Post-award protest is denied where a jilted offeror is unable to poke holes in the agency’s technical evaluation. The agency did not improperly blend multiple alleged strengths in the protester’s proposal into a single strength. Not every positive thing an agency says about a proposal merits a strength. Additionally, the solicitation did not preclude the agency from considering information from one part of the awardee’s proposal while evaluating another part of the proposal. Moreover, because the solicitation did not prohibit it, the agency reasonably considered the experience of individual personnel when it assessed corporate experience. GAO also found that while the agency’s needs had changed, a solicitation amendment was unnecessary because the agency planned a separate solicitation to address those changed needs.
The Army issued a solicitation seeking support services for the Missile Defense and Space Systems (MDSS) project. Sigmatech, Inc. and COLSA Corporation, among others, submitted proposals. The Army awarded the contract to COLSA, finding that its higher-rated but more expensive proposal offered the best value. Sigmatech protested, arguing (1) the solicitation did not reflect the Army’s needs and should have been amended, and (2) the Army’s evaluation and source selection decision were flawed.
The Army Did Not Need to Amend the Solicitation
Before award, MDSS was assigned to support a new initiative: the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon project. Sigmatech argued that supporting that project would change the scope of work on the solicitation. Thus, the Army should have amended to reflect its changed needs.
But numerous Army officials stated that the MDSS solicitation would not be used to support the Hypersonic Weapon project. The Army planned to issue another solicitation for that project. Indeed, Sigmatech itself, had noted that the Hypersonic project required different work. GAO found that the new Hypersonic initiative did not change the Army’s needs and did not warrant an amendment.
The Technical Evaluation was Reasonable
Next, Sigmatech argued that the Army fumbled the evaluation of Sigmatech’s proposal under the Task Execution factor. The Army’s evaluation noted many positive aspects of Sigmatech’s Task Execution approach, but it only assigned Sigmatech a single strengths. Sigmatech contended the Army had thus blended what should have been multiple strengths into only one assessed strength.
GAO found, however, that Sigmatech had not demonstrated that the other positive aspects of its proposal provided additional benefit to the agency or otherwise met the solicitation’s definition of a strength. The Army’s positive comments simply noted aspects of the proposal that contributed to the single, overall strength.
Sigmatech also argued that its approach merited an additional strength because the Army awarded COLSA a strength for features—specifically, integration experience—that were evident in Sigmatech’s proposal. But GAO noted differences between Sigmatech’s and COLSA’s integration approaches. For instance, Sigmatech’s proposal did not provide any detailed examples of how it had successfully used its approach. Additionally, Sigmatech’s integration approach focused on legacy system sustainment, while COLSA’s focused on emerging technologies, which was more beneficial to the Army.
Sigmatech further complained that the Army had mis-evaluated COLSA under the Qualifications and Experience factor by improperly relying on information from portions of the COLSA’s proposal dedicated to the Task Execution factor to assess COLSA under the Qualification and Experience factor. But GAO noted that nothing in the proposal prohibited the government from considering information from the Task Execution portion of the proposal to evaluate the Qualifications factor.
Sigmatech also claimed that the Army evaluated its Qualifications approach using unstated criteria. Specifically, Sigmatech argued, the Army considered the experience of COLSA’s key personnel in assessing the company’s overall experience. Sigmatech contended that the solicitation did not allow the Army to consider the individual experience of proposed personnel.
GAO rejected this argument, reasoning that if a solicitation does not otherwise contain language limiting the evaluation of corporate experience, the general reference to an “offeror” affords the agency discretion to consider the experience of individual personnel. Such experience, GAO noted, is useful in predicting the success of future contract performance.
No Issue With Source Selection Decision
Finally, Sigmatech challenged the source selection decision, arguing that the Army failed to consider Sigmatech’s specific advantages. GAO found that Sigmatech’s source selection arguments were really just a rehash of its technical evaluation arguments. What’s more, the record reflected that Army did not merely rely on the assigned technical ratings but thoroughly considered the relative merits of the offerors’ proposals.
Sigmatech is represented by Dennis J. Callahan, Jeffery M. Chiow, Lucas T. Hanback, and Emily Wieser of Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC. The intervenor, COLSA, is represented by Robert J. Wagman, Jr., and Joshua R. Robichaud, Bracewell LLP. The government is represented by Wade L. Brown, and Christopher J. Wood, of the U.S. Army, for the agency. GAO attorneys Heather Weiner, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
