The protester argued it should have received a strength because 75% of the agency’s staff had once worked for the protester. The protester reasoned this fact indicated that its staff was highly competent. The agency responded its hiring of the protester’s former employees could simply mean that the protester couldn’t retain its staff. GAO sided with the agency, rejected several other challenges, and denied the protest.
Science and Technology Corporation, GAO B-422601
- Award and Protest – The agency awarded a contract for aircraft and spaceflight systems engineering, scientific research, and support services. The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation under the mission suitability factor.
- Management Subfactor, Robust System: The protester challenged the agency’s decision to only assign a strength (instead of a significant strength) for its proposed use of a robust quality management system that would “greatly enhance” the potential for successful performance. GAO found that the record indicated that the agency sufficiently evaluated the system’s benefits.
- Management Subfactor, Employee Familiarity: The protester argued the agency overlooked its highly-qualified employees. The protester highlighted the fact that seventy-five percent of the civil servants in the agency’s relevant branch were former employees of the protester. GAO agreed with the agency’s argument that former employees working for the agency have nothing to do with the protester’s ability to comply with the solicitation, and may simply demonstrate that the protester cannot retain employees.
- Technical Subfactor: The protester contended the awardee should not have received a strength for its proposed use of a specialized tool because it “merely introduces another tool” that performs the same tasks as similar tools. Furthermore, the protester claimed the agency engaged in disparate treatment by giving strengths to parts of the awardee’s proposal while not doing the same for the protester’s comparable features. GAO ultimately denied all of the protests, finding that the protester oversimplified the contents of the proposals to claim they were comparable.
- Other Arguments – The protester also challenged the agency’s evaluations of Past Performance and Cost/Price Proposals. The protester argued the agency unreasonably found that the protester had failed to address eight out of the eleven PWS sectios and that the agency unreasonably adjusted the amounts for taxes and costs. After reviewing the record, GAO denied both arguments, concluding the agency had adequately analyzed the proposals based on the terms of the solicitation. Furthermore, the extra costs the agency added were valid because the protester failed to account for them in its proposal.
The protester was represented by Robert J. Symon, Nathaniel J. Greeson, Patrick R. Quigley, and Owen E. Salyers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Francis E. Purcell Jr. and Joseph R. Berger of Thompson Hine LLP represented the intervenor. The agency was represented by Michael G. Anderson, H. Gray Marsee, and Shannon A. Sharkey of NASA. Jacob Talcott and Jennifer D. West-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
