The protester complained that the agency conducted unequal discussions when it asked the awardee about its proposal but didn’t ask the protester any questions. GAO wasn’t bothered. The agency didn’t ask the protester questions because the protester’s proposal was acceptable as is.
Intecon LLC, GAO B-422124.2
- Interchanges – The protester contended the agency conducted unequal discussions. The agency conducted interchanges with the awardee, asking a question about its proposal. The agency did not ask the protester any questions. GAO, however, didn’t see a problem. An agency only needs to conduct discussions to address significant weaknesses and deficiencies. The agency had not identified any significant problems with the protester’s proposal, so it didn’t ask any questions. The protester’s proposal was already technically acceptable, so interchanges were unnecessary.
- Lowered Rating – Following an initial protest, the agency took corrective action to reevaluate. As a result of that reevaluation, the protester’s technical rating was lowered from outstanding to good. The protester complained the new rating was arbitrary. But GAO disagreed. The agency had realized some of the strengths assigned to the protester after the initial evaluation were not consistent with the solicitation’s terms. Additionally, GAO does not question a change in ratings after a reevaluation unless the agency reaches starkly different conclusions. Here, the difference between outstanding and good was not stark enough to be suspicious.
The protester is represented by Eric S. Crusius, Richard Ariel, and Tanner N. Slaughter of Holland & Knight LLP. The awardee is represented by Jeffrey M. Chiow, Eleanor M. Ross, and Cassidy Kim of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Christine Piper, Major Oladipo O. Odejide, and Blaine E. Beckstrom of the Air Force. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chie
