United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: Symplicity Corporation 

File: B-291902 

Date: April 29, 2003 

Ariel M. Friedler for the protester. 

Richard P. Rector, Esq., and David E. Fletcher, Esq., Piper Rudnick, for TMP 

Worldwide, Inc., the intervenor. 

Sandra Scholar, Esq., and Mark A. Robbins, Esq., Office of Personnel Management, 

and Kacie A. Haberly, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agencies. 

Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., 

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

DIGEST 

1. Contracting agency’s award of a task order to a firm pursuant to the firm’s Federal 

Supply Schedule (FSS) contract is improper where the agency failed to consider 

whether the services offered by the firm are covered by its FSS contract, and the 

record establishes that the firm’s quotation was based on providing personnel under 

labor categories not contained in its FSS contract. 

2. Agency’s evaluation of quotations submitted in response to a competitive 

procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule program was unreasonable, where 

the record reflects that the protester included its price for the performance of a 

particular task in its quotation while the awardee’s quotation used a pricing structure 

for that task that did not provide a basis for a fair comparison of vendors’ prices. 

DECISION 

Symplicity Corporation protests the award of a task order to TMP Worldwide, Inc. 

(d/b/a Monster Government Solutions) under TMP’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 

contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. SOLO30000003, issued by the 
Page 2 B-291902 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM), for on-line federal employment information 

services.1

We sustain the protest because OPM did not adequately consider whether the 

services TMP identified in its quotation were covered by its FSS contract, and 

because OPM did not reasonably evaluate quotations with regard to the vendors’

proposed prices for system integration. 

OPM currently operates and maintains USAJOBS, which is an automated federal 

employment information system providing notice of job opportunities in the federal 

government. The USAJOBS website “is accessed by over 10,000,000 unique visitors 

each year,” and has available “[a]pproximately 16,000 to 18,000 vacancy 

announcements . . . each day.” RFQ at 6. The RFQ sought “significant 

enhancements” to the federal government’s employment information system to 

deliver “the best of the next generation of on-line Federal employment information 

services.” For example, while under the current system “a job seeker who wishes to 

apply for 10 different jobs might be required to print a resume 10 times and send it to 

10 separate addresses, even if all 10 jobs are in the same agency,” the RFQ 

anticipates that job seekers will be able to “[c]reate their resumes in a common 

format, and send them to as many job openings as they wish via the [new] 

Recruitment One-Stop/USAJOBS website.” RFQ at 5-6. 

 

The RFQ contained task descriptions for web-based services, telephone-based 

services, as well as other services, and listed nine “major” performance requirements 

as well as certain technical requirements. RFQ at 8-17, 24. For example, the 

solicitation provided that the “overall site design must continue to promote the idea 

of the Federal Government as a corporate brand, and convey to job seekers the 

diversity of Federal career opportunities and the values, rewards, and benefits of 

public service,” and specified that the website and telephone systems be accessible 

24 hours per day, 365 days per year. RFQ at 8, 13. Additionally, the solicitation 

included an appendix listing various functional requirements, but noted that these 

functional requirements were “generally described in terms of desired results, 

leaving open the approach by which the objective will be achieved.” RFQ at 12-13, 

app. B. 

The RFQ provided for the award of a 1-year fixed-price task order, with four 1-year 

options, and stated that award would be made to the vendor whose quotation was 

determined “most advantageous to the Government considering primarily the 

contractor’s demonstrated technical excellence.” The solicitation set forth the 

following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: soundness 

 

1

 Because a protective order was not issued in connection with this case, the 

language in our decision, which is based in part upon source selection sensitive and 

confidential information, is necessarily general. 
Page 3 B-291902 

of proposed technical approach, management capabilities, past performance, and 

value of enhancements. The solicitation added that the “[t]echnical evaluation 

factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.” RFQ 

at 26, 27. 

In response to the RFQ, vendors were to submit a “Technical Proposal” as well as a 

“Pricing Proposal.” RFQ at 20. The RFQ specified that each vendor’s “Technical 

Proposal” was to address the vendor’s approach and methodology for accomplishing 

the work required, as well as the vendor’s approach to meeting the nine “major”

performance requirements set forth in the solicitation. RFQ at 23-24. The technical 

proposal section of each vendor’s quotation was also to include the roles and 

resumes of the proposed key personnel, as well as past performance references. 

