Manutek Inc.

Decision

Matter of: Manutek Inc.

File: B-423476.2; B-423476.4

Date: January 8, 2026

Manohar Gaddam for the protester.
Jillian Stern, Esq., Andrew Parker Frank, Esq., and Lauren Williams, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.
Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal and improperly made the selection decision is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and selection decision were consistent with the terms of the solicitation and the proposal's contents.

DECISION

Manutek Inc., of Canton, Michigan, protests the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to other firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1305M425R0001, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for professional, scientific, and technical services. Manutek argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly made the selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On October 15, 2024, NOAA issued the RFP to procure professional, scientific, and technical services using the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 8.[1] This acquisition, known as the ProTech 2.0--Weather Domain, solicits services under four agency domains (i.e., satellite, fisheries, ocean, and weather).[2] Id. at 15. The RFP contemplated a multiple-award IDIQ contract (between 10 and 25 awardees) that allows for the issuance of commercial and non‑commercial task orders on fixed-price, cost‑reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour bases. Id. at 15, 130. Orders would be placed over a 5‑year base period and a 5-year option period. Id. at 15. The ceiling value for all orders placed is $8 billion. Id.

Awards would be made to the highest technically rated offerors (HTRO) with fair and reasonable pricing. AR, Tab 2, RFP, amend. 1 at 131. Nonprice factors included the following (listed in descending order of importance): demonstrated technical experience, management approach, and past performance. Id. Proposals were to be submitted in two phases with an advisory recommendation provided after the first phase. Id. at 122

During phase one, offerors would submit administrative information and a technical experience self-assessment matrix. RFP, amend. 1 at 121-122. As part of phase two, offerors would provide information validating their technical experience, reference contracts demonstrating past performance, and cost/price information, as well as conduct an oral presentation discussing their management approaches. Id. at 113.

Forty-four offerors, including Manutek, submitted phase one proposals prior to the October 30, 2024, deadline. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 4. NOAA evaluated the proposals, and advised 30 offerors, including Manutek, to proceed to phase two. AR, Tab 8, Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM) at 8.

Thirty-one offerors, including Manutek, submitted phase two proposals prior to the December 13, 2024, closing date. AR, Tab 8, BCM at 8; COS at 11. Under the nonprice factors, the agency evaluated Manutek's proposal as demonstrating “some confidence” under the relevant technical experience factor, as “low confidence” for the management approach factor, and as “exceptional” under the past performance factor. AR, Tab 8, BCM at 14.[3] The agency evaluated Manutek's cost/pricing information as “reasonable.” Id.

When selecting awardees, the agency used the HTRO methodology and initially identified 15 proposals that received a rating of “high confidence” under either the relevant technical experience or management approach factors without any negative findings. AR, Tab 8.a, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 9. For these 15 offerors, the agency determined that all had positive past performance information. Id.

Next, the agency considered the remaining proposals for award and determined that six offerors had been evaluated as demonstrating at least “some confidence” under the relevant technical experience and management approach factors with evaluative findings that were on balance neutral (i.e., the positive findings balanced out any negative findings). AR, Tab 8.a, SSD at 10. The agency also considered the past performance information for these offerors and determined that none had notable negative information. Id.

As for eight of the remaining proposals, which included Manutek's, the agency determined that they had significant negative findings under either the relevant technical experience or management approach factors which decreased confidence in their performance.[4] AR, Tab 8.a, SSD at 10. Based on these negative findings, the agency concluded that these remaining proposals were not among the most highly technically rated. Id. The agency also noted that while some of the remaining offerors' proposals demonstrated “exceptional” past performance records, such findings did not overcome the proposals' negative findings under the more important nonprice factors. Id.

Finally, the agency determined that the proposed cost/pricing information for the 21 offerors identified as being among the most highly technically rated was reasonable. AR, Tab 8.a, SSD at 11 12. As a result, the agency elected to make awards to those firms. Id. at 12-13.

On August 29, 2025, NOAA notified Manutek that its proposal was unsuccessful and provided the firm with a debriefing. As part of its debriefing, Manutek received copies of the agency's evaluation reports, including the technical consensus and management approach evaluation reports. Protest, exh. 24, Manutek Factor One Evaluation Report; Protest, exh. 25, Manutek Factor Two Evaluation Report. On September 2, Manutek filed this protest with our Office.

DISCUSSION

Manutek raises numerous allegations challenging the agency's conduct of the acquisition. Principally, Manutek complains that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the demonstrated technical experience and management approach factors and improperly failed to select its proposal for award. NOAA responds that it reasonably evaluated the proposal and elected not to make an award to Manutek.

We have reviewed all of Manutek's challenges and find that none provide us with a basis to sustain the protest. We discuss the principal allegations below. At the outset we note that, when reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision, it is not our role to reevaluate submissions; rather, we examine the supporting record to determine whether the evaluation and selection decision were reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and adequately documented. US&S Pegasus JV, LLC, B‑421681.8, B‑421681.9, Nov. 19, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 284 at 4. Further, while agencies are not permitted to use unstated evaluation factors, an agency properly may take into account specific matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria, even when they are not expressly identified as evaluation criteria. Advanced Alliant Sols. Team, LLC, B‑417334, Apr. 10, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 144 at 5. We discuss Manutek's principal challenges below.[5]

Demonstrated Technical Experience

Manutek argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its demonstrated technical experience as warranting only a rating of “some confidence.” NOAA responds that it reasonably evaluated Manutek's experience because the firm failed to provide detailed information.

As noted above, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate proposals in two phases. AR, Tab 2, RFP, amend. 1 at 110. As part of phase one, offerors were instructed to provide a completed demonstrated technical experience matrix identifying which elements of the performance work statement (PWS) that they could perform based on recent and relevant experience. Id. at 118.

The matrix listed all the PWS elements (e.g., PWS section C.3.1.1.A, pre-processing modeling services) and required each offeror to identify its level of experience performing each function. AR, Tab 2.a, RFP, amend. 1, attach. J-4, Demonstrated Tech. Experience Matrix. Offerors were able to select the following choices: extensive demonstrated technical experience from three projects; moderate demonstrated technical experience from two projects; limited demonstrated technical experience from one project; a teammate has demonstrated technical experience from one to three projects; or, no demonstrated experience. Id. Based on the selections, the matrix would automatically compute the number of elements with prime contractor demonstrated technical experience, the depth of experience, and the breadth of experience.[6] Id. The matrix also computed the number of elements for which the offeror had a teammate with demonstrated experience. Id.

When evaluating phase one proposals and then selecting a set of offerors to receive an advisement to proceed to phase two, the solicitation required the agency to consider the self-assessed breadth and depth scores. RFP, amend. 1 at 136-137. Specifically, the solicitation provided for the agency to use the scores to compute a “proximity measure,” defined as the square root of the sum of the squares of the differences from the target breadth (0.493)[7] and maximum depth values (1.0). Id. at 137. Using those scores, the agency would formulate a set of offerors to proceed to phase two, which included those offerors with the lowest “proximity measures” that provides for competitive coverage of all 73 elements. Id.

As part of phase two, offerors were instructed to complete a demonstrated technical experience validation matrix and a written submission. RFP, amend. 1 at 121. The matrix required offerors to identify which PWS elements corresponded with the projects referenced in their written submission. AR, Tab 2.a, RFP, amend. 1, attach. J-4, Demonstrated Tech. Experience Validation Matrix. The written submission allowed offerors to reference up to 15 recent and relevant projects and required them to summarize duties and identify which PWS elements were similar to functions performed. AR, Tab 2.b, RFP, amend. 1, attach. J-5, Demonstrated Tech. Experience Form; see also RFP, amend. 1 at 138 (“[N]o more than 15 total Demonstrated Technical Experience projects/examples may be included in this submission.”).

When evaluating phase two proposals, the agency would assess its degree of confidence in each offeror's understanding of and experience performing work that is relevant to the claimed PWS elements. RFP, amend. 1 at 138. The RFP explicitly advised that the written submissions must demonstrate that the referenced experience aligns with the levels of experience claimed as part of phase one. Id. If the agency detected a high degree of contradictory or unsubstantiated experience, the agency may evaluate the offeror's proposal negatively (i.e., lower confidence level) as a result. Id.

Manutek's phase one proposal claimed experience with 36 elements, producing a breadth score of 0.493. AR, Tab 3, Advisory Notice at 1; AR, Tab 5a, Manutek Phase Two, Demonstrated Tech. Experience Validation Matrix (Rows 98-104 identifying phase one self-assessment data). Manutek's claimed level of experience produced a depth score of 0.954. AR, Tab 3, Advisory Notice at 1. Based on these scores, the agency advised Manutek to participate in phase two. Id.

As part of its phase two proposal, Manutek submitted a validation matrix and identified 15 prior projects substantiating its claimed experience in its written proposal. AR, Tab 5, Manutek Proposal, Written Submission at 2. As an example, the firm referenced performance as a subcontractor designing and implementing pre-processing systems for hydrological data, which supported the firm's claim of having experience related to PWS section C.3.1.1.A, pre-processing modeling services. Id. at 3.

The agency evaluated Manutek's proposal as warranting an adjectival rating of “some confidence.” AR, Tab 6, Tech. Consensus Evaluation Report, Factor One at 2. Agency evaluators made the following general remark:

The Offeror often included outcomes to support the demonstration of elements, but lacked details explaining their exact roles or what work was actually completed. In general, working on a project that accomplished something is only useful if one can explain what their role was in that project in a way that demonstrates that they played a material role in that accomplishment.

Id. Agency evaluators also noted several features of Manutek's proposal as “increases confidence” and others as “decreases confidence.” As an example of a feature that “increases confidence,” the agency noted that one of Manutek's referenced projects detailed the firm's role in transforming raw data from 500 citywide stations in high‑quality modeling inputs with 98 percent capture reliability, and another implementing automated pipelines to ingest observational data. Id. at 2-3. Evaluators noted that such experience increased confidence related to PWS section C.3.1.1.A, pre‑processing modeling services, because it demonstrated extensive relevant technical experience, understanding of that function, and a high likelihood of success in such work. Id. at 3.

As an example of a feature which “decreases confidence,” Manutek claimed extensive experience performing PWS section C.3.1.1.D, environmental component numerical prediction modeling services. AR, Tab 5a, Manutek Demonstrated Tech. Experience Validation Matrix (Row 10). Despite Manutek's claims, agency evaluators concluded that Manutek's cited experience did not provide sufficiently detailed information to demonstrate their understanding and experience to support the PWS element. AR, Tab 6, Tech. Consensus Evaluation Report, Factor One at 3. Indeed, the evaluators specifically noted that Manutek's written submission did not explain how the firm developed, implemented, executed, or maintained environmental component numerical prediction modeling services as contemplated by the PWS. Id. Such failure to provide details, agency evaluators noted, decreased confidence that the firm understood the requirement, had the experience, or could successfully perform the requirement. Id. at 4.

In total, agency evaluators noted seven PWS elements (PWS sections C.3.1.1.A; C.3.1.6.C; C.3.1.6.D; C.3.2.4.C; C.3.2.4.D; and C.3.2.9.E), where Manutek's experience increased confidence in the firm's performance. AR, Tab 6, Tech. Consensus Evaluation Report, Factor One at 2-19; see also COS at 12. In contrast, agency evaluators noted five elements (PWS sections C.3.1.1.D; C.3.1.2.A; C.3.2.2.C; C.3.2.4.D; and C.3.3.1.B), where Manutek failed to provide sufficient details supporting the firm's claim of having performed such work and thereby decreasing agency evaluators' confidence. AR, Tab 6, Tech. Consensus Evaluation Report, Factor One at 2-21; see also COS at 12-14.

As noted above, Manutek argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the demonstrated technical experience factor as “some confidence.” Protest at 15-17. Manutek argues that the agency unreasonably overlooked its extensive experience with several PWS elements, its several “increases confidence” findings, and the fact that the firm demonstrated ideal breadth and depth scores. Id. at 17; see also Comments at 11-15. Additionally, Manutek argues that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria by requiring details explaining “granular allocation of responsibilities among staff” within referenced demonstrated technical experience. Comments at 12. NOAA responds that it reasonably assigned a “some confidence” rating because Manutek had parts of its proposal which increased confidence and decreased confidence. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 14.

On this record, we find the agency's evaluation unobjectionable. While Manutek argues that the firm offered extensive experience, several increasing confidence features, and excellent breadth and depth of experience scores, the record shows that the firm's evaluation was more of a mixed bag. While, as noted above, agency evaluators concluded that Manutek had beneficial experience, the firm also noted that Manutek claimed experience which was unsubstantiated. Given the mixed evaluation judgments, we find no basis to object to the assignment of a “some confidence” rating. Although Manutek may argue that its extensive experience outweighed any shortcomings, such argument merely represents disagreement with the agency's judgment because it only disputes the relative worth of the positively evaluated experience versus that which was negatively evaluated. LATA-Atkins Tech. Servs., LLC, B-418602, B‑418602.4, June 10, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 192 at 5 (disagreement with the agency's evaluation judgement does not demonstrate that the evaluation was unreasonable).

Next, we reject Manutek's argument that the agency unreasonably required “granular” details substantiating the firm's experience, or otherwise applied unstated evaluation criteria in assigning the “decreases confidence” findings. As referenced above, the RFP provided that the agency would assess its degree of confidence in the offeror's demonstrated understanding of and experience performing work that is relevant to the PWS elements. RFP, amend. 1 at 138. Further, the RFP provided that “[i]f the Government detects a high degree of contradictory or unsubstantiated information in an Offeror's proposal, it may lead to a decrease in confidence during evaluations.” Id. Additionally, the RFP cautioned “[i]t is an offeror's responsibility to demonstrate their technical experience in their proposal.” Id. Thus, the RFP communicated that proposals would be evaluated based on whether they provided sufficient information or details substantiating the claimed information, and that proposals failing to provide such information could be downgraded as a result.

In this regard, our review confirms that the agency evaluated Manutek's proposal consistent with the RFP's directive. For example, under PWS section C.3.1.1.D, the selected contractor is required to provide numerical prediction modeling across the lifecycle (development, implementation, execution, and maintenance) for natural environmental components (e.g., atmosphere and ocean). RFP, amend. 1 at 22-23. Manutek claimed that three of its referenced experiences (i.e., Nos. 6, 9, and 10) demonstrated such experience but as noted above, NOAA determined that the proposal lacked substantiating details. AR, Tab 5a. Manutek Demonstrated Tech. Experience Validation Matrix (Row 10); AR, Tab 6, Manutek Tech. Evaluation Report at 2.

Our review of the record does not provide any basis to object to this evaluation. The proposal shows that Manutek claimed experience for delivering, integrating, and refining environmental component modeling, but did not articulate how it developed, implemented, executed, or maintained prediction models as required by the solicitation. See AR, Tab 5, Manutek Written Submission at 14-15 (delivering environmental component modeling to improve weather forecasts), 22 (integrating numerical weather prediction models to account for regional environmental features), 24 (refining numerical weather prediction models). Thus, while the proposal showed that it had some experience with the environmental component numerical prediction modeling, the firm failed to demonstrate the variety and depth of experience as required by the PWS.

Similarly, with respect to PWS section 3.1.2.A, the selected contractor is required to provide advanced modeling services, including exploration and development of emerging capabilities (including artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), or robotic process automation) related to the modeling components set forth under PWS section C.3.1.1, or emulation of a fully coupled Earth system model. RFP, amend. 1 at 23. Manutek claimed that three of its referenced experiences (i.e., Nos. 3, 7, and 12) demonstrated such experience, but NOAA concluded that Manutek did not provide sufficiently detailed information to demonstrate its understanding and experience. AR, Tab 5a, Manutek Demonstrated Tech. Experience Validation Matrix (Row 13); AR, Tab 6, Manutek Tech. Evaluation Report at 3-4. Specifically, the agency noted that the experience cited did not appear related to the modeling components set forth under PWS section C.3.1.1, or a fully coupled Earth systems model. AR, Tab 6, Manutek Tech. Evaluation Report at 3-4.

Manutek claimed experience applying AI and ML solutions to refine, improve, or enhance weather forecasting, but did not articulate how it developed AI or ML to process and ingest data as set forth under PWS section C.3.1.1, or to support a fully coupled Earth systems model. See AR, Tab 5, Manutek Written Submission at 7 (applying ML to improve precipitation timing forecasts and reduce temperature forecast bias); 16 (applying AI/ML solutions to reduce weather-related delays); and 28 (using ML to adapt a renewable energy forecast to seasonal patterns). Thus, we find this evaluation unobjectionable because Manutek's proposal did not definitively show that the firm has explored or developed AI or ML in the manner contemplated by the solicitation.[8]

Based on the foregoing, we deny Manutek's allegation that NOAA unreasonably evaluated its demonstrated technical experience because the record shows that NOAA reasonably evaluated Manutek's proposal as containing both positive and negative features consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

Management Approach

Manutek raises multiple allegations challenging the agency's evaluation of its management approach. NOAA responds that the evaluation was reasonable.

By way of additional background, the RFP instructed offerors to provide a virtual oral presentation addressing their management approach capabilities as part of phase two. RFP, amend. 1 at 122. As part of their presentations, offerors were instructed that they were permitted to use slides as a visual aid or other reference. Id. The oral presentation was divided into four questions/scenarios. AR, Tab 4, Phase Two Instructions at 4-5.

The first question/scenario required offerors to provide an example of a prior awarded contract where the firm demonstrated an efficient and well-structured project management approach. AR, Tab 4, Phase Two Instructions at 4. Each offeror was to explain how it identified and obtained an appropriate labor force, how its internal quality control practices were utilized, and how such experience informs its proposed approach to managing any task order issued. Id.

For the second question/scenario, each offeror was instructed to address how it approached staffing problems. AR, Tab 4, Phase Two Instructions at 5. Offerors were to provide examples showing how they recruit, hire, and onboard staff to ensure successful contract performance, explain how they minimize learning curves for new staff, and discuss how they recruit and retain key personnel. Id.

The third question/scenario explained that the agency puts significant effort into promoting teaming possibilities for task orders and instructed offerors to discuss a particular example where they had a particular need and entered a teaming agreement with a niche partner. AR, Tab 4, Phase Two Instructions at 4. Offerors were to explain how they found the partner and what benefits resulted from the partnership. Id.

The fourth question/scenario required offerors to discuss their experience with a significant problem arising during implementation of a large-scale contract. AR, Tab 4, Phase Two Instructions at 5. Offerors were to explain the precise problem, how the project was affected, how they addressed the problem, and their relevant internal quality control practices. Id.

The oral presentation contained a 45-minute time limit. RFP, amend. 1 at 123. Following the presentation period, agency evaluators would confer amongst themselves and then participate in a 30-minute “interactive dialogue” with each offeror. Id. During the “interactive dialogue,” offerors were instructed that the agency would not invite or ask questions allowing any offeror “to change its offer.” Id. at 124.

Based on the responses to the four questions/scenarios, the RFP advised that the agency would assess each offeror's understanding of the requirement, soundness of their management approach, and level of ability to perform the contract. RFP, amend. 1 at 138. The agency would consider each offeror's approach, and any risks associated therewith to determine a confidence assessment rating. Id. The RFP also advised that any slides submitted would not be evaluated but could be used as a reference. Id. at 123, 138.

Manutek conducted its oral presentation on March 28, 2025. Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 1. Manutek spent the majority of its 45-minute presentation focusing on the first and second scenarios and briefly mentioned the third and fourth scenarios. Id. For the first scenario, Manutek identified a past project, and explained how it determined an appropriate labor mix, its internal quality control practices, and how that effort informed its approach to managing a ProTech 2.0 task order contract. Id.; see also AR, Tab 5.b, Manutek Presentation Slides at 4-8. Manutek also provided three statistical examples comparing the project budgeted amount to actual spending. Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 1. One figure referenced “98 [percent] budget accuracy.” Id.; AR, Tab 5b, Manutek Presentation Slides at 8.

For the second scenario, Manutek discussed its approach to recruiting, hiring, and onboarding staff, and how it recruits and retains key personnel. Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 1. Manutek did not discuss how it minimizes learning curves or retains talent to ensure a smooth contract transition or explain its “lessons learned” and how that information has been used to minimize onboarding delays. Id. During the course of Manutek's response to the second scenario, the agency warned the firm that it had only 10 minutes remaining of its allotted time. Id.

Manutek then attempted to provide its responses to the third and fourth question/scenarios but apparently struggled to do so in the remaining time. Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 1. In responding to the third question/scenario, Manutek did not clearly identify a problem requiring a teaming partner, the method by which the firm identified and selected a teaming partner, or the benefits of the identified partnership. Id. For the fourth scenario, Manutek identified a significant problem, but did not explain what parts of the project were affected, how it was able to solve the problem, or what internal quality controls helped them overcome the problem. Id. at 1-2.

Following the oral presentation, the agency evaluators conferred and agreed that they would ask a question to clarify the “98 percent” statistical figure provided regarding the first question/scenario. Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 2. The agency evaluators also agreed that Manutek provided very little information regarding the third and fourth question/scenarios, and that asking any questions would be inappropriate since it would allow Manutek to provide information not presented. Id. The agency evaluators noted that doing so would allow Manutek to change its offer. Id.

During the interactive dialogue, the agency “asked [Manutek] to clarify the 98 [percent] figure for scenario one, budget to actual spending, and [Manutek] responded that they aim to always be within 100 [percent] of the budgeted amount, but their internal controls allow for a 3 [percent] deviance.” Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 2. The agency did not ask any additional questions. See id.

The evaluators then conducted an “on-the-spot” evaluation and recorded their findings and observations. AR, Tab 7, Manutek Management Approach Evaluation Report at 1. The evaluators did not identify aspects of the presentation as “increases confidence,” but noted four findings of “decreases confidence,” one for each of the four question/scenarios. Id. at 2‑4. As an example, for the first question/scenario, the agency evaluators noted:

The Offeror provided three different metrics on budget maintainability: 100 [percent], 98 [percent], and staying within +/- 3 [percent]. The Offeror demonstrated that the 100 [percent] pertained to a specific example and that the +/- 3 percent was an overall company target. However, the Offeror could not clearly demonstrate the 98 [percent] figure, despite repeated questions from Government during the interactive dialogue session. This decreases confidence because the Offeror could not sufficiently explain its referenced 98 [percent] metric.

Id. at 2-3. As another example, for the third question/scenario, the evaluators noted:

The Offeror stated that it has a wide network and that it sometimes uses “scraping” methodologies to find partners outside their network. However, the Offeror failed to demonstrate a specific example pertaining to this scenario, a specific gap, or how it found a niche partner to fulfill a need.

Id. at 4. The evaluation report also noted this general observation:

The Offeror covered all Scenarios but ran short on time (the 10-minute warning was given while the Offeror was still presenting their response to Scenario 2), resulting in rushed responses to Scenarios 3 and 4.

Id. Based on these findings, the agency assigned Manutek's management approach a rating of low confidence. Id. at 2.

As noted above, Manutek raises multiple allegations challenging the agency's evaluation of its management approach. We discuss the three principal allegations below, which include challenges that the agency insufficiently documented its evaluation, unreasonably assigned the weaknesses because the agency ignored information or required a level of detail inconsistent with the solicitation, and improperly conducted the “interactive dialogue” by refusing to ask additional questions.[9]

Documentation of the Oral Presentation

Manutek argues that the agency insufficiently documented the oral presentation evaluation. The protester cites the lack of any evaluator worksheets, contemporaneous notes, transcripts, or written description of the presentation as evidence of insufficient documentation. Supp. Protest at 12. Manutek also argues that it provided a declaration from its presenter that contradicts the evaluation. NOAA responds it adequately documented the oral presentation in accordance with the discretion afforded under FAR section 15.102(e). Supp. MOL at 13.

Section 15.102(e) requires the contracting officer to maintain a record of oral presentations to document what the agency relied upon in making the source selection decision. The source selection authority selects the method of recording the oral presentations, and section 15.102(e) gives the following examples of methods that may be used: videotaping, audio tape recording, written record, government notes, copies of offeror briefing slides or presentation notes. Whatever method is chosen, this section of the FAR establishes an obligation to provide a reasonably adequate record of such presentations and the evaluation thereof. J&J Maintenance, Inc., B‑284708.2, B‑284708.3, June 5, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 106 at 3. Moreover, the principal of government accountability dictates that an agency maintain a record to permit meaningful review. Checchi and Co. Consulting, Inc., B‑285777, Oct. 10, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 132 at 6.

Here, we have no basis to object to the agency's position that the record contains adequate documentation of Manutek's oral presentation. The record contains a copy of Manutek's presentation slides (which while not to be evaluated could be used as a reference) and the aforementioned “on-the-spot” evaluation report. The “on-the-spot” evaluation report is significant because it is a contemporaneous evaluation document prepared at the conclusion of the presentation. It contains a general observation of Manutek's presentation, and then, as noted above, specific remarks about what material Manutek presented or failed to present.

For example, with respect to the first question/scenario, NOAA explained that Manutek identified three different metrics for budget accountability and then explained that the firm could not articulate how it specifically achieved a “98 percent” metric. Similarly, with respect to the third question/scenario, NOAA explained that Manutek discussed its general approach to finding niche teaming partners but failed to discuss a specific instance of doing so as required by the solicitation. Thus, the record contains adequate documentation because the presentation slides provide a general guide, and the “on‑the-spot” evaluation report provides specific information about what occurred during the presentation, such that our Office may consider whether such statements (or omissions in this instance) were reasonably evaluated consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Cf. Strategic Resources, Inc., B‑419151, Dec. 11, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 399 at 8 (record contains adequate documentation of oral presentation where the materials identified what information was presented).

While Manutek may object that the “on-the-spot” evaluation report does not contain a “single contemporaneous example, quote, or factual explanation,” provides only a handful of “generalized statements,” and does not include any individual evaluator materials, we do not find such argument persuasive. See Supp. Protest at 12. As noted above, the agency has discretion under FAR section 15.102(e) to select its method of memorializing the oral presentation and specifically permits an agency to use “government notes” (as was selected here) as method of recordation. While Manutek questions why the agency did not record the virtual presentation, we nevertheless disagree with Manutek that the “on-the-spot” evaluation record is an insufficient record; ultimately, the report contains contemporaneous observations about what information was presented or not presented, which served as the bases for the evaluation judgments. Accordingly, we deny the protest allegation.

Reasonableness of the Evaluation

Manutek complains that the agency's evaluation judgments were unreasonable because they required “granular” details that were not contemplated by the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Comments at 17. Manutek also complains that the agency ignored information it presented, including an example of a niche teaming partner. Id.

NOAA responds that it reasonably evaluated the firm's proposal consistent with the information that was presented. MOL at 17-18. Further, NOAA argues that any dispute between what the agency represented as occurring during the oral presentation and what the protester asserts occurred should be resolved in the agency's favor in the absence of any evidence of bad faith on the part of the evaluators. Id. at 18.

On this record, we do not object to the evaluation because, contrary to the protester's position, we do not find that the agency unreasonably required “granular details.” As noted above, the RFP advised that the agency would assess the soundness of each offeror's management approach and ability to perform the contract successfully. In our view, none of the evaluation findings deviate from that advisement.

For example, the agency assigned the first “decreases confidence” finding because Manutek was unable to articulate the meaning of a “98 percent” budget metric. Indeed, Manutek could not explain how or why it achieved this metric within its systems' acceptable range. See Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 2. This finding is reasonable because, consistent with the agency's position, failure to articulate precise details--that is, providing a weak response--explaining how the firm's budget and internal control systems achieved certain outcomes reasonably indicates a poor management approach. See AR, Tab 7, Manutek Management Approach Evaluation Report at 2; cf. Dev Tech. Grp., B‑412163, B‑412163.5, Jan. 4, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 10 at 11‑12 (agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal where the firm failed to provide a convincing answer to a question posed by the agency as part of an oral presentation).

As another example, the agency assigned the third “decreases confidence” finding because Manutek failed to respond directly to the third question/scenario. As noted above, this question/scenario required offerors to discuss a specific example where they recruited a niche teaming partner because the selected contractor would be expected to recruit teaming partners. T he RFP advised that the agency would use the oral presentation to assess whether an offeror would perform the contract successfully. Despite the requirement and the advisement, the record shows that Manutek did not discuss a particular example but rather discussed its general approach to recruiting a teaming member.

In light of this failure to address the crux of the question/scenario, we think the agency reasonably concluded that Manutek demonstrated a poor likelihood of success because the firm did not provide any basis for NOAA to conclude otherwise. Cf. Client Network Servs., B-297994, Apr. 28, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 79 at 4 (agency reasonably downgraded presentation where the protester discussed the firm's general experience, as opposed to instances of specific experience consistent with the terms of the solicitation); T Square Logistics Servs. Corp., B‑291851, Apr. 15, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 160 at 7 (agency unreasonably evaluated awardee's proposal positively where the awardee failed to discuss safety and phase-in plans during its presentation as required by the solicitation). Accordingly, we deny the protest allegation.

Next, we address Manutek's challenge that NOAA's evaluation of the oral presentation overlooked or ignored information presented. In this regard, Manutek argues that the “on-the-spot” evaluation report inaccurately summarizes the information presented. As support, Manutek offers a declaration from one of its presenters, which attempts to contradict the “on-the-spot” evaluation report and states that the firm presented all required information. Decl. of Manutek Presenter at 1-2.

We are unpersuaded. As part of the report, the agency provided a declaration from one of the evaluators present during Manutek's presentation. Decl. of Agency Evaluator at 1-2. The evaluator provides a sequential recounting of the presentation and explains that Manutek failed to discuss the issues identified in the “on-the-spot” evaluation report. Id. Thus, we are unpersuaded by this allegation because the record does not include any information showing that NOAA ignored information that was otherwise presented.[10]

Moreover, we disregard Manutek's declaration because the protester presented it in piecemeal fashion. Raytheon Blackbird Techs., Inc., B‑417522, B‑417522.2, July 11, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 254 at 4 (“[T]he piecemeal presentation of evidence, information, or analysis supporting allegations previously made is prohibited.”). Manutek did not include the declaration as part of the protest but rather submitted it when responding to a request for dismissal, which arose during the development of the protest. This was more than 17 days after Manutek received its debriefing, and more than 10 days after Manutek filed its protest with our Office.

In any event, even if we were to consider Manutek's declaration, we do not find that it presents any information that casts doubt on the veracity of the agency's judgments. For example, Manutek's declaration does not state that the presenters capably explained the basis for the “98 percent” budget metric and does not state that the firm identified a specific niche teaming partner. See Decl. of Manutek Presenter at 1-2.[11] Instead, the declaration provides only broad details, such as that the firm discussed “budget discipline,” and the “niche-partner identification process” and how the firm uses “teaming to close specialized gaps without adding counterproductive overhead.” Id. at 1. Accordingly, we deny the allegation.

Interactive Dialogue

Manutek complains that the agency unreasonably refused to ask any questions as part of the interactive dialogue. Supp. Comments at 10-13; Supp. Protest at 10-12. Manutek argues that the agency failed to clarify what it viewed as incomplete scenarios, and then unreasonably assigned weaknesses based on the “perceived incompleteness.” Supp. Comments at 11.

NOAA responds that this allegation is untimely because it was first raised as a supplemental allegation. Supp. MOL at 8. In this regard, NOAA argues that Manutek knew (or should have known) the basis for its allegation that the agency failed to conduct an interactive dialogue consistent with the solicitation as of March 28, 2025, when it conducted the oral presentation. Because this allegation was not filed until November 28, 2025, as a supplemental allegation filed in response to the agency report, NOAA argues that the allegation is untimely.

Alternatively, NOAA argues that it reasonably elected not to ask any questions regarding the third and fourth question/scenarios because Manutek's presentation did not provide sufficient information. Supp. MOL at 9. NOAA argues, at bottom, that it could not ask clarifying questions because Manutek did not provide any information to be clarified. Id. (“Manutek conflates seeking clarification and seeking information; one cannot seek clarification for something not provided.”).

After reviewing the challenge, we agree that it is untimely. Our Regulations provide that a protest must be filed not later than 10 days after the protester knows or should have known the basis for its protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2); Colonial Fed. Healthcare, LLC, B‑421977, B‑421977.2, Nov. 14, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 257 at 4. Here, Manutek knew the basis for its challenge as of August 29, when its debriefing closed and the firm learned the reasons for why its proposal was not selected for award. The firm was provided a copy of the “on-the-spot” evaluation report, and therefore, any challenge that the agency unreasonably failed to seek clarifying information that would have addressed the “decreases confidence” findings should have been filed within 10 days of its debriefing (i.e., September 8). Because Manutek did not raise this challenge until after November 28, we conclude that it is untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the allegation.

Moreover, even if we were to find that the allegation was timely, we find no basis to conclude that the agency unreasonably conducted the “interactive dialogue.” The RFP advised that the agency would conduct “exchanges, “but that the “exchanges” would not constitute discussions. RFP, amend. 1 at 123. The RFP stated the following:

The Government will not ask questions that will invite or allow the Offeror to change its offer. The Offeror shall not volunteer any information that might be construed as changing its offer. Oral presentations are distinct from the Government's right to conduct exchanges.

Id. at 124.

As noted above, Manutek provided limited responses to the third and fourth question/scenarios because the firm's 45‑minute presentation period elapsed. Regarding the third question/scenario, for example, Manutek did not identify a specific niche teaming partner. As a result, the agency elected not to ask any questions because it concluded that doing so would invite or allow Manutek to provide information that it was unable to address during the presentation period.

On this record, we do not find the agency's conduct unreasonable because asking any questions reasonably could have invited or allowed Manutek to present new information and change its management approach proposal, which was not permitted by the RFP. To illustrate, as of the conclusion of its oral presentation, Manutek's management proposal lacked any specific example of an experience demonstrating that the firm had successfully teamed with a niche partner; thus, any question concerning Manutek's teaming partner experience would have solicited entirely new information, as opposed to simply clarifying information such as confirming teaming partners' roles and responsibilities. Consequently, we do not view the agency's conduct of the interactive dialogue as unreasonable.

Selection Decision

Manutek argues that the agency unreasonably failed to select the firm for award despite its superior evaluation under the past performance factor. Protest at 6-7. Specifically, Manutek complains that four other offerors were awarded contracts, even though they had lower past performance ratings. Id.; see also Comments at 24-27. NOAA responds that it reasonably conducted the selection decision consistent with the RFP. MOL at 20-22. NOAA explains that the demonstrated technical experience and management approach were the most important factors and that Manutek's shortcomings in those areas prevented the firm from receiving award. Id. at 22.

As noted above, the RFP provided that the agency would make awards to the highest technically rated offerors with fair and reasonable pricing. RFP, amend. 2 at 131. Among the technical factors, the demonstrated technical experience factor was the most important, the management approach factor was of second-most importance, and past performance factor was the least important. Id.

When selecting awardees, the agency identified and made award to 15 offerors as having received “high confidence” ratings under either or both the demonstrated technical experience and management approach factors, without any adverse findings under the past performance factor. AR, Tab 8.a, SSD at 9. Because this quantity of awardees was too small, the agency then reviewed and selected for award the six offerors who were assigned “some confidence” ratings for both the demonstrated technical experience and management approach factors. Id. at 10. The source selection authority (SSA) noted that their evaluations reflected positive findings that increased confidence and only minor features that decreased confidence. Id. The agency also noted that the “some confidence” group did not have any adverse or concerning past performance references. Id.

The SSA then noted that she did not view the remaining eight offerors (including Manutek) as warranting an award because they had significant findings that decreased confidence under the most important technical factors. AR, Tab 8.a, SSD at 10. The SSA noted that they all had neutral to exceptional past performance, but that such records could not overcome the significant negative findings. Id.

A source selection decision must be based upon a comparative assessment of proposals against all of the solicitation's evaluation criteria. FAR 15.308. We will review an agency's selection decision to ensure that it is reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Arrowpoint Corp., B‑417375.2, B‑417375.3, Oct. 25, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 367 at 11.

We find that the agency reasonably conducted the selection decision. Our review confirms that the agency compared proposals consistent with the tradeoff methodology set forth in the RFP, which called for the demonstrated technical experience and management approach factors to be more important than the past performance factor. Indeed, the agency compared all proposals and found that Manutek's was among the lowest rated under the two more important factors. Further, the agency noted that Manutek's strong record of past performance was not a distinguishing factor or saving grace because the offerors with stronger proposals under the demonstrated technical experience and management approach factors likewise did not have any significant

adverse or negative past performance information. Thus, we deny this allegation because our review confirms that the agency's selection methodology was consistent with the terms of the RFP and the evaluation record.[12]

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

---