Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied, where the protester’s challenges to the assignment of specific adjectival ratings did not allege any errors in the actual substance of the evaluation; and protest challenging the agency’s best value tradeoff is denied, where the agency was not required to quantify the value of the awardee’s technically superior proposal and where the protester’s proposed methodology was unreasonable and unsupported by the solicitation.
Enterprise Services LLC protested the National Security Agency’s award of a contract for enterprise IT services to AT&T Corporation, challenging numerous aspects of the evaluation of its proposal and the agency’s best-value award determination.
Initially, NSA urged GAO to dismiss the protest, arguing that ES was not an interested party because it is not the entity that submitted the proposal. NSA also argued that ES was not capable of performing the requirement in the manner described by the proposal because of a corporate transaction that occurred after proposals were submitted.
The original proposal was submitted by Hewlett Package Enterprise Services, which later changed its name to Enterprise Services LLC in anticipation of an imminent corporate transaction that would spin off the business into an independent company. ES merged with Computer Science Corporation to form new entity, DXC Technology Company, of which ES is now a subsidiary. GAO found that ES survives as the complete successor in interest to HPES, noting that ES has the same CAGE Code, SAM registration, internal corporate structure, and employees. According to GAO, the fact that the actual offeror now operates under a different name and is organized under a different parent company does not strip that entity of its rights to protest this procurement.
GAO also rejected the agency’s argument that ES could not perform on the contract as proposed, because its proposal substantially relied on HP’s corporate resources. GAO found that the agency’s arguments reflected a post-hoc, hypothetical reevaluation of HPES’s proposal during the heat of litigation, which is generally something GAO will not take into account.
Next, GAO considered ES’s protest allegations. In connection to the evaluation of its proposal, ES argued the agency ignored aspects of its proposed solutions, improperly assigned weaknesses and risks, and/or misapplied the rating scheme outlined in the RFP.
For example, ES argued the agency misevaluated its proposal under the service delivery model evaluation topic area. Agency evaluators concluded that ES met the standards for seven of the eight criteria under this ETA, and assigned the proposal a single strength, which focused on the approach to provide continuous operations for all services. However, the evaluators concluded this single strength would have little impact on contract performance and assigned this area an acceptable rating.
GAO found nothing objectionable in the evaluation. To the extent ES challenged this area, it did not allege the agency misevaluated its proposal, but mis-rated it. According to ES, the RFP provided for an acceptable rating when strengths and weaknesses were offsetting. Because its strength was not offset by any weaknesses, ES argued this ETA warranted a higher rating. However, GAO found this argument unavailing, noting that the RFP also provided for an acceptable rating when apparent strengths would have no impact on performance. GAO also noted that a mechanical counting of strengths does not support any certain rating.
ES also argued its proposal warranted an outstanding rating under the transition and future state factor’s technology refresh evaluation topic area, because it dedicated 15 pages of its proposal to describing a “highly detailed solution” for the ETA criteria. Under this ETA, the agency assessed the degree to which the offeror’s proposal identified plans and processes for handling the replacement of non-compliant equipment, as well as explained how periodic replacement of hardware, software, and firmware would be accomplished. The SSEB identified one strength—ES’s approach to refreshing certain non-compliant assets—and five areas where ES simply met the requirements.
GAO found nothing objectionable in the evaluation. While the evaluators identified one noteworthy strength, they concluded that ES merely met the requirements of the other areas. According to GAO, the record supported the agency’s determination that ES’s overall technology refresh approach was adequate. While ES disagreed with the agency’s judgment, it provided no basis to question the agency’s conclusion that it had proposed an acceptable approach to the requirement.
GAO also found no basis to question the agency’s cost/technical tradeoff, finding that the source selection decision was reasonable, well-documented, and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. GAO found the agency considered AT&T’s proposal superior in every aspect and that its technical superiority was worth a price premium.
ES also argued the agency should have quantified the value of the competing proposals, but GAO noted the FAR expressly states that a cost/technical tradeoff need not be quantified. Further, the methodology proposed by the protester was not supported by the solicitation. The solicitation contemplated that the contractor would be assessed a financial credit to its invoices if it failed to meet certain service levels established in the contract, but these the credits were not designed to quantify the value of proposal advantages in a pre-award, evaluation setting or, conversely, to measure the harm that would result from inferior performance.
Enterprise Services LLC is represented by Richard J. Conway, Merle M. DeLancey, Michael J. Slattery, Ioana Cristei, Philip E. Beshara, and Carolyn R. Cody-Jones of Blank Rome LLP. AT&T Corporation is represented by Marcia G. Madsen, David F. Dowd, Cameron S. Hamrick, Luke Levasseur, and Roger V. Abbott of Mayer Brown LLP. The government is represented by Alice S. Chong, and William R. Buonaccorsi, National Security Agency. GAO attorneys Noah B. Bleicher and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
