Protest that the agency unreasonably assigned a weakness to the protester’s proposal is denied, where proposal stated the protester would outsource its human resources functions, which the agency reasonably believed included recruiting services. While the protester argued the proposal did not state recruiting services would be outsourced, GAO found it reasonable for the agency to conclude that the outsourced HR services included them. GAO also denied challenges to the best value tradeoff, explaining that the agency was not obligated to consider the protester’s proposal more advantageous merely because it was assessed more strengths. GAO also concluded that the agency’s error in double-counting the awardee’s strengths during the source selection decision process did not prejudice the protester, because correcting the error would not alter the fact the awardee’s proposal was higher rated and lower priced.

North South Consulting Group LLC protested the Army’s award of a contract for child and youth services program support to Dynamic Systems Technology Inc., arguing that the agency misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision.

First, the protester challenged a weakness assigned to its proposal regarding employee retention. The agency felt the demonstrated retention rate created a risk of instability in the non-program management labor categories. The protester argued the agency failed to consider its explanation for the retention statistics, and that the information contained in its proposal demonstrated that there was no risk of poor performance from employee turnover. According to NSCG, much of its turnover was the result of individuals being promoted to fill other positions under the same contract. NSCG also argued that, with respect to its subcontractor’s attrition rates, the low retention rate was a result of the agency’s actions and not by NSCG’s actions.

In response, the agency said it considered these explanations but concluded the reasons did not negate the concerns about instability. GAO found the agency’s evaluation reasonable and that the protester’s challenge arose from disagreement with the agency’s judgment, which did not provide a basis to sustain a protest.

Next, NSCG raised multiple challenges to the source selection decision. First, NSCG argued that the SSA erroneously concluded that NSCG planned to outsource its recruiting activities, when the proposal did not state this. The agency had assessed a weakness to the proposal for NSCG’s proposed outsourcing of human resource services and the SSA referenced this weakness in the source selection decision. In response to the protest, the agency noted the protester’s proposal did not state which HR functions would be outsourced, nor did the proposal specifically state that the recruiting function would not be conducted by the outsourced HR team. GAO found this reasonable, explaining that it was NSCG’s responsibility to submit a clear, well-written proposal.

NSCG also argued the tradeoff decision was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation because the agency attached greater importance to the management approach factor than to the technical approach factor—the most important factor. Specifically, the protester argued the SSA unreasonably considered strengths in Dynamic’s proposal under the management approach factor to discount the strengths in NSCG’s proposal under the technical approach factor.

In response, the Army explained that the SSA reviewed the content of the proposals as a whole and concluded that NSCG’s proposal lacked any positive discriminators. For each strength or significant strength found in NSCG’s proposal, the SSA found an equivalent element in Dynamic’s proposal, even though the SSEB had identified some of these features in the management volume of Dynamic’s proposal, rather than the technical volume.

GAO found the evaluation reasonable, concluding that the SSA looked behind the adjectival ratings to meaningfully consider the differences—and similarities—between proposals. While the protester disagreed with the outcome, this disagreement did not render the tradeoff decision unreasonable. GAO also rejected the protester’s argument that its proposal was superior because it had been assessed more strengths under the technical factor.

Finally, the protester argued the SSA treated offerors disparately, because he used features identified in Dynamic’s proposal under the management approach factor to diminish and downplay superior features in NSCG’s proposal under the technical approach factor, but failed to similarly consider these same features from NSCG’s proposal when comparing proposals under the management approach factor. In essence, the protester argued the SSA ‟double-counted” Dynamic’s strengths identified under the management approach factor by also considering them under the technical approach factor.

GAO agreed the evaluation was flawed in this respect, but found the protester was not prejudiced by the error. Because of the significant strengths in Dynamic’s proposal under the management approach factor and its lower price, GAO found no reasonable possibility the award decision would have been different if the agency discounted the strengths already considered under the technical approach factor.

North South Consulting Group LLC is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Patrick R. Quigley, Sarah S. Osborne, and Anna M. Lashley of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Dynamic Systems Technology Inc. is represented by Janice Davis of Davis & Steele. The government is represented by Major Felix S. Mason, Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Paula J. Haurilesko and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.