United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Electronic Interiors Inc.

File: B-405576

Date: November 18, 2011

Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., and Kathyrn V. Flood, Esq., PilieroMazza 

PLLC, for the protester.

Dinah Stevens, Esq., and Gail Gordon, Esq., Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts, for the agency.

Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the 

record shows that the agency reasonably performed its evaluation in accordance 

with terms of the solicitation. 

DECISION

Electronic Interiors, Inc. (EII), of Saint Paul, Minnesota, protests the failure of the 

U.S. Judiciary, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) to select it as one 

of the firms with which to negotiate a contract under solicitation No. 

USCA-10-R-0140, for the evaluation, design, and installation support of courthouse 

technology electronic systems in new and existing U.S. courthouses. The protester 

argues that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was flawed. 

We deny the protest.

This procurement was conducted pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.

(2006) and its implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

subpart 36.6. In accordance with these regulations, on August 30, 2010, the agency 

posted a solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website inviting 

interested firms to submit a completed Standard Form (SF) 330, Architect/Engineer 

(A/E) Qualification, also referred to as a proposal. The solicitation contemplated the 

award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity A/E contracts for various 

services involving the evaluation, design, and installation support of courthouse 

technology electronic systems in new and existing U.S. Court projects in any part of 

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-405576 

the U.S. and its territories. The awarded contracts are to have a base period of 

approximately one year and four 1-year options.

 

Electronic systems, as defined by the solicitation, include “audio systems, integrated 

audio and video systems, video conferencing, telephone systems, and coordinated 

wiring and cable design for all courthouse technology programs.” Solicitation at 1. 

The solicitation further indicated that projects and related tasks may consist of the 

following:

[C]onferences and interviews with appropriate Court officials; field 

investigation and analysis of existing conditions; acoustical analysis 

and other studies; cost and technical feasibility studies, including the 

evaluation of existing equipment and the feasibility of its integration or 

abandonment; proposing design strategies within known funding 

availability; development of design and performance specifications and 

related drawings; preparing design and installation schedules; 

monitoring and reporting individual and overall project cost, schedule, 

and administrative data; preparation of Government cost estimates; 

evaluating installation proposals; providing technical assistance and 

installation support; reviewing requests and change orders; and 

preparation of performance evaluations and recommendations for 

Government acceptance of installed systems or components for 

technical acceptance and completeness. 

Id.

The solicitation listed, in descending order of importance, the following evaluation 

criteria: (1) professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of the 

required services; (2) specialized experience and technical competence of the firm 

with courthouse technology electronic systems; (3) capacity to accomplish the work 

in the required time; and (4) past performance on contracts with the judiciary, other 

government entities, and/or private industry concerning cost control, quality of 

work, and compliance with performance schedules.

Proposals were to be evaluated under each criterion as exceptional, fully qualified, 

marginal, or unacceptable, and then assigned an over-all rating. After completing the 

evaluations, the agency would seek to negotiate fair and reasonable pricing with the

most highly-rated firms.

AOUSC received SF 330s from 26 firms, including the protester. The agency 

evaluated EII’s proposal as marginal under the two most important criteria and as 

fully qualified under the two least important, for an over-all rating of marginal. The 

agency elected to commence price negotiations with the nine firms whose proposals 

had been rated either excellent or fully qualified overall. The agency notified EII that 

it was not one of the firms that would be continuing in the competition, and this 

protest followed.
Page 3 B-405576 

EII challenges numerous aspects of the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the 

first two criteria.1

 As discussed below, we see no merit to the arguments. 

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations, our Office examines the 

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

with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws. L-3 Commc’ns 

Westwood Corp., B-295126, Jan. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 30 at 5. It is an offeror’s 

responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed 

information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows 

a meaningful review by the procuring agency. CACI Techs., Inc., B-296946, Oct. 27, 

2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 198 at 5. In this regard, an offeror must affirmatively demonstrate 

the merits of its proposal and risks the rejection of its proposal if it fails to do so. 

HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 5. 

Here, with regard to factor 1, professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory 

performance of the required services, the agency found that EII had listed projects 

for its key personnel, indicating their experience with various courts. EII did not, 

however, “elaborate on what work was done, what design services were offered or 

what they offered/brought to the table as experts,” nor did they “articulate any 

specifics that demonstrate what they do or do not have expertise in.” AR, Tab C, EII 

Consensus Evaluation at 1. Moreover, the agency noted that EII did not provide 

information regarding cable or telephone experience. Id.

 1 The protester also disputes the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the two 

least important evaluation factors, for which the proposal received ratings of fully 

acceptable. Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest; we will 

not sustain the protest unless the protester establishes a reasonable possibility that it 

has been prejudiced by the agency’s actions. Armed Forces Hospitality, LLC, 

B-298978.2, B-298978.3, Oct. 1, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 192 at 9-10. Because, as discussed 

below, we see no merit to the protester’s challenges to the agency’s evaluation of its 

proposal as marginal under the two most important factors, we see no reasonable 

possibility that the protester suffered any prejudice as a consequence of the alleged 

errors in the agency’s evaluation of factors 3 and 4. In this regard, the record does 

not demonstrate that a proposal rated marginal for the two most important 

evaluation factors would have received an overall evaluation better than marginal. 

In any event, we have reviewed the protester’s other allegations and find them, as 

well, without merit.

 Similarly, regarding 

factor 2, specialized experience and technical competence of the firm with all of the 

Courthouse Technology electronic systems described in the solicitation, the agency 

found that the information provided by EII was overly brief and did not provide the 

technical evaluation panel with adequate substantive information. Legal Memo at 4. 

Specifically, the consensus evaluation report states that, while EII listed various 

projects in its SF 330, EII did not provide “the scope, duties performed, the details of 
Page 4 B-405576 

the project or a demonstration of their ability.” AR, Tab C, EII Consensus Evaluation 

at 1. In addition, the agency found that EII failed to discuss its experience with 

cabling or telephone projects, so that the technical evaluation panel was unable to 

identify any EII experience in those areas. Id. 

As an initial matter, the record reflects that the protester submitted a bare-bones 

proposal. In describing the experience and qualifications of its various key 

personnel, EII simply repeated the same generic statement for each representative 

project--“designed electronic systems technology.” EII SF 330 at 3-6. Similarly, for 

each project example provided by EII to illustrate its team’s qualifications, EII again, 

generically repeated the same project description--“designed electronic systems 

technology.” EII SF 330 at 7-16. EII faults the format of the SF 330 for precluding 

more comprehensive responses. See Protest at 7 (noting that “[o]fferors were only 

allowed to submit their information within the confines of the SF 330”), and 11 

(noting that the SF 330 “does not lend itself to the lengthy descriptions that the 

AOUSC would seem to require . . . the amount and type of information able to be 

conveyed is fixed”). 

We note that the protester’s failure to submit a more detailed proposal may have 

stemmed from its decision to use a PDF version of the SF 330 form as opposed to 

completing the Microsoft Word-based version of the form, both of which are 

available on the General Services Administration’s (GSA) website.2

 The 

Microsoft-based version states the following: “The Word version of this form is 

intended as a totally flexible document to allow for photos, charts, and varying 

lengths of text. It is NOT intended to look like the pdf version. Information 

requested is identical.”3 (Emphasis in original). Other offerors made use of the 

Word version to submit lengthy, illustrated, and informative proposals, in stark 

contrast to the proposal submitted by EII.4

 

In any event, regarding factor 1, the protester argues that some of its key personnel 

achieved industry-recognized certifications, and that those certifications should have 

satisfied the agency’s desire to know what work these individuals had done, what 

design services they offered, and what the experts had contributed to the listed 

 2 The solicitation instructed interested firms to submit a SF 330, which was available 

online at GSA’s website, http://www.gsa.gov, and to provide four identical hard 

copies, as well as one copy in electronic format that could be viewed using Microsoft 

Office 2007. 

3 See http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/

21DBF5BF7E860FC185256E13005C6AA6. 4 We also note that the PDF version of the SF 330 allows firms to submit additional 

information under section H. EII chose not to submit any additional information 

under this section of the form.
Page 5 B-405576 

projects. See Comments at 3-4. While the protester correctly identifies the 

certifications listed for its personnel, these certifications simply do not convey any 

information regarding the specific work actually performed by its key personnel on 

the particular projects listed. Rather, the only information regarding the particular 

projects listed for EII’s key personnel was, as noted above, the following statement: 

“designed electronic systems technology.” There simply was no basis for the agency 

to have inferred from the certifications of EII’s key personnel the type of information 

that EII failed to include in its proposal.5

Regarding factor 2, EII maintains that the examples and descriptions of relevant 

projects should have warranted a higher rating than marginal. Again, however, the 

project descriptions provided by EII were generic and contained no meaningful 

detail regarding the scope of the projects performed. This was in contrast to the 

myriad of tasks to be performed as established by the terms of the solicitation. 

Moreover, EII did not rebut the agency’s finding that it failed to specifically address 

its experience with cabling or telephone projects. Given the record in this case, we 

have no basis to conclude that the agency unreasonably evaluated EII’s proposal 

under factor 2. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 5 The agency report also identified other issues with the protester’s proposal under 

the first evaluation factor, specifically, that the solicitation required the submission 

of an organizational chart, yet EII submitted a hierarchical list, and that EII failed to 

submit resumes for two key personnel, who were subcontractors. Notwithstanding 

the protester’s arguments to the contrary, we conclude that the agency’s evaluation 

concerns were reasonably based.