United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

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: Measurements International Inc. 

File: B-404981 

Date: July 15, 2011 

Rand L. Allen, Esq., Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., and Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Wiley Rein 

LLP, for the protester. 

Robert Allen Evers, Esq., for the intervenor. 

Col. Mark S. Teskey, Marvin Kent Gibbs, Esq., and Charles R. Epperson, Esq., 

Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 

Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency failed to adequately consider various risks associated with 

awardee’s proposal to upgrade resistance measurement systems is denied, where the 

record shows that the agency performed a reasonable evaluation of risk in 

accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 

DECISION 

Measurements International Inc., of Oviedo, Florida, protests the award of a contract 

by the Department of the Air Force to Guildline Instruments of Smiths Falls, Ontario, 

under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2263-10-R-0001, for the purchase of 

resistance measurement systems (RMS). The protester contends that the agency 

erred in determining that the awardee’s proposal was technically acceptable. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP sought proposals to provide RMS to be used by the Air Force Metrology 

and Calibration Program facility. RMS are sophisticated measurement devices used 

to test and calibrate electronic components found in a variety of equipment. The 

RFP advised that a single fixed-price contract would be awarded to the offeror who 

submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. RFP at 57. The RFP 

did not require contractors to submit past performance information and did not 
identify past performance as a factor to be considered in the agency’s award 

decision. 

With regard to technical acceptability, the RFP stated that each offeror’s technical 

proposal would be evaluated to determine if it provided a sound, compliant 

approach that met the requirements of the solicitation’s purchase description, and if 

it demonstrated a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements and 

their associated risks. Proposals were to identify risks associated with the proposed 

approach and actions the offeror would take to mitigate the identified risks. RFP 

at 57. With regard to technical risk, the RFP further stated: 

Technical risk will be a part of the criteria considered in the 

acceptability decision. Technical risk assesses the degree to which an 

offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation 

may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded 

performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the 

likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall 

address the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if 

applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. Offers may 

be determined unacceptable, even though the minimum requirements 

are met, if the proposed approach poses too great a risk. 

Id. 

Offerors were permitted to submit proposals for new RMS or to upgrade the existing 

RMS. RFP at 56. Measurements and Guildline each submitted two proposals. Both 

of the proposals submitted by Measurements offered to provide new RMS. Guildline 

submitted one proposal to upgrade the existing RMS1 and an alternate proposal to 

provide new RMS. Agency Report (AR) at 2-3. All four proposals were found to be 

technically acceptable. 

With regard to technical risk, the agency found that Guildline’s proposal to provide 

new RMS presented very low risk, and its proposal to upgrade the existing RMS 

presented some risk. AR, Tab 18, Technical Evaluation and Correspondence, 

at 48-50. The assessment of some risk associated with upgrading RMS was due to 

the age of the existing units, which were 12 years old, but the agency concluded that 

Guildline’s warranty mitigated these risks to an acceptable level. Id. at 49-50; AR, 

Tab 26, Price Competition Memorandum, at 4. 

In contrast, the agency determined that both of Measurements’ proposals to provide 

new RMS presented a high level of risk. AR, Tab 18, Technical Evaluation and 

Correspondence, at 47. Among other things, the agency stated that Measurements 

 

1

 The existing units were manufactured by Guildline. AR at 4. 

Page 2 B-404981 
proposed an unrealistic amount of time to rework software, and this increased the 

risk of errors, quality issues, and delayed delivery of the systems. Id.; see also AR, 

Tab 26, Price Competition Memorandum, at 5 (noting also that reworking software 

as proposed may require increased government oversight, may cause disruption to 

the schedule, and may increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract 

performance). However, despite the high level of risk associated with 

Measurements’ proposals, the agency found that the risk was not high enough to 

make Measurements’ proposals unacceptable. AR, Tab 26, Price Competition 

Memorandum, at 5. 

With regard to price, Guildline’s proposal to upgrade the existing RMS offered the 

lowest price at $3,732,610. The next lowest price was proposed by Measurements 

for new RMS at $5,833,524. Id. at 4-5. On March 4, 2011, the agency selected 

Guildline for award of the contract because that firm submitted the lowest-priced, 

technically acceptable proposal. AR, Tab 27, Source Selection Decision Document, 

at 5. The agency provided a debriefing to Measurements, and this protest followed. 

DISCUSSION 

The protester argues that Guildline’s proposal to upgrade the existing RMS posed a 

high degree of risk, and therefore the agency’s determination that the proposal was 

technically acceptable was unreasonable. More specifically, the protester contends 

that the agency failed to consider, or adequately consider, such things as the age and 

condition of the existing RMS, possible schedule delays, additional costs associated 

with upgrading the RMS, and warranty limitations when evaluating Guildline’s 

proposal.2

 Protest at 8-9; Protester’s Comments at 3-14. 

In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals; 

rather, we will examine the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and 

consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and procurement statutes 

and regulations. USIS Worldwide, Inc., B-404671, B-404671.3, Apr. 6, 2011, 2011 CPD 

¶ 92 at 5; Metro Mach. Corp., B-402567, B-402567.2, June 3, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 132 

at 13. We have considered all of the protester’s arguments and, as discussed below, 

find them to be without merit. 

The protester argues that the age and performance history of the current units pose 

risks that the agency ignored when evaluating Guildline’s proposal for technical 

acceptability. For example, the protester contends that the agency did not take into 

consideration that the units are more than 10 years old and are starting to fail. 

Protester’s Comments at 8. The protester also contends that the agency did not 

consider information contained in Air Force Metrology and Calibration Program 

 

2

 Measurements does not challenge the evaluation of its proposal or the agency’s 

assessment that the proposal presented high risk. 

Page 3 B-404981 
internal bulletins from 2005 to 2010, which informed employees of performance 

issues with the units and how to avoid them.3 Protest at 8-9; Protest exhs. 6-10. 

However, the record shows that the agency did consider whether the age and 

condition of the existing units would result in any risk associated with the proposal 

to upgrade the units. The record contains a memorandum to the file documenting a 

meeting of the evaluators to discuss Guildline’s proposal risk, including what effect 

upgrading the RMS would have on their lifecycle. AR, Tab 18, Technical Evaluation 

and Correspondence, at 40. The record also shows that, during discussions, the 

agency confirmed with Guildline that existing RMS with problems would be repaired 

prior to or in conjunction with being upgraded, at no cost to the agency. AR, Tab 21, 

Discussions with Guildline, at 3, 32. Finally, the evaluation shows that, in discussing 

Guildline’s upgraded approach, the agency concluded that “some risk” existed, but 

that the proposal was still considered technically acceptable. AR, Tab 18, Technical 

Evaluation and Correspondence, at 49-50. Although the protester disagrees with this 

assessment, it has not shown it to be unreasonable. 

The protester next argues that the awardee’s proposal posed risk because repairs to 

existing RMS could potentially interfere with Guildline’s ability to meet the agency’s 

delivery schedule, and that the agency failed to consider this risk. Protester’s 

Comments at 9-10. Specifically, the protester points to a sentence in the awardee’s 

response to discussion questions stating that “if units are known to require repair, it 

is requested that they be scheduled for upgrade in future year options because of the 

volume of upgrades expected in year one.” AR, Tab 21, Discussions with Guildline, 

at 33; Protester’s Comments at 10. The protester contends that this statement 

presents a technical risk because it increases the likelihood that Guildline’s 

proposed approach would cause a disruption of schedule. 

We disagree. The solicitation contains a detailed delivery schedule which specifies 

deadlines for the delivery of new or upgraded units. RFP at 24. Guildline’s proposal 

did not take any exception to this requirement, and the protester has not cited any 

statement in the awardee’s proposal that it will not comply with the delivery 

deadlines. The statement in the awardee’s proposal requesting to upgrade repaired 

 

3

 For example, a bulletin from 2010 informed employees that a default screen could 

appear during use of the RMS unit in the event that it suffers a non-volatile memory 

failure. The bulletin also stated that such memory failures could be caused by 

operator negligence (inadvertently pressing the wrong key) or by power outages. 

Protest, Tab 6, Bulletin, at 4. Other bulletins cited by the protester mainly inform 

employees of issues that could arise with the equipment as a result of operator error 

or acts of God, for example: equipment overheating resulting from failure to change 

air filters and stuck relays resulting from failure to use the equipment on a regular 

basis. AR at 5-6; Protest, Tabs 6-10. 

Page 4 B-404981 
RMS in future years (as quoted by the protester above) is only a statement of 

preference and does not negate or take exception to the delivery schedule set forth 

in the RFP. Therefore, we decline to find that the awardee’s statement of preference 

rendered its proposal unacceptable. 

The protester also contends that, in considering technical risk, the agency 

improperly failed to take into account the fact that the agency would bear the costs 

of shipping the existing units back to Guildline for upgrade. Measurements also 

contends that the additional costs represent an unacceptable degree of technical 

risk. Protester’s Comments at 11. 

In discussions with Guildline, the agency asked who would bear the cost for initial 

shipments of the existing RMS back to Guildline for upgrade. AR, Tab 21, 

Discussions with Guildline, at 31. In response, Guildline stated that, in accordance 

with standard warranty guidelines, the government would bear the transportation 

costs for equipment returned to Guildline for repair and/or upgrade. Id. at 32. The 

contract specialist contacted the agency’s shipper, who estimated these shipping 

costs to be $800 to $900 for each RMS.4

 Supplemental AR, Declaration of 

Contracting Officer, attach. 1, at 2-3. The contemporaneous record thus shows that 

the agency was aware that it would incur some increased costs due to the need to 

ship the existing units back to Guildline for upgrade, that the agency estimated the 

additional costs of shipment, and that the agency determined that the overall 

technical risk involved with Guildline’s proposal to upgrade the units included “some 

risk,” which the agency determined was acceptable. Measurements has not shown 

that the agency’s evaluation of technical risk in this regard was unreasonable. 

Finally, Measurements argues that the agency improperly failed to consider the fact 

that the awardee’s warranty would cover only the upgraded units, and would not 

cover the existing RMS prior to upgrade. Protester’s Comments at 12-13. What the 

protester seems to ignore, however, is that Measurements’ warranty would similarly 

not cover the risks associated with the existing units prior to upgrade, and all 

potential awardees would be held to the same delivery schedule. Therefore, if an 

existing unit were to malfunction prior to being replaced under the delivery schedule 

set forth in the solicitation, the unit would not be covered by the warranty offered by 

either offeror. Although the protester argues that upgrading RMS will take more 

time than replacing RMS, and therefore the agency will be forced to use the 

unrepaired existing units for a longer period of time under Guildline’s proposed 

 

4

 The intervenor claims that the actual cost of shipping an RMS unit across the 

country is $595 for air freight or $225 each for land freight. Intervenor’s Supp. 

Comments at 1. The protester contends that the actual cost of shipping the RMS 

would be much higher than the agency’s estimate. 

Page 5 B-404981 
Page 6 B-404981 

approach, the protester has not shown that this risk is so high as to render Guildine’s 

proposal technically unacceptable. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel