Protest challenging a weakness assigned to the protester’s proposal for COVID-19 test kits is denied. The agency assigned the protester a weakness not addressing whether it could handle anonymized data. The protester alleged the agency applied unstated criteria because the RFP did not require offerors to generate the anonymized data. GAO found that the RFP not apply unstated criteria. The RFP did not require offerors to be able to generate anonymized data, but it did require that the able to handle and store anonymized data. The protester had not demonstrated an ability to handle anonymized data, so the agency properly assessed a weakness.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an RFP seeking COVID-19 test kits and related services. The RFP required offerors to complete a capability questionnaire with 20 questions. DHS would evaluate questions by assessing the extent to which offerors demonstrated understanding of the requirements and the usability of their proposed solutions.
Comprehensive Health Services submitted a proposal. DHS, however, identified a weakness in Comprehensive’s proposal based on its response to one of the questions on the questionnaire. Based on this weakness, the contracting officer determined that Comprehensive’s proposal was not among the most highly rated. Comprehensive was not included in the competitive range. Comprehensive protested its exclusion.
Comprehensive received a weakness for its response to a question that asked offerors if they could create and store data, and “can the data by anonymized” or is personal information required? DHS found that Comprehensive had not provided any information on the anonymization of data.
Comprehensive did not dispute that its response did not specifically address anonymized data. Rather, Comprehensive contended that it responded to the question in a “holistic” manner that address its processed from collecting and storing data. In any event, Comprehensive argued, neither the Statement of Work nor any other part of RFP referred to the ability anonymize data, which Comprehensive interpreted as the ability to render data with personalized information into anonymous form. Thus, Comprehensive concluded, DHS applied unstated criteria in penalizing the company for not addressing the ability to anonymize data.
DHS agreed that the Statement of Work did not required contractor to anonymize data, that is, render personal data into an anonymous form. Rather, DHS contended, the SOW simply required offerors to be able accept anonymized data. The problem with Comprehensive’s proposal is that it did not demonstrate the ability to receive and handle anonymized data.
GAO found that the agency’s understanding of the RFP reasonable—offerors were required to demonstrate the ability to handle anonymized data. The SOW required contractors to accept all data, including anonymized data. The record showed that the evaluators properly assessed a weakness to Comprehensive based its failure to detail whether it could accept anonymized data. The agency had not relied on unstated criteria.
Comprehensive is represented by Elizabeth N. Jochum, Zachary D. Prince, and Nora K. Brent of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. The agency is represented by Matthew D. McKenzie and Brian C. Habib of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Jonathan L. Kang and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
