Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied. The protester argued that the awardee should have been found ineligible because its FSS contract did not include labor categories required by the RFQ. But GAO found that the labor categories in the awardee’s FSS contract encompassed those listed in the RFQ. The protester asserted that the awardee should not have received an Outstanding technical rating because its website showed it did not have recent experience performing logistics work required by the RFQ. But GAO found that the agency was not required to evaluate past performance as part of the technical rating. Lastly, the protester objected to the best value tradeoff, but GAO found that the SSA reasonably determined that awardee’s technical benefits justified its much higher price.
The Marine Corps issued an RFQ seeking distribution management support services. Three firms, including Professional Analysis, Inc. and Cervello Technologies, LLC, submitted proposals. Although Cervello’s price was almost double Professional’s, the Marines determined that Cervello’s outstanding technical rating offered the best value. The Marines issued a delivery order under Cervello’s Federal Schedule Supply contract. Professional protested.
Professional first alleged Cervello should be ineligible for award because its FSS contract did not include labor categories and item numbers required by the RFQ. Professional alleged that Cervello’s FSS contract related to support services for engineering programs rather than logistics support required by the RFQ.
When an issue arises concerning whether a vendor is offering services outside their FSS contract, the relevant inquiry is whether the services offered are actually included in the in the FSS contract as reasonably interpreted. Here, GAO found that Cervello’s FSS contract reasonably met the agency’s needs. While the RFQ sought logistics support and not necessarily industrial engineering, logistical support is a subset of industrial engineering. The labor categories proposed by Cervello were capable of performing the engineering tasks identified in the RFQ. While Professional disagreed with the Marines’ evaluation conclusions, that was not enough to sustain a protest.
Next, Professional asserted that the agency erroneously assigned Cervello an Outstanding rating under the technical factor. Professional contended that Cervello could not have received an Outstanding rating because Cervello’s website showed no recent or relevant experience in distribution support services.
But GAO found that the Marines reasonably assigned an Outstanding rating. The evaluation was based on the contents of Cervello’s proposal, not its website. Moreover, the RFQ clearly stated that technical quotations would be evaluated for thoroughness of approach and level of understanding. Thus, the Marines were not required to consider Cervello’s past performance as part of the technical evaluation.
Professional further alleged that the Marines disparately evaluated proposals by assigning Cervello a strength for submitting more than eight required resumes but assigning Professional a weakness even though it also submitted more than eight resumes. GAO, however, found no disparate treatment. In addition to its resumes, Cervello submitted letters of intent. Professional did not include an letters of intent. The Marines reasonably concluded that that without letters of intent, there was a reasonable risk of a break in services.
Professional argued that the Marines failed to adequately evaluated the reasonableness of Cervello’s price. GAO disagreed, finding that the agency compared prices, found that the quoted rates did not exceed the FSS rates. What’s more, the Marines evaluated price for each CLIN, including labor rates and price total. GAO reasoned that this comprehensive evaluation and was more than adequate to rebut Professional’s objections.
Finally, Professional argued that the best value decision was flawed, arguing that Cervello could not have been technically superior and its approach could not have justified its high price. The record, however, demonstrated that the SSA reasonably concluded that the benefits and value associated with Cervello’s strengths would result in higher quality and successful performance and thus justified the higher price.
Professional is represented by Brian A. Darst of Brian A. Darst Attorney at Law. The intervenor, Cervello, is represented by David T. Ralston, Julia Di Vito, and Frank S. Murray of Foley Lardner LLPC. The agency is represented by Ellen B. Clark, Veronica Hale, Elise L. Jones, and Graeme Henderson of the Marine Corps. GAO attorneys Lois Hanshaw and Evan Williams participated in the preparation of the decision.
