At some point in your life, you’ve sat through a presentation that was little more than vacuous peroration. You probably just checked your phone while half-listening and wondering why you were wasting your time. Inane presentations are a regrettable but unavoidable fact of our social existence. But in this case, the protester essentially argued that the solicitation actually required the agency to check-out and not pay heed to what it heard during offerors’ presentations. The solicitation stated that questions asked during presentations were for “clarification purposes.” From this, the protester inferred that the agency could not consider the substance of answers given during a presentation. GAO, however, was not convinced.
Academy Leadership, LLC, GAO B-419705.3, B-419705.4
Background
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a solicitation seeking leadership-focused training. Specifically, ICE sought training at the historic Gettysburg battlefield that blended the history surrounding Gettysburg with relevant leadership competencies.
After reviewing proposals, ICE notified three offerors, including Academy Leadership and Lincoln Leadership Institute, they were among the highest rated proposals. Following an multiple award decisions, protests, and corrective actions, ICE ultimately selected Lincoln for award, finding that its highly-rated proposal was worth a price premium. Academy protested.
Legal Analysis
- ICE Didn’t Disparately Evaluate Proposals – Academy claimed ICE had unequally evaluated proposals with respect to managing group transportation. Academy contended ICE had unreasonably found Lincoln’s approach superior while focusing too much on how Academy’s proposal failed to address key competencies. Academy was particularly perturbed because ICE had found that the company had sufficiently addressed the key competencies through discussions. GAO found no unequal treatment. Lincoln’s proposal went into far more detail on managing transportation. Moreover, while ICE had noted that Academy had revised its approach to transportation during discussions, the agency had not found that Academy had mitigated all logistical risks.
- ICE Properly Evaluated Past Performance – Academy argued ICE did not properly consider past performance. Academy contended all its references had responded to the agency, while two of Lincoln’s references had not. As a result, Academy believed it should’ve received a higher past performance rating than Lincoln. But GAO found that ICE had reasonably evaluated past performance, and that Academy just disagreed with the evaluation conclusions.
- ICE Appropriately Considered the Substance of Answers Given During Presentations – The solicitation required offerors to give a sample training presentation, and it stated that questions asked during the presentation would be for “clarification purposes.” Academy argued that this meant the agency could not consider the substance of an offeror’s answers to questions asked during the presentation. Academy alleged ICE had wrongly given Lincoln credit for the answers the company gave during its presentation. GAO rejected this argument. The solicitation explicitly stated that the presentation would be rated on an offeror’s ability to answer questions asked. What’s more, GAO opined, were Academy’s interpretation correct, it would result in an absurdity. A presenter who gave nonsense responses to questions would have to be rated the same as a presenter who gave appropriate answers.
Academy is represented by Joseph R. Berger, Thomas O. Mason, and Francis E. Purcell, Jr. of Thompson Hine, LLP. The intervenor, Lincoln, is represented by Alan Grayson. The agency is represented by Javier A. Farfan of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
