United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Eagle Support Services Corporation

File: B-405077.7; B-405077.8

Date: September 17, 2012

Gary L. Rigney, Esq., Gary L. Rigney Law Offices; Jon D. Levin, Esq., J. Andrew 

Watson, III, Esq., L. Justin Burney, Esq., Brad English, Esq., and Laurie Kellogg, 

Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C., for the protester.

Jon M. DeVore, Esq., Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot, P.C., for Tatitlek Training 

Services, Inc., the intervenor.

Maj. Andrew J. Smith, and Daniel Keys, III, Esq., Department of the Army, for the 

agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of an agency’s technical evaluation and selection decision is denied where 

the evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the 

solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

DECISION

Eagle Support Services Corporation of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of 

multiple task order contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-11-R0001, issued by the Department of the Army for base support services at various 

Army installations. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the 

agency’s selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP provided for the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity 

contracts for base support services for a base year and 4 option years. Offerors 

were informed that both fixed-price and cost reimbursement task orders could be 

issued under the contracts. RFP at 3, 42.

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-405077.7, B-405077.8 

The RFP provided that awards would be made on a best value basis, considering 

the following evaluation factors: mission capability; past performance; and 

cost/price. Id. at 95-96. The mission capability factor was stated to be significantly 

more important than the past performance factor and was divided into the following 

five subfactors: response to scenario; management approach; staffing and training 

approach; quality approach; and technical expertise. Id. The response to scenario 

subfactor was significantly more important than the other subfactors, which were of 

equal importance, and when combined, were equal in weight to the response to 

scenario subfactor. Id. at 96. Offerors were informed that proposals would be 

evaluated under the mission capability subfactors as excellent, good, acceptable, 

marginal, or unacceptable. RFP at 99. The RFP stated that an offeror must receive 

a minimum rating of “acceptable” at the mission capability factor level to be eligible 

for award. Id.

Under the response to scenario subfactor, the agency would evaluate proposals for 

the performance of services at Fort Bliss, Texas. RFP at 85. In this regard, a 

performance work statement (PWS) was provided for the required services, and 

offerors were informed that a single task order for the Fort Bliss requirement would 

be issued in conjunction with the contract awards. Id. Offerors were instructed 

under this subfactor to: (1) describe “how the work gets done” in each functional 

area of the PWS; (2) describe how they will use their processes and procedures for 

performing the work; (3) submit an organizational chart and narrative explaining their 

organization; (4) provide manpower matrices depicting staffing for task order 

performance for each functional area; (4) discuss their approach for handling 

fluctuating workloads; (5) provide a phase-in plan covering the initial 60-day period; 

and (6) submit a draft plan to support mission essential functions in accordance with 

Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 

§ 252.237-7024(b).1 RFP at 86.

The RFP provided that offerors’ cost/price proposals would be evaluated for price 

reasonableness and cost realism. Id. at 101. In this regard, offerors were also 

advised that their proposals were to provide their costs/price to perform the Fort 

Bliss task order. Id. at 92. This proposal was to include costs and pricing for 

numerous contract line item numbers (CLINs) listed in a pricing schedule that 

accompanied the solicitation. Id. In this regard, the RFP provided 3 fixed-priced 

CLINs and 15 cost-type CLINs for the base and final option years. RFP § J, attach. 

8, at 1-7, 31-37. For the second and third option years, the RFP provided 2 fixedpriced CLINs and 15 cost-type CLINs. Id. at 9-29. 

 1 DFARS § 252.237-7024(b) requires offerors to provide written plans describing 

how they will continue to perform mission essential services.
Page 3 B-405077.7, B-405077.8 

Instructions for the preparation of cost/price proposals were provided, which 

instructed offerors to provide, among other things, detailed supporting information for 

the proposed costs and pricing to perform the Fort Bliss task order. RFP at 92. In 

this regard, the RFP provided a table that offerors were to use to furnish requested 

information specific to each PWS paragraph, such as: the labor categories that 

would perform work connected with the PWS paragraph; the number of hours 

designated to the labor categories for the work; the offerors’ direct labor rate for 

those labor categories; certain indirect costs for the work, such as fringe benefit and 

general and administrative (G&A) costs; and the total cost, with fee, for the work. Id.

at 93. 

The Army received 31 proposals in response to the RFP. Six proposals were 

eliminated for failure to comply with solicitation instructions, and the remaining 

proposals, including Eagle’s, were evaluated by the agency’s technical evaluation 

team (TET). Following the evaluation of initial proposals, the Army established a 

competitive range that included 19 proposals, including Eagle’s. Agency Report 

(AR) Tab 25, Final TET Report, at 2. The Army conducted several rounds of written 

and oral discussions with the competitive range offerors. 

Eagle received a number of written items for negotiation (IFN) covering the following 

topics: staffing weaknesses in Eagle’s response to the scenario task order; the 

unreasonably high labor rate of its proposed Assistant Project Manager; 

unreasonably high labor rates for several SCA (Service Contract Act)-subject 

positions; apparently inadequate proposed other direct costs (ODCs); and multiple 

calculation (formula) errors in its cost/price proposal. AR, Tab 26, Price Negotiation 

Memorandum, at 45. Generally with respect to the staffing issues, the agency’s 

IFNs to the protester requested that the protester review its proposed staffing and 

approach, and either revise its staffing and/or explain how the protester could 

perform the requirements with its proposed staffing. AR, Tab 11, Initial Consensus 

Evaluation, at 5-7; Tab 15, Interim Consensus Evaluation, at 3-4.

In response to the agency’s discussions, the protester increased its staffing in 

certain areas. Following the protester’s initial response to an IFN concerning its 

staffing for the Davis Dome Training Complex, the Army advised the protester that it 

was still understaffed. 2 AR, Tab 15, Interim Consensus Evaluation, at 2. 

Specifically, the agency listed the PWS responsibilities in this respect and asked the 

protester to review its staffing and either revise its staffing and/or explain how the 

protester proposed to perform the PWS requirements with its proposed staffing. Id.

 2 The agency expressed similar concerns in discussions with Eagle concerning its 

staffing for the Training Support Brigade.

 

In this regard, the protester was requested to provide its assumptions, methodology 

and calculations for its proposed staffing and to clearly articulate or illustrate how 
Page 4 B-405077.7, B-405077.8 

workload data, PWS responsibilities and other solicitation requirements were used to 

derive the protester’s staffing. Id. In responding to the IFN, the protester did not 

explain or justify its proposed staffing or approach but merely increased its staffing.

Following discussions, the Army received final revised proposals. The final revised 

proposals of Eagle and the seven initial awardees were evaluated as follows:3

Mission Capability Past Performance Cost/Price

Tatitlek Acceptable Good $72,634,379

LESCO Acceptable Good $75,403,037

ALOG Acceptable Good $75,614,812

GAP Acceptable Good $77,953,587

Advancia Acceptable Good $80,966,751

Techwise Acceptable Good $81,418,458

Davis-Paige Acceptable Good $82,821,916

Eagle Acceptable Excellent $87,366,016

AR, Tab 25, Final TET Report, at 49-50; Tab 26, Price Negotiation Memorandum, 

at 53-55. The TET’s evaluation of proposals under the mission capability factor was 

supported by narratives that discussed the firms’ respective strengths and 

weaknesses under each subfactor. See, e.g., AR, Tab 25, Final TET Report 

at 41-42 (evaluation of Eagle’s final revised proposal). Similarly, the offerors’ past 

performance ratings were supported by narrative discussions. See AR, Tab 26, 

Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 45-46 (Eagle’s past performance evaluation). 

The evaluation narratives and ratings were provided to the agency’s Source 

Selection Authority (SSA), who determined that the seven awardees identified above 

represented the best value. AR, Tab 27, Source Selection Decision, at 68. The 

SSA also determined that issuance of the Fort Bliss task order to Tatitlek reflected 

the best value to the agency. Id. at 69. With respect to Eagle’s proposal, the SSA 

concluded that Eagle did not offer any identifiable or meaningful advantages that 

justified the payment of a $4.5 to $12.9 million premium. Id. at 51.

Eagle was notified of the agency’s selection decision on December 30, 2011, and 

protested to our Office, following a debriefing. On February 15, the agency advised 

our Office that it would reevaluate Eagle’s past performance, and we dismissed the 

protest as academic on February 17. 

 3 The Army eventually awarded contracts to Tatitlek Training Services, Inc.; Logistics 

& Environmental Solutions Corporation (LESCO); ALOG Corporation; GAP 

Solutions, Inc.; Advancia Corporation; Techwise (Huckstep Holding Corp.); DavisPaige Management Systems, LLC. See AR, Tab 27, Source Selection Decision, 

at 1.
Page 5 B-405077.7, B-405077.8 

On June 1, the protester was notified that, as a result of the agency’s reevaluation of 

past performance, the agency’s determination not to award a contract to Eagle 

remained unchanged. The Army informed Eagle, however, that another award had 

been made to APT, whose $82,733,973 proposal received an acceptable rating 

under the mission capability factor and excellent rating under the past performance 

factor. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

The protester raises numerous challenges to the agency’s evaluation of its technical 

proposal and selection decision. Primarily, Eagle complains that the agency failed to 

take into consideration the protester’s unique approach and staffing mix under the 

response to scenario subfactor.4

 We have reviewed the record in light of the 

protester’s numerous allegations and find that the record supports the 

reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation and selection decision.5

Mission Capability Evaluation

The protester argues that the Army failed to take into consideration Eagle’s unique 

approach and skill mix in evaluating its proposal under the response to scenario 

subfactor. In this regard, the protester argues that the agency merely engaged in a 

 4 The protester argued in its supplemental protest that the agency conducted 

misleading discussions, coaxing Eagle into proposing an overly-qualified, 

excessively-expensive staff. Comments and Supplemental Protest at 26. This 

argument, which could have and should have been raised in Eagle’s initial protest, is 

untimely. Our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the piecemeal 

development of protest issues. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2012); Braswell Servs. Group, 

Inc., B-276694, July 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 18 at 6-7. 

5 In its initial protest, Eagle argued that the agency failed to perform a proper cost 

analysis, contending that the agency failed to examine the components of each offer 

in terms of salary and SCA mandated costs, and failed to determine whether the 

proposed costs were “fair and reasonable.” Protest at 9. The agency specifically 

responded to Eagle’s arguments in its report. The protester did not respond to the 

agency’s explanations, however, other than to state that it was not withdrawing this 

issue. Given the protester’s failure to substantively address the agency’s 

explanations, we find that the protester’s challenges in this regard are no more than 

mere disagreement with the agency’s judgments. Additionally, the protester in its 

comments asserted that it was prejudiced by the agency’s upward adjustments to its 

proposed costs. Comments and Supplemental Protest at 37. The record shows,

however, that the agency made no adjustments to Eagle’s, or any other offerors’, 

final proposed costs.
Page 6 B-405077.7, B-405077.8 

mathematical exercise, in which the agency compared Eagle’s proposed full time 

equivalents (FTEs) to the number of personnel identified by the agency in its 

Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). Comments and Supplemental 

Protest at 15. The protester complains that the agency failed to credit Eagle for 

proposing a higher paid, more efficient labor mix than that in the IGCE. Id. at 11.

For example, the protester states that the Fort Bliss task order CLIN requires 

offerors to provide staffing approaches to three Mobilization Operation Center 

Command Group task areas: Command Group Staff Duty; GSA Fleet Dispatching 

Services; and the Airport Military Assistance Desk. Eagle states that to satisfy 

Command Group staff duty functions, it proposed [Deleted] administrative assistants 

paid at [Deleted] per hour with a skill level comparable to a General Schedule (GS) 7 

federal employee, whereas the agency’s IGCE provided for [Deleted] to [Deleted]

clerks, which were to be paid at a lower rate of [Deleted] (comparable to a GS-3 

employee level). Id. at 12. Although Eagle acknowledges that the Army, in 

evaluating its approach, stated that Eagle’s proposed “skill set does not appear 

appropriate to support workload,” the protester contends that the agency was only 

paying “lip service” to Eagle’s proposed labor mix and was in fact only comparing the 

number of FTEs proposed by EAGLE with the number estimated in the IGCE. Id. at 

15.

The agency responds that it considered Eagle’s proposed approach and found that 

Eagle had not proposed any unique approaches, processes or efficiencies to 

perform the Fort Bliss task order. In this regard, the agency states that, although 

Eagle asserts that it proposed a more efficient labor mix, Eagle failed to show in 

response to discussions that its higher paid and allegedly more qualified labor mix 

would achieve Eagle’s asserted efficiencies. Supplemental Contracting Officer’s 

Statement at 9. Moreover, the Army notes that in response to the agency’s specific 

IFNs Eagle did not discuss its proposed technical approach, methodology, or 

process to perform the Fort Bliss task order.

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection 

decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate submissions; rather, we will examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord 

with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. 

Panacea Consulting, Inc., B-299307.4, B-299308.4, July 27, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 141 

at 3. A protester’s mere disagreement with an agency’s judgment is not sufficient to 

establish that an agency acted unreasonably. Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, 

Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 70 at 3. 

The record here shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent 

with the evaluation criteria. Contrary to the protester’s arguments, the record shows 

that the Army considered Eagle’s skill mix in its evaluation of Eagle’s technical 

proposal. With respect to several CLINs, however, the evaluators had concerns with 

Eagle’s skill mix and the protester’s failure to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate 
Page 7 B-405077.7, B-405077.8 

the feasibility of the firm’s approach. AR, Tab 11, Initial Consensus Evaluation, at 5-

7; Tab 15, Interim Consensus Evaluation, at 3-4. In this regard, the agency informed 

Eagle several times in discussions that its skill set (labor mix) did not appear 

appropriate to support the PWS workload, and asked Eagle to revise its staffing 

and/or provide an explanation of how Eagle would perform the PWS requirements. 

Eagle did not explain its unique approach in response to the agency’s discussions, 

but merely elected to increase its staffing.6 In short, notwithstanding Eagle’s 

numerous arguments that the agency failed to consider its technical approach and 

labor mix, the record shows that Eagle was given numerous opportunities to explain 

its approach but failed to do so. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a wellwritten proposal with adequately detailed information which allows a meaningful 

review by the agency. International Med. Corps, B-403688, Dec. 6, 2010, 2010 CPD 

¶ 292 at 7.

Eagle also complains that its proposal should have been rated higher than 

acceptable under the mission capability factor, because the agency recognized as a 

strength Eagle's quality control plan. The record shows that the agency recognized 

Eagle’s evaluated strength with respect to its quality control plan (its only evaluated 

strength), but found that in balance Eagle’s proposal was merely satisfactory. See

AR, Tab 27, Source Selection Decision, at 18-19. Although Eagle disagrees with the 

agency’s judgment in this regard, it has not shown that the agency acted 

unreasonably.

Unequal Treatment

Eagle argues that the evaluation of its technical proposal reflected unequal 

treatment, given that other offerors were evaluated to have significant strengths 

under the mission capability factor for items that Eagle also offered and for which 

Eagle did not receive a strength. Specifically, Eagle alleges that Tatitlek received a 

significant strength under the response to scenario subfactor for proposing the use 

of [Deleted], but that Eagle received no credit for proposing a similar solution.7

 6 We note that the evaluators did not have access to Eagle’s cost/price proposal 

during the evaluation of technical proposals and were unaware of Eagle’s proposed 

costs and pricing.

 

Comments & Supplemental Protest at 48. Eagle also complains that Tatitlek 

received a strength for the depth of its experience in critical vehicle maintenance and 

7 In its supplemental comments, Eagle argued that [Deleted] and [Deleted] were 

assessed strengths for their experience in vehicle and weapons maintenance repair, 

but that Eagle’s more demonstrated experience in those areas was not similarly 

credited. See Supplemental Comments at 23. This argument, which could have 

and should have been raised in Eagle’s comments and supplemental protest, is 

untimely. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2).
Page 8 B-405077.7, B-405077.8 

repair, but that Eagle’s comparable experience in the same area was not 

recognized. Id. at 51.

The agency responds that Eagle’s and Tatilek’s proposals were not the same in this 

regard. With respect to the [Deleted], Eagle proposed [Deleted] for the Ammunition 

Distribution Section, where Tatitlek proposed [Deleted] not only for this section, but 

for all [Deleted] proposed within the Supply/Logistics/Maintenance Directorate. See

Supplemental Contracting Officer’s Statement at 17. With respect to depth of the 

firms’ experience, the Army found that Eagle’s experience resided primarily within 

Eagle and not with its other [Deleted] team members, where Tatitlek and its 

[Deleted] teaming partners all had relevant experience. Id. According to the 

agency, the Tatitlek team depth of experience increases the probability of successful 

contract performance with multiple simultaneous task orders across a geographically 

area. Id.

We find that the agency did not evaluate the proposals of Eagle and the offerors 

unequally. Although the protester disagrees with the agency’s judgment of the value 

of Eagle’s proposal, the protester’s disagreement provides no basis for our Office to 

conclude that the agency’s decision was unreasonable. Moreover, notwithstanding 

any of the offerors’ evaluated strengths under the mission capability factor, all the 

awardees and Eagle received acceptable ratings under this factor.

Source Selection Decision

Eagle also protests the agency’s source selection decision based primarily upon its 

belief that the agency unreasonably evaluated the firm’s technical proposal. As 

noted above, the record shows that the Army’s judgment that Eagle’s proposal did 

not reflect the best value to the agency was based upon Eagle’s significantly higher 

cost/price. Given our conclusion that Eagle’s objections to the agency’s evaluation 

are without merit, Eagle’s arguments provide no basis to question the agency’s 

selection decision.

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel