United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Exelis Systems Corporation

File: B-407673; B-407673.2; B-407673.3

Date: January 22, 2013

Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jacob W. Scott, Esq., and Kyle E. 

Gilbertson, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for the protester.

Craig A. Holman, Esq., C. Scott Morrow, Esq., and Steffen G. Jacobsen, Esq., 

Arnold & Porter LLP, for the intervenor.

Capt. Tyler Davidson, Department of the Army, for the agency.

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest alleging that agency misevaluated proposals is denied where record 

shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the 

solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.

2. Protest alleging that agency made an unreasonable source selection decision is 

denied where record shows that agency’s source selection was reasonable, and 

protest amounts to no more than disagreement with agency’s decision.

DECISION

Exelis Systems Corporation, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the issuance 

of a task order to L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC, of Madison, 

Mississippi, under request for task order proposals (RFP) No. W91247-12-FIRST0004, issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services for the 

Fort Bragg Directorate of Logistics.1

 Exelis maintains that the agency misevaluated 

proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 

 

1 The competition was confined to the unrestricted group of contractors holding 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts under the agency’s field and 

installation readiness support team contract program. 

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-407673 et al. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation contemplates the issuance of a cost-reimbursement task order to 

provide logistics support services for an 80-day phase-in period, one base year, and 

two 1-year options on a “best value” basis, considering cost and two non-cost 

factors, mission capability and small business participation.2 RFP at 68. The RFP 

further provided that the mission capability factor included three equally-weighted 

elements: (1) management approach, (2) staffing approach, and (3) technical 

experience. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the offerors’ 

proposed costs for both reasonableness and realism. RFP at 70. In terms of the 

relative importance of the evaluation factors, the RFP provided that the mission 

capability factor was significantly more important than the small business 

participation factor; that the small business participation factor was the least 

important factor; and that, when combined, the non-cost factors were significantly 

more important than cost. RFP at 69. 

In response to the solicitation, the agency received several proposals, including 

those of the protester and the awardee. The agency evaluated the offerors’ 

proposals, established a competitive range, engaged in two rounds of discussions, 

and solicited and obtained final proposal revisions (FPRs). The agency evaluated 

the FPRs and assigned the proposals of the protester and awardee the following 

ratings:

Offeror Mission Capability

Small Business 

Participation Evaluated Cost

Exelis Outstanding Go $84,400,205.37

L-3 Good Go $78,831,648.01

Agency Report (AR), exh. 15, Task Order Decision Document (TODD), at 3. 

On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency selected L-3 for issuance of the 

task order, concluding that its proposal offered the best value to the government. 

AR, exh. 15, TODD, at 17. Specifically, the source selection authority (SSA) 

concluded that, although each offeror’s proposal provided strengths and 

weaknesses, and although Exelis’s proposal was technically superior to L-3’s, the 

comparative superiority of Exelis’s proposal did not merit payment of a $5.5 million 

 

2 The RFP provided that proposals would be assigned an adjectival rating of either 

outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable for the mission capability 

factor, and would be assigned ratings of either “Go” or “No-Go” under the small 

business participation factor. RFP at 70-71.
Page 3 B-407673 et al. 

cost premium. Id. at 15, 17. After being advised of the agency’s selection decision 

and receiving a debriefing, Exelis filed the instant protest.

DISCUSSION

Technical Evaluation

Exelis asserts that the agency misevaluated L-3’s proposal under all three elements 

of the mission capability factor. We discuss each area of the agency’s evaluation 

below, but note at the outset that, in considering protests relating to an agency’s 

evaluation, we do not independently evaluate proposals; rather, we review the 

agency’s evaluation to ensure that it is consistent with the terms of the solicitation 

and applicable statutes and regulations. SOS Int’l, Ltd., B-402558.3, 

B-402558.9, June 3, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 131 at 2. A protester’s mere disagreement 

with the agency’s evaluation conclusions does not provide a basis for our Office to 

object to the evaluation. OPTIMUS Corp., B-400777, Jan. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD 

¶ 33 at 6. We have carefully reviewed all of Exelis’s contentions and find them to 

be without merit. We discuss Exelis’s principal allegations below.

Technical Experience Element

Exelis asserts that the agency misevaluated the L-3 proposal under the technical 

experience element of the mission capability factor. The protester contends that, 

with regard to the RFP’s requirements, it has superior technical experience in 

comparison to L-3 because it is the incumbent contractor for these requirements. 

The protester maintains further that L-3 does not have experience in certain of the 

requirements set forth in the performance work statement (PWS), and that its 

proposal relied on the experience of a subcontractor, [deleted] to show experience 

in these areas. According to the protester, however, the prior contracts that 

[deleted] performed do not show that the firm has experience in a list of tasks 

identified by the protester that are required under the PWS. Exelis therefore 

contends that the agency unreasonably assigned the firm’s proposal a good rating 

for the mission capability factor in light of these considerations.

The protester’s allegation reflects a misunderstanding of how proposals were to be 

evaluated under the terms of the RFP. The solicitation specifically provided that, in 

evaluating proposals, the agency would assign adjectival ratings as follows:

The Mission Capability factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings 

defined below. The elements under the Mission Capability factor will 

not receive an adjectival rating. The findings from the evaluation of 

the elements under the Mission Capability factor will be used to 

determine an overall rating for the factor using one of the adjectival 

ratings below.
Page 4 B-407673 et al. 

RFP at 71.3

 

Consistent with this RFP provision, the record shows that the agency did not simply 

evaluate the offerors’ technical experience in isolation, but, rather, considered it in 

conjunction with the other two elements comprising the mission capability factor 

(management approach and staffing approach) to determine the overall mission 

capability rating. The agency’s evaluation approach was explained in a statement 

submitted by the agency’s evaluation board chairman, as follows:

In evaluating each Offeror’s Technical Experience, the TOEB [task 

order evaluation board] reviewed the Technical Experience cited in

each proposal and evaluated that experience based on its relevancy 

to the PWS requirements and recent performance. If an Offeror did 

not cite Technical Experience in a specific area, the TOEB reviewed 

the Offeror’s Management and Staffing Approach to ensure that the 

proposal demonstrated a soundness of approach, feasibility of 

approach, a comprehensive document, and a likelihood of success. 

The Offeror’s basis of estimate was also evaluated to determine if the 

Offeror demonstrated a clear understanding of the level of effort

required to execute the operation of the Fort Bragg facilities defined in 

the PWS as well as how these resources would be managed and 

utilized in performance of the task order. The Offeror’s Management

Approach was also evaluated to ensure that the methodology for 

determining the type of personnel proposed was reasonable.

AR, exh. 32, Statement of the Technical Evaluation Board Chairman, at 2.

The agency’s evaluation board chairman explains, as detailed above, that the 

agency’s evaluation method specifically considered L-3’s management and staffing 

approach in areas where the awardee did not demonstrate technical experience. 

Id. at 2. For example, with regard to the PWS requirements for managing the 

installation food service program, personal property movement services, and

personnel movement and travel services, the evaluation board chairman states as 

follows:

Examples of this evaluation are in the assessment of L3 for three 

areas of the PWS [for] which no Technical Experience was cited: PWS 

[deleted]. In these specific areas, L3’s Management and Staffing 

Approach demonstrated a clear understanding [ ] of the level of effort

required to execute the operation of the Fort Bragg facilities by 

 

3 Contrary to the protester’s position, the RFP did not require offerors to 

demonstrate experience in every single task or subtask of the PWS. See RFP at 

60. 
Page 5 B-407673 et al. 

assigning Labor Categories with the required Knowledge, Skills, 

Abilities and Experience to each of these functional areas to 

successfully perform the required functions. 

AR, exh. 32, Statement of the Technical Evaluation Board Chairman, at 2-3. 

This explanation is consistent with the contemporaneous evaluation record, which 

states that the mission capability ratings were based on an overall consideration of 

the evaluation results from the three elements. See e.g., AR, exh. 35, Interim 

Mission Capability Report, at 34 (“The findings from the evaluation of the three 

elements were used to determine the overall Mission Capability rating.”) 

Additionally, for example, in evaluating the L-3 proposal, the agency found as 

follows: 

The Offeror demonstrated a clear understanding of all of the 

knowledge, skills, and qualifications required to fulfill the requirements 

of the PWS and was assigned a strength for clearly depicting an 

understanding that the staffing may vary based on support mission 

requirements (TAB E1 page 2) and ensuring that they maintain an 

acceptable manpower utilization rate at or above [deleted]% of direct 

labor expended/charged to the supported customer. (TAB E1 page 5). 

Overall, the Offeror’s methodology for determining the type of 

personnel proposed was determined reasonable.

AR, exh. 17, L-3 Consensus Technical Evaluation Report, at 1.

Accordingly, the fact that L-3’s proposal did not specifically include technical 

experience information relating to each and every task or subtask enumerated in 

the RFP does not, standing alone, provide a basis for our Office to conclude that the 

agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. As discussed above, the RFP did not 

require offerors to demonstrate experience that correlated to every task of the PWS. 

See RFP at 60. Instead, the record shows that, consistent with the terms of the 

RFP, the agency performed an integrated assessment of the proposals, considering 

all three elements of the mission capability factor in arriving at its ultimate ratings.4

 

4 We note that the Army’s evaluation recognized that Exelis is the incumbent 

contractor for these requirements. AR, exh. 15, TODD, at 7, 9. The record shows 

that the agency took Exelis’s experience into account, inasmuch as it assigned 

Exelis’s proposal an outstanding mission capability rating as compared to a good

rating assigned to the L-3 proposal. 

 

We therefore have no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation for the reasons 

advanced by Exelis. 
Page 6 B-407673 et al. 

Management Approach and Staffing Approach

Exelis also challenges the agency’s evaluation of L-3’s proposal under the 

management approach and staffing approach elements of the mission capability 

factor. According to the protester, L-3 proposed inadequate staffing in three areas: 

[deleted]. 

We find no merit to this aspect of Exelis’s protest. The sole underlying basis for 

Exelis’s contention is that L-3’s staffing in these three areas was lower than that 

proposed by Exelis in the same areas;

5 this contention, however, does not show 

that L-3’s proposed staffing in the areas identified by Exelis is inadequate. 

The RFP did not include staffing profiles or estimates--or even an overall level of 

effort--with which offerors were required to comply. Rather, the solicitation 

contemplated that the offerors would propose a staffing profile and level of effort 

that they thought would be adequate to accomplish the RFP’s requirements. For 

example, offerors were required to explain in their responses to the management 

approach element the methodology they used to determine the type and number of 

personnel proposed, and level of effort proposed, for each labor category. RFP at 

58-59. For the staffing approach element, offerors were required to explain their 

basis of estimate for the staffing proposed and the methodology used to determine 

the appropriate level of effort. Id. at 59.

Because the RFP required the offerors to show how their proposed level of effort 

and staffing profile would meet the requirements of the solicitation, it necessarily 

contemplated that offerors could propose different technical approaches and 

manning to accomplish the work. Thus, merely because L-3 proposed staffing in 

particular areas that was different from that proposed by Exelis, does not, without 

more, show that L-3’s proposed staffing is inadequate. Rather, it shows only that 

L-3 and Exelis proposed different staffing. 

Moreover, even though L-3 may have proposed accomplishing the work with fewer 

personnel than proposed by Exelis, it does not follow that its manning is insufficient, 

or that its technical approach is deficient,6

 

5 According to the protester, L-3 proposed approximately [deleted] full time 

equivalents than it proposed in the [deleted] division staffing area; approximately 

[deleted] full time equivalents than it proposed in the [deleted] staffing area; and 

approximately [deleted] full time equivalents than it proposed in the [deleted] staffing 

area. Protesters Comments and Supplemental Protest (Nov. 26, 2012) at 43, 46, 

50.

for purposes of accomplishing the work

6 Although counsel for Exelis was provided with a copy of L-3’s proposal under the 

terms of our protective order, the protester made no substantive challenge to the 

(continued...)
Page 7 B-407673 et al. 

contemplated by the RFP. The record shows that the Army evaluated L-3’s 

proposal under these two evaluation elements by reviewing the adequacy of L-3’s 

proposed staffing and management approach, and found that 

L-3’s proposal reflected a clear understanding of the RFP requirements and 

presented a feasible and comprehensive approach to performing the requirements.

AR, exh. 17, L-3 Consensus Technical Evaluation Report, at 1-2.

On this record, we have no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation in this area 

and, accordingly, deny this aspect of Exelis’s protest. 

Cost Evaluation

Exelis also challenges the propriety of the agency’s cost realism evaluation. As with 

its challenge to the agency’s technical evaluation of L-3’s proposal under the 

management and staffing approach elements, Exelis maintains that L-3’s proposed 

staffing is inadequate to perform the requirement in the following areas: [deleted]. 

As with its challenge to the agency’s technical evaluation, Exelis’s sole basis for 

objecting to the agency’s cost evaluation is its assertion that, because L-3’s 

proposed staffing is not the same as Exelis’s, it must necessarily be inadequate to 

perform the requirement. Exelis maintains that the agency erred in failing to adjust 

L-3’s evaluated cost upward to account for the additional personnel that would be 

required to make L-3’s staffing the same as the protester’s staffing. 

When an agency evaluates a proposal for the award of a cost-reimbursement 

contract or task order, an offeror’s proposed estimated costs are not dispositive 

because, regardless of the costs proposed, the government is bound to pay the 

contractor its actual and allowable costs. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

§§ 15.305(a)(1); 15.404-1(d); see Palmetto GBA, LLC, B-298962, B-298962.2, 

Jan. 16, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 25 at 7. Consequently, the agency must perform a cost 

realism analysis to determine the extent to which an offeror’s proposed costs are 

realistic for the work to be performed. FAR § 15.404-1(d)(1). When conducting a 

cost realism analysis, agencies are required to consider the realism of a firm’s 

proposed costs in light of its unique technical approach. Metro Mach., Corp., 

B-402567, B-402567.2, June 3, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 132 at 6. The pertinent inquiry 

is not whether an offeror’s proposed costs resemble another offeror’s proposed 

costs, but, rather, whether its proposed costs are adequate in light of its unique 

technical approach. Id.

 

(...continued)

adequacy of L-3’s proposed staffing beyond its assertion that it involved fewer full 

time equivalents than proposed by Exelis. Exelis also does not substantively 

challenge L-3’s underlying technical approach to performing the requirement. 
Page 8 B-407673 et al. 

Here, as with the agency’s technical evaluation, Exelis’s only challenge to the 

agency’s cost realism evaluation is confined to its assertion that L-3’s proposed 

costs relating to staffing are lower than those proposed by Exelis. Such a 

contention, without more, is inadequate to show that the agency’s cost evaluation 

was unreasonable. 

The record here shows that the Army’s cost realism evaluation relied on the 

technical evaluators’ assessments of the adequacy of L-3’s proposed staffing. AR, 

exh. 19, Final Cost Evaluation Report, at 6-7. As discussed above, the agency’s 

technical evaluators found that L-3’s proposed staffing reflected a clear 

understanding of the solicitation’s requirements and presented a feasible and 

comprehensive approach to accomplishing them. AR, exh. 17, L-3 Consensus 

Technical Evaluation Report, at 1-2. Simply stated, the agency found that L-3’s 

proposed costs were adequate to perform the requirement in light of L-3’s unique 

technical approach; the fact that L-3’s proposed approach is different than that 

proposed by Exelis does not show that L-3’s proposed costs are understated. We 

therefore deny this aspect of Exelis’s protest.

Source Selection Decision

Exelis challenges the Army’s source selection decision. According to the protester, 

the agency improperly failed to consider the magnitude of its technical superiority 

compared to what it describes as the modest cost premium associated with its 

proposal. The protester makes a variety of assertions in connection with this basis 

for protest. For example, the protester challenges the adequacy of the agency’s 

documentation in support of its selection decision; the adequacy of the agency’s 

analysis in comparing the two proposals; and the agency’s weighting of the 

evaluation factors in selecting L-3. The protester also maintains that the agency did 

not give it adequate credit for the significant strengths and strengths found in its 

proposal. In essence, the protester maintains that the agency could not reasonably 

have selected L-3’s lower-rated, lower-cost proposal over Exelis’s higher-rated, 

higher-cost proposal. 

We have considered all of Exelis’s assertions relating to the agency’s source 

selection decision and find no merit to this aspect of its protest. In a best value 

acquisition, agencies must perform a cost or price/technical tradeoff to determine 

whether one proposal’s technical superiority is worth its higher cost or price. 

General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Sys., B-401658, B-401658.2, Oct. 26, 

2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 217 at 8. Even where cost is significantly less important than the 

non-cost considerations, an agency properly may select a lower-cost, lower-rated 

proposal if it reasonably concludes that the cost premium involved in selecting a 

higher-rated, higher-cost proposal is not justified. Id. Such tradeoffs are governed 

only by the test of rationality and consistency with the evaluation criteria; a 

protester’s disagreement with an agency’s judgment does not establish that the 

source selection is unreasonable. Id.
Page 9 B-407673 et al. 

Here, Exelis’s protest essentially amounts to disagreement with the agency’s source 

selection decision. Notwithstanding the protester’s disagreement, however, the 

record demonstrates that the agency’s selection decision was rational, adequately 

documented, and consistent with the terms of the RFP. In this regard, the record 

shows that the SSA carefully analyzed the significant strengths and strengths 

assigned to the Exelis proposal, and compared them to the strengths assigned to 

the L-3 proposal. AR, exh. 15, TODD, at 14-15. The SSA ultimately concluded that 

the Exelis proposal was superior to the proposal submitted by L-3. Id. 

Nonetheless, he also concluded that the cost premium associated with the Exelis

proposal was not worth the added technical superiority offered, finding as follows:

I have considered the entirety of the TOEB [task order evaluation 

board] report including those strengths not specifically mentioned in 

this comparison. In considering the underlying substance of all of the 

strengths of both Offerors, I have noted that there were significant 

strengths and strengths indentified in areas of Exelis’s proposal that 

are not mirrored in L3’s proposal. Conversely, L3 was assigned 

strengths in areas of their proposal that were not present in Exelis’[s]

proposal. For the reasons discussed above, I do find some technical 

superiority in Exelis’[s] proposal. However, while the strengths of 

Exelis exceed those of L3 in some areas, I have concluded that any 

additional benefits provided by Exelis do not warrant the 

$5,568,557.36 price premium over L3. As a result, L3 is considered 

the best value to the Government of the two.

AR, exh. 15, TODD, at 15. Notwithstanding the protester’s disagreement with the 

agency’s selection decision, we conclude that it was reasonable, adequately 

documented, and consistent with the terms of the RFP. We therefore deny this 

aspect of Exelis’s protest.

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel