The FAR requires a source selection authority to exercise their own independent judgment in making award. In this case, the CO, who was the source selection authority, was not too involved in the source selection work. GAO noted that while the contract specialist had done most the work preparing the award summary, this work had been performed under the direction and supervision of the CO. This was sufficient to demonstrate that the award decision was still the result of the CO’s independent judgment.
Peraton, Inc., GAO B-420918.2, B-420918.3
Background
The Social Security Administration (SSA) issued a solicitation to holders of an IDIQ contract. The solicitation contemplated award of a task order for information technology services. Only two offerors, Peraton and Leidos, submitted proposals. SSA awarded the contract to Leidos. The agency found that while neither proposal had a technical advantage, Leidos had a lower price. Peraton protested.
Analysis
Peraton’s Incumbent Experience
Peraton contended SSA failed to appreciate the strength of the firm’s experience gained through performance of the incumbent contract. GAO disagreed, finding that SSA had in fact reviewed Peraton’s incumbent performance in detail and found that it offered several benefits.
Tradeoff Determination
Peraton alleged that SSA didn't qualitatively compare proposals and thus unreasonably concluded that each proposal offered similar benefits. GAO rejected this argument, concluding that the agency “meticulously compared” proposals and reasonably determined that each offeror would be able to perform at a high level.
CO’s Independent Judgment
Peraton argued that under FAR 15.308, a source selection authority is required to exercise independent judgment in making award. In this case, the source selection authority was the contracting officer. Peraton contended the CO had not signed the summary of award, and that the record lacked evidence showing the CO had reviewed the evaluation findings. Thus, Peraton reasoned, the CO, as the putative source selection authority, had not exercised independent judgment as required by the FAR.
GAO wasn’t convinced. A source selection official may rely on the work and recommendations of other agency officials in making an award decision. Here, the record showed that the contract specialist was heavily involved in preparing the source selection decision. Nevertheless, the agency had produced declarations stating that the contract specialist’s work was prepared under the direction and supervision of the CO. The record ultimately showed that the contracting officer had exercised her own judgment.
Peraton is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, Jeffrey M. Lowry, and Tamara Droubi of Vedder Price, PC. The intervenor, Leidos, is represented by James J. McCullough, Michael H. Anstett, Alexander B. Ginsberg, and Katherine L. St. Romain of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The agency is represented by Brandon Dell’Aglio, Dorothy Guy, Virginia Pizza, and Kadi Rowe of the Social Security Administration. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
GAO - Peraton