The protester received higher adjectival rating than the awardee under two of the RFP’s four technical subfactors. The protester and awardee received the same rating under another factor. The protester claimed it had “won” the technical evaluation, so the agency must’ve erred in finding the awardee technically superior. GAO wasn’t convinced. An evaluation should not be based on a mechanical comparison of adjectival ratings. The agency could reasonably find that the awardee offered a superior approach despite the adjectival ratings.
nou Systems, Inc., GAO B-421225
Background
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) released an RFP seeking support services to test instrumentation. Three offerors, including nou Systems, Inc. and Corvid Technologies, LLC, submitted proposals. MDA selected Corvid for award, finding the company had a slight technical advantage over nou and a lower price. nou protested.
Analysis
Unstated Criteria
nou alleged MDA applied unstated criteria when it assessed a weakness to nou’s proposal for not providing an approach that ensures legacy system continuity. nou argued the RFP did not require offeror to ensure legacy system continuity.
But GAO reasoned that legacy system continuity was encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. The primary objective of the contract was to develop a new mission execution system that would combine the capability of existing systems. Thus, MDA did not err in considering continuity of legacy systems.
Additional Strength
nou contended MDA failed to assess a strength under the RFP’s cyber compliance factor for the company’s proposed use of an enterprise-wide test bed. GAO, however, found that while an enterprise-wide test bed is an industry best practice, it didn’t really exceed the requirements in a way that benefitted MDA.
Weight of Technical Subfactors
nou had received higher adjectival ratings than Corvid under two of the RFP’s four technical subfactors. Corvid had a higher rating on another subfactor, and they both had the same rating on the fourth. Based on this, nou contended that it “won” the technical evaluation. Accordingly, the agency must have over-weighed or under-weighed the technical factors when it found that Corvid had a superior technical proposal.
Nevertheless, GAO reasoned that although nou’s proposal received higher ratings under two of the four subfactors this did not mean that nou had a technically superior proposal. An agency’s evaluation should not be based on a mechanical comparison of adjectival ratings. MDA could reasonably find that Corvid offered a superior approach despite the adjectival ratings.
Costs Realism
not alleged MDA failed to properly analyze cost realism as required by the RFP. nou also contended MDA should have adjusted Corvid’s probable costs. nou noted that its own proposal included costs for hardware and software updates while Corvid’s proposal did not.
GAO found that MDA had conducted a comprehensive cost realism analysis. GAO also found there was no basis to upwardly adjust Corvid’s costs. A cost realism evaluation assesses each offeror’s unique approach. nou might’ve proposed some costs that Corvid did not, but that fact was irrelevant.
nou is represented by David Bodenheimer and Madison Plummer of Nichols Liu LLP. The agency is represented by Major James S. Kim of the Missile Defense Agency. GAO attorneys Michelle E. Litteken and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
