The protester challenged the best-value tradeoff. The protester argued the agency hadn’t considered the benefits of the protester’s lower price. The agency had an evidentiary snafu. Due to a technical issue, the agency had lost the tradeoff determination. But GAO was unconcerned. The procurement was conducted under FAR 8.4, which prescribes only minimal documentation requirements. What’s more, even without the tradeoff document, GAO was able to discern from the record that the agency had compared the benefits of each quotation.
HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions, Inc., GAO B-421221.4, B-421221.5
Background
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) issued an RFQ for information technology services. The RFQ contemplated establishment of a multiple-award blanket purchase agreement. AOUSC received quotations from 23 vendors, including HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions. AOUSC elected not to establish a BPA with HII. HII protested.
Analysis
Technical Evaluation
HII objected to a weakness it received for its technical approach for a sample call order. AOUSC found HII had proposed insufficient staffing. Historical data showed 90 personnel were needed for the effort. HII only proposed 44.5 FTEs. HII alleged AOUSC applied unstated criteria. The solicitation had not required any specific number of FTEs.
GAO found nothing objectionable. HII had not received the weakness because it proposed less than some unspecified number of FTEs. Instead, AOSUC had determined that HII’s proposed FTEs indicated a lack of understanding of the resources needed to accomplish the work.
Tradeoff Decision
HII argued AOUSC didn’t consider HII’s price when making the tradeoff determination. AOUSC claimed it compared proposals. Unfortunately due to a technical failure, the agency had lost the tradeoff determination.
GAO didn’t find the loss of the tradeoff decision vexing. This procurement was conducted under FAR 8.4., which establishes only minimum documentation requirements. Even without the tradeoff decision, the record showed the agency was aware of the strengths and weaknesses assessed to each quotation. It appeared the agency had actually considered the advantages provided by each quotation.
HII is represented by Kenneth B. Weckstein and Shlomo D. Katz of Brown Rudnick LLP. The intervenor, Gunnison Consulting Group, is represented by Edward J. Tolchin of Offit Kurman, P.A. The agency is represented by Julie A. Neville of the Administrative Office of United States Courts. GAO attorneys Michelle E. Litteken and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
