United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Glenn Defense Marine-Asia PTE, Ltd.

File: B-402687.6; B-402687.7

Date: October 13, 2011

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

Knight LLP, for the protester.

Walter A.I. Wilson, Esq., Daniel J. Donohue, Esq., Sarah M. Graves, Esq., and 

Claude P. Goddard, Jr., Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for Multinational Logistics 

Services Ltd., the intervenor.

Mark W. Golden, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protest challenging agency’s technical and past performance evaluation of 

proposals is denied where agency’s evaluation was reasonable and supported by 

the record.

DECISION

Glenn Defense Marine-Asia PTE, Ltd., (GDMA) of Singapore, protests the award of 

a contract by the Department of the Navy, to Multinational Logistics Services Ltd., 

(MLS), of Malta, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62649-09-R-0041 for 

maritime husbanding support to United States Navy and other ships visiting ports in 

South Asia, including services in support of Operations Other Than War (OOTW). 

The protester challenges the evaluation of the proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on November 3, 2009, contemplates the award of four separate 

fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for a base year, 

with four 1-year options. The solicitation was issued to cover the following four 

regions within the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean: South Asia, Southeast Asia, 

Australia and the Pacific Islands, and East Asia. Offerors were required to submit a 

separate proposal for each region in which they were interested. The RFP 

contemplated four awards, one for each region. RFP at 3. 

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-402687.6, B-402687.7

The award under the South Asia region is the subject of this protest. This region 

includes seven countries and four major ports: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, India, 

Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Three of the four major ports are in India (Chennai, 

Goa, Mumbai) and the fourth major port is in Maldives (Male). Id.

The RFP provided that the contract would be awarded on a best-value basis, 

considering, in descending order of importance, the factors of technical approach, 

past performance and price; the non-price factors, combined, were deemed to be 

significantly more important than price. RFP at 162. The solicitation described the 

evaluation of technical approach as follows:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Approach based 

on the offeror’s understanding of what is required by the proposed 

contract, including the level of risk associated with the proposal. 

Technical Approach will be comprised of three parts: Understanding 

the Requirement; Management Approach; and Quality Assurance. 

Under the Technical Approach factor, each of the parts to be reviewed 

will be given equal consideration. Within each part, the elements 

making up the part will be given equal consideration. Equal 

consideration means equal importance. 

Id. The solicitation required that offerors describe their technical approach in two 

separate parts. Offerors were required to provide an oral presentation addressing 

their understanding of the requirement, purchasing process, and port cost 

management/customer service practices. RFP at 156-158. Offerors were also 

required to submit written information with their proposals that further described their 

technical approach. The solicitation advised offerors to address in their written 

submissions their understanding of the requirement, including a description of key 

activities, work processes, major challenges, management approach, and quality 

assurance process. RFP at 159. 

With regard to past performance, the solicitation required offerors to submit a Past 

Performance Matrix. The solicitation stated in this regard:

The Offeror’s Past Performance Matrix shall list and describe all 

directly related or similar Government or commercial contracts or 

subcontracts currently being performed, or completed in the past three 

years which are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to that 

which is detailed in this solicitation. 

RFP at 160. The four equally-weighted areas that would be evaluated under this 

factor were: level of capability, efficiency, and effectiveness in providing service; 

conformance to the terms and conditions of the contract; level of reasonableness 
Page 3 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

and cooperation; and level of commitment to good customer service. RFP at 162. 

The solicitation required that each offeror provide information concerning the 

subcontractors that it intended to use; the past performance of subcontractors was 

to be considered with the past performance of the offeror. RFP at 160. The 

solicitation also stated that the offeror must provide Past Performance Reference 

Sheets with contact information for at least three of the listed customers. Id. The 

solicitation provided notice that the government reserved the right to obtain 

information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any or all sources, 

including sources outside the government. Id.

The solicitation also required that each offeror submit a security plan. This plan 

covered three areas: protection of ship schedule information, security screening of 

contractor and subcontractor employees, and contractor/subcontractor identification. 

RFP at 161. The security plan was to be rated as acceptable or unacceptable. RFP 

at 162.

The total evaluated price was calculated by applying the offerors’ proposed unit 

prices for “targeted lots” to a sample of logistical requirements based upon historical 

port visit data for those “targeted lots.”

Four offerors, including GDMA and MLS, responded to the South Asia section of the 

solicitation. Only GDMA’s and MLS’s proposals were included in the competitive 

range. After discussions were conducted and final proposal revisions received, the 

proposals of GDMA and MLS were evaluated as follows:1

Offeror

Evaluated 

Price Technical`

Past 

Performance Security Plan

GDMA $1,548,200 Better

Less Than 

Satisfactory Acceptable

MLS $2,537,414 Better Better Acceptable

AR, Tab 8, Post Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, at 6. 

 1 The source selection plan provided that the following adjectival ratings would be 

used in evaluating the technical approach of each offeror: outstanding, better, 

acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8a, attach. 2, 

Source Selection Plan, at 6-7. The source selection plan also stated that the 

following adjectival ratings would be used by the past performance evaluation team 

(PPET): outstanding [very low performance risk], better [low performance risk], 

satisfactory [moderate performance risk], less than satisfactory [high performance 

risk], and neutral. Id. at 9-10.
Page 4 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

The technical evaluation board identified numerous strengths and major strengths 

that supported each proposal’s “better” rating under the technical approach factor. 

Id. at 7-8. When comparing the technical approaches of MLS and GDMA, the 

agency noted that many of the strengths for the two offerors were similar in nature 

regarding the understanding of the requirements, subcontractor control, support of 

OOTW, and quality assurance. Id. at 16. The “major differing strength” for GDMA 

was its “investment in a substantial amount of assets that can be readily deployed to 

the region, providing significant capability to support visits with minimal 

infrastructure.” Id. A major differing strength for MLS was its “robust information 

systems and port cost management systems, which should facilitate increased 

transparency of prices being paid by the Government beyond the minimum contract 

requirements.” Id. Based on his analysis of the foregoing, the contracting officer 

determined that the proposals of GDMA and MLS were technically equal. Id. at 17.

The PPET found significant differences between the past performance of the two 

proposals, which it documented in some detail. GDMA was rated as less than 

satisfactory due to “past performance issues regarding responsiveness to 

Government inquiries, late and/or incomplete pre-port visit cost estimates, lack of 

transparency into prices that were not pre-priced in the contract and communication 

difficulties.” Id. at 17. In contrast, MLS had no such reported problems in its past 

performance, and was found to have been responsive with solutions and to have 

provided a very high level of customer service. Id. The agency’s tradeoff analysis 

explained in detail why it considered GDMA a “high” performance risk, why this risk 

would be harmful to the government, and why the agency has a high degree of 

confidence in MLS with regard to the same performance areas. Id. at 18-19. The 

agency thus determined that MLS’s proposal offered the best value to the 

government and that the evaluated benefits of MLS’s proposal merited the additional 

cost. Id. at 19. The agency made award to that firm and this protest followed. 

The protester has attacked virtually every aspect of the technical and past 

performance evaluations. We have reviewed all of the protester’s arguments 

regarding the propriety of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s 

proposals and the source selection, and have found none that provide a basis to 

sustain GDMA’s protest. We discuss some examples below.

Technical Evaluation

GDMA contends that the agency could not reasonably have rated its and MLS’s 

proposal technically equal under the technical approach factor, and should have 

rated GDMA’s proposal superior. For example, GDMA argues that certain strengths 

were improperly attributed to MLS’s proposal, while GDMA was not given strengths 

for similar responses or strengths that were otherwise warranted. 
Page 5 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

The evaluation of proposals, including the determination of the relative merits of 

proposals, is primarily 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. Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-260289, B-260490, May 24, 

1995, 95-1 CPD ¶ 261 at 3. In reviewing an agency’s evaluation, we will not 

reevaluate the proposals or make a new source selection, but rather will examine 

the record of the evaluation and source selection to ensure that they were 

reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria as well as with 

procurement law and regulation. Id. A protester’s mere disagreement with a 

procuring agency’s judgment is insufficient to establish that the agency acted 

unreasonably. See Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 2000, 

2000 CPD ¶ 129 at 5.

For example, the protester argues that MLS’s proposal was improperly assigned a 

“major strength” for having “strong OPSEC [operational security] understanding and 

processes.” See id. at 8. GDMA contends that this strength was improperly 

assigned because security plans were to be evaluated as either “acceptable” or 

“unacceptable” under the terms of the RFP. See RFP at 162. GDMA also argues 

that had its security plans been evaluated by the TEB and assigned an adjectival 

rating, then it too would have been entitled to a “major strength” in this area. 

Protester’s Supp. Comments at 11. 

The agency explains that the designation of this feature of MLS’s proposal as a 

major strength was based on features described in MLS’s technical approach 

proposal, rather than from an evaluation of MLS’s security plan. In this regard, the 

RFP expressly invited the offerors to describe key activities to meet the 

Government’s needs and to identify major challenges/problems. RFP at 159. 

MLS’s technical proposal identified [deleted]. See

 

AR, Tab 3a, MLS Proposal, 

Technical Approach, at 8. The technical evaluation board identified this policy as a 

strength in MLS’s technical approach. AR, Tab 5b, Final Technical Evaluation Board 

Report on MLS’s Proposal, at 10. 

MLS’s technical proposal also identified four major challenges in performing the 

contract. One of the challenges identified and discussed involved [deleted]. In 

discussing this challenge, MLS stated:

[deleted]

AR, Tab 3a, MLS Proposal, Technical Approach, at 18. The Technical Evaluation 

Board identified MLS’s proposed solutions to the force protection challenges as a 

strength. AR, Tab 5b, Final Technical Evaluation Board Report on MLS’s Proposal, 

at 10. 
Page 6 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

Thus, the record shows that the two strengths involving operational security were 

derived from information in MLS’s technical proposal, rather than from an evaluation 

of MLS’s security plan. These strengths were rolled up into a major strength in the 

Post Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum: “[s]trong OPSEC 

understanding and processes.” AR, Tab 8, Post Business Clearance Memorandum, 

at 8. Based on our review, we find the assignment of this major strength to MLS’s 

proposal was reasonable and consistent with the RFP’s evaluation scheme.2 

Another major strength in MLS’s proposal contested by GDMA was its [deleted]. 

See id. The technical evaluation board summarized this strength as follows: 

[deleted]

AR, Tab 5b, Final Technical Evaluation Board Report on MLS’s Proposal, at 12. 

GDMA states that its proposal also described its process for integrating with other 

providers yet received no major strength.

The agency responds that MLS’s proposal was given a major strength in this area 

because it not only described its process for [deleted], but explained that it would, 

among other things, [deleted]. See AR, Tab 3a, MLS Proposal, Technical Approach, 

at 33. The agency notes in this regard that port access for other U.S. Government 

service providers has been a continuing issue at several ports in the Western Pacific 

and Indian Ocean. Supp. AR at 4. While GDMA suggests that crediting MLS with 

this strength is somehow inconsistent with the RFP, we find the agency’s evaluation 

in this area to be reasonable and consistent with the RFP’s request that offerors 

[deleted]. RFP at 159.

MLS was also assigned the following major strength, “[s]trong port cost management 

processes supported by an information system.” AR, Tab 8, Post Business 

Clearance Memorandum, at 8. The technical evaluation board explained this 

strength as follows: “Sound port cost management. Established software that is fully 

compatible with US Navy’s CRAFT and LogSSR.” AR, Tab 5b, Final Technical 

Evaluation Board Report on MLS’s Proposal, at 14. GDMA contends that the 

agency improperly assigned MLS’s proposal a major strength in this area, and notes 

that GDMA’s proposal, which contained similar information, did not receive a 

significant strength. 

 2 We also note that GDMA received the major strength, “[s]trong understanding of 

force protection requirements.” AR, Tab 8, Post Negotiation Business Clearance 

Memorandum, at 7. Thus, GDMA would not be prejudiced even if the assignment of 

the major strengths related to force protection was not consistent with the RFP.
Page 7 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

MLS’s technical proposal explained that its information system provides [deleted]. 

AR, Tab 3a, MLS Proposal, Technical Approach, at 44. The agency notes, and our 

review confirms, that there was no indication in GDMA’s technical proposal that its 

information system was designed or available to be used by the contracting officer or 

other Navy users for such [deleted]. Supp. AR at 6. We find no reason to question 

the agency’s determination that MLS’s proposal warranted a major strength here. 

As illustrated by the foregoing examples, we find the agency’s evaluation of the 

proposals as technically equal was reasonable.

Past Performance

As noted, the key discriminator in the source selection decision was GDMA’s “less 

than satisfactory” past performance as compared to MLS’s “better” past 

performance. The protester challenges the evaluation of GDMA’s and MLS’s past 

performance. 

The evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, including the agency’s 

determination of the relevance and scope of an offeror’s performance history, is a 

matter of agency discretion, which we will not find improper unless unless it is 

inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. National Beef Packing Co., 

B-296534, Sept. 1, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 168 at 4. The evaluation of experience and 

past performance, by its very nature, is subjective; we will not substitute our 

judgment for reasonably based evaluation ratings, and an offeror’s mere 

disagreement with an agency’s evaluation judgments does not demonstrate that 

those judgments are unreasonable. MFM Lamey Group, LLC, B-402377, Mar. 25, 

2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 81 at 10. 

The protester notes that the PPET initially found GDMA’s past performance to be 

satisfactory, based upon a review of the questionnaires returned by each reference; 

the PPET then changed GDMA’s rating to “less than satisfactory” after the Initial 

Business Clearance Memorandum (reflecting the initial satisfactory rating) was 

presented to the Contract Review Board (CRB). Protester’s Comments at 44-49. 

The protester characterizes the CRB’s involvement as “an instruction from on high,” 

and suggests that the PPET may have updated its overall rating under pressure and 

without a valid basis. Protester’s Comments at 66. 

The agency responds that the purpose of the CRB is to provide an independent 

review of the acquisition and to highlight areas that are inconsistent, or otherwise of 

concern. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 24. The agency provided a declaration 

by a member of the CRB which stated the following:

After reviewing the reported past performance information on which the 

[PPET] had made its decision, I was concerned that the Business 
Page 8 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

Clearance package didn’t provide sufficient documentation to justify 

the “Satisfactory” past performance rating assigned to GDMA.

Supp. AR, Declaration of CRB Member, at 1. In this regard, the CRB noted that 

several specific performance concerns had been expressed regarding the only 

contract that the PPET viewed as highly relevant; much of the PPET evaluation 

turned on these concerns. The CRB member explained that the panel wanted to 

ensure that those concerns had been properly considered in the evaluation. Id. 

Responding to the CRB’s guidance, the PPET again reviewed the past performance 

information, and determined that GDMA’s overall past performance rating should be 

“less than satisfactory.” AR, Tab 6c, Final PPET Report for GDMA, at 7. This report 

detailed the reasons why this rating was warranted. The agency provided a 

declaration by a member of the PPET, who addressed the CRB interactions as 

follows:

While the PPET was asked on two separate occasions to review the 

“Satisfactory” rating that had been initially assigned to GDMA’s past 

performance, I did not feel I was being pressured to amend the PPET 

rating from “Satisfactory” to “Less than Satisfactory.” Rather, I 

understood that the PPET was being asked to look at the past 

performance information to confirm whether the evaluation was 

appropriate.

Supp. AR, Declaration of PPET Chairman, at 1-2. Thus, there is no evidence that 

the CRB directed the PPET to a particular outcome; rather it asked the PPET to 

ensure that its satisfactory rating was supported by the underlying past performance 

information. 

