Protest challenging offeror’s exclusion from the competitive ranage is denied. The protester complained that the agency applied unstated criteria when it assessed a deficiency for the inexperience of a non-key web architect. The solicitation, the protester argued, only stated that the agency would evaluate key personnel. GAO, however, found that the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate proposed teams, including key and non-key personnel. The protester had not detailed any experience for its proposed web architect. The agency had not erred in assessing a deficiency.
The Department of Education issued an RFP seeking cloud hosting, system administration, and website support. Program Insite, LLC, among other offerors, submitted a proposal. DOE found that due to significant weaknesses and deficiencies, Program’s proposal was technically unacceptable and thus was excluded from the competitive range. Program protested.
Program argued that DOE applied unstated criteria in evaluating its staff. DOE had assessed Program a deficiency based on the experience of a proposed web architect. But Program argued that this web architect was not a key person, and the solicitation had provided that only key personnel experience would be evaluated.
GAO rejected this argument. The solicitation expressly stated that the evaluation would assess the whether offerors’ proposed teams included the appropritate knowledge, skills and abilities. The solicitation also required offerors to detail which task each team member would support. In describing the experience of its proposled web architect, Program had simply stated he had overall responsibility for website architecture and design. It was reasonable for the agency to evaluate the web architect and to assess a deficiency based on his apparent lack of experience.
Next, Program argued that while its proposal may have been technically unacceptable, it should have not been excluded from the competitive range. Program reasoned that its proposal had also been assigned strengths and therefore it was susceptible to being made acceptable throught revisions.
But GAO opined that where an unacceptable proposal would require major revisions to become acceptable, exclusion from the competitive range is acceptable. Even a proposal that is technically acceptable my be excluded if the agency determines that the proposal does not stand a reasonable chance of being selected for award. GAO saw no error in the exlusion of Program’s proposal.
Program is represented by Emnet Menyhail. The agency is represented by Megan Nathan of the Department of Education. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and John Sorrenti participated in the preparation of the decision.
