United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Miracle Systems, LLC

File: B-407324.7, B-407324.8, B-407324.10

Date: March 5, 2013

David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., Cohen 

Mohr LLP, for the protester.

Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., Albo & Oblon, LLP, for Sevatec, Inc., an intervenor.

Adam Sleeter, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

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

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 

DECISION

Miracle Systems, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) award of a contract to 

Sevatec, Inc., of Falls Church, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. DTFH61-12-R-00012, for FHWA’s Information Technology Support Services 

(FITSS) II contract. Miracle asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its 

proposal.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation, issued as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, provided for award of a 

contract to furnish information technology (IT) support services for the design, 

installation, management, maintenance and improvement of FHWA’s nationwide 

information technology infrastructure. This work was divided among 7 task areas: 

program management, integrated communications, capital planning, infrastructure 

support, application software management, customer service, and IT security.

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-407324.7, et al.

The solicitation provided for award to be made to the offeror whose proposal 

represented the best value considering the following evaluation factors (worth a total 

of 100 points): technical approach; management approach; quality control/quality 

assurance; past performance; and cost/price. Each proposal was also to be 

assigned a risk rating of low, moderate, or high. Overall, when combined, the four 

non-price evaluation factors were significantly more important than cost/price. RFP 

§§ M.2, M.3, M.4; Technical Evaluation Report (TER) at 3.

Twelve offerors responded to the RFP. Following the evaluation of proposals, the 

agency initially made award to Sevatec. After a debriefing, Miracle filed a protest 

with our Office against the award. In response, the agency agreed to reevaluate 

proposals, and our Office dismissed Miracle’s protest as academic. 

B-407324 et al., Nov. 14, 2012.

Subsequent to the reevaluation, Sevatec’s proposal received the highest technical 

score (82 points, 19 strengths and 1 weakness). Sevatec was rated medium for 

past performance with low performance risk. Miracle’s proposal received a technical 

score of 78 points (10 strengths, 1 weakness and 3 “deficiencies”), and was also 

rated medium for past performance with low performance risk. Supplemental 

Source Selection Decision at 1. Sevatec’s evaluated price was $117,240,476, while 

Miracle’s was $108,286,926.34. The agency determined that Sevatec’s proposal 

represented the best value. Upon learning of the resulting award to Sevatec, and 

following a debriefing, Miracle filed this protest with our Office. 

DISCUSSION

Miracle challenges the evaluation of its proposal, arguing that the agency 

unreasonably and unequally evaluated its technical, past performance, and cost in 

numerous instances. In reviewing challenges to the agency’s proposal evaluation

we do not reevaluate proposals, but, rather, review the agency’s evaluation to 

ensure that it was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and 

consistent with applicable statutes and regulations. Philips Med. Sys. of N. Am. Co, 

B-293945.2, June 17, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 129 at 2. We have considered all of 

Miracle’s allegations and find that none provide a basis for questioning the award. 

We discuss several examples below.

Past Performance

With respect to past performance, offerors were required to identify contracts for 

similar requirements, and to have a minimum of five current (within the last three 

years) references submit past performance questionnaires (PPQ) to the agency. 

RFP §§ L.2.3.1, L.2.3.2. The solicitation advised offerors that the agency would 

evaluate past performance to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort 

described in the solicitation based on the PPQs received and information obtained 

from other sources. RFP § M.2.5. Past performance of subcontractors that would 
Page 3 B-407324.7, et al.

perform a substantial portion of the requirement was also to be considered. Agency 

Response to Question No. 99.

Miracle and Sevatec were both rated “medium”1 for past performance. Miracle 

asserts that it instead should have received a higher rating--that is, a “high” rating, 

the highest available--than Sevatec primarily because its subcontractor 

[REDACTED] is the incumbent FITSS contractor for the solicited services, and 

[REDACTED] was highly rated on the incumbent contract. 

An agency’s evaluation of past performance, including its consideration of the 

relevance, scope, and significance of an offeror’s performance history, is a matter of 

discretion which we will not disturb unless the agency’s assessments are

unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria, or undocumented. 

Family Entertainment Servs., Inc., d/b/a IMC, B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 

2004 CPD ¶ 128 at 5. A protester’s mere disagreement with such judgment does 

not provide a basis to sustain a protest. Birdwell Bros. Painting & Refinishing, 

B-285035, July 5, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 129 at 5. Further, the significance of, and the 

weight to be assigned to, a prime contractor’s versus a subcontractor’s past 

performance is principally a matter of agency discretion. Loral Sys. Co., B-270755, 

Apr. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 241 at 5. 

Here, Miracle has not shown that it was unreasonable for the agency to evaluate its 

past performance as warranting a medium rating rather than a high rating. On the 

contrary, the record clearly supports the agency determination to rate both offerors 

medium for past performance, based on a distinction between the past performance 

of the 8(a) prime contractors, and their proposed subcontractors. For example, the 

agency evaluation recognized that Miracle’s subcontractor, [REDACTED], was the 

incumbent contractor with performance ratings of 5, the highest available rating. 

The evaluator’s also considered [REDACTED] performance of a much smaller 

[REDACTED] IT contract covering 5 of 7 solicitation task areas under which 

[REDACTED] likewise received PPQ performance ratings of 5. Past Performance 

Evaluation (PPE) at 4-6. 

Likewise, the evaluation noted that a PPQ was received for Sevatec subcontractor, 

[REDACTED] IT contract in which the work was indicated to be similar to the 

solicited work in all 7 task areas and for which [REDACTED] also received 

performance ratings of 5. In addition, a PPQ was received for a second Sevatec 

subcontractor, [REDACTED], on a [REDACTED] IT contract in which the work was 

similar to the solicited work in 6 of 7 task areas and for which [REDACTED] received 

 

1 Past performance was rated high, medium, low, unsatisfactory or neutral. A 

medium past performance rating was defined as: “Proposal addresses the criterion 

in an adequate manner. Success in performance is likely.” RFP § M.2.5. 
Page 4 B-407324.7, et al.

performance ratings of 5 for quality (characterized in the narrative as “excellent”), 

timeliness of performance and customer satisfaction, and a rating of 4 for cost. PPE 

at 7-8.

However, recognizing that the solicitation required the 8(a) prime contractor to 

perform “at least 51% of the work,” RFP § L.2.2.3.3 at 156, the agency decided to 

give greater weight to the past performance of the offeror. AR at 27. In this regard, 

the values of Miracle’s contracts for which PPQs were received were all very much 

below the value of the current solicitation. Specifically, the estimated value of the 

contract to be awarded here is $141 million, AR at 19, while the highest-value 

contract submitted on behalf of Miracle to demonstrate its past performance was a 

[REDACTED] contract with an estimated value of [REDACTED], but under which 

only [REDACTED] had been invoiced. The values of the remaining two Miracle 

contracts were even smaller: a [REDACTED] contract under which only 

[REDACTED] had been invoiced. Miracle received [REDACTED] PPQ 

performance ratings of 5, while its [REDACTED] ratings included 4s. PPE at 3-4. 

Likewise, the values of the contracts for Sevatec for which PPQs were received 

were all well below the value of the current solicitation, although Sevatec’s contracts 

were significantly larger than Miracle’s. Specifically, Sevatec’s PPQ’s included a 

[REDACTED] contract. All were reported to be for IT work similar to the solicitation 

requirements and for all performance ratings of 5 were received. 

PPE at 6-7.

In sum, while the record reflected significant, relevant, and highly-rated past 

performance by Miracle’s and Sevatec’s proposed subcontractors, the two offerors 

themselves proffered past performance that was considerably less in value. As a 

result, the agency focused on the offerors’ own lack of fully comparable experience 

and assigned both Miracle and Sevatec a rating of medium because the prime 

contractor itself is responsible for performing at least 51 percent of the contract, and 

will have ultimate responsibility for overall performance of the contract. PPE at 6, 8; 

AR at 19-20; 26-28. We see no basis to question this rationale for assigning both 

offerors a medium, rather than a high rating. 

Staffing Plan

Under the management approach factor, offerors were required to provide a staffing 

plan, regarding which the solicitation provided as follows:

The proposed staffing plan will be evaluated for the extent to which the 

Offeror proposed both key and non-key personnel that efficiently align 

to the LOE [level of effort]. 
Page 5 B-407324.7, et al.

The offeror’s staffing plan’s roles and functions must be sufficiently and 

suitably defined and allocated and managed to satisfy the full range of 

effort contained in the PWS [Performance Work Statement]. 

RFP § M.2.2.2. Miracle’s proposal was assigned a weakness for its proposed 

staffing plan because it did not adequately define the roles, functions and experience 

levels of the proposed personnel. As a result, the evaluators could not determine if 

Miracle’s staffing plan would satisfy the staffing requirements under the 

contemplated contract. TER at 45. 

According to Miracle, the agency acted unreasonably in assigning this weakness 

because the solicitation did not require offerors to identify roles, responsibilities and 

experience levels on a labor category by labor category basis. Rather, asserts 

Miracle, offerors were only required to include a plan to recruit and retain staff on the 

project, a requirement with which it complied. Miracle asserts that in any case it 

identified in its proposal named individuals for numerous positions that it proposed to 

fulfill, and described the experience of its essential personnel in detail. 

The evaluation in this regard was reasonable. First, Miracle is incorrect in asserting 

that offerors were only required to include a plan to recruit and retain personnel. 

Rather, offerors were specifically informed that proposed staffing plans would be 

evaluated for the extent to which the offeror “proposed both key and non-key 

personnel that efficiently align to the level of effort (LOE).” RFP §§ L.2.2.3.2, 

M.2.2.2. Further, we disagree with Miracle that it was not required to identify the 

roles, responsibilities and experience levels by labor category. Rather, this was 

reasonably encompassed by the solicitation’s requirements for a plan that efficiently 

aligned the proposed staff to the level of effort, and for offerors to suitably, and 

sufficiently, define, allocate and manage the staffing plan’s roles and functions to 

satisfy the effort contained in the PWS. RFP § M.2.2.2. In this regard, the agency 

reasonably concluded that it would be unable to evaluate whether an offeror 

proposed a staff that could meet the requirements of the solicitation if it could not 

consider what roles and responsibilities the staff members would perform, and what 

experience they had that would allow them to satisfactorily perform the required 

functions. 

Miracle asserts that it included relevant experience and background information. 

Miracle’s proposal, however, included a list of [REDACTED] named individuals for 

different labor categories, with background information for only [REDACTED] of 

these personnel. Staffing Management Plan at 2-4, 6-11. Furthermore, for all but 

[REDACTED] of the staff, there was no discussion in Miracle’s proposal of the 

functions the individuals will perform. Project Management Plan at 5. Neither was 

there information about the qualifications needed to qualify for these positions. SMP 

at 2-4. Thus, for example, Miracle proposed a task lead, but did not explain what 

functions the task lead will perform or identify the qualifications for the task lead. 

Miracle also listed job titles such as journeyman or junior without defining what these 
Page 6 B-407324.7, et al.

categories mean with respect to the skills necessary to perform the requirements of 

the contract. We find that the agency reasonably concluded that without this 

information it could not determine whether Miracle’s staffing plan was adequate to 

perform the contract. 

Unequal Treatment

The solicitation provided that the government would evaluate the extent to which the 

offeror demonstrated a sound approach to effectively applying the Information 

Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), a best practices guide for providing quality 

IT services, including the degree to which the offeror effectively utilized ITIL to 

enhance the delivery of IT services and to measure improvements. RFP § M.2.1.3. 

The solicitation also provided for the government to evaluate the degree to which the 

offeror’s proposed quality management and program management plans were 

compliant with the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Project Management Book 

of Knowledge (PMBOK), RFP §§ M.2.2.3, M.2.3.1, a recognized industry project 

management standard. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR), Jan. 30, 2013, at 6. 

Miracle asserts that it was treated unequally in the evaluation because another 

offeror was assigned a strength for its offer to employ an integrated lifecycle 

management framework that utilizes ITIL to move from development to operations 

and PMBOK best practices for management and quality assurance. According to 

Miracle, it also proposed to use ITIL to perform service transition from service design 

to service operations and PMI/PMBOK for management and quality control, and 

therefore its proposal also should have been assigned a strength.

In response, the agency explains that services that are managed by ITIL sometimes 

give rise to individual projects that are managed under PMBOK, and PMBOK 

projects typically develop a need for ongoing services to which ITIL best practices 

apply. SAR at 6-7. The agency further explains that another offeror was given a 

strength because it proposed to manage all task orders consistently using best 

practices from the different methodologies--PMBOK and ITIL--in a harmonized way. 

That is, the other offeror proposed to use both methodologies together for each task 

order. Id. at 7. In contrast, according to the agency, Miracle proposed to utilize 

either ITIL or PMBOK as required, that is, Miracle proposed to pick different 

methodologies to manage different task orders. Id. In sum, the other offeror, but not 

Miracle, offered to apply the two best practices together, across all task areas, 

thus effectively utilizing them to enhance the delivery of IT services. As Miracle 
Page 7 B-407324.7, et al.

does not dispute the agency’s analysis of the differences in the proposed use of ITIL 

and PMBOK, we have no basis to conclude that Miracle was treated unequally when 

it was denied a strength in this regard.

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel