Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied, where the evaluation methodology established that a proposal could be rated positively but still not receive a “best suited” rating, and protest challenging the agency’s cost realism analysis is denied, where the agency reasonably compared offerors’ pricing to the average of all offers received, and where the agency’s upward adjustment to the protester’s proposed price was reasonable, given the protester’s failure to provide documentation supporting labor rates the agency considered to be unreasonably low.

Agile Defense Inc. protested the Navy’s award of an IT services task order to Advanced Alliant Solutions Team LLC, challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and cost realism analysis.

First, Agile argued the agency erroneously concluded that its proposal was “not best suited” under the understanding of the requirements technical factor, because Agile had teamed with incumbent contractors and its team offered “unrivaled expertise and understanding” of the contract requirements. The evaluation specifically noted that Agile’s proposal was clear, comprehensive, detailed, and beneficial, and therefore Agile argued it merited a “best suite” rating. Agile made similar arguments about its rating under the management plan factor.

In response, the agency acknowledged that it found aspects of Agile’s proposal to be beneficial to the government, but explained that it simply found the awardee’s proposal to be more beneficial. For example, the agency concluded that Agile has submitted a suitable technical solution, but was not as aggressive in its approach to improve quality and customer satisfaction. Similarly, while Agile proposed a sufficient management plan, the agency concluded AAST’s was superior.

GAO found this reasonable, finding that the agency appropriately documented its technical evaluation and comparison of the proposals. Further, the methodology of rating proposals as “best suited” or “not best suited” indicates that a proposal could receive a positive review, and still not receive the “best suited” rating. GAO also found the agency reasonably credited AAST for its approach to improving quality, even though the solicitation did not specifically call out this element as an evaluation criterion.

Next, Agile challenged the cost realism analysis, arguing that the agency’s comparison of proposed labor rates to the average of all offerors’ proposed rates for each category was contrary to the solicitation. According to Agile, the agency was required to compare the proposed rates to a larger data pool. Agile also argued the agency’s upward adjustment to its proposed price was unreasonable.

In response, the agency explained that the solicitation allowed it to rely on the average labor rate in industry for comparison purposes, and therefore its comparison of offerors’ proposed labor rates to the average of all proposals, as well as its use of data from salary.com and payscale.com, was reasonable. The agency also explained that Agile did not provide current employee salary figures for the 20 rates the agency viewed as unrealistically low, and when these rates were compared to payscale.com, the agency found the proposed rates to be “considerably low.” Finally, the agency noted that Agile’s proposal failed to include information regarding one of its subcontractor’s fees.

GAO found the agency’s analysis reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. GAO also noted the FAR allows an agency to compare proposed costs to other cost estimates received in response to the government’s request.

Agile Defense Inc. is represented by Paul A. Debolt, Emily A. Unnasch, and Spencer P. Williams of Venable, LLP. Advanced Alliant Solutions Team LLC is represented by Steven J. Koprince, Matthew T. Schoonover, Matthew P. Moriarty, and Shane J. McCall of Koprince Law, LLC. The government is represented by Robin Ray Coll and Jessica K. Eddy, Department of the Navy. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields, Glenn G. Wolcott, and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.