United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: NSR Solutions, Inc.

File: B-406337; B-406337.2

Date: April 18, 2012

Janice Davis, Esq., Davis & Steele, for the protester.

Karen M. Reilley, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the 

agency.

Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the 

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

DIGEST

Protest objecting to exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where 

agency reasonably determined that proposal failed to demonstrate a 

comprehensive understanding of, and sound approach to meeting, solicitation 

requirements, and thus was unacceptable.

DECISION

NSR Solutions, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, protests the exclusion of its proposal 

from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNJ11373245R, 

issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for custodial 

services at three NASA facilities (the Johnson Space Center, Ellington Field, and 

the Sonny Carter Training Facility) in Houston, Texas.1

 The protester argues that 

the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable.

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

The solicitation, which was set aside for Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) 

Zone small businesses, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 

 1 Services to be furnished under the RFP include facilities cleaning, recycling, solid 

waste removal, pest control, hurricane preparation, emergency services, and 

special events.

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-406337, B-406337.2 

45-day phase-in period, 5-month base period, and four 1-year options. The RFP 

provided that proposals would first be evaluated for technical acceptability against 

four subfactors (management approach, labor relations plan and total 

compensation, phase-in plan, and safety/health plan); proposals determined to be 

technically acceptable or potentially acceptable would then be evaluated based on 

past performance and price, and award made to the offeror whose proposal 

represented the best value to the government. The RFP advised that for a proposal 

to be rated as technically acceptable, it had to pass all of the technical acceptability 

subfactors; the solicitation also advised that a rating of unacceptable under any of 

the subfactors would preclude a rating of potentially acceptable.

The protester and several other offerors submitted proposals. An evaluation panel 

evaluated the proposals and assigned the protester’s proposal ratings of 

unacceptable under the management approach, phase-in plan, and safety/health 

plan subfactors and a rating of potentially acceptable under the labor relations and 

total compensation subfactor, leading to an overall technical rating of unacceptable. 

By letter of December 12, 2011, the agency notified the protester that its proposal 

had not been included in the competitive range. NSR timely requested a pre-award 

debriefing, which the agency furnished on January 11, 2012. NSR protested to our 

Office on January 17, challenging the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as 

unacceptable under each of the management approach, phase-in plan, and 

safety/health subfactors.2

DISCUSSION

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the 

contracting agency, and in reviewing protests of an agency’s evaluation, our role is 

limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms 

of the solicitation. CMI Mgmt., Inc., B-402172, B-402172.2, Jan. 26, 2010, 2010 

CPD ¶ 65 at 2. It is well settled that a technically unacceptable proposal cannot be 

considered for award, and thus properly may be excluded from the competitive 

range. TMC Design Corp., B-296194.3, Aug. 10, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 158 at 4. As 

discussed below, the agency reasonably found the protester’s proposal technically 

unacceptable and properly excluded it from the competitive range.

 2 NSR also objects to the composition of the agency evaluation panel, arguing that 

two of the three evaluation team members lacked sufficient technical expertise to 

ensure a comprehensive evaluation of proposals. We dismiss this complaint as 

failing to state a legally sufficient basis for protest. The composition of a technical 

evaluation panel is within the discretion of the contracting agency, and absent 

evidence of bad faith, bias, or conflict of interest, none of which has been alleged, 

let alone shown, here, we will not question the agency’s choice of evaluators. Delta 

Ventures, B-238655, June 25, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 588 at 3.
Page 3 B-406337, B-406337.2 

Regarding the management approach subfactor, the RFP instructed offerors to 

submit a management plan describing, among other things, their organizational

structure; subcontract management approach; plans for scheduling work, allocating 

budgetary resources, and completing tasks; and processes for planning, estimating, 

authorizing, and executing ordered services. The solicitation also instructed that the 

management plan should state whether the proposed project manager would be 

100-percent dedicated to the contract, and, if not, describe how the contract 

requirements would be met in the program manager’s absence.

The evaluation team assigned NSR’s proposal a rating of unacceptable under the 

management approach subfactor, finding that the protester’s management plan was 

“not reasonable and sound” and that it failed to demonstrate a comprehensive 

understanding of the solicitation’s requirements. Technical Acceptability Evaluation 

Worksheet at 1. In this regard, the evaluators found the protester’s description of its 

organizational structure to be internally inconsistent, noting, for example, that NSR 

had indicated in its narrative, but not in its organizational chart, that its project 

manager would report to NSR’s president. Additionally, the evaluators noted that 

NSR’s organizational chart indicated that its supervisors would report to the 

assistant project manager instead of the project manager; it was not clear whether 

the position of CEO in its organizational chart was to be filled by the CEO of the 

prime contractor or the CEO of its major subcontractor; and that NSR identified a 

regional manager in its organizational chart, but furnished no description of the 

position in its narrative.

The panel also questioned the protester’s representation in its proposal that its 

project manager would be 100-percent committed to the contract. In this regard, 

the evaluators noted that NSR’s proposal indicated that the project manager 

position was “staffed for the majority of normal campus hours”, which, according to 

the evaluators, indicated “either a potential ‘figurehead’ position, or someone who 

might be traveling and performing other duties for the Offeror.” Technical 

Acceptability Evaluation Worksheet at 1, citing Protester’s Proposal, Vol. I 

(Management Plan), at 8. The evaluators further found that the protester had failed 

to explain its relationship to its major subcontractor and to describe a unified 

approach to work planning, work authorization, scheduling, and completion of tasks.

The protester disputes these findings, arguing that (1) the failure of its 

organizational chart to depict a connection between the project manager and NSR’s 

president was a minor oversight; (2) there was no inconsistency between its 

narrative, which indicated that its supervisors would report to the project manager, 

and its organizational chart, which showed them reporting to the assistant project 

manager, because the assistant project manager acts for the project manager in his 

absence; (3) it was obvious that the position of CEO in its organizational chart was 

to be filled by the CEO of its principal subcontractor since the organizational chart 

also included the position of “president”, which clearly referred to NSR’s 

president/CEO; and (4) the evaluators relied on an unstated evaluation criterion in 
Page 4 B-406337, B-406337.2 

attributing a weakness to its proposal for its failure to furnish a description of the 

regional manager position given that the solicitation did not require such a 

description.

The protester further argues that there was no basis for the agency to question 

whether its project manager was 100-percent committed to the contract based on 

the statement in its proposal that the position was to be staffed for the majority of 

campus hours. NSR maintains in this connection that this statement merely 

acknowledges the fact that the project manager will perform some job 

responsibilities (such as arranging for vehicle servicing and meeting with union 

representatives) off-site. NSR also argues that the evaluators improperly 

downgraded its proposal for presenting a seamless approach to contract 

management and that it provided information regarding the percentage of work to 

be performed by its subcontractor elsewhere in its proposal. Finally, the protester 

maintains that contrary to the evaluators’ finding, it proposed an integrated 

approach to work scheduling and task completion through the use of [deleted].

Notwithstanding the protester’s arguments to the contrary, the evaluators 

reasonably determined that the protester’s management plan lacked detail and 

contained inconsistencies that rendered it technically unacceptable. In this 

connection, it is the responsibility of the offeror to submit an adequately written 

proposal with sufficient detail to demonstrate an understanding of, and ability to 

meet, solicitation requirements, and proposals that fail to make this showing may 

properly be found unacceptable. Phoenix Mgmt., Inc., B-299477, May 16, 2007, 

2007 CPD ¶ 95 at 6. In our view, the evaluators reasonably concluded that NSR 

failed to explain adequately its intended organizational structure by failing to depict 

two significant reporting relationships (i.e., the project manager’s relationship to 

NSR’s president and the supervisors’ relationship to the project manager) in its 

organizational chart; by failing to make clear whether the CEO identified in its 

organizational chart was the CEO of NSR or its major subcontractor; and by 

including in the organizational chart a position (i.e., regional manager) that it did not 

otherwise address or describe in its proposal. We also conclude that the evaluators 

reasonably questioned the protester’s representation that the project manager 

position was 100-percent committed to the contract given the statement in NSR’s 

proposal that the project manager position would be staffed for a majority of the 

normal campus hours. While the protester has provided an explanation of this 

statement to address any potential confusion, this explanation was not furnished in 

the proposal. 

There is also no merit to the protester’s contention that the agency acted 

unreasonably when it assigned NSR’s proposal a weakness based on its failure to 

describe its relationship to its major subcontractor. The solicitation instructed 

offerors to describe their subcontract management approach, and NSR simply failed 

to do so. While NSR represented that it would subcontract “a portion of the 

services” to its major subcontractor, Protester’s Proposal, Vol. I, at 1, NSR did not 
Page 5 B-406337, B-406337.2 

provide any detail as to which portion of the work would be performed by its major 

subcontractor, as opposed to NSR, or the firms’ respective roles and 

responsibilities. Further, to the extent the protester maintains that it described its 

relationship to its subcontractor in Volume IV (Subcontracting Arrangement) of its 

proposal, the solicitation made clear that the evaluators would not consider this 

information in evaluating offerors’ management approaches for technical 

acceptability. Rather, the RFP established that the subcontractor arrangement 

information was to be used to determine a firm’s eligibility for award. As noted 

above, the competition was limited to HUBZone small businesses; thus, as 

established by the RFP, the agency sought the subcontractor arrangement 

information to assess the need to obtain a formal size determination from the Small 

Business Administration with respect to the apparently successful offeror. RFP at 

M-5. 

Finally, with regard to the protester’s argument that it proposed an integrated 

approach to work scheduling and task completion through the use of [deleted], the 

protester proposed [deleted] for use in two contexts—(1) “emergency custodial 

services, special events, and work associated with [IDIQ] orders,” and (2) as a 

means of communicating with the customer. Protester’s Proposal, Vol. I, at 9 and 

15. There was no representation in NSR’s proposal that [deleted] would be used for 

the planning and scheduling of routine work. Thus, we have no basis to question 

the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation findings regarding this matter. 

In conclusion, we find that the evaluators reasonably determined the protester’s 

proposal unacceptable under the management approach subfactor. Pursuant to the 

terms of the RFP, which provided that a rating of unacceptable under any of the 

technical subfactors would prevent a proposal from being rated as potentially 

acceptable, this resulted in an overall rating of technically unacceptable for NSR’s 

proposal. Accordingly, we need not address NSR’s protest allegation pertaining to 

its ratings under the phase-in plan and safety/health plan subfactors.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel