The agency assigned a good rating to the protester’s technical proposal. The protester argued it had been assessed multiple strengths and no deficiencies, so it should have received an excellent rating. But GAO said multiple strengths and no deficiencies were not enough. An excellent rating also required an exceptional approach. The agency had reasonably found the protester’s approach unexceptional.
Innovative Technology Solutions JV, LLC, GAO B-422731.2
- Documentation of Price Realism Evaluation – The protester objected to the price realism evaluation. The protester reasoned that the solicitation required the agency to determine whether an offeror’s proposed rates reflected a clear understanding of the requirements. The protester argued that nothing in the record indicated that the agency had considered whether rates reflected an understanding of the requirements. But GAO found the protester had misinterpreted the solicitation. Granted, the solicitation stated that rates should reflect an understanding of requirements. But the solicitation also set forth a defined methodology for assessing whether rates were within two standard deviations of industry benchmarks. Thus, contrary to the protester’s reading, the solicitation did not require a separate assessment of the offeror’s understanding and a separate standard deviation analysis. Rather, the standard deviation was the method the agency used to assess understanding. The agency had performed the standard deviation analysis, so the realism evaluation was reasonable.
- Price Difference – The awardee’s price was 25 percent lower than the protester’s. The protester reasoned this difference indicated the price realism evaluation was inherently unreasonable. GAO didn’t see it. To be sure, the awardee’s price was on the low end. But the protester’s was on the high end. Indeed, during discussions the agency had indicated the protester’s price may be unreasonably high. While there was a significant difference between prices, this didn’t mean the awardee’s price was unrealistic.
- Excellent Rating – The agency assessed the protester’s proposal a good rating for multiple strengths and no deficiencies. The protester argued it should have received an excellent rating. GAO disagreed. The solicitation did not state that merely receiving multiple strengths and no deficiencies would result in an excellent rating. Rather, to get an excellent rating an offeror also had to demonstrate an exceptional approach. The agency reasonably found the protester had not demonstrated an exceptional approach.
The protester is represented by James C. Fontana of Fontana Law Group and David Warner and Heather Mims of Warner, PLLC. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Josephine R. Farinelli, Major Craig M. Brunson, Ryan Lambrecht, and Kevin Stiens of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief