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: Robbins-Gioia, LLC 

File: B-402199; B-402199.2; B-402199.3 

Date: February 3, 2010 

Thomas J. Madden, Esq., Paul A. Debolt, Esq., James Y. Boland, Esq., and Jeffery M. 

Chiow, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. 

Paul F. Khoury, Esq., John R. Prairie, Esq., Julie A. Dunne, Esq., and Jon W. Burd, 

Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. 

Corey J. Lastinger, Esq., Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, for the agency. 

Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST 

Protest challenging agency’s selection of higher technically rated proposal at a 

higher evaluated cost is denied where agency reasonably evaluated offerors’ 

proposals and identified various discriminators to justify selection of the higher-cost 

proposal. 

DECISION 

Robbins-Gioia, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to 

ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc. (ManTech), of Newport Beach, California, under 

request for proposals (RFP) No. HSBP1209R2340, issued by the Department of 

Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for Program 

Management Office Support Services (PMOSS) in support of the Secure Border 

Initiative (SBI) effort. Robbins-Gioia challenges the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ 

proposals and argues that its discussions with the agency were inadequate. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP, issued on April 29, 2009, contemplates the award of a single 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract (concurrent with the issuance 

of an initial task order--task order 01--under the contract) for PMOSS in support of 

the SBI program, which has been established to secure America’s borders and 

reduce illegal immigration. The term of the contract is for 1 year, plus two 1-year 
option periods. RFP, at 3. According to the RFP, task orders may be awarded on a 

cost-plus fixed-fee, cost-plus award-fee, or firm-fixed-price basis.1

 Task order 01, 

which is specifically for support of the program management office (PMO) was to be 

awarded on a cost-plus award-fee basis. Id.

As set forth in the statement of work, the scope of the solicited services includes: 

“support in all aspects of planning, developing, revising, coordinating, managing and 

implementing program and project management processes, tools and procedures . . . 

[as well as] functional support for tasks by ensuring each work product is complete 

and providing analytical tools and techniques to ensure continual process toward 

implementing the SBI.” RFP, at 10. The statement of work also set forth numerous 

functions and activities required under the contract, specifically: performance 

planning and metrics; budget and financial management support; program 

management support; program control support; systems engineering support; 

organizational development and quality management support; planning and business 

operations; operational requirements; integrated logistics support and planning; 

deployment; environmental planning and real estate support; organization and 

administration support; and transitional planning and support. Id. 

As it relates to the protest, in order to provide offerors with a greater understanding 

of the SBI program requirements, the solicitation included several attached 

documents, which describe the SBI program, and the program management office 

activities, mission, and goals. Agency Report (AR), at 36. One of these documents 

specified the SBI program mission and top three goals, one of which is the creation 

of “a center of excellence for acquisition and program management.” AR, Tab 7A, 

SBI Goals Strategic Planning. A separate document informed offerors that one of the 

goals of the SBI Program is “to establish a Center of Excellence (COE) -- a Systems 

Program Office (SPO) Program Management Office (PMO) that will act as a 

solutions provider (acquire/develop/deploy) for CBP and possibly other agencies 

within the Department of Homeland Security” and indicated that “[t]ransitioning the 

existing SBI organization to a functioning and successful organization that can be 

recognized as a COE will take a dynamic and evolving plan, and will require a clear 

understanding of roles and responsibilities.” AR, Tab 7A, SBI Systems Program 

Office, at ii. 

Regarding staffing for the effort, the RFP informed offerors that CBP ultimately 

intends to reduce its reliance on private contractor support by in-sourcing these 

support activities to government employees. In this regard, offerors were provided 

with an initial “notional” staffing plan comprised of 120 full-time-equivalent (FTE)2

 

1

 Offerors were required to submit fixed-price, fully burdened labor rates for various 

labor categories, which were set out in the RFP. RFP, at 3-4. 

2

 The RFP defined one FTE as equating to 1,960 productive labor hours over a 1-year 

period. 

Page 2 B-402199 et al. 
contractor personnel and an “end state” staffing of 47 contractor FTEs. RFP, at 99. 

This shift from contractor to in-house resources would be achieved over a 2-year 

period, according to the RFP. Id. While the RFP disclosed CBP’s “notional” staffing, 

it specified that “[t]he offeror’s actual staffing plan is expected to represent their 

proposed solution.” Id. The RFP further instructed offerors that their staffing plans 

“should not merely respond to the ‘notional’ staffing plan”; rather, their staffing plans 

should be what they believe are “appropriate to meet the PMO’s requirements and 

acquisition program strategy.” Id. 

The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal 

represented the “best value” to the government considering cost/price and four 

technical evaluation factors: (1) management and staffing approach; (2) technical 

approach; (3) past performance; and (4) small business utilization and small business 

subcontracting plan. Under the announced evaluation scheme, “[a]ll technical (noncost) evaluation factors, when combined, are more important than cost. Technical 

Evaluation Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2, 3, and 4. Factors 2, 3, and 4 

are of equal importance.” RFP, at 108. Additionally, the RFP provided that the 

agency would assess the level of risk associated with an offeror’s costs and proposed 

approach, with ratings of either high, moderate, low, or not applicable. RFP, at 110. 

As it relates to the protest, under factor 1, management and staffing approach, 

offerors were required to describe, and the agency to evaluate, their “staffing plan 

and solution for supporting SBI organizations” and their “methodology for leveraging 

and tailoring the skills of personnel resources to the SBI acquisition program.” RFP, 

at 101, 108. Under factor 2, technical approach, offerors were required to address 

their “understanding of SBI’s mission, goals, acquisition program environment and 

program management strategy; and why the offeror is best qualified to support the 

SBI PMO.” RFP, at 102. Offerors would be evaluated on their demonstrated 

understanding of SBI’s “program environment, strategy, and integrated management 

framework.” RFP, at 109. 

On June 11, 2009, the agency received seven timely proposals in response to the RFP, 

including proposals from Robbins-Gioia and ManTech. The agency assembled a 

team of evaluators (the technical evaluation team (TET)), which completed an initial 

evaluation of the proposals submitted. Based on the initial evaluation, the agency 

established a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions composed of 

the proposals of Robbins-Gioia, ManTech, and one other offeror. After holding 

discussions with offerors, obtaining final proposal revisions (FPR), and completing 

its evaluation of offerors’ FPRs, the agency selected ManTech for award. 

In the final analysis, the agency rated the competitive range offerors as follows: 

Page 3 B-402199 et al. 
Technical Factors ManTech RobbinsGioia 

Offeror A 

Factor 1 -- Management 

Approach & Staffing Plan 

Good Good Good 

Factor 2 -- Technical 

Approach 

Excellent Excellent Good 

Factor 3 -- Past Performance Excellent Excellent Excellent 

Factor 4 -- Small Business 

Subcontracting 

Excellent Good Excellent 

Overall Rating Good Good Good 

Total Evaluated Cost $20,081,479 $17,175,047 $25,101,625 

 

 AR, Tab 10F, Price Negotiation Memorandum at 5-6. 

While each offeror received an overall adjectival rating of “good,” the agency 

concluded that ManTech’s proposal was superior to the others and represented the 

best value to the government, notwithstanding the fact that its evaluated cost was 

nearly $3 million greater than the cost of Robbins-Gioia’s proposal. In selecting 

ManTech for award, the source selection authority (SSA) concluded that ManTech’s 

higher cost was justified by “the benefits and advantages” associated with ManTech’s 

proposal. Specifically, the SSA noted that while all offerors had “good program 

management experience, process and tools to meet SBI PMO requirements,” they 

differed in terms of their “proposed staffing plan and how each offeror leveraged 

proposed personnel.” AR, Tab 10i, Source Selection Decision Document, at 3. As 

explained in the SSA’s decision, ManTech “proposed a staffing plan with many more 

engineers than the other offerors.” Unlike ManTech’s proposal, the SSA noted, 

Robbins-Gioia’s proposal “did not specify the type of degree earned by each 

proposed staff member; and the proposal allocated many more Subject Matter 

Experts (SME) than engineers.” Id. This difference was significant to the SSA 

because, as he explained, “[a]cquiring individuals experienced in Systems 

engineering and various engineering disciplines, is critical to the SBI program,” 

noting that “[a] current gap in the quality of contracted support has been the lack of 

engineering expertise to support SBI program/project managers.” Id. 

In addition, the SSA highlighted the fact that ManTech “clearly understands and 

supports the SBI PMO goal of creating and sustaining an acquisition program 

management Center of Excellence (CoE).” Id. This was in contrast to 

Robbins-Gioia, which “fail[ed] to appreciate the significance of the CoE concept as 

part of the PMO function.” Id. As explained by the SSA, Robbins-Gioia “only 

marginally increased its staffing resources by increasing their quantity of proposed 

FTEs to include the CoE effort as an option, and allocated only [DELETED] to 

various personnel to perform an assessment of CoE requirements.” Id. The SSA was 

concerned that Robbins-Gioia’s staff “[would] not be equipped to lead the CoE 

efforts . . . and initial funding of Task Order #1 would not be sufficient to address the 

Page 4 B-402199 et al. 
recommendations that would be forthcoming from [Robbins-Gioia’s] assessment of 

‘enhanced support options.’” Id.

Upon learning of the agency’s selection decision, Robbins-Gioia filed this protest. 

DISCUSSION 

Robbins-Gioia raises numerous allegations challenging the SSA’s selection of 

ManTech for award. These allegations principally concern the agency’s technical 

evaluation and the particular discriminators identified by the SSA to justify the 

selection of ManTech’s proposal for award. As an initial matter, Robbins-Gioia 

generally complains that the SSA’s selection decision was flawed because it “does 

not reflect that the SSA considered [the] monetized value to the government” of 

ManTech’s perceived technical advantages. Third Supp. Protest at 28-29. This 

argument is without merit. While agencies are required to document their rationale 

for a source selection decision, including any tradeoffs, they are not required to 

quantify the specific cost or price value difference when selecting a higher-priced, 

higher technically rated offeror. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.308;3

Advanced Fed. Servs. Corp., B-298662, Nov. 15, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 174. Based on the 

record in this case, the SSA’s selection clearly, and adequately, documents the 

rationale for the award decision. The selection decision reflects a documented 

comparative assessment of the proposals submitted by ManTech and Robbins-Gioia, 

to include specific discriminators in ManTech’s favor as compared with the proposal 

submitted by Robbins-Gioia. The SSA documented the significance of these 

discriminators and concluded that the advantages of ManTech’s proposal were 

worth the cost premium as compared with Robbins-Gioia’s inferior, yet lower cost 

proposal. No further analysis, or consideration of “monetized value,” was required 

to justify CBP’s selection of ManTech’s proposal for award. 

Throughout its protest Robbins-Gioia also argues that the bases identified by the 

agency to justify its selection of ManTech’s proposal did not provide a valid basis for 

discriminating between the proposals submitted by the two offerors. Specifically, 

Robbins-Gioia contends that the agency’s consideration of the offerors’ different 

approaches to achieving the SBI Center of Excellence objective as a discriminator 

was unjustified because this objective was not identified as requirement in the RFP. 

To the extent it was proper to consider this aspect of offerors’ proposals, 

Robbins-Gioia argues, the agency’s evaluation was fundamentally flawed because the 

agency did not have an adequate understanding of the Center of Excellence 

objective; the agency improperly considered offerors’ Center of Excellence approach 

under both factors 1 and 2; the agency misevaluated the proposal submitted by 

 

3

 As relevant here, FAR § 15.308 states that “[a]lthough the rationale for the selection 

decision must be documented, that documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs 

that led to the decision.” 

Page 5 B-402199 et al. 
Robbins-Gioia by erroneously concluding that its Center of Excellence approach was 

merely an “option”; and there was no reasonable basis for discriminating between 

ManTech’s Center of Excellence approach, and the approach proposed by 

Robbins-Gioia. 

The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion. 

IPlus, Inc., B-298020, B-298020.2, June 5, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 90 at 7, 13. In reviewing a 

protest against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office will not reevaluate 

proposals but instead 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. See Shumaker Trucking & 

Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. 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., B-299869.2, Nov. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 219 at 4. 

On the record here, we see no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of the 

offerors’ proposals or its selection decision based on the discriminators identified by 

the SSA. 

The record demonstrates that the agency properly considered the offerors’ different 

approaches to addressing CBP’s goal of establishing the SBI PMO as an acquisition 

and program management Center of Excellence, and that the agency properly 

evaluated the offerors’ different approaches under evaluation factors 1 and 2.4 As 

noted above, materials accompanying the solicitation, which provided information 

concerning the mission, goals, and objectives of the SBI PMO, informed offerors that 

the creation of a “Center of Excellence” within the SBI PMO was one of three 

principal goals of the SBI program. As such, it was reasonable for the agency to 

consider and evaluate how offerors addressed this objective given that the RFP 

expressly provided, under factor 2, that offerors were required to address “their 

understanding of SBI’s mission, goals, acquisition program environment and 

 

4

 As a general matter, Robbins-Gioia contends that the members of the TET merely 

deferred to the findings of a single evaluator in the consensus report. In support of 

this assertion, Robbins-Gioia highlights the fact that the consensus report includes 

the findings of one of the evaluators, while the findings of other evaluators, as 

reflected in their worksheets, are not reflected in the final report, in some instances. 

There is nothing unusual or improper, however, with evaluators reaching different 

conclusions and assigning different ratings when evaluating a proposal, since both 

subjective and objective judgments are involved. The mere presence of such 

apparent inconsistencies does not give rise to a valid protest basis. See Phoebe 

Putney Memorial Hospital, B-311385, June 19, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 128 at 3 n.2. Rather, 

given the consensus process described by the agency, which involved extensive 

evaluation discussions by the members of the TET, the documented consensus 

evaluation findings and ratings are the only findings of consequence. 

Page 6 B-402199 et al. 
program management strategy.” RFP, at 102. Similarly, the Center of Excellence 

approach was properly considered under factor 1, which required offerors to 

describe their staffing approach to support the SBI PMO. In fact, Robbins-Gioia’s 

own proposal reflects that it was aware of the Center of Excellence objective, and 

that it would be a basis for evaluation, since it addressed its Center of Excellence 

approach throughout its proposal, in particular, as it related to both evaluation 

factors 1 and 2. See, e.g., Robbins-Gioia Final Proposal Revision Part I, Tab A at 3, 6, 

7, 9, 30; Tab B at 1, 2, 7. 

While Robbins-Gioia addressed the Center of Excellence concept in its proposal, and 

thereby reflected an understanding of the Center of Excellence objective, the CBP 

found, and the record reflects, that its approach lacked detail regarding how it would 

facilitate meeting this goal, particularly as compared to the proposal submitted by 

ManTech.5 Robbins-Gioia’s proposal in several instances merely restates the Center 

of Excellence concepts with minimal detail explaining how it would position the 

agency to achieve this objective. To the extent the agency characterized RobbinsGioia’s Center of Excellence approach as merely an “option” for future 

“assessments,” this characterization is consistent with a reasonable understanding of 

Robbins-Gioia’s proposal. Where Robbins-Gioia’s proposal presented details 

regarding “how” it would facilitate the Center of Excellence concept, these details 

were presented in the context of an “option” for further “assessments.” RobbinsGioia Final Proposal Revision, Tab A at 7. Moreover, the agency’s understanding of 

Robbins-Gioia’s proposal as merely establishing the possibility for future 

development of the Center of Excellence concept is consistent with the agency’s 

finding that Robbins-Gioia’s proposal devoted a mere [DELETED] toward achieving 

the Center of Excellence goal, hours which were dedicated to its proposed optional 

 

5

 Robbins-Gioia argues that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions 

regarding alleged deficiencies in the staffing, to include the Center of Excellence 

objective. Discussions, when conducted, must be meaningful; that is, discussions 

may not mislead offerors and must identify deficiencies and significant weaknesses 

in each offeror’s proposal that could reasonably be addressed in a manner to 

materially enhance the offeror’s potential for receiving award. PAI Corp., B-298349, 

Aug. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 124 at 8. Agencies are not required to “spoon-feed” an 

offeror during discussions; agencies need only lead offerors into the areas of their 

proposals that require amplification. LaBarge Elecs., B-266210, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 

CPD ¶ 58 at 6. Declarations from members of the TET and the contracting officer 

describe extensive oral discussions with Robbins-Gioia regarding its staffing 

approach, to specifically include the Center of Excellence objective. The protester 

has not contested the factual statements contained in the declarations or provided 

its own contrary declarations. Based on the record, the protester’s allegations in this 

regard are without merit. 

Page 7 B-402199 et al. 
“assessments.”6

 AR, Tab 9b(1), FPR Technical Evaluation Report for Robbins-Gioia, 

at 7. 

By contrast, ManTech’s proposal included greater specificity regarding how it would 

facilitate the Center of Excellence goal, to include proposing a senior learning 

manager to focus on “creating a learning environment within the PMO to assist SBI 

in achieving their goals of workforce development and establishing a Center of 

Excellence in acquisition and management.” ManTech Final Proposal, File 6, Tab A, 

Management and Staffing, at 3. In addition, ManTech proposed a “knowledge 

partnership” concept, which would provide CBP with a variety of professional 

training and degree certification opportunities for government personnel through 

several institutions, to include a partnership with the Stevens Institute of 

Technology, which ManTech noted had experience establishing a Center of 

Excellence for the Department of Homeland Security. AR, Tab 9b(1), FPR Technical 

Evaluation Report for ManTech, at 8, 11. Ultimately, Robbins-Gioia’s challenges 

reflect little more than its mere disagreement with the agency’s assessments 

regarding the differences between the proposals. Such disagreement does not 

provide a basis for our Office to conclude that the agency’s evaluation was 

unreasonable or otherwise improper. VT Griffin Servs., Inc., supra. 

Robbins-Gioia further contends that the CBP fundamentally lacked an understanding 

of its own Center of Excellence needs and that it could not properly assess the 

advantages associated with offerors’ proposals. In support of this contention, the 

protester highlights exchanges among TET evaluators concerning the fact that the 

three offerors whose proposals were in the competitive range had different 

approaches to addressing the Center of Excellence initiative. Analysis of 

fundamentally different technical approaches to achieving a particular goal is 

inherent in a procurement of this nature, which required offerors to propose a 

solution to an agency objective. Thus, recognition of the different approaches 

proposed by the offerors, and the efforts of the TET to assess the advantages 

associated with each approach, does not suggest, as the protester argues, that the 

agency was incapable of assessing the advantages associated with the different 

technical approaches it considered. Rather, the record reflects the agency’s 

considered judgments of the relative strengths of the offerors’ approaches in support 

of the SBI Center of Excellence initiative and we have no basis to conclude that such 

judgments were unreasonable. 

Robbins-Gioia also challenges the other primary discriminator identified by the 

agency in its selection of ManTech’s proposal--ManTech’s greater level of 

 

6

 The protester has not challenged the agency’s specific finding that its staffing 

approach for the Center of Excellence concept was limited to [DELETED], nor has 

the protester pointed to other aspects of its staffing devoted to achieving the Center 

of Excellence objective. 

Page 8 B-402199 et al. 
engineering staffing. As with the Center of Excellence discriminator, the record 

reflects that this second justification for selecting ManTech’s proposal for award was 

based on a detailed and reasonable comparative assessment of the offerors’ 

proposals. In a slide presentation accompanying the solicitation, the SBI Executive 

Director indicated that the program was “[e]specially weak in system engineering” 

and emphasized that one of the roles of the contractor would be to “[p]rovide skills 

for critical capabilities that are not readily accessible through government hiring--

e.g., System Engineering.” AR, Tab 7A, SBI Industry Day Briefing Slides, Mar. 30, 

2009, at 28. The record reflects that ManTech proposed more individuals under the 

“engineer” and “senior engineer” labor categories than did Robbins-Gioia. In 

addition, although not required by the RFP, ManTech provided a program staffing 

table, identifying the specific degrees held by each individual proposed across all 

labor categories--Robbins-Gioia did not include comparable information regarding its 

staffing in its proposal. This additional information reflected that a significant 

number of the individuals proposed by ManTech in the non-engineering specific 

labor categories, such as the “subject matter expert” labor category, also had 

engineering degrees. Given the different levels of engineering staff and detail 

regarding the engineering qualifications of offerors’ proposed staff, the agency’s 

identification of ManTech’s superior engineering staffing as a discriminator was 

justified and reasonable.7

Robbins-Gioia also argues that the agency’s evaluation of its staffing approach was 

improper because the agency converted the RFP’s “notional” staffing of 120 FTEs 

into a “hard baseline.” According to the protester, the agency faulted its proposed 

staffing approach merely because it provided to use fewer than the notional level of 

120 FTEs. The record does not support the protester’s contentions in this regard. 

The two highest technically rated offerors, ManTech and Robbins-Gioia, both 

proposed the fewest number of FTEs, and both were below the notional 120 FTE 

level ([DELETED], respectively). While the TET had concerns regarding RobbinsGioia’s proposed staffing, the agency’s concerns stemmed from a perception that 

 

7

 In justifying the advantage associated with ManTech’s greater emphasis on 

engineering staffing, the SSA noted that “[a] current gap in the quality of contracted 

support has been the lack of engineering expertise to support the SBI 

program/project managers.” AR, Tab 10L, Source Selection Decision Document, at 3. 

Based on this statement, Robbins-Gioia, as one of several incumbent contractors, 

concludes that the agency improperly used negative past performance concerning 

Robbins-Gioia to justify the selection of ManTech’s proposal. Robbins-Gioia’s 

allegations in this regard are misplaced. The cited language does not appear to be an 

indictment of the performance by any incumbent contractors. Rather, it merely 

reflects the SSA’s understanding of deficiencies regarding the state of the existing 

SBI program. Moreover, the record reflects that Robbins-Gioia’s past performance 

was rated “excellent,” and there is no indication of any concerns regarding its 

incumbent performance. 

Page 9 B-402199 et al. 
Robbins-Gioia “did not provide adequate detail or justification to explain their 

approach to staff utilization, in satisfying all requirements of the RFP.” AR, Tab 

9b(1), FPR Technical Evaluation Report for Robbins-Gioia, at 7. In particular, as 

discussed above, the TET was concerned that Robbins-Gioia’s staffing of only 

[DELETED] allocated to “assessments” associated with the Center of Excellence 

objective was “minimal.” Id. Thus, the concern was not that the staffing was too low 

as compared to the solicitation’s notional staffing levels, per se, but rather that 

Robbins-Gioia’s justifications for its staffing levels were not convincing in light of the 

agency’s understanding of the staffing needed to perform the SBI PMO requirements. 

Ultimately, it is an offeror's responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal. 

See Herndon Sci. and Software, Inc., B-245505, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 46. 

In any event, the SSA explains that after conversations with the members of the TET, 

he did not consider Robbins-Gioia’s staffing approach, in particular its Center of 

Excellence approach, to be a weakness; rather, Robbins-Gioia’s approach was 

simply not as effective as the approach proposed by ManTech. SSA Statement, at 3. 

Based on the record, the premise of the protester’s argument, that the agency used 

the notional FTE values identified in the solicitation as a fixed baseline for purposes 

of evaluation, is unsupported and without merit. 

As a final matter, Robbins-Gioia argues that the agency failed to reasonably consider 

the advantages associated with Robbins-Gioia’s incumbency and the risks associated 

with ManTech’s proposal. The record does not support the protester’s assertions. 

The TET identified several specific strengths associated with Robbins-Gioia’s 

incumbency, to include, among others, Robbins-Gioia’s established record of 

working closely with PMO, as well as the fact that its key personnel were performing 

SBInet support contracts, they have background investigation clearances, and would 

be available on the first day of contract performance, and its transition risk was 

minimized since its proposed staffing plan was composed largely of incumbent 

personnel.8

 AR, Tab 9b, FPR Technical Evaluation Report for Robbins-Gioia, at 3, 5, 

13. Moreover, the SSA specifically noted these positive aspects of Robbins-Gioia’s 

proposal in his selection decision. AR, Tab 10i, Source Selection Decision 

Document, at 4. 

The SSA also noted that ManTech’s proposal presented some risk because its 

employees may not have completed CBP background investigations, which could 

 

8

 Robbins-Gioia complains that the agency’s evaluation of its staffing approach was 

inconsistent because on the one hand the agency found that its staffing approach 

was expected to minimize transition risks, but on the other hand its overall staffing 

was considered minimal. Because the record reflects that the agency’s 

considerations were addressing two separate aspects of the evaluation--continuity of 

incumbent staff versus overall staffing levels--there was no inconsistency with the 

agency’s evaluation of the protester’s staffing. 

Page 10 B-402199 et al. 
Page 11 B-402199 et al. 

create staffing delays. The SSA, however, discounted this risk as a discrimination 

since it would apply to any non-incumbent and is “largely beyond the capability of 

the offeror to correct.” Id. This analysis was entirely consistent with the solicitation, 

which advised offerors that in assessing risk, the agency would not consider the 

degree to which offerors proposed staff with completed background investigations: 

The ability to provide personnel with completed background 

investigations (BI) on the date of contract award is not considered a 

factor in the Risk Assessment because this is beyond the control of 

offerors and dependent on the Government’s ability to timely process 

BIs. 

AR, Tab 7D, Agency Questions and Answers No. 4, May 13, 2009. 

Regarding the agency’s risk assessment, Robbins-Gioia further complains that the 

agency failed to properly consider the risk resulting from ManTech’s failure to 

provide a completed staffing chart, and instead identifying 19 of its non-key 

employees as “To Be Determined [TBD].” Third Supp. Protest at 73-75. Section L.7.1 

of the solicitation, however, expressly permitted offerors to identify non-key 

personnel as “TBD.” Moreover, ManTech committed in its proposal to hire SBI 

incumbent staff to fill positions and committed to identifying the individuals it would 

use to the fill the positions within 5 business days of contract award. Based on this 

record, we have no basis to conclude that the agency’s evaluation was inconsistent 

with the RFP, or otherwise unreasonable. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel