The protester challenged the SSA’s evaluation of proposals, but the court found that the arguments amounted to disagreement with the agency. The protester further alleged that the agency turned a best value tradeoff into lowest-priced, technically acceptable procurement. Alas, the court was not persuaded. The mere consideration of price does not turn a best value tradeoff into an LPTA. In this case, the record showed that the SSA had considered the relative merits of proposals and reasonably determined that the lower-priced proposal represented the best value.
Gritter Francona, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 22-3
Background
The Defense Health Agency (DHA) issued a solicitation seeking management support services. DHA received twelve proposals, including offers from Gritter Francona, Inc. and GC Associates, LLC. (GCA).
Following evaluations by the SSEB, the SSA evaluated proposals and ended up disagreeing with some of the SSEB's findings. The SSA increased GCA’s past performance rating from limited confidence to neutral confidence. The SSA also determined that Gritter’s proposal did not deserve one of the strengths it had received.
The SSA selected GCA’s cheaper proposal. Gritter filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims.
Legal Analysis
- SSA Didn’t Err In Removing Gritter’s Strength – Gritter claimed it was unreasonable for the SSA to remove the strength assigned by the SSEB. The court disagreed. The SSA is the ultimate decision-maker and is supposed to exercise independent judgment. The SSA thoroughly documented his reasons for removing the strength. He was not bound by the SSEB’s concussions. The court was not going to second guess the SSA.
- SSA Reasonably Determined that GCA Had Neutral Past Performance – Gritter complained the SSA should not have upgraded GCA’s past performance rating from limited to neutral. Gritter alleged that the neutral was to be assessed to offerors with a sparse performance history. But Gritter contended GCA had too much experience to receive a neutral rating. The court found that while GCA had some past experience, that experience was only somewhat relevant to the contract. The relevancy of GCA’s past performance rendered the record sparse, which made the SSA unable to make a meaningful past performance evaluation. Hence, the neutral rating was warranted.
- DHA Didn’t Convert Best Value Determination Into LPTA – Gritter asserted that the SSA disregarded the difference between proposals and just went with the lowest-priced proposal turning the procurement into an LPTA. The court didn’t agree. The mere consideration of price in a best value tradeoff does not turn it into an LPTA. While Gritter may have disagreed with the detail of the SSA’s tradeoff, it contained discernible reasons as to why GCA's lower-priced proposal represented the best value.
Gritter is represented by Doughlas P. Hibshman and Nicholas T. Solosky of Fox Rothchild. The intervenor, GCA, is represented by Maria L. Panichelli and Karen Douglas of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. The government is represented by Liridona Sinani, Brian M. Boynton, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Douglas K. Mickle of the Department of Justice as we all as Bradley E. Richards and Jason Smith of the Defense Health Agency.
COFC - Gritter Francona