Protest challenging agency’s evaluation and best value determination is denied. The protester alleged the awardee failed to comply with a material solicitation requirement, but GAO found this argument was based on an interpretation of the solicitation that was inconsistent with the interpretation espoused int he protester's proposal. The protester alleged the agency failed to consider the benefits of its operational capability. GAO determined that the agency had considered this benefit. The protester complained that the best value determination mischaracterized its proposal. GAO found that this was a straw-man argument that misquoted the agency. The protester alleged the agency should have amended the solicitation to show that it did not actually need all the capabilities the protester had offered. GAO found that the solicitation had accurately reflected the agency’s needs.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a solicitation seeking support for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Qwest Government Services, d/b/a CenturyLink, and Verizon Business Network Services submitted proposals. DHS found that CenturyLink’s technical proposal was the most advantageous. Nevertheless, the agency found that these advantages did not warrant paying CenturyLink’s 80 percent price premium. DHS awarded the contract to Verizon. CenturyLink protested.
CenturyLink alleged that Verizon was ineligible for award because it failed to comply with a material requirement to meet fully operational capability within 18 months. DHS had found that Verizon had proposed to meet full capacity by providing capacity for 3.25 million users within 18 months. But CenturyLink argued that full operational capacity was not simply the capacity for 3.25 million users. Rather, CenturyLink contended, full capacity was meeting all the RFP’s objective capabilities.
But GAO found that CenturyLink’s interpretation of the proposal was inconsistent with the position it took in its proposal. The integrity of the protest process does not permit a protester to espouse one interpretation during the procurement and then argue in a protest that its previous interpretation is unreasonable. Here, in its proposal, CenturyLink interpreted the RFP’s requirement for full operational capacity to mean providing capacity for 3.25 million users. Indeed, CenturyLink’s proposal claimed to meet full operational capacity without proposing to meet all the objective capabilities of the RFP.
CenturyLink also contended that DHS erred in not evaluating its proposal as exceeding requirements under a scaling approach subfactor for its day-one operational capability. GAO, however, found that the agency had considered this aspect of CenturyLink’s proposal under the technical factor, not the scaling approach subfactor. Moreover, DHS had found that CenturyLink’s day-one operational capability exceeded the requirement under factor. It was not unreasonable for DHS consider this advantage under the technical factor.
CenturyLink complained that the best value decision mischaracterized its proposal as not “yield[ing] benefits to the government and taxpayers of the United States” when it fact it did yield benefits. GAO found that this was a straw-man argument that used a selective quotation to mispresent the agency’s position. The agency had actually found that CenturyLink’s proposal did not yield benefits that merited its price premium.
CenturyLink contended that DHS erred in not amending the RFP to reflect its true requirements. The source selection decision stated that the government was not in a position to take full advantage of CenturyLink’s capacity to accommodate the maximum number of users on day one. CenturyLink alleged that if it had known the agency could not take advantage of its capabilities, it would have presented a lower-priced proposal with a less aggressive schedule. CenturyLink contended that DHS should have amended the RFP to reflect how many users it actually needed to accommodate on day one.
GAO did not find this persuasive. The solicitation clearly stated that the requirement was for increasing the levels of users. Nothing suggested that the solicitation’s tiered capacity requirements were inaccurate.
As an alternative, CenturyLink asserted that the DHS engaged in misleading discussions by leading the company to believe that capacity on day one of the contract was of paramount importance. But GAO reasoned that an agency conducts misleading discussions by framing a question in a manner that does not address the agency’s concerns, or by misinforming the offeror of a problem with its proposal. The allegation that an agency failed to clarify its requirement during discussions does not state a valid basis of protest.
CenturyLink is represented by Shelly L. Ewald and Zahra S. Abrams of Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP. The intervenor, Verizon, is represented by Kayleigh Scalzo, Jason A. Carey, Evan Sherwood, Brooke Stanley, and Anna Menzel of Covington & Burling, LLP. The agency is represented by Christian M. Butler of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Kenneth Kilgour and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.