With regard to past performance, vendors were to submit information on past 

contracts “similar to those required by this contract,” and were informed that past 

performance was going to be used to “[a]ssess how well the contractor has 

performed in the past,” and to “[d]etermine how relevant the work performed is to 

the requirement in this solicitation.” RFQ at 25, 27. Finally, the solicitation provided 

that the vendors determined “to be best qualified” by OPM after the “initial 

evaluation of proposals” may be “requested to make an Oral Presentation.” The RFQ 

provided that the oral presentation would consist of a “30-minute presentation,”

followed by a question and answer period not to exceed two hours. RFQ at 21. 

The RFQ was sent to nine different FSS vendors, including Symplicity and TMP, that 

hold contracts under different GSA schedules under which OPM had previously 

determined award could be made.2

 For example, Symplicity holds a contract under 

GSA Schedule 70 (Information Technology Services), and TMP holds a contract 

under GSA Schedule 738I (Marketing, Media and Public Information Services). 

Five vendors, including Symplicity and TMP, submitted quotations. OPM evaluated 

the vendors’ quotations, provided each vendor with “a set of questions regarding 

their technical proposals,” and conducted oral presentations with each of the five 

vendors. Agency Report (AR) at 3, 6. The agency included the quotations of three 

vendors, including Symplicity and TMP, in the competitive range, provided the 

competitive range vendors with written discussion questions, and conducted oral 

discussions. AR at 6. OPM requested, received, and evaluated final revised 

quotations, and selected TMP’s higher-priced, higher-rated quotation for award of the 

task order, valued at several million dollars. This protest followed. 

Symplicity argues that the services sought under the RFQ cannot be purchased from 

TMP under its Schedule 738I contract because the services are outside the scope of 

the contract. Specifically, Symplicity contends that TMP’s Schedule 738I contract 

 

2

 Collectively, these vendors hold FSS contracts under four different schedules. 
Page 4 B-291902 

does not contain the appropriate labor categories, and that labor may have been 

improperly included as “other direct costs” (ODC) under this task order. 

The FSS program, directed and managed by GSA, gives federal agencies a simplified 

process for obtaining commonly used commercial supplies and services. Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 8.401(a). The procedures established for the FSS 

program satisfy the requirement for full and open competition. 41 U.S.C. § 259(b)(3); 

FAR § 6.102(d)(3); Sales Res. Consultants, Inc., B-284943, B-284943.2, June 9, 2000, 

2000 CPD ¶ 102 at 3-4. Non-FSS products and services may not be purchased using 

FSS procedures; instead, their purchase requires compliance with the applicable 

procurement laws and regulations, including those requiring the use of competitive 

procedures. OMNIPLEX World Servs. Corp., B-291105, Nov. 6, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 199 

at 4-5. 

As noted above, TMP holds a contract with GSA under Schedule 738I, Marketing, 

Media and Public Information Services. The task order here was issued under TMP’s 

Schedule 738I contract, special item number (SIN) SIN-8, Full Service Marketing, 

Media, and Public Information Service. AR at 8; Tab 8, Award of Task Order to TMP. 

Under SIN-8, vendors “provide a broad range of services required by Federal 

Government agencies for short and long term integrated marketing campaigns.” 

GSA Schedule 738I, SIN-8. As the title and general description of SIN-8 suggest, it is 

a “catch all” SIN, under which vendors can perform work covered by two or more of 

the other 11 SINs set forth in Schedule 738I. 3 Id.; Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 15, 61. 

TMP’s contract under Schedule 738I, SIN-8 sets forth 19 labor categories, such as 

“Account Supervisor” and “Programmer,” as well as a general description of TMP’s 

ODCs that support the services provided under SIN-8. AR, Tab 4B, TMP’s Final 

Quotation. These ODCs include such things as research materials, telemarketing call 

centers, advertising media, printing and photocopying.4

 Id.; TMP’s Pricing Schedule, 

available at <http://www.gsaadvantage.gov>. 

 

3

 Schedule 738I is comprised of the following 12 SINS: SIN 1-Market Research, Media 

Analysis and Related Services; SIN 2-Web Site Design and Maintenance Services; 

SIN 3-Trade Shows/Exhibits and Conference and Events Planning Services; 

SIN 4-Press and Public Relations Services; SIN 5-Public Education and Outdoor 

Marketing and Media Service; SIN 6-Radio, Television, and Public Service 

Announcements Services; SIN 7-Introduction of New Products or Services; SIN 8-

Full Service Marketing, Media, and Public Information Service; SIN 9-Direct Mail 

Services; SIN 10-Commercial Photography Services; SIN 11-Commercial Art and 

Graphic Design Services; and SIN 12-Videotape and Film Production Services. GSA 

Schedule 738I. 

4

 A full description of TMP’s ODCs, as defined in its contract, is as follows: 

“Research Materials, Release, Focus Group, Survey, Polling, Testing, Telemarketing 

Call Center, Advertising Media (print, voice, web/Monster, outdoor, etc.), Mail Lists, 

(continued...) 
Page 5 B-291902 

The record establishes, and neither OPM, GSA, nor TMP argues otherwise, that 

TMP’s quotation here included two labor categories that are not on its Schedule 738I 

contract, and that OPM recognized but failed to realize the importance of this during 

its evaluation of TMP’s quotation. AR, Tab 4B, TMP’s Final Quotation, at 1; OPM’s 

Post-Hearing Comments at 8-11; GSA’s Post-Hearing Comments at 7; TMP’s 

Post-Hearing Comments at 10-11; Tr. at 72, 101, 105, 136. The acceptance of TMP’s 

quotation and award of a task order to that firm by OPM was thus improper because, 

as noted above, an agency cannot lawfully use the FSS ordering procedures to order 

services that are not contained on the vendor’s schedule contract. OMNIPLEX 

World Servs. Corp., supra, at 5-6; The CDM Group, Inc.; B-291304.2, Dec. 23, 2002, 

2002 CPD ¶ 221 at 3-4. That is, as confirmed by GSA, labor categories included in a 

vendor’s quotation must be listed on the vendor’s schedule contract before a task 

order is issued. GSA’s Post-Hearing Comments at 2, 7; Tr. at 31-32, 80; The CDM 

Group, Inc., supra. We sustain the protest on this basis.5

This problem is symptomatic of OPM’s approach to this procurement. In this regard, 

the record reflects that OPM never performed an analysis of whether the quoted 

services, labor categories, or ODCs included in TMP’s quotation were within the 

scope of TMP’s Schedule 738I contract. Tr. at 101-03, 105, 108, 125-26, 189. In fact, 

OPM has represented that it “could not come to any specific conclusion one way or 

the other” as to whether TMP proposed services as ODCs in a manner that was 

consistent with its Schedule 738I contract. 6 Tr. at 231. 

 

(...continued) 

Color Laser Prints and Scans, Scans, Photography, Image and Music Rights, Film and 

Veloxes, Storage Media, Printing & Photocopying, Miscellaneous Production 

Expenses, Trade Show Exhibits, Conference, Exhibits, Postage and Mailing Services, 

Messengers/Express Mail, and Telephone Charges.” 

5

 OPM contends that Symplicity was not prejudiced, since TMP could have taken 

steps that would have corrected the labor category deficiency had discussions 

occurred. Although the agency may be correct that TMP could have corrected this 

deficiency in its quotation had it been raised during discussions, the fact is it did not 

do so. The agency’s position here does not, in our view, address the fundamental 

flaw that OPM awarded a task order under a FSS contract to a vendor who did not 

have all the required services in its contract and whose quotation was therefore 

unacceptable, which prejudiced vendors who submitted quotations based on their 

FSS contracts. See T-L-C Sys., B-285687.2, Sept. 29, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 166 at 4. 

6

 Symplicity appears to challenge the use here of Schedule 738I, arguing that the RFQ 

requires services inappropriate for purchase under that schedule. We think this 

argument is irrelevant to the pertinent inquiry, which is whether the particular terms 

of TMP’s Schedule 738I contract included all services ordered here. As stated above, 

OPM failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of this issue. 
Page 6 B-291902 

Symplicity also protests that OPM’s evaluation of its quotation was unreasonable and 

inconsistent with the RFQ’s evaluation factors. Under the FSS program, agencies are 

not required to conduct a competition before selecting a vendor that represents the 

best value and meets the agency’s needs at the lowest overall cost. FAR § 8.404(a); 

Computer Prods., Inc., B-284702, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 95 at 4. However, where, 

as here, an agency handles the selection of a vendor for an FSS order like a 

competition in a negotiated procurement, and a protest is filed challenging the 

outcome of the competition, we will review the agency’s actions to ensure that the 

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 

Computer Prods., supra, at 4-5. 

Specifically, Symplicity argues that OPM erred in evaluating systems integration 

costs. With regard to systems integration, the RFQ (at 25) provided as follows: 

The firm, fixed prices proposed must include all costs associated with 

performing the services. OPM will also establish a Blanket Purchase 

Agreement (BPA) under the underlying GSA Federal Supply Schedule to 

order services necessary to integrate other Federal agency employment 

systems and the Recruitment One-Stop system. 

The agency subsequently provided the competitive range vendors with an e-mail that 

listed “Assumptions for Integration” (such as the statement that “[t]here are 

76 Cabinet level Departments and Independent Agencies in the Executive Branch”), 

and requested that each vendor “explain [its] proposed approach for accomplishing 

this task, whether or not you have included the estimated costs for accomplishing 

this task in your proposed fixed price, and if not, what your estimated cost would be 

for performing this activity and what the underlying assumptions you have made in 

arriving at this estimate.” AR, Tabs 5A(4), 5B(4), 5C(4), E-mails to Vendors 

(Dec. 6, 2002). 

Symplicity included its price for systems integration in its final fixed-price quotation, 

whereas TMP’s quotation, as considered by the agency, did not. AR, Tab 4A, 

Symplicity’s Final Quotation, Updated Pricing Summary, at 1; Tab 4B, TMP’s Final 

Quotation, at R 19-22. Symplicity contends in this regard that it was misled during 

discussions with OPM into ignoring the above-quoted RFQ provision providing that 

integration costs were to be purchased through a separate blanket purchase 

agreement, and instead understood that it was required to provide in its final 

quotation its price for systems integration. Tr. at 246. 

We need not decide whether the protester was misled regarding the pricing of 

systems integration during its discussions with OPM because we find that OPM’s 

evaluation of systems integration costs was flawed. The record reflects that OPM 

recognized that Symplicity’s price for systems integration was included in its fixed-
Page 7 B-291902 

price quotation.7 AR, Tab 6, Procurement Summary Report, at 10; Tr. at 272, 286. 

The record also reflects that the agency recognized that TMP’s final quotation did not 

fully include its price for systems integration. AR, Tab 6, Procurement Summary 

Report, at 11; Tr. at 263. 

In our view, the agency, at a minimum, was required to evaluate offerors on an equal 

basis and in a manner such that the total cost to the government for the required 

services could be meaningfully assessed.8 See Lockheed Aeronautical Sys. Co., 

B-252235.2, Aug. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 80 at 7 (“apples and oranges” cost evaluation 

“inherently improper”); Dillon Supply Co.; Dept. of Energy--Recon., B-203937, 

Jan. 19, 1982, 82-1 CPD ¶ 41 at 3-4 (protest sustained where costs were excluded 

from some vendors’ quotations and not others). OPM’s evaluation approach here 

created a situation where OPM was in effect comparing “apples and oranges,” in that 

it permitted vendors to choose whether or not to include in their quotations a price 

for systems integration, which did not provide a basis for the total cost of each 

vendor’s approach to be meaningfully compared.9

 Accordingly, we sustain the 

protest on this basis as well. 

Symplicity also argues that OPM applied unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation 

of quotations in evaluating technical approach and past performance, in that it 

considered the vendors’ approaches to marketing or promoting the contemplated 

Recruitment One-Stop/USAJOBS website and the federal government as an 

employer, and the sizes of the vendors’ past contracts. 

Vendors must be advised of the bases upon which their quotations will be evaluated. 

This means that an agency may not consider evaluation criteria that are not 

reasonably related to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFQ. KPMG Consulting 

LLP, B-290716; B-290716.2, Sept. 23, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 196 at 14. As explained below, 

we find that the agency’s consideration of the vendors’ approaches to marketing and 

size of their past contracts did not constitute the use of unstated evaluation criteria 

since these considerations were reasonably related to the evaluation factors set forth 

in the RFQ. 

 

7

 OPM concedes that Symplicity’s price for these services included in its quotation is 

readily calculable. 

8

 The agency may want to clarify for vendors its needs regarding systems integration 

services as part of its corrective action, in order to provide for a fair and equitable 

competition. COMARK Fed. Sys., B-278343, B-278343.2, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 34 

at 5; Haworth, Inc.; Knoll N. Am., Inc., B-256702.2, B-256702.3, Sept. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD 

¶ 98 at 5-6. 

9

 It does not appear that the vendors’ costs for systems integration would necessarily 

be comparable. 
Page 8 B-291902 

Specifically, the RFQ stated that under the soundness of proposed technical 

approach evaluation factor the agency would “be looking for how well the 

[quotation] shows an understanding of the[] tasks” identified in section A.3 of the 

solicitation. RFQ at 27. Section A.3 provided, in turn, that “[t]he page and overall 

site design must continue to promote the idea of the Federal Government as a 

corporate brand, and convey to job seekers the diversity of Federal career 

opportunities and the values, rewards, and benefits of public service.” This section 

of the RFQ continued by stating that “[t]he text and graphics on the page must 

communicate the ‘one-stop’ concept.” RFQ at 8. 

In evaluating quotations, the record reflects that OPM considered how the vendors’

competing technical approaches promoted the idea of federal government 

employment. As illustrated above, this was reasonably related to the RFQ’s 

soundness of technical approach evaluation factor, in that it involved the 

consideration of how well the quotations “promote[d] the idea of the Federal 

Government as a corporate brand, and convey[ed] to job seekers the diversity of 

Federal career opportunities and the values, rewards, and benefits of public service.” 

See RFQ at 8, 27. 

With regard to the past performance evaluation factor, the RFQ requested that 

vendors provide “evidence of their ability to successfully perform the work 

described in this solicitation.” RFQ at 25. Consistent with this, the solicitation 

specified that the information provided would be used to “[d]etermine how relevant 

the work performed is to the requirement in this solicitation,” and that the evaluation 

would “focus on how well the [quotation] documents and provides the requested 

information concerning successful performance on previous projects that are related 

to the Recruitment One-Stop.” RFQ at 25, 27. 

Contrary to Symplicity’s assertions, the agency’s consideration of contract size in its 

evaluation of the vendors’ past performance is unobjectionable, given that it is 

reasonably related to the “relevan[ce]” of past contracts as well as the successful 

performance of previous contracts that are related to this effort, both of which are 

considerations under past performance factor. Indeed, our Office has stated that it 

would be both illogical and unreasonable to presume that that an agency will pay no 

attention to the size and similarity of past contracts in its evaluation of past 

performance, since such factors are germane to the relevance of the past 

performance information. Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, B-285035, July 5, 

2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 129 at 6. Accordingly, this aspect of Symplicity’s protest is 

denied.10 

 

10 Simplicity also argues that OPM failed to apply the Buy American Act surcharge to 

TMP’s quotation, based upon Symplicity’s speculation that TMP utilizes the services 

of a foreign company. The record provides no support for Symplicity’s assertion 

here. 
Page 9 B-291902 

The protest is sustained. We recommend that OPM evaluate vendors’ quotations to 

determine whether the proposed services (including labor categories and ODCs) are 

within the scope of their respective schedule contracts. We further recommend that 

OPM reopen discussions with all vendors whose quotations are in the competitive 

range,11 and request and reevaluate revised quotations. 12 OPM may also want to 

amend its RFQ to further clarify its systems integration needs. We also recommend 

that the protester be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 4 C.F.R. 

§ 21.8(d)(1) (2003). The protester should submit its certified claim for such costs, 

detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the contracting agency 

within 60 days of receiving this decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1). 

This protest is sustained. 

Anthony H. Gamboa 

General Counsel 

 

11 Had OPM properly evaluated TMP’s quotation, the apparent deficiency with regard 

to labor categories should have been raised with TMP during discussions. However, 

as indicated, TMP was not informed during discussions that its quotation was 

deficient in that it included labor categories that were not listed on TMP’s GSA 

Schedule 738I contract. 

12 In view of this recommendation, we need not address Symplicity’s protest that the 

agency’s evaluation of quotations and conduct of discussions under the management 

capability and past performance factors, and its best value analysis, were 

unreasonable and improper.