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: Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation, Ltd. 

File: B-402380 

Date: March 22, 2010 

Charles F. Chester, Esq., for the protester. 

Sandra M. Wozniak, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency. 

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

The agency’s selection of a higher-rated, lower-priced proposal for award was 

reasonable, where the solicitation contemplated a best-value award, the agency 

reasonably determined that the protester’s proposal deserved a poor rating under the 

technical factor and a neutral rating under the past performance factor, and the 

protester’s argument challenging the evaluation of its price is untimely. 

DECISION 

Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation, Ltd., of Frederick, Maryland, 

protests the award of a contract to the American Society of Engineering Education 

(ASEE) of Washington, DC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACS09P2121, 

issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for administrative services in 

support of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The NSF annually awards fellowships for graduate study through the Graduate 

Research Fellowship Program. These fellowships lead to research-based masters or 

doctorate degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

relevant to the science mission of the NSF. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1. 

In order to carry out the program, the RFP seeks administrative support for the 

annual fellowship award competition. This support includes, among other things, 

assistance with soliciting applications from students seeking the fellowships, 

through evaluation of more than 12,000 applications by approximately 

800 NSF-invited experts in various fields, and the final award notification to the 
applicants. The primary tasks to be performed by the contractor consist of: 

(1) developing program materials; (2) conducting program publicity, outreach, and 

answering inquiries; (3) receiving and processing application materials; (4) arranging 

for and conducting evaluations of the applications; and (5) performing related 

administrative services. RFP at 7; Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1. 

The RFP, issued on June 5, 2009, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee 

contract for a base period of 3 years and 2 option years. RFP at 17. The RFP stated 

that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering the following 

evaluation factors (listed in descending order of importance): technical,1

 past 

performance, cost or price, and the extent of participation of small disadvantaged 

business concerns. The solicitation stated that all of the evaluation factors other 

than cost or price, when combined, were significantly more important than cost or 

price. Id. at 45-47. The solicitation also provided that proposals “shall be clear, 

concise, and include sufficient detail on their approach to the Statement of Work . . . 

to understand and evaluate the nature of the approach,” and the RFP cautioned that 

the government would “consider the degree of substantiation of the proposed 

approaches” in the evaluation. Id. at 41.

Six offerors responded to the RFP by the proposal due date, including Frontline and 

ASEE, and all six proposals were evaluated. Ratings of excellent, very good, good, 

fair, or poor were assigned to proposals for the technical and past performance 

factors, with neutral being an additional rating available for the evaluation of past 

performance where the offeror is found to have no relevant experience. The extent 

of participation of small disadvantaged business concerns was evaluated on a 

pass/fail basis. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Acquisition Plan, attach. 3, at 8-10. Cost 

or price was not assigned an adjectival rating, but was evaluated for reasonableness 

and realism. RFP at 46. 

With regard to Frontline’s proposal, the agency assigned it a rating of poor under the 

technical factor. In support of this rating, the agency identified numerous 

weaknesses, including that: 

The offeror demonstrates a lack of the basic technical expertise with 

managing fellowship programs to carry out the [Graduate Research 

Fellowship Program statement of work] operations. Overall, the 

 

1

 The technical factor included equally-weighted subfactors of technical approach 

and management approach. RFP at 45-46. The technical approach subfactor 

contemplated the evaluation of each “offeror’s understanding of the programs’ 

overall mission, objectives and requirements.” The management approach subfactor 

contemplated the evaluation of each offeror’s management plan “as it relates to 

being able to meet the project objectives and accomplish the requirements of the 

[statement of work].” Id.

Page 2 B-402380 
proposal lacks a clear understanding of the nature of the business of 

running a fellowship program. . . . 

The current proposal does not provide sufficient evidence that the 

offeror could deliver requested services. 

AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 6. As evidence of Frontline’s lack of 

expertise and understanding, the agency noted that Frontline did not demonstrate an 

understanding of the review panel competition process, did not show an 

understanding of outreach tactics, and did not address certain tasks or issues in its 

proposal. The agency also stated that nobody on the Frontline team had run a large 

fellowship competition or had any comparable or relevant experience. Id. 

In contrast, the agency assigned ASEE’s proposal a rating of excellent under the 

technical factor, stating, among other things, that:2

ASEE’s technical approach was extremely detailed and specific to the 

requirements of the [statement of work]. The proposal submitted by 

ASEE was very responsive to the [statement of work] and highly rated 

for its resourcefulness in meeting NSF’s changing needs. ASEE’s 

technical . . . proposal was well organized. The technical proposal 

addressed all evaluation criteria without any major weaknesses and no 

deficiencies. 

Id. at 11. ASEE also received very good ratings for past performance, based on 

positive evaluations for relevant past performance, whereas Frontline’s past 

performance was rated neutral because it was found to be not relevant. Id. at 4, 7. 

 

2

 The source selection decision, at page 10, characterized the technical rating of 

ASEE’s proposal as very good. The contracting officer explains that the rating of 

very good was in error and that she considered the rating to be excellent in the 

evaluation. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3 n.3. 

Page 3 B-402380 
In summary, the proposal ratings, along with each proposal’s evaluated cost, were as 

follows: 

OFFEROR TECHNICAL 

PAST 

PERFORMANCE 

TOTAL 

EVALUATED 

COST AND FEE 

ASEE Excellent Very Good $ 9,420,944 

Offeror A Poor Neutral $12,260,800 

Frontline Poor Neutral $13,544,581 

Offeror B Fair Very Good $14,415,912 

Offeror C Good Very Good $10,838,247 

Offeror D Good Neutral $7,790, 885 

Id. at 3, 10.3

The agency made award to ASEE on December 3, based on the agency’s 

determination that the firm provided the highest-rated proposal under each of the 

evaluation factors and was the second lowest in price.4 The agency found that the 

only lower-priced proposal submitted was also lower rated under the non-price 

factors and, thus, ASEE’s proposal provided the best value to the government. Id.

at 10-12. 

Frontline was notified of the award to ASEE and requested and received a timely 

written debriefing. In Frontline’s written debriefing, which it received on 

December 15, the agency disclosed to the firm its proposal ratings under each of the 

evaluation factors and explained in detail the rationale for those ratings. Following 

the debriefing, Frontline protested to our Office on December 18. 

DISCUSSION 

Frontline first contends that the agency’s rating of its proposal as poor under the 

technical factor was unreasonable. The protester argues that the weaknesses 

assigned to its proposal in support of the poor rating are unreasonable or 

inconsistent with the RFP. 

 

3

 All of the firms with the exception of Offeror A, were determined to have met the 

requirements for the extent of participation of small disadvantaged business 

concerns factor. Id. at 10. 

4

 The agency made award based on initial proposals without holding discussions. 

Page 4 B-402380 
The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter largely within the agency’s 

discretion. VT Griffin Servs., Inc., B-299869.2, Nov. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 219 at 4. 

In reviewing a protest that challenges an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office 

will not reevaluate the proposals but, rather, will examine the record to determine 

whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated 

evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Shumaker 

Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 169 

at 3. An offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal, and it 

runs the risk that its proposal will be evaluated unfavorably when it fails to do so. 

Recon Optical, Inc., B-310436, B-310436.2, Dec. 27, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 10 at 6. A 

protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment in its determination of the 

relative merit of competing proposals does not establish that the evaluation was 

unreasonable. VT Griffin Servs., Inc., supra. 

Based on our review of the record here, as discussed below, we find reasonable the 

agency’s conclusion that Frontline’s proposal was deserving of a poor rating under 

the technical factor. Although we do not discuss each of the protester’s numerous 

arguments challenging the poor rating, we have considered them all and address a 

few of the more significant arguments below. 

For example, Frontline challenges the agency conclusion that “[o]verall, the proposal 

lacks a clear understanding of the nature of the business of running a fellowship 

program.” AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 6. Frontline argues that its 

experience with the current National Institute of Health’s National Biosafety and 

Biocontainment Training Program (NBBTP) Fellowship competition would greatly 

assist it in performing the present work for the Graduate Research Fellowship 

Program. Frontline asserts that “lessons learned” in the NBBTP fellowship 

competition could be applied to the fellowship program here. Comments at 4. 

The agency, however, concluded that the programs are dissimilar. According to the 

agency, the NBBTP fellowship program is a training program for non-student 

biosafety and biocontainment professionals to meet the needs of the biomedical, 

emerging disease, and civilian biodefense research communities. In contrast, the 

agency noted that the Graduate Research Fellowship Program focuses on academic 

preparation and research, and is a much broader and more inclusive program, 

affecting graduate students in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics.5

 Supp. AR at 3; Declaration of TEP Chair at 3-4.

 

5

 The Graduate Research Fellowship Program receives and processes thousands of 

applications and provides fellowships to approximately 1,000 students annually. The 

number of awards is expected to increase to 3,000 annually by 2012. Declaration of 

Technical Evaluation Panel Chair at 4. 

Page 5 B-402380 
The agency also noted that while Frontline’s proposal referenced the NBBTP 

fellowship competition numerous times, the proposal failed to include information 

regarding the NBBTP fellowship competition, such as the size of the NBBTP 

program, the numbers of applications processed, the numbers of fellows selected 

annually, and details about the applicant review process. Declaration of Technical 

Evaluation Panel Chair at 3. Although Frontline’s proposal referenced the NBBTP 

website for more information, the agency’s review of this website confirmed its view 

that the programs were different in mission, size and scope. Id. at 3-4. Based on this 

record, we cannot find the agency’s conclusions unreasonable. 

The protester also contests the weakness that was assigned to its proposal for not 

demonstrating an understanding of the review panel competition process and, more 

specifically, for failing to explain how review panelists would be selected and 

assigned. Comments at 6; AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 6. According to 

Frontline, this criterion--how review panelists would be selected and assigned--is in 

“direct conflict” with the RFP, which specifies that the NSF will supply the 

contractor with lists of actual reviewers in each of the last 5 years of fellowship 

competitions, as well as the current Graduate Research Fellowship Program 

database, at the time of award. RFP at 11; amend. 1 at 4-5. While it is true that the 

database and lists containing names of past panelists will be provided to the awardee 

at the time of award, as the agency correctly notes, it was for the offeror to explain 

in its proposal how it would design and manage the composition of the panels to 

meet the NSF requirements for the review of applications. Supp. AR at 6; RFP at 11. 

Frontline failed to provide this information in its proposal. Thus, the agency 

reasonably assessed the proposal a weakness. 

In sum, based on our review of the entire record and considering all of the 

arguments raised by the protester challenging its rating under the technical factor, 

including the examples discussed above, we find no basis to question the agency’s 

evaluation of Frontline’s proposal. Frontline’s complaints constitute mere 

disagreement with the agency’s evaluation and, as such, do not provide a basis for 

sustaining the protest. VT Griffin Servs., Inc., supra. 

Frontline also complains that its proposal deserved a rating higher than neutral 

under the past performance factor, based on existing positive past performance. 

Comments at 11. However, based on our review of the record, the agency 

reasonably concluded that the submitted references were not relevant to the 

procurement here because they did not relate to similar operations for managing a 

fellowship program like the Graduate Research Fellowship Program. In this regard, 

the references received pertained to biosafety and biocontainment training for the 

Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, the National Institutes of Allergy 

and Infectious Disease, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Declaration of Technical Evaluation Panel Chair at 12-13. Frontline has not shown 

how these contracts were sufficiently similar to the one here to warrant a past 

performance rating other than neutral. 

Page 6 B-402380 
Page 7 B-402380 

Frontline also challenges the evaluation of its proposed cost as too high under the 

cost or price factor. However, Frontlines raised this protest ground, for the first 

time, in its comments in response to the agency report and, for the reasons described 

below, the protest is untimely. 

Protests 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) (2009). Here, the 

protester was informed in the written debriefing, prior to its protest, that: 

The hours proposed by the contractor were determined to be 

excessive. The business proposal is determined not to be reasonable. 

Agency Report, Tab 12, Frontline’s Post-Award Debriefing, at 3. From Frontline’s 

own statements describing a phone call that took place on December 10 (8 days 

prior to the protest), the protester was aware of the cost differential between the 

awardee’s and Frontline’s proposals, and the protester expressed concern to the 

agency orally about the agency’s assessment of “reasonable and realistic” pricing. 

Declaration of Frontline Associate Director (Feb. 1, 2010) at 1-2. This debriefing and 

the information known to the protester in December provided the firm with 

sufficient information to challenge the award and evaluation of its proposal under 

the cost or price factor in the initial protest, but the protester did not raise this 

challenge until it filed its comments, 40 days after the initial protest. The protest 

ground is untimely. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2); Sealift, Inc., B-298588, Oct. 13, 2006, 

2006 CPD ¶ 162 at 2-3 n.1. 

In sum, the record supports the agency’s rating of Frontline’s proposal as poor under 

the technical factor and neutral under the past performance factor. Since the RFP 

provided for award based on best value and Frontline’s proposal was lower rated 

and higher in price than the awardee’s proposal, we find the source selection 

decision of the agency to be reasonable. Capitol Drywall Supply, Inc., B-400721, 

B-400722, Jan. 12, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 17 at 5. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel