Strategic Resources, Inc.

 

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.

Decision

Matter of: Strategic Resources, Inc.

File: B-423597.2; B-423597.3

Date: January 14, 2026

Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester.
Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Abigail H. Finan, Esq., and Kristine E. Crallé, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for 360 Patriot Enterprises, LLC, the intervenor.
Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging various aspects of the agency's evaluation under the non-price and price factors, and the agency's best-value tradeoff decision, is denied where the evaluation and decision were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

2. Protest challenging the agency's affirmative responsibility determination is denied where the record does not show that the contracting officer ignored relevant information in making the determination.

DECISION

Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to 360 Patriot Enterprises, LLC (Patriot), of Alexandria, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN‑25-R‑0001, for military funeral honors and survivor outreach services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals under the price and technical factors, the agency's responsibility determination, and the best-value tradeoff decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2025, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the Army issued the RFP to eligible holders of the agency's Human Resources Solutions Personnel Lifecycle Services indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5-6; see also Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, RFP Letter.[1] The RFP sought a contractor to provide the Army National Guard with military funeral honors and survivor outreach services. AR, Tab 49, RFP attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with cost-reimbursable line items for travel and other direct costs, and a 12-month base period and three 12-month option periods. Id. at 1, 6.

The solicitation provided that the agency would make award on the basis of a best-value tradeoff, using two factors--technical and cost/price--with the technical factor being significantly more important. AR, Tab 43, RFP attach. 5, Task Order Evaluation Plan (TOEP) at 1. The technical factor consisted of four areas: technical approach, staffing approach, management process, and transition plan. Id. at 5-7. In evaluating proposals under the technical factor, the agency would assign each proposal one of the following technical/risk ratings: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.[2] Id. at 12.

As relevant here, for the staffing approach area of the technical factor, offerors were required to provide a detailed explanation of their proposed staffing methodology. TOEP at 5. The TOEP stated that labor categories should correlate back to those identified in the base IDIQ contract, with deviations permitted as provided in the IDIQ contract. Id.

For the cost/price factor, the TOEP stated that a total evaluated price would be calculated and evaluated for reasonableness. TOEP at 14. Offerors were required to identify labor categories covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) and provide a breakout by cost element to demonstrate compliance.[3] Id. at 9. The TOEP stated: “For labor categories that are subject to the SCLS, the element of cost breakout for the [fixed-price] fully loaded labor rates will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the current wage determination or collective bargaining agreement requirements.” Id. at 14.

The Army received nine proposals prior to the submission deadline of February 19, 2025, including the proposals submitted by SRI (the incumbent contractor) and Patriot. COS/MOL at 17. After evaluating the offerors' proposals and conducting a tradeoff analysis, the agency issued the task order to Patriot on May 27. Id. at 17-18. Thereafter, on May 30, SRI filed an agency-level protest, challenging the issuance of the task order to Patriot. Id. at 18. On June 6, prior to the agency issuing a response to SRI's agency-level protest, SRI filed a protest with our Office, B-423597, protesting the Army's evaluation of proposals under the price and technical factors, the agency's responsibility determination, and the best-value tradeoff decision. Subsequently, on July 2, the agency notified our Office that it was electing to take corrective action to “re-evaluate proposals to the extent necessary to address concerns raised by the protest” and present the findings to the source selection authority (SSA) to make a new award decision, and we dismissed the protest as academic. AR, Tab 3j, Notice of Corrective Action at 1; Strategic Res., Inc., B‑423597, July 7, 2025 (unpublished decision).

During the voluntary corrective action, the agency reevaluated the offerors' technical proposals, and it did not reevaluate the price proposals. COS/MOL at 19. Following the agency's reevaluation, the agency assigned the proposals the following ratings:

	SRI	Patriot
Technical Factor	Good	Good
Price	$68,630,483	$63,968,250

AR, Tab 58, Task Order Decision Document (TODD) at 2.

In evaluating SRI's technical proposal, the technical evaluation board (TEB) identified two strengths and one weakness. AR, Tab 57, SRI Technical Evaluation at 9. As relevant here, the TEB assessed a strength under the staffing approach area for the experience and expertise of SRI's proposed management team. Id. at 12-13. The TEB also assessed a strength under the transition area based on SRI's approach to achieving 100 percent staffing during the entrance transition period. Id. at 14. As also pertinent here, the TEB assessed a weakness in the management process area related to SRI's proposed approach to quality control because SRI's proposal stated that its [DELETED] would contact government technical monitors [DELETED], and the evaluators found such communications would violate the PWS's prohibition on the contractor contacting installation or government staff regarding performance and quality control issues. Id. at 13-14. In evaluating Patriot's technical proposal, the TEB assessed one strength (related to Patriot's staffing approach) and no weaknesses. AR, Tab 82, Patriot Technical Evaluation at 10.

The SSA reviewed the evaluation results for each proposal and then compared the proposals. AR, Tab 58, TODD at 3-9. The SSA noted that both offerors demonstrated a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, each proposal was rated as good under the technical factor, and SRI proposed a higher price. Id. at 7-8. The SSA wrote: “SRI had two strengths, directly contributing to a low risk of unsuccessful performance. However, these two strengths do not warrant paying a premium.” Id. at 8. The SSA then explained why the strengths in the protester's proposal did not justify paying a higher price. For example, the SSA considered that SRI and Patriot both received strengths for aspects of their staffing approach and also wrote: “While SRI's transition plan presents a slight technical benefit, this benefit does not justify the associated price premium. Patriot's transition approach meets requirements . . . and presents minimal risks. Therefore, a best value determination does not support paying the price premium associated with SRI's approach.” Id. The SSA concluded that Patriot's proposal offered the best value, and the agency issued the task order to Patriot. Id. at 9; AR, Tab 59, Unsuccessful Offeror Notification at 1.

After requesting and receiving a debriefing, SRI filed this protest.[4]

DISCUSSION

SRI protests the Army's evaluation of SRI's technical proposal, the evaluation of various aspects of Patriot's technical and price proposals, the agency's affirmative responsibility determination, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We have reviewed all of SRI's allegations, including those that are in addition to or variations of those discussed below, and do not find that any provide us with a basis to sustain the protest. To the extent we do not discuss a particular challenge, it is denied. We discuss illustrative examples below.

Evaluation of SRI's Proposal

The protester challenges the Army's evaluation of SRI's technical proposal, complaining that the agency failed to identify 40 significant strengths and strengths in SRI's proposal and also erroneously assessed a weakness.

At the outset, we note the evaluation of proposals in a task order competition is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's discretion, because the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. URS Fed. Servs., Inc., B-413333, Oct. 11, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 286 at 6. In reviewing protests of an agency's evaluation, we do not reevaluate proposals; rather, we review the record to determine whether the evaluation and source selection decision are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Sapient Gov't Servs., Inc., B-412163.2, Jan. 4, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 11 at 4. Moreover, a task order competition conducted pursuant to FAR subpart 16.5 does not mandate documentation requirements as strict as, for example, a negotiated procurement pursuant to FAR part 15. See Accenture Fed. Servs., LLC, B-421134.2 et al., Apr. 12, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 90 at 13 (explaining that unlike a procurement conducted under FAR part 15 procedures, task order procurement procedures provide for a streamlined process requiring less rigorous documentation). A protester's disagreement, without more, does not form the basis for us to conclude that an evaluation was unreasonable. Carlsbad Operations All., LLC, B‑420913.2, B‑420913.5, Nov. 8, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 281 at 8; STG, Inc., B‑405101.3 et al., Jan. 12, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 48 at 7.

Additionally, an agency's judgment that the features identified in the proposal did not significantly exceed the requirements of the solicitation--and thus did not warrant the assessment of unique strengths--is a matter within the agency's discretion and one that we will not disturb where the protester has failed to demonstrate that the evaluation was unreasonable. Protection Strategies, Inc., B‑416635, Nov. 1, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 33 at 8 n.4. In that regard, an agency's contemporaneous evaluation record is not required to “prove a negative,” or document determinations of adequacy (i.e., why a proposal did not receive a strength or weakness). See, e.g., Cognosante MVH, LLC, B‑418986 et al., Nov. 13, 2020, 2021 CPD ¶ 3 at 8; CSRA LLC, B‑417635 et al., Sept. 11, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 341 at 10 n.15; see also FAR 15.305(a). When a protester raises a challenge regarding why a proposal was not assigned a strength or weakness, we continue to review whether an agency's documentation and explanation demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. See Cognosante, supra at 7‑8 (finding the statements from the evaluators and contracting officer responding to the protester's arguments demonstrated the reasonableness of the agency's decision not to assign the challenged strengths).

