United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Applied Business Management Solutions Incorporated, LLC

File: B-405724

Date: December 15, 2011

Antonio R. Franco, Esq., and Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, 

for the protester.

Keith L. Baker, Esq., and Bryan R. King, Esq., Barton Baker Thomas & Tolle, LLP, 

for TK Services, LLC, the intervenor.

Tina Marie Pixler, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that agency improperly accepted awardee’s plan to hire incumbent 

personnel based on claim that personnel will be unavailable is denied where there is 

no significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to agency that should or 

did create doubt as to accuracy of awardee’s representations regarding hiring plan.

2. Allegation that agency failed to conduct price reasonableness analysis based on 

claim that awardee’s price was unrealistically low fails to state valid basis for protest 

where solicitation provided for award of fixed-price contract and did not provide for 

price realism analysis.

3. Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal is denied where record 

reasonably supports evaluation and protester’s arguments reflect mere disagreement 

with agency judgments.

DECISION

Applied Business Management Solutions Incorporated, LLC, of Largo, Maryland, 

protests the award of a contract by the Department of the Army to TK Services, LLC, 

of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91ZLK-11-R-0004 for 

logistics and facilities services at the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center 

(Edgewood Center) in Harford County, Maryland. Applied asserts that the agency’s 

evaluation of both Applied’s proposal and TK’s proposal was unreasonable in various 

respects.

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-405724 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation, which was issued on May 13, 2011 as a section 8(a) small business 

set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period 

and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 1-27, 98. Award was to be made to the 

offeror whose proposal represented the “best value” to the government based on 

consideration of the following four evaluation factors: technical approach; 

management plan; past performance; and price. Id. at 102. The management plan 

factor included two subfactors: quality control program; and transition plan. Id.

at 103. The technical approach and management plan factors were stated to be of 

equal value, and more important than the past performance factor. Id. at 102. The 

non-price factors were stated to be collectively more important than price. Id.

Under the contemplated contract, the successful offeror would provide all personnel 

and office supplies necessary to perform logistics and facilities services at the 

Edgewood Center as described in a performance work statement (PWS) that was 

incorporated into the solicitation. PWS § 1. The contractor’s duties under the PWS 

were to include, among other things, opening and locking Edgewood Center 

buildings at specified times. Id. § 2.1.3. In particular, the PWS specified that 

“[b]uildings shall be opened one half hour prior to core duty hours (5:30AM) and 

locked one half hour after core duty hours (6:30PM).” Id.

With respect to an offeror’s technical approach, the solicitation instructed that 

proposals must “identify potential risks with the proposed approach as well as the 

means to mitigate them.” RFP at 95. With respect to an offeror’s management plan, 

the solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate whether the plan “provides a 

manpower matrix with proposed skill sets with the minimum qualifications required 

. . . to successfully accomplish the PWS tasks.” Id. at 103. The solicitation also 

stated that the agency would evaluate whether the plan “provides a clear and concise 

approach for recruiting, hiring, [and] retaining personnel to include maintaining 

adequate workforce and filling vacancies.” Id.

The solicitation designated four positions as key personnel positions, including the 

program manager and lead facility manager. PWS § 9.6. Minimum qualifications 

were specified for each key personnel position. The minimum qualifications for the 

program manager included “a Bachelor’s degree in business or human resources or 

ten (10) years of documented experience in managing multiple-site, multidisciplinary 

(facility and logistics) service support contracts.” Id. § 9.2.1. The solicitation 

instructed offerors to submit résumés for proposed key personnel. RFP at 95.

Applied is the incumbent Edgewood Center logistics and facilities services 

contractor. Protest at 6. To foster efficient performance of the follow-on contract

being solicited here, the solicitation included a clause designed to promote the 
Page 3 B-405724 

successful offeror’s use of qualified incumbent personnel. RFP at 76. In relevant 

part, the clause provided as follows:

[T]he contractor and its subcontractors shall, except as otherwise 

provided herein, in good faith offer those employees (other than 

managerial and supervisory employees) employed under the 

predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result 

of award of this contract or the expiration of the contract under which 

the employees were hired, a right of first refusal of employment under 

this contract in positions for which the employees are qualified.

Id.

The agency received two proposals in response to the solicitation, one from Applied 

and one from TK. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. A source selection 

evaluation board (SSEB) convened and evaluated both proposals. Id.

For TK’s proposal, the SSEB identified ten strengths and no weaknesses. See

Agency Report (AR) Tab I, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 2-3. As relevant to 

this protest, TK’s proposed staffing approach was based on [DELETED]. AR, Tab G, 

TK Proposal, Vol. II, Management Plan, at 3. None of the key personnel proposed by 

TK, however, were incumbent personnel. Id., App., Key Personnel, at 1-6. Further, 

none of the ten strengths assigned to TK’s proposal pertained to TK’s proposed 

retention of incumbent personnel. AR, Tab I, SSD, at 2-3.

For Applied’s proposal, the SSEB identified no strengths and six weaknesses. See id.

at 3-4. Two of the weaknesses pertained to Applied’s technical approach. Those 

weaknesses were: the failure to identify potential risks--and corresponding 

mitigation measures--connected with the approach; and noncompliance with the 

solicitation’s requirements for the times that buildings were to be opened and 

locked.

1

 1 At least three sections of Applied’s proposal included statements relevant to the 

latter weakness. First, Applied’s proposal stated that Applied’s facilities 

coordinators would “[DELETED].” AR, Tab H, Applied Proposal, Vol. I, Technical 

Approach, at 2. Second, Applied’s proposal stated that Applied’s facility monitors 

would [DELETED] Edgewood facilities from [DELETED] through [DELETED]. Id.

at 4. Within this same section, however, the proposal stated that [DELETED] would 

require an additional [DELETED]. Id. Finally, Applied’s proposal stated that two 

particular buildings would be “locked at [DELETED]” and that a third building would 

be “locked at [DELETED]” Id. at 6. The first and last of these three proposal 

statements were cited in the agency’s evaluation documentation. AR, Tab J, SSEB 

Evaluation of Applied Proposal, at 8.

 Id. at 3; AR, Tab J, SSEB Evaluation of Applied Proposal, at 8, 17. Three of 

the other weaknesses assigned to Applied’s proposal pertained to the management 
Page 4 B-405724 

plan factor. Those weaknesses were: the failure to include a detailed manpower 

matrix; the failure to propose a program manager with requisite qualifications; and 

the failure to propose a lead facility manager with requisite qualifications. AR, Tab I, 

SSD, at 4; AR, Tab J, SSEB Evaluation of Applied Proposal, at 8, 9, 14, 17. The final 

weakness assigned to Applied’s proposal pertained to the past performance factor. 

AR, Tab I, SSD, at 4; AR, Tab J, SSEB Evaluation of Applied Proposal, at 10, 15, 18.

Following the evaluation, the SSEB assigned the following consensus ratings to the 

two proposals:

TK Applied

Factor 1--Technical Approach Excellent Acceptable

Factor 2--Management Plan Good Acceptable

Subfactor A--Quality Control Good Acceptable

Subfactor B--Transition Plan Acceptable Acceptable

Factor 3--Past Performance Acceptable Acceptable

AR, Tab I, SSD, at 5. TK’s bottom-line price was $10,241,726.94. Id. Applied’s 

bottom-line price was $11,460,366.01, approximately $1.2 million higher than TK’s 

price. Id.

The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the SSEB’s evaluation 

documentation. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. Based on this review, the SSA 

determined that TK’s proposal offered the best value to the government because 

TK’s proposal received higher non-price evaluation factor ratings and because TK 

offered a lower price. AR, Tab I, SSD, at 6.

On August 30, the agency awarded the contract to TK. AR, Tab A, TK Contract, at 1. 

Following a debriefing, Applied filed this protest with our Office.

DISCUSSION

In its protest, Applied first asserts that TK’s proposal should have received a lower 

rating under the management plan factor because, according to Applied, TK 

proposed incumbent personnel that TK knew or should have known would be 

unavailable to perform the contract. Protest at 6-7; Comments at 2-4. As stated 

above, Applied is the incumbent contractor for the requirement at issue. Protest at 6. 

Applied contends that the incumbent personnel will not be available to perform the 

protested contract for two reasons. First, Applied asserts that based on the 

differential between Applied’s and TK’s bottom-line prices, TK “cannot” offer the 

same level of employee benefits as Applied, and, therefore, the personnel will be 
Page 5 B-405724 

unwilling to agree to employment with TK.2 Protest at 6. Second, Applied asserts

that Applied itself intends to retain many of the personnel for work on other 

projects.

3

 Protest at 6.

As a general matter, in evaluating proposals an agency may reasonably rely as 

accurate on information provided by an offeror 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. On the other hand, an agency may 

not accept representations in a proposal at face value where there is significant 

countervailing evidence reasonably known to the agency evaluators that should or 

did create doubt as to whether the representations are accurate. See Alpha Marine 

Servs., LLC, B-292511.4, B-292511.5, Mar. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 88 at 4; Maritime 

Berthing, Inc., B-284123.3, Apr. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 89 at 9.

We see no merit to Applied’s contentions. It is true, as Applied points out, that TK’s 

proposed staffing approach involves the retention of most of the incumbent 

workforce.

4

 2

As reflected above, TK’s bottom-line price was approximately $1.2 million lower 

than Applied’s bottom-line price. AR, Tab I, SSD, at 5.

 AR, Tab G, TK Proposal, Vol. II, Management Plan, at 3. However, we 

see no evidence in the record that the agency knew of Applied’s purported intent to 

retain the incumbent personnel for work on other projects. Further, Applied is 

mistaken that TK’s comparatively lower bottom-line price necessarily demonstrates

that TK cannot offer employee benefits equal to those offered by Applied. To the 

contrary, TK’s lower price may reflect a different technical approach, lower 

overhead costs, or a lower profit margin, rather than a lesser benefits plan. See Data

Mgmt. Servs. JV, supra, at 16; Servizi Aeroportuali, Srl, B-290863, Oct. 15, 2002, 2002 

CPD ¶ 208 at 4-5; Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc.; MVM, Inc., B-271385.4 et al., 

Sept. 23, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 192 at 7. In sum, because we see no significant 

countervailing evidence in the record that created doubt--or should have created 

doubt--on the part of the agency as to the accuracy of Applied’s representations 

3

Applied states that it is not asserting that an impermissible “bait and switch” 

occurred. Comments at 2. An impermissible bait and switch occurs where a firm 

either knowingly or negligently represents that it will rely on specific personnel that 

it does not expect to furnish during contract performance, and that 

misrepresentation is relied on by the agency and has a material effect on the 

evaluation results. Data Mgmt. Servs. JV, B-299702, B-299702.2, July 24, 2007, 2007 

CPD ¶ 139 at 10. As stated above, none of the key personnel proposed by TK were 

incumbent personnel. AR, Tab G, TK Proposal, Vol. II, Management Plan, App., 

Key Personnel, at 1-6. 4

As discussed above, the solicitation included a provision requiring the successful 

offeror to offer incumbent employees a first right of refusal of employment. RFP 

at 76.
Page 6 B-405724 

regarding the firm’s proposed staffing approach, this protest claim is denied. See

Highmark Medicare Servs., Inc.; Cahaba Gov’t Benefit Admins., LLC; Nat’l Gov’t 

Servs., Inc., B-401062.5 et al., Oct. 29, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 285 at 14 (agency reasonably 

relied on proposal representations regarding personnel availability where record 

contained no significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to agency that 

should or did create doubt regarding accuracy of representations).

Next, Applied asserts that the agency improperly “failed to perform a proper price 

reasonableness analysis.” Protest at 8. In this regard, Applied alleges that TK

proposed lower labor rates than did Applied, and, therefore, TK will be unable to 

retain qualified personnel to perform the contract. Id. at 8-9. According to Applied, 

the agency’s alleged failure to analyze the reasonableness of TK’s comparatively 

lower pricing threatens the successful performance of the contract. Protest at 9; 

Comments at 4.

Applied’s argument reflects a lack of understanding as to the distinction between 

price reasonableness and price realism. The purpose of a price reasonableness 

review in a competition for the award of a fixed-price contract is to determine 

whether the prices offered are too high, as opposed to too low. Sterling Servs., Inc., 

B-291625, B-291626, Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 26 at 3; WorldTravelService, 

B-284155.3, Mar. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 68 at 4 n.2. Arguments, such as the one raised 

by Applied here, that an agency did not perform an appropriate analysis to determine 

whether prices are too low such that there may be a risk of poor performance 

concern price realism. C.L. Price & Assocs., Inc., B-403476.2, Jan. 7, 2011, 2011 

CPD ¶ 16 at 3; SDV Solutions, Inc., B-402309, Feb. 1, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 48 at 4. A

price realism evaluation is not required where, as here, a solicitation provides for the 

award of a fixed-price contract and does not include a requirement for a price 

realism evaluation. C.L. Price & Assocs., Inc., supra; WorldTravelService, supra, at 3. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Applied’s allegation because it does not constitute a valid 

basis of protest. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(f) (2011); New Orleans Support Servs. LLC, 

B-404914, June 21, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 146 at 3; JSW Maint., Inc., B-400581.5, Sept. 8, 

2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 182 at 6-7 n.3; WorldTravelService, supra, at 4 n.2.

Finally, Applied asserts that the agency’s evaluation of Applied’s proposal was 

unreasonable because, in Applied’s view, the agency improperly failed to assign any 

strengths to the proposal and improperly assigned weaknesses to the proposal. We 

have considered all of Applied’s arguments in this area and find no basis to question 

the agency’s evaluation. Applied’s most significant arguments are discussed below.

Applied asserts that its proposal should have received a strength under the 

management plan factor because the proposal described the firm’s 97 percent 

personnel retention rate. Protest at 10; Comments at 5-6. The agency responds that 

Applied’s retention rate did not result in a proposal strength because the solicitation 

provided for consideration of retention together with hiring and recruiting, and 

Applied’s proposal did not provide a clear and concise approach for hiring and 

recruiting. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 4.
Page 7 B-405724 

In reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not our role to

independently evaluate proposals and substitute our judgment for that of the 

contracting activity. Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, 

Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. Rather, we will review an evaluation to ensure 

that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation 

and applicable procurement statutes and regulations; a protester’s mere 

disagreement with the evaluation does not show that it lacked a reasonable basis. 

VT Griffin Servs., Inc., B-299869.2, Nov. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 219 at 4.

As stated above, the solicitation here announced that offerors’ management plans 

would be evaluated for the provision of “a clear and concise approach for recruiting, 

hiring, [and] retaining personnel to include maintaining adequate workforce and 

filling vacancies.” RFP at 103. Applied acknowledges that the firm’s proposal “did 

not highlight its recruiting and hiring plans.”5 Comments at 6. Given the 

solicitation’s announcement that an offeror’s recruiting, hiring, and retention 

approach would be evaluated, and given Applied’s concession that its proposal did 

not emphasize two of these three elements, we do not view as unreasonable the 

agency’s determination not to assign the proposal a strength related to Applied’s 

retention rate.

Applied also asserts that the three weaknesses assigned to the firm’s proposal under 

the management plan factor were unreasonable. In this regard, Applied first argues 

that the weakness for a failure to include a detailed manpower matrix was improper 

because the proposal included a staffing matrix. Protest at 11; Comments at 7-8 

(referencing AR, Tab H, Applied Proposal, Vol. II, Management Plan, at 8).

The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate whether an offeror’s 

management plan “provides a manpower matrix with proposed skill sets with the 

minimum qualifications required . . . to successfully accomplish the PWS tasks.” RFP 

at 103. The staffing matrix in Applied’s proposal does not include proposed skill sets

or minimum qualifications.6

 5

Applied explains that recruiting and hiring plans were not highlighted because 

Applied’s proposal “demonstrated a 97% retention rate.” Comments at 6 (emphasis 

in original).

 AR, Tab H, Applied Proposal, Vol. II, Management Plan, 

at 8. Without citation to any specific sections of its proposal, Applied argues that 

“[q]ualifications, skill sets, and labor rates are easily found within other areas of

[Applied’s] proposal.” Comments at 7. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a 

well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly 

demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements and allows a meaningful 

review by the procuring agency. International Med. Corps, B-403688, Dec. 6, 2010, 

6

The staffing matrix is devoid of any narrative regarding the positions listed within. 

AR, Tab H, Applied Proposal, Vol. II, Management Plan, at 8.
Page 8 B-405724 

2010 CPD ¶ 292 at 7. The staffing matrix in Applied’s proposal omits information 

that was called for in the solicitation, and Applied has not adequately explained 

where the required information appears in the firm’s proposal. Accordingly, we view 

the agency’s determination to assign the proposal a weakness related to this 

omission as reasonable.

Applied also objects to the weakness its proposal received regarding the proposed 

program manager’s qualifications. Protest at 11; Comments at 8. Applied argues that 

although its proposed program manager does not have a Bachelor’s degree, she does 

have 13 years of managerial experience, and, therefore, she meets the minimum 

qualifications set forth in the solicitation. Comments at 8.

The solicitation states that the program manager must have a Bachelor’s degree or 

10 years of documented experience in managing multiple-site, multidisciplinary (i.e., 

facility and logistics) service support contracts. PWS § 9.2.1. As the agency 

explains, the résumé of Applied’s proposed program manager reflects experience 

from 2005 to 2011 with managing a multidisciplinary contract, but reflects that prior 

to 2005 her experience was limited to facility coordination functions. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 7 (referencing AR, Tab H, Applied Proposal, Attach. 1, at 1.). 

In other words, the record shows that the résumé did not reflect 10 years of the type 

of experience that was specified in the solicitation. Accordingly, we see no basis to 

question the agency’s judgment that Applied’s proposal deserved a weakness related 

to the proposed program manager’s qualifications.

7

Applied additionally challenges the two weaknesses assigned to its proposal under 

the technical approach factor. With respect to the weakness regarding 

noncompliance with solicitation’s requirement for the times that buildings were to 

be opened and locked, Applied argues that the firm’s proposal included “a minor 

drafting oversight,” and that the agency should have “waived or clarified” the issue. 

Protest at 11; Comments at 7.

The solicitation specified that “[b]uildings shall be opened one half hour prior to 

core duty hours (5:30AM) and locked one half hour after core duty hours (6:30PM).” 

PWS § 2.1.3. As noted above, one section of Applied’s proposal stated that Applied’s 

facilities coordinators would “[DELETED],” and another section of the proposal 

stated that three particular buildings would be locked [DELETED]. AR, Tab H, 

 7 In its protest, Applied also challenged the weakness that its proposal received 

regarding the qualifications of Applied’s proposed lead facility manager, and the 

weakness that Applied’s proposal received under the past performance factor. 

Protest at 11-12. The agency furnished responses to these allegations. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 7-8. Applied did not rebut the agency’s responses. 

Accordingly, we consider Applied to have abandoned these protest allegations. 

Tiger Truck LLC, B-310759, B-310759.2, Feb. 7, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 44 at 3.
Page 9 B-405724 

Applied Proposal, Vol. I, Technical Approach, at 2, 6. Accordingly, we find 

reasonable the agency’s determination to assign a weakness to Applied’s proposal 

for noncompliance with solicitation’s requirement for the times that building were to 

be opened and locked.

With respect to the weakness that Applied’s proposal received for a failure to 

identify potential risks and mitigation measures, Applied argues that the agency 

ignored risk factor and risk mitigation “references” that appeared in the management 

plan volume of the proposal. Protest at 10; Comments at 6. In response, the agency 

asserts that Applied’s proposal received the weakness in question because the 

proposal “focus[ed] on monitoring and correcting deficiencies as opposed to 

mitigating the risks from the beginning.” Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6.

We need not resolve this argument because even assuming that the agency’s 

determination to assign this weakness was shown to be unreasonable, it is clear 

from the record that Applied has not suffered any competitive prejudice; i.e., given 

TK’s markedly higher evaluation ratings and lower price, the record does not support 

a finding that, but for this weakness, Applied would have had a substantial chance of 

receiving the award. Prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest, and 

where, as here, none is shown or is otherwise evident, we will not sustain the 

protest. Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD 

¶ 208 at 7.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel