United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Contracting, Consulting, Engineering, LLC

File: B-405732.4, B-405732.6, B-405732.7

Date: February 2, 2012

David S. Black, Esq., Jacob W. Scott, Esq., and Oliya S. Zamaray, Esq., Holland & 

Knight, for the protester.

Richard J. Vacura, Esq., K. Alyse Latour, Esq., and Susan J. Borschel, Esq., Morrison 

Foerster, for DynCorp International LLC, an intervenor. 

Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that agency unreasonably assigned protester a rating of marginal for senior 

program management is denied where proposed deputy program manager did not have 

the 5 years of aviation program management experience required by the solicitation.

2. Protest that agency unreasonably determined that a rating of marginal eliminated 

protester from consideration for award is denied where solicitation specifically defined 

marginal rating as unacceptable. 

DECISION

Contracting, Consulting, Engineering LLC (CCE), of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the 

Department of State’s award of a contract to DynCorp International LLC, of Falls 

Church, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA11R0043, for aviation 

support services to assist the Columbia National Police Aviation Program in its counternarcotics efforts. CCE asserts that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated 

proposals. 

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-405732.4 et al.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation provided for award to the low priced, technically acceptable offeror, 

considering the following factors: (1) program management (with subfactors for 

management planning and staffing, personnel requirements, flexibility, quality 

assurance, contract data requirements list, senior program management staff/key 

personnel, and reporting); (2) technical capabilities, logistics and procurement (with 

subfactors for inventory control and property book, inspection station, continuous 

improvement, customer service, and freight forwarding); (3) technical capabilities 

maintenance; (4) quality control (with subfactors for audits and programs; quality 

standards; and, forms, records and publications); (5) information technology; 

(6) standardization and training (with subfactors for core processes, training and support 

services, standardization and training reports); (7) past performance; 

(8) subcontracting plan; and (9) price. RFP § M.9. 

The RFP provided for adjectival ratings of acceptable, unacceptable or marginal for 

each technical subfactor and factor, except that ratings of no confidence, unknown 

confidence or confidence would be assigned to past performance and a pass or fail 

rating would be assigned to subcontracting plan. RFP § M.1. The solicitation further 

provided that “[a] rating of unacceptable for any subfactor will result in an overall factor 

rating of unacceptable,” and that “[a] factor rating of unacceptable may exclude an 

offeror from award or the competitive range.” RFP § M.4. The solicitation indicated that 

the agency intended to conduct the procurement without holding discussions. RFP § 

M.5. 

Following the submission and evaluation of proposals, CCE was rated marginal for 

program management based on marginal ratings for the management planning and 

staffing, flexibility, and senior program management/key personnel subfactors; 

unacceptable for quality control based on ratings of unacceptable for the quality 

standards and forms, records and publications subfactors; and unacceptable for 

standardization and training based on a rating of unacceptable under the core 

processes subfactor. Although DynCorp’s price ($165,063,483) was somewhat higher 

than CCE’s ($162,979,769), DynCorp, unlike CCE, was rated acceptable for all 

subfactors and factors and as a result Dyncorp was awarded the contract. This protest 

followed.

DISCUSSION

CCE challenges the evaluation of both its proposal and DynCorp’s, asserting that the 

evaluation was unreasonable and unequal.

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to 

reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether the 

agency’s judgment was reasonable, and in accord with the RFP criteria and applicable 

procurement statutes and regulations. Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-

1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of solicitation language, 
Page 3 B-405732.4 et al.

we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that 

gives effect to all provisions of the solicitation. See Honeywell Regelsysteme GmbH, B237248, Feb. 2, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 149 at 5; CCITE/SC, B-400782, Nov. 21, 2008, 2008 

CPD ¶ 216 at 3. 

Here, we find the agency’s evaluation to be reasonable and in accord with the terms of 

the solicitation. We discuss several of the protester’s principal arguments below. 

Senior Program Management Staff/Key Personnel

Under the senior program management staff/key personnel subfactor of the program 

management factor, offerors were required to provide a resume for a program manager 

and a deputy program manager, showing that each had “at least five (5) years of 

experience in the area of program management in aviation programs,” as well as 

showing that the program manager had at least 10 years and the deputy program 

manager at least 8 years of “professional Aviation managerial experience.” RFP § M.9. 

CCE was rated marginal under this subfactor because the evaluators found that CCE’s 

proposed deputy program manager did not have the requisite 5 years experience in 

program management. Agency Report (AR) at 25.

CCE Management

CCE asserts that the solicitation did not require offerors to propose a deputy program 

manager with five years of experience as a program manager. Instead, according to 

CCE, there are certain sub-areas within the field of program management--e.g.

maintenance, logistics, and quality control/quality assurance--and as long as the 

proposed deputy project manager listed experience in one of these sub-areas, it met the 

requirement for program management experience. CCE claims that since its proposed 

deputy program manager has over 5 years of experience in several of the sub-areas 

within the field of program management, he meets the requirements for 5 years of 

program management experience. 

The agency responds that CCE is confusing the field of project management with that of 

program management. In this regard, the agency explains that program management is 

the management of multiple facets of an overall program, as opposed to project 

management which is management of a single facet of a project. See Declaration of 

Evaluation Chairman at 3-6.

 

We find CCE’s interpretation of the requirement for experience in “program 

management in aviation programs” to be unreasonable when the solicitation is read as 

a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all provisions of the solicitation. Honeywell 

Regelsysteme GmbH, supra. In this regard, we agree with the agency that CCE’s 

interpretation, that the “program management” requirement is met if you manage a facet 

of an overall program, would mean that the requirement essentially duplicates the 

broader solicitation requirement for “professional Aviation managerial experience,” 

which appears to require only management of some aspect of an aviation function. 
Page 4 B-405732.4 et al.

Further, we find that the agency reasonably determined that CCE’s proposed deputy 

program manager did not have the requisite 5 years of program management 

experience. In this regard, CCE listed the deputy program manager’s experience as a 

[REDACTED], which the agency reasonably viewed as not constituting management 

experience at all. Similarly, CCE listed experience as [REDACTED]. CCE Proposal at

App. D; AR at 26. As discussed above, however, the agency reasonably viewed this 

experience as involving just one element of a program rather than as program 

management experience. 

CCE asserts that even if its deputy program manager did not have the requisite years of 

program management experience, its proposal should not have been rated marginal. In 

this regard, CCE notes that the solicitation defined “marginal” as: 

The proposal fails to satisfy some of the evaluation criteria. The proposal 

may have weaknesses that are considered significant. Although the 

weaknesses are considered significant, they are considered correctable. 

However, the identified weakness may present considerable risk to the 

Government. The proposal is not technically acceptable but may meet the 

requirement with revisions.

RFP § M.10. 

CCE argues that since its proposed deputy project manager is currently the only 

full-time manager working under the extension to the incumbent contract, the agency 

cannot consider him a significant risk. The solicitation, however, specifically required a 

deputy program manager with 5 years experience in the area of aviation program 

management, while CCE’s proposed project manager has only 3.5 years in aviation 

program management. CCE’s proposal, therefore, did not simply contain a weakness, it 

failed to satisfy a specific requirement under the senior program management staff/key 

personnel subfactor in the solicitation. Accordingly, given the solicitation definition of 

marginal--including a “proposal [that] fails to satisfy some of the evaluation criteria”--the 

proposal was reasonably evaluated as marginal under this subfactor. 

Finally, CCE asserts that only a proposal that was rated unacceptable was ineligible for 

award, and thus, its marginal rating did not disqualify it from consideration for award. 

The solicitation, however, indicated otherwise. The solicitation, which provided for 

award to the low priced, technically acceptable offeror, explained that a marginal rating 

meant “[t]he proposal is not technically acceptable but may meet the requirement with 

revisions.” RFP § M.10. Thus, the solicitation specifically defined a marginal proposal 

as not acceptable. Since a marginal rating rendered the proposal unacceptable, the 

agency reasonably determined that CCE was not eligible to receive the award.

 

DynCorp Management

CCE asserts that the agency unequally evaluated the proposals of CCE and DynCorp 

under the program management subfactor because DynCorp also proposed a program 
Page 5 B-405732.4 et al.

manager and a deputy program manager who lacked the required 5 years of program 

management experience, but was not found to be marginal as a result. According to 

CCE, if CCE was ineligible for award, then so was DynCorp. 

The program manager proposed by DynCorp was credited with, among other 

experience, 3.5 years of program management experience for his role as program 

manager for a fixed and rotary-wing aviation program in Bolivia. In addition, he was 

credited with 3 years of program management experience for his service at Fort Rucker, 

Alabama, first as a company commander and then as the chief of the cargo/fixed wing 

and standardization division at Fort Rucker, Alabama. In these roles, he commanded a 

unit undertaking helicopter training, and then led the evaluation of worldwide fixed and 

rotary-wing aviation training and the standardization programs to ensure flight safety 

across the Army. DynCorp Technical/Management Proposal at 32; Declaration of 

Evaluation Chairman at 3-6.

DynCorp’s deputy program manager’s 5 years of program management experience 

included 1 year as the program manager for the Columbia Operations/Nationalization 

Program, managing operations for the drug eradication program and the Plan Colombia 

Helicopter Program. It also included 3 years of experience as the Theater Aviations 

Operations Officer at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, where his duties included managing 

the U.S. Army North’s support to homeland defense and civil authorities aviation anticounter terrorism plans, serving as the officer in charge at New Orleans International 

Airport during Hurricane Katrina, and coordinating pre-deployment training for combat 

aviation brigades. Finally, the deputy program manager was credited with 1 year of 

program management experience for his role as an aviation company commander (UH1H helicopters). Id.

We find no basis to question the agency’s determination that the above experience for 

DynCorp’s proposed program manager and deputy program manager satisfied the 

requirement for a minimum of 5 years of experience in the area of program 

management in aviation programs. In this regard, we note that the questioned positions 

were those which the program manager and deputy program manager held while 

serving in the military, while the evaluation was conducted by three retired military 

officers who, familiar with the responsibilities involved in each of these positions, 

determined that aviation program management was involved. CCE has not shown this 

determination to be unreasonable. For example, while CCE challenges the agency’s 

consideration of the deputy program manager’s experience as the Theater Aviations 

Operations Officer at Fort Sam Houston, we find that the agency could find that the 

breadth of his responsibilities--managing support to homeland defense and civil 

authorities aviation anti-counter terrorism plans, serving as the officer in charge at New 

Orleans International Airport during Hurricane Katrina, and coordinating pre-deployment 

training for combat aviation brigades--amounted to program management. Likewise, we 

find no reason to question the agency’s judgment that the breadth of the responsibilities 

associated with serving as an aviation (helicopter) company commander, including 

managing people and helicopters in meeting the various responsibilities assigned to the 
Page 6 B-405732.4 et al.

unit, qualified as overall aviation program management rather than something less, 

such as simply leading a particular project.

Freight Forwarding and Procurement

CCE argues that DynCorp’s proposal should have been evaluated as unacceptable 

under the freight forwarding subfactor of the technical capabilities, logistics and 

procurement factor, the past performance factor and the price factor. We have 

reviewed all of CCE’s arguments and find that they are without merit. We discuss 

several below. 

The solicitation provided that freight forwarding would be evaluated with respect to the 

offeror’s:

demonstrated ability to establish a freight forwarding section that includes 

acceptable processes for expeditious shipping/receiving, minimize errors, 

minimizing damaged cargo, ensuring accuracy of documentation, and 

ensuring compliance with US, Colombian Customs and other governing 

regulations. These processes were required to include, but were not 

limited to, shipping and receiving times, shipment damages, custom 

delays for inaccurate documentation and reporting. 

RFP § M at 7. 

According to CCE, DynCorp should not have been rated acceptable for freight 

forwarding because it did not specifically address shipment damages and customs 

delays for inaccurate documentation. As noted by the agency, however, DynCorp did 

not elect to establish a freight forwarding section, but instead proposed to subcontract to 

an established freight forwarder. CCE has not shown to be unreasonable the agency’s 

determination that by subcontracting the freight forwarding function to an established 

freight forwarder, DynCorp offered the agency a freight forwarding capability that was 

demonstrated to be expeditious and effective such as to warrant a favorable evaluation 

under this subfactor.

CCE also asserts that DynCorp’s price proposal should have been rejected as 

unacceptable because DynCorp failed to price the required freight forwarding or 

procurement functions. With respect to pricing, offerors were required to complete 

seven pricing tables. As relevant, Table 5 included 9 line items. Contract Line Item 

Number (CLIN) 001 was a firm fixed price for program management; CLINs 002 through 

008 listed labor categories and required offerors to propose a fixed rate for each 

category; and CLIN 009 was a fixed price of $25,000,000 for materials. RFP, Table 5. 

According to CCE, DynCorp’s price proposal should have been rejected because 

DynCorp did not provide a price for freight forwarding or procurement personnel. In this 

regard, CCE notes that DynCorp included a labor rate for procurement personnel, but 

did not include any personnel in the labor table or extended amount for procurement 

labor. 
Page 7 B-405732.4 et al.

However, as noted by the agency, in its technical proposal DynCorp included 

procurement personnel, and it proposed to subcontract the freight forward function. 

DynCorp then included these costs in its price proposal as an indirect rate against the 

material costs in line item 009. Specifically, in its price proposal DynCorp stated with 

respect to its costs for the freight forwarding and procurement functions that the 

associated costs were accounted for in a 2.90% Material Handling Fee added as an 

indirect cost to the materials purchased against CLIN 009. DynCorp Price Proposal, 

vol. 4, section 4.3 at 70-71. Accordingly, DynCorp’s proposal did include a price for 

freight forwarding and procurement functions.1

 

CCE asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal for every subfactor 

where it received a rating less than acceptable, and that the agency unreasonably 

determined that its price proposal was unacceptable. However, since CCE was 

ineligible for award based on its rating for the senior program management staff/key 

personnel subfactor, even if CCE otherwise were rated acceptable, the same as 

DynCorp, for every other factor, CCE was not prejudiced by any other claimed error in 

the evaluation of its proposal. See Knoll, Inc.; Steelcase, Inc., B-294986.3, B-294986.4, 

Mar. 18, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 63 at 8 n.2.

 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 

1

In its comments in response to the agency report, CCE argues that it was improper for 

DynCorp to price these costs by applying an indirect rate to its material costs. CCE 

further asserts that DynCorp’s proposal was unclear to the extent DynCorp states that it 

will charge for procurement by applying an indirect rate to material costs, but also 

included an hourly rate and no personnel in the line item for procurement personnel. 

These arguments are untimely since CCE did not raise them until December 28,, more 

than 10 days after November 30, the date on which CCE received the documents that 

revealed DynCorp’s pricing strategy. See 

4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2011); L-3 Sys.Co. Wescam Sonoma, Inc., B-297323, Dec. 3, 

2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 219 at 4.