United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Endeavor Enterprise Solutions, LLC

File: B-407760; B-407760.2; B-407760.3

Date: January 31, 2013

William A. Shook, Esq., and George Matthew Koehl, Esq., William A. Shook, PLLC, 

for the protester.

Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., and Brian F. Wilbourn, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for 

GET-NSA, LLC, the intervenor.

Young H. Cho, Esq., Melissa M. Mortimer, Esq., and Kristopher D. Muse, Esq., 

Department of Energy, for the agency.

Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester’s proposal is denied 

where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 

stated evaluation criteria.

DECISION

Endeavor Enterprise Solutions, LLC, (EES) of Laurel, Maryland, protests the award 

of a contract to GET-NSA, LLC, of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. DE-SOL-0003183, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) 

to obtain information technology infrastructure and support services for its Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, office. EES argues that the agency misevaluated its technical 

proposal.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation, issued on January 18, 2012, as an 8(a) set-aside, anticipated the 

award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with cost-plus-award-fee 

and fixed-price task elements. The contract is for a broad array of support services 

including user services, system engineering and development, infrastructure, and 

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-407760 et al. 

cyber-security, to be performed over a 1-year base period, with up to two 1-year 

option periods. RFP at 1. 

Award was to be made on a best value basis, considering price and three non-price 

evaluation criteria: (1) management approach; (2) key personnel; and (3) corporate 

experience and past performance. Id. at § M.7. The three non-price criteria were 

significantly more important than the evaluated price. Id. at § M.4. 

Management approach--the most important criterion1 and the only one at issue 

here--was comprised of three equally important sub-criteria: (1) organizational 

framework; (2) program and integration; and (3) managing human resources. Id. at 

§ M.7. The RFP included detailed instructions for the contents of proposals, as well 

as detailed evaluation criteria. RFP §§ L.24, M.7. 

The agency received 11 proposals by the closing date of March 1, including those 

from EES and GET-NSA. A source evaluation board (SEB) evaluated proposals 

and assigned consensus point scores and adjectival ratings to each proposal under 

each criterion and sub-criterion. The maximum score available was 1,000 points, 

and the available adjectival ratings were outstanding, good, satisfactory, marginal, 

or unsatisfactory. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 3, SEB Report at 16-19. 

The SEB assigned EES 820 points for its technical, management, and business 

proposal, making it the third highest-rated proposal, with the lowest evaluated price 

of $9,017,588.73. As discussed below, the firm’s lowest scores were under the 

management approach criterion. GET-NSA’s proposal, with 900 points, had an 

evaluated price of $10,612,885.37. AR, Exh. 5, Source Selection Decision at 9-10; 

Agency Legal Memorandum at 6-7. 

The source selection official reviewed and was briefed on the SEB report. After 

conducting a technical/price tradeoff analysis, the source selection official selected 

GET-NSA as the best value offeror. EES filed its protest after its debriefing.

2

 

1 The management approach criterion was worth 60 percent of the value of the 

non-price evaluation criteria; each other criterion was worth 20 percent. Id. 2 EES’ protest also alleged that DOE did not evaluate offers equally. During the 

course of the protest, our Office dismissed this allegation as lacking a valid basis. 

Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(c)(4) and (f) (2012). EES’ initial protest 

did not challenge the evaluation of any other firm’s proposal or any aspect of the 

source selection decision. After it received a redacted version of the source 

selection decision, EES filed a supplemental protest arguing that the tradeoff 

decision had no basis. We dismiss this allegation as lacking a valid basis as well 

since EES did not provide any factual support for its contention. 
Page 3 B-407760 et al. 

DISCUSSION

EES challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the management sub-criteria. 

With respect to the first two sub-criteria, EES contends that its proposal should have 

been rated higher, and received more points, for its strengths. With respect to the 

third sub-criterion, EES argues that the agency should not have identified a feature 

of its proposal as a weakness.

 

The essence of an agency’s evaluation is reflected in the evaluation record itself, 

not the adjectival ratings. Stateside Assocs., Inc., B-400670.2, B-400670.3, May 

28, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 120 at 8. It is well established that ratings, be they 

numerical, adjectival, or color, are merely guides for intelligent decision making in 

the procurement process. Burchick Constr. Co., B-400342.3, Apr. 20, 2009, 2009 

CPD ¶ 102 at 4-5. There is no legal requirement that an agency must award the 

highest possible rating, or the maximum point score, under an evaluation factor 

simply because the proposal contains strengths and/or is not evaluated as having

any weaknesses. See Applied Tech. Sys., Inc., B-404267, B-404267.2, Jan. 25, 

2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 36 at 9. Thus, in reviewing protests challenging the evaluation 

of proposals, we do not conduct a new evaluation or substitute our judgment for that 

of the agency but examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment 

was reasonable and in accord with the RFP evaluation criteria. Abt Assocs., Inc., 

B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. In this case, our review of the 

record affords us no basis to find the evaluation of EES’ proposal unreasonable. 

Under the organizational framework sub-criterion, the solicitation read as follows: 

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s 

organizational elements and staff are structured to efficiently and 

effectively meet the requirements of the [performance work statement 

(PWS)]. It will include evaluating the extent to which the offeror 

demonstrates an integrated corporate, program, project, and business 

configuration.

If the offeror is proposing a teaming arrangement as defined in 48 

C.F.R. 9.601, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the 

offeror can demonstrate a clear and concise delineation of each 

organization’s authorities, roles, responsibilities, and involvement in 

managing the contract, performance, and business work functions, 

and interactions in a seamless operation.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s plan for 

transition of the work and the workforce provides for an effective and 

efficient transition of contract responsibilities while minimizing impacts 

on the continuity of operations.
Page 4 B-407760 et al. 

RFP § M.7.

The SEB rated EES’ proposal “satisfactory” under this sub-criterion, with 100 of the 

200 available points. AR, Exh. 3, SEB Report at 38. The SEB identified one 

strength, associated with the EES transition plan, finding that it provided a “nominal 

benefit” to the government. The SEB found that this aspect of the proposal 

increased the probability of successful contract performance because the plan 

afforded an efficient and effective transition of contract responsibilities and 

minimized impacts on continuity of operations. Id. The source selection official 

concurred with the SEB’s evaluation. AR, Exh. 5, Source Selection Decision at 12.

EES argues that this strength offers more than a “nominal benefit,” and, as a result, 

its proposal should have been rated “good” and received at least 60 additional 

points. Comments at 3-4. In support of its contention, EES asserts that a strong 

transition plan was one of only two equally important areas to be considered under 

the sub-criterion. We disagree. 

As an initial matter, the solicitation did not establish that the transition plan element, 

which comprised one of the three paragraphs of information to be evaluated under 

the sub-criterion, was of equal importance to the other areas discussed. For 

example, EES does not explain, nor is it otherwise apparent, how a strong transition 

plan was of equal importance when compared to the assessment of an offeror’s 

ability to meet the requirements of the performance work statement over the life of 

the contract. Moreover, the relative importance of transition under the 

organizational framework sub-criterion is beside the point. Of significance is the 

fact that after considering the strength associated with EES’s proposed transition 

plan, the SSA concluded that it provided only a “nominal benefit”--a “good” rating 

was to be assigned where, among other things, a proposal presented “one or more 

significant strengths or strength(s) that will provide notable benefit to the 

Government.” AR, Exh. 3, SEB Report at 17-18 (emphasis added). While EES 

ultimately disagrees with the agency’s conclusion in this regard, it has given us no 

reason to find it unreasonable. 

Under the program and integration sub-criterion, the solicitation provided for DOE to 

evaluate the offeror’s approach to accomplish the requirements of the performance 

work statement; the offeror’s ability to perform in a customer-focused and timely 

manner while integrating safety, quality assurance, and security; the offeror’s 

approach to augmenting staff; and the offeror’s staffing plan. RFP § M.7.

The SEB rated EES’ proposal “good” here, with 160 of the 200 available points. 

The SEB identified three strengths that were found to provide “notable benefit” to 

the government. These strengths were associated with: (1) EES’ commitment to 

integrating quality assurance, safety, and security into its performance of the work; 

(2) the firm’s approach of integrating the management of the work with the financial 

management, accounting and reporting functions; and (3) the firm’s approach for 
Page 5 B-407760 et al. 

managing staff. AR, Exh. 3, SEB Report at 39-40. The source selection official 

concurred with the SEB’s evaluation. AR, Exh. 5, Source Selection Decision at 13.

Citing the definitions for the adjectival ratings set forth in the SEB report, EES 

argues that its proposal should have been rated “outstanding” and should have 

received 200 points. EES fails to appreciate that the essence of an agency’s 

evaluation is reflected in the evaluation record itself, not in adjectival ratings or point 

scores. Stateside Assocs., Inc., supra. 

First, as noted above, there is no legal requirement that an agency must award the 

highest possible rating, or the maximum point score, under an evaluation factor 

simply because the proposal contains strengths and/or is not evaluated as having 

any weaknesses. See Applied Tech. Sys., Inc., supra. Thus, the mere fact that 

EES’ proposal was evaluated as having three strengths here does not dictate that it 

receive the highest ratings. Second, an “outstanding” rating was to be assigned to 

a proposal that, among other things, “[p]resents significant strength(s) and/or 

numerous strengths that significantly benefit the Government, and demonstrates 

no weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies.”3 AR, Exh. 3, SEB Report 

at 17-18 (emphasis added). Again, the fact that EES disagrees with the SEB’s 

finding that its strengths offered a “notable benefit,” and not a “significant benefit,” 

does not render the SEB’s conclusion unreasonable. 

Finally, under the managing human resources sub-criterion, the government was to 

evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated ability to develop and administer a 

comprehensive human resources management program, as well as its approach to 

expeditiously fill vacancies, supplement personnel to respond to program funding 

changes, and provide continued service for each of the areas identified in the 

performance work statement without lapses in support during absences or 

vacancies. RFP § M.7. 

The SEB rated EES’ proposal “good” here, and assigned it 160 of 200 available 

points. The SEB identified one strength concerning EES’ compensation system and 

process for addressing employee concerns which it thought provided “notable 

benefit” to the government. AR, Exh. 3, SEB Report at 40. The SEB also identified 

a weakness in that the proposal did not suitably discuss labor laws that apply to 

human resources issues. As a result of this omission, the SEB found that the 

proposal did not demonstrate the offeror’s ability to develop and administer a 

 

3 As noted above, a “good” rating was to be assigned to a proposal that, among 

other things, presented “one or more significant strengths or strength(s) that will 

provide notable benefit to the Government and more than offset any weaknesses 

and/or significant weaknesses demonstrated.” AR, Exh. 3, SEB Report at 17-18 

(emphasis added).
Page 6 B-407760 et al. 

comprehensive human resource management program. Id. In this regard, in the 

instructions for proposal submission, the RFP required offerors to, among other 

things, “discuss labor laws that apply to human resources issues.” RFP § L.24(b). 

The SEB ultimately concluded, however, that the EES strength “more than offset” its 

weakness. AR, Exh. 3, SEB Report at 40.

In challenging the agency’s evaluation, EES argues that its proposal clearly 

discussed the relevant labor laws, citing to a particular section of its proposal 

wherein the proposal indicates that EES understands and complies with all federal 

and state labor laws, and lists a few examples of those laws.4 Protest at 6-7; AR, 

Exh. 2, EES Proposal at § 2.1.26.2. This section of EES’ proposal, however, 

merely confirms the agency’s view that EES provided a partial listing of applicable 

labor laws, and that it did not include a specific discussion of the labor laws that 

apply to human resources issues as required by the RFP. 

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel

 

4 EES complains that the requirement to discuss these labor laws was not in section 

M of the RFP. However, the instructions in section L of the RFP clearly put offerors 

on notice that, in evaluating an offeror’s ability to develop and administer a 

comprehensive human resources management program, one thing it would 

consider was a discussion of these labor laws.