Protest alleging that agency unreasonably assessed strength to awardee is sustained. The agency assessed the awardee’s transition plan a strength for proposing to onboard staff within 30 days. GAO, however, found that the awardee had only proposed to transfer knowledge, not staff within 30 days. The strength was based on a misreading of the proposal. Because this strength had been sole discriminator, GAO found the protester had been prejudiced by the error.
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) issued an RFQ to holders of the GSA Federal Supply Schedule for IT services. The RFQ sought and IT system and secure communications to maintain classified communications in the White House.
Several vendors, including MetroStar Systems, Inc. and Perspecta Engineering, submitted quotations. DISA did not identify any strengths or weaknesses in MetroStar’s quotation. The agency assessed a strength to Perspecta’s for its transition plan. That strength was determinative. DISA awarded the contract to Perspecta finding that its higher-priced quotation offered a technically-superior approach. MetroStar protested.
MetroStar challenged the single strength awarded to Perspecta. MetroStar argued that this strength was based on a misunderstanding of Perspecta’s staffing approach.
GAO agreed with MetroStar. DISA awarded Perspecta for proposing to onboard staff within the first 30 days. This exceeded the requirement to onboard staff within 60 days. The problem was that Perspecta had not actually proposed to onboard staff in 30 days. Perspecta had merely committed itself to transferring knowledge in 30 days; it had actually not promised to onboard staff in that time frame. Thus, the strength assessed to Perspecta’s transition plan was unwarranted.
GAO further noted that MetroStar had been prejudiced by the assessment of this strength. In fact, this strength had been the sole discriminator that lead to the selection of Perspecta.
MetroStar raised additional arguments that GAO found less compelling. MetroStar contended that it should have received a strength because its key personnel possessed preferred education and experience. GAO, however, reasoned that nothing in the RFQ required a strength to be assessed for simply meeting a preferred qualifications.
MetroStar further argued that Perspecta’s quotation did not comply with a requirement to provide a resume and credentials for each of the 51 FTE positions. But GAO reasoned that the RFQ did not require a resume and credential for all 51 positions. Instead, it only required resumes and credentials for the 19 key positions. Perspecta had complied with this requirement.
GAO recommended DISA reevaluate proposals and make a new source selection.
MetroStar is represented by Elizabeth N. Jochum, Zachary D. Prince, and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. The intervenor, Perspecta, is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, and Jeffrey M. Lowry of Vedder Price P.C. The agency is represented by Kara G. Hong of the Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
