The protester challenged the terms of a solicitation that sought to make award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. The protester argued the solicitation failed at least 3 of 8 criteria an agency must satisfy to use an LPTA methodology. GAO agreed with the protester and recommended that the agency issue a revised solicitation that complied with the criteria or revise the solicitation’s source selection methodology.
The Mission Essential Group, LLC, GAO B-422698.2
- Protest – The Air Force issued a fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) for pilot augmentation support services in Europe and Africa. The protester maintained that the solicitation improperly provided award of a task order on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis.
- DFARS – Section 215.101-2-70 of the DFARS implements eight criteria that must be satisfied for a solicitation to use an LPTA source selection methodology. The protester claimed the FOPR didn’t meet at least three of these eight criteria:
- Description of Minimum Requirements: The protester pointed out the FOPR did not express the requirements with a measurable minimum or threshold requirement, nor did it include objective performance metrics. The agency argued such information was defined in the determination and findings (D&F) memorandum. GAO sided with the protester.
- Value from Exceeding Minimum Requirements: The protester argued the FOPR’s invitation for “unique” approaches meant the agency believed some value could be gained from a proposal that exceeded minimum requirements. GAO agreed this violated the second criteria that required that the agency obtain “No, or minimal, value” from proposals exceeding minimum requirements.
- Life-Cycle Costs: Finally, the protester claimed the contract file did not contain a determination that the lowest price reflected full life-cycle costs. Not only was there no determination, but there could not be because the task order included several cost-reimbursement CLINs for which the full cost was unknown at the time. GAO agreed and sustained the protest.
- Failure to Avoid to the Max – The protester also alleged that the agency failed to avoid LPTA procedures to the maximum extent practicable. It argued DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2)-(a)(2)(i) requires the agency avoid and LPTA methodology for procurement that are “predominantly for the acquisition” of “other knowledge-based professional services.” GAO agreed an sustained the protest on this basis as well.
The protester was represented by Craig A. Holman and Roee Talmor of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The agency was represented by Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Josephine R. Farinelli, W. Trent Fox, and David J. Dusseau of the Air Force. Sarah T. Zaffina and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
