United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Environment International Ltd. 

File: B-407705

Date: January 28, 2013

Brent Finley, Esq., Environment International, Ltd., for the protester.

James J. McCullough, Esq., and Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, 

Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, an 

intervenor.

Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency.

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protester’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation of its quotation is denied where 

record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of the 

solicitation. 

DECISION

Environment International Ltd. (EI), of Seattle, Washington, protests the award of a 

task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of McLean, 

Virginia, by the National Parks Service (NPS), Department of the Interior under 

request for quotations (RFQ) No. 665859 for environmental compliance audits at 

49 NPS sites located in the NPS’s Pacific West Region. EI challenges the agency’s 

evaluation of its quotation.

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

NPS initially solicited this requirement under a different RFQ under the Federal 

Supply Schedule, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

§ 8.4. The agency awarded a task order to SAIC on September 16, 2011. EI filed 

an agency-level protest which was subsequently denied. EI then filed a protest in 

this Office on November 3. The agency took corrective action, by terminating the 

task order and resoliciting the requirement. Agency Report (AR) at 1-2. 
Page 2 B-407705 

NPS issued the current solicitation on April 12, 2012. The RFQ contemplated the 

award of a fixed-price task order for one base year and four 1-year options. Award 

was to be made on the basis of price and technical considerations deemed most 

advantageous to the government, following FAR Subpart 15.3 source selection 

procedures. The RFQ advised that award could be made without discussions, and 

that vendors should submit their most favorable terms. RFQ, Evaluation Factors, at 

1. The RFQ stated that the following evaluation factors and weights would be used 

to evaluate quotations: compliance with solicitation requirements and technical 

excellence (30 percent); price (25 percent); experience (20 percent); management 

and key personnel (15 percent); and past performance (10 percent). RFQ, 

Evaluation Factors, at 2-3. Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness, and 

realism. Id. at 2. 

Eighteen vendors submitted quotations by the closing date. The agency evaluators 

assigned points to each vendor’s quotation under the non-price factors. The 

agency also scored and ranked each quotation under the price factor, taking into 

account the proposed price, and the agency’s evaluation of the reasonableness, 

realism, and balance of the proposed price. The total score for each quotation was 

based on the technical scores and price score, according to the weights set forth in 

the RFQ. The contracting officer (CO), acting as the source selection authority, 

ranked the quotations from highest point-score to lowest.1

 AR, Tab 7, Source 

Selection Decision (SSD), at 6-7. As relevant here, SAIC’s quotation was ranked 

first and EI’s quotation was ranked sixth under the non-price factors, and the 

vendors received equal scores under the price evaluation factor. Id. at 7. The final 

ratings for the protester and awardee were as follows:

EI SAIC

Technical Score 3.93 6.65

Technical Excellence 4 9

Experience 6 9

Management and Key Personnel 6 9

Past Performance 8 8

Proposed Price / Score $925k / 7 $981k / 7

TOTAL SCORE 5.675 8.4

Id. at 6-7.

The CO selected SAIC’s quotation for award, concluding that although SAIC’s 

quotation was higher in price than certain other quotations, the technical superiority 

 

1 Two quotations were eliminated because they were not in the proper format. 
Page 3 B-407705 

of the SAIC quotation warranted payment of its higher price. Id. at 8. This protest 

followed.2

DISCUSSION

EI contends that NPS’s evaluation of its quotation was unreasonable under the nonprice evaluation factors. In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and 

source selection decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate quotations or proposals. 

Rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment 

was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable 

procurement laws and regulations. See Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 

1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. It is an offeror’s or vendor’s obligation to submit an 

adequately written quotation for the agency to evaluate, see United Def. LP, 

B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 75 at 19, and a protester’s mere 

disagreement with the evaluation is not sufficient to render it unreasonable. 

Ben-Mar Enters., Inc., B-295781, Apr. 7, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 68 at 7. We have 

reviewed each of the protester’s contentions and find that none of the challenges 

provides a basis to sustain its protest. We address the following illustrative 

examples. 

Technical Excellence Factor

EI challenges the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation of its quotation with 

regard to the first factor, compliance with solicitation requirements and technical 

excellence. EI’s quotation received 4 out of a possible 10 points for this factor. The 

protester challenges the agency’s assessment of three weaknesses for its 

quotation. As set forth in detail below, we think the record supports the agency’s 

assessments regarding two of these weaknesses. With regard to the third 

weakness challenged by EI, we find the record unpersuasive. That said, and as 

also explained below, our review of the record as a whole leads us to conclude that 

even if we agree with EI’s challenge to the third weakness, we are not convinced 

that EI prevails in this competition. 

First, NPS assessed a weakness for EI’s quotation because the agency found it 

was not clear whether the protester would provide the required electronic audit 

tools. AR, Tab 6c, Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Consensus Memorandum, 

at 7. The original solicitation provided for a government-furnished electronic audit 

tool. AR, Tab 11a, RFQ No. 572092, at 1. The present solicitation omitted an 

electronic audit tool from the list of government-furnished materials, and provided 

 

2 EI filed an agency-level protest on September 13, and received a decision from 

the agency on October 12. AR, Tab 9, EI’s Agency-Level Protest; Tab 10, Agency 

Protest Decision. The current protest was filed with our Office on October 19. 
Page 4 B-407705 

information regarding the required capabilities of the electronic audit tool to be used 

by the contractor. Statement of Work (SOW) §§ 2, 3.5. This change in the 

requirement was further confirmed in the Questions and Answers posted to GSA 

e-Buy:

5. Can you confirm that NPS will provide the contractor with the 

electronic audit tool? If yes, can you confirm that the tool is a 

Microsoft Access Database based tool?

 The electronic auditing tool shall be contractor-furnished.

AR, Tab 3g, Questions and Answers (Apr. 12, 2012- Apr. 20, 2012). 

The agency’s evaluation cited EI’s quotation, which states, “EI will ensure that all 

Audit Reports, including the In Brief, Exit Brief, Draft, and Final Audit Report, will be 

generated utilizing the NPS Audit Tool.” AR, Tab 6c, TEP Consensus 

Memorandum at 7, citing Tab 4, EI Quotation § 1.9. NPS’s concern about whether 

EI would furnish the electronic audit tool was heightened by the following statement 

which EI included as an assumption in the cost portion of its quotation: “The 

electronic audit tool is fully functional and no significant issues with the electronic 

audit tool are encountered.” Id., citing Tab 4, EI Quotation § 2.0. The agency 

determined that the failure of a vendor to provide for a contractor-furnished 

electronic audit tool would significantly impact its ability to accomplish the work as 

required in the SOW, and downgraded EI’s quotation accordingly. CO Statement 

at 8.

EI argues that its quotation addressed the RFQ requirements because it stated that 

“the audit team [would] meet to distribute and discuss the most current audit tools.” 

AR, Tab 4, EI Quotation § 1.6. The protester maintains that the agency’s evaluation 

in this instance “places form over substance,” and that its quotation should not have 

been assessed a weakness merely because it “did not contain a statement explicitly 

stating that it would provide the audit tool.” EI Comments at 8. 

We think that NPS was reasonably concerned that EI’s quotation did not contain a 

clear statement that it would provide the required electronic audit tool. On this 

record, we find that the agency’s reasonably assessed a weakness for EI’s 

quotation. 

Second, EI’s quotation received a weakness based on its plan to “partially evaluate 

ISO 14001 conformance prior to the site visit.” AR, Tab 4, EI Quotation § 1.4. The 

evaluators determined that this statement reflected EI’s lack of understanding of the 

project requirements, because evaluating the parks for ISO 14001 conformance 

was not contemplated by the SOW. AR, Tab 6c, TEP Consensus Memorandum, 

at 7. In this regard, NPS states that it is aware that it is not ISO 14001 compliant, 
Page 5 B-407705 

and therefore did not request an ISO 14001 conformance evaluation. CO 

Statement at 7. 

As the agency notes, vendors were advised that ISO 14001 compliance was not 

required, based on the Questions and Answers posted to GSA e-Buy:

3. Is the audit a full blown EMS [Environmental Management System] 

audit complying with ISO standards?

Answer: No. IAW paragraph 3.2 of the SOW “each audit team shall 

have at least one auditor who is familiar with the National Park Service 

Environmental Management System Model to conduct the EMS 

(TEAM Guide section 14) portion of the audit.” 

AR, Tab 3h, Questions and Answers (Apr. 12, 2012 to Apr. 29, 2012), at 1. 

EI contends that the NPS EMS model stated that it was to be evaluated against 

Section 14 of the US TEAM guide.3 See AR, Tab 3b, SOW § 3.7. As the agency 

acknowledges, certain parts of Section 14 are “based on” elements from the ISO 

14001 standard, along with other applicable standards. CO Statement at 8. The 

protester therefore argues that “[b]y explicitly requiring that the NPS EMS model be 

evaluated against Section 14 of the US TEAM Guide, the NPS requested at least a 

partial ISO 14001 conformance audit.” Comments at 7. 

We think the solicitation was clear that the EMS audit was not required to comply 

with ISO standards, and that this matter was confirmed in the Questions and 

Answers, cited above. As also discussed above, the agency was concerned that 

EI’s proposal to evaluate ISO 14001 conformance reflected its lack of 

understanding of the project requirements. See AR, Tab 6c, TEP Consensus 

Memorandum, at 7. On this record, we find that the agency reasonably assigned 

EI’s quotation a weakness for proposing to evaluate ISO 14001 conformance when 

it was not required by the RFQ. 

With respect to the third weakness, the NPS determined that the protester’s 

approach of conducting telephone interviews deviated from the requirements listed 

in the SOW. The evaluators noted that EI’s quotation stated that it would “conduct 

telephone interviews with appropriate personnel from each Park.” AR, Tab 4, EI 

Quotation § 1.1. The agency was concerned that EI’s quotation did not explicitly 

state whether EI intended to comply with the solicitation requirement of conducting 

 

3 TEAM refers to “The Environmental Assessment and Management,” which is 

guidance issued by the Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. AR 

at 5-6; Tab 3b, SOW § 3.7.1.1. 
Page 6 B-407705 

on-site interviews, as required under SOW § 3.7.2. AR at 4; AR, Tab 6b, 

Evaluator’s Worksheets, at 1. 

EI contends that although its quotation stated that it would conduct pre-visit 

telephone interviews, it also stated that it would conduct on-site interviews, as 

follows: “For the on-site interviews, at least one EI audit team member will meet 

with the park staff responsible for completing the PSVQ. The EI audit team 

member(s) and the park staff will review and verify the PSVQ for accuracy, 

completeness.” AR, Tab 4, EI Quotation § 1.7.2. 

Even if the protester were to merit a higher score under this factor based on the 

elimination of the weakness concerning on-site interviews, there is no possibility of 

prejudice arising from this issue because the awardee’s quotation remained 

higher-rated under the experience and the management and key personnel factors, 

and equal under the past performance factor; as discussed below, we find no merit 

to the protester’s challenges regarding these factors. In light of the fact that the 

agency rated EI and SAIC equal under the price factor, and the protester does not 

challenge this aspect of this evaluation, we conclude that there is no reasonable 

prospect for EI to have received award. See McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 

1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 54 at 3; see also Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 

1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (competitive prejudice is a necessary element of any viable 

bid protest). 

Experience Factor

Next, EI contests the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation of its quotation 

concerning the experience factor. The RFQ stated that the agency would evaluate 

a vendor’s “[e]xperience in carrying out similar environmental audits to those 

required in the Statement of Work in terms of both scope and complexity.” RFQ, 

Evaluation Factors, at 3. The solicitation further stated that vendors must 

demonstrate that they have “performed similar environmental audits on three like 

projects in scope and size during the last three years.” Id.

EI’s quotation received 6 out of a possible 10 points for this factor. NPS concluded 

that while the protester performed audits during the past three years for several 

federal agencies, its quotation failed to show that it performed any audits for “Land 

Management Agencies during the past three years,” and that the protester “has no 

documented experience in the development of an Electronic Audit Tool.” AR, 

Tab 6c, TEP Consensus Memorandum, at 7. The protester argues that the 

requirement to demonstrate Land Management Agency experience was an 

unstated evaluation factor. Protest at 15. 

NPS argues that the RFQ clearly stated that the agency would evaluate whether a 

vendor demonstrated experience with “similar environmental audits . . . in terms of 

both scope and complexity.” RFQ, Evaluation Factors, at 3. The agency maintains 
Page 7 B-407705 

that experience performing environmental audits for agencies whose missions are 

more closely aligned with that of the NPS, such as other land management 

agencies, had greater relevance to the work required under this procurement. AR 

at 9. The agency states that while EI scored on the upper end of the “acceptable” 

rating for the experience factor, those vendors who demonstrated a greater level of 

experience with projects of similar scope and size were necessarily rated higher 

than EI. CO Statement at 10. The agency noted that while EI’s quotation listed four 

compliance auditing projects involving the NPS or the Department of Interior, three 

of these projects occurred more than three years ago,4 and the fourth addressed 

cultural resources and not compliance with Federal and State environmental laws 

and regulations. CO Statement at 12; AR, Tab 4, EI Quotation, at 20-22. 

We find that the agency reasonably evaluated EI’s quotation in accordance with the 

RFQ with regard to experience. An agency may reasonably consider whether an 

offeror has specific experience directly related to the work to be performed under 

the solicitation, even if such experience is not explicitly called for in the solicitation. 

MELE Assocs., Inc., B-299229.4, July 25, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 140 at 7. Here the 

RFQ expressly stated that the agency would evaluate “similar environmental 

audits,” therefore we find no reason to question the agency’s evaluation with regard 

to this matter. RFQ, Evaluation Factors, at 3. 

Management and Key Personnel

Finally, EI challenges the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation of its quotation 

with regard to the management and key personnel factor. EI’s quotation received 6 

out of a possible 10 points for this factor. EI contends that its quotation was unfairly 

downgraded for failing to present a work plan when such a plan was not required by 

the solicitation. Protest at 18-19. The protester notes that the solicitation states 

that the vendor may demonstrate through a project work plan its understanding of 

the scheduling and project management necessary to accomplish the work.

NPS states that although providing a project work plan was optional, the 

demonstration of requisite understanding was not. AR at 11. The agency states 

that EI’s quotation was downgraded not due to its lack of a formal work plan, but for

its failure to otherwise adequately demonstrate an understanding of the scheduling 

and project management necessary to accomplish the work. Id. We think that the 

agency’s concern here was reasonable, as the record shows that while the 

protester’s quotation contained numerous resumes and references, it lacked a work 

 

4 The agency noted that the portion of EI’s quotation that discussed experience only 

included dates for one project and that the evaluators knew that these three projects 

referred to above fell outside of the three-year range due to their personal 

knowledge. CO Statement at 11. 
Page 8 B-407705 

plan or other means that demonstrated its understanding of the scheduling and 

project management necessary to accomplish the work or ability to complete the 

project on-time. See AR, Tab 6c, TEP Consensus Memorandum, at 7. 

In sum EI’s protest does not provide a basis to question the reasonableness of the 

agency’s determination that EI’s quotation contained various weaknesses and was 

downgraded accordingly. 

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel