United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: A&T Systems, Inc.

File: B-407152

Date: November 16, 2012

Richard O. Duvall, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester.

Joseph G. Billings, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge PC, for the intervenor.

Brian Bentley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest of an agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the agency 

reasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal consistent with the solicitation’s 

stated criteria.

2. Protest that the awardee’s price is too low under a solicitation that did not 

provide for a price realism evaluation does not provide a valid basis to question an 

agency determination that the awardee’s price was reasonable.

DECISION

A&T Systems, Inc., of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order 

to American Systems Corporation of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for task order 

proposal (RTOP) No. W91247-12-COII-0001, issued by the Department of the Army 

for telecommunication and engineering support services. A&T challenges the 

Army’s technical and price evaluation of ASC’s proposal.

We deny the protest.

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-407152 

BACKGROUND

The RTOP was issued pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) § 16.505 to small business vendors holding contracts under the General 

Services Administration’s Connections II multiple-award, indefinite-delivery 

indefinite-quantity contract. The solicitation provides for the issuance of a task 

order with fixed-price, time-and-materials, and unpriced contract line items (CLINs) 

for telecommunication and engineering support services for the United States Army 

Reserve Command (USARC). 1

 Vendors are informed that the task order will be 

issued on a low-price, technically acceptable basis. RTOP at 1, 72. 

A detailed performance work statement (PWS) advises vendors that the contractor 

is expected to provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and material 

necessary for the needed telephony services, secret internet protocol router 

network (SIPRNet) sustainment, and engineering support. RTOP, PWS, at 12. 

Among other things, the contractor will manage and supply: engineering support for 

USARC telephony circuits, lines and infrastructure; billing statements for telephone 

services; “24/7 Telephony and SIPRNet Service Desk Support;” and logistics 

support. Id. at 12, 33.

The RTOP identifies the following evaluation factors: technical capability, relevant 

technical expertise, and price. To be acceptable under the technical capability 

factor, proposals have to demonstrate a clear understanding of the RTOP 

requirement and a practical/functional technical approach meeting the 

requirements. RTOP at 74. The solicitation states that the agency will evaluate 

vendors’ management, staffing, and teaming approaches to performing the work. 

Id. at 74-75.

For price, the solicitation instructs vendors to submit price matrices for the fixedprice and time-and-material CLINs that identified, among other things, the vendors’ 

proposed staffing labor rates. Id. at 68-69. Proposed prices will be evaluated for 

reasonableness using the techniques and procedures of FAR § 15.404-1(b), with 

reasonableness being determined by comparing a firm’s total proposed price to the 

total proposed prices of the other responding firms. Id. at 76.

The Army received proposals from four vendors, including American Systems and 

A&T (the incumbent). Contracting Officer’s Statement at 5. The agency’s task 

order evaluation board (TOEB) evaluated the proposals, determining that three 

proposals, including that of American Systems and A&T, were acceptable. Agency 

Report (AR), Tab 10, TOEB Report, at 4-5. As relevant here, the TOEB found that 

 1 The RTOP provides not-to-exceed “plug” numbers for a number of CLINs, such as 

processing telephone bills, travel, and material associated with service requests and 

wiring/installation.
Page 3 B-407152 

both American Systems’ proposed staffing of [deleted] full time equivalents (FTEs), 

and A&T’s proposed staffing of [deleted] FTEs, were adequate, considering each 

firm’s technical approach. Id. at 9, 15-16.

A price analyst reviewed the vendors’ proposed prices, comparing the prices to 

each other and to an independent government estimate (IGE).2 AR, Tab 9, Price 

Report, at 4. The price analyst recognized that both American Systems’ and A&T’s 

proposed prices were based upon using fewer FTEs than contemplated by the IGE. 

See id. at 5 (American Systems), 7 (A&T). The price analyst also calculated an 

overall average price, derived from the prices proposed by the three vendors with 

acceptable offers. American Systems’ and A&T’s overall prices were compared as 

follows:

American Systems $56,865,607

A&T [Deleted]

Average Price (3 proposals) $58,711,788

IGE $83,743,983

Id. at 3, 17-18. The price analyst reviewed vendors’ pricing matrices, comparing 

each firm’s identified labor categories and rates with the categories and rates stated 

in that firm’s Connection II contract. See, e.g., id. at 5-7 (American Systems). Both 

American Systems’ and A&T’s proposed prices were found to be reasonable. Id.

at 18.

The task order was issued to American Systems, based upon its lowest-priced, 

technically acceptable offer, and this protest followed a debriefing.

DISCUSSION

Technical Evaluation

A&T contends that American Systems’ proposal should have been found technically 

unacceptable because its staffing plan is inadequate to perform the required work. 

Underlying its broad challenge is A&T’s belief that, as the incumbent, only its 

proposal “featured the absolute lowest staffing composition and corresponding price 

still capable of satisfying all of the Solicitation requirements.” Protest at 11. A&T 

alleges that it is “not feasible for [American Systems’], or any offeror’s, proposal to 

satisfy the Solicitation’s criteria for technical acceptability with less staff than that 

proposed by A&T.” Protest at 12; Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 5.

 2

 The price analyst revised the IGE during the procurement, because she 

determined that it was inflated with respect to labor and escalation rates. AR, 

Tab 9, Price Report, at 3.
Page 4 B-407152 

A contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining its legitimate 

needs and for determining whether an offered item will satisfy those needs, since it 

is the agency that is most familiar with the conditions under which the supplies or 

services will be used and that must bear the burden of difficulties incurred by reason 

of a defective evaluation. AINS, Inc., B-405902.3, May 31, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 180 

at 7; Berkshire Computer Prods., B-246305, Feb. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 242 at 2. 

In reviewing protests challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not 

reevaluate proposals. See GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, B-298102, B-298102.3, June 14, 

2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 96 at 6; RVJ Int’l, Inc., B-292161, B-292161.2, July 2, 2003, 

2003 CPD ¶ 124 at 5. Our review of an agency’s evaluation is limited to ensuring 

that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

ASPEC Engineering, B-406423, May 22, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 176 at 2-3.; Barents 

Group, L.L.C., B-276082, B-276082.2, May 9, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 164 at 6. A 

protester’s mere disagreement with the evaluation does not show it lacked a 

reasonable basis. Id.

Here, the record documents a detailed evaluation of American Systems’ proposal 

under the RTOP evaluation criteria and describes the basis for the agency’s 

judgment that American Systems’ proposal was technically acceptable. The TOEB 

finds that American Systems demonstrated a thorough understanding of the PWS 

requirements and a practical and effective management approach to performing the 

required work. AR, Tab 10, TOEB Report, at 6-8. The TOEB specifically concludes 

that American Systems can adequately and sufficiently perform the required work 

with [deleted] FTEs, considering the firm’s proposed staffing mix, staff qualifications, 

and technical approach.3

 Id. at 8-10.

For example, the record shows that American Systems proposed CRGT, Inc. as a 

major subcontractor to perform most of the task order work. The TOEB finds that 

American Systems’ proposed use of this experienced subcontractor, coupled with 

the vendor’s thorough understanding of the requirement, and its cross-utilization of 

the subcontractor’s experienced and qualified staff, allows American Systems to 

perform all required work with a reduced number of FTEs. See AR, Tab 10, TOEB 

Report, at 8-9. Although A&T disagrees with this judgment, its disagreement does 

not demonstrate that the agency’s assessment is unreasonable.

A&T also complains that the Army did not reasonably assess the performance risk 

posed by American Systems’ proposal to cross-utilize personnel.4

 3

 A&T also challenges the specific numbers of FTEs American Systems allocated 

to various PWS requirements. Protest at 12-13; Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest 

at 17-19. We have considered all of these arguments and find that none provide a 

basis to object to the agency’s evaluation.

 Although the 

4 {Deleted] A&T [deleted] contends that American Systems’ use of cross-utilization 

is excessive. See Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 8 n.14.
Page 5 B-407152 

TOEB does not use the term “cross-utilization,” the evaluators recognize that 

American Systems proposes to use experienced and qualified staff in multiple jobs 

to perform all the PWS requirements. AR, Tab 10, TOEB Report, at 9. The TOEB 

considers American Systems’ approach to be “efficient and sound . . . for adapting 

to changing priorities[,] enhancing customer service[,] and ensuring adequate levels 

of performance are maintained.” Id. 

A&T also challenges the Army’s evaluation of American Systems’ plan for recruiting 

and retaining personnel. Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 19. The RTOP 

instructs offerors to provide “[a] realistic and effective plan to establish and recruit 

and retain a qualified and trained workforce from the first day of performance, 

accommodate fluctuating workloads, minimize turnover, and ensure all PWS 

requirements are performed.” See RTOP at 75. The TOEB concludes that 

American Systems satisfy this requirement by proposing CRGT as its 

subcontractor, which ensured continuity of knowledge and service, and minimized 

risk and operational disruption. See AR, Tab 10, TOEB Report, at 9. The 

evaluators also cite American Systems’ use of “employee-centric recruitment and 

retention procedures including formal career development plans, technical and 

professional training, financial growth opportunities, and competitive benefits 

packages.” Id., citing, American Systems Technical Proposal at 23. We find no 

basis to conclude that the agency’s technical evaluation of American Systems’ 

proposal is unreasonable.

Price Evaluation

A&T asserts that the Army did not compare the vendors’ proposed prices to 

historical prices and did not ensure that American Systems’ lower price reflected its 

technical approach. Protest at 15-17; Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 12-16. 

As with its technical evaluation challenge, the basis for A&T’s contention is its belief 

that its own proposed price is the “absolute lowest” capable of satisfying the PWS 

requirements. Protest at 11.

A&T’s objection that American Systems’ total price is too low does not provide a 

valid basis to question the agency’s price reasonableness evaluation. A&T’s 

arguments reflect a lack of understanding as to the distinction between price 

reasonableness and realism. Here, the RTOP only provides for a price 

reasonableness evaluation. The purpose of such a price reasonableness review is 

to determine whether the prices offered are too high, as opposed to too low. 

Sterling Servs., Inc., B-291625, B-291626, Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 26 at 3; 

WorldTravelService, B-284155.3, Mar. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 68 at 4 n.2. 

Arguments that an agency did not perform an appropriate analysis to determine 

whether prices are too low, such that there may be a risk of poor performance,

concern price realism. C.L. Price & Assocs., Inc., B-403476.2, Jan. 7, 2011, 2011 

CPD ¶ 16 at 3; SDV Solutions, Inc., B-402309, Feb. 1, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 48 at 4. 
Page 6 B-407152 

A price realism evaluation is not required where, as here, the solicitation only 

provides for a price reasonableness evaluation.

A&T also complains that American Systems takes exception to the solicitation’s 

requirements because it includes certain administrative costs and mark-ups in its 

proposal with respect to CLINs that include not-to-exceed plug numbers. Protest 

at 16-17; Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 15-16. We find from our review of the 

record, including American Systems’ price proposal, no basis to conclude that the 

agency’s price evaluation is unreasonable or that the awardee took exception to the 

solicitation requirements.

For example, for CLINs related to processing USARC’s telephone bills, the RTOP 

requires vendors to do so in accordance with the PWS and plug number that 

vendors are to use. RTOP at 3. Vendors are informed that:

The Government will reimburse the Contractor for actual totals for 

Telephone Bills in support of the USARC mission under this Task 

Order as described in the PWS. Any administrative, service fees, 

and handling costs, etc., if applicable must be included as part of 

monthly amounts that the contractor include (sic) under CLINs 

0100, “Managed Voice Communications/SIPRNet” and 

corresponding years.

RTOP amend. 2, at 1. American Systems uses the plug number from the 

solicitation and states that it will “invoice the Government actual costs for the 

telephone bills. Any administrative and handling expenses have been included in 

our CLIN 0100 and corresponding year’s prices.” American Systems Price 

Proposal at 20. 

Similarly, with respect to the CLINs for travel, the RTOP contains a plug number 

and informs vendors that the agency will reimburse vendors for the pre-approved 

actual travel expenses. RTOP, PWS, at 47. The RTOP also advises that 

[i]ndirect rates commensurate with the firm’s disclosure 

statement/accounting practices are authorized for reimbursement. 

Fee or profit on travel expenses is not an allowable reimbursement.

Id. (emphasis in original). American Systems uses the plug number and states that 

“[p]reapproved travel costs will be reimbursed at actual costs plus allowable indirect 

rates. In accordance with our disclosed accounting practices, we apply G&A to 

travel expenses. No fee or profit will be applied to travel expenses.” American 

Systems Price Proposal at 21. The Army reasonably found that in both instances, 

American Systems had complied with the solicitation requirements. AR, Tab 9, 

Price Report, at 6.
Page 7 B-407152 

As discussed above, we find no merit to any of A&T’s objections to the agency’s 

evaluation of technical and price proposals. 5 In sum, A&T has not shown that the 

agency’s technical and price evaluations, or its selection decision, are unreasonable 

or inconsistent with the RTOP; the protester’s disagreement with the agency’s 

judgment does not establish that the agency acted unreasonably. See Citywide 

Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 

2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 5

 A&T makes numerous arguments in addition to, or variations of, the arguments 

discussed above. We find that none of A&T’s arguments provide a basis to object 

to the agency’s technical and price evaluation, although we have only specifically 

discussed the protester’s primary arguments. This is consistent with the statutory 

mandate that our bid protest forum provide for “inexpensive and expeditious 

resolution of protests.” See 31 U.S.C. § 3554(a)(1) (2006). Ahtna Facility Services, 

Inc.-Recon., B-404913.3, Oct. 6, 2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 270 at 3.