Protest challenging agency’s technical and price evaluation is denied. The protester objected to risks assessed to its proposal, but GAO found the risks reasonable because the protester had failed to adequately explain its approach. The protester argued that it should have received credit for its experience performing COVID-related work. Again, however, GAO found that the protester had failed to explain its COVID-related work. The protester noted that the agency had apparently copied portions of its evaluation and pasted in the awardee’s evaluation. The agency acknowledged the error, but GAO found that error did not change the award decision and thus did not prejudice the protester.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued an RFQ to vendors holding certain GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts. The RFQ sought program analysis and strategic support services and contemplated the award of single blanket purchase agreement.
Four vendors, including Deloitte Consulting and Grant Thornton Public Sector, LLC, submitted quotations. TSA selected Deloitte for award based on its high ratings under the RFQ’s non-price factors. TSA concluded that while Grant Thornton’s price was significantly higher than Deloitte’s, it represented less performance risk. Deloitte protested.
Deloitte argued that TSA unreasonably assigned a risk to its quotation for failing to explain how the company would identify underperforming personnel for replacement. Deloitte contended that its approach encompassed replacement due to underperformance, and, in any event, the RFQ did not require vendors to explain how they would identify underperforming employees for replacement.
GAO rejected Deloitte’s contention that the RFA did not requires vendors to identify underperforming employees. A solicitation need not identify all the areas within a factor that may be taken into account so long as such unidentified areas are reasonably related to the stated evaluation factors. GAO opined that the identification of underperforming employees was reasonably related to and encompassed by the requirement to address how resources would be replaced due to underperformance.
Deloitte also contended TSA unreasonably assessed a risk under a technical scenario. Deloitte argued that TSA determined that its proposed level of effort was unrealistic based only on the number of labor hours proposed without taking into account Deloitte’s experience on other TSA projects. GAO disagreed with Deloitte’s contention, finding that a vendor’s proposed labor hours are inherently part of the approach contemplated by the RFQ. The evaluators properly questioned the extent to which Deloitte could meet the scope of service.
Deloitte complained that TSA did not consider the its unique technical approach in managing COVID-19. GAO, however, noted that Deloitte had not adequately described its approach to COVDID. Deloitte clearly wanted the evaluators to be impressed by its work on the Pandemic Planning Executive Committee, but it did not explain what the committee was.
Deloitte also challenged the evaluation of Grant Thornton. Deloitte noted that it appeared TSA had cut and pasted the same evaluation summary for Deloitte and Grant Thornton despite significant differences in their proposals. TSA acknowledge an error in the documentation and admitted that it had copied and pasted from one vendor’s evaluation report into another. Nevertheless, GAO found that Deloitte had not been prejudiced by the error. The copy and pasting had no effect on the evaluation or award. While the copied and pasted language referenced things that Grant Thornton did not identify in its quotation, removal of those references would not have altered Grant Thornton’s, or Deloitte’s, chances of receiving the award.
Deloitte further objected to the price reasonableness evaluation, contending that TSA improperly considered criteria other than total evaluated price.
GAO found the price reasonableness evaluation unobjectionable. Contrary to Deloitte’s contention that TSA considered criteria other than total evaluated price, the RFA expressly allowed the agency to consider more than the total evaluated price. The RFQ allowed the agency to exercise is discretion in selecting the method for analyzing price reasonableness. TSA calculated the mean of the four prices its received and found Grant Thornton’s below the mean. It also analyzed Grant Thornton’s labor rates and found that they were significantly discounted from the rates in the company’s GSA schedule.
Deloitte is represented by Keith R. Szeliga, Adam A. Bartolanzo, and Nikole Snyder of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. The intervenor, Grant Thornton, is represented by Alexander J. Brittin of the Brittin Law Group and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC. The agency is represented by Michael Kiffney, Christopher Reames, and Thomas McGivern of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
