United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: NikSoft Systems Corporation

File: B-407195; B-407195.2

Date: November 27, 2012

Gerard F. Doyle, Esq., and Ron R. Hutichinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for 

the protester.

Ira E. Hoffman, Esq., Offit Kurman, for Delmock Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. 

Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency.

Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST

1. Agency reasonably concluded that protester’s responses to agency’s 

discussions questions introduced risk regarding the level of resources that protester 

was committing to perform the fixed-price portion of the solicitation requirements. 

2. Agency reasonably evaluated protester’s past performance as very good, rather 

than excellent, where protester’s references rated the quality of protester’s prior 

performance between very good and excellent, and the record indicates that 

protester’s prior contracts were more relevant to the less significant of the 

solicitation’s two basic requirements.

DECISION

NikSoft Systems Corporation protests the award of a contract to Delmock 

Technologies, Inc. (DTI), by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. TIRNO-12-R-0004 to 

perform middleware information technology (IT) services for the IRS’s Middleware 

Support Services Section. NikSoft protests that the agency improperly evaluated 

NikSoft’s proposed approach to performing the fixed-price portion of the contract 

requirements, and improperly evaluated NikSoft’s proposal under the past 

performance and past experience evaluation factors.

We deny the protest. 

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-407195, B-407195.2 

BACKGROUND

The solicitation was issued in December 2011,1

 seeking proposals to perform two 

types of IT services: (1) operation and maintenance (O&M), to be performed on a 

fixed price basis;2 and (2) software development, to be performed at fixed billing 

rates in accordance with indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) procedures.3 

RFP at 3. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best value 

basis4 and established the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of 

importance: management solution,5 quality assurance plan (QASP), past 

performance, past experience, and price. RFP at 81. 

With regard to the most important evaluation factor, management solution, the 

solicitation directed each offeror to propose its “overall plan for managing and 

staffing all phases of this effort,” elaborating that each proposal “shall include 

detailed information concerning the offeror’s ability to adequately staff the operation 

and perform the [required] services.”6

 

1 The procurement was set aside for small business concerns under the Small 

Business Administration’s 8(a) program, and contemplated performance of a 1-year 

base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 3, 37, 60. DTI is the incumbent 

contractor.

 RFP at 75. With regard to past performance 

and past experience, the solicitation provided that the agency would assess both 

2

 For the O&M portion, offerors were required to propose fixed prices for the base 

period and each option period, which included after-hours support as necessary. 

RFP at 3-8.

3 For the software development portion of the contract, the solicitation identified

various labor categories, along with the minimum and maximum number of hours 

that could be required for each category, and provided that task orders would be 

issued on an as-needed basis. Offerors were required to propose fixed billing rates 

for the various labor categories. Id. 

4 Offerors were advised that “the Government is more concerned with obtaining 

superior technical performance or reduced risk than in making an award at the 

lowest price.” RFP at 78.

5 Under the management solution factor, the solicitation identified the following 

equally-weighted subfactors: technical approach, management approach, and 

transition plan. RFP at 81.

6 In evaluating proposals under the management solutions factor, the solicitation 

provided that the agency would assign adjectival ratings of excellent, very good, 

acceptable, poor, and unacceptable. RFP at 78-79. 
Page 3 B-407195, B-407195.2 

the relevance and quality of performance under the offerors’ prior contracts.7

 More 

specifically, under both the past performance and past experience evaluation 

factors, the solicitation provided that the agency would assess the extent to which 

an offeror had performed prior contracts that were “similar in size, scope and 

complexity” to the RFP requirements, and placed offerors on notice that greater 

similarity of prior contracts would warrant higher evaluation ratings under both 

factors. RFP at 79-80. 

On or before the January 24, 2012 closing date, initial proposals were submitted by 

nine offerors, including NikSoft and DTI. Of relevance to this protest, NikSoft’s 

initial proposal offered to provide [deleted] key personnel, specifically identifying 

[deleted] of those as “SMEs” (subject matter experts).8 AR, Tab D.2, NikSoft Initial 

Proposal, Key Personnel, Table 5-1, at 139-41. Following review of the initial 

proposals, the agency established a competitive range consisting of DTI, NikSoft, 

and a third offeror, and opened discussions with those offerors. 

Based on its review of the offerors’ initially proposed staffing, the agency 

determined that each proposal in the competitive range adequately addressed 

staffing for the software development portion of the RFP.9 In contrast, the agency 

found it difficult to determine the particular staffing that each offeror had proposed to 

perform the fixed-price O&M portion of the RFP requirements. Contracting Officer’s

Statement, Oct. 24, 2012, at 2. Accordingly, on May 9, the agency asked each of 

the offerors in the competitive range to respond to the following: 

 

7 The solicitation provided that in evaluating past performance the agency would 

assign adjectival ratings of: excellent/low risk; very good/low to moderate risk; 

marginal/moderate risk; and unacceptable/high risk. RFP at 79-80. In evaluating 

past experience, the solicitation provided that the agency would assign ratings of 

excellent, good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. Id. at 80. 

8

 Section C.6 of the solicitation, titled “Staffing Skill Requirements,” listed and 

defined 10 labor categories, including “Subject Matter Expert,” “Security Specialist,” 

and “Program Manager”; the solicitation elsewhere identified those 3 categories as 

“key personnel.” RFP at 27-30, 75. In addition to proposing [deleted] individuals 

under the SME labor category, NikSoft’s [deleted] key personnel were proposed 

under the labor categories of program manager and security specialist, respectively. 

9 Section B of the RFP listed the required labor categories for the IDIQ software 

development requirements, and each of the competitive range offerors’ staffing 

plans corresponded to the number of personnel, skill mix, and experience 

designated therein. 
Page 4 B-407195, B-407195.2 

Please provide the number of Personnel, Key Personnel, labor 

categories (skill mix) and experience level that you are proposing to 

support the Middleware O&M part of the RFP. Please note any 

changes from your initial staffing proposal . . . . 

Agency’s Discussions with NikSoft, May 9, 2012, Question 1. 

On May 14, NikSoft responded to this question stating: 

The NikSoft initially proposed team of [deleted] resources are for O&M 

support. All are key personnel, with extensive qualifications and 

experience directly relevant to the Middleware program. All personnel 

as originally proposed will be assigned to the O&M responsibilities as 

shown in Table 1.[10

NikSoft’s Response to Agency’s Discussions, May 14, 2012, at 1.

] 

Additionally, NikSoft’s May 14 response to the agency’s question regarding O&M 

staffing varied from its initial proposal by removing the designation of “SME” for 

[deleted] of the [deleted] key personnel it had initially identified as SMEs. 

Specifically, NikSoft’s May 14 submission designated [deleted] of the previouslyidentified SMEs as “applications engineers,” and identified [deleted] previouslyidentified SMEs as database analyst/programmer and systems software engineer

[deleted].

11

 

10 Table 1 of NikSoft’s response listed various sections of the solicitation’s O&M 

requirements and identified “[a]ll team members” as having “[p]rimary 

[r]esponsibility” for [deleted] of the listed requirements. However, that table also 

expressly limited the responsibility of each team member to his or her “area of 

expertise.” NikSoft’s Response to Agency Discussions, May 14, 2012, at 1, n1.

 Id. at 2-5. Accordingly, the agency was concerned regarding the 

11 The solicitation listed 10 labor categories--including SME, applications engineer, 

database analyst/programmer, and systems software engineer--and provided 

definitions for each category. In this regard, the definition for SME broadly provided 

that individuals proposed for this category must have “extensive in[-]depth 

knowledge of PWS component(s).” RFP at 28-29. In contrast, the definitions 

applicable to the labor categories under which NikSoft’s May 14 submission placed 

[deleted] of its initially-proposed personnel were more limited. Specifically, the 

definition for applications engineer required the more limited “ability to 

create/update/support information related to applications/systems”; the definition for 

database analyst/programmer required the more limited “ability to 

create/update/support information related to Infrastructure databases/systems”; and 

the definition for systems software engineer required the more limited “ability to 

create/update/support information related to Infrastructure systems support.” Id. 
Page 5 B-407195, B-407195.2 

breadth of expertise that NikSoft was committing to provide for performance of the 

fixed-price O&M requirements.12 

Based on its concern over NikSoft’s May 14 response, the agency gave NikSoft 

another opportunity to address its proposed O&M staffing, providing another set of 

discussions questions to NikSoft. Specifically, on May 22, the agency sent a final 

communication to NikSoft which began with the following summary of NikSoft’s 

May 14 submission: 

NikSoft responded to Question 1 [the agency’s May 9 discussion 

question quoted above] with [deleted] Total personnel (Key and 

Non-Key), including [deleted] SMEs. The response however, did not 

offset concern that weaknesses have been introduced for [specified 

RFP sections regarding O&M requirements]. The proposed team of 

[deleted] people to support Middleware O&M is not consistent with a 

deep understanding of the Middleware O&M RFP. 

Agency’s Written Discussions with NikSoft, May 22, 2012, at 2. 

In addition to the agency’s specific reference to NikSoft’s proposal of only 

[deleted] SMEs, the agency’s May 22 communication went on to provide a summary 

of O&M support activities the contractor will be expected to perform, specifically 

discussing required system restoration team (SRT) activities, and making several 

references to the importance of SMEs in successfully resolving SRT events. Id. 

Among other things, the agency advised NikSoft that: 

Throughout the recent weeks, multiple SRTs have been called . . . 

concurrently throughout the week and into the weekend with an 

average of 12 hours of support required per/SME/day. It is necessary 

to provide 24x7x365 Middleware O&M support throughout these 

events. The number of personnel, key personnel, skill-mix and 

experience levels proposed should demonstrate multiple tiers of SME 

support for each critical component . . . as well as a mix of seasoned 

technical experts . . . for other components. . . . The inability to 

provide the required support coverage will introduce unacceptable risk 

in Middleware Production S&M support and weaknesses in the 

proposal would be identified.

Id. 

 

12 By comparison, DTI responded to the agency’s question by committing to provide 

[deleted] SMEs and [deleted] other technical experts. 
Page 6 B-407195, B-407195.2 

The agency’s May 22 discussions with NikSoft concluded with the following 

additional questions:

1. Redundancy is important in critical middleware component support. 

How would you describe your support team in terms of redundancy, 

for critical middleware component support?

2. How many concurrent System Restoration Team (SRT) events can 

your team service at the same time?

3. How would you manage multiple concurrent SRT events being 

serviced throughout the night or over multiple 12 hour/days and into 

the weekend?

4. Based on your depth of knowledge of the Middleware O&M 

requirements, have you proposed enough personnel, key personnel, 

skill-mix and experience level to support the middleware O&M part of 

the RFP, without introducing an unacceptable level of risk? 

Id. at 2-3. 

On May 29, NikSoft responded to the agency’s May 22 questions, maintaining 

generally that it understood the solicitation’s O&M requirements. In response to the 

question regarding the number of concurrent SRT events it believed it could service, 

NikSoft asserted, “we can comfortably support [deleted] concurrent non-similar 

SRTs.” NikSoft’s Response to Agency’s Discussions, May 29, at 5. In response to 

the agency’s question regarding the number of personnel, key personnel, skill-mix 

and experience level it was committing to perform the O&M requirements, NikSoft 

added [deleted] support staff for the service desk and [deleted] “software 

developers.” Id. at 4, 7. Although its May 29 response referred to “[deleted] key 

personnel (SMEs)” in its initial proposal, id. at 7, NikSoft did not otherwise revise its 

May 14 submission--which had expressly reduced the number of designated SMEs 

from [deleted] to [deleted]. Further, NikSoft did not specifically address the concern 

identified in the agency’s May 22 communication that NikSoft had committed only 

[deleted] SMEs to perform the fixed-price O&M portion of the contract. 
Page 7 B-407195, B-407195.2 

Thereafter, the agency completed its final evaluation of the proposals in the 

competitive range, as summarized below:

NikSoft DTI Third 

Offeror

Mgmt. Solution Acceptable Excellent Very Good

QASP Very Good Very Good Very Good

Past 

Performance

Very Good Excellent Very Good

Past Experience Good Excellent Good

Overall NonPrice Acceptable Excellent Very Good

Price $25,389,347 $28,501,181 $39,573,823

Source Selection Decision, Aug. 6, 2012, at 12, 15. 

In summarizing its evaluation of NikSoft’s proposal, the agency characterized its 

proposed management solution as merely acceptable, due to various risks 

presented--specifically including NikSoft’s asserted capability to handle 

[deleted] concurrent SRT events with only [deleted] SMEs. Among other things, the 

agency stated:

Based on the information provided in Niksoft’s proposal, Niksoft 

demonstrates the minimum level [of] understanding of the services 

required to meet contract requirements. Niksoft’s estimate of the 

number of concurrent SRTs they could service is unrealistic. Niksoft’s 

estimate “comfortably supporting [deleted] concurrent non-similar 

SRTs” displays a minimal level of understanding of the requirements 

outlined in the RFP. Niksoft’s proposed plan to have [each of] 

[deleted] SMEs covering [deleted] SRTs introduces risks as this is 

unrealistic.

Id. at 14. 

In performing the cost/technical tradeoff between NikSoft’s and DTI’s proposal, the 

agency noted that although NikSoft proposed a lower cost/price, “[t]he risks 

associated with Niksoft’s proposal increase the potential for disruption of schedule, 

[and] increase in cost or degradation of performance.” Therefore, the agency 

concluded, “award to Niksoft, Inc. is not recommended.” Id. at 18. 

Thereafter, the agency selected DTI for award. This protest followed. 
Page 8 B-407195, B-407195.2 

DISCUSSION

NikSoft protests that the agency improperly evaluated NikSoft’s proposed approach 

to performing the fixed-price O&M requirements, and that the agency improperly 

evaluated NikSoft’s proposal under the past performance and past experience 

evaluation factors.13 As discussed below, we find no merit in NikSoft’s 

allegations.14 

Evaluation of O&M Requirements

NikSoft first protests that the agency unreasonably concluded that NikSoft was 

committing only [deleted] SMEs to perform the O&M contract requirements. 

Specifically, NikSoft asserts, “[t]o the contrary, NikSoft . . . proposed [deleted] SMEs 

plus the Program Manager and the Security Specialist.”15

 

13 NikSoft’s initial protest asserted that it was improper for the agency to assign any 

rating other than excellent to NikSoft’s proposal under the management solution 

evaluation factor. However, the protest failed to identify any portion of its proposal 

that properly constituted a strength--even though the solicitation expressly advised 

offerors that an excellent rating would be assigned where “[t]he proposal contains 

several strengths; most [of which] are significant.” RFP at 79. Accordingly, we 

dismissed that portion of NikSoft’s initial protest for failure to adequately state a 

basis for protest. NikSoft Systems Corp., Sept. 18, 2012. Upon receipt of the 

agency report responding to the remaining portions of NikSoft’s initial protest, 

NikSoft timely filed a supplemental protest challenging the agency’s evaluation 

under the management solution factor, as discussed below. 

 Supplemental Protest, 

Oct. 5, 2012, at 5. Specifically, NikSoft asserts that it “clearly explained its intent to 

provide [deleted] of its proposed key personnel in the capacity of SMEs,” and it 

maintains that, because of the agency’s contrary determination, the agency’s 

14 In its various protest submissions, NikSoft has raised arguments in addition to, or 

that are variations of, those discussed below. For example, NikSoft notes that DTI’s 

final proposed cost/price reflected a reduction from the cost/price DTI initially 

proposed, and asserts that the agency failed to properly consider, investigate, 

and/or otherwise evaluate the basis for this reduction. We have considered 

NikSoft’s various arguments in this regard, noted that NikSoft’s own proposed 

cost/price was more than $3 million lower than DTI’s, and find no basis to question 

the agency’s evaluation of DTI’s cost/price. In summary, we have considered all of 

NikSoft’s various arguments and allegations and find no basis to sustain its protest.

15 NikSoft asserts that the program manager and security specialist were “functional 

SMEs,” Supp. Protest, Oct. 5, 2012, at 5; however, NikSoft does not identify any 

portion of the solicitation that contemplated “functional SMEs.” Rather, as 

discussed above, the solicitation established, and defined, 10 separate labor 

categories--including SME, program manager, and security specialist. RFP at 27. 
Page 9 B-407195, B-407195.2 

criticism regarding NikSoft’s capability to support [deleted] concurrent SRT events is 

also unreasonable. Supp. Comments, Oct. 31, 2012, at 6. In short, NikSoft asserts 

that the agency’s evaluation of its proposed approach to performing the O&M 

requirements was flawed. We disagree. 

It is an offeror’s obligation to submit an adequately written proposal, United Def. LP, 

B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 75 at 19, and, in evaluating proposals, 

it is generally reasonable for an agency to rely on information the offeror provides in 

its proposal. Able Bus. Techs., Inc., B-299383, Apr. 19, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 75 at 5; 

NCR Gov’t Sys. LLC, B-297959, B-297959.2, May 12, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 82 at 8-9. 

In reviewing protests that allege improper proposal evaluations, it is not our role to 

reevaluate proposals. Rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the 

agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria 

and applicable procurement laws and regulations. See Abt Assocs. Inc., 

B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. A protester’s mere disagreement 

with the agency’s evaluation is insufficient to render the evaluation unreasonable. 

Ben-Mar Enters., Inc., B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 68 at 7.

Here, as discussed above, in responding to the agency’s May 9 question regarding 

the specific staffing that NikSoft was proposing for performance of the fixed-price 

O&M solicitation requirements, NikSoft effectively acknowledged that [deleted] of 

the [deleted] personnel it had initially designated as SMEs did not properly qualify 

as such with regard to the O&M contract requirements.16 Specifically, NikSoft 

changed the designated labor categories for these [deleted] individuals to 

categories that reflected more limited O&M expertise. Consistent with NikSoft’s 

acknowledgment that these [deleted] personnel did not possess the broader 

expertise required for SMEs, NikSoft expressly advised the agency that its 

proposed personnel had “primary responsibility” for [deleted] of the O&M 

requirements only with regard to their “respective area of expertise.” NikSoft 

Response to Agency’s Discussions, May 14, 2012, at 1. 

Finally, although the agency’s communication of May 22 advised NikSoft that, in the 

agency’s view, NikSoft was offering only [deleted] SMEs, see Agency’s Written 

Discussions with NikSoft, May 22, 2012, at 2, NikSoft’s May 29 response did not 

specifically address this concern. That is, although NikSoft’s response referred to 

“[deleted] key personnel (SMEs)” in its initial proposal, NikSoft did not otherwise 

revise its May 14 submission--which had specifically reduced the number of 

designated SMEs from [deleted] to [deleted]. Similarly, although NikSoft’s May 29 

submission did include a copy of a table it had included in its initial proposal--which 

identified the experience of its proposed personnel--that table did not designate any 

 

16 The agency notes that individuals properly designated as SMEs with regard to 

the software development portion of the contract may not necessarily be SMEs for 

the O&M portion of the contract. Supp. Agency Report, Oct. 24, 2012, at 4. 
Page 10 B-407195, B-407195.2 

labor category for any of the personnel.17

 

 NikSoft Response to Agency’s 

Discussions, May 29, 2012, at 16-18.

In sum, based on our review of NikSoft’s initial proposal, its May 14 submission, and 

its May 29 submission, we do not question the reasonableness of the agency’s 

evaluation of the O&M requirements. Accordingly, NikSoft’s protest challenging that 

portion of the evaluation is denied. 

Evaluation of Past Performance

Next, NikSoft protests that the agency’s rating of very good, rather than excellent, 

with regard to NikSoft’s past performance was unreasonable. In this regard, NikSoft 

complains that “IRS’s conclusions leading to less than the maximum available rating 

for NikSoft under [the past performance evaluation factor] are without merit.” 

Protest, Aug. 20, 2012, at 29. 

The agency responds that assignment of the second-highest rating (very good), 

rather than the highest rating (excellent) was appropriately based on the agency’s 

review of the past performance questionnaires submitted by NikSoft’s prior 

customers, along with the agency’s assessment of the extent to which NikSoft’s 

prior contracts were similar in size, scope and complexity to the competed 

requirements. First, the agency notes that, in rating NikSoft’s prior performance, 

NikSoft’s customers rated the performance as very good, but not excellent, in 

approximately [deleted] of the performance areas.18 Contracting Officer’s 

Statement, Sept. 25, 2012, at 13. Additionally, the agency states that it reviewed 

NikSoft’s description of its prior contracts within its own proposal, and found that 

NikSoft’s description of those efforts overwhelmingly focused on software 

development activities rather than O&M activities.19

 

17 NikSoft’s May 29 submission also referred generally to NikSoft’s asserted 

capability to “reach back” to other staffing resources. See NikSoft Response to 

Agency’s Discussions, May 29, 2012, at 2, 5, 6, 9, 12. However, NikSoft provided 

virtually no details, or specific commitments, with regard to that asserted capability.

 Noting that the O&M 

18 The agency notes that DTI’s customers rated DTI’s prior performance as 

excellent in 100 percent of the performance areas. Accordingly, although NikSoft’s 

performance was rated excellent with regard to the remaining [deleted] of the 

performance areas, the quality of DTI’s past performance was properly rated higher 

than NikSoft’s. Agency Report, Sept. 25, 2012, at 10-11. 

19 Specifically, the agency notes that it considered the amount of proposal text that 

NikSoft devoted to describing its prior software development activities, and the 

agency compared that to the amount of proposal text NikSoft devoted to describing 

its prior O&M activities. The agency found that the discussion of NikSoft’s prior 

software development activities was approximately three times greater than the 

(continued...)
Page 11 B-407195, B-407195.2 

requirements under the competed contract are more significant than the software 

development requirements, both in terms of size and complexity, along with 

consideration of the substance of NikSoft’s customer performance questionnaires, 

the agency maintains that it properly rated NikSoft’s past performance as very good 

rather than excellent. 

The evaluation of an offeror’s past performance is a matter of agency discretion 

and, by its very nature, is a subjective judgment. We will not question an agency’s 

judgment, nor substitute our own, unless the agency’s judgment is clearly 

unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. Concepts & 

Strategies, Inc., B-405930, Jan. 12, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 47 at 7; FN Mfg., LLC, 

B-402059.4, B-402059.5, Mar. 22, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 104 at 7. Further, an offeror 

is not entitled to the highest possible evaluation rating simply because its proposal 

does not reflect flaws or weaknesses. See, e.g., Archer Western Contractors, Ltd., 

B-403227, B-403227.2, Oct. 1, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 262 at 5 n.5; Pannesma Co. Ltd., 

B-251688, Apr. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 333 at 4. 

Here, we have reviewed the record and find no basis to question the 

reasonableness of the agency’s assignment of a very good rating for NikSoft under 

the past performance evaluation factor. As noted above, NikSoft’s past 

performance questionnaires reflected prior assessments of both very good and 

excellent. Further, the solicitation expressly advised offerors that, in evaluating past 

performance, the agency would assess the extent to which an offeror’s prior 

contracts were similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP requirements at 

issue--and that greater similarity would be a basis for assigning higher evaluation 

ratings. RFP at 79-80. Although NikSoft disagrees with the agency’s assessments, 

asserting that its prior contracts and the performance thereof warranted

assessments of the highest levels of similarity and performance quality, NikSoft has 

not meaningfully challenged the data on which the agency relied in making its 

 

(...continued)

corresponding discussion of NikSoft’s prior O&M activities. Contracting Officer’s 

Statement, Sept. 25, 2012, at 12. 
Page 12 B-407195, B-407195.2 

determinations. Accordingly, its arguments reflect mere disagreement with the 

agency’s judgments and, as such, provide no basis for sustaining its protest.20

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 

20 With regard to the past experience factor, NikSoft makes arguments that are 

virtually identical to those discussed above, complaining that assignment of the 

second highest rating (good), rather than the highest rating (excellent) was 

unreasonable. The agency responded that it properly concluded that NikSoft’s prior 

contracts reflected “better than adequate,” but not “extensive” experience managing 

contracts similar in size scope and complexity to the competed contract. Supp. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement, Oct. 24, 2012, at 8-9. As offerors were advised in 

the solicitation “[b]etter than adequate” experience regarding similar contracts 

warranted a rating of good; “[e]xtensive” experience managing similar contracts 

warranted a rating of excellent. See RFP at 80. For the reasons discussed above 

regarding NikSoft’s past performance evaluation, NikSoft’s protest challenging the 

past experience evaluation is without merit.