United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Visual Connections, LLC 

File: B-407625 

Date: December 31, 2012 

Timothy S. Faith, Esq., Faith at Law LLC, for the protester. 

Lawrence P. Block, Esq., Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, for the intervenor.

Ronald D. Sullivan, Esq., and Patricia J. McDaniel, Esq., Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 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

Agency reasonably determined that protester’s proposal was technically 

unacceptable where the protester failed to submit an adequately detailed technical 

proposal in accordance with the solicitation. 

DECISION

Visual Connections, LLC, of Chevy Chase, Maryland protests the rejection of its 

quotation as unacceptable by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request 

for quotations (RFQ) No. VA701-12-Q-0150 for section 508 compliance services, 

including administrative support, compliance monitoring, reporting, technical 

support, and training. Visual Connections contends that the agency acted 

unreasonably in rejecting its quotation.

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their 

electronic and information technology provides comparable access to people with 

and without disabilities whenever an agency develops, procures, maintains, or uses 

electronic and information technology. The VA states that section 508 violations 

could expose the agency to extensive liability, including the requirement to 

repurchase or rebuild an entire IT system that fails to meet the section 508 

standards. RFQ at 5. In this regard, the VA sought vendors to provide advanced 

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-407625 

technical expertise in identifying and remediating section 508 violations and 

providing solutions based on current best practices. RFQ at 6. 

The solicitation described three main tasks with detailed requirements for each. 

Task 1 related to program management and planning, task 2 required evaluation and 

remediation of electronic information, and task 3 involved resource development 

and maintenance. RFQ at 8-12. With regard to task 2, the RFQ emphasized that 

“knowledge of the implications of section 508 Refresh standards . . . is critical.” Id.

at 10. However, for the scope of work generally, the RFQ required an “in-depth 

understanding of the provisions of section 508” and stated that “[a]dvanced technical 

expertise in identifying and remediating Section 508 violations and providing 

solutions based on current best practices [was] essential.” Id. at 6. 

The RFQ informed offerors that the evaluation would be conducted on a best value 

basis, considering the following four evaluation factors in descending order of 

importance: technical, past performance, veterans involvement, and price. Id. at 83. 

The three non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than 

price. Id. With regard to the technical evaluation factor, the solicitation stated that 

the agency would consider the following: understanding of the problem, feasibility 

of approach, and completeness. Id. The RFQ also informed offerors that in order to 

be considered for award, a rating of no less than acceptable must be achieved for the 

technical factor. Id. The RFQ further cautioned vendors that “Proposals which 

merely restate the requirement or state that the requirement will be met, without 

providing supporting rationale, are not sufficient.”1 Id. at 83. 

Five offerors submitted proposals by the September 4 due date. A three-member 

technical evaluation team (TET) reviewed and individually scored the proposals 

under the technical factor, then compiled a consensus report that incorporated the 

ratings and remarks of the individual evaluators. The TET found that Visual 

Connections’s proposal was technically unacceptable, citing a failure to provide 

detailed discussion of the tasks sufficient to establish that the vendor had the skills 

or expertise to meet the solicitation’s requirements. AR, Tab L, Consensus Report, 

at 5-6. 

 

1

 Although the solicitation is designated as an RFQ, see RFQ at 2, key sections of the 

solicitation describe the GSA FSS vendors’ responses to the solicitation as 

“proposals,” id. at 77, 83. Additionally, in its legal memorandum, the agency refers 

to the vendors’ responses as “proposals.” Agency Report at 1, 3-5. Because the 

distinction between a quotation and a proposal is not relevant to our analysis in this 

protest, we adopt the agency’s usage of the term proposal in this decision.
Page 3 B-407625 

For example, the TET found that the proposal did not demonstrate that the firm 

possessed the skills necessary to adequately perform the requirements or the 

requisite awareness of the breadth of section 508. Id. at 5. The TET noted that the 

proposal did not acknowledge section 508 standards other than those for web and 

web applications and multi-media, and did not include “basics” like 

“Software 1194.21 and Functional requirements 1194.31.” Id. at 5-6. The TET also 

found that the proposal failed to demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the implications 

of section 508, and it failed to sufficiently address how the firm would handle section 

508 remediation or development work. Id. at 6. The TET determined that the 

proposal demonstrated limited familiarity with section 508 and lacked necessary 

detail to address the tasks defined in the solicitation.2 Id. Accordingly, VC’s 

proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable. 

The contracting officer concurred with the TET’s evaluation and, based on Visual 

Connection’s unacceptable rating for the technical factor, eliminated that firm from 

the competition. AR, Tab H, Best Value Determination, at 7-8, 11. This protest 

followed.

DISCUSSION 

Visual Connections challenges the agency’s determination that the proposal was 

technically unacceptable. The protester contends that the agency’s insistence that 

vendors provide sufficiently detailed proposals was “nitpicky.” Protest at 2. The 

protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of the firm’s proposal is unreasonable 

and not supported by the record, and therefore the firm’s proposal should not have 

been eliminated from the competition. Comments at 3. Visual Connections 

challenges every sentence of the TET’s consensus report of the firm’s proposal 

evaluation; although our decision does not individually address each and every 

allegation, we have fully considered all of the protester’s arguments and find no basis 

to sustain its protest.

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the 

contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the 

best method of accommodating them. The Kenjya Group, Inc.; Academy Solutions 

Group, LLC, B-406314, B-406314.2, Apr. 11, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 141 at 4. In reviewing 

 

2 For example, the evaluators noted that the firm had incorrectly referred to an 

assistive technology called Window Eyes as “Window FireEyes.” AR, Tab L, 

Consensus Report, at 5. The TET found that the proposal “echo[es] back specific 

wording from our solicitation and say[s] they can do it without offering details on 

past experience or how they plan to accomplish specific tasks.” Id. The TET also

noted that the proposal included a checklist that referred to out-of-date technologies 

and did not include recent technologies. Id.
Page 4 B-407625 

an agency’s evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead will 

examine the agency’s evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with 

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

regulations. Id. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s conclusions does 

not render the evaluation unreasonable. James Constr., B-402429, Apr. 21, 2010, 2010 

CPD ¶ 98 at 3. 

For example, in challenging the TET’s statement that the proposal submitted by 

Visual Connections “simply regurgitate[ed] information” from the solicitation, AR, 

Tab L, Consensus Report, at 5, the protester argues that the agency’s evaluation 

constituted nothing more than “a generality, expressed as an opinion by the VA 

reviewer and not supported by the record.” Comments at 5. Although the protester 

voices disagreement with the agency’s evaluation judgments, it fails to identify 

where in the record the agency’s conclusion is refuted. Further, we have held that 

the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter of agency discretion and, by its 

very nature, is a subjective judgment. See Six3 Sys., Inc., B-405942.4, B-405942.8, 

Nov. 2, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 312 at 7. Visual Connections has not demonstrated that its 

proposal included the breadth of detail that the solicitation required. Therefore, we 

find that the protester’s arguments essentially reflect mere disagreement with the 

agency’s subjective evaluation judgments and do not support a conclusion that the 

judgments were unreasonable. 

In another example, the protester cites the agency’s conclusion that the checklist 

provided in the protester’s proposal failed to demonstrate strong knowledge of 

section 508. AR, Tab L, Consensus Report, at 5. In attempting to challenge the 

agency’s evaluation, Visual Connection states that some of the items in its checklist 

referred to the same tasks that were referenced in a checklist that the agency itself 

prepared. Comments at 7. The protester notes that both checklists address aspects 

of captioning for videos, ensuring that alt values are correct, considering 

requirements for color used on web pages, and addressing web site appearance 

when cascading style sheets are unavailable or disabled. Id. (comparing AR, Tab F, 

Protester’s Proposal, at 8-11 with Comments, Exh. 1, VA Section 508 Checklist for 

§ 1194.22, Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications at 1-11). 

The protester contends that “[e]ven if the checklist were completely irrelevant to the 

Solicitation, it is irrational to determine that VC’s proposal was technically 

unacceptable on the basis of it” because the checklist only comprised three out of 

the proposal’s thirty pages. Comments at 6. 

While the protester disagrees with the agency’s determination that the checklist 

failed to demonstrate knowledge of section 508 and was outdated, Visual 

Connections has not demonstrated that the agency’s judgments were unreasonable. 

Further, noticeably absent from the protester’s argument was any refutation of the 

agency’s observation that the checklist referred to out-of-date technologies and did 

not include recent technologies. See Comments at 6-7. Therefore, we again find that 

the protester’s arguments reflect mere disagreement with the agency’s subjective 
Page 5 B-407625 

evaluation judgments and do not support a conclusion that the agency’s judgments 

were unreasonable. 

In another example, the protester challenges the following statement from the 

consensus report: “They do not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the implications 

of Section 508 both current and the proposed standards for the Refresh as outlined 

in the solicitation.” AR, Tab L, Consensus Report, at 6. As set forth above, the 

solicitation emphasized that knowledge of the implications of section 508 Refresh 

standards was “critical.” RFQ at 10. Visual Connections argues that, contrary to the 

agency’s findings, its proposal did demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the 

implications of the Refresh. Comments at 8 (citing page 17 of protester’s proposal). 

To support its argument, the protester cites to page 17 of its proposal, which it 

contends disproves the agency’s evaluation statements. Page 17 of the protester’s 

proposal details the qualifications of the key personnel proposed by Visual 

Connections. That page of the proposal contains only one reference to the Refresh 

standards. In describing the experience of a proposed accessibility expert, the 

proposal stated: 

In addition, He [sic] has a thorough understanding of the implications of 

Section 508 Refresh standards as outlined in the ANPR [advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking].

AR, Tab F, Visual Connections Proposal, at 17. The page contains no other 

references to the Refresh. The protester also cites to page 23 of its proposal which 

states that its employees thoroughly understand the implications of the Refresh, that 

it will review guidance of updated checklists, testing, and remediation practices, and 

that it obtains updates on advanced notices of proposed rulemaking via the GPO. Id.

at 23; cf. AR, Tab G, BayFirst Proposal, at 22 (stating that the awardee’s team has 

been involved with the Refresh standards from the beginning, members of the team 

were on committees during “TEITAC” (Telecommunications and Electronic and 

Information Technology Advisory Committee) and have been involved with the 

Access Board since that time, attend public information forums and stay up to date 

on the progress of the Refresh, recently had a webinar with an individual from the 

Access Board to update customers on the progress of the Refresh, and have already 

implemented many of the expected changes associated with the Refresh). 

Again, the protester has failed to show that its proposal demonstrated that the firm 

had the type of in-depth knowledge and included the breadth of detail that the 

solicitation required. Visual Connections’ arguments reflect disagreement with the 

agency’s subjective evaluation judgments, but do not support a conclusion that the 

judgments were unreasonable. 
Page 6 B-407625 

Based on our review of the record here, we see no basis to conclude that the 

agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal was unreasonable. Accordingly, we 

find no basis on which to sustain the protest. 

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel