United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: Colmek Systems Engineering 

File: B-291931.2 

Date: July 9, 2003 

Craig G. Adamson, Esq., and Craig A. Hoggan, Esq., Dart, Adamson & Donavan, for 

the protester. 

Richard Dale, II, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. 

Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester’s proposal is denied 

where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 

solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria, which logically encompassed the area for 

which the protester’s proposal was downgraded. 

DECISION 

Colmek Systems Engineering, Inc. protests the award of a contract to RD 

Instruments (RDI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00174-02-R-0067, issued 

by the Department of the Navy for the production, delivery, and support of the MK 

15 MOD 0 Underwater Imaging System for use by the Navy’s explosive ordnance 

disposal forces. Colmek argues that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal and 

improperly made award on the basis of initial proposals, without conducting 

discussions. 

We deny the protest. 

To eliminate hazardous ordnance that jeopardizes military operations, the Navy’s 

explosive ordnance disposal forces must search, detect, locate, and classify mines 

and other explosive threats during explosive ordnance disposal mine countermeasure operations. The Navy anticipates that the integration of navigation and 

sonar tools in the underwater imaging system (UIS) it is procuring here will enhance 

warfighter effectiveness by allowing a single diver to operate the tools 

simultaneously and will greatly enhance underwater area searches and location 

capabilities. The UIS consists of a diver-held unit, two navigation beacons for long 
Page 2 B-291931.2 

baseline navigation, a battery and battery charger, ancillary equipment, and 

supporting documentation. RFP Statement of Work (SOW) ¶ 1.0. 

The solicitation anticipated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity 

contract with fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee orders to perform various services 

over a 10-year period. Since this is the initial production contract for the UIS, the 

contractor is first required to conduct a pre-production evaluation of the build-toprint technical data package (TDP) to resolve any TDP deficiencies that would make 

it impossible to produce, fabricate, or assemble the contract items in the quantities 

specified in exact accordance with the TDP, and to incorporate any necessary 

changes prior to production. SOW ¶ 3.1. After this process has been completed, the 

contractor is required to fabricate four first article test units. Pending first article 

test acceptance, and if funded, the contractor is required to fabricate, build, 

assemble, and test up to 222 UIS units performing all inspections, calibration 

procedures, checkout procedures, and packaging necessary for delivery to the 

government. Id. ¶ 3.2. Finally, the contractor is required to provide various services 

in support of the UIS units over the life of the contract. Id. ¶¶ 3.3, 3.4. 

Award was to be made to the firm whose offer represented the best overall value to 

the government following a two-phase evaluation process. Under the first phase, the 

Navy planned to consider, on a pass/fail basis, whether a submission included the 

offer/proposal, technical approach information, offeror capability information, a 

small business subcontracting plan (if applicable), and cost and price information. 

Only those submissions receiving a “pass” rating could be considered for further 

evaluation. Under the second phase, the Navy planned to evaluate offers against 

four factors: technical approach, offeror capability, small business subcontracting 

plan (if applicable)1, and cost/price. The technical approach factor was more 

important than the offeror capability factor, which was significantly more important 

than cost/price. RFP § M.I. The technical approach factor was comprised of five 

subfactors worth a total of 100 points: summary, pre-production and production 

evaluation, production plan, supply support services, and engineering services. 

These subfactors are listed in descending order of importance except for the least 

important summary subfactor. Id. The offeror capability factor was comprised of 

two subfactors, relevant experience and past performance; the former was more 

important than the latter. Id.

Source selection was to be determined using a specified methodology. The first step 

was to determine the “promised value” which, in this procurement, was the total 

point score awarded under the technical approach factor. RFP § M.II.(1). The 

second step was to assign a level of confidence assessment rating (LOCAR) to each 

offeror’s capability (including relevant experience and past performance) using a 

 

1

 The small business subcontracting plan factor was not applicable here because 

both firms submitting offers were small businesses. 
Page 3 B-291931.2 

scale indicating the degree of confidence the Navy had in the firm’s ability to 

succeed.2 RFP § M.II.(2). The third step was to determine the Navy’s level of 

confidence and expected value associated with each offeror. The level of confidence 

was a subjective rating that would reflect the degree to which the Navy believed an 

offeror was likely to keep the promises it made in its offer. The expected value was 

to be ascertained by multiplying the promised value by the LOCAR and was to be 

expressed in terms of a percentage. RFP § M.II.(3). To determine which offeror 

represented the best value to the government, the Navy was to make a series of 

paired comparisons among the offerors, trading off the differences in the non-price 

factors against the difference in most probable price between the offerors. If the 

offeror with the higher expected value had the higher price, the Navy had to decide 

whether the margin of higher expected value (that is, the greater prospects for 

success) was worth the higher price. RFP § M.II. 

The solicitation stated that the Navy planned to award the contract on the basis of 

initial proposals, without conducting discussions. RFP § M.I. As a result, offerors 

were told that their proposals should contain their best terms from a technical, 

cost/price, relevant experience and past performance standpoint. If considered 

necessary by the contracting officer, however, discussions would be conducted only 

with those offerors determined to have a reasonable chance for award. Id.

RDI and Colmek were the only firms that submitted offers. The Navy’s evaluation 

panel conducted an evaluation of both firms’ proposals, with the following results: 

Colmek RDI 

Technical Approach 

Summary (10 points) 

Pre-production and Production Evaluation (30 points) 

Production Plan (25 points) 

Supply Support (20 points) 

Engineering Services (15 points) 

74.0 

 4 

 19 

 19.5 

 17.5 

 14

97.5 

 9.88 

 29.75 

 23.25 

 19.88 

 14.75

LOCAR Determination/Offeror Capability 

Relevant Experience 

Past Performance 

0.81 

Satisfactory 

Excellent 

0.95 

Excellent 

Good 

Promised 

Value 

X LOCAR Expected 

Value 

Evaluated 

Cost/Price 

Colmek 74.00 X .81 60 $6,743,935 

RDI 97.50 X .95 93 $8,613,493 

 

2

 The scale was 0 to .4 for “less confident”; .6 to .94 for “more confident”; “.95 to 1.0 

for “most confident”; and .5 for neutral. RFP § M.II.(2). 
Page 4 B-291931.2 

The narrative report from the technical evaluation panel (TEP) summarized the 

bases for Colmek’s technical approach factor scores. Under the summary subfactor, 

the Navy found that Colmek had not sufficiently demonstrated that the requirements 

had been analyzed, evaluated, and synthesized into approaches, plans, and 

techniques that should result in the delivery of systems and services that address all 

requirements and will be beneficial to the overall program. The Navy stated that its 

most significant concern was Colmek’s ability to build acoustic transducers, and that 

it was also concerned that Colmek failed to clearly convey its understanding of 

magnetic signature requirements. The evaluators could not determine how the firm 

could produce and support an acoustic aspect of the system, and found that 

Colmek’s ability to evaluate the TDP during the pre-production evaluation and over 

the life of the contract was a significant weakness. Technical Evaluation 

Chairperson’s Final Report at 4. Under the pre-production evaluation subfactor, 

which required the offeror to describe its approach for conducting a TDP review, 

including the labor hours required to conduct the pre-production evaluation, the 

Navy found that, among other things, the level of effort outlined in Colmek’s 

proposal did not appear to be sufficient and Colmek’s ability to conduct the preproduction evaluation relevant to acoustic and magnetic signature areas was 

significantly lacking the categories of personnel to properly certify the adequacy and 

accuracy of the TDP. Id. at 5. Under the production plan subfactor, the Navy found 

that Colmek’s failure to discuss how it intended to assemble acoustic transducers 

and meet the requirements was a minor weakness. Id. With respect to Colmek’s 

relevant experience, the agency noted that Colmek had “good experience in 

electronics but [had] satisfactory or poor experience with acoustic transponders, 

underwater housings, diver-held equipment and low magnetic signature 

requirements.” Id. at 6. 

In contrast, the Navy found no weaknesses in RDI’s proposal under the technical 

approach factor save for a minor weakness under one subfactor; the Navy concluded 

that RDI’s approaches, plans, and techniques were “extremely” or “significantly”

beneficial to the overall program. Id. at 7-8. The evaluation panel also found that 

RDI had more than 20 years of relevant experience and had demonstrated more than 

10 years of experience in UIS functional areas of navigation, sonar transducers, 

electronic systems, underwater housings, and diver-held equipment. Id. at 8. 

The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed these findings and noted that RDI 

offered 33 more points of expected value, which meant, according to the SSA, that 

the Navy was “33 percent more confident” that RDI would perform successfully than 

Colmek. Business Clearance Memorandum at 17. She also noted that the price 

difference between the two offerors was $1,869,558, or 21.7 percent. She considered 

the effort that was to be performed and found that, while the UIS was a build-to-print 

item, many aspects of the procurement were very complex and required technical 

expertise and understanding. The SSA explained that RDI’s technical proposal 

contained very few weaknesses and many strengths, resulting in its 97.5 percent 

promised value. On the other hand, Colmek’s technical proposal had several 

weaknesses and very few strengths, resulting in its 74 percent promised value. She 
Page 5 B-291931.2 

also pointed out that RDI had extensive relevant experience in manufacturing handheld systems and that Colmek had no experience in manufacturing similar systems. 

The SSA concluded that paying an additional $56,653.27 per expected value point 

over a 10-year period was worth the additional technical and experience capability 

the Navy would obtain from RDI, and that RDI’s offer represented the best value to 

the government. Id. Award was made to RDI on January 23, 2003. 

On February 1, Colmek filed an agency-level protest challenging the award to RDI. 

After the Navy denied its agency-level protest, Colmek filed this protest in our Office. 

Colmek’s protest enumerated 30 separate challenges to the award, each of which 

was fully addressed by the Navy in its agency report. Colmek’s comments on the 

agency report were limited to two issues.3 The protester argues that the Navy 

improperly downgraded its proposal for its failure to address transducer 

subassemblies, and that the Navy improperly awarded the contract based upon 

initial proposals, without conducting discussions. 

Colmek first contends that the Navy unreasonably downgraded its proposal for its 

failure to address the assembly of transducers, arguing that the solicitation did not 

require such information. 

In reviewing protests against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, we examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent 

with stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Lear Siegler 

Servs., Inc., B-280834, B-280834.2, Nov. 25, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 136 at 7. Solicitations 

must describe the factors and significant subfactors that will be used to evaluate the 

proposals and their relative importance, and the evaluation of proposals must be 

based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in the solicitation. Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §§ 15.203(a)(4), 15.303(b)(4). In performing the 

evaluation, however, the agency may take into account specific, albeit not expressly 

identified, matters that are logically encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. 

Cobra Tech., Inc., B-272041, B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 73 at 3. 

The Navy explains that the UIS allows divers to precisely navigate underwater, scan 

underwater sonar images and view an underwater map of the route in and out of 

mine fields. The UIS uses navigational beacons to receive and transmit acoustic 

signals that the diver-held unit (DHU) interprets to precisely display to the divers 

their location in the minefield. Transducers--which provide digital signals that are 

interpreted by processors and output as visual display information to the divers on 

the DHU--are component parts in the DHU and the floating beacons. The UIS does 

not operate without functioning transducers. Agency Supplemental Report at 1-2. 

 

3

 Since Colmek did not pursue the numerous other allegations it made in its protest, 

we consider them to be abandoned and do not address them further. Atlantic Coast 

Contracting, Inc., B-291893, Apr. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 87 at 4 n.3. 
Page 6 B-291931.2 

The TEP chairperson explains that UIS assembly requires the encapsulation of 

underwater assemblies and testing requires the use of calibrated acoustic 

measurement facilities. The UIS has four transducers that require the potential 

contractor to follow assembly procedures delineated in the TDP. For example, the 

transducer on the master beacon, which contains 33 separate components, requires 

the contractor to fabricate the assembly from piece parts purchased from various 

sources and electrically test the assembly in multiple stages in accordance with a 

TDP drawing. Once the transducer is assembled and electrically tested, it is 

mounted onto a beacon assembly and acoustically tested in accordance with another 

drawing. This test requires the manufacturer to have test facilities and equipment to 

measure acoustic source level output. TEP Chairperson’s Declaration ¶ 3. 

The Navy argues that the solicitation instructions and evaluation factors logically 

encompassed a discussion of transducer assembly. Our review of the solicitation 

leads us to agree with the Navy. 

The SOW described the program requirements in their entirety. As relevant here, 

during the pre-production evaluation, the contractor is required to resolve any TDP 

deficiencies that would make it impossible to “produce, fabricate, or assemble the 

contract items in the quantities specified in exact accordance with the TDP.” SOW 

¶ 3.1. After the pre-production evaluation, the contractor is to embark upon the 

production fabrication process, which requires it to “fabricate, build, assemble, and 

test each UIS performing all inspections, calibration procedures, checkout 

procedures, and packaging necessary to deliver production UISs to the 

Government.” Id. ¶ 3.2. 

Section L of the solicitation described the information offerors were required to 

include in their proposals, and section M of the solicitation described how the Navy 

planned to evaluate proposals under each of the technical approach subfactors. 

With respect to the summary subfactor, the RFP stated, “The proposal summary 

shall provide a concise statement of the Offeror’s understanding of the overall 

concept of the work being proposed and provide a comprehensive plan for 

addressing the program requirements.” RFP § L at 90. The Navy planned to evaluate 

the offeror’s “understanding of the overall concept of the work being proposed and 

the comprehensive plan for addressing the program requirements. RFP § M at 96. 

With respect to the production plan subfactor, the RFP stated, “The Offeror shall 

describe in detail their plan for manufacturing the required quantity of production 

units,” and the plan shall “address all actions that are necessary to produce, test, and 

deliver acceptable systems.” RFP § L at 90. The Navy planned to evaluate the 

offeror’s “plan for manufacturing the required quantity of production units” and the 

offeror’s “proposed actions that are necessary to produce, test, and delivery 

acceptable systems.” Id. 

In view of the fact that the program requirements included the assembly of the UIS 

units, the fact that section L of the RFP required offerors to provide a comprehensive 

plan for addressing the program requirements and manufacturing the units and 
Page 7 B-291931.2 

section M of the RFP informed offerors that the Navy planned to evaluate these 

plans, and the fact that the assembly of transducers is an important aspect of the 

program requirements, we find that the Navy’s consideration of offerors’ plans to 

assemble the transducers was logically encompassed by the solicitation’s evaluation 

criteria and the agency’s downgrading of Colmek’s proposal for failure to discuss 

these matters was proper.4 Cobra Tech., Inc., supra. 

Colmek also argues that it was unreasonable for the contracting officer to award the 

contract based on initial proposals, without conducting discussions. Colmek states 

that only two proposals were submitted in response to the solicitation, and that there 

was a wide price variation between these proposals. The firm asserts that the major 

reason for the price discrepancy was its level of effort estimate for the preproduction evaluation, which the Navy believed to be insufficient, and argues that 

this concern, which led the Navy to conclude that it did not understand the 

requirements, could have been clarified during discussions. Colmek also argues that 

the Navy’s concern about its plans to assemble the transducers could have been 

clarified during discussions. 

There generally is no obligation that a contracting agency conduct discussions 

where, as here, the RFP specifically instructs offerors of the agency’s intent to award 

a contract on the basis of initial proposals. FAR § 15.306(a)(3); Robotic Sys. Tech., 

B-278195.2, Jan. 7, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 20 at 11. The contracting officer’s discretion in 

deciding not to hold discussions is quite broad. Our Office will review the exercise 

of such discretion only to ensure that it was reasonably based on the particular 

circumstances of the procurement. Robotic Sys. Tech., supra. We find no 

circumstances here that call into question the agency’s decision not to engage in 

discussions. 

The protest is denied. 

Anthony H. Gamboa 

General Counsel 

 

4

 Colmek has not rebutted the Navy’s position concerning the importance of the 

transducers and their assembly. In addition, the Navy states that the UIS must also 

comply with a certain military specification as a safety measure to operate near 

magnetically influenced mines--otherwise, the UIS will detonate magnetically 

influenced mines, most likely killing or seriously injuring the diver(s). The Navy 

points out that Colmek’s proposal was also downgraded due to its insufficient 

approach to the subject of magnetic signatures, and Colmek has not rebutted the 

Navy’s position regarding this aspect of its evaluation.