The agency sent the protester confusing evaluation notices, with conflicting past performance ratings. The protester said the agency needed to reconcile the notices. GAO disagreed. To extent the agency made an error in the notices, the protester had not been prejudiced.
Computer World Services Corporation, GAO B-321495.2
- Initial Evaluation Notices – The agency reevaluated proposals after corrective action and sent the protester evaluation notices. The notice concerning past performance was confusing, with conflicting past performance ratings and CPARs from a different offeror. The protester asked the agency to clarify. The agency said the protester had received a substantial confidence past performance rating. Thus, the protester did not revise its past performance.
- Second Evaluation Notice - After evaluating proposal revisions, the agency issued a second round of evaluation notices to the protester. Although the protester had not changed its past performance proposal, the second round of notices stated the protester received a neutral past performance rating. The protester asked about the discrepancy between the notices. The agency said it had reassessed the protester’s past performance and that the ratings had changed.
- Final Proposal Revision – The protester submitted final proposal revisions with updated past performance information. The agency, however, still found the protester’s past performance only merited a neutral rating. The agency awarded the contract to a different offeror.
- Protest – The protester filed a protest, challenging the past performance evaluation. The protester argued the agency failed to reconcile the change in ratings between the first evaluation notice with the substantial confidence ratings, and the second notice with the neutral rating.
- No Prejudice – GAO acknowledged the initial evaluation notice was confusing. Nevertheless, GAO opined, to the extent the agency erred in not reconciling the change in the protester’s past performance ratings, the protester had not been prejudiced. Rather, the protester was fully aware of its neutral past performance rating after the second round of evaluation notices, and it had a chance to address the agency's concerns in its final proposal revision. While the agency may have botched the initial evaluation notices, it did not impact the protester’s chance at award.
The protester is represented by Matthew T. Schoonover, Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox II, Ian P. Patterson and Timothy Laughlin of Schoonover & Moriarty LLC. The awardee is represented by Daniel R. Forman and James G. Peyster of Crowell & Moring LLC. The agency is represented by Andrew J. Smith, Lieutenant Colonel Michael R. Tregle, Jr. and Major Brandon P. Mark of the Army. GAO attorneys Nathaniel S. Canfield and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor