United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: LC Engineers, Inc. 

File: B-407754

Date: January 31, 2013

Suresh Kapoor for the protester.

Andre Long, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 challenging an agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal and award 

determination is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation and 

selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation 

criteria.

DECISION

LC Engineers, Inc. of Rahway, New Jersey, protest the award of a contract to 

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Fairfax, Virginia, under 

request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-12-R-0063, issued by the Department of 

the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, for avionics test set cable 

assemblies and other cable assemblies. The protester challenges the Navy’s

evaluation of its technical proposal and selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for avionic test set cable 

assemblies and other cable assemblies.

1

 

1 The cables assemblies are used to test avionics systems and peripheral interface 

adaptors. RFP at 66.

 RFP at 69. A statement of work (SOW) 

was provided that identified applicable drawings and performance requirements. 
Page 2 B-407754 

Offerors were informed that the cable assemblies must satisfy specified drawing 

dimensions, tolerances, specifications and performance requirements. RFP at 69. 

The RFP also advised offerors that the government would perform a First Article 

Acceptance Test (FAAT) on the first set of each of the offeror’s cable assemblies. 

Id. The RFP stated that, if the awardee had previously passed a FAAT for a

particular cable assembly, the requirement for FAAT for that assembly would be 

removed from the contract after award. Id. at 71. The RFP identified required 

delivery dates for the various cable assemblies. Id. at 82-84.

The RFP provided for award on a best value basis, considering the following 

factors: technical, past performance, and price. RFP at 130. The technical factor 

included the following equally weighted subfactors: technical approach, 

management approach, and schedule. Id. Offerors were informed that technical 

and past performance factors combined were significantly more important than 

price.

With respect to the technical approach subfactor, offerors were instructed to 

demonstrate a thorough understanding of the SOW and applicable drawings and to 

describe their methodology, techniques and process for manufacturing the cable 

assemblies. RFP at 121. Offerors were informed that the agency would evaluate 

the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrated the firm’s understanding of, 

approach to, and ability to meet the RFP requirements. Id. at 131.

With respect to the management approach subfactor, offerors were instructed to 

describe their management approach for performing the SOW’s technical and 

administrative requirements. Id. at 121. In this regard, offerors were required to 

identify potential performance risks and provide a method or plan to mitigate any 

risks. Id. Offerors were informed that the agency would evaluate the offeror’s 

management approach to determine the effectiveness of the approach and viability 

of the delivery schedule. Id. at 132. 

With respect to the schedule subfactor, offerors were instructed to provide a 

detailed delivery schedule, including describing each required task and start and 

finish dates for each task. Id. at 121. The RFP provided that the agency would 

evaluate the realism of offerors’ proposed delivery schedule to determine whether 

the offeror understood the necessary phases and tasks required to accomplish the 

SOW requirements. Id. at 132.

The agency received three proposals, including LC’s and GDIT’s, which were 

evaluated by the agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB). LC’s and 

GDIT’s proposals were included in the competitive range. Agency Report (AR) 

Tab G, Competitive Range Determination. The Navy conducted two rounds of 
Page 3 B-407754 

discussions with LC and GDIT and obtained final revised proposals, which were 

evaluated as follows:2

GDIT LC

Technical

Outstanding

Low Risk

Unacceptable

High Risk

Technical Approach

Good

Low Risk

Unacceptable

High Risk

Management Approach

Outstanding

Low Risk

Marginal

High Risk

Schedule

Outstanding

Low Risk

Unacceptable

High Risk

Past Performance

Relevant

Substantial Confidence

Somewhat Relevant

Limited Confidence

Evaluated Price $2,198,168 $2,021,987

AR, Tab R, SSEB Final Evaluation Report, at 4.

LC’s unacceptable technical rating reflected the SSEB’s judgment that the 

protester’s final revised proposal contained two deficiencies and a number of 

weaknesses. Specifically, the SSEB found that LC failed to demonstrate an 

understanding of, and adequate approach to performing, the requirements. Despite 

being specifically informed during discussions that its description of its process to 

perform the contract was missing details and contained errors, LC’s final revised 

proposal contained errors and missing performance steps, including that its firm did 

not provide for testing of its cable assemblies before delivery. Id. at 16. Among the 

weaknesses the SSEB identified under the technical approach subfactor was that 

LC did not appear to have sufficient personnel to perform the contract and that it 

had proposed insufficient hours to mold blocks that were required for the cable

assemblies within the specified time. See id. at 17-18. With respect to the

schedule subfactor, the SSEB found that the schedule provided in the firm’s final 

revised proposal did not show all the phases involved in what LC proposed to do, 

which the SSEB found demonstrated a lack of understanding. Id. at 22. 

The SEB recommended that award be made to GDIT. Id. at 33. The source 

selection authority (SSA) reviewed the SSEB’s evaluation report, which she found 

 

2 Proposals were evaluated under the technical factor and subfactors as 

outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, and assigned a risk 

rating of low, moderate or high. RFP at 134-35. Offerors’ past performance 

received a confidence assessment rating of substantial, satisfactory, limited, no 

confidence or unknown confidence. RFP at 135.
Page 4 B-407754 

to be well documented and sound. The SSA agreed that LC’s proposal was 

unacceptable and that GDIT’s proposal provided a sound overall technical approach

and demonstrated the firm’s knowledge, experience and capabilities to successfully 

perform the contract. AR, Tab U, Source Selection Decision, at 4. 

Award was made to GDIT, and this protest followed a debriefing.

DISCUSSION

The protester objects to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal, arguing that its final 

revised proposal provided the agency with sufficient data and detail to demonstrate 

that it was technically capable of performing the contract.

3

 

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.

Here, the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated LC’s proposal as 

unacceptable under the technical approach subfactor. Although the protester

insists that it has the technical capability to perform the requirement, LC failed to 

demonstrate an acceptable technical approach in its proposal. For example, LC 

argues that the SSEB was not aware of the latest technology available for rubber 

moldings, which LC contends allows for quicker manufacturing. Protest at 1. 

However, this newer process was not identified or explained in LC’s proposal.

Similarly, with respect to the SSEB’s judgment that LC’s description of its production 

process contained errors and was missing performance steps, LC does not contend 

that it fully described all the required steps for manufacturing the cable assemblies. 

Rather, LC contends that its description was intended merely as an illustration of an 

intended approach, which was to provide the agency with “a general idea” of their 

approach. Protest at 2. Offerors were required to demonstrate the viability and 

effectiveness of their techniques. RFP at 121, 131. LC failed to do so in its 

 

3 LC also complains that the agency failed to suspend performance of the contract 

pending our resolution of the protest. The stay provisions of the Competition in 

Contracting of Act of 1984, as amended, were not triggered, however, by LC’s 

protest, which was neither filed within 10 calendar days of award nor within 5 

calendar days of a requested and required debriefing. See 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(3) 

(2006).
Page 5 B-407754 

proposal. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal 

that demonstrates the merits of its approach; an offeror runs the risk of having its 

proposal downgraded or rejected if the proposal is inadequately written. Trofholz 

Tech., Inc., B-404101, Jan. 5, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 144 at 4-5. 

With respect to the deficiency identified under the schedule subfactor, LC argues 

that the flaws identified by the agency would be easily correctable during contract 

performance. Comments at 2. However, as explained above, the RFP required 

offerors to provide a detailed schedule to demonstrate that the offeror understood 

the necessary phases and tasks required to accomplish the SOW. The evaluators 

determined that missing or inaccurate steps in LC’s schedule were indicative of an 

inadequate technical approach. AR, Tab R, SSEB Final Evaluation Report, at 17. 

The protester’s arguments do not demonstrate that the SSEB unreasonably found 

LC’s proposed schedule to be unacceptable.

In short, the record shows that, despite several opportunities to explain its proposed 

approach and schedule, LC failed to provide an adequately written proposal that 

demonstrated an acceptable technical approach and schedule.4

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel

 

4 LC also objects to the agency’s evaluation of its past performance. Because LC’s 

proposal was found technically unacceptable for reasons unrelated to the evaluation 

of its past performance, we do not address these arguments.