Protest arguing that the agency was required to seek clarifications before excluding a proposal from the competitive range is denied, where such communications are discretionary unless the offeror’s past performance is the determining factor for a decision to include or exclude a proposal from the competitive range. GAO also denied grounds arguing the agency failed to disclose the relative weight of evaluation criteria, where the elements considered in determining the relevance of the past experience of offerors’ key personnel were not identified in the solicitation as evaluation factors or subfactors, nor did the agency treat them as such.
People, Technology & Processes LLC protested the United States Special Operation Command’s exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range for a procurement for intelligence support services, challenging the evaluation of its proposal under the key personnel subfactor and past performance factor, as well as its exclusion from the competitive range.
First, PTP challenged the evaluation of its proposed key personnel. First, the protester argued the agency should have asked PTP to clarify how many full-time equivalents each of its proposed key personnel had supervised on prior efforts, before excluding its proposal. Second, the protester complained that the agency did not disclose the relative weight it afforded to certain aspects of past experience.
The solicitation required offerors to submit resumes for three key positions: program manager, deputy program manager, and transition manager. The RFP stated that the resumes submitted for these individuals would be evaluate for relevance to the current requirement, using a matrix included with the solicitation as a guide. The matrix provided the agency would evaluate the resumes based on the number of FTEs each person supervised on prior efforts, the total number of deployed FTEs each supervised, and the type of work involved. The matrix established the various ranges of FTEs that would be used to determine the similarity of the work stated in the resume to the requirement.
When evaluating PTP’s resumes, the agency could not determine the total number of FTEs or deployed FTEs that the candidates supervised on any given effort. Accordingly, the agency rated the experience of these individuals as “not similar” under these two elements and assessed a significant weakness, resulting in a marginal rating under the key personnel subfactor.
PTP argued the agency should have asked for clarifications. According to the protester, this clarification would not have altered the proposal but merely added some missing information. The agency argued that it was not required to seek this information, which was clearly required by the solicitation. The agency also argued that the scope of the change would have exceeded what is allowed under clarifications.
However, GAO explained that the agency was not required to seek clarifications from PTP or engage in any other communications prior to the establishment of the competitive range. While agencies have the discretion to decide whether to seek clarification, there is no obligation for them to do so, unless past performance information is the determining factor preventing a proposal from being placed in the competitive range. Although PTP’s proposal received a limited confidence past performance rating, this was not the determinative factor in its exclusion from the competitive range. Therefore, the agency was not required to engage in any communications.
GAO also rejected the protester’s complaint that the agency failed to disclose the relative weight that would be afforded the various similarity elements. The matric included in the solicitation set forth five elements the agency would consider when evaluating the relevance of the past experience of the proposed key personnel. During the evaluation, the agency placed more weight on the number of FTEs supervised and the scope of effort, which were considered more important than the number of deployed FTEs and the customer and security requirement elements.
GAO found no reason the agency was required to disclose the relative weight it would place on each element. The RFP did not identify the similarity elements as factors or subfactors, nor did the agency treat them as such. Rather, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate the experience of key personnel based on these elements. The protester was on notice of the elements of the evaluation, but this disclosure did not transform the elements into subfactors. Therefore, the agency was not required to disclose the relative weight that would be afforded each element.
Next, the protester challenged the past performance evaluation, arguing that the agency did not correctly evaluate the “interplay” between small prime contractors and large subcontractors. PTP also argued that the “not relevant” ratings that some of its past performance efforts received should have been rated as “neutral.” Finally, PTP argued that it was unreasonable to conclude that a small business could have relevant past experience of the size and scope of 300 to 400 FTEs and still be a small business under the size standard.
GAO dismissed these arguments as abandoned, as PTP failed to respond to the agency report responding to these allegations. Instead, PTP raised several supplemental protest grounds related to the past performance evaluation. The protester argued the agency used unstated evaluation criteria and failed to disclose the relative weight of the relevancy criteria, but GAO found these challenges untimely. GAO found the protester knew, or should have known, of these protest grounds after its debriefing, when it received a redacted copy of the evaluation report that disclosed both the criteria the agency considered in evaluating relevancy and their relative weight.
Next, PTP argued that using the agency’s own criteria, four of its references should have been rated somewhat relevant instead of not relevant under the total annual dollar value criterion. According to PTP, the total contract value of these four prior efforts fell between $5-10 million and, therefore, merited a higher rating. However, GAO noted that the rating of “somewhat relevant” required an annual value of $5-$10 million, not a total contract value in that range. While PTP’s references were valued between $5-$10 million in total, they fell below that level on an annual basis and therefore did not warrant a better rating.
People, Technology & Processes LLC is represented by Victor L. Buonamia. The government is represented by Alexis J. Bernstein and Isabelle P. Cutting, Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Elizabeth Witwer and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.