United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: TAG Mississippi Enterprises, LLC 

File: B-406134

Date: February 13, 2012

Tiffany H. Brown, Esq., for the protester.

Ronald J. Goodeyon, Esq., and Katherine D. Denzel, Esq., Department of the Army, 

for the agency.

Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where 

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

TAG Mississippi Enterprises, LLC of Jackson, Mississippi, protests the award of a 

contract to Terra Construction, Inc., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. W912BV-11-R-0030 issued by the Department of the Army, 

Army Corps of Engineers, for improvements to the flood control levee in Augusta, 

Kansas. TAG contends that the agency’s technical evaluation of its proposal was 

unreasonable and that the resulting award decision was improper.

We deny the protest.

The RFP sought fixed-price proposals for a contractor to perform various services 

including the construction of a new levee section and rehabilitating portions of the 

existing levee along the Whitewater River in Augusta. The RFP provided for award 

to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable proposal, with 

technical acceptability to be evaluated under the following equally-weighted factors: 

(1) experience; (2) personnel; and (3) past performance. RFP amend. 1, at 15-16. 

Failure to receive a rating of technically acceptable under any evaluation factor 

would preclude contract award. Id. 

As it relates to the protest, the RFP set forth various project specifications, which

provided detailed staffing requirements and descriptions of the work to be 
Page 2 B-406134 

performed. The RFP noted, for example, that the selected offeror “shall furnish” a 

contractor quality control (CQC) plan which “shall identify personnel, procedures, 

controls, instructions, test, records, and forms to be used.” RFP § 01 44 00, ¶ 3.2.1,

at 2. In this regard, the RFP established a general organizational framework for the 

CQC plan and identified various personnel such as the CQC system manager who 

“shall be assigned no other duties” other than those described in the project 

specifications, and a safety and health manager who “shall receive direction and 

authority from the CQC System Manager.” Id. ¶ 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, at 4. 

For evaluation under the personnel evaluation factor, the RFP’s proposal

preparation instructions required each offeror to provide

resume data for the following key personnel: Project Manager, Safety 

Officer, Quality Control Manager, Site Superintendent, as applicable to 

this requirement.

Resume information to be provided shall be limited to no more than 

one (1) page per person and shall include the following information as 

a minimum . . .

RFP amend. 1, at 14 (emphasis added). 

The agency received seven proposals, including TAG’s, by the extended closing 

date. The protester’s lowest-priced proposal received the following technical 

evaluation ratings: acceptable for experience; unacceptable for personnel; and 

acceptable for past performance. The evaluators found that the protester’s 

proposal included a resume for a single individual to perform two of the four key 

personnel functions--that of safety officer and quality control manager--in 

contravention of the stated RFP requirements. Since the protester’s proposal was 

determined unacceptable under the personnel evaluation factor, the agency 

eliminated its proposal from further consideration. Award was subsequently made 

to Terra Construction as the offeror with the lowest-priced technically acceptable 

proposal. Agency Report exh. 10, Source Selection Evaluation Board Evaluation 

Report, Contracting Officer’s Statement at 9. Following a debriefing, this protest 

followed. 

Our review of TAG’s proposal indicates that the assignment of an unacceptable 

rating under the personnel evaluation factor was well-founded. While TAG 

acknowledges that the solicitation identified four key personnel positions, the 

protester nevertheless contends that the solicitation did not require submission of a 

single resume for each of the four key personnel positions.1

 1 For the record, we find inexplicable the protester’s argument that the solicitation 

did not require a resume for a CQC system manager. Protester’s Comments at 2. 

 Therefore, in its view, 

(continued...)
Page 3 B-406134 

the agency erred in concluding that TAG’s proposed use of a single individual to fill 

multiple key personnel positions was unacceptable. Protest at 5-6.

In considering a protest of an agency’s proposal evaluation, our review is confined 

to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms 

of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. The Mangi Envtl. Group, 

Inc., B-299721.4, Jan. 24, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 37 at 4. Where, as here, a solicitation 

requires offerors to furnish information necessary to establish compliance with the 

specifications, an agency may reasonably find a proposal that fails to include such 

information technically unacceptable. Douglass Colony/Kenny Solar, JV, B-402649, 

June 17, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 142 at 3. 

Here, TAG’s allegation that the RFP did not require a resume for the safety officer 

position and for the quality control manager position is contrary to the RFP’s plain 

language, which called for a one page “per person” resume for a safety officer, a 

quality control manager, as well as a project manager, and a site superintendent.

RFP amend. 1, at 4. Moreover, when the solicitation is read as a whole, it is clear 

that proposing a single individual for two of the key personnel positions simply 

would not meet the numerous performance requirements. As indicated above, the 

safety and health manager was to receive direction and authority from the CQC 

system manager, who was specifically not to be assigned “other duties”; therefore, it 

is clear that the solicitation contemplated a team of individuals holding distinct key 

personnel positions to perform the solicited work. 

In sum, since TAG failed to comply with the terms of the solicitation which required 

resumes for each key personnel position, we have no basis to question the 

agency’s evaluation finding that the protester’s proposal was unacceptable under 

the personnel evaluation factor. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s 

judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. HDL 

Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 2. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 

(...continued)

Given the specific tasks and responsibilities listed in the RFP’s quality control 

specifications, it is apparent that the term CQC system manager and quality control 

manager are synonymous. It follows that the solicitation did in fact identify the CQC 

system manager, also referred to as the quality control manager, as a key 

personnel position for which offerors were required to submit a resume.