United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: L-3 Services, Inc. 

File: B-406292 

Date: April 2, 2012 

W. Jay Devecchio, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Kathy C. Weinberg, Esq., Daniel E. 

Chudd, Esq., Damien C. Specht, Esq., Ethan E. Marsh, Esq., and Charles L. 

Capito, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester.

Thomas P. Barletta, Esq., Peter L. Wellington, Esq., Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Michael 

J. Navarre, Esq., Kendall Enyard, Esq., Lauren Groth, Esq., and David M. Crane, Esq., 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for TASC, Inc., an intervenor.

Victoria H. Kauffman, Esq., James T. Mahoney, Esq., and David S. Schuman, Esq., 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. 

Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of 

the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging agency’s cost realism evaluation of protester’s proposal is 

denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s conclusions were 

reasonable. 

2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated offerors’ technical and cost 

proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluations were reasonable 

and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 

3. Where solicitation advised offerors that the agency did not intend to conduct 

discussions, there is no merit in protester’s assertion that discussions were required. 

DECISION

L-3 Services, Inc., STRATIS Division, of Reston, Virginia, protests the National 

Aeronautics and Space Adminstrations’ (NASA) award of a contract to TASC, Inc., of 

Chantilly, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. NNG13100421R to 

provide support services for selected software systems being developed for NASA’s 

Goddard Space Flight Center facility in Fairmont, West Virginia. The protester 

asserts that NASA’s evaluations of the offerors’ technical and cost proposals were 

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-406292 

unreasonable and that the agency improperly failed to conduct discussions.

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on March 2, 2011, combines two former contracts for support 

services into one unified contract for independent verification and validation (IV&V) 

services. 1 Agency Report (AR) at 1. The RFP was issued as a full and open 

competition and provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 

nine-month base period with four one-year option periods and one three-month 

option period. RFP at 0000044; AR, Tab 4, RFP Amend. 2, at 0000441. 2

 The 

solicitation was posted on the FedBizOpps website,

3

 along with the agency’s answers 

to 167 questions regarding the RFP. CO Statement at 3. 

The mission of the IV&V program is to reduce the inherent risk in NASA’s ability to 

procure, develop, deploy, and operate software within desired cost, schedule, and 

performance goals. CO Statement at 1. The RFP explained that IV&V is a system 

engineering process employing analytical techniques that produce evidence 

revealing the correctness and completeness of the system’s software as it evolves 

through a development life cycle. Id. at 0000174. Primary objectives of the IV&V 

program include: (1) performing independent verification and validation on safety 

and mission critical software; (2) providing software assurance expertise to the 

agency’s safety and mission assurance activities; (3) conducting research that 

improves IV&V and software assurance methods, practices and tools; (4) performing 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) outreach; and 

(5) performing management and institutional services with excellence. RFP 

at 0000174. 

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

basis, considering the following factors: mission suitability, cost, and past 

performance. Id. at 0000163. Cost was significantly less important than the 

combined importance of the mission suitability factor and the past performance 

 

1

The protester and the awardee were the incumbents under the two prior contracts. 

AR at 1. Under these contracts, both contractors are currently performing tasks that 

are substantially similar to the tasks required under the RFP at issue here. 

Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 2.

2

 Page numbers refer to the BATES numbers in the Agency Report.

3

 The FedBizOpps website, www.fbo.gov, is the government-wide point of entry for 

the electronic publication of notices. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §§ 2.101, 

5.003, 5.101, 5.201.
Page 3 B-406292 

factor. Id. As individual factors, cost was less important than the mission suitability 

factor, but equally as important as past performance. Id. 

In accordance with NASA’s FAR supplement, the mission suitability factor was 

scored on a 1000 point scale. Id. at 0000169; NFS § 1815.304-70(b)(1). This factor 

was divided into three subfactors: technical approach/capability (450 points), 

management approach (450 points), and small business utilization (100 points). RFP 

at 0000169. 

In order to simplify the proposal preparation and evaluation process for the mission 

suitability proposals, the agency selected a subset of IV&V projects and activities, 

termed “Selected Project/Activities” or SPAs, which the offerors were required to 

address in their technical proposals. RFP at 0000138. The following IV&V services 

were selected as SPAs: (1) Orion; (2) Joint Polar Satellite System; (3) Mars 

Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution; (4) Space Tracking and Surveillance System-II; 

and (5) Soil Moisture Active Passive. Id. The SPAs were the only projects in the 

mission forecast that offerors were to specifically address in their mission suitability 

proposals. Id. at 0000139. The RFP stated that in evaluating offerors’ proposals, the 

agency would evaluate offerors’ overall understanding and approach to meet the 

needs, technical difficulties, schedule, resources, and potential risks of the SPAs 

identified in the solicitation. Id. at 0000164. 

The RFP also required offerors to propose a small business subcontracting plan. 

RFP at 0000210-11. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate offerors’ 

established or planned procedures and organizational structure for small 

disadvantaged business outreach, assistance, participation in the mentor protégé 

program, and other similar activities. Id. at 0000169. Offerors were instructed to

describe the work to be performed by small businesses, and the RFP provided that 

the agency would evaluate the offerors’ commitment to use subcontractors (that is, 

enforceable versus non-enforceable commitments) and the extent to which the work 

performed by small business contractors was considered to be “high technology” 

work. Id. at 0000168. 

With regard to cost, the RFP stated that offerors’ proposed costs would be assessed 

to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Id. at 0000170. In this regard, the 

RFP contained a mission forecast, which outlined the projected workload for the 

projects covered by the RFP for a one-year period. Id. at 0000338-57. The mission 

forecast and statement of work were to form the basis for the offerors’ proposed 

costs. Id. at 0000338. Offerors were instructed that workload was to be projected at 

a constant rate for years two through five, with appropriate escalation factored into 

their cost proposals. Id. Offerors were also required to submit bases of estimates 

(BOE), which were to “give the Government insight into the cost estimating thought 

processes and methodologies” used by offerors in preparing their proposals. Id.

at 0000153. As relevant here, the BOEs were to contain: 
Page 4 B-406292 

Narrative explaining how the estimate of labor hours was developed, 

including: if the estimate was based on similar program(s), in which 

case, identify and provide a brief reason why the programs are similar; 

a standard, in which case, identify the standard and explain if it is from 

the industry, Offeror’s company, or a product; or engineering judgment, 

in which case, explain the philosophies used.

Id. at 0000153. 

Finally, the RFP informed offerors that the agency intended to evaluate proposals 

and award the contract without conducting discussions. Id. at 0000132. In response 

to the RFP, the agency received four proposals, including proposals from L-3 and 

TASC.4

 CO Statement at 12. 

The source evaluation board (SEB) members conducted initial independent 

evaluations of each offeror’s mission suitability proposals, and compiled their 

findings and observations. CO Statement at 13; see AR, Tabs 27 & 28, Initial Findings 

for TASC and L-3. Thereafter, the SEB, as a whole, developed and documented its 

consensus evaluation in a 235-page report that was presented to the source selection 

authority (SSA) during an oral briefing. CO Statement at 14; see AR, Tab 31, SEB 

Presentation to the SSA.

As a result of the SEB’s evaluations, the following point scores and adjectival ratings 

were assigned to the mission suitability proposals submitted by L-3 and TASC:5

 

4

 The other offerors’ proposals, and the agency’s evaluation thereof, are not relevant 

to this protest and are not further discussed. 

5

 NFS § 1815.305(a)(3) provided the adjectival ratings that were to be assigned to 

mission suitability subfactors in the following percentile ranges: 91-100 (Excellent); 

71-90 (Very Good); 51-70 (Good); 31-50 (Fair); and 0-30 (Poor). The evaluators did 

not assign an overall adjectival rating to the mission suitability subfactor, in 

accordance with NFS § 1815.370(h)(2), which provides that an adjectival rating 

“shall not be assigned for the total mission suitability factor of each offeror’s 

proposal” (emphasis in original).
Page 5 B-406292 

TASC L-3 

Technical approach/capability subfactor 

(450 points)

Very Good 

387 points 

Excellent 

410 points 

Management approach subfactor

 (450 points) 

Excellent 

423 points 

Very Good 

382 points 

Small business utilization subfactor 

(100 points)

Excellent 

93 points

Good

67 points

Mission Suitability Factor 903 points 859 points 

AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to SSA, at 0003078. 

In its detailed briefing to the SSA, the SEB discussed the basis for its evaluation

ratings, identifying strengths and weaknesses in each offeror’s proposal under the 

mission suitability subfactors. With regard to the first subfactor, technical 

approach/capability, L-3’s proposal was rated somewhat higher than TASC’s, and 

was assigned one strength and two significant strengths related to its proposed 

development and application of technical reference documentation, its 

understanding of the requirements for research and development, and its project 

closeout procedures. Id. at 00003080-3090. TASC’s proposal, though rated lower 

than L-3’s, was assigned three strengths and one significant strength related to its 

proposal to improve existing NASA IV&V tools and processes, its approach to 

identification of new IV&V methods, its proposed enhancement of the IV&V 

program’s independent test capability, and its training approach. Id. at 00003111-

3124. The SEB also assigned two weaknesses to TASC’s proposal based on the lack 

of detail it provided with regard to technical reference application and its limited 

identification of risks at the project level. Id. at 00003125-3128. 

Under the second subfactor, management approach, TASC’s proposal was rated 

higher than L-3’s, and was assigned five strengths and two significant strengths based 

on its integrated management approach, its proposed transition plan, its staffing 

approach, its proposal to provide a web-based integrated data environment, its 

subcontractor management approach, its approach to attract and maintain a skilled 

and motivated workforce, and its proposed approach regarding conflicts of interest. 

Id. at 00003129-3148. The SEB also assigned a weakness with regard to the 

application of TASC’s quality assurance plan. Id. at 00003149-3151. In contrast, the 

SEB rated L-3’s proposal lower than TASC’s, assigning three strengths and one 

significant strength related to its proposed staffing plan for a qualified workforce, its 

phase-in plan, its associate contractor agreements, and its quality assurance plan. Id.

at 00003091-3104. The SEB also assigned a weakness to L-3’s proposal for failing to 

propose a full-time project manager or to explain why a full-time project manager 

was unnecessary, failing to provide a description of its quality assurance manager’s 

function, and failing to adequately discuss responsibilities for maintaining facilities 
Page 6 B-406292 

baseline documentation in its approach to health and safety planning. Id.

at 0003105-3107. With regard to the project manager, the SEB found that L-3’s 

proposal [deleted] percent of the project manager’s hours to the IV&V project and 

did not explain why a full-time project manager was unnecessary. Id.

Under the third subfactor, small business utilization, TASC’s proposal was rated 

higher than L-3’s, and was assigned two strengths and one significant strength. More 

specifically, TASC’s proposal was credited with a significant strength for 

demonstrating a commitment to small business subcontracting by teaming with ten

small businesses that will be responsible for performing high technology work 

covering all six of the socioeconomic categories in the RFP. Id. at 0003154-55. The 

SEB also assigned a strength for exceeding the government’s recommended goal of 

25 percent total small business subcontracting and 4.5 percent women-owned small 

business concerns by proposing [deleted] percent and [deleted] percent, 

respectively. Id. at 0003155. Finally, the SEB assigned a strength to TASC’s proposal 

for TASC’s high commitment to small business outreach and participation in the 

mentor protégé program, noting that TASC currently has [deleted] active and formal 

mentor protégé relationships in place, in addition to participating in several other 

outreach activities. Id. at 0003156. Under this subfactor, L-3’s lower-rated proposal 

was assigned a single strength for demonstrating a commitment to small business 

subcontracting by teaming with nine small businesses that will be responsible for 

performing high technology work covering all six of the socioeconomic categories in 

the RFP. Id. at 0003109. 

The SEB also conducted the cost evaluation.6

 CO Statement at 17. In performing its 

evaluation the evaluators specifically considered TASC’s proposed staffing levels 

and costs by activity and by project, making both positive and negative observations. 

For example, with regard to the SWAT Support project, the SEB’s initial findings 

note that “[deleted] FTE looks good & reasonable.” Under “Management,” the SEB 

questioned the staffing level, noting “Is this too low?” AR, Tab 27, TASC Initial 

Findings, at 0003041-42. 7

 

In evaluating the cost proposals, the evaluators prepared a labor rate category 

matrix, analyses of proposed labor costs by work breakdown structure (WBS), 

 

6

 The contracting officer noted that resource analyst advisors analyzed the elements 

of cost for years two through five to ensure consistency and appropriate application 

of overhead costs and escalation. CO Statement at 17.

7

The initial findings also contained comparisons of the proposed staffing levels to 

those reflected in the independent government cost estimate (IGCE). Id.

at 0003043-44. During the course of its evaluation, the SEB concluded that the 

agency’s IGCE had overestimated the likely costs, and that it was not a useful tool 

for cost comparisons. CO Statement at 18. 
Page 7 B-406292 

analyses of proposed labor hours by project, and analyses of proposed costs by 

project. AR, Tabs 22-25. In performing its evaluation, the SEB considered whether 

each offeror’s costs were likely to be incurred given its particular approach. 

CO Statement at 17. More specifically, the SEB’s evaluation considered each 

offeror’s proposed labor hours and labor categories, by WBS, as well as other cost 

elements such as overhead and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. Id. at 

18; Tabs 21-25. The evaluators summarized their findings in a 23-page cost 

evaluation report. AR, Tab 21, Cost Evaluation Report. The cost report reflected 

both proposed costs and probable costs for each offeror. With regard to probable 

cost, the report stated that the SEB developed probable costs by “applying 

adjustments to rates using input from DCAA Rate Evaluation and [SEB] analysis.” 

AR, Tab 21, Cost Evaluation Report, at 0002986. The report also establishes that the 

SEB identified and documented risks associated with each Offeror’s estimation 

methodology. Id. 

With regard to L-3, the evaluators adjusted the program manager’s hours upward 

based on its assignment of a weakness to L-3’s mission suitability proposal for failing

to propose a full-time project manager. AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to the SSA, at 

0003181. Downward adjustments were made to [deleted] direct labor rates in L-3’s 

proposal as a result of the DCAA audit report. Id. at 0003178. As a result of these 

adjustments, L-3’s total probable cost was adjusted downward by approximately 

$[deleted] (approximately [deleted] percent of its proposed cost). Id. In its 

consensus report to the SSA, the evaluators noted that “insight into the 

determination of the factors based on engineering judgment is not provided on a 

project-by-project basis” and “lack of insight into the rationale for engineering 

judgment estimates does present cost risk.” Id. at 0003183. 

With regard to TASC, the evaluators found that no adjustments to the proposed costs 

were appropriate. Id. at 0003184. In its consensus report to the SSA, the evaluators 

noted:

Adequate visibility is provided into the scope, assumptions, standard 

IV&V tasking, and the mission understanding (via the assumptions);

however following [deleted] . . . the visibility into [deleted] is 

limited. . . . The use of a [deleted] approach is acceptable; however 

without visibility into the calculation, cost risk is present regarding 

both accuracy and consistency. 

Id. at 0003190.8

 

8

 The SEB’s reference to [deleted] approach to calculating cost is a reference to 

TASC’s [deleted]. In its cost narrative, TASC stated that it uses [deleted] to develop 

tailored project estimates based on [deleted]. AR, Tab 8, TAC Cost Narrative, at 

0001686. TASC’s proposal further stated that, to ensure that the [deleted] led to 

(continued...)
Page 8 B-406292 

Following the SEB’s presentation of its consensus evaluation to the SSA, the SSA 

selected TASC for contract award. In his selection decision, the SSA accepted the 

findings of the SEB and discussed the strengths and weaknesses associated with 

each proposal. AR, Tab 34, Selection Decision, at 0003372-81. The SSA noted 

several aspects of TASC’s proposal that served as discriminators. Among other 

things, the SSA referred to TASC’s management and communication approach, its 

transition plan, and its proposal for small business utilization.9 Id. The SSA further 

noted that, in addition to TASC’s superiority under the non-cost evaluation factors, 

TASC’s proposal offered a significantly lower price than L-3’s proposal. Because 

TASC’s proposal was rated higher under the mission suitability and small business 

plan evaluation factors, and offered significant cost savings, the SSA concluded that

TASC’s proposal represented the best value to the government. Id. at 0003381. 

