The protester challenged the best value tradeoff, arguing the agency had not adequately explained why the awardees’ higher-rated proposals warranted a price premium. GAO sided with the protester, finding the agency had simply selected the highest-rated proposals without meaningfully considering price. While the agency had stated that these proposals were worth the higher price, GAO found the statement was simply lip service. The agency had to identify technically superior features and explain why they merited a price premium.
KPMG LLP, GAO B-420949, B-420949.2
Background
The Air Force issued an RFP seeking support for a cloud-hosted data platform. The solicitation contemplated award of multiple IDIQ contracts. After reviewing 27 proposals, the Air Force awarded seven IDIQ contracts. KPMG, which did not receive a contract, protested.
Analysis
Technical Evaluation
The Air Force assigned KPMG a weakness because the company’s approach only addressed one data platform as opposed to all the Air Force’s environments. KPMG alleged its approach addressed all the platforms. But GAO rejected KPMG’s argument, noting the company had not meaningfully contested the weakness—it simply argued in broad terms that its proposal met all the requirements.
Price Evaluation
KPMG arguedthe Air Force unreasonably found that all the awardees’ proposed prices were reasonable. KPMG reasoned that some of the awardees had proposed prices that were more than double KPMG’s. But GAO found that the Air Force had followed a price analysis technique specifically authorized by the FAR—i.e., comparing proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Using these prices, the agency had calculated mean and median prices. The Air Force compared each proposed price to the mean and median and found they were within a reasonable range.
Source Selection Decision
KPMG contended the source selection decision was flawed because the Air Force gave undue weight to KPMG’s single weakness, didn’t consider KPMG’s price advantage, and didn’t explain why the awardees’ proposals warranted a price premium. GAO found these arguments compelling.
GAO noted that the solicitation contained ambiguous language concerning the basis of award. It seemed to contemplate an award based on a best-value tradeoff and an award on a highest-rated, reasonably priced basis. It appeared to GAO that the Air Force had elected to go with the best value tradeoff. In a best value procurement, the agency must actually perform a tradeoff—that is, it must determine whether one proposal’s superiority under the non-price factors is worth a price premium. If the agency finds a highly-rated proposal is worth the premium, it must explain why that technical superiority merits the higher price.
Here, GAO found, the Air Force performed a mechanical tradeoff based on adjectival ratings. It appeared the Air Force had simply awarded contracts to the highest-rated proposals without meaningfully considering price. To be sure, the SSA had explicitly stated that the strengths of the highest rated proposals justified a higher price, but this kind of nominal statement was not enough to show the agency had really considered price.
GAO recommended the agency perform a new source selection.
KPMG is represented by Dominique Casimir, Robyn B. Burrows, and Samarth Barot of Blank Rome LLP. Intervenor Deloitte is represented by Keith R. Szeliga, Shaunna Bailey, and Adam Bartolanzo of Sheppard Mullin Richeter & Hampton LLP. Intervenor Novetta is represented by Victoria D. Angle and James Tucker of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The agency is represented by Erika Whelan Retta, Colonel Frank Yoon, Major Danelle McGinnis, and Isabelle P. Cutting of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Michelle E. Litteken and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