We first address the protester's allegation that the Army overlooked “at least 40 other discrete aspects of SRI's proposal which warranted credit as Strengths or Significant Strengths.” Protest at 36. The Army responds that the agency evaluated the protester's proposal in accordance with the solicitation and reasonably determined that the proposal did not merit the assessment of additional strengths.[5] COS/MOL at 55-59. We discuss representative examples of the protester's allegations and the agency's responses below.

As noted above, the Army assessed a strength in SRI's proposal under the staffing approach area for the experience and expertise of SRI's proposed management team. AR, Tab 57, SRI Technical Evaluation at 12-13. The protester complains that the Army should have assessed a significant strength for each member of SRI's key personnel management team, instead of the single strength that was assessed. Protest at 33-35. SRI states that members of its proposed management team have experience under the incumbent contract and have experience that exceeds the minimum experience required for each position. Id. The agency responds that nothing in the TOEP required the assessment of multiple strengths, and it elaborates that “exceeding the minimum requirements alone does not merit the assignment of a Significant Strength or multiple Significant Strengths, related to the same overall aspect of SRI's proposal (staffing of the management team), where this is no appreciable advantage to the Government.” COS/MOL at 42-43.

We find nothing unreasonable regarding this aspect of the Army's evaluation. The agency assessed a strength because SRI proposed a management team with specialized experience that directly relates to the mission of the task order. AR, Tab 57, SRI Technical Evaluation at 12-13. The TEB found that “[t]he professional experience in these fields adds merit through adding continuity and [military funeral honors]/[survivor outreach services] Program experience minimizing risk to the Government in execution of this Task Order.” Id. at 13. Although the protester asserts that the experience of its proposed management team warranted recognition as several separate significant strengths, the protester has not demonstrated that the experience of its proposed personnel provides additional benefits to the agency or otherwise independently meet the standard for a significant strength, i.e., an aspect “that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during task order performance.” TOEP at 13.

In this regard, it is not unreasonable for an agency to conclude that not every positive feature of a proposal identified in its evaluation represents a separate strength or significant strength. See 22nd Century Techs., Inc., B-420510, B‑420510.2, May 4, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 127 at 4. Here, the protester simply disagrees with the agency as to the merit of its proposed approach, and the appropriate rating or characterization of its proposal. Such disagreement, without more, does not provide a basis for us to conclude that an evaluation was unreasonable. Carlsbad Operations, supra.

As an additional example, SRI argues the agency should have assessed a significant strength for its technical approach because SRI proposed to have its state coordinators observe an average of [DELETED] percent of total funeral honors, which exceeded the five percent requirement in the PWS. Protest at 38. The protester asserts: “While [[DELETED] percent] may seem nominal, this additional [[DELETED] percent] equates to observing an additional [DELETED] funeral honors. This provides greater insight and increased quality control capabilities to ensure high-quality performance.” Id. The Army responds that this aspect of SRI's proposal did not warrant a strength because SRI's “proposal does not exceed the standard in any meaningful way or provide any clear benefit [to] the Government.” AR, Tab 1b, 1st TEB Chair Decl. ¶ 7.

Again, we find no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation. The record reflects that the agency evaluated SRI's proposed approach to monitoring the quality and consistency of funeral honors, and the protester's plan to observe [DELETED] percent of funeral hours was not assessed as a strength because the agency concluded that this aspect of the approach met--but did not significantly exceed‑-the PWS requirements and did not provide any particular advantages to the agency. AR, Tab 1b, 1st TEB Chair Decl. ¶ 9. An agency's judgment that the features identified in a proposal do not significantly exceed the solicitation's requirements or provide advantages to the government--and thus do not warrant the assessment of strengths--is a matter within the agency's discretion and one that we will not disturb where a protester has failed to demonstrate that the evaluation was unreasonable. Protection Strategies, supra. Although the protester insists that this aspect of its proposal deserved a significant strength, its disagreement with the agency's judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. Carlsbad Operations, supra.

In sum, we have reviewed the record and find no merit to the protester's allegation that the agency overlooked 40 strengths or significant strengths in its proposal. This protest ground is denied.

Alleged Unequal Treatment

As part of its challenges to the agency's evaluation of its proposal, SRI also argues that the agency unequally assessed a weakness against its proposal but failed to assess a similar weakness against the awardee's proposal. As noted above, the Army assessed a weakness after finding that SRI proposed to communicate with government personnel other than the contracting officer and contracting officer's representatives about performance concerns, which was prohibited by the PWS. AR, Tab 57, SRI Technical Evaluation at 14. The protester contends that the Army evaluated the offerors unequally because, according to SRI, Patriot's proposal contained a “substantively indistinguishable aspect,” and Patriot's proposal was not assessed a weakness. Supp. Protest & Comments at 5. The Army responds that the agency did not engage in disparate treatment, asserting “it is obvious that the approaches of the two offerors were entirely different.” Supp. COS/MOL at 12.

It is a fundamental principle of federal procurement law that a contracting agency must treat all offerors equally and evaluate their proposals evenhandedly against the solicitation's requirements and evaluation criteria. Cubic Applications, Inc., B-411305, B-411305.2, July 9, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 218. To prevail on an allegation of disparate treatment, a protester must show that the agency unreasonably downgraded or failed to credit its proposal for aspects that were substantively indistinguishable from, or nearly identical to, those contained in other proposals.  See CAE USA, Inc., B‑421550 et al., June 22, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 149 at 9; Battelle Mem'l Inst., B-418047.3, B-418047.4, May 18, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 176 at 5 (citing Office Design Grp. v. United States, 951 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

Here, SRI's proposal states: “[DELETED], our [DELETED] reaches out to Government Technical Monitors (GTMs) through a [DELETED].” AR, Tab 51, SRI Technical Proposal at 22. The TEB found that this aspect of SRI's approach violated PWS section 1.7.1.1, which provides: “The contractor shall not contact installation/Government staff regarding performance and quality control issues. All communication regarding performance issues and quality control checks shall be addressed with the [contracting officer's representative-requiring activity], [contracting officer's representative-human resources solutions] and/or [contracting officer].” AR, Tab 57, SRI Technical Evaluation at 14; PWS at 4.

SRI contends that Patriot's proposal also should have been assessed a weakness for an allegedly substantively indistinguishable feature. Supp. Protest & Comments at 5-7; Supp. Comments at 3-11. Patriot's proposal states:

[DELETED].

AR, Tab 80, Patriot Technical Proposal at 20. SRI contends that the proposal to “[DELETED]” also violates the PWS's prohibition on communicating with installation and agency staff about performance. Supp. Protest & Comments at 5‑7; Supp. Comments at 3-11.

The Army responds that there are meaningful and substantive differences in the proposals that led to the different evaluation outcomes. Supp. COS/MOL at 4-13. The agency states that SRI proposed to reach out to GTMs about the services provided under the task order, and SRI would use the information received for process improvements and recognition for outstanding performance. Id. at 7. The PWS provides the GTM is an employee of the federal government, and the GTM observes performance and reports discrepancies to the contracting officer's representatives. PWS at 25. The Army explains that communicating with GTMs in this manner contradicted the PWS's prohibition on contacting installation or government staff about performance and quality control issues. Id. Patriot, on the other hand, proposed to [DELETED] from “[DELETED],” and the agency understood “[DELETED]” to refer to non-federal government personnel and, therefore, did not implicate that PWS prohibition. Id. at 11; see also AR, Tab 86, 2nd TEB Chair Decl. ¶ 12. In other words, the Army found Patriot was not proposing to contact federal government personnel about performance and quality control issues.

Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to question the Army's judgments. SRI has not made the requisite showing that the agency treated the two proposals unequally and fails to establish that the difference in the agency's assessments did not reflect differences between the proposals. See CAE USA, Inc., supra. SRI has not established that only it was penalized for something that both offerors proposed. Rather, the record shows the agency reasonably determined that SRI proposed to communicate with agency personnel other than the contracting officer or the contracting officer's representatives about performance and quality control issues, and Patriot did not. In this regard, the protester has not shown that the agency was unreasonable in understanding Patriot's reference to “[DELETED]” to mean individuals other than federal government personnel. While the protester may disagree with the agency's conclusion, SRI's disagreement with those conclusions is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.[6] Dewberry Crawford Grp.; Partner 4 Recovery, B‑415940.11 et al., July 2, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 298 at 20. This protest ground is denied.

Evaluation of Patriot's Proposal

SRI challenges various aspects of the Army's evaluation of Patriot's proposal, and we discuss two of the protester's arguments below.

SCLS Compliance

We first address SRI's allegation that the Army ignored significant countervailing evidence showing that Patriot does not intend to comply with the applicable wage determination. The protester points to job listings from Patriot's website for positions supporting the task order, and advertising salaries that are less than the applicable wage determination rates, and SRI contends that the “postings confirm that Patriot would not and will not pay its employees under the contract in accordance with the applicable Wage Determination.” Protest at 22. As noted above, when the agency took corrective action in response to SRI's prior protest, the agency reevaluated the offerors' technical proposals, and it did not reevaluate the price proposals. COS/MOL at 19. In this regard, the protester notes that the agency was aware of the job postings during the corrective action reevaluation, and SRI asserts that the agency's failure to consider this information and reevaluate price was unreasonable. Supp. Protest & Comments at 31.

The agency responds that none of the rates proposed by Patriot were below the applicable wage determination rates. Supp. COS/MOL at 28. As for the job advertisements, the Army notes that they were not posted until after the price evaluation was completed in March 2025, and, in any event, the salaries posted on Patriot's website “ha[ve] no bearing on what Patriot actually proposed in its Price proposal or the Army's evaluation of Patriot's Price proposal.” Id. As for SRI's assertion that the agency should have considered the job postings during corrective action and reevaluated price proposals, the agency states that SRI's protest allegation “had nothing whatsoever to do with the Army's decision to take corrective action in response to the initial protest,” and the details of implementing corrective action are within the agency's discretion. Id. at 30.

As an initial matter, we note agencies have broad discretion to take corrective action where the agency determines that such action is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial competition. CSRA, LLC, B-418903.9, Feb. 3, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 54 at 4. The details of implementing corrective action largely are within the discretion of the contracting agency, and we generally will not object to any particular corrective action, provided it is appropriate to remedy the concern that prompted the agency to take corrective action. Id. Additionally, there is no requirement that an agency's corrective action remedy flaws alleged in an earlier protest where, as here, no decision on the merits was issued by our Office. Skyward IT Sols., LLC, B-421561.10, Oct. 10, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 269 at 7-8. As such, the Army was not required to reevaluate price proposals simply because SRI alleged in its initial protest that Patriot did not and would not comply with the applicable wage determination. Id.

We also reject SRI's argument that the agency was required to reevaluate price proposals and deem Patriot's proposal ineligible for award because of the job postings. Generally, in evaluating proposals an agency may reasonably accept as accurate information provided by an offeror in its proposal. FEDSYNC BEI, LLC, B‑417492, B‑417492.2, July 23, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 303 at 7. Nonetheless, our Office has explained that, in certain circumstances, an agency may not accept at face value a proposal's promise to meet a material requirement where there is significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to the agency that should create doubt as to whether the offeror will or can comply with that requirement. Id. at 7‑8. For example, in MMI-Federal Mktg Serv. Corp., B-297537, Feb. 8, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 38, we sustained a protest where the agency unreasonably determined that the awardee's quotation demonstrated compliance with a domestic production requirement despite countervailing pre-award information that the awardee would not comply.

Here, we find that the job postings on Patriot's website do not constitute significant countervailing evidence regarding Patriot's intent to comply with the SCLS. In this regard, we find the decision cited by the protester to be distinguishable from the facts presented here. Supp. Protest & Comments at 31 (citing Maritime Berthing, Inc., B‑284123.3, Apr. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 89 at 6-7).[7] In Maritime Berthing, prior to selecting the awardee's proposal for award, the evaluators received an email from an agency employee reporting that the firm was unable to meet a contract requirement because of a problem at the firm's facility. We sustained the protest, finding the agency had been presented with significant countervailing evidence regarding the awardee's ability to meet the requirement, and the agency should not have accepted the awardee's representations without seeking a more detailed analysis. Maritime Berthing, supra at 9.

The evidence proffered by the protester consists of job postings and self-serving speculation about Patriot's future actions. The job postings are not comparable to the evidence known to the agency in Maritime Berthing. Accordingly, we decline to find that the agency should have disregarded Patriot's actual proposed rates or questioned Patriot's willingness and ability to comply with the SCLS because of job advertisements. The record shows that for the rates that are subject to the SCLS, Patriot proposed rates that complied with the applicable wage determination, and the Army reasonably determined that Patriot's proposal demonstrated compliance with the SCLS, in accordance with the TOEP.[8] AR, Tab 54, Patriot Price Proposal at SCLS Breakout Tab; AR, Tab 77, Price Analysis Report at 7. Accordingly, we deny SRI's allegation.

Allegedly Noncompliant Labor Categories

We next address SRI's argument that Patriot's proposal was noncompliant because Patriot proposed labor categories that did not correlate with labor categories under the base IDIQ contract. Supp. Protest & Comments at 24-25; Supp. Comments at 14‑19.

The protester contends that Patriot's proposal should have been rejected as noncompliant because it proposed three new labor categories that do not correlate back to the IDIQ contract labor categories, and, according to SRI, offerors were not permitted to introduce new labor categories in their proposals for the task order. Supp. Comments at 14-17. The protester states that “the [solicitation] incorporated conflicting language which required that the labor categories proposed be correlated to the labor categories under the base IDIQ.” Id. at 17.

The agency does not dispute that Patriot proposed new labor categories. Supp. COS/MOL at 16-17. Rather, the Army--citing language in the IDIQ contract attachment‑‑argues that deviations from the IDIQ contract were allowed as long as the deviations were clearly identified and explained in the offeror's proposal for the task order. Id. The agency states that Patriot clearly identified and explained the new labor categories in its proposal. Id. at 19-20.

Where a protester and agency disagree over the meaning of solicitation language, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions; to be reasonable, and therefore valid, an interpretation must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole and in a reasonable manner. DAI Glob., LLC, B-416992, Jan. 17, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 25 at 4. An ambiguity exists where two or more reasonable interpretations of the terms or specifications of the solicitation are possible. Colt Def., LLC, B-406696, July 24, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 302 at 8.

As noted above, the solicitation required labor categories proposed for the task order to correlate back to the labor categories identified in the IDIQ contract, however, it also permitted deviations. TOEP at 6. The TOEP stated:

Labor categories should correlate back to those identified in the Basic Labor Category Descriptions Attachment under the base IDIQ contract. As stated under the Background/Methodology Section of the Attachment, the Offeror may deviate from the definitions of the junior, mid-level, senior, and [subject matter expert] labor categories, however, any deviations shall be clearly identified and explained in detail in the [task order] proposal.

Id. Regarding deviations, the IDIQ contract attachment referenced in the TOEP provides, in relevant part: “Contractors may propose labor categories that are not included below when responding to task orders. Deviations shall be clearly identified and explained in proposals submitted in response to task order solicitations.” AR, Tab 88, Basic Labor Category Descriptions Attachment at 2.

Given the terms of the solicitation, we find SRI's interpretation unreasonable. The plain language of the IDIQ contract attachment allows an offeror to propose labor categories that are not included in the IDIQ contract when responding to task orders, and the TOEP referenced that IDIQ contract attachment with respect to labor category deviations. AR, Tab 88, Basic Labor Category Descriptions Attachment at 2; TOEP at 6. SRI's interpretation disregards the terms of the IDIQ contract and does not provide a basis to find the agency's evaluation unreasonable.[9]

Responsibility Determination

SRI contends that the agency failed to conduct a reasonable responsibility determination concerning Patriot because the Army did not consider evidence that bears strongly on the firm's responsibility. Protest at 55-56. Namely, the protester argues that the Army should have considered a 2022 administrative compliance agreement (which was related to a plea agreement and civil settlement that resolved various fraud allegations and has since expired) and found Patriot unsuitable for award.[10] Id. at 56-57.

Our Office will review a challenge to an agency' s affirmative responsibility determination where the protester presents specific evidence that the contracting officer may have ignored information that, by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c). We therefore have reviewed circumstances such as credible allegations that an agency failed to properly consider that a contractor committed fraud; allegations that principals of a contractor had criminal convictions; or allegations that a contractor engaged in improper financial practices and improperly reported earnings. Cargo Transp. Sys. Co., B‑411646.6, B-411646.7, Oct. 17, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 294 at 10-11.

Our review of the record here does not support the conclusion that the contracting officer ignored relevant information that, by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c). The record here demonstrates that, as required by the FAR, the contracting officer considered whether Patriot has adequate financial resources; would be able to comply with the required performance schedule; has a satisfactory performance record; has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; has the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills; has the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment; and is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive award. AR, Tab 68, Responsibility Determination. Additionally, contrary to SRI's assertions otherwise, the contracting officer considered the 2022 administrative compliance agreement. Id. at 3; AR, Tab 73, Administrative Compliance Agreement. The contracting officer considered the facts underlying the now-expired administrative compliance agreement and “determined that the contractor has taken adequate measures to remedy the issues addressed within the Administrative agreement, and is not precluded from award.”[11] AR, Tab 68, Responsibility Determination at 3.

In sum, nothing in the arguments raised by SRI concerning the determination of Patriot's responsibility demonstrate that the contracting officer failed to consider reasonably available, relevant information. Similarly, although the protester disagrees with the contracting officer's judgment regarding Patriot's responsibility, that disagreement does not provide a basis to challenge the contracting officer's affirmative responsibility determination.[12] Precision Standard, Inc., B-310684, Jan. 14, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 32 at 4. Therefore, we deny the protest.

Best-Value Tradeoff Decision

SRI protests the agency's best-value tradeoff decision, arguing that the Army relied on adjectival ratings and failed to consider the underlying bases for the ratings. Protest at 60-63; Supp. Protest & Comments at 41-47. The Army responds that the agency reasonably considered the underlying relative merits of the proposals and determined that SRI's proposal did not warrant paying a higher price. COS/MOL at 80-82; Supp. COS/MOL at 39-45.

Where, as here, a solicitation provides for issuance of a task order on a best-value tradeoff basis, it is the function of the SSA to perform a price/technical tradeoff. Ironclad Tech. Servs., LLC, B-419976.2, May 2, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 104 at 4. Source selection officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will use the evaluation results; price and technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for another is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. NCI Info. Sys., Inc., B‑417805.5 et al., Mar. 12, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 104 at 10. As noted above, in reviewing protests of an agency's selection decision--even in a task order competition as here--we do not conduct our own tradeoff analysis, but rather we examine the record to ensure that the selection official's judgments and determinations were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and any applicable statutes and regulations. Id. Additionally, there is no need for extensive documentation of every consideration factored into a tradeoff decision. FAR 16.505(b)(7); Ironclad Tech. Servs., supra. Rather, the documentation need only be sufficient to establish that the agency was aware of the relative merits and costs of the competing proposals and that the source selection was reasonably based. Id.

The record shows that the SSA discussed the evaluation findings for each offeror's proposal. AR, Tab 58, TODD at 3-6. The SSA noted positive aspects in the protester's proposal, including the management team's experience. Id. at 5. The SSA then compared the proposals and found that each offeror “demonstrate[ed] a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, and a low risk of unsuccessful performance.” Id. at 8. While the protester contends that the agency should have compared granular aspects of the offerors' proposals, such as the number of productive hours per full-time equivalent or depth of experience held by key personnel (Supp. Protest & Comments at 44-45; Supp. Comments at 29-30), a procuring agency is not required to document every consideration that factored into the tradeoff decision. FAR 16.505(b)(7); Ironclad Tech. Servs., supra.

The SSA found that the proposals demonstrated equivalent strength in program management and technical capabilities, and the advantages in SRI's approach did not justify a price premium. AR, Tab 58, TODD at 8. The SSA then determined that Patriot's proposal offered the best value. Id.

On this record, we find no basis to conclude that the agency's best-value tradeoff decision was unreasonable. As noted above, the TOEP provided that the technical factor was significantly more important than cost/price, and as other factors equalize, price may become determinative. TOEP at 3. Here, the SSA analyzed the offerors' proposals, recognized the strengths in SRI's approach, and explained why SRI's proposal did not warrant paying a higher price. AR, Tab 58, TODD at 7-9. We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's assessments and conclusions. Ultimately, the protester's disagreement with the agency's conclusions regarding the relative merits of the proposals, without more, does not establish that the best-value tradeoff and award decision were unreasonable. Immersion Consulting, LLC, B-420638, June 30, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 171 at 5.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

---