B-402558.3, B-402558.9 
Page 6 B-402558.3, B-402558.9 

provide supporting information for their conclusions. Id. at 6-8. SOS has neither 

alleged nor demonstrated that the agency’s assignment of a “go” rating to the 

awardee’s (or any other) proposal was unreasonable or improper.6 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

6

 SOS asserts that McNeil’s prices are unbalanced, as evidenced by a comparison of 

certain of McNeil’s line item prices to SOS’s prices. (The RFP provided for an 

evaluation of contract line item prices to ensure that they were balanced. RFP 

at 55.) However, a comparison of the awardee’s prices to the protester’s, without 

more, is insufficient to show that the awardee’s prices are unbalanced. General 

Dynamics--Ordnance & Tactical Sys., B-401658, B-401658.2, Oct. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD 

¶ 217 at 5.