United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Meadowgate Technologies, LLC

File: B-405989; B-405989.3

Date: January 17, 2012

Rachel W. McGuane, Esq., David J. Taylor, Esq., and Katherine A. Allen, Esq., 

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., for the protester.

Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, 

LLP, for NCS Technologies, Inc., the intervenor.

Christian F.P. Jordan, Esq., Kimberly M. Shackelford, Esq., and Angela M. Varner, 

Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.

Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging an agency’s past performance evaluation and selection decision is 

denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and selection decision 

was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

Meadowgate Technologies, LLC, of Trenton, New Jersey, protests the award of a 

contract to NCS Technologies Incorporated, of Gainesville, Virginia, under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. HSTS03-11-R-CIO314, issued by the Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for desktop and tablet 

computers and other computer hardware. Meadowgate challenges the agency’s 

evaluation of NCS’s past performance and selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP was issued as a combined synopsis/solicitation in accordance with 

commercial item acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

subpart 12.6, and provided for the award of one or more fixed-price 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for various types of computer 

equipment. The RFP sought prices for six different categories of computer 

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-405989, B-405989.3

equipment, including desktop and tablet computers. Agency Report (AR), RFP, 

at 1-2.1 

Offerors were informed that award(s) would be made on a best value basis 

considering price and the following four technical evaluation factors (listed in 

descending order of importance): equipment specifications, warranty support, 

production, and past performance. The RFP stated that the technical evaluation 

factors, combined, were more important than price. Id. at 9. The RFP also provided 

that if TSA determined that making more than one award offered the best value to the 

agency, the agency would make multiple awards by product category. Id. at 8.

With regard to the equipment specification factor, the RFP provided for the 

evaluation of proposed configurations for each type of equipment, and informed 

offerors that configurations exceeding the solicitation’s minimum requirements may 

be evaluated higher. Id. at 8. With regard to the production factor, the RFP provided 

for the evaluation of, among other things, the offeror’s ability to fulfill large orders. 

Id. With regard to past performance, the RFP provided for the evaluation of an 

offeror’s past performance based on the examples included in the offeror’s proposal 

and upon information obtained from other sources. Id. 

The agency received fourteen proposals, including Meadowgate’s and NSC’s, which 

were evaluated by the agency’s technical evaluation team (TET).2

proposals received. As relevant to this protest, Meadowgate’s and NSC’s revised 

proposals were evaluated for desktop and tablet computers as follows:

 After the initial 

evaluation, the agency established a competitive range consisting of ten proposals, 

including Meadowgate’s and NSC’s. Discussions were conducted, and revised 

 1 Page numbers refer to the BATES numbers in the agency report.

2 Proposals were rated as outstanding, good, acceptable or unacceptable under the 

equipment specification, warranty support, and production evaluation factors. See

AR, Tab 2, Source Selection Plan, at 87-88. Under the past performance evaluation 

factor, offerors were rated as favorable, neutral, or unfavorable. The neutral rating 

was defined as including firms that lacked relevant past performance, as well as firms 

with past performance where the offeror failed to fulfill the contract requirements in 

a marginal way that had little or no impact on the contract requirements. Id. at 88. In 

contrast, an unfavorable rating reflected an offeror’s past performance that did not 

demonstrate successful delivery of products, required substantial government 

intervention, and compromised the achievement of the contract requirements. Id.
Page 3 B-405989, B-405989.3

DESKTOP TABLET

Meadowgate NCS Meadowgate NCS

Equipment Specs. Good Good Acceptable Good

Warranty Support Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Production Outstanding Good Outstanding Good

Past performance Favorable Neutral Favorable Neutral

Price $6,254,105 $6,006,310 $1,398,850 $1,426,816

AR, Tab 21, Award Recommendation, at 516-517, 519. 

The agency’s adjectival ratings were supported by narrative explanations, which 

identified strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the respective proposals. See

AR, Tab 19, Consensus Technical Evaluation Report. For example, Meadowgate’s 

outstanding ratings under the production factor for the desktop and tablet computers 

reflected the evaluators finding that Meadowgate’s proposal of computer products 

made by Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) was a strength, because HP has worldwide 

manufacturing facilities and thus Meadowgate would be able to fulfill large 

manufacturing orders. Id. at 492.

The chairs of the TET and price evaluation team (PET) prepared award 

recommendations to the source selection authority (SSA). In this regard, they 

recommended making multiple awards for the various product categories. As 

relevant here, the TET and PET chairs recommended that NCS’s proposal for the 

desktop and tablet computer categories reflected the best value to the agency. See

AR, Tab 21, Award Recommendation, at 515-20. With respect to the award for the 

desktop computers, the chairs noted Meadowgate’s higher scores under the less 

important production and past performance factors, but concluded NCS’s lower price 

outweighed Meadowgate’s technical advantage. Id. at 517. With respect to the tablet 

computers, the chairs noted NCS’s higher rating under the most important equipment 

specifications factor and Meadowgate’s higher ratings under the less important 

production and past performance factors. The chairs found that NCS’s higher rating 

under the most important evaluation factor--equipment specifications--outweighed 

Meadowgate’s slight price advantage.3

 Id. at 519-20.

The SSA was briefed by the TET and PET chairs and he was provided with the 

evaluation teams’ reports. AR, Tab 22, Selection Decision, at 528. The SSA concurred 

with their recommendations, deciding that making multiple awards was the best 

 3

Specifically, the evaluators found that NCS had offered better battery life and 

processor performance than Meadowgate. See AR, Tab 21, Award Recommendation, 

at 519.
Page 4 B-405989, B-405989.3

value to the agency. Specifically, as relevant here, the SSA determined that award 

should be made to NCS for the desktop and tablet computers. 

Award was made to NCS, and, following a debriefing, Meadowgate filed this protest.

DISCUSSION

Meadowgate objects to the neutral rating assigned to the awardee’s past 

performance, arguing that the record shows that NCS had unfavorable past 

performance. In this regard, Meadowgate contends that, for two of NCS’s identified 

contracts, the government had to intervene to ensure contract performance. See

Protester’s Comments at 4. 

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. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation 

provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the evaluators’ judgments. 

See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, 

Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11

Here, the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated NCS’s past 

performance. Specifically, the TET considered three examples of NCS’s past 

performance.4

 For one of the contracts, with the Department of the Navy, TSA 

obtained information directly from the Navy, which informed TSA that the Navy was 

“very satisfied” with NCS. AR, Tab 19, Consensus Technical Evaluation Report, 

at 495. For the other two contracts, the agency obtained information from the Past 

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). With respect to the first of these 

contracts, PPIRS indicated that the procuring agency was satisfied and “probably 

would award” to NCS again. Id. With respect to the second of these contracts, PPIRS 

indicated that the procuring agency was satisfied with NCS’s performance in all 

categories but schedule. With respect to schedule, PPIRS indicated that government 

intervention had been required and that “no installs had been missed.” Id. 

The TET found that although NCS had some performance problems, the firm had 

been able to meet its contractual requirements. See

 4 Meadowgate does not challenge the relevance of these contracts.

AR, Tab 21, Award 

Recommendation, at 517. The TET assigned a neutral rating to NCS’s past 

performance because the record indicated that NCS’s past performance was 

essentially satisfactory but with some performance problems that had little or no 

impact on the contract requirements. This rating is consistent with the agency’s 

definition of a neutral rating in its source selection plan. Although Meadowgate 
Page 5 B-405989, B-405989.3

generally disagrees with the rating assigned, it does not show that the agency 

unreasonably considered NCS’s past performance. 

Meadowgate also objects to the agency’s cost/technical tradeoff decision in selecting 

NCS’s proposal for award of the desktop and tablet computer product categories.5 

Specifically, with regard to the desktop computers, Meadowgate complains that TSA 

failed to reasonably weigh the protester’s higher technical ratings under the 

production and past performance factors when it selected NCS’s desktop based on its 

lower price. In this regard, Meadowgate contends that TSA did not evaluate in 

accordance with the solicitation’s best value award scheme, since the agency found 

that NCS and Meadowgate had submitted “equal technically rated” products. 6

Protester’s Comments at 2-3, citing Legal Memorandum at 17.

Source selection officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent 

to which they will make use of the technical and cost evaluation results, and their 

judgments are governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the 

stated evaluation criteria. Client Network Servs., Inc., B-297994, Apr. 28, 2006, 2006 

CPD ¶ 79 at 9.

The record here does not support Meadowgate’s contention that the agency’s 

selection decision was inconsistent with the solicitation’s best value award scheme 

and failed to adequately consider the technical merit of the protester’s proposal. 

Although it is true that the agency’s counsel stated in response to the protest that 

NCS’s low-priced proposal for the desktop computers was selected for award 

because the firms’ technical proposals were of equal merit, this post-award assertion 

is belied by the contemporaneous record. Specifically, both the TET and the SSA 

recognized Meadowgate’s technical superiority under the production and past 

performance factors, but concluded that NCS’s lower price outweighed 

Meadowgate’s technical advantage. See

 5

Meadowgate also asserts that the SSA’s selection decision for both the desktops and 

tablets is flawed because for these product categories the decision discusses the 

merits of the offerors’ proposals vis-à-vis NCS’s proposal. Meadowgate contends that 

this analysis presupposed that NCS was the awardee, without explanation for how 

NCS’s proposal was selected in the first instance. We find no merit to this argument. 

There is no requirement that an agency selection decision discuss the agency’s 

comparison of every offer received in order to document the selection of the 

awardee’s. Rather, the documentation need only be sufficient to establish that the 

agency was aware of the relative merits and costs of the competing proposals and 

that the source selection was reasonably based. General Dynamics--Ordnance & 

Tactical Sys., B-401658, B-401658.2, Oct. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 217 at 8. 

AR, Tab 21, Award Recommendation, at 517; 

6

Meadowgate also states during the debriefing the agency stated that Meadowgate’s 

and NCS’s proposals for the desktop computers were deemed equal under the most 

important, equipment specifications factor.
Page 6 B-405989, B-405989.3

Tab 22, Selection Decision, at 529. Although Meadowgate disagrees with the SSA’s 

cost/technical decision, its arguments reflect nothing more than disagreement with 

the SSA’s judgment and do not show it to be unreasonable. 

With regard to the selection of NCS for award of the tablet computers, Meadowgate 

also complains that the SSA’s selection decision focused only upon NCS’s higher 

rating under the most important equipment specifications factor and the offerors’ 

proposed prices. This complaint is also not supported by the record. The TET and 

SSA considered the relative technical merits of both firms’ proposals, specifically 

recognizing Meadowgate’s technical advantages under the production and past 

performance factors and NCS’s advantage under the more important equipment 

specification factor. See AR, Tab 21, Award Recommendation, at 519-20; Tab 22, 

Selection Decision, at 530. The SSA concluded that, although Meadowgate offered a 

slightly lower price than NCS and was rated higher under the production and past 

performance factors, NCS’s technical superiority under the most important 

equipment specification’s factor outweighed Meadowgate’s offered technical 

advantages and lower price. Specifically, the SSA determined that NCS offered 

superior battery life and a superior processor that outweighed Meadowgate’s 

evaluated advantages. Meadowgate has not shown the SSA’s judgment in this regard 

to be unreasonable.

We deny the protest.7

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 7 The protester also asserts that the agency failed to follow several steps in its source 

selection plan. For example, Meadowgate asserts that individual evaluators did not 

fill out evaluation factor worksheets, or prepare a consensus using the team 

consensus factor worksheet. Supp. Protest at 3. These complaints--that the agency 

did not strictly adhere to the procedure set forth in the source selection plan for the 

evaluation of proposals--do not establish a valid basis to object to the agency’s 

evaluation. An agency’s source selection plan is an internal guide that does not give 

rights to parties; it is the RFP’s evaluation scheme, not internal agency documents 

such as source selection plans, to which an agency is required to adhere in evaluating 

proposals. Sig Sauer, Inc., B-402339.3, July 23, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 184 at 6 n.9.