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: InnovaTech, Inc. 

File: B-402415 

Date: April 8, 2010 

Keith R. Malley, Esq., Keith R. Malley, PC, for the protester. 

Peter A. Deliso, Esq., and Nelson Blitz, Esq., Executive Counsel, PLC, for Guident 

Technologies, Inc., an intervenor. 

Lisa J. Obayashi, Esq., United States Patent and Trademark Office, for the agency. 

Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s technical quotation is 

denied where record establishes that evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the 

stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented. 

2. Price/technical tradeoff was proper where source selection official reasonably 

identified relevant technical distinctions between vendors’ competing quotations and 

adequately documented her conclusion that higher technically-rated quotation 

represented the best value to the government despite higher price. 

DECISION 

InnovaTech, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a blanket purchase 

agreement (BPA) by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to 

Guident Technologies, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under Guident’s General Services 

Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request 

for quotations (RFQ) No. 10302009 for enterprise data warehouse (EDW) support 

services.1 InnovaTech argues that the agency’s evaluation of its quotation and 

subsequent source selection decision were improper. 

 

1

 While our decision refers to the “award” of a BPA, which is the terminology used by 

the parties, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in fact refers to the 

“establishment” of a BPA against an FSS contract. FAR §§ 8.403(a)(2), 8.404(b). 
We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The USPTO is the federal government agency responsible for the granting and 

issuing of patents, the registration of trademarks, and the dissemination of 

information related to patents and trademarks. In support of its mission, the USPTO 

employs an EDW, which provides access to data from a number of agency financial 

and non-financial systems, both those currently in use and retired, in a central 

location. The EDW provides USPTO users with access to, among other things, 

general ledger, revenue, payroll, cost accounting, human resources, budget, 

compensation-cost projections, patent case, patent examiner production, trademark 

budget data, and federal procurement data to support decision-making throughout 

the agency. RFQ § C.2; Agency Report (AR), Feb. 8, 2010, at 2. 

The RFQ, issued pursuant to FAR Subpart 8.4 to three small business holders of GSA 

FSS contracts for information technology services, contemplated the establishment 

of a BPA with labor hour task orders (“calls”) for a base year together with four 1-

year options. The solicitation included a statement of work (SOW), instructions to 

vendors regarding the preparation of quotations, and the evaluation factors for 

award. In general terms the SOW required the successful offeror to provide the 

professional support services necessary for USPTO’s EDW in the areas of operations 

and maintenance, development and enhancement, and project management.2

 RFQ 

§ C.3. The RFQ established five evaluation factors in addition to price, in descending 

order of importance: (1) technical and functional approach; (2) technical and 

functional qualifications and experience; (3) labor mix; (4) management approach; 

and (5) past performance/key personnel.3 The nonprice factors, when combined, 

 

2

 The RFQ established, within each performance period, separate contract line item 

numbers (CLIN) for the operations and maintenance, development and 

enhancement, and project management work categories, and informed vendors of 

the total annual estimated labor hours for the operations and maintenance and 

project management CLINs. RFQ § B.1, B.2. While the SOW expressly contemplated 

the performance of various development and enhancement activities (e.g., new EDW 

releases, third party software upgrades, upgrades to EDW sources, and new and 

replacement EDW hardware), id., § C.3, and vendors were to submit labor categories 

and labor rates for the development and enhancement CLIN, the agency’s price 

evaluation was to be based on only the operations and maintenance and project 

management CLINs. Id., §§ B.1, M.3. 

3

 Nonprice factors (1) and (2) were of equal importance, as were factors (3) and (4); 

additionally, factors (3) and (4) were each half as important as factors (1) and (2). 

The RFQ also established a total of 22 subfactors under the various nonprice prime 

factors, and described their relative importance. RFP § M.2. 

Page 2 B-402415 
were significantly more important than price. The agency would select the vendor 

whose quotation represented the best value to the government, all factors 

considered. Id., § M. 

Both Guident and InnovaTech submitted quotations by the RFQ’s closing date. An 

agency technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated vendors’ quotations using a point 

scoring system.4 The evaluation ratings and prices of the Guident and InnovaTech 

quotations were as follows: 

Factor Guident InnovaTech

Technical and Functional Approach (60) 49 51 

Technical and Functional Qualifications and 

Experience (60) 50 455

Labor Mix (30) 27 24 

Management Approach (30) 27 23 

Past Performance/Key Personnel (20) 18 17 

Total (200) 171 160 

Price $17,202,723 $17,003,642 

Id. at 19. 

Importantly, the agency evaluators also detailed the various strengths, weaknesses, 

and deficiencies that they found in support of the point scores assigned to vendors’ 

quotations. The contracting officer as source selection authority subsequently 

determined that Guident’s higher technically-rated, higher-priced quotation 

represented the best value to the government. While finding both vendors 

technically qualified to perform the work, the contracting officer concluded that 

Guident’s various technical advantages outweighed the $199,065 (1.171%) price 

difference between the vendors’ quotations, and selected Guident. Id., Tab 9, Source 

Selection Decision, at 8-9. This protest followed. 

 

4

 Although the TET also assigned adjectival ratings to vendors’ quotations for each 

evaluation subfactor, ratings at the factor level and overall were based only on point 

scores. AR, Tab 8, TET Report, at 19. 

5

 While the TET’s evaluation scoring summary states that InnovaTech’s quotation 

received a score of 3 points for subfactor 2.8 (the degree to which the offeror’s 

response demonstrates their experience in system development life cycle methods, 

documentation, and practices), a review of the underlying documentation indicates 

that InnovaTech actually received a score of 4 points here. Id. at 11. When 

corrected, this raises InnovaTech’s technical and functional qualifications and 

experience factor score to 46 points, and its overall technical score to 161 points. 

Page 3 B-402415 
DISCUSSION 

InnovaTech’s protest raises two challenges to the USPTO’s award determination. 

The protester first alleges that the agency’s evaluation of its technical quotation was 

improper. InnovaTech also contends that the agency’s best value tradeoff decision 

was flawed. Although we do not specifically address all of InnovaTech’s arguments, 

we have fully considered all of them and find they provide no basis on which to 

sustain the protest. 

Evaluation of InnovaTech’s Technical Quotation 

InnovaTech protests the agency’s evaluation of its technical quotation. Specifically, 

with regard to various subfactors, InnovaTech alleges that the USPTO’s evaluation 

conclusions were not reasonable and were inconsistent with the evaluation criteria. 

In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s technical evaluation, our Office will 

not reevaluate the quotations; rather, we will examine the record to determine 

whether the agency’s conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of 

the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. OPTIMUS 

Corp., B-400777, Jan. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 33 at 4. A protester’s mere disagreement 

with the agency’s judgment or its belief that its quotation deserved a higher technical 

rating is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Encompass 

Group LLC, B-310940.3, Mar. 17, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 60 at 3; Advanced Tech. Sys., Inc., 

B-298854, B-298854.2, Dec. 29, 2006, 2007 CPD ¶ 22 at 8-9. 

In our view, the record here shows that the agency’s evaluation of InnovaTech’s 

quotation was proper. For example, evaluation subfactor 3.2 required vendors to 

demonstrate the adequacy of their proposed labor resources to perform the required 

work. RFQ § M.2. InnovaTech’s quotation with respect to this subfactor consisted 

of two pages in which the vendor described its proposed team members, including 

the name and position of each individual. In some instances, InnovaTech’s quotation 

contained a detailed description of the proposed individual’s experience; however, in 

many instances, the description of the person’s experience was limited to a single 

sentence. AR, Tab 5, InnovaTech Technical Quotation, at 3.6. The TET assigned 

InnovaTech’s quotation a score of 12 of 15 points, and identified as a weakness that 

the quotation did not provide extensive details describing the experience of its 

personnel. Id., Tab 8, TET Report, at 13. We conclude that the agency’s evaluation 

was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. The fact that 

InnovaTech provided greater detail regarding the experience of certain individuals, 

as the protester points out, does not alter the fact that in other instances the 

protester’s quotation was extremely scant; in light of the lack of detail, the agency’s 

evaluation was reasonable. 

InnovaTech also challenges the evaluation under subfactor 4.1, which concerned the 

degree to which vendors’ quotations demonstrated the ability to provide and manage 

Page 4 B-402415 
the full range of technical and functional activities necessary for successful 

performance of the required work. RFQ § M.2. InnovaTech’s quotation addressed 

this subfactor in little more than one page, which consisted largely of bullet points 

and conclusory statements such as, “InnovaTech’s management approach is proven 

successful on this project and at the USPTO,” and “You are familiar with our 

management approach. There will be no surprises.” AR, Tab 5, InnovaTech 

Technical Quotation, at 4.1. The TET assigned InnovaTech’s quotation a score of 7 

of 10 points, and identified as a weakness that the quotation failed to provide 

sufficient details to demonstrate how the vendor’s managerial approach would meet 

all requirements. Id., Tab 8, TET Report, at 14. 

InnovaTech argues that the agency’s evaluation here was unreasonable. The 

protester contends that its quotation incorporated by reference many management 

process documents (e.g., quality assurance plan, security plan) that had been written 

with and approved by the USPTO. InnovaTech also asserts that its successful past 

performance as the incumbent attests to its outstanding management approach. We 

find the USPTO’s evaluation here was reasonable and consistent with the stated 

evaluation criteria given that InnovaTech’s quotation provided few specifics as to 

how its managerial approach would meet all stated EDW requirements. 

InnovaTech’s assertion that its successful past performance is an adequate substitute 

for demonstrating its ability to manage the required EDW work, as required by the 

RFQ, amounts to mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment.6

InnovaTech also protests that the agency evaluators improperly penalized it by 

making multiple references to the same identified weaknesses under several 

evaluation subfactors. For example, the record shows that the TET found 

InnovaTech’s certification and accreditation (C&A) processes related to information 

technology security to be a weakness under subfactor 1.1 (demonstrated 

understanding of the overall requirements) and subfactor 1.3 (demonstrated 

understanding of the operations and maintenance requirements, the development 

and enhancement requirements, and the technical and functional activities required 

for both types of requirements), as well as subfactor 2.9 (demonstrated experience in 

C&A methods, documentation, and remediation activities). AR, Tab 8, TET Report, 

at 1-2, 12. InnovaTech argues that the repeated application of the same weaknesses 

 

6

 InnovaTech also challenged the agency’s evaluation of its technical quotation with 

regard to nonprice subfactors 1.4, 2.2, 2.5, 4.3, and 5.1. Protest, Jan. 7, 2010, at 6-10. 

The USPTO specifically addressed these aspects of the protest in its report to our 

Office, AR, Feb. 8, 2010, at 10-18, and InnovaTech’s comments offered no rebuttal of 

the agency’s position. Comments, Feb. 22, 2010, at 2-5. Where, as here, an agency 

provides a detailed response to a protester’s assertions and the protester does not 

respond to the agency’s positions, we deem the issues abandoned. Remington Arms 

Co., Inc., B-297374, B-297374.2, Jan. 12, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 32 at 4 n.4; L-3 Commc’ns 

Westwood Corp., B-295126, Jan. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 30 at 4. 

Page 5 B-402415 
across multiple evaluation subfactors was arbitrary and not in accordance with the 

RFQ. We do not agree. 

The record shows that the agency considered InnovaTech’s C&A processes and 

methods as part of the vendor’s understanding of overall EDW requirements, its 

understanding of specific EDW requirements, and its experience in C&A methods. 

However, an agency is not precluded from considering an element of a proposal 

under more than one evaluation criterion where the element is relevant and 

reasonably related to each criterion under which it is considered. Comprehensive 

Health Servs., Inc., B-310553, Dec. 27, 2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 9 at 4 n.2; RAMCOR Servs. 

Group, Inc., B- 276633.2 et al., Mar. 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 121 at 9. Accordingly, the 

agency here properly considered elements of InnovaTech’s quotation which were 

relevant and reasonably related to the various evaluation subfactors under which 

they were considered.7

 

Best Value Tradeoff Decision 

InnovaTech also protests the agency’s best value tradeoff decision. The protester 

argues that the USPTO’s selection of Guident was based on criteria not stated in the 

RFQ, specifically, the vendor’s potential to provide technological enhancement and 

modernization of the EDW. InnovaTech contends that had the contracting officer 

performed a best value tradeoff consistent with the RFQ’s evaluation criteria, she 

would have concluded that Innovatech’s quotation represented the best value to the 

government.8 

Where a solicitation provides for award of a BPA on a “best value” basis, it is the 

function of the source selection authority to perform price/technical tradeoffs, that 

is, to determine whether one quotation’s technical superiority is worth its higher 

price, and the extent to which one is traded for the other is governed only by the test 

of rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria. See Buckley & 

Kaldenbach, Inc., B-298572, Oct. 4, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 138 at 3; The MIL Corp., 

B-297508, B-297508.2, Jan. 26, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 34 at 13. Where a price/technical 

 

7

 InnovaTech does not dispute that C&A was relevant and reasonably related to 

subfactors 1.1 and 1.3; it merely points to the fact that the agency deducted points 

for this quotation weakness under multiple subfactors, which, as noted, is not by 

itself improper. 

8

 InnovaTech also argues that Guident’s price for project management was not 

reasonable because it was 60% less than InnovaTech’s price. This argument is 

without merit. Price reasonableness concerns whether a price is unreasonably high, 

as opposed to unreasonably low, as InnovaTech argues here. Advanced Tech. Sys., 

Inc., B-296493.6, Oct. 6, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 151 at 3. Moreover, there is no prohibition 

against an agency accepting a below-cost quotation for a fixed-price BPA. Id. at 4. 

Page 6 B-402415 
tradeoff is made, the source selection decision must be documented, and the 

documentation must include the rationale for any tradeoffs made, including the 

benefits associated with additional costs. The MIL Corp., supra. 

In conducting the best value tradeoff here, the contracting officer premised her 

determination on review of the relative importance of the RFQ’s evaluation criteria, 

and the size of the price difference between vendors’ quotations. The contracting 

officer then considered not only the point scores assigned to the vendors’ technical 

quotations, but also what the difference in point scores represented. Specifically, 

the contracting officer noted the various technical advantages present in Guident’s 

quotation, e.g., the vendor has a breadth and depth of knowledge that comes from 

dozens of engagements similar to or more complex than that of USPTO; the vendor 

relies firmly on formal processes and procedures in maintaining and developing a 

data warehouse; its management approach is well-documented and sound; and the 

skills and experience of Guident’s proposed lead personnel are extremely strong. 

AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 8-9. Relevant to the protest here, another 

technical advantage found by the contracting officer was Guident’s potential to 

provide technological enhancement and modernization of the USPTO’s EDW, as 

follows: 

Guident has already successfully implemented data warehousing using 

more current releases of Oracle and Business Objects than the USPTO 

utilizes, which will help decrease risk when the USPTO modernizes our 

EDW. Furthermore, Guident’s current use of ETL tools will lead to 

fewer risks and quicker implementation of those same tools when the 

USPTO is prepared to fund them, which has been a strategic goal. 

Id. at 8. 

The contracting officer concluded that Guident’s quotation represented the best 

value to the government because the vendor’s many noted technical advantages 

outweighed the small price premium. Id. at 9. 

Contrary to the protester’s assertions, we conclude that the contracting officer did 

not employ unstated criteria as part of her best value tradeoff determination when 

she considered vendors’ potential to provide technological enhancement and 

modernization to the USPTO’s EDW. As set forth above, the SOW expressly 

informed vendors that one of the EDW work categories was development and 

enhancement. Further, the RFQ expressly stated that the agency’s evaluation would 

include consideration of vendors’ demonstrated understanding of overall SOW 

requirements (subfactor 1.1), understanding of the development and enhancement 

requirements (subfactor 1.3), and qualifications and experiences with various EDW 

products and tools such as Oracle and Business Objects (subfactors 2.1 and 2.2). 

RFP § M.2. Quite simply, the agency’s consideration of Guident’s experience with 

more complex EDW products and tools, and ability to perform EDW enhancement 

Page 7 B-402415 
Page 8 B-402415 

and modernization work, was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation 

criteria. 

In sum, as the technical advantages identified by the contracting officer in Guident’s 

quotation were consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, the contracting 

officer’s subsequent determination that such technical advantages outweighed the 

small price premium was also reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation 

criteria, and adequately documented. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel