Kateryna Onyshchuk | Shutterstock

The protester argued the agency needed to explain why its proposal was acceptable after an initial evaluation but unacceptable after reevaluation. GAO said this wasn’t as mysterious as it seemed. As part of a corrective action, the agency amended the solicitation. While the protester’s proposal was the same, the evaluation criteria had changed. 

Chugach Range & Facilities Services JV, LLC, GAO B-420458.6, B-420458.10 
  • Unstated Criteria – The agency assessed the protester a deficiency for failing to describe its preventative maintenance schedule. The protester argued the deficiency was based on unstated criteria. The protester contended the solicitation did not require any specific approach to preventative maintenance. GAO found the protester was ignoring parts of the solicitation that explicitly required offerors to explain how they would meet the PWS’s preventative maintenance requirements. 
  • Changed Evaluation – The agency made an initial award. But in the wake of a protest, the agency took corrective action to reevaluate. Following the reevaluation, the agency determined the protester’s maintenance plan was unacceptable. The protester noted its plan had been acceptable during the initial evaluation. The protester argued the agency had not explained why that same plan was unacceptable after the reevaluation. GAO, however, found there was no big mystery. As part of the corrective action, the agency had amended the solicitation to add detailed criteria specific to preventative maintenance.  
  • Awardee’s Staffing – The protester contended the awardee’s proposed staffing demonstrated the awardee didn’t understand the solicitation’s requirement. The protester argued the awardee had overstaffed the requirement. GAO did not see how potential overstaffing created performance risk. 
  • Price Reasonableness – The protester objected to the price reasonableness evaluation, arguing the agency ignored a significant difference between the protester’s and awardee’s prices. GAO found no reason to object to the price evaluation. While the protester complained about the price difference, it did not demonstrate any flaw in the agency’s evaluation methodology. 

The protester is represented by Douglas L. Patin and Lisa Markman of Bradely Arant Rose & White LLP. The awardee is represented by Adam A. Bartolanzo, Alfred M. Wurglitz, C. Peter Dugan, and Lauren S. Fleming of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. The agency is represented by Kelly R. Masters and Wade L. Brown of the Army. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor