United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: The Kenjya Group, Inc.; Academy Solutions Group, LLC

File: B-406314; B-406314.2

Date: April 11, 2012

Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and Nooree Lee, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, and Paul S. Thaler, 

Esq., Thaler Liebeler LLP, for The Kenjya Group, Inc.; Mary B. Tung, Esq., and 

Steven J. Lewicky, Esq., Davis, Agnor, Rapaport & Skalny, LLC, and Daniel S. 

Koch, Esq., and Emily A. Higgs, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Academy 

Solutions Group, LLC, the protesters.

Sean M. Costello, Esq. and Anne C. Tinoco, Esq., Maryland Procurement Office, 

National Security Agency, for the agency.

Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected the protesters’ proposals as technically unacceptable in 

accordance with the terms of the solicitation where the agency reasonably 

concluded that the proposals failed to offer a program manager who satisfied the 

experience requirements of the solicitation. 

DECISION

The Kenjya Group, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland, and Academy Solutions Group, 

LLC, of Columbia, Maryland, protest the award of a contract to Advantage 

Engineering & IT Solutions, Inc., of Eldersburg, Maryland, by the Maryland 

Procurement Office, National Security Agency (NSA) under request for proposals 

(RFP) No. H98230-11-R-2032 for enterprise management and support (EM&S) 

services at Fort Meade, Maryland. The protesters allege that the agency 

unreasonably rejected their proposals as technically unacceptable.

We deny the protests.

The RFP was issued on September 12, 2011, as a service-disabled veteran-owned 

small business set-aside. The solicited services support the agency’s EM&S 

Information Technology Requirements and Assessments office (DC08) and provide 

engineering resources in support of informational technology (IT) requirements 

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-406314; B-406314.2

management; architecture and business process analysis; technical support; and 

development of functional requirements documents initiatives. RFP at 1. 

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price level-of-effort contract. Award was 

to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, considering price 

and three non-price factors--management (which had two subfactors, program 

management approach and personnel), technical approach, and past performance.1 

RFP, Evaluation Criteria, at 1. In order to be considered for an award, an offeror 

was required to receive acceptable ratings under all factors and subfactors. RFP, 

Evaluation Criteria, at 1, 5.

The RFP provided detailed instructions for the submission of proposals. As relevant 

here, the RFP required offerors to provide eight resumes representing each 

candidate proposed to fulfill the three labor categories for this contract: program 

manager/senior systems engineer, which was designated as a key category; senior 

systems engineer; and systems engineer. RFP, Initial Statement of Work (SOW), 

app. A, at 13-16. The RFP required that each resume detail the candidate’s skill 

level, applicable experience, and level of security clearance, and anticipated their 

evaluation under the personnel subfactor of the management factor. RFP, Proposal 

Preparation Instructions, at 5. The RFP also cautioned that the resumes should 

demonstrate that the individuals proposed satisfy the minimum requirements of each 

labor category, and the performance requirements as identified in the SOW. Id.

As relevant here, the initial SOW required that the program manager/senior systems 

engineer “have a background of 5 years documented Program Management in a 

business environment designing and integrating information technology based 

solutions.” Id. at 14. Similarly, the initial SOW required that senior systems 

engineers “have a background in a business environment designing and integrating 

information technology based solutions.” Id. at 15.

By the October 19 closing date, the agency received proposals from Kenjya, 

Academy, and Advantage. The agency found all three proposals technically 

unacceptable because several of the resumes provided by each offeror failed to 

demonstrate compliance with the labor category requirements of the SOW.

With regard to Kenjya, the agency found that “[o]nly two proposed [senior systems 

engineers] qualify under [the] minimum SOW experience requirements” and the 

“proposed [program manager] does not

 1 The management and technical factors and subfactors were rated on an 

acceptable or unacceptable basis. The past performance factor was rated on an 

acceptable, neutral, or unacceptable basis. 

have the required 5 years documented 

Program [Management] in a business environment.” Kenjya AR, Tab 7, Discussion 
Page 3 B-406314; B-406314.2

Letter (Nov. 2, 2011), at 3. The discussion letter identified the specific reasons for 

its evaluation of each resume submitted by Kenjya. Id.

With regard to Academy, the agency found that “[o]nly one proposed [senior 

systems engineer] qualifies under the minimum SOW experience requirements],” 

and the “proposed [program manager] does not have the required 5 years 

documented Program [Management] in a business environment.” Academy AR, 

Tab 7, Discussion Letter (Nov. 2, 2011), at 3. Here too, the discussion letter 

identified the specific reasons for its evaluation of the resumes. Id.

Given its receipt of three unacceptable proposals, the agency decided to amend the 

RFP to emphasize the need for experience in a business environment, and to 

indicate that a background in program management or IT systems development 

alone would not be sufficient to meet the SOW’s requirements for the proposed 

program manager/senior systems engineer labor category. See Kenjya Contracting 

Officer (CO) Statement, at 8; Academy CO Statement, at 8. Consequently, the 

agency issued an amendment to the RFP to add several new requirements to the 

SOW relating to the labor categories. The discussion letters amplified these 

changes by explaining that the SOW requires knowledge of business systems rules, 

processes, policies, and practices. In addition, the discussion letters emphasized 

that success in DC08 is highly dependent on an understanding of business 

operations, since DC08’s “customer set is comprised of only enabling 

organizations.”2 Kenjya AR, Tab 7, Discussion Letter, at 3; Academy AR, Tab 7, 

Discussion Letter, at 4. 

As relevant here, the SOW was amended to provide that all proposed personnel 

demonstrate “[e]xperience in supporting [IT] related to corporate business and 

enabler functions such as finance, acquisition, human resources, and installations 

and logistics.” In this regard, the program manager/senior systems engineer labor 

category was amended to require “a background of 5 years documented IT Program 

Management in a corporate-level business and enabler environment (covering 

functions such as finance, acquisition, human resources, and installations and 

logistics) designing and integrating [IT] based solutions.”3

 2 The DC08 office supports key enabling organizations within the agency including: 

headquarters management; acquisition; finance; security; human resources; 

education and training; logistics and facilities; and systems engineering. Kenjya 

COS at 2; Academy COS at 2.

 In addition, the senior 

systems engineer labor category was amended to require “a background in a 

corporate-level business and enabler environment (covering functions such as 

3 The parenthetical in this requirement was included to describe the customer set 

supported by the DC08 office and to provide offerors an indication of what types of 

experience would meet the requirement. Kenya COS at 8; Academy COS at 8.
Page 4 B-406314; B-406314.2

finance, acquisition, human resources, and installations and logistics) designing and 

integrating [IT] based solutions.” RFP, Amended SOW, app. A, at 13-16. 

On November 10, the agency received revised proposals from Kenjya, Academy, 

and Advantage. In its revised proposal, Kenjya proposed a new program manager 

and a new senior systems engineer, while providing additional information for the 

remaining resumes. Academy and Advantage did not change any of their proposed

personnel, but instead updated their resumes with additional information. 

The agency found that Kenjya’s and Academy’s revised proposals remained 

unacceptable for failing to meet the SOW labor category requirements4 and that only 

Advantage’s proposal was technically acceptable. Award was made to Advantage 

on December 30 in the amount of $11,386,163.60. 

Kenjya filed a protest with our Office on January 4. Academy’s protest followed on 

January 9.

DISCUSSION

Kenjya and Academy both assert that the agency unreasonably rejected their 

lower-priced proposals based upon an evaluation that was contrary to the stated 

evaluation criteria.

The evaluation of technical proposals is 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. Encorp-Samcrete Joint Venture, B-284171, 

B-284171.2, Mar. 2, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 55 at 4. In reviewing an agency’s 

evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead will examine the 

agency’s evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the 

solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and 

regulations. Id. Since an agency’s evaluation is dependent upon the information 

furnished in a proposal, it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately 

written proposal for the agency to evaluate. LOGMET, B-400535, Oct. 30, 2008, 

2008 CPD ¶ 199 at 3. An offeror that fails to do so runs the risk that its proposal will 

be evaluated unfavorably. Recon Optical, Inc., B-310436, B-310436.2, Dec. 27, 

2007, 2008 CPD ¶ 10 at 6. This principle is no less applicable where a solicitation 

requires the submission of resumes that demonstrate ability or experience of key 

personnel. E.g., Critical Incident Solutions, LLC

 4 The agency found that Kenjya’s resumes for its program manager/senior systems 

engineer and two of its proposed senior systems engineers did not demonstrate 

compliance with the SOW labor category requirements, and that Academy’s resume 

for its program manager/senior systems engineer did not demonstrate compliance.

