eenevski | Shutterstock

Protest challenging agency’s past performance evaluation and best value tradeoff is sustained. The agency applied unstated criteria as part of the past performance evaluation, penalizing the protester for lacking experience that the solicitation did not require. Additionally, GAO found, the agency inexplicably assigned the protester’s past performance a marginal rating despite having received highly rated responses to the protester’s past performance questionnaires. What’s more, the agency botched the best value analysis by failing to consider price before selecting the awardee.

The Army issued a solicitation for award of a task order to provide technical and analytical mission planning services. Two companies, Addx Corporation and Sawdey Solutions Services, submitted proposals. The Army found multiple weaknesses in Addx’s proposal. Due to its low ratings, the Army eliminated Addx from the competition and awarded the contract to Sawdey. Addx protested.

Addx first challenged the weaknesses it received for its transition, management, and benefit plans. Addx claimed that the Army failed to contemporaneously document its evaluation. GAO disagreed. While noting that the record was somewhat sparse, GAO found that on balance the record was sufficient to show that the Army was generally concerned with the lack of detail of Addx’s proposal. The Army’s post-protest explanations for its evaluation also supported the contemporaneous record.

Addx also argued that the Army disparately evaluated transition plans. Specifically, Addx claimed the Army penalized it for not providing letters of intent to incumbent personnel while not holding Sawdey to the same standard.

But GOA noted that when a protester alleges unequal treatment, it must show that the differences in ratings were not based on differences in the offerors’ proposals. Here, Addx could not make that showing because its transition plan was significantly different from Sawdey’s.  In its proposal, Addx stated that it had contacted incumbent personnel and that its compensation would incentivize incumbent personnel to join its workforce. Sawdey, on the other hand, proposed to subcontract with the current incumbent and gradually onboard incumbent staff.

Addx had better luck with its next argument concerning the past performance evaluation. The Army assigned Addx a weakness under the past performance factor for a lack of experience performing system support services on tactical special operations missions. Addx challenged this weakness, arguing that the Army applied unstated criteria and failed to consider the content of the past performance information provided.

GAO found that the agency applied unstated criteria in assigning the weakness. The solicitation stated that performing “professional services” for the U.S. Special Operations Command would be considered relevant experience. Contrary to the Army’s evaluation, the solicitation did not specify that this experience had to specifically involve system support services on a tactical special operations missions.

Moreover, GAO found that the Army’s past performance evaluation was unreasonable in light of responses it received on Addx’s past performance questionnaires. In those responses, Addx received the highest possible ratings for its past performance. Despite these high marks, the Army assigned Addx a marginal and moderate risk past performance rating. GAO noted that the solicitation defined moderate risk as the potential to cause disruption of effort or increase cost. Yet nothing in the responses to the PPQs indicated serious problems with Addx’s prior performance of that there was a potential for serious disruption of performance.

In addition to past performance, GAO also found problems with the best value tradeoff. Due to Addx’s low ratings, the Army excluded Addx from the competition without bothering to compare its proposal to Sawdey’s. GAO noted, however, that Addx’s price was significantly lower than Sawdey’s, and yet the Army did not consider price at all before eliminating Addx from the competition. While Sawdey’s higher ratings made it more probable that it would be able to successfully perform the contract, the Army still had to consider whether Sawdey’s higher ratings were worth the price premium.

Addx is represented by Lee Dougherty of Effectus, PLLC. The agency is represented by Jonathan A. Hardage of the Army. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.