This type of review by higher-level agency officials is entirely appropriate. Source 

selection officials and higher-level agency evaluators may reasonably disagree with 

the evaluation ratings and results of lower-level evaluators. See, e.g., Verify, Inc.,

B-244401.2, Jan. 24, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 107 at 6-8. In this regard, a source 

selection official has broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which 

technical and cost evaluation results are used, is permitted to make an independent 

evaluation of offerors’ proposals, and may disagree with or expand upon the findings 

of lower-level evaluators provided the basis for the evaluation is reasonable and 

documented in the contemporaneous record. KPMG Consulting LLP

2002 CPD ¶ 196 at 13-14;

, B-290716, 

B-290716.2, Sept. 23, 2002, Brisk Waterproofing Co., 

Inc., B-276247, May 27, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 195 at 2 n.1. The issue is not whether 

the agency’s final assessments are consistent with earlier assessments, but whether 

they reasonably reflect the relative merits of the proposals, consistent with the 

solicitation. Sig Sauer, Inc., B-402339.3, July 23, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 184 at 6.
Page 9 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

While GDMA contends that its past performance rating should have been better than 

the “Less than Satisfactory” rating it ultimately received, we note that GDMA does 

not disagree with many of the negative remarks regarding its past performance. 

Protester’s Supp. Comments at 65. Rather, GDMA primarily disagrees with the 

weight those negative remarks were given by the PPET. However, GDMA’s 

disagreement with the weight accorded to its past performance problems does not 

mean that they were improperly evaluated. Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, 

Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 70 at 3. Absent a showing of why the conclusions were 

unreasonable, we have no basis to conclude that the agency evaluated GDMA’s 

past performance in a manner inconsistent with the RFP’s evaluation scheme. 

The protester also questions the agency’s evaluation of MLS’s past performance. In 

particular, GDMA questions the determination by the PPET that the past 

performance references of MLS’s subcontractors were for “highly relevant” contracts 

because none of the referenced contracts were for military vessels. 3

 According to 

the protester this is important because military vessels have unique requirements, 

such as submarine husbanding services and force protection requirements. 

Protester’s Supp. Comments at 13. 

We first note that the record shows that the past performance of MLS’s 

subcontractors were for husbanding services at many of the same ports as those 

covered by this contract. In addition, the services performed by the subcontractors 

were for a variety of sizes of vessels that spend the majority of their useful life 

traveling from port to port rather than remaining berthed at a home location. As 

here, the subcontractors had to provide services on short notice, and be prepared 

for frequent ship schedule changes. The subcontractors also had to have flexibility 

and be able to provide varying services depending on the type of ship that comes 

into port. Supp. AR at 19. 

In addition, while the PPET noted that MLS had “moderately relevant” contracts, and 

MLS’s subcontractors had performed “highly relevant” contracts, the rest of the 

PPET report discussed the consistently positive past performance of MLS and its 

subcontractors without further discussion of the relevance of that past performance.4

 3 In contrast to MLS’s subcontractors, the PPET found that the contracts for MLS 

itself were only “moderate[ly] relevant.” AR, Tab 7c, Final PPET Report on MLS 

Past Performance, at 11.

 

AR, Tab 7c, Final PPET Report for MLS, at 35-36. Moreover, the Post Business 

Clearance Memorandum, which documented the source selection, did not make any 

4 We note that MLS’s past performance did not receive the highest possible past 

performance rating of outstanding, despite the consistently positive past 

performance references.
Page 10 B-402687.6, B-402687.7

specific reference to the relevance of the contracts of MLS and its subcontracts, but 

focused on the consistently positive past performance information obtained from the 

references. AR, Tab 8, Post Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, at 

10-11. In our view, the Navy reasonably concluded that MLS’s past performance

offered a clear advantage over the past performance of GDMA, and the Navy 

reasonably documented its decision to select MLS over GDMA for this reason. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel