Protest that the agency unreasonably assigned significant weaknesses and weaknesses to the protesters’ proposals is denied, where the agency reasonably concluded that the proposals did not meet the solicitation requirements. Notably, GAO held the agency reasonably assigned a weakness to one protester’s proposal for its failure to explain the role of a proposed joint venture executive committee, even though no such panel was not required by the RFP. According to GAO, once the protester introduced the panel in its organizational chart and suggested it had a role in performance, it was reasonable for the agency to look for details and to assign a weakness when none were provided.
Dewberry Crawford Group and Partner 4 Recovery protested the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s award of an IDIQ contract for advisory and assistance services to CH2M Hill-CDM PA TAC Recovery Services, challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical and price proposals.
First, DCG challenged a significant weakness assigned under the key personnel subfactor. The protester argued the agency unreasonably found that its proposed deputy program manager failed to meet the PWS’s education requirements. DCG also challenged FEMA’s conclusion that the proposal did not demonstrate this individual’s experience establishing and implementing objectives and monitoring project progressions.
In response, FEMA explained that the individual’s resume only stated that he had a master’s degree in physical oceanography management and a bachelor’s of science degree from the U.S. Naval Academy, without specifying any fields. Further, the resume did not show the individual ever had the responsibility of establishing and implementing objectives and monitoring project progression. GAO found this reasonable, explaining that it was the protester’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal.
GAO also rejected DCG’s challenge to a weakness assessed against its proposed contract manager, finding that the individual’s resume did not specify the length of time the individual stayed in each position. GAO agreed that the resume did not provide the agency enough information to assess his qualifications, and that the agency’s consideration of length of employment was not an unstated evaluation criterion.
Next, DCG challenged FEMA’s evaluation of its proposal as marginal under the quality control plan subfactor. While FEMA assessed a strength under this subfactor for various tools and procedures proposed for monitoring performance, it also assessed a weakness for failing to address subcontractor performance under the individual performance appraisal section. FEMA also assessed a significant weakness for failing to provide a detailed approach to monitoring performance, measuring quality of service, performing corrective actions, and preventing deficiencies.
While DCG complained that its proposal included a detailed quality performance matrix for each task or process, GAO agreed that the proposal did not include specific details, such as staffing, how work would be accepted and issued, and procedures followed to ensure services are performed in a timely manner and of high quality. Accordingly, GAO denied these grounds of protest.
Next, GAO considered P4R’s evaluation challenges. First, P4R argued that FEMA unreasonably assigned its proposal a weakness for mentioning its joint venture executive committee without providing specifics on the role of the committee. In response, FEMA noted the protester’s organizational chart included a direct line between the committee and FEMA, without including any explanation of its role, contribution, or its benefit to FEMA. According to FEMA, because P4R included the joint venture executive committee in its proposal, the agency could properly consider the adequacy of the level of detail provided by P4R on the role and responsibilities of the committee.
GAO found this reasonable. While the RFP did not require offerors to propose a committee, once P4R introduced the concept, it was required to explain it properly. While the protester argued that other sections of its proposal—including its joint venture agreement—explained the committee’s role, GAO noted this information was not included under the technical and management approach and capabilities subfactor.
Next, P4R argued that FEMA unreasonably assigned a significant weakness to its proposal under the key personnel subfactor for its proposed deployment/readiness manager’s lack of experience within all regions that comprise Zone 3. According to the protester, while the solicitation required knowledge of the zone, it did not require knowledge of the region within the zone.
In response, FEMA explained that the RFP explicitly advised offerors that key personnel would be evaluated for their knowledge of the proposed zone. FEMA also noted that the RFP expressly outlined the geographical coverage of each zone by FEMA region. According to FEMA, based on these solicitation provisions, it is ‟axiomatic” that an evaluation of each key person’s knowledge of the zone would include the extent to which the individual demonstrated an understanding of each region within the zone.
GAO found it reasonable for the agency to consider the proposed program manager’s experience with the specific region and zone, even though this evaluation criterion was not specifically called out in the solicitation. GAO also found the protester’s proposal did not spell out the program manager’s experience with the relevant zones or regions. GAO also found the agency reasonably concluded that the blanket statements attesting to this individual’s experience were not backed up by the proposed employee’s resume.
GAO also considered and rejected the protester’s various allegations of unequal treatment, finding the differences in the evaluation outcomes were attributable to differences in the content and quality of the proposals, not to agency bias or error.
Dewberry Crawford Group is represented by Terry L. Elling, Gregory R. Hallmark, Elizabeth N. Jochum, and Rodney M. Perry of Holland & Knight LLP. Partner 4 Recovery is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, Marques O. Peterson, and Tamara Droubi of Vedder Price, P.C. CH2M Hill-CDM PA TAC Recovery Services is represented by Robert J. Symon, Aron C. Beezley, and Lisa A. Markman of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The government is represented by Hillary J. Freund and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Paula J. Haurilesko, Young H. Cho, and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.