, B-298077, May 30, 2006, 2006 
Page 5 B-406314; B-406314.2

CPD ¶ 88 at 3-4 (protest that agency misevaluated a resume as unacceptable is 

denied where evaluators reasonably found that the resume did not clearly show that 

the protester's candidate had the skills required in the solicitation). 

Kenjya’s Protest

Kenjya asserts that its program manager and its proposed senior systems engineers 

fully met the RFP requirements. Kenjya argues that its program manager’s resume 

“described [the program manager’s] substantial business background working with 

IT solutions.” Protest at 6. As an example, Kenjya cited to the following portion of 

its program manager’s resume:

Over 27 years of Program Management experience for a variety of 

[intelligence community] programs. Developed financial system for 

classified customer to restructure and re-engineer budgeting 

information. As [REDACTED]5

Kenjya Revised Proposal, vol. I, app. A, page iii. Kenjya also contends that its 

program manager’s resume “further demonstrates the requisite IT managementrelated business experience,” Protest at 6, and provided the following excerpt from 

its proposal in support of this statement:

[program manager], [m]anaged a 10-

team, 115 person effort developing and supporting Information Warfare 

systems for [REDACTED] (6 years). Developed working aids and tools 

to assist Government customer in tracking and managing financial 

data. Prepared and presented training session to Government 

Acquisition and finance staff. As [REDACTED] developed IT 

Infrastructure solution and demonstration to [REDACTED] Finance 

Sector to address power/space/cooling, security and 24x7 global help 

desk support system.

As [REDACTED], developed a variety of solutions and hands-on 

solutions in a demonstration lab pertaining to thin client, cross-domain 

solutions, virtualization, power-space-cooling, and wireless 

technologies. Built [bases of estimates] and cost estimation models for 

commercial, Government and second-party customers. Built and 

managed a college intern program that became a corporate [human 

resources] policy. Designed and developed costing models to support 

installation of IT products at [areas inside the continental United 

States], [areas outside the continental United States], and commercial 

sites.

 5 Kenjya’s proposal did not provide a definition of [REDACTED]. Kenjya Protest 

at 6.
Page 6 B-406314; B-406314.2

Kenjya Revised Proposal, vol. I, app. A, at page ii.

Based on its review of Kenjya’s proposal, the agency determined that the proposed 

program manager failed to show 5 years of documented experience as an IT 

program manager in the required environment--i.e., “a corporate-level business and 

enabler environment (covering functions such as finance, acquisition, human 

resources, and installation/logistics) designing and integrating information 

technology based solutions.” Kenjya AR, Tab 12, Debriefing, at 2; Tab 16, Final 

Evaluation Report, at 1-2. Kenjya argues that the program manager’s work on one 

project alone--[REDACTED]--would meet the RFP requirements, given that the 

resume explained that this work was accomplished over a 6-year period. In 

response, the agency explains that the activities listed on the resume related to 

[REDACTED] failed to show whether they were conducted in a corporate-level 

business enabler environment as required, or if they were related to IT management. 

While the agency found that the [REDACTED] activities appeared to support 

information warfare systems [REDACTED], it could find no further explanation of the 

program, or even a definition of the acronyms used by Kenjya in its proposal.

The agency also considered that the proposed program manager’s resume stated 

that he has “developed [a] financial system for [a] classified customer to restructure 

and re-engineer budgeting information,” but found that this work seemed to have 

been done in a mission environment rather than at a corporate-level, and that his 

role, as well as the amount of time he performed in this role, was unknown. AR, 

Tab 12, Debriefing, at 2. The agency acknowledged that the proposed program 

manager was a “member of a development team to re-engineer the [planning, 

programming, budgeting and execution] process” but concluded that this experience 

was not management experience, and that it was unclear from the resume whether 

the work was IT-related. Id. Finally, while the agency agreed that the proposed 

program manager’s resume displayed that he “performed other financial types of 

duties,” it again found that these activities did not appear to be management related. 

Id.

Based upon our review of the record, we find that the agency’s evaluation of 

Kenjya’s proposal was reasonable and consistent with terms of the RFP. It is an 

offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal. Zachry Constr.

Corp., B-405201.2, Sept. 22, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 194 at 3-4. Here, Kenjya’s 

proposed program manager’s resume failed to include sufficient information to 

convince the agency that the program manager met the requirements of the RFP. In 

this regard, the agency concluded that the resume demonstrated separate 

experiences in IT and program management, but found that the experience did not 

establish 5 years of IT program management experience in a corporate-level 

business and enabler environment designing and integrating IT-based solutions. 

Moreover, the agency also reasonably concluded that the references in the resume 

relating to work supporting a business enabler environment were not clearly for 
Page 7 B-406314; B-406314.2

IT-related work. While Kenjya disagrees with the agency’s evaluation, based on our 

review, we see nothing unreasonable about the agency’s evaluation conclusion.6 

Academy Protest 

Academy asserts that the agency ignored the many examples provided within its 

program manager’s resume that showed he satisfied the requirements of the RFP.7 

For example, with regard to the proposed program manager’s experience, the 

resume describes experience involving [REDACTED] contracts and on 

[REDACTED] programs as follows: 

05/05 – Present, [Academy]

Sr. Systems Engineer, [REDACTED]

* * *

Enterprise software development effort impacting both 

mission and business system environments.

* * *

Sr. Systems Engineer, [REDACTED]

* * *

A software intensive development system commensurate 

with developing IT systems in a business environment 

because the same systems engineering processes are 

applied to the development environment.

* * *

Sr. Systems Engineer, [REDACTED]

* * *

Negotiated/managed Interface Control Documents . . . 

for a software intensive system--needed in both mission 

and business IT systems environments.

Academy Revised Proposal, vol. I, app. A, at 4-5.

 6 We only address the evaluation of the program manager’s resume, and not the 

evaluation of the two unacceptable senior systems engineers, because the 

unacceptable rating for the program manager eliminates Kenjya’s proposal from 

award consideration. RFP, Evaluation Criteria, at 1, 5.

7 Academy also asserts that the RFP requirement for the program manager to have 

5 years of documented experience in IT program management is vague and 

subjective. To the extent this contention is a challenge to the agency’s amended 

RFP criteria, it is an untimely protest of the terms of the revised solicitation, which 

we will not consider because it was not filed prior to the closing date for receipt of 

revised proposals. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2011).
Page 8 B-406314; B-406314.2

The agency found Academy’s proposed program manager’s resume did not show 

that he satisfied the RFP requirements. For example, the agency determined that 

the proposed program manager’s experience on the [REDACTED] and 

[REDACTED] contracts during the 2005 to present timeframe, as indicated in his 

resume, did not constitute IT program management experience in a corporate-level 

business and enabler environment designing and integrating IT based solutions. 

Indeed, as noted by the agency, [REDACTED] had specific knowledge of the 

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] contracts with [REDACTED], and while Academy 

performed systems engineering tasks, even at a enterprise wide level, the work did 

not equate to the required IT program management in a corporate-level business 

and enabler environment. Academy COS at 21-22.

The agency also found that the [REDACTED] programs were operational mission 

focused efforts and were not corporate-level business and enabler environments. 

Furthermore, the agency viewed the resume’s description of the program manager’s 

work on the [REDACTED] programs as “commensurate with developing IT systems” 

as an admission that the programs did not specifically address a business system as 

defined in the RFP. Academy AR, Tab 14, Final Evaluation Report, at 1; Academy 

AR, Tab 10, Debriefing, at 2. 

Moreover, the agency uncovered discrepancies within the initial and final resumes 

submitted by Academy for its proposed program manager, in that Academy’s initial 

proposal did not describe the proposed program manager’s experience as that of a 

program manager, but rather as only a senior systems engineer. In its final 

proposal, Academy simply added the program manager title to its revised proposal 

without providing further elaboration. Academy COS at 20; Compare Academy 

Initial Proposal, vol. I, app. A, at 3 (’08-present (3.5 yrs), Acquisition Professional, 

[REDACTED]) to Academy Final Proposal, vol. I, app. A, at 2 (05/05 – present, 

Senior Systems Engineer/Program Manager, Academy). 

As indicated, it is an offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal. 

Zachry Construction Corp., supra. We see nothing unreasonable about the 

agency’s evaluation conclusion that Academy’s proposed program manager’s 

resume failed to include sufficient information to convince the agency that the 

program manager met the requirements of the RFP. 

In sum, we think that the agency had a reasonable basis for finding that the 

protesters failed to demonstrate in their proposals that their respective proposed 

program managers met the solicitation requirements. As a consequence, the 

agency reasonably found that these proposals were technically unacceptable.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel