Protest challenging agency’s evaluation is denied. The protester objected to a significant weakness it received for proposing to fill a position with two employees instead of one. GAO found that agency reasonably found that splitting the position could jeopardize performance. The protester also challenged a weakness it received for proposing a one-day transition. The protester argued that because it was going to use incumbent staff, a lengthy transition period was unnecessary. GAO found that the agency reasonably believed that staff would need more than a one-day transition.
The National Weather Service (NWS) issued an RFQ to women-owned small businesses holding contracts under the GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule for Professional Engineering Services. The solicitation was for follow-on effort related to a previous task order. The new procurement modified the prior task order by breaking up tasks into different contract vehicles.
Two vendors, Syneren Technologies Corporation and Dowless & Associates, Inc., submitted quotes. NWS concluded that Dowless represented the best value. Although Syneren had superior past performance, Dowless had a better technical approach and a lower price. Syneren protested.
Syneren challenged a significant weakness it received for proposing to split a subject matter expert position between two part-time staff. Syneren claimed the solicitation did not require vendors to propose a single person for the position. Indeed, Syneren continued, two individuals had been satisfactorily performing the same role under the incumbent contract.
But GAO found that the significant weakness was justified. While the RFQ did not specifically address the possibility of using two part-time staff to fill the same position, it nevertheless clearly requested a single full-time position. NWS reasonably determined that splitting the leadership roles between two staff could jeopardize unity of effort and pose a performance risk.
Syneren also alleged that the weakness if received for splitting the position also demonstrated unequal treatment. Syneren argued that Dowless had proposed to hire incumbent staff for the position, which would necessarily lead to the same two-person result. GAO, however, found that Syneren’s and Dowless’s quotes were not substantially similar in this respect. While Dowless proposed to hire some incumbent staff, it did not specify that any particular individual or individuals would fill the same subject matter expert position.
Next, Syneren complained about a weakness it received for proposing a one-day transition schedule. NWS was concerned that the abbreviated schedule provided no margin for error. Syneren contended that because it was proposing incumbent staff who were already credentialed and working on site, there was no need for a longer transition period.
GAO found that NWS’s concerns about staff needing more than one day to transition were legitimate. Syneren’s simply disagreed with the agency’s evaluation judgment.
Syneren alleged NWS improperly assigned its proposal a weakness for its cost control approach. Syneren planned to provide an annual escalation of its rates, but NWS found this escalation created risk. GAO found that to the extent this weakness was an error, Syneren had not been prejudiced. NWS assigned a similar weakness to Dowless for its cost control strategy. Moreover, the best value determination did not consider either of the vendors’ cost control weaknesses in making the award decision.
Syneren objected to another weakness it received for failing to outline a methodology for mitigating risk. Syneren asserted its proposal provided significant information on risks. GAO noted that while Syneren’s quote identified a five-step risk mitigation methodology, the proposal’s discussion of risks did not appear to employ the methodology described. Moreover, it was unclear how those risks would be remedied by the proposed mitigation strategies. GAO could not conclude that the weakness was unreasonable.
Finally, Syneren complained that NWS had erred in assigning Dowless a significant strength for its incumbent capture. Specifically, Syneren asserted, NWS had uncritically accepted Dowless’s representation that it intended to provide salaries and benefits that were as good or better than the incumbent. In fact, Syneren contended, Dowless’s salaries and benefits were 3 percent to 20 percent lower than the incumbent’s.
GAO determined that the significant strength was not problematic. The strength was predicated on several aspects of Dowless’s approach, not simply its salaries. Moreover, when, as hear, an RFQ contemplates a time-and-materials task order with fixed-price rates and does not mention a price realism assessment, there is nothing inappropriate about a contractor proposing a price below costs.
Syneren is represented by Jon D. Levin, W. Brad English, and Emily J. Chancey of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC. The intervenor, Dowless, is represented by Isaias Alba, IV, Lauren R. Brier, and Timothy F. Valley of Piliero Mazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Rebecca Bailey Jacobsen and James Rhodes of the Department of Commerce. GAO attorneys Michael Willems and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