Thereafter, the SSA awarded the contract to TASC. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

L-3 challenges multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation of both offerors’ cost and 

technical proposals. Although our decision does not individually address each and 

every allegation, we have fully considered all of L-3’s arguments and find no basis to 

sustain its protest. 

Cost Realism Evaluation 

First, L-3 contends that the agency’s cost realism analysis was flawed for a variety of 

reasons. Protest at 15-18; Comments at 7-21. Among other things, L-3 asserts that 

the agency incorrectly accepted TASC’s [deleted] cost estimate; that the agency did 

not and could not determine whether TASC’s proposed costs were realistic; and that 

the SSA was not made aware of the cost risks associated with TASC’s proposal. 

Comments at 9-11, 15-18. 

When an agency evaluates a proposal for the award of a cost-reimbursement 

contract, an offeror’s proposed estimated costs are not dispositive because, 

regardless of the costs proposed, the government is bound to pay the contractor its 

 

(...continued)

realistic costs, it used [deleted] to develop and validate the labor estimate, and used 

[deleted] to calculate and validate [deleted] the effort. Id. TASC’s cost proposal also 

contained over 100 pages of explanation detailing its bases of estimates. See id. at 

0001689-792. 

9

The proposals submitted by L-3 and TASC both received a past performance rating 

of high confidence; therefore, the SSA determined that past performance was not a 

discriminator. AR, Tab 24, Source Selection Decision, at 0003381.
Page 9 B-406292 

actual and allowable costs. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §§15.305(a)(1); 

15.404-1(d); CGI Federal Inc., B-403570 et al., Nov. 5, 2010, 2011 CPD ¶ 32 at 4; 

Tidewater Constr. Corp., B-278360, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 103 at 4. Consequently, 

the agency must perform a cost realism analysis to evaluate the extent to which an 

offeror’s proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed. FAR 

§ 15.404-1(d)(1); Hanford Envtl. Health Found., B-292858.2, B-292858.5, Apr. 7, 2004, 

2004 CPD ¶ 164 at 9. An agency is not required to conduct an in-depth cost analysis, 

see FAR § 15.404-1(c), or to verify each and every item in assessing cost realism; 

rather, the evaluation requires the exercise of informed judgment by the contracting 

agency. Cascade Gen., Inc., B-283872, Jan. 18, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 14 at 8. Because the 

contracting agency is in the best position to make this determination, we review an 

agency’s judgment in this area only to see that the agency’s cost realism evaluation 

was reasonably based and not arbitrary. Hanford Envtl. Health Found., supra at 8-9. 

Here, as discussed above, the contemporaneous evaluation record is contrary to 

L-3’s allegations. Specifically, the record shows that the SEB considered both the 

proposed levels of effort and the proposed rates in both offerors’ proposals. More 

specifically, the SEB examined each offeror’s proposal with regard to labor hours 

and level of effort for each project, expressing concern regarding the proposed level 

of effort for some projects, and agreement with the proposed level for others. See, 

e.g., AR, Tab 22, Analysis of Proposed Labor Costs by Work Breakdown Structure; 

AR, Tab 23, Analysis of Proposed Labor Hours by Project; AR, Tab 24, Analysis of 

Proposed Cost by Project; AR, Tab 25, Labor Rate Category Matrix; AR, Tab 26, 

Miscellaneous Cost Analysis; AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to the SSA, at 0003193 

(analysis of proposed and probable costs excluding five projects that had the 

greatest variance in proposed costs and labor hours). Ultimately, in its consensus 

evaluation, the SEB concluded that TASC’s overall proposed cost was realistic, while 

nonetheless acknowledging that certain elements of its cost proposal created risk. 

AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to the SSA, at 0003190. 

As discussed above, an agency’s cost realism evaluation is not required to establish 

with absolute certainty what a given offeror’s proposal will ultimately cost the 

agency; rather, the evaluation necessarily requires exercise of the agency’s informed 

judgment. See Cascade Gen., Inc., supra. Based on our review of the 

contemporaneous record here, we cannot conclude that the agency’s cost realism 

evaluation was unreasonable. Accordingly, L-3’s assertions challenging that 

evaluation are denied. 

Mission Suitability Evaluation 

With regard to specific issues raised by L-3 concerning unreasonable or unequal 

treatment in the agency’s evaluation of the mission suitability factor, we find that the 

protester’s arguments are primarily based on disagreements with the agency’s 

judgment which provide no basis for sustaining the protest.
Page 10 B-406292 

For example, L-3 contends that the agency acted unreasonably in assigning a 

weakness--rather than a significant weakness--to TASC’s proposal under the 

technical approach/capability subfactor. Protest at 20-23; Comments at 23-26. 

Specifically, the protester argues that TASC’s proposal evidenced a “failure to 

demonstrate an understanding of” technical reference. Protest at 22. Therefore, the 

protester contends that any “reasonable evaluator would be forced to conclude” that 

a significant weakness or deficiency should have been assigned to TASC’s proposal. 

Comments at 26. 

In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office will not 

substitute our (or the protester’s) judgment for that of the agency but, rather, we will 

examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgments were reasonable 

and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement 

statutes and regulations. Concepts & Strategies, Inc., B-405930, Jan. 12, 2012, 2012 

CPD ¶ 47 at 5. In this regard, the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter 

within the agency’s broad discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its 

needs and the best method for accommodating them, U.S. Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, 

Dec. 19, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 218 at 2, and a protester’s mere disagreement with the 

agency’s judgment does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. 

C. Lawrence Constr. Co., Inc., B-287066, Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 70 at 4. 

Here, as discussed above, the SEB assigned a weakness to TASC’s proposal under 

this subfactor for lack of detail regarding the application of the technical reference. 

The SEB stated that TASC’s proposal “lacked sufficient detail” regarding this issue, 

specifying that the proposal contained “sparse information” regarding the utilization 

of the technical reference during the IV&V execution phase and “limited 

information” regarding the practical application within the selected 

projects/activities. AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to the SSA, at 0003125; see also, 

AR, Tab 34, Source Selection Decision, at 0003376 (acknowledging the proposal’s 

lack of detail in this regard). 

We conclude that the evaluators noted the lack of detail in the awardee’s proposal, 

documented their concerns regarding that matter, assigned a weakness to TASC’s 

proposal reflecting those concerns, and relayed the information regarding that 

weakness to the SSA. The SEB’s consensus findings and the source selection 

decision make clear that the evaluators believed this to be a lack of detail, not a 

failure to understand the requirement as the protester claims. Further, the agency 

notes that the shortfall in the amount of detail related to only one tool in the IV&V 

function, during one of the five phases of IV&V projects. AR at 23. Accordingly, the 

agency maintains that the evaluated weakness in TASC’s proposal was not as

significant as the protester contends. On this record, we find no basis to question 

the agency’s assignment of a weakness (rather than a significant weakness) under 

the technical approach/capability subfactor, and L-3’s protest challenging that 

evaluation judgment is denied. 
Page 11 B-406292 

By way of another example regarding the technical approach/capability subfactor, 

the protester argues that TASC’s proposal should have been assessed a significant 

weakness or deficiency, rather than merely a weakness, with regard to identifying 

risks for SPAs. Protest at 22-23; Comments at 26-29. In this regard, L-3 asserts that 

“TASC’s lack of understanding of fundamental and foundational aspects of IV&V 

work demonstrate such a lack of overall competence” that a major proposal revision 

would be required to correct it. Protest at 23. 

The RFP stated that in evaluating offerors’ proposals, the agency would evaluate 

offerors’ overall understanding and approach to meet, among other things, the needs, 

technical difficulties, schedule, resources, and potential risks of the SPAs identified 

in the solicitation. RFP at 0000164. In evaluating the awardee’s proposal, the SEB 

determined that “elements of risk [were] identified; however, the thoroughness of 

the risk identification is not adequate.” AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to SSA, at 

0003128. Therefore, the SEB assigned a weakness to TASC’s proposal under this 

subfactor, which was reported to the SSA and included in the SSA’s best value 

decision. See id.; AR, Tab 34, Source Selection Decision, at 0003376. 

The agency argues, and we agree, that this protest ground expresses mere 

disagreement with the reasoned judgment of the evaluators. The record is clear that 

the evaluators found that TASC’s proposal identified risks, but did not provide 

sufficient detail about those risks. AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to SSA, at 0003128. 

The evaluators judged this to be merely a weakness, and not a significant weakness, 

and we find their conclusions in this regard to be reasonable and supported by the 

record. L-3’s disagreement with this conclusion and attempt to re-characterize the 

weakness as a failure to understand the requirement does not provide a basis for 

sustaining the protest. 

In yet another example, the protester contends that the agency improperly assigned 

a weakness to L-3’s proposal under the management approach subfactor for, among 

other things, proposing a part-time project manager. Protest at 25-26; Comments at 

36-37. As set forth above, the SEB found that L-3’s proposal [deleted] percent of the 

project manager’s hours to the IV&V project and assigned a weakness to the 

protester’s proposal in this regard for failing to propose a full-time project manager 

as required by the solicitation. Although the protester acknowledges that the project 

manager was [deleted] percent, L-3 contends that nothing in its mission suitability 

proposal suggested that the program manager was anything but a full-time position, 

and that the agency should have known, from its experience with L-3 on the prior

contract, that L-3 provides a full-time project manager, but he is only [deleted] 

percent of his time, [deleted]. Protest at 26; Comments at 37. Therefore, L-3 

contends that the agency’s assessment of a weakness was unreasonable. 

The agency argues, and we agree, that the protester’s proposal did not adequately 

explain L-3’s basis for [deleted] percent of the project manager hours to the IV&V 

contract. Although the protester contends that the agency should have known, 

based on prior experience with L-3, that it intended for the project manager to be full 
Page 12 B-406292 

time, we have long held that it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately 

written proposal for the agency to evaluate. Digicon Corp.; Intelligent Decisions, 

Inc., B-406184, et al., Mar. 5, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ __ at 5. We find that the agency 

evaluators, when confronted with information in L-3’s cost proposal that suggested 

that the program manager was not billed at 100 percent, and no explanation for this 

seeming deviation from the solicitation’s requirements, reasonably determined that 

the protester’s proposal failed to comply with the requirement for a full-time project 

manager.10

 Therefore, this protest ground is denied. 

The protester also challenges several aspects of the agency’s evaluation under the 

small business utilization subfactor, arguing that the agency disparately rated the 

proposals. For example, L-3 contends that the agency improperly credited TASC’s 

proposal with a strength for small business outreach, but did not credit L-3 for 

equivalent outreach efforts. Protest at 32. As set forth above, the RFP stated that 

the agency would evaluate offerors’ established or planned procedures and 

organizational structure for small disadvantaged business outreach, assistance, 

participation in the mentor protégé program, and other similar activities. RFP 

at 0000169. 

The agency argues, and we agree, that the evaluators reasonably concluded that the 

proposals submitted by TASC and L-3 were not equivalent in this regard. TASC’s 

proposal received a strength for its high commitment to small business outreach and 

participation in the mentor protégé program, with the SEB noting that TASC has 

[deleted] active and formal mentor protégé relationships in place, in addition to 

several other outreach programs. AR, Tab 31, SEB Presentation to SSA, at 0003156. 

 

10 We find no merit in the protester’s argument that the agency was required to 

consider outside information regarding L-3’s provision of a full-time project manager 

and how it was billed under the predecessor contract. See, Comments at 37. Our 

Office has recognized that, in certain limited circumstances, an agency evaluating an 

offeror’s proposal has an obligation (as opposed to the discretion) to consider 

“outside information” bearing on the offeror’s past performance when it is “too close 

at hand” to require offerors to shoulder the inequities that spring from an agency’s 

failure to obtain and consider the information. See, e.g., International Bus. Sys., Inc., 

B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 114 at 5. The circumstances here do not fall 

under this exception to the general rule that offerors are responsible for submitting 

an adequately written proposal. Unlike a past performance evaluation where an 

offeror often must rely on the submission of information from third parties, here L-3 

was in control of what it included in each section of its proposal and exercised its 

own judgment not to include details expressly showing that it satisfied the RFP’s 

requirement for a full-time project manager. Thus, there was no inequity in the 

agency’s decision to base its evaluation on L-3’s proposal--as written--instead of 

supplementing it with the agency’s understanding of L-3’s performance under the 

prior contract.
Page 13 B-406292 

In contrast, L-3’s protest argued that L-3 had a “pending” mentor protégé 

agreement,11 and [deleted] informal mentor protégé agreements. Protest at 32. L-3 

contends that its other outreach efforts, such as [deleted], demonstrated an equal 

commitment to small business participation. Comments at 45-46; see AR, Tab 11, L3’s Mission Suitability Proposal, at 0002269-70. However, TASC’s proposal also 

included [deleted] activities, in addition to its [deleted] active and formal mentor 

protégé relationships. See AR, Tab 7, TASC Mission Suitability Proposal, at 0001645. 

The agency found that TASC’s proposal better demonstrated its commitment to 

small business outreach, and that it provided supporting details and evidence of its 

commitment. See AR at 87. We find that the agency reasonably concluded that 

TASC’s proposal was superior in this regard.12

Discussions

Finally, L-3 contends that the agency acted unreasonably in not conducting

discussions with the offerors. The protester argues that it is clear from the record 

that each of the offerors and the agency lacked a common understanding of the 

scope of the requirements of this contract. L-3 believes that the differences in 

 

11 The agency notes that after submission of proposals but before award of the 

contract, L-3’s application for approval of its pending mentor protégé agreement was 

denied. AR at 86-87.

12 Under the small business subfactor, the protester also challenges the agency’s 

determination that L-3’s proposal merited only a strength while TASC’s proposal 

merited a significant strength for commitment to small business subcontracting as 

demonstrated by a commitment to team with small businesses that would be 

responsible for performing high technology work. Comments at 38-43. L-3 notes 

that, in its proposal, L-3 committed to team with nine small businesses covering all 

six socioeconomic categories that would be responsible for performing high 

technology work. The protester contends that its proposal was nearly identical in 

this regard to TASC’s proposal to similarly team with ten small businesses. Protest 

at 30-31. Although the protester’s and awardee’s proposals appear to be similar in 

this regard and it is unclear why TASC’s proposal received a significant strength 

while L-3’s proposal was judged to merit only a strength, we find that there is no 

possibility that the protester could have been prejudiced. Our Office will not sustain 

a protest absent a showing of competitive prejudice, that is, unless the protester 

demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have a substantial chance of 

receiving award. Waterfront Technologies, Inc.--Protest & Costs, B-401948.16, 

B-401948.18, June 24, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 123 at 13; McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, 

Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 54 at 3. Here, as discussed above, we find no merit in L-3’s 

other challenges to the agency’s evaluation; accordingly, even if we agreed with L-3 

on this issue, TASC’s proposal would nevertheless still have a higher mission 

suitability rating and lower proposed price than L-3’s proposal. Thus, L-3’s proposal 

would not have a substantial chance of receiving award. 
Page 14 B-406292 

proposed price prove its contention that there were significant differences in the 

offerors’ perceptions of the scope of work. Comments at 4. Therefore, the protester 

argues that the agency should have either amended the RFP to make its expectations 

about each project more clear or conducted discussions with the offerors. Id. at 4-5. 

The contracting officer’s discretion in deciding not to hold discussions is quite 

broad. Trace Sys., Inc., B-404811.4, B-404811.7, June 2, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 116 at 5. 

There are no statutory or regulatory criteria specifying when an agency should or 

should not initiate discussions, and there is also no requirement that an agency 

document its decision not to initiate discussions. Id. As a result, an agency’s 

decision not to initiate discussion is a matter that we generally will not review. Booz 

Allen Hamilton Inc., B-405993, B-405993.2, Jan. 19, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 30 at 13. 

The agency argues, and we agree, that the RFP, coupled with the agency’s responses 

to the 167 questions it had received regarding the RFP, and the fact that both the 

protester and the awardee are incumbents currently performing tasks that are 

substantially similar to the tasks required under the RFP at issue, provided the 

parties involved here with a common understanding of the scope of the contract. 

Further, while the RFP set out a common scope of work, the proposal instructions 

also anticipated that offerors would propose different approaches to achieving the 

desired outcomes. Therefore, we find no basis on which to sustain this protest 

ground.